Talk:Zombie (folklore)

Talk:Zombie/Archive1 - 23 feb 2006

Request for comments

the description of zombie movies says I Walked with a Zombie is an example of zombies not under the control of an overlord, but that's actually not true. the 2 zombies in that movie are 1 a guard very clearly under control of the shaman/drummer guy and 2 the woman who walks around at night not very clearly of her own volition and not looking for food. also she is not definitively a zombie, unlike zombie #1.

User:Korith17 added the following to the Zombie article, and i reverted because i felt it was even more advertising for the zombie squad website (which is already linked in the article) and the rest was trivial. he later contacted me with the following link to a word document (i confirm its macro virus free) [1]. he has confirmed he is the author of that document, that he sometimes posts on the zombie squad website himself, and that its ok for me to publish this link publicly.

this is the text he placed in the article originally:

Theoretical Zombies: Many people in groups such as Zombie Squad and Ozort that there is a realistic zombie threat that might happen. Many theorys include the ultra-rabies virus similar to 28 Days Later or an act of god creating zombies like those of Dawn of the Dead.

in addition he said "i propose we add the theory of possible zombies. mainly add some stuff about rabies and possible mutations. more detailed then what i had originially posted"

i'm not really qualified to make a judgement here, my opinion is its original research, pretty silly and should not be in the article, but i would like other opinions. would anybody be willing to read that document and suggest a course of action? hopefully a consensus can be reached. Zzzzz 18:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This appers to be a case of original research. I can't find any valid scientific claim that concurs with the conclusions made by the editor in quesiton. I would agree that the theoretical zombie part be left out of the article Duke nemmerle 12:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

meh, if thats your judgement then so be it. i'll try and contribute in other ways to wiki. remember this though

$(R/M)+H=Z$ Where R is Rabies, M is mutation, H is Human, and Z is ZOMBIES!!! have a good one. --Korith17 16:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a little silly, but whether something is silly or not isn't the criterion for being included in Wikipedia. The two sources cited do believe zombies are a real possibility. I for one think it would be interesting to include both reasons why some groups think zombies are possible, and why zombies might not be possible. 69.205.160.33 18:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the person above. There are things people believe are real, even though it might seem silly to others. The article has a great deal of evidence as to the "imaginary" zombies, why not give some proofs as to why some people think zombies are a real possibility? -- Steven 19:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not run astray of Wikipedia's policy regarding undue weight. If such people actually exist as a real phenomenon (rather than as a sick inside joke or some company's marketing strategy) then this constitutes an extreme minority with no newsworthy or scientific standing. I call this sub-notable: not worth the electrons Wikipedia is printed on. Durova 07:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Wikipedia should not paraphrase information from other websites indiscriminately. Publishing information about "real zombies" will not make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Maxwahrhaftig 17:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has it ever really happened in real life? If not, has it been proven true by multiple parties? If not, it is a lie and it is vandalism. Link9er 13:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a small section should be added regarding those who do belive zombies are real, and with it some of their evidence. otherwise we would not be portraiying other all points of view. Somthing along the lines of. "A small minority of people do beleive that zombies exist or could possibly exist, often using the following information to support their claims..."

I agree with that also. It's only fair.--64.9.10.166 15:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Wikipedia has a clear policy: if that faction is notable enough to have a prominent advocate then cite that advocate. If there's no voice in support of this other than a few bloggers and forum posters then it's sub-encyclopedic. Durova 05:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMBIE LINKS

Some people have been religiously deleting links added to the zombie links section. Believe me, I understand and support the need to destroy spam and vandalism, but these links are genuine and repeated attempts to put them back up have been dashed. Somone even deleted the entire zombies on the internet section.

This is a page about zombies. The links in question are about zombies and are relevant. So what's the beef? Why are they removed? Upon whose authority? Removing interesting links doesn't increase the quality of the wikipedia page.

I submit that some person or persons have been deleting these links out of sheer reflex, and has neglected to reflect upon the true virture of external links.

I say to you all, GOOD DAY!

Take a look at Wikipedia:External links and remember, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Just because links aren't spam in the traditional sense doesn't mean they shouldn't be removed. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, those links are priceless resources. Wikipedia may not be a web directory, but it is supposed to be the end-all resource for information. I believe that in this certain context, such should be done to leave the links up, so that more information can be available to the public about this interesting topic. It is only with the spirit of Wikipedia that I argue this point. (From: Someone Else, agreeing with the first gentlemen on this situation)--

Satirical Zombie Related Web Sites

Why is the external link to zombiedefense.org repeatedly deleted? Satire involving zombies, zombification, shamblation, etc. isn't currently represented on the wikipedia site. Said web site doesn't fall into one of the 9 "What should not be linked to" categories listed on the Wikipedeia:External Links page. Would the external link crusher please explain why the inherent freedoms of zombie fearing human beings must be trampled upon? Thank you. (comment unsigned but clearly by the spammer (and by spammer, I mean freedom fighter) who keeps putting the link there despite seeing that nobody else wants it)'

Satire sites are nonencyclopedic and serve no purpose. It's unrepresented because it's pointless and stupid. It is also clear spam. DreamGuy 06:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Such hatred and venom is both disturbing and deeply sad. You've got to forgive yourself Dreamguy, you've got to let all of the hate go or it will burn up your insides. You're not alone. There are many support groups out there that will help you work out your anger issues and help you add more superfine external links.

Wow! Pointless and stupid? When the zombie holocaust occurs and you no longer have the Wikipedia:Zombie web site to police, zombiedefense.org will welcome you with open arms. If you can convince me that the information herein is in no way encyclopedic, I'll calmly allow Repeating Z to ban my IP from editing this site.

Zombie Squad and the FVZA are better and more well-known examples of zombies-as-real satire pages, if you're arguing that at least one good satire site should be linked. Or are you trying to link to a website that you own or maintain, as listed in "What should not be linked to"? --McGeddon 08:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And eh, I can only see one item on that glossary page that isn't made-up slang, and that's "zombie". --McGeddon 08:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the two web sites you mention are not purely satirical in nature. If you honestly feel that they are, then please link to one of them. As a result of Repeating Z's warnings, I am no longer trying to link to anything. I'm just trying to understand why there isn't a place for zombie related comedy on the Wikipedia site.

Zombie Survival Guide

This has been removed a couple of times, most recently by Zzzzz saying "rm erroneous info (an instructional/serious book?)" - the book is serious in tone, but obviously a work of fiction. It's notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, moreso than some of the other books listed in the section, and the fact that a market existed for it in 2005 seems of encyclopaedic relevance. Is the problem just that it's not "literature"? --McGeddon 15:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I was surprised that it wasn't listed. I made sure that my entry fit the same feel as the other Literature entries, so I'll be fairly surprised if it gets removed. EVula 05:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, looks like it's been deleted again, with absolutely no discussion. Obviously one person's opinion matters more than two... EVula 00:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) just because ZSG has its own page doesnt make it notable. every pokemon and primary school has its own page, doesnt mean every pokemon and primary school is listed in the Pokemon or School articles. 2) ZSG *should not* have its own page. the result of an AFD debate was that it should be redirected to Max Brooks. 3) some spammer decided to go against consensus and recreate it as a separate page, separate from max brooks. they were wrong & have broken wikipolicy. it should be merged back into max brooks. 4) multiple wiki-editors agree ZSG links are spam, not just dreamguy. 5) everyone who disagrees is suspiciously new. 6) dont put ZSG spam back in - please argue the case here first. Zzzzz 12:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the AFD debate when I added the paragraph back just now. I was only mentioning notability because some of the other books and authors referenced don't have Wikipedia articles, that I didn't see why the ZSG was being deleted when unlinked books about zombies were left in. The existence of a published, parodic survival manual seems as encyclopaedically relevant to the genre as anything else in the section, to me.

(Is six months really "suspiciously new"?) --McGeddon 12:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Heh, I agree with the sentiment, but those are bad examples. Both categories (Pokemon and School) are much larger, with the later being a very "general" item. Pokemon actually does have a list on Wikipedia; it is even linked to from the main Pokemon entry. Similarly, there are numerous lists of schools, also linked to from the main School article (albeit in the form of a list of lists). Zombie is a relatively small subject (in comparison), and I don't see the problem in linking to another zombie-related entry, especially when it is different-yet-similar from the other paragraphs in the heading (different because of the humor, similar because it deals exclusively with zombies). 2) I disagree, but see #3. 3) I also disagree, but wasn't going to push this until after I'd fleshed out the article some more (I'm in the middle of it, but Real Life reared its ugly head). However, doesn't the fact that severeal members keep pushing for it's existence mean anything at all? 4) And until now, none of them had bothered to use the Talk page to explain why that is. 5) You know, I could have sworn I read something about that... (also relevant) I'm getting tired of being labeled a spammer just because I like a freaking book. 6) As I've said, until you, no one else bothered to argue back; they've just deleted it with no discussion. That's the crux of the problem. EVula 17:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just did an overhaul of The Zombie Survival Guide. Not only is it a much more substantial article now, but I've addressed the notability issue as well.

Unless someone can come up with a decent reason for the ZSG to not be included, I'm going to add my original summary to the Literature heading in a few days (as per Zzzzz's request that we argue the case here first).

Just to sum up my stance, here's why I think the ZSG has every right to be listed:

It involves zombies (an obvious pre-requesite).
It has a substantial article now (regardless of its past).
City of the Living Dead, Xombies, ZombieWorld: Winter's Dregs, Champion of the Worms, Dawn of the Dead, Walking Dead are all listed, but have no articles.
Furthermore, the authors of Xombies, Dawn of the Dead, and The Goon don't have articles.
ZombieWorld: Winter's Dregs and Champion of the Worms don't even have authors listed at all. I don't see how you can call ZSG a non-notable article that doesn't deserve to be under the heading of Zombie Literature when you've got two unattributed books listed. A quick Google search for "ZombieWorld: Winter's Dregs" turns up a whopping 261 results, compared to the 572,000 for ZSG.

I look forward to any rebuttal. EVula 07:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*poke* I'm adding/editing this entry specifically to make sure that anyone who has this on their watchlist who is opposed to the re-introduction of the "new and improved" ZSG article has had a chance to debate the issue. It's been nearly a full day with no response to my post above (and a few more days with no response to the one above that).

I realize that some people can't check Wikipedia every day, but both DreamGuy and Zzzzz (the only two people currently disagreeing with me) have been active since I posted the above. But just in case... I'm really trying to be totally and completely fair here, but if I don't see any arguments by Saturday morning (US CST), I'm going to add it. EVula 05:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

existence/non-existence/length of articles in wikipedia is not a criteria for notability. see Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NOT. "there is other non-notable stuff, so why cant i include *my* non-notable stuff?" is an equally invalid argument. just because some junk has previously slipped thru undetected, doesnt mean open access to all junk. on a sidenote, the zsg article still doesnt establish any verifiable claims of notability. there are no references, no sources are cited. so as it stands it is still a candidate for deletion. see Wikipedia:Verifiability. ciao. (unsigned comment by User:Zzzzz @ 13:12, March 3, 2006)

Okay, I'm willing to concede that I'm a newbie, and so maybe I don't understand certain Wiki things, but... I still can't see what the argument is. Please, try to help me understand; I'm trying to be a good Wikipedian, but I'm terribly confused by this.

I read Wikipedia:Notability. I have done a Google test, the results of which I mentioned above as a link to the discussion heading; I concluded that I had verified notability, but you haven't responded directly to that claim. See also Wikipedia:List of ways to verify notability of articles; Google testing is listed under the "Other material" heading (no heading for literature). Nothing on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) was relevant (that I found).
I looked at Wikipedia:NOT; I didn't see anything on the entire page that was relevant (and none of the eight items they list under "indiscriminate collection of information" are applicable).
Re: the "just because some junk has previously slipped thru" bit. Sorry, I think your response due to some sloppy writing on my part. Numbers three, four, and five aren't saying "that's junk so my junk can stay"; they're illustrating that a double-standard is being held. I'm asking why the noted content (especially #5) is allowed to be in there while the ZSG is being blocked, when both can be classified as non-notable (and, as I established above via a Google Test, ZSG has a greater notability than the first item mentioned in #5). I'm requesting clarification, not making demands (like I said, sloppy writing on my part).
Well, I think I've just addressed the Verifiability. I have added the single referrence to the ZSG in accordance with the Complete citations in a "References" section entry on Wikipedia:Citing sources. According to the Verifiability section heading of Self-published sources in articles about themselves, I can use the ZSG as a source for its own article (assuming that you consider the book self-published and/or its publisher "of dubious reliability"; if neither is true, then the publisher qualifies as a "reputable publisher", which is the crux of the argument for Verifiability, meaning that the article is verified now).
1. I'm also sort of confused about this rule's application in to works of literary fiction in particular, as there are numerous instances of Wiki book entries that have no references at all, such as Perelandra (linked to from the Zombie article), The Goon (also Zombie-linked), The Rising (novel) (also Zombie-linked), Five Billion Years of Change: A History of the Land, Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Closing Time (novel), The Shrouded Planet, Calico Captive... etc. Again, I'm not saying that my "junk" article should exist just because other "junk" articles exist, I'm merely pointing out that I feel there is a double-standard being held, and am requesting some clarification.
Something I found interesting on the Notability page was Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability. On that page, it is stated "There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it." As I've established that the ZSG is not non-notable, there's no reason for it to be deleted (addressing your final point of interest).

The way I see it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), I've established notability and I've established that the article is verifiable, which is more than can be said about some of the other items under the Literature heading. As those are the only two complaints that have been levied against the ZSG's listing under the literature heading, is there any reason I can't add it (again)? EVula 22:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the ZSG article again, this time adding a Critical Response heading, with references (relevant Talk entry). Notability has been established. Verifiability has been established. I'm not adding it to the Zombie page today (as I said earlier) because you (Zzzz) have raised an argument; though I feel I have sufficiently responded to all your concerns, I haven't received a rebuttal, and in the interest of fairness, I'll continue to wait for a bit. Sunday or Monday, then? EVula 18:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you put it back it will just get removed again... We can't list any and every book that in any way mentions Zombies. This is not List of books featuring Zombies. Frankly, it's doubtful the book deserves an article of its own, but it sure as heck should not be listed here. See WP:ENC for more info on what an encyclopedia is. DreamGuy 04:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy, I have worked very hard to address each and every complaint that has been levied against the ZSG article. Zzzz, though I have argued with him, has been extremely helpful in illustrating what still needed attention. You, on the other hand, keep dismissing it without any constructive criticism. Why? I'm not trying to make the Zombie article into an indiscriminate list of zombie books; I'm trying to have a diverse cross-section of Zombies in Literature, which is what the heading is all about. I'm not even trying to put it at the top of the section, thereby claiming some sort of increased importance for the book; I'm adding it to the end of the section, which helps flesh-out the heading (it would mean that the Literature heading would cover novels, comics, and humor books, which seems pretty well-rounded to me). You dismiss the ZSG article as non-notable, despite the fact that I've worked very hard to establish both verifiability and notability; neither claim of mine has been directly addressed by you.

Please, give some explicit rationale for your argument; linking to WP:ENC (though it is pretty funny) doesn't tell me what I have to do to the article to win your approval. I've made numerous attempts at generating an actual discussion (as per another editor's request) about this before just arbitrarily doing anything, but you've yet to respond to any of it (either here or on the ZSG Talk page.

To quote Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles of Wikipedia etiquette: "If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate." I've spent a lot of time developing my arguments, between the research, article editing/improving as per the research, and then writing my responses both here and on the ZSG Talk page. The fact that you just keep dismissing me without any discussion (such as saying I haven't provided evidence for removing your notability flag, despite the fact that I already had on the Talk page) is insulting, and I really don't appreciate it. EVula 18:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm trying to get an actual discussion going. You (DreamGuy) haven't provided a solid reason for why the ZSG can't be listed; you keep saying it is non-notable, but then don't comment on the evidence I've presented on its notability. The first step of dispute resolution is to "discuss the issue"; I find it terribly difficult to do so if you don't respond (and doubly so if you refuse to address the evidence I present). I'll post a note on your User Talk page requesting you read this, just in case that will catch your attention a bit better. EVula 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

Sorry I don't have the know-how to do this myself, but a spoiler warning needs to be added to the Zombie article; the Zombies in Fiction section contains plot descriptions.

Thanks!

-Daniel of Michigan

Spoiler warning added. EVula 05:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA HATES THE TRUTH

For how much longer will Wikipedia turn a blind eye to the zombie epidemic raging across America? By consciously spreading misinformation about zombies, wikipedia is responsible for countless deaths.

Earlier this year attempts were made the courageous zombie-hunting organization Jim Rage's Elite Zombie Hunting squad to spread the truth. These attempts were dashed by wikipedia editors, no doubt card-carrying zombie sympathizers who hate the living and want to eat their brains. Despite a valiant effort of behalf of Jim Rage, the truth was systematically removed, eliminated, liquidated, and erased. To be blunt, someone took down the link.

I ask you, not just as wikipedia fan, but as a parent and as and American citizen...Please, stop the hate. Don't hate the truth, love the truth, respect the truth - the truth about infectious zombie warriors raging across the heartland! We must destroy these brain eating ghouls and if wikipedia refuses to be part of the solution, then it's part of the problem.

Zombie Cheer

I can't seem to locate the origin of this phrase, but I know I've seen it on Slashdot numerous times. It goes like this...

What do we want? BRAINS! When do we want it? BRAINS!

I think it's amusing, and would make a nice little addition to the article, but only if we could find a proper citation to it (and the original cheerleader canon).

Technical question

Could Jesus be classified as a zombie, according to the accepted definition? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.67.39 (talk • contribs)

As amusing an idea as this is, I don't believe so; typical Christian mythology holds that Jesus actually returned to life, meaning that he was once again alive, not undead. EVula 14:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Zombie" vs. "Ghoul"

I think it's an interesting note that George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead is largely responsible for our modern concept of "Zombie" yet the movie itself never uses the word.

In the film, the undead creatures that rise from the grave to feed off human flesh are called "Ghouls" by all of the characters. "Zombie" was still a relatively obscure Voodoo term at the time. I wonder exactly where the two concepts mixed.

Split

I think this article should be split. The Hatian zombie and Movie zombie are two completely different subjects. Calicore 20:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(going by the existing headings) If you mean the voodoo and folklore sections in one article, and the "fictional" stuff in another (literature, film, and gaming), I agree. EVula 20:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]