From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This is the first article I have written from scratch on Wikipedia, so be sure to leave feedback if you change anything. I intend to add source information when I have more time, until then it shall remain somewhat lacking (I am aware this is the case) and I would hope that others will fill in the gaps. I expect many Sanguinarians will be annoyed that I've posted this here, since it violates The Black Veil so blatantly, but we shall see. I have also left out some internal links, since I do not currently have the time to write articles about them (such as about the Synod).Rushyo 17:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I suggest removing the 'side effects' section. Not only is this information incorrect (see: FAQ)--Charles 22:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
"some believe that Sanguinarianism brings with it some of the features present in vampire myth. These can include"
I wouldn't say a post on a forum qualifies as reason for removing something from an article. It's already quite clear in the section that it is a minority belief. Just because some (including myself) believe it to be incorrect, does not mean other people might not feel that way. I was trying to display all POVs, rather than simply one view.
Good point, however I personally haven't seen a source states that a mortal vampire had said afflictions. Also, consider the science. Teeth growth like that would be amazing, epically if 'adult' teeth in a pubescent human. Also no, teeth retraction or ability to modify teeth size at will would be extraordinary (right up there with walking on water and levitation!) Aversion to sunlight is an already know medical condition Porphyria. Note again, this is a hereditary disease.(1) Pale complexion, again is an easy to explain condition… Lack of sunlight, perhaps posting, “Most Sanguniarians prefer night life, thus giving them a Pale complexion, this is not a direct effect of being a Sanguniarians that we know of yet.” High pain tolerance? Please see Pain
(1) . “Porphyria” A Reference Companion to the History of Abnormal Psychology Vol. 2. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1984.
If that was the only reason for questioning the neutrality of the article, may the notice be removed? Rushyo 01:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • With regards to the other two tags, it'd be nice if people actually discussed them here, since otherwise I have no real recourse but to revert them and hope someone provides a reason. I'll leave it a week before I do so. Also, if possibly, rather than complaining it'd be nice if people could take the time to fix problems themselves (possibly by posting an alternative here to be considered). Rushyo 01:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
No, don't you dare revert the tags... the tags should be bleeding obvious to you, but I guess not. The verfiy tag: The article cites sources that are horrible, see Wikipedia:Verifiability for info on that and other things ytou need to work on. Clean up tag: The article needs major cleanup for writing style, punctuation, capitalization, etc.. NPOV tag: The article is written largely from the viewpoint of a sanginuarian - See NPOV for more info on how to be compliant there. And, honestly, this whole thing may be better off just redirecting to Vampire lifestyle. Making little fork articles to go on about some topic that basically already exists elsewhere is a no-no. DreamGuy 16:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
However, as is obviously evident here, there's far more than could be sensibly put in the Vampire Lifestyle article. There's also the fact that the people who have it consider it a medical condition and nothing to do with that. Would you put Schizophrenia under 'psychotic lifestyle'? If there's writing style, punctuation and capitilzation mistakes, I can't see them so fix them yourself if they're so blatantly obvious. I already underlined the lack of source work and asked if other people could fill those in, since frankly I don't have the time to look through a whole library of literature on this very diverse and wide-ranging topic, but the whole point of Wikipedia is that other people can. The article is NOT written from the viewpoint of a Sanguinarian, it is written by a Sanguinarian yes but not the viewpoint. I don't see you identifying the trouble areas and more importantly: IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM FIX THEM YOURSELF.
There's a moral to the above: Stop complaining and do some work yourself. Saying "the problem should be obvious" is wonderful but means nothing. Try actually getting off your ass and doing some work on it and THEN complain about problems. I am well aware of the rules of Wikipedia. I'm a historian, I know how to write a (reasonably) fair and unbiased viewpoint. Simply because you disagree with some of the viewpoints put down, does not mean they don't exist! "You are encouraged to create and improve articles." I'd love for any mistakes to be corrected but saying 'there's a problem' and not identifying any of it (saying 'it's biased' is not identification, it's an opinion) or fixing any of it is just lazy, selfish and downright rude. One of the most important rules of tagging: If you tag, add ALL the reasons why that tag should exist to the discussion page. Two of those tags didn't even have a WORD in their defense, nevermind a good argument in their defense.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother. You're so obsessed with these standards that you're forgetting the actual point. The point is you're supposed to fix what you think is wrong, not just complain about it until someone else does it. Comprehend yet? Rushyo 16:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Spent 4 hours looking up verification and citations. Feedback? (and that's feedback, not whining) Rushyo 00:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Looks good. In order to drop this POV tag perhaps I should right an article about how this is all in the head. Ill draft on and post it tonight.--Charles 21:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I love the work you've done so far. Keep it up![edit]

The work you have done thus far is great; they seem to reflect the consensus of the ‘community’. However, since I do not belong to said community, I’d just like to help you out. Thus far I have corrected lots of little things for you, set up a few redirects to make your life easier and today I’m sure ill help out more. However I’m having trouble finding creditable references, e.g. papers, medical journals, books, theses, et cetera. I do not feel that providing only POV web resources is the best, but so far you’ve done great! --Charles 19:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


re: the interview listing - the copyright line on the photograph does not necessarily indicate identity of the person within the photograph. -- Anonymous

US only[edit]

I dont understand why sanguinarians are only confined to places in the US. Why dont we hear cases of it in Middle East, Russia, Africa etc. like some real diseases like AIDS.-- 12:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not confined to the US, but you'll need to be able to read foreign languages to understand the sites from other countries. I suspect some countries don't have the same extent of online-savvy people that countries like the US or UK do, however that doesn't stop individuals from those countries visiting US-based sites and chatting on US-based message boards. SphynxCatVP 05:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I myself am from the UK :) Rushyo 08:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Vampire (Vampyre) Lifestyle?[edit]

I'm confused as to why this article shouldn't be merged with Vampire Lifestyle. What seems to distinguish sanguinarianism from the vampire lifestyle is the medical need for blood. However, there is no verifiable evidence of this need. Whereas, there is abundant verifiable scientific evidence of schizophrenia. Comments? Dan Lovejoy 04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

First, not all sanguinarians choose to life a “vampiric lifestyle” with cosplay, clubbing, and/or social events. Some of us are regular joes with regular jobs and mortgages, cars, kids/pets, etc. Second, while you could probably make a solid case for some who are active in the realvamp community having mental, emotional or other medical problems :) that is most distinctly not the case for everyone. We'd love to know why - it would solve your question, and those of many others - but we haven't gotten to that point yet. Hopefully we will someday. SphynxCatVP 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The current vampire lifestyle article is not only about the cosplay and clubbing, it is about people who think they are real vampires too. Don't let the one pic at the top confuse you. Have you actually read the page? The two articles definitely should be merged. DreamGuy 01:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Just because the lifestyle page includes something on real vampires does not necessarily mean it should be there. Many of us will argue the proper use of the word "think" versus "know", and last I knew "lifestyle" implies "choice". sphynxcatvp 23:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand that people believe that they physically must drink blood, and I don't want to denigrate them. However, there is no evidence that sanguinarianism is a practice based on medical need rather than perceived need. Dan Lovejoy 00:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, now that you've brought "medical" into it... :) I will use an analogy: The Merck Manual claims (bottom of the page) that "Most nutritionists believe that huge doses of vitamin C (about 10 g/day) do not decrease the incidence or severity of the common cold..." The MM is a textbook commonly used by medical students today, and is thus something that I understand would be an item considered reflective of mainstream medical thought.
However, on the flip side, this book has hundreds of references within it's pages - most, if not all, findable on PubMed (or you can visit your local hospital, or hospital-connected university, for access to MedLine which will give you the complete papers, not just the abstracts that PubMed has) that illustrate the thereputic use of vitamin C in large doses, not only for colds but for many other things as well.
My point with this unrelated babbling :) is that while there may not be any mainstream medical proof, it doesn't mean there isn't something lurking in the dark recesses of medical archives somewhere, perhaps even under a different name than what we would otherwise associate with it.
In the meantime, I still maintain that "lifestyle" ("A way of life or style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group") is inaccurate - despite whatever our attitudes and values - or even faith-based paths - may be, the problem does not go away. SphynxCatVP 10:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
So.... you are using your belief in one crackpot theory (megadoses of vitamin C being beneficial) to try to support your belief in another crackpot theory (self-professed vampires need to drink blood)? That doesn't really work. DreamGuy 16:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I think his point was that there are people who disagree with mainstream medical texts, as we haven't yet begun to understand the whole breadth and depth of the human organism. Sometimes these people are right, sometimes they're wrong. Also, just because something is not widely accepted doesn't make it any more or less "crackpot", as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
In regards to his second point, whether or not there is a medical basis for the position, there's still a gulf between "lifestylers" (people aware that they are pretending to need blood) and Sangs (who do not think that they are pretending, regardless of what outside observers think). Thus, we have two separate articles, just like we have articles that differentiate Magic_(paranormal) and Magic_(illusion)... the former is a believer in their actions, the latter is aware that they are pretending. Ronabop 06:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Thank you for noticing that. :) SphynxCatVP 13:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Dreamguy: Megadoses of vitamin C being beneficial is a crackpot theory, eh? *rolls up sleeves* And I'm not even going to drag Pauling, Cathcart, Klenner, Stone, etc. into this, since I *know* you'll call them "crackpots" too. What follows is a series of links in a quick and random two hour search on PubMed ("A service of the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health" - certainly should meet the "verifiability" policy... :P) I've even made it easy by giving the links instead of the reference citations - these in particular HAVE abstract text that can be read - so all that's needed is a simple click.
One, two, three, four, [1], six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty
SphynxCatVP 14:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This debate would go away a lot quicker if you could provide one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven twelve thirteen fourteen fifteen sixteen seventeen eighteen nineteen twenty sources about the medical need to drink blood to gain some kind of "energy" from it. Blings
There's a list of twenty over here on what's often called "clinical vampirism" if you wish to peruse...Apparently there's more medical stuff than I realized.

Forgive my brusqueness here - but I think we're getting a bit far afield. Your inclusion of Vitamin C references here proves the point. If there were similar references to a physiological need to feed on human blood, I assume you would have linked them. Instead, you've given us a bunch of Vitamin C references. But Vitamin C is not relevant to the discussion here. Perhaps you've knocked down a straw man argument, but in doing so, you've reinforced that fact that that there's no evidence to support sanguinarianism as a scientific phenomenon. (From Dan Lovejoy)

I don't quite "grok" what you mean by the straw man comment, but seriously...if someone's going to call something a "crackpot theory" why wouldn't the opponent respond, especially if there's proof to the contrary? My original vitamin comment was meant more as analogy - I forget sometimes that not everyone has rummaged through PubMed and the like, and for that I apologize. SphynxCatVP 01:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ronabop - your point is well taken, but we still don't need two separate articles. Once the Sanguinarian content is cleaned up and properly sourced, there will be very, very little left - perhaps no actual encyclopedic material. Since it's already covered in Vampire lifestyle, I don't think it belongs in its own article.

Also, I did an EBSCO academic search and came up with scads of materials on Vampirism, but not one hit on "sanguinarianism" or "sanguinarian." I couldn't find it on the web except on vampirism web sites. Is the term used by non-vampires and non-sanguianarians? (From Dan Lovejoy)

I doubt it. I'd be surprised if it was. (And just because I'm curious, what is EBSCO and how do you get access? I'm always looking for more academic things to peruse. Feel free to respond to the EBSCO question on my user:talk page.) SphynxCatVP 01:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I have to ask - is it your goal to legitimize sanguinarianism through the Wikipedia, or to truly describe the phenomenon? Is your goal to write an encyclopedia, or to promote a particular point of view? Dan Lovejoy 19:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite the attempts to explain that "sanguinarian" is not the same as "lifestyle", merging the two seems to be a popular opinion. I believe that going by NOR policy, you are correct in stating that there wouldn't be much left - nost likely not enough to warrant inclusion anywhere under either NOR or verifiability policies. If the reasons why they are considered different by the people involved are not understood or accepted then, personally, I'd rather not see it covered at all, than to have it chucked under lifestyle. I don't particularly care of other people consider it legitimate or not - if there's validity to it, eventually proof will be found sometime down the road. I know I can certainly be patient until then. :) SphynxCatVP 01:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else, but when I wrote the initial article it was to describe the condition in a way that would provide the knowledge of the existence (perceived or otherwise) of Sanguinarism to a large body of people in a formal and encyclopedic manner. If I wanted to stress my own point of view, I'd have written an essay and propogated it through the media. Rushyo 08:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Flippity floppity.... wheee! See: Ronabop 05:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Merging it sounds appropriate to me. Also, all the info that's not from a reliable source should probably be removed. Some random kid's website isn't a reliable source. This might mean there's not much left after, which which may make it easier to merge. Friday (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay. It seems that this arguement has come to a stalemate. I believe the article should remain as is, given that there is a decent amount of material here that isn't covered in the vampire lifestyle article, and since Sanguinarian was created through a split with vampire lifestyle. It'd be silly to basically undo that. --Kerowyn 18:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please keep this article separate and rework the vampire lifestyle entry. Since the term "sanguinarian" rose within the vampire community to differentiate between those who feel the need to drink blood and those who do not, also termed "psychic" or "energy" vampires, perhaps such information should be included in this article in order to avoid confusion. If a merge is thought to be appropriate, I would suggest merging the Energy Vampire entry with the Sanguinarian entry, removing references to folklore. The combined entry could be termed Modern Vampirism or something to that effect. 22:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Sylvere ap Leanan

The problem is, for sanguinarians mostly, is that there is indeed no scientific proof for our condition. (or, possibly just not discovered yet in the dusty halls of medicine). All we have are "some kids website". I think our collective experiences are important and should not be shunned because there is no official Sanguinarian website on the net.MFuture 22:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise suggestions[edit]

  • Keep as separate articles, remove duplicate paraphrasing and content about Sangs from lifestyle article, and merge that content to here.
  • Change the "lifestyle" title (and content) to something less offensive to Sangs (Vampire_subculture? Vampires_in_modern_culture?), merge this content into that article once a better title is agreed upon.
  • Keep bickering. :-) Ronabop 06:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
*I think this is winning out... Rushyo 08:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

It looks like a bunch of stuff is being added that's not backed up by reliable sources. Unless proper sources can be found, it should probably be trimmed. Personal websites are not considered reliable sources- it's too easy for a person to turn an article into their own personal essay that way. Friday (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Renfield Syndrome?[edit]

As you can see from recent work I've done in the Renfield Syndrome article, merging it with Sanguinarian clearly doesn't make sense. The Renfield Syndrome is a psychological disease, while the term Sanguinarian is employed by those who think the affliction is physical. Merging the Renfield Syndrome with Sanguinarian would be like merging Hunger with Compulsive overeating, or Dieting with Anorexia nervosa--– sampi (talkcontrib) 07:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Removing the merge tag per Sampi. --Kerowyn 21:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sangomancy's relation to sanguinarianism[edit]

I removed this from the article because all it says is that it ISN'T related. But I'll put it here for the record:

Sangomancy is in no way related to sanguinarianism. Sangomancy is derived from the same word 'Sanguine' but it deals with blood magic (possibly 'blood ritual'). This root word connection is the only tie between the two.


I'm here on behalf of the Cleanup Taskforce. I'm going to try and compile a list of things that need to be done here. There is basic formatting work that needs to be done. Anything else? --Kerowyn 21:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


This article appears to contradict parts of the Vampire Lifestyle article, including the point about its status as a hereditary condition. Falcon 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Where in either article does it state it is a hereditary condition??? What are the contradictions? I can't see any, only in areas that are contested science anyway. Remember that Sanguinarianism contains a particular set of values commonly associated with vampire lifestylers and that most of the content on Vampire Lifestyle does not actually apply at all. Rushyo 17:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be a mention of this being a herditary condition in either article. I'll remove the tag. --Kerowyn 18:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirected to Vampire lifestyle[edit]

Because we talked about the need for a merge in the past, the article author got all pipssy about it, but facts are that this article is the exact same topic as that other article and it goes against Wikipedia policy to have fork files on the same topic so different people can push different POVs on the same topic. Not to mention that this things has been tagged as needing severe cleanup and verification and so forth since November and it never got done. Instead it starts out right away talking about prannic energy and so-called Energy vampires and assorted poorly worded crap.

If you think anything from this article is worth salvaging, please go into the history and move anything worthwhile to Vampire lifestyle, where the editors are slightly more active and you can come to some sort of agreement on this whole bloodsucking thing instead of having separate POVs in separate locations. DreamGuy 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Please don't suddenly merge stuff. There's never been a consenus on this article and many other people have favored leaving it seperate. Personally, I'd like to take all these disparate articles and put them together under "Modern Vampirism" or something similar. They all have similar content for the most part. Kerowyn 19:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)