Talk:Zombie (folklore)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Nourishment?

I have a stupid sort-of question: Do zombies actually need to eat?

I've seen a few movies where the zombies are basically isolated from humans, but they don't die, even without any food. (In both movies, they had large fences which the zombies eventually made their way around, over, through..)

Metaphorically, I think humans are to zombies what cigarettes are to smokers. They'd really like one, but don't technically need one to survive. Yes? JimmmyThePiep 23:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the subject of zombie physiology is mentioned very often in zombie fiction (films, etc). The best example I can think of is in The Zombie Survival Guide, which states that there's no known reason for zombies having a rapacious appetite, or why they prefer human flesh to any other food. In ZSG, it is specifically stated that zombies don't actually need anything to stay alive; when they eat, it just sits in their now-useless digestive tract, not being processed.
If we had more sources of information (even if they conflicted), I'd be all for creating a section for physiological information; as it is, though, we've basically got a single source, and that wouldn't be a good basis for a new section. Pity. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)`

Technically, zombies are already dead, so food (or lack thereof) wouldn't really affect them. But in the RotLD movies, I believe they needed brains. ONEder Boy 05:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay; thanx! I guess zombies are pretty irrational people sometimes..

(I was just asking out of idle curiosity though; not really trying to improve wikipedia. People around here know what they're talking about.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JimmmyThePiep (talk • contribs) 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

I figured as much, but saying as article talk pages are supposed to be for discussing improvements to the article and not idle chit-chat, I tried to skew it that way. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and strict scrutiny

This page seems to get vandalized a lot, and sometimes (like in the case of Detlof's "blue-billed duck" edit) it takes a bit of research to determine that an edit is vandalism. In the short term, I plan on reverting — without researching — any factual changes or additions that don't adequately cite their sources. See Template_talk:Fact, which quotes Jimbo as saying:

“ In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.

I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with {{fact}}, usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold. :)

”

Travisl 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, alright. I don't see that vandalism has picked up on this page any more than usual, but I'm certainly not going to complain if someone wants to help improve the article. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if vandalism has increased on this page; I've only been watching it for about a month, and it's needed reversion 15 times in the last week. It is vandalized more than any of the other 500+ pages on my watchlist. It's probably that my other watchlist topics are more safely obscure, and that this level of vandalism is normal. (Good idea to move the image to the Voodoo section, too. Thanks.) Travisl 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been as active the past week as the week prior... been busy in real life, so most of it may have slipped by. This one certainly is one of the more problematic ones, eclipsed by just a few others.
Of course, it might also help if I clear out my watchlist... I'm hovering about 1,300 right now; fairly easy for stuff to slip through the cracks. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Quan'sul hoax

Deleted this section from the page:

  In Science, a very rare strain of malaria with an 100% mortality rate is able to restart the heart of 
  the victim after initial death. The "revived" individual survives for up to two hours and behaves in extremley violent 
  ways due to a combination of severe brain damage and chemicals released into the blood by the parisite. Such outbreaks 
  are rare, the most notable being Quan'sul in cambodia, in 2005. The virus was quarntined and specimens were taken 
  for scientific analysis. The condition of revived individuals was named "zombism", presumably as it bears many 
  similarities to zombies in fiction.

This is a hoax (refer to Snopes for details). Skinrider 03:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it again. The cited source at http://65.127.124.62/south_asia/4483241.stm.htm is not actually the BBC web site, it's just someone's hoax page. --McGeddon 11:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ti bon ange

I deleted the following from the beginning of the article:

“ ... zombies are people who have had their 'Ti Bon Ange' (Creole from the French 'petit bon ange', or 'little good angel') or soul stolen by supernatural means or shamanic medicine, and, lacking free will, are forced to work as uncomplaining slaves for a 'zombie master', typically on plantations. ”

See [1] and [2], which state that at some time between 9 days and a year, the houngan performs a ritual to ensure that the ti bon ange is put to rest, else the ti bon ange becomes an astral zombie, not the physical mindless corpse which is the subject of the article. Zombies, according to [3], are created by caplatas, evil sorcerers who administer "black magic" (the drugs mentioned later in the article) to control the near-death living. Travisl 19:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Schizogenesis?

The word schizogenesis as used in this article appears to be used incorrectly. The only definition of schizogenesis I can find is "(biology) reproduction by fission"; it doesn't seem to have anything to do with schizophrenia, as the use in this article implies. But I don't know what the author is trying to say so I don't know how to fix it. Capmango 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As a layperson, I find that sentence hard to understand as well. It currently says, "Scottish psychiatrist R. D. Laing further highlighted the link between social and cultural expectations and compulsion, in the context of schizophrenia and other mental illness, suggesting that schizogenesis may account for some of the psychological aspects of zombification."

The word schizogenesis is a noun; its adjective form is schizogenic, and that word appears at Cognitive Similarity in Normal and Schizogenic Families, which is a study that took 18 schizophrenic boys and 18 non-schizophrenic boys, and compared their the cognitive organization to their parents. It concluded that "for schizogenic families, members of the same family are similar where cognitive organization is concerned." My guess is that schizogenic means "with schizophrenic genetic tendencies". That definition makes sense for this part of the zombie article. It's only a guess, though, and I have nowhere to cite to change the article to make it clearer. Travisl 20:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"A zombie or zombi is an animated human body devoid of a soul."?

So, everyone's a zombie? --AnY FOUR! 06:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. IanLamberson 20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet?

When I saw the reference to "Romero's zombie," I first misread it as "Romeo's zombie." I thought it referred to Juliet being put into a state as though dead, in the play. When Romeo sees her, he kills himself. Then she awakens, and finding Romeo dead, takes the dagger to her heart.

Does anyone think Juliet might have been given a zombie drug? Was there knowledge of such a drug at Shakespeare's time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.87.97 (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

She would most propably be a revenant then. Medieval Europe did not have "zombies" as their mainstream undead.

Just Wondering

Can I edit this page with information from the "Zombie Survival Guide"? I mean, it is obviously the leading documentary on zombies and all their forms, and I was wondering if I could reproduce the "on the run" and "weapons" sections of the book. I would site the book, of course.

--Ultimate_Chuck 17:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No. You can look at the discussion above about the book. Any information from it would have to go in either its page at The Zombie Survival Guide or Zombies in popular culture. The demiurge 04:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Zombie Wiki

There is a zombie Wiki known as Zombiepedia. Currently its pretty dead but a few people working on it may make it look a little better. -Mitro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.191.24.14 (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL discourages "links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". Wikipedia isn't a place to drum up traffic for a low quality wiki. --McGeddon (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I apoligize I was mistaken on the rules regarding other Wikis. I will search for other places to drum up interest so it can be allowed one day to be posted here. -Mitro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.191.24.14 (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

nzambi

The article states that nzambi is the kongo word for "spirit of a dead person" in the opening, but then states that it means "god" in the next section. Which is it? On Thermonuclear War (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the cited source, it's "spirit of a dead person". A Google search, and Palo (religion)#Higher_gods, shows that it's a high god, the creator of the cosmos. My guess is that the cited source (howstuffworks.com) is mistaken. Travisl (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

zombie creation and living zombie

Know everyone any ritual to create zombie?I once read no ritual are know, but in one magazine I read about creation with evocation of demons and voodoo gods and about creation zombie from living human by use toxic flowers caled Brugmansia and Datura and toxin from Fugu, is anything true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wantiko (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Article protection

I see that this article was recently semi-protected. I don't object to that, but I'm wondering why now, and why for only a short time? This page seems to get vandalized several times a week; I compared the current version to the version 500 edits back, and while there's a little new content (and several formatting and citation fixes), most of the intermediate changes are vandalism. I've learned to live with it, undoing edits fairly regularly, but I figure this should either be long-term protected or wide open. I don't see that short term semi-production will do much good. Travisl (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was only alerted to the vandalism problems plaguing this article recently. Nightscream (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Zombies as Internet meme

Should this article mention zombies as an Internet meme? I know Wiki tends to shy away from mentioning Internet phenomena, but it seems very important to the subject. No idea what to look for as evidence. March1291 (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Misguided Tetrodotoxin Skepticism

The article states that the "scientific community" dismisses tetrodotoxin as a zombifying agent because the symptoms of TTX poisoning are inconsistent with reported zombie behavior. This is missing the point that TTX would only be used initially to create the impression of death, and would wear off after the sorcerer administered datura to maintain the familiar "zombie" state. Terrence Hines' criticism as represented here seems baseless.

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Misleading

Talk about "Niger-Congo" in the article is misleading. The existence of the alleged group of languages is denied by some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.77.113 (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Voudou type zombies

The article could use an expansion of the voudou zombie section. Maybe a separate article. They are very different than the popular culture type.--T1980 (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Zombies!!! Reference Link

In order to better reference this page I proposed the inclusion of: http://www.insurgencygaming.com/zombies.htm as a reference for the Zombies!!! board game details. I realise that twightlight creations offers an official link, but the page if very basic and limited to little more than the contents of the box. My suggestion was rejected. I would be grateful if anyone else could weigh in on this matter and tell me what you think about it's inclusion. 86.156.121.116 (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with this link - the official site (twilight creations) is oddly lacking any real info. Anythingfornow (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This link was being used to source the simple claim that the game "features players attempting to escape from a zombie-infested city", which can easily be sourced from the Twilight Creations site. In fact, the Twilight Creations site seems to have full ruleset PDFs for all of their games, so there's no need to source anything to a third-party commercial vendor. --McGeddon (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, insurgencygaming.com seems to have lifted all of their Zombies!!!-related content directly from those exact ruleset PDFs, padding it out with paragraphs of unattributed text taken from Wikipedia's own Zombies!!! article. I've gone ahead and removed all inappropriate links to this site, from this and other articles, and would advise that other editors check for original sources before using this site as a reference (they were also linked on Risk Godstorm and Settlers of Catan, for pages which were merely embedded Flash demos from the official Godstorm and Catan sites). --McGeddon (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Looks like a linkfarming/spam attack of a worthless site. DreamGuy (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

zombie animals

The article focuses too much on the human zombies they should be mention of animal zombies like dogs. --83.71.84.246 (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? DreamGuy (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Zombies on the Radio

I propose the addition of this section. In 2009 a radio drama podcast Called "We're Alive-A Zombie Story of Survival." came on to the air waves. Created by Shane Salk and Kc Wayland it has now reached more then 1 million down loads and is THE most popular Radio Drama on the internet. It has brought many people who might have not been part of the Zombie Culture in to it. it can be found at www.zombiepodcast.com or on i-tunes and zune. With its cast of over 15 actors and its more then 40 episodes, it has started a whole new Zombie medium. ShaneSalk (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources? Doniago (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sections

"Zombies in Voodoo" and "South African beliefs" seem liable to be under one section, possibly named "Mythology" or "History" and have the above changed to subsections. South African belief looks strange sandwiched between two large sections. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that the head picture is too gross?

I personally think that it is quite a good picture for showing what a zombie may look like. However, I am afraid that with all blood and gore...it is not very appropriate for people of all age. Lots of people would find it disturbing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.161.176 (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, which means images, like the mentioned which I believe it's a good illustration of a zombie, are perfectly alright. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 15:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't being gory and scary the reason zombies are scary? I think the picture illustrates this quite well.--Reahad (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Popularity

Doesn't popular interest in mobs of undead actually date from Vincent Prices' The Last Man on Earth?JohnC (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean 'I Am Legend'. And that is a Vampire book, but it is a fair statement, the 'undead' surrounding the home of a surviving hero. It links to Romero's NotLD, was the book an influence. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Frankenstein

Shouldn't Mary Shelley's 1818 work, Frankenstein, be credited somewhere? Her monster was a zombie, and was a forerunner to the works discussed on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vynbos (talk • contribs) 20:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• No, Frankenstein was not a zombie. You are confusing Romero's vision of zombies with the risen dead. The Mythology of zombies existed before Frankenstein and they were not the dead. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Gilgamesh

is in fact a valid source. Unless you can discredit J. Getz, his interpretation of “If you do not give me the Bull of Heaven, I shall smash [the gates of the Netherworld, right down] to its dwelling, I shall bring up the dead to consume the living, I shall make the dead outnumber the living. " As being about what is currently referred to as zombies should be in this article. Gilgamesh has been translated into English since the late 19th century and would have been familiar to film makers like Carnegie Mellon graduate George A. Romero. The trope of the risen dead outnumbering and devouring the living has been common in zombie films and literature for the last 40 years. Nitpyck (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ghouls

What's the relationship between zombies and ghouls? The terms seem to be used interchangeably by some (such as in Romero's movies where the 'ghoul' is used in N.o.t.L.D. but 'zombie' in D.o.t.D. in reference to the same sort of creature) but more specifically by others (such as in Ghouls in popular culture which differentiates zombies as preferring live prey and indicates that Romero may have construed 'zombie' in a particular sense).

The conceptual proximity of ghouls and zombies and the brevity of the ghoul article suggests that a merger of these articles into a single one (ghoul -> zombie) might make sense. Seems to me like these terms reference essentially the same type of creature, but the terms have different geographical/etymological origins: 'ghoul' (Arabian) and 'zombie' (African). Having them described in a single article would provide a natural place to describe this distinction. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wade Davis hates Wes Craven for his misrepresentation.

Only the beginning of Wes Craven's film followed Wade Davis' book closely. Davis did not take part in a revolution, have his scrotum nailed to a chair, have sex with his 14 year old assistant or release the souls of many dead. Strangely the book is much more entertaining than the film. I would like to add the following I have given in italics:

A film was made of the book by Wes Craven, Director of the Nightmare on Elm Street horror series of movies, which follows remarkably closely to the storyline of the book, at first. At the point where Davis sleeps with his local female assistant, in real life only 14 years old, the film descends into the expected Craven-esque fantasy horror.

Also Datura was used after the zombification, to maintain the zombi as a tractable slave. The article would need some chopping and re-editing but would then agree with the reference above.

Ceropegius (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Ceropegius

Caligari

I would like to edit the 1930 section to the following, however, the protection level prohibits it. The addition of Caligari is cited and its role in the Zombie genre should be presented for completion.

In 1932, Victor Halperin directed White Zombie, a horror film starring Bela Lugosi. This film, capitalizing on the same voodoo zombie themes as Seabrook's book of three years prior, is often regarded as the first legitimate zombie film ever made. However, arguments have been made that the 'somnambulism' in the German expressionist film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919) was an earlier example, involving a character in a state similar to that exhibited by zombies. In White Zombie, the zombies are depicted as mindless, unthinking henchmen under the spell of an evil magician. Zombies, often still using this voodoo-inspired rationale, were initially uncommon in cinema, but their appearances continued sporadically from the 1930s to the 1960s, with notable films including Revolt of the Zombies (1936), King of the Zombies (1941), I Walked With a Zombie (1943), Revenge of the Zombies (1943), The Plague of the Zombies (1966), and the infamous Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959).

Someone please paste it in regular size. Additionally, a new section for the appropriate date of before 1920 may need to be added to maintain format consistancy. The cite is here. Thanks. --Trippz 10:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There's already a zombies in popular culture page!

The media and movie sections are far too long for this page. I was going to propose a split, but there already is a page for it, linked here. Posters should kindly keep the song and movie lists over there. —LlywelynII 15:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Dead Week Zombies!

i dont like this cause anybody could edit and put anything they wantZombies are at Stanford. They have been taking over the halls, the campus, and main quad in high amounts. Nobody can stop them!

But on the real side, Zombies are a popular cultural influence, even here at Stanford University. Everybody loves Zombies!!!!

07:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)128.12.120.168 (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this person mad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.4.41.252 (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Czarmonger, 19 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Can someone take out the "graveyards on fool moon nights" comment in the beginning? The fool misspelled full. Also, zombies are no laughing matter. Czarmonger (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Even though I did adjust the lead paragraph, I would suggest that any further edit-requests not use derogatory language towards other editors & their edits. Wikipedia is open to any & all, even some of us fools. Shearonink (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

1970s–present, edit request.

1970s–present

Historically zombies have been portrayed as slow-moving creatures, however, zombies in recent popular culture have considerably increased their locomotion, as exampled in recent movies like Colin, 28 Days Later (and its sequel, 28 Weeks Later), the Dawn of the Dead remake, House of the Dead,[22] Zombieland and the video games Left 4 Dead, the Fallout series, Nazi Zombies mode in "Call of Duty: World at War" and "Call of Duty: Black Ops", Voodoo Kid, Resident Evil, Left 4 Dead 2, Dead Rising, Stubbs the Zombie, Plants vs Zombies and partly Prototype.

there are no zombies in the fallout series, the only npc close to zombies are ghouls, which are not zombies. so in my request i ask anybody to edit it and remove the "the fallout series" in the topic. 212.199.10.132 (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 63.226.55.82, 28 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The only way to cure a zombie is if a human were to bite the infected, thus reversing the affects of the virus.

63.226.55.82 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 01:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit semi-protected}} "Sometimes they are are victims of a fictional pandemic illness causing the dead to reanimate or the living to behave this way, but often no cause is given in the story." in the first paragraph has "are are". 207.164.131.30 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed! Good catch. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

"The Flood fromHalo and Headcrabs from Half-Life portray zombie-like aliens with the ability to kill opponents and possess their bodies."

Down there in the section on gaming. It could use a space between "from" and "Halo". 60.242.231.191 (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. --George2001^hi 07:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Remove 28 Days Later from the Film section.

In the Film section, it lists 28 Days Later as a zombie movie. This is incorrect. The people in 28 Days are infected with a form of rabies that drives them insane. They are NOT dead and they are NOT controlled by a wizard and therefore do not meet the definition of a zombie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larylich (talk • contribs) 23:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the "zombies" in 28 Days Later are not considered zombies in the two senses that you listed, it is considered to be a zombie movie (by its intent, by its marketing, and by its reception).
Of interest is this (now dormant) discussion about the film's classification as a zombie movie: Talk:28 Days Later#Zombies. I'd say, until we no longer classify the film as a zombie movie (and we'd have to have considerably reason to do so), it should be listed here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Marketing couldn't figure out how to do their job by promoting 28Days as a horror movie, so they took the zombie label and stuck it on their film. Just because someone mislabels their product, and then spends of a ton of money to make everyone buy into the advertising doesn't change the facts, and the facts are this isn't a zombie film for the previous stated reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larylich (talk • contribs) 06:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a zombie film because it contains all the standard zombie-film tropes and clichés. It has nothing to do with the in-world rationalization for the your-neighbours-now-want-to-eat-you phenomenon.

I wish people would understand that the classification is (at least in part) based on this way of looking at fiction taken from literary criticism, rather than a simple 'is-it-dead' question. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a plot line not a definition; plot defines actions, but not the substance. If you say that diseased enemies running around killing people are "zombies" then a ton of films like Cujo, The Incredible Melting Man, The Stuff, and The Signal are all "zombie" films. They are not. This page about zombies, and thus has everything to do with cannibalistic dead described by their very definition; you can't ignore that subject in the very article that defines them. Since 28 Days is under debate simply replace it with another fast zombie film such as House of the Dead (2003), Day of the Dead (2008), or The Horde (2009). This way we still give the public 3 examples, but none of them are in dispute, and this topic can be debated over at Talk:28 Days Later#Zombies. Larylich (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

So, how do we go about instituting those changes? I admit I'm new to the WIKI editing process and don't know how decisions are made, who makes them or if there's a place to view the status of those requests. Thanks! Larylich (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Find a considerable number of reliable sources that specifically dispute 28 Days Later's zombie movie status and we can discuss this further (on the film's talk page; if the article is changed, then it would warrant removal from here). Aside from that, though, it will remain to be classified as a zombie movie, for the reasons outlined by myself and Squiddy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, THANK YOU for allowing me to make my case. Here is a list of 10 websites claiming that these aren't zombies at all:

• http://zombielore.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=71&Itemid=1
• http://www.best-horror-movies.com/28-days-later.html
• http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Danny_Boyle%27s_1928_Days_Later%27_is_usually_described_as_a_zombie_movie_but_why_do_strict_zombie-philes_insist_it_is_not
• http://blogs.cjonline.com/index.php?entry=3148 (Comes to the conclusion that 28 Days later is NOT a zombie film but still chose to call it one anyways because of the plot. Plot does not define a subject.).
• http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/02/26/the-crazies-is-not-a-zombie-movie-and-neither-are-these-five-thrillers/
• http://alanbobet.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-recthe-crazies-and-28-days-later.html
• http://www.cracked.com/funny-2791-28-days-later/
• http://www.bullshish.com/blog/?p=71
• http://www.kpbs.org/news/2008/oct/29/zombie_genre/

In articles or newsgroups that allows for discussions or comments, you will find people challenging the notion that this film is a zombie film everytime the topic comes up. I can provide a sample list of those websites if you you wish. Thank you! Larylich (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Woops.... posting this over on Talk:28 Days Later#Zombies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larylich (talk • contribs) 04:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ashtar and the zombie army

Prototypical zombies, the hungry dead, have been found in the earliest surviving mythologies. Appearing as long ago as The Epic of Gilgamesh (2150-2000 BCE).

This short two sentence section has been added and deleted many times but it still seems to me to add a depth to the article. Why limit the starting date to 1929 when an reliable academic verifies a 4,000 year earlier date? Nitpyck (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In Christianity

I propose including Christianity in the Religions section. While not intended in the religion, the concept of Zombie Jesus is very prevalent (~750,000 results on Google right now for "zombie Jesus"), because of Jesus' resurrection. It seems totally reasonable to mention the parallels of Jesus' life to other zombies, even if the Gospel's do not portray him as a flesh-eating monster post-resurrection.

I think it goes without saying that the section ought to mention that, for the most part, the name is applied by skeptics, usually in jest. Jeff Wheeler (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Are there actual reliable sources about it? If it's just a "oh hey, people joke about this" sort of thing, I don't think it needs to be mentioned. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Source and Citation #6

Please check, whether this author, is a creditable source and not just promoting this book.

• Oswald, Hans Peter (2009 (84 pages)). Vodoo. BoD – Books on Demand. p. 39. ISBN 3837059049.

The Same Oswald, Hans Peter is selling kindle Editions of Books which belong to the license CC-BY-SA. Like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Biochemie-Pathobiochemie-German-ebook/dp/B004QOB7FI/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1303496011&sr=1-10

I suggest to remove this citation.

-- ThePacker (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Call of Duty zombies game mode

I suggest this is added to the "Zombies in video games' section. It is an incredibly popular game and I was surprised it wasn't there originally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.194.89 (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Television

I suggest someone add the AMC Series The Walking Dead into the television section of the page --68.1.184.159 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Original Definition of Zombie

A member of the Occult WikiProject was apparently involved in an edit-war concerning whether Zombie first and foremost meant a reanimated corpse or first meant a hypnotized living individual. There were no sources for the the latter which was the definition listed on the page. I have used the Oxford English Dictionary which indicates the original meaning comes from West Africa and initially meant an animated corpse and later became applied to people who exhibited these kinds of characteristics. If you have another source that indicates otherwise, I'm sure Oxford is not above reproach, but, in it's English usage, assuming Oxford is correct, it appears to have originally meant an animated corpse, not a hypnotized person. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Should there be a separate article on movie zombies?

Romero never referred to his creations as "zombies"; he called them "ghouls", and the term was misapplied later. Given that the Romero-type zombie has nothing to do with the "real" zombie except the name, I think that the article should focus strictly on the term as applied in Vodun, and the Romero-type zombie should be given its own article.Serendi^podous 13:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The movie/fiction zombie doesn't have a lot to do with the voodoo zombie and anthropologists' attempts to find an explanation for them. The article is a mishmash as it is. From a folklore/anthropological point of view the actual beliefs of vodoo practitioners are distinct from the "folklore" of modern movies and books regarding zombies. That IMHO is further argument for moving the movie zombies into their own article. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is an article on zombies in pop culture, however I think a summarized version of the article should be included on the main page. The section, as it is now, could do with some editing, but should not be deleted entirely. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Could you give me the benefit of the doubt until the break is complete? Serendi^podous 16:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, anyone confused by what I'm doing: I am not deleting this information. It is simply being moved to Zombie (fictional). Serendi^podous 17:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I realised that much of what I was trying to say was already said in Zombies in popular culture, so I moved all information not already in that article over to it, redirected Zombie (fictional) to it and created a short intro here. Serendi^podous 17:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well done. My compliments on the finished version! Boneyard90 (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad it worked out :) Serendi^podous 18:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I would suggest now would be to move Zombies in popular culture to Zombie (fictional) over the redirect, as I do feel that that article describes a separate concept. Serendi^podous 23:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Zombie diet

"The monsters are usually hungry for human flesh, often specifically brains." Quite few books and movies with zombies have focus on brain as food. It is mainly in George Romero's movies where have "Braaaains!" and "Send more cars" =). It should perhaps be changed to something like "The monsters are usually hungry for human tisue, and in certain movies and books the zombies have prefered diatary preferences for brain (George Romero) and intestines." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.1.59 (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

p zombie

hi don here! you said a p zombie was impossible or at least impossible to identify? pen is a term used by psychological researchers to describe the state of mind a person like that may be in .although not really human, but isn't a zombie supposed to be a monster? i wrote to someone and said that zombies were very popular in our subculture or world we live in now...although it may sound scarry? who has all the evidence to support our theory? although zombies aren't real why then do they exist in the minds of those who produced them? and percieve them to be a real threat? i don't think people have really anything to worry about. hollywood movies may explain the strange accounts for their behavior.24.85.227.23 (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

P Zombies or Philosophical Zombies are completely from movie monster zombies. Both are imaginary (although in the case of a p zombie there wouldn't be an easy way to determine if they did). The rest of what you ask doesn't make much sense, no one (seriously) perceives zombies as a threat. --Daniel 00:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP: Death assessment commentary

The article is quite good, but I think the non-entertainment history of the zombie can be expanded a bit more. I do not have sources or sufficient knowledge, but I understand that in rural Haiti, the belief in zombies is still real. I remember a TV documentary segment that interviewed people who believed in zombies, claimed that they had seen some, and one guy who claimed that he had died, been brought back as a zombie, and got on with his life, later marrying and having children (apparently the belief there is that zombies are sentient, which sounds more like resurrection). The same documentary showed an actual judicial lawbook where it was written (in French) that the creation of zombies is illegal, though I don't think anyone is ever convicted of it these days. If any editor has reliable sources, I encourage them to include this or related information. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

On a strictly legal basis - is it ok to attempt to kill (or otherwise neutralize by a means also harmful to living species) a zombie? After all, they are already dead, at least declared so anyway. Seriously. Some Halloween-er could accidentally get killed and the perpetrator could also walk free depending on the answer. Those manifesting as zombies (or even other "monsters") take the risk of mis-identification. Attempting to eat my brains (suck my blood, or other threats) may well invoke lethal response. Seriously! What's the legalized answer?--173.69.135.105 (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If we're talking US law (since you mention Halloween), I doubt the killer would be excused, because defense would first have to confirm the existence of zombies. Just like witchcraft. How many witches were killed during the Salem witchhunt of the 1690s? None. Because there are no such things as witches. If you're asking about Haitian law, then I'm sure the same homicide laws apply, because, as mentioned, their supposed "zombies" are sentient. But I'm not sure. Maybe it's ok to kill them (again), which would be deeply upsetting for the family, which may be one reason why making zombies is illegal in Haiti. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Request

My students have reliable sources on Jamaican and Tibetan historical zombies and zombie traditions. Sources for their work are supposed to be academic, as they were cited in an academic paper at our university. If you could unprotect this page for a week, we could help add information on other cultures' zombie traditions. Kwdragon (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I really can't help you. Since you have a user account, your students could do the research and writing and you could add it yourself. But I can tell you that (1) I won't be in favor of lifting the security protection; the page gets vandalized way too often; and (2) I can't speak for other editors, but I do not condone Wikipedia-writing as a classroom tool. I've seen too many botched up or incomplete articles. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am curious, are you an educator? I ask because my students' work has appeared on the pages of Wikipedia (and still does) since 2006. Were there a few bad entries? Sure. Like any other person entering information, they produced some duds. Those were usually culled immediately. The majority of their entries, which are vetted in class before posting, add to the information conversation. You can't have Wiki be a commons and simultaneously police its use in education. Furthermore, by posting academic information they found in their own research, they have learned respect for Wikipedia. Once they understand how the process works, they understand why it is important that they do not plagiarize from the site. Many of my students will be editing non-zombie sections in the next few days as well. I am only asking for the one week suspension of the ban on the Zombie page so these people can add academic knowledge to the conversation on historical zombies. Kwdragon (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have been a teacher, and probably will go back into teaching. Not sure how that's relevant. I'm sure you are very responsible. However, I have come across articles where it said "Please don't edit! Classroom project!" and the notification was 2 or 3 years old and you could see how incomplete it was, in style and content (maybe the teacher quit, maybe it just wasn't right for the class, who knows). I just think too many educators have used Wikipedia selfishly, as per the above situations. I don't want to "police" Wikipedia, but I don't want 20 or 30 (or however many) inexperienced editors turned loose with the burden of a grade and a deadline riding on their contribution. So you won't get my support, but don't worry, I'm pretty sure I'm a small minority. I haven't see anyone else posting similar opinions, so maybe I'm a minority of one. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we unprotect this until 9 Dec?

I have a class of college students who have just researched several topics on historical zombies. One of their final assignments is to add an interesting, academic and cited fact to Wikipedia. Understandably, a number of them planned on adding to this page.

Today, a student told me that this page was semi-protected, which I did not realize. Many of my students do not have verified accounts, this being their first time editing or writing on Wikipedia. Is there any way that the pagemaster can unprotect this page for a week to allow for these edits? I believe you will find much of their information to be excellent additions to the page, especially as I require citation of a valid source as part of the assignments.

Kwdragon (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note on the user page of the sysop who originally applied the semi-protection. With luck it'll be editable soon. If not, drop me a line on my user talk page (User_talk:Squiddy) and I'll rummage around and see if there's a page for requesting unprotection. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I would appreciate that. I told my students, if they get the chance, they had better post good stuff! Kwdragon (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In the interim, if the students can post their citations here, they will find their way into the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed additions to the Zombie page

If you do not meet the criteria for editing on Wikipedia's semi-protected "Zombie" page, please post your proposed additions to this section. Sign your entry with four tildes in a row. Kwdragon (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Modern Zombies

Zombies are found in every day life. Caffeine can have a large affect on the human body, causing changes in their physical actions over time. Caffeine has a half life of approximately six hours. Meaning if a person consumed one hundred and sixty milligrams, in six hours from that time they would still have eighty milligrams in their system. Caffeine will affect the sleep cycle and cause a human not to get good sleep. Lack of sleep can make changes in a persons physical and emotional actions. These physical actions are similar to those of modern zombies in other popular culture. (Shredordie046 (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC))

That would be a metaphorical zombie. The definition (in the Lead) states that a zombie is an "animated corpse". The term "zombie", in the figurative sense, is mentioned in connection with hypnosis. People who are high off caffeine, or suffering from withdrawal, are still in control of their faculties and are not under the control of a witch or other paranormal force. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

South Africa

In South Africa, witches turn people into zombies by killing and then possessing the victims’ bodies in order to force them into slave labor . After rail lines were built to transport migrant workers, stories emerged about “witch trains”. These trains appeared ordinary, but were staffed by zombie workers controlled by a witch. The trains would abduct a person boarding at night and the person would then either be turned into a zombie worker, or beaten and thrown from the train a distance away from the original location . GouverneurMorris (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the information! Boneyard90 (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

zombie like creatures

Undead creatures similar to zombies exist in cultures throughout the world, although they share no historical relation to the phenomenon in Haiti. It should be mentioned that this phenomenon is not unique to voodoo Haiti, and this type of creature should not be assumed to be of Haitian or voodoo roots. Idk9 (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)