Talk:Vampire lifestyle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review Vampire lifestyle has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;
  • Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
  • During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.
  • After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.

(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion June 22 to July 7 2004, kept as consensus was not reached. Discussion may be found at Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Delete.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Contents

[edit] No original research

In case some assumed otherwise. Wikipedia:No_original_research

[edit] "Criticisms"

Taken from the page

Vampirism has also been criticised for fuelling the fantasies of people who are psychotic or otherwise severely mentally ill. Some self-proclaimed vampires have murdered in order to drink human blood, such as Brisbane's notorious Tracey Wigginton, who was called a lesbian vampire murderer by the press. There have been some reports of crimes committed by deranged people who believed themselves to be vampires: for example, the "Kentucky Vampire Clan" was a vampire role-playing group in Kentucky whose activities spiralled into murder.[1] Activity of this manner is variously encouraged[2] and discouraged.[3]"
Everything as been "criticised for fuelling the fantasies of people who are psychotic or otherwise severely mentally ill." Including groups as holy as the Christian Church (no pun intended.) Its more of an attack IMO... See: Ad_hominem --Charles 06:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Which is why there are Wiki articles on Socrates, James Dean, video game violence and contagious strains of teh ghey, all of which mention the Corruption of the Youth. Or should, at any rate. I'll have to look the aforementioned articles over. Whether or not there's any veracity at all to the allegations in question, "attacked" is PoV language, whereas "criticized" is simply informative. It's not technically argumentum and hominem, by the way. Saying "Red Bull has made you crazy in the head" is just an unfounded assertion; saying "You are crazy in the head, therefore your opinion on Red Bull is incorrect" is an ad hominem argument. 89.1.35.44 03:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Please See: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations --Charles 06:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Sanguinarian

I have suggested that Sanguinarian be merged with this article. The discussion began on that talk page. Dan Lovejoy 01:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vampire_lifestyle#Just_make_a_new_page Ronabop 05:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah... So what's your point? Those two people did not have consensus for that idea and were not supported, so it never happened. Then someone else went and did it anyway without getting approval, creating a WP:FORK file, which is against policy. They should be merged because the other never should have existed in the first place, as it duplicated info that was already here. If they wanted a separate article they should have moved the info over, not make up their own batch of poorly-written replacement text. DreamGuy 17:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, their point, (which happened to make sense to me), is that there are two major subclasses of people involved. One subclass is people who are pretending something, as a form of entertainment, and the other class holds a deep belief that it is not an issue of "pretend", but an issue of actual identity. For a similar example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster people don't seem to actually *believe* in a heaven with a stripper factory and a beer volcano, and the eating of starchy foods as a sacred act, but they enjoy pretending it's true. Many christians, on the other hand actually *believe* in the concept of an idealized heaven, and even attach rather significant meanings to eating certain starches. In the context of Wikipedia:POV_fork or Wikipedia:Content_forking (as WP:FORK is about forking the whole 'pedia, not just one article), Sanguinarian is somewhat of a sub-article to this article, or even to the Vampire article (though it looks like this article could be trimmed down now, and have the Sang content moved over to the Sanguarian article). Basically, people who pretend at being something are a different group (and thus, a different article) than those who actually believe that they are something different. Ronabop 04:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
See my comments over on that talk page. SphynxCatVP 10:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If and when in fact this article is merged, it is probably worthwhile to incorporate some of their sources. However, it is probably also useful to try and verify (through more sources) some of the claims regarding organisations? Falcon 17:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The content of both articles appears to be different with sanguinarian being a subset of Vampirism. I don't think they should be merged. --Kerowyn 21:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The content appears to be directly related to modern practitioners of vampirism, which would mean that its content is indeed a subset. However, the whole thing does not seem quite so significant a subset that it should stand on its own. Much of the content is essentially duplication of what is already found in this article, which means that it should really be merged into here. That, and the failed attempt to have this page split, dictate the course of action that must be taken. Of course, the potential for conflict when that page is merged here makes me want to shudder. If there's a tag for two articles contradicting each other, I'm adding it. Falcon 18:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Upon further review, the Sanguinarian article doesn't appear to have been split from the vampire lifestyle article. I compared the page histories and was unable to see a connection. Unless someone else knows more about it?
In any case, a there was a suggestion on the Sanguinarian page to merge both articles into a new article with a title that would be more descriptive of the consolidated content. Would this be more satisfactory to people? --Kerowyn 02:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree on the merge Vampire lifestyle does not solely imply sangurians. Whereas sangurians are people who drink blood to live which I think is a form of canibalism and technically cannibalism would appear to give super healing powers due to the fast breakdown of ezymes when digesting human tissue. Anyway Their should be different articles and I say again the lifestyle could one or all or some aspects of the lifestyle.--Howmee 06:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal

I removed it because it s eemed like nothing was needed to be done in that respect any more. also, saying for christs sake, doesnt really have any effect on a non christian...Gimmiet 17:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The tag has been restored, as verifiability (see WP:V) is necessary. Furthermore, the removal of the tag seems more in line with your long standing history here of trying to advance paranormal claims as facts without any evidence and to undo edits by editors trying to follow policy when you find them personally limiting. Now that you know you were in the wrong, I would hope that you will not remove it again. DreamGuy 19:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

i dontr ecall you even being a prt of the discussion. why jump in at any moment when im around just to whine?Gimmiet 21:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't matter that he wasn't a part, as long as he has something reasonable to say, which he does. ~~ N (t/c) 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
As the person why put the tag there that he removed, I would argue that I'm definitely already a part to it... especially as, from other edits he made today (and his past history), it's likely he did it specifically because it was me who was involved. DreamGuy 21:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You know, I suspect you're right. No... I'm sure you're right. ~~ N (t/c) 00:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

Naturally, the point of contention is the part relating to sanguinarians. Specifically, I am raising the point regarding its status as a hereditary condition. I am sure there are others. Falcon 18:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Um, what? Heriditary conditions are not mentioned in either of the articles. --Kerowyn 02:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Smith and Lily from The Munsters

Robert Smith of The Cure, another likely early influence on the development of this style. Alexander 007 11:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that---Lily from the The Munsters: her funky ass surely is an inspiration. Alexander 007 11:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but Vampira (inspiration of Elvira) and her funky ass date back further. Alexander 007 11:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations so very late

I am personally of the opinion that this article in unfairly under an enlarged burden of citation and verification. While I recognise that this is a fairly controversial topic, surely twelve sources should be enough to have the tag removed from the top of the article? Notwithstanding this, the claim related to coffins which I have tagged is something I have never heard of before, and it does not seem very fesable for logistic reasons among others. Falcon 01:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree. Although perhaps the issues which resulted in that tag may be unreasonable, there are quite a few claims which I do feel require citations, and do not have them. I feel that there is enough of these statements to warrant the tag, regardless of whether or not it would be fair to otherwise.--Scandalous 06:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If that is the case, could you perhaps place {{citeneeded}} tags in lieu of cites at those points? Falcon 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Looking at the link explaining the tag, though, leaves me unsure that it's appropriate. If I have any questions, or I'm unsure of what to do, however, I can always ask. --Scandalous 17:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please cite the supposed murder threats against lifestylers? That's a pretty hefty assertion to be making with no verification whatsoever.--68.237.249.212 06:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The picture

Have we got a source on the picture at the top of the article? I might be wrong, but she seems like a run-off-the-mill anime cosplayer portraying Blood Countess Carmilla, from Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust. Unless we have proof she's actually into the whole vampire lifestyle shtick, I'd suggest we find another picture. Just to add that one more iota of both veracity and verisimilitude. 89.1.35.44 03:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. For one, unless there's a citation suggesting that those in the vampire lifestyle actually do dress up in such outfits regularly, the picture's just incorrect, as it's not representative of the subject of the article. More importantly, those who can identify the picture as that of a cosplayer are going to assume that the people who wrote the article don't know what they're talking about and will wonder why a more "real," so to speak, subject wasn't chosen. --FreelanceWizard 21:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links removal

Wow. I had a flick through the links to see what deserved to stay, but couldn't see that any of the links were relevant under Wikipedia:External links - so I've just cut the section, as it's acting as a "my site here" magnet. Specifically, Wikipedia isn't for plugging web forums or arranging meetings, and news stories should be cited under references if they're referred to in the text of the article, not piled in as an untidy bunch of links. What do people think? Am I too harsh? What deserves to go back, if anything? Vashti 07:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sanguinarianism

I feel that the use of the term sanguinarianism in the second paragraph of the article could use a little bit of clarification. The term was coined within the vampire subculture, and is not found in any dictionary (though the adjective it's based on, sanguinary, is). And although Sanguinarians are adressed later in the article with some clarification, I feel that the usage early on is awkward. It led me personaly to search webster.com, dictionary.com and finally google define to no avail. I believe the term should be replaced with a non-jargon term or defined in that context for clarity, though I cannot think of a way to do so that would sound natural.Cheesechimp 10:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability, Original Research and Reliable Sources.

This article has zero reliable sources. It's not even an article, it's an original research essay. The only acceptable references are a couple weak biblical and koranic refs and a news article on the Kentucky incident. I've been trying to clean up some other articles with very questionable notability and so this is the type of trash I expect to see in an "article" like Draconity. Unlike alot of other "subculture" articles the only reason why there isn't a mountain of sources, references and citations on this subject is pure laziness; this is a hugely covered and popular subculture esp in suburban America. The sheer amount of controvery this subject has stirred alone is going to provide sources.

I'm going to try and find some sources but seeing as my closet isn't overflowing with vampire subculture books and I have alot of other stuff going on I really, really need some help. So before I just take a flamethrower to this article I would ask that some other editors with an interest in seeing this article being maintained as more than a shallow stub please help in finding, including and citing sources along with starting a general rewrite. NeoFreak 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Which sources in particular do you have a problem with? I haven't gone through all of them in detail, but the ones I spot-checked seemed to support the statements they were associated with. A few looked kinda lame, true, but not necessarily "flamethrower"-worthy. Bryan 03:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, all of them. With the exception of the courttv and medical links they are all links to personal/fan/club websities. There is no way to verify the statements made in any of them as they are not well-known, professional researchers writing within their field of expertise, or well-known professional journalists as laid out in WP:RS and can't be used as secondary sources on the vampire lifestyle demographic. There is no way to meet WP:V. Since the article does not deal directly with any of the people themselves they can't be used as primary sources either. I can find people that have put up geocities sites on why Jews are trying to take over the world. Doesn't make them a legit source for an article on Jews. These are websites by alot of the people that edit here and it's all WP:OR. NeoFreak 03:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, said site may well be a legit source for an article on the subject of people who believe that Jews are trying to take over the world. The cites I find most iffy here are just that sort of thing, where the article says "some people believe foo" and then the cite links to a page put up by people who claim to believe foo. These may well be reasonable cites, the only problem IMO is establishing whether these particular groups (Reapers of Blood, Drink Deeply and Dream, and Moonlight Shadowcastle) are significant enough within the vampire lifestyle community to be adequately representative and are not just "fringe". I personally have no idea whether that's the case and I'd like to see some input on that from editors here who are into this sort of thing. Bryan 04:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Going out and finding people with websites that say "foo" to support the concept of "foo" is not kosher unless they are well-known, professional researchers writing within their field of expertise, or well-known professional journalists. Anyone can say anything they want and throw it onto the internet and then turn around and make a wikipeida article based on those "sources". Policy and guildlines like WP:V and WP:RS exist to combat this. This is, after all, an encyclopedia. Once you start putting in things like "some people", "some say", "it is thought by some", "a few people think", etc you are using weasel words and doing a discredit to an article, a thing that is supposed to be a colletion of facts. Asking for people to confirm wether or not sites A, B or C are good sites is not an option either. A vampire lifestyler confirming that site A is "totally cool and right on" were as site B "is, like, totally doesn't get what being a vampire is all about" is not an acceptable way to measure a sites worth. See where I'm going with this? NeoFreak 05:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and whether they're "well known" or not is something that I'm not necessarily in a position to judge. Ideally we'd get some input here from people who are "into" the vampire lifestyle thing who would know whether these sources are well known or not, and perhaps have meta-references to back that up with. I don't believe it's appropriate to dismiss the sources simply because they don't happen to be journalists, there's nothing magical about that profession that makes them inherently reliable (as can be easily seen by reading almost any journalist's popularization of a subject that you are personally an expert at :). Bryan 05:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS seems to think so. NeoFreak 10:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been going through a lot of the ostensibly "New Age" articles lately, and there is truly a wealth of information there, and a lot of the information is inspired and intriguing... but much really does not belong in an encyclopedic article. Truth be told, this article does not meet WP:RS, and really needs to be trimmed back to only what can be verified by reliable sources. Sources have been needed for a long time, haven't they? Anyone confirm it, because I believe it's true? (Haven't been on WP very long.) So, failing reliable sources, what is unconfirmed and needing cites from reliable sources, should be tagged for a bit with needing a cite, the references to fan/non-expert subculture members taken out and their pages removed as cited (non-reliable source), and reliable cites from internet or paper sources found. I'm going to particularly state that references 1,2,3, 7,8, and 9 in the aforementioned section fail WP:RS, and are being used to get in things that therefore fail WP:OR.
These references (and if replacements cannot be found, the statements they are used to support) should be removed, I believe, at earliest possible juncture unless someone can support these authors as experts within their given field, or primary sources. As the article is not about a specific person, the latter is not useable as an excuse for the inclusion of what are basically unverifiable websites, and there are no acknowledged and widely held experts or neutral sources. As NeoFreak has said above, why THESE references? If I went and wrote a web site about how all Vampires <insert socially unnaceptable thing such as murder, steal, eat babies, here>, and wished to cite it here, it'd be shot down by the majority of vamp population as "So totally not what being a vampire is all about."
Objective and encyclopedic documentation of what is essentially a subculture, is necessary. The biblical references are acceptable, as they are cited sources and simply being used to refer to what they directly reference. So too, the Orthopedic Surgeons bit, and the HIV/AIDS study. The rest are sites basically here to promote their authors as experts, for which no accreditation can be laid. As such, these references should be removed, and "Cite needed" tags placed in the place of their current reference numbers. Does anyone agree with me? Does anyone disagree? I'm willing to have my mind changed that those who've written in References 1,2,3,7,8, and 9 have doctorates in vampire studies or have published an accredited and academically styled book or are primary sources or else in some other way meet WP:RS and are thus not being cited to effectively get around the rules of putting WP:OR right in the article. However, if none of those are true, the cites and the references need to go, sooner, not later. I'll give this a bit though, cheers. Raeft 16:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Pardon the pun Raeft but it seems you and I are on the same page here. NeoFreak 02:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've pulled most of the material that is not sourced or uses sources that fail WP:RS or WP:V. What is left is, I think, a leaner more solid stub. From this point other material can be added with ciations and refs in order to expand in into a full article. I think that the vampire subculture is indeed notable and that there are more then enough sources to bring this article up to a higher status. NeoFreak 23:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your earlier pun is pardoned, NeoFreak. Now, on to actually adding. What we have now for references are all verifiable in their contexts. What we must be careful to note is that References 4 and 5 are NOT reliable sources for verifiable fact, but only listed because the statement they're linked to refers to what the subculture says about itself, and is therefore valid as a primary source. Otherwise they'd not be allowed due to WP:RS. Basically, I'm going to do some library delving next time I have time, and look for reputable articles published by sociological study experts, or journalistic sources, concerning this topic. We have 2 sites made by the community itself as references already, from here on unless absolutely necessary, I'd kinda like to get more reliable sources for the article. I think it could be really good, and is already decently informative for an at-a-glance thing. We can go in more depth later.
Continuing along, the External Links section. I'm about to add a bit about it right now, but the last time it was brought up was September, and the first step to a higher class article is maintenance of policies preventing "my site here" and other self-promotion tendencies. External Links sections invite these, and I feel more have been creeping in, and much of what's in External Links should not be there, I feel. But more on that below.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/a/m/Talk%7EVampire_lifestyle_de40.html"