Talk:Origins of vampire beliefs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
.png/50px-Pentagram_(Levi).png)
Contents |
[edit] Note
This page is under construction due to requests made at the Vampire FAC. The title may also need to be changed in case POV issues arise (Theoretical may mean OR to some people). Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Off topic tag
I note that Calliopejen has placed this tag in the Psychopathology section. Musing on it I actually tend to agree. The article is on origin of beliefs i.e. how vampires came into being, whereas this section is on mass murderers, post-folklore 'vampires' in other words. Alhough, Gilles de Rais and Bathory have certainly become intermingled the other way and certainly infuenced some horror stories etc. Hmmmm...interesting.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dubious
The idea of destroying the initial vampire and subsequent suspected victims dates back to at least the twelfth century with William of Newburgh's report of the Berwick Vampire.
This statement is sourced to a modern author, but looking at Newburgh's report itself, I find no mention of "subsequent suspected victims" being destroyed.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- OK, removed as it doesn't quite back up the contagion theory. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I think it might sort of back up the contagion theory (connecting the "vampire"/revenant and pestilence in one way or another), but the specific sentence about "destroying suspected victims" isn't backed up. So mentioning this story may well be relevant, just not as a source for that particular sentence.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, removed as it doesn't quite back up the contagion theory. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dubious 2
During the 16th century the Spanish conquistadors first came into contact with vampire bats and recognized the similarity between the feeding habits of the bats and those of their legendary vampires.
This also appears to be sourced, though it might have been added later, I won't check. Now, in the 16th century there were two hundred years left until the popularization of the Serbian word "vampire", as well as the East European legend itself. So the conquistadors couldn't possibly have recognized the similarity between it and the bat or given it the name.
As I look at the cited source, I think that one problem with this thematic sphere is that people use too many sources with titles such as "Encyclopedia of Monsters", "The Ultimate Authoritative Academic Guide to Cool Scary Thingies", "How to Conjure a Vampire in your Apartment" or just "Boo!". --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- The author cited is a reliable cryptozoologist. He has been on many expeditions, written a few books and is referred to by others in his field. I suggest you do some research before judging a book by its cover, or more specifically, its title. Have you even read his books? The sentence was not added later. However, you state that "So the conquistadors couldn't possibly have recognized the similarity between it and the bat or given it the name" - where in the text you've quoted does it say that the conquistadors gave the vampire bat its name? Nowhere is where and by legendary vampires, it is intended to mean those of myth before the term vampire was popularised. That debunks both your concerns. Maybe you should research and actually read material before passing comment on it. 202.180.71.138 (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
