Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Removal of Tag

I removed it because it seemed 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 don't recall you even being a part 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)

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)

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)

Citations

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

No original research

In case some assumed otherwise. Wikipedia:No_original_research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmanser (talk • contribs) 07:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Article's picture

I want to remove the pic in the article. A woman all dressed up in garish, fake, and very confused victorian gard and some plastic fangs doesn't really do much to demonstrate anything about the vampire lifestyle. It would appear she is on her way to a costume party and I don't think it reflects what an actual participant in the lifestyle looks like on a daily basis. Any objections? NeoFreak 04:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'm no expert, but most followers of the vampire lifestyle I know don't dress like that... ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.93.241 (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

missing long lost friend of the night

back in 1994 i met a young man who happened to work at a carnival most wonderful weeks of my life all i know is he was from H town and verry handsom. he returned to his house 2 and 1/2 hours away, i just got off the phone with him my daughters and a friend where playing with my witch board and i asked for a vampire to all are supprise there he was and what a night we had would love to see him again i am now 43 and thanks to him i still get carded and where my youngest daughters clothes she remembers him as well if your out there im back in austin find me!!!

  and thanks cj

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.253.92.17 (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

The talk pages of articles are not forums to be used to discuss the subject in general, nor are they a section to find long-lost friends. They are to be used only to discuss improvements to the article. Please do not make posts like this in the future. Thank you. Asarelah 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Undoubtedly there are infinitely many funky asses who play a role in the development of this style. One can only mention so many. --Banyan 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bogus Reference

The one source here that has the appearance of being reliable, the Australian Folklore Journal, seems fabricated.

• The volume number corresponds to the 1997 publication, not the 2002 edition. The 1997 edition does not contain an article about vampires.
• There are no mentions of the article found in Google other than in Wikipedia.
• The ISBN number is not found by any online ISBN services.
• The website for the AFJ does not mention any publications after 2001.

Based on this I'd like to remove the content that's supposedly based on this reference. 88.72.254.180 08:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it isn't fabricated, it is probably just a mistake. I take it you own or have access to the '97 version? If so I think it would be appropriate to remove the ref until it can be corrected. NeoFreak 17:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

are you fucking kidding me? VAMPIRES!!! What is this shit?! Smith Jones 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I wiped out Smith Jones' reply from the comment. It was rude and rather pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.63.97 (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What has happened to this article?

This article was very informative 6 months ago, and now it is a stub. What happened? Fangz the Wolf 18:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Article "Revamped"

I just breath new life into this dying article by expanding it with sources that fit WP:RS. Enjoy! Fangz the Wolf 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Childhood abuse and vampire lifestyle

OK, I work in mental health and I would expect that there would be a correlation between childhood abuse and vampire lifestyle. However, I am not familiar with the source which is cited currently. I'll defer to someone who has read it to rate its quality but will not get involved with edit wars on the page. Other research material would be extremely helpful at this point. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The book does mention this, but it is an incomplete quote. It is about role players who pretend they are vampires. The book is also very flawed, and actually contradicts it self several times. In another chapter it retracts that statement completely when talking about sanguine vampires. Fangz the Wolf 00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that I am a Sanguinarian Vampyre, and have recieved no such child abuse in my life. Fangz the Wolf 12:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, however this is a population based finding so of course there will be people who aren't. Some people who get lung cancer were not previously smokers, yet most are. However, I concede I have not read much literature or research on the area.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-Injury

I added a citation required for it's not obvious that members of this lifestyle do not suffer from SI. I searched for a research study about the topic and found this but no results. The credentials of the researchers aren't listed and I don't see any questions on frequency of self-inflicted cutting whether the individual was treated for SI, etc.
See this quote from a bloodplay enjoyer: Former Bloodplay Awareness owner, Fiona Corealis, said: "When I was younger, I was into what some people would call ’self-mutilation’. I cut myself with knives, often fairly seriously, and wounded myself, but never to the point of hospitalization. I did it because I hated myself at that point. Self-mutilation is something that a lot of people do, some more seriously than others. It can end in psychiatric treatment or, in the worst cases, suicide and death.
Nowadays, I still cut myself, but I do it for pleasure. I love the way I look when I have twisting lines of blood across my arms, and I love the sensations as the blade caresses its way through my flesh, the ice cold metal against the warmth of my flesh. Now what was once hatred has become love, in a way." Doesn't this seem a typical path and and obvious connection between the two a type of evolution from SI to Bloodplay? Her testimony casts doubt on the statement that it's not SI. Alatari (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the article neutral now?

I was wondering if we can take a vote. Fangz the Wolf 15:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What is annoying is it is unclear who put the tag there and when, or which bit above it refers to. As the article has been rewritten a few times I'd be tempted to remove it, only in that I have seen alot less neutral pages untagged, so leaving this tagged means leaving a helluva lot of tags on other pages to be fair. So I would not see a problem in it being removed. Would be nice to get some more critique rather than just descriptive stuff but I am unsure what has been pulbished and am not about to go looking. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked on the previous POV discussion, and it was do to the edits of this one guy, thankfully all off his bias comments were removed by me, and I just removed the POV tag. Just remember, this is a conversational subject after all. ^_^ Fangz the Wolf 21:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This article can never be neutral till there's a discussion of the widespread believe that real vampires don't exist (deniers viewpoint) or of alternate medical explanations or fetish explanations for the Sanguinarian or reliable sources with proof that the Vampires actually need blood. The sources; not exactly the New York Times... Alatari (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Documented

National Geographic Channel is presenting a show called Taboo: Mating in which the Vampire Lifestyle is partly documented. It's on tonight at 5pm CST Alatari (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What is it about? It could be just tribal traditions. FangzofBlood 18:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I taped it. I'll try and transcribe some of it since I can't find transcriptions anywhere on the web. There was about 12 minutes on Sanguinarians and their mating practices. Several interviews and a feeding shown. NatGeo refers to it as the Vampire lifestyle and videos many clubs where people gather to lead their chosen. Nothing new to me. I knew people who were heavy Depeche Mode listeners and LARPers starting to dress, meet and feed in the early 1990's. If someone is better at transcribing than me then I can mail you the tape. Alatari 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edit seemed bogus

This edit contained an unverified source and some horribly non neutral POV text. To claim that they are not human needs some very serious scholarly sources proving their DNA is substantially different. Some of it was well written but the author nees to read WP:NPOV Alatari (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

What about websites that have been around for roughly a decade, and are well known amongst the vampire community as a reliable source of information? http://www.sanguinarius.org has been around for years, and the articles on the site are researched and well written, some by persons in the medical world. That, and references to how people in the vampiric community act and react to each other is typically not very well researched. The only way to get information from the scene is to ask members of said scene. Honestly, the only way for information on vampirism that is truely to code, is for there to be some medical break through proving that the three forms of real vampirism actually do exhist, and for an indepth study to be done, outside of the ATA surveys and studies. And even if that were to happen, there would still be a lacking of information dealing with NVP's and donors. We're not considered research worthy by many people, including some of the vampires themselves. Please keep that in mind. Pixie —Preceding comment was added at 08:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Point of View

Now, while I understand that NeoFreak was concerned about verified information when he purged this article, he also left behind a ridiculously negative article on the subject. Yes, wikipedia is concerned with having only verified information, but it is also concerned with maintaining a neutral PoV. and while I personally find the concept of a Vampiric Lifestyle to be...mockable, I still find this article in its current state to be offensive to Wikipedia's quality standards. I have marked this article for Point of View. Cheesechimp 21:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas where we can find reliable sources that are less "POV"? NeoFreak 05:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Much as you have said of yourself, I don't really have time to do an in depth research on the subject of a Vampiric Lifestyle, but if all there is to be said is criticism of the concept of drinking blood and of two specific murder cases, then the article should be deleted on the grounds of a lack of notablity. Cheesechimp 19:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't fight an AfD but if you choose to do so I wouldn't do it on grounds of notability as that is already established by the news links of participants in the "life style" doing stupid things and offending people, etc. NeoFreak 20:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If the ridiculous links in the External links section are considered valid sources of information, then someone should go through them and find data that at least presents something about the subculture other than a basic definition and reasons to hate them. If not, all I see are links to moral and medical arguments against drinking human blood (which have nothing to do with the existance of a lifestyle centered around vampirism) and an article on a specific murder case, which could be used as grounds for creating an article on the murderer, but not for an entire aricle on this supposed lifestyle and subculture. Cheesechimp 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, you and I are on the same page here. I've been too busy to fight this fight right now. Those links are not realiable sources. The issue that could (and probably should) be taken with this article is that there is little provided to establish the verifiability of the term "Vampire lifestyle" as in what does it mean, what is and is not included, who is in it, what are the primary traits, etc, etc. This could be a WP:V or WP:OR issue at an AfD. The problem you are going to run into is that some type of subculture is obvious and in an AfD you'll get the response of "well it is observable" and "there are sources" and "well quack/nut-job writer wrote this or that bok about it". You should also check out WP:NEO. Hit me up on my talk page if you have any specific questions about any of this. NeoFreak 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is most certainly completely POV, I think this article is spreading false information and encouraging this sort of deviant behavior. Lets get some things straight, so we all are aware of life stylers, and what people refer to as "real vampires". (I have bolded the relevant part for this article.)

1. First off, there are no real vampires. A brief discussion of the human digestive system and then the probable vampire population given an exponential growth rate should explain why vampires are not physically possible, real vampires could refer to a mental condition or a real disease which gives characteristics similar to vampire myth (such as the rare blood disorder porphyria). Vampire myth is most popularly known from Bram Stoker's; Count Dracula, which was derived from the popular myth prevalent in those days. The myth spanned from misunderstands of real diseases as well as religious superstition, the vampire disease was a myth and it know known as simply... fiction.

2. Vampires do not exist. Period. The human body is not designed to process large amounts of blood for nutrition. There is not enough protein, carbohydrates, and fats present in blood to maintain a complex creature such as Homo Sapiens or any theorized offshoot mutations. When a human ingests food it is first broken up by chewing, then churned up in the stomach with digestive juices to form a bolus called chyme. It then passes into the small intestine where it mixes with bile salts which continue breaking it down on a molecular basis, mostly affecting fats at this point. The broken down nutrients pass through the wall of the intestines and into the bloodstream where they are carried to each cell or stored for later use. Indigestible bulk continues through the intestines, turning a dark brown from the bile. Water is absorbed from this mass in the large intestine depending on the needs of the body - a well-hydrated person will usually have a softer stool than a dehydrated person will. Water also enters the bloodstream, and this is what helps to maintain blood pressure. The pressure tends to balance itself in a healthy person because the bloodstream goes through a formation in the kidney called the Loop of Henle, where the narrowing blood vessel forces excess water and cellular waste such as urea out through the cellular wall into the kidneys, where it is excreted through the ureters into the bladder, and then out of the body via the urethral passageway.

3. A person physically unable to process his own food for nutrition therefore also could not process blood - it's the same process. Ingested blood does not transmit directly to the veins anyway - it would be chemically broken down by the digestive system. However, In 1985 biochemist David Dolphin proposed a link between the rare blood disorder porphyria and vampire folklore. Noting that the condition is treated by intravenous haem, he suggested that the consumption of large amounts of blood may result in haem being transported somehow across the stomach wall and into the bloodstream. Thus vampires were merely sufferers of porphyria seeking to replace haem and alleviate their symptoms. This could be a potential explanation as to why there have been people in the ages that have drinked blood.

4. Theoretical ingestion of blood to supply these nutrients would therefore have to occur at least once a day, and would require the ingestion of the entire blood supply which could not happen as the stomach is far too small to hold that much liquid volume. Furthermore, such a mass would be difficult to pass threw the intestines as it has no fibrous bulk, would create an intestinal impaction, causing massive vomiting from the large concentration of iron present, and any "real" vampire would have to eventually expel the waste, which would come out as a black, tarry, smelly goo.

5. Even if a vampire feeds once a week, and his victim also becomes a vampire, that is exponential growth, with four iterations a month. First iteration: One makes one, total two. Second iteration: Two make two, total four. Third iteration: Four make four, total eight. Fourth iteration: Eight make eight, total sixteen. 16 vampires at the end of one month, 256 at the end of the second month, 4096 by the end of the third month, 65,536 by the end of the fourth month, 1,048,476 at the end of the fifth, and 33,572,832 vampires at the end of half a year! By way of comparison, there are currently approximately 33 million people in the U.S. alone who have HIV/AIDS, and that is a world-wide epidemic. Do the math - vampires are a mathematical impossibility. This falls therefore, under the logic of Occam's Razor - which states that when you have removed every impossible answer, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Since there is no "vampiric plague" swarming the earth, the logical deduction is that they don't exist. However this is not the case if the only way for a victim to turn into a vampire is if they drink vampire blood, which is how vampires are portrayed in Anne Rice's book; Interview with the Vampire, but this once again, is fiction.

6. Point of clarification about "vampire" bats: vampire is simply the name we have given them because they drink blood, same as a flea, mosquito, or spider. Are these creatures vampires? No. They are living creatures, not legendary monsters. Drinking blood does not make you a vampire anymore than eating raw meat makes you a werewolf. Vampire and vampire bats both come from "Vampyre"... its Latin meaning "A blood-sucking ghost". This superstition is now prevalent in parts of Eastern Europe, and was especially current in Hungary about the year 1730. Now changed to vampire by modern english.

7. These humans that affect the whole "vampiric lifestyle" are not vampires. They are simply humans playing their own little game, in their own little fantasy world, usually pandering to their own little sexual fetish, which may or may not actually be sexual. I too, play my own little game, role playing, but mine is a game where the things that I do are determined by rules and so forth, and its pretend, and I know it. The difference is that I am claiming to be something that I know is not true. The so-called "vampires" really believe in what their pretending... and all they prove is that black Victorian clothing, a pair of false fangs, and a little makeup make for a good Halloween costume - but it does not make you a vampire. No matter how much blood you drink or how much you believe in it.

8. The humans who profess to be vampires are victims of an all-encompassing self induced delusion. They are as human as you or I, regardless of their claims, and if they ingest HIV tainted blood they can most certainly contract the disease, esp. if they have any cuts, sores, or lesions in and or around their mouth. It is a very dangerous delusion to be laboring under. Note that there is absolutely no scientific or medical proof that these people derive any benefit at all from the ingestion of blood, and even worse are the so-called "psychic" vampires, because their delusion is one that they cannot substantiate with any concrete evidence at all. The Unbeholden (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sanguinarian: Should we focus on them a little more?

As of above, there was hot debate for the merging of Sanguinarian in this article. Ironically, I just added the only single mention of them. Shouldn't we mention them a little more? Fangz the Wolf 12:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As of my last reading they were entirely deleted, as were mentions of other members of the community (such as the people they feed from, since they are part of the vampire lifestyle, and should be included). AcrophobicPixie (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

I've removed quite a few references that don't fit WP:RS. Here's a list of each reference and why:

A. Asbjorn Jon, 'The Psychic Vampire and Vampyre Subculture', in Australian Folklore, 12 (2002), pp.143-148 (p.145). http://www.une.edu.au/folklorejournal/ ISBN 1-86389-831-X

• Several references to this were removed; Volume 12 was published in 1997, not 2002. There is no edition published in 2002. Volume 12 contains no vampire article.

House Eclipse: Vampire House & Resource

• Violates WP:SPS; the reference was used as verification that "many people" believe something, while the article shows one person believing something.

All the links to trueformwithin.org

• Violates WP:RS and WP:SPS

Other Vampires and Vampire-like Persons Document

• Page 404's, no controversy there.

Sanguinarius: Vampire Guide: Vampires & Blood Matters: Safe Bloodletting & Feeding

• Used as a reference that biting is looked down upon, but the linked page does not mention biting at all.

I also removed two external links:

vampirelifestyle.com Vampire community group that discusses an exchanges information on the Subject

• Violates WP:LINKSTOAVOID reasons 1, 4, 6, 8, 10.

darkpages.weebly.com Vampire network that facilitates open communication in the online vampiric community.

• Violates WP: LINKSTOAVOID reasons 6, 7, 10, 13, and (indirectly) 14.

Next i'm going to be peppering the article with little [citation needed] marks. If RS aren't provided, the information will be removed agressively, as WP:V suggests. Firestorm (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, its been a week and nobody has stepped up with a RS to any of it. I've just been BOLD and deleted it. Also, i'm not sure if the part about that occult group is notable enough, so I'll look into it and maybe delete that too per WP:WEIGHT. Firestorm (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the occult group is notable in the subject being developed, and provides central concepts to the article in question. Also seems to be pretty well referenced by independent articles and published books. GustavusPrimus (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have little doubt that the group exists and has those theories; the question is if they represent a significant enough portion of the Vampire community that including their theories would be giving them undue weight. Could you maybe provide a like asserting their notability? Firestorm (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The group is notable in the referred community, however we are talking about a community where the most respected groups always count with some high levels of privacy, sometimes even secrecy, making this job harder to trace and validate. However you can see that this order is the only referred vampire group in the Paranormal Encyclopedia, that has a full and long article about them and their esoteric tradition. I believe you have the link to this, but if not, please leave me a note on my talk page and I will provide it. I would also like to add that besides the group notability, what is even more important is their referred theories notability, and those are deeply widespread across the community, being easy to find many other groups that have adopted their theories on vampirism and live by it, becoming important concepts in the overall community, even if unrelated with the referred order. Hope this helps. GustavusPrimus (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm still not sure about it, but i'll leave it in for now. Can anybody verify the notability of that book, The Black Veil, or any of the other External Links?Firestorm (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As for The Black Veil, I recommend first to delete the Wikipedia link on it, since it does not exist, nor is it notable enough for a full article over it. So maybe keep it simply as an external link, not sure. If you find it irrelevant, just delete the reference. Either way, it refers to a "set of rules" for a highly eclectic community, which surely not all, or even half, follow... so may be considered biased. I will leave it up to you. GustavusPrimus (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Black Veil" is an article, not a book. It is a list of guidelines or rules that many members of the community follow. It has been updated a few times thoughout the years to make it more with the times. AcrophobicPixie (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Pixie 14:54, March 19 2009

(outdenting for sanity purposes)

I've looked into it and I don't think the book meets Wikipedia's standards. What experience do you have with the subject of this article? I'm not questioning your ability to edit it, but i'm hoping you could maybe come up with some additional sources that meet our standards? The majority of content that was in the article has been cut out due to sourcing, but I'd like if this article could be something more than a stub.Firestorm (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing categories

I took out the "emo" category because there is no relation between the two articles or groups. I also regrouped this into "subcultures" category.

phycic vampiers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.14.219 (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Belanger

This message is directed at the editor who has used various IPs and accounts to make these general edits:

• on Vampire lifestyle
• on Energy vampire

The fact that you are removing another author's name and inserting Belanger's in its place while changing virtually none of the surrounding text as well as past history (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Belanger) makes me concerned that you are engaging in blind promotion of Belanger's works, perhaps even self-promotion. I am hardly the first editor to raise these concerns, and I am wondering if you have a response. For the time being, I am going to undo your recent edits. Please be in touch. (Disclaimer: I am no expert on this topic and have become involved after I was contacted by a concerned party on IRC). Canderson7 ^(talk) 00:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: I have essentially reverted the recent edits, but I have left some of the content intact, including a brief reference to Michelle Belanger's book in each article (pending further discussion on this talk page). Ignorant of the topic though I may be, I see no reason why we must avoid mention of a published book on the subject. Canderson7 ^(talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Several reasons why the Michelle Belenger reference is more accurate.

First, simply in terms of history. The Psychic Vampire Codex ISBN 1578633214 was published Weiser books in 2004, and was available on the sacred-text.com as far back as 2003. It might well be the first book to talk about the concept of psychic vampirism in a non-pejorative manner. In the Weiser publication of the work, Michelle Belenger does talk about vampirism being a condition of the soul and that it signifies a connection to other members with a shared past originating somewhere near pre-historic Egypt. In fact, the several chapters focus on a shared Kheprian past so much, that it stirred up a great deal of controversy within the vampire community among those who did not identity with caste system and past life histories outlines in The Psychic Vampire Codex. Even though, it is still considered a pretty pivotal book in the community, and second two thirds of the book do provide a lot of practical information of use to many non-Kheprian identified vampires.

The Psychic Vampire Codex was then followed by The Ethical Psychic Vampire ISBN 1413461980 and Practical Vampyrism for Modern Vampyres ISBN 1411642996, both published in 2005. Both of these aimed at a more general audience, providing additional views.

The Asetian Bible ISBN 9899569402 was not published until 2007 by Aset Ka's own in-house publishing. It too makes claims that vampirism is a condition of the soul and that it signifies a connection with a shared past originating somewhere near pre-historic Egypt.

Second, there is terms of community scope.

Michelle Belanger is a known writer, presenter, and active community member. Besides the The Psychic Vampire Codex, Michelle Belanger has also written Psychic Dreamwalking: Explorations at the Edge of Self ISBN 1578633869, The Psychic Energy Codex: A Manual For Developing Your Subtle Senses ISBN 1578633850, Walking the Twilight Path: A Gothic Book of the Dead ISBN 0738713236 and edited Vampires in Their Own Words: An Anthology of Vampire Voices ISBN 0738712205. Michelle Belanger speaks at colleges and universities as well as various conventions throughout the nation has a podcast, provided commentary on the History Channel's Vampire Secrets, is an active member of the Voices of the Vampire Communityand has made regular appearances on A&E's Paranormal State. In addition to this, Michelle Belenger's house, House Kheperu has had a web presence since 2001 and has been hosting annual gatherings since 2000

Where as there is no community involvement or even information on Luis Marques, surprising when one considers the claims that he is a "International author" and "is a renowned expert in metaphysics, vampirism and Ancient Egyptian knowledge", according to the Asetian Bible description. If he is indeed such an international author and renown expert on ancient Egypt, one would think there might be more books or scholarly articles in his name.

As for the 7000 year old secretive organization, the Aset Ka site has only been around since 2007. The only references one find to them are random forum requests for information, an an authorless article which cites from their book and television program with no air date or any other information. I would also add their wiki page was deleted, citing WP:NOT#OR and "Every source I have found on Aset Ka cross references each other in a way that looks legitimate until you see that it's nothing but a house of cards - each source relying on each other for notability except that none of them provide any true references." - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aset_Ka

Luis Marques and Aset Ka are pretty much non-entities in the vampire community, both online and offline. Honestly, if either this article or the energy vampire were going to include information on other order, groups, organizations, temples, coven, etc. of vampires, it would be better served talking about groups such as Atlanta Vampire Assocation House Kheperu, and Temple of the Vampire.

I would also point out at this time that TheRedPenOfDoom has gone through the energy vampire article, removing several references to other published works, with the notable exception of the Aset Ke and Asetian Bible as well discussion of alternate views on vampirism, essentually returing the article to its far more biased state. I would point out that if the removal of Raven Kaldera's work is because it was published through Xlibris and considered "self publishing", than so to does the Asetian Bible. In which case, that only leaves The Psychic Vampire Codex as being the only book published through a third party publisher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk • contribs) 07:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

While the reliability of the source did not strike me as overwhelming, it was not clear to me that Aset Ke and Asetian Bible was self published. If it is self published, then it should also be removed from the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not really self-publishing. The book is published by their order's publisher, and that is not the author himself, hence not making it self-published. They are not using a vanity press service like Lulu or Amazon's BookSurge. GustavusPrimus (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with and support these edits. There was a lot of unsourced material in this article that simply had to go. If I had the WP:BOLLOCKS I would have done it myself. I applaud TheRedPenOfDoom for being BOLD and removing the material. Firestorm ^Talk 17:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Luis Marques is part of Order of Aset Ka. It has not been demonstrated that Luis Marques expertise on metaphysics, vampirism and Ancient Egypt has been established by the inclusion of third party publications in this discussion. The Order of Aset Ka is publishing the book. There is no other publications the Order of Aset Ka has put out. There are no other legitimate sources of information about this organization that have been referenced in this discussion.

That to me sounds like the Asetian Bible is not a reliable source for the general topic of psychic vampirism. Even if the discussion was pertaining strictly to Order of Aset Ka, the book still violates requirements 1 (the book is a discussion of the Order of Aset Ka tradition), 3 (claims about historic events), and 4 (the similarities between Asetian Bible and The Psychic Vampire Codex bring this into personal doubt). WP:SPS

Contrast with Raven Kaldera, an individual has published a large number of book pertaining to the occult, spirituality and sexuality many of which have been published by third party publisher. Enough so that Raven Kaldera might be considered an expert in these topics. In terms of self published sources, Raven Kaldera's work is far more appropriate to include on a discussion on psychic vampisim.

And this still does at mitigate the fact the reference to The Psychic Vampire Codex has been removed from this page as well, only leaving Asetian Bible, considering The Psychic Vampire Codex is the only third party work published on this topic, and a notable reference because it is the first third party publish work that does not take a hostile stance against psychic vampirism and has come to represent a core community reference.

Soon after I started delving into this on the wiki yesterday, I had changed my initial stance and decided to keep references to Order of Aset Ka. I realized that it might be best to present readers with a diverse, accurate and reference-able history of vampire community, and allow readers to makes their own informed decisions. It is my hope that an article on psychic vampirism will eventually reflect the true diversity of the community.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Asetian Bible (ISBN 9899569402) is not self-published. The author being involved with the Order of Aset Ka does not make it self-published. Self-publishing strictly refers to a book that is published by the author himself and not by any other party, wether or not he is involved with it. And I quote:

Self-publishing is the publishing of books and other media by the authors of those works.

This is the correct definition. The author is not the editor. The author is not the publishing entity (like in the cases of Lulu, Xlibris or Amazon's Booksurge). Your definition of self-publishing would imply that any book published by the Vatican when the author is the Pope Benedict XVI, or any of Rome's Cardinals, was also self-published. Or that any teacher from the MIT that was publishing a book through the university press, like the MIT Press for example, would be self-publishing, when that is never considered self-publishing in the publishing industry. You need to re-check your definitions. Now, please, just stop vandalizing Wikipedia by removing the Asetian Bible from every article, as you have also done in the Ankh, just in an attempt to give credit to your edits in this one. Thank you. GustavusPrimus (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Asetian Bible does not appear to meet the definition of a self-published source. Whether or not any of these books is a "Reliable Source" or a "Self-Published Source" is not really the issue here, though, because the article wasn't really attempting to use them as "sources." Instead, these books were part of the subject-matter of the article, which discusses the attitude of society and its authors towards vampiric phenomena. Because the books were subjects of discussion for the article, whether or not they are good sources of fact is not something we really need to debate any more than the authors of the Harry Potter article debate whether the Harry Potter books are good sources of fact. Instead, we should worry about whether these books on vampirism are sufficiently notable (to use a popular and meaningless buzzword) to merit mention in a survey of society's attitude towards vampirism. I think that the answer (at least in a few cases) is yes, because, frankly, when writing about such a fringe topic, I think we'll be hard-pressed to find anything more legitimate than published books.

How about removing all other reference to these books from the article but adding a paragraph such as the following one. We obviously need a better term than 'vampire enthusiast' but I can't come up with one. I mention the books in chronological order:

The term 'psychic vampires' has also been adopted by twenty-first century vampire enthusiasts such as author Michelle Belanger, who defines them in her 2004 The Psychic Vampire Codex as "individuals who, for one reason or another, need to take the vital force of others". and author Luis Marques, who portrays psychic vampirism in his 2007 Asetian Bible as a condition of the individual's soul and a secret mark of a connection to a shared past..

Canderson7 ^(talk) 00:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. Includes both works and presents them in an unbiased way. Not like the previous version that was stating that an author adopted the concepts from the other. That would be no place to pass judgment in an encyclopedic article. Feel free to add your version to the main article. GustavusPrimus (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel more views should be includes, such as Raven Kaldera and others. However this is a good start. So how does one go about include the views of other member key member of a subgroup which the subgroup is highly familiar with but who are not other wised consider published individuals?--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

with close to 300 potential sources available, I am not convinced that we need to include such self published and books of questionable reliability as sources even aoubt themselves. Wikipedia should not be used as an advertising media for these books. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A specific search for "psychic vampire" brings up 128 references, and "sanguine vampire" brings up 2.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume thats because not much sourced and/or referenceable material exist on psychic vampirism. Of course I can't cite this as a reliable source, but I'm a regular on a certain houses IRC channel. Trying to join, but I digress. Anyway, I would check http://www.sanguinarius.org/. They have several links there to material about many types of vampires, real and otherwise. --Angelus Delapsus^Talk 22:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that website, being self-published and not having any sort of editorial criteria or peer review, is not a valid reference. What we need are sources that meet the requirements set out at WP:RS. Firestorm ^Talk 23:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That I understand. Maybe I'm just being dense (trust me, It happens sometimes to the best of us) but what about the information referenced within the cite. I.e. the links in the links section. All of it falls out of the scope for a reliable source? Or are you saying just in general that it does. I ask because my original intent was to give the site so it could possibly lead to reliable sources. Not that the site itself would. You know what I mean? --Angelus Delapsus^Talk 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an unreliable source may be able to lead us to a relaible source, but the new source needs to be able to stand on its own to show that it meets our WP:RS guidelines, and not just the fact that it was cited as a "source" on another site. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

But, you also need to take into account how said site is considered in the community. Websites are not books. They are bound to be self published, even if you pay a person to do the coding, because the person who owns the website is the one that adds the content. http://www.sanguinarius.org has just celebrated it's 10th anniversary, has notable people in the community, in addition to members of the medical field, contribute articles and other information. At this point, www.sanguinarius.org is mostly written by people other than the owner. The owner just puts articles to be viewed, with a few personal pieces tossed in.

Like I said, in addition to sourceability (is that a word?), you need to take the opinion of members of the community into account. Say this was an article on Christianity. You would list the bible as a source. Well, it's not a bible, but it is considered a very valuable resource within the community. I recommend that it be reinstated as a source, in addition to the AVA's site (since they are in the process of doing a medical survey of members of the community). AcrophobicPixie (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Pixie 14:54, March 19 2009

"you need to take the opinion of members of the community into account" No you dont. We can use websites as sources that have widespread reputation for accuracy, fact checking and providing neutral point of view. Not whether the site has a rabid fan base. It is third party opinions of the site that matter. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

But if I'm not mistaken the site... eh... nevermind. --Angelus Delapsus^Talk 05:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The use of a term by a non-notable self published author is not worthy of reporting in a wikipedia article unless such usage has been covered by a reliable source.see WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Satanic Bible

The part that describes "psychic vampires" as written in the Satanic Bible is inaccurate. Please change it. --anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.96.238 (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(I'm new to this so I hope this is helpful)I wanted to add that I think the idea of the Psychic vampire comes from Franz Hartmann, and that he was a main influence on Dion fortune and other Golden Dawn writers.I Read this in the "Vampire Book"by J Gorden Melton today, that is, about Hartman, and it makes sense form my reading of Fortune and Crowley, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachiokoyin (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Some Vampire Lifestylers drink blood

Something I saw on a Bravo Documentary a few years back, some Vampires actually drink human blood. This usually only happens in Vampire groups, where one Vampire will let another vamire puncture their skin and drink some blood. Could anyone citate this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Knowing what is being done

I believe this is what I am aiming to do but for the person above me, you will never get citates for that not one vampire will tell you how but there are things that can betold from them. If they try to sharpen their teeth with, bottles, knives, andything that would help that they will. Now the funny thing is like you said if they don't have a pet or something they can feed off of they will feed off each other but it doesnt mean anything all you get is a psychic jump from one to another. PsYcHo VaMp (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PsYcHo VaMp (talk • contribs) 01:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Renfield syndrome

This article really needs to be merged with Renfield syndrome in order to do proper medical justice to this unique and recognised illness. There has been much written about Sangunarianism (Renfield's syndrome) in medical journals and it would help those suffering from the disease to have some proper references online to source rather than promote a goth-subculture branch on the net through wiki copycat sites that is more likely to mislead than assist those whose lifestyle is affected by this illness.194.83.157.10 12:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's two different subjects, one is a disorder and the other is a lifestyle choice. Being mentally disturbed and playing make believe is not the same thing. NeoFreak 17:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You should most definitely reconsider the choice of the phrase "playing make believe". Vampirism isn't always a choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.63.97 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge this with Renfield Syndrome, like stated above, these are two completely different subjects. Even though both involve some desire to consume blood, I believe there are many reasons for wanting to. No, vampirism isn't always a choice either, but now you are confusing the vampire lifestylers with so called "real vampires." And if you don't believe in real vampires, then that's up to you but the signs are sure. And Renfield, in my opinion is a mental disorder, which has nothing to do with the vampire lifestyle (which is choosing to live as a representation of what a fictional vampire is) and real vampirism is when you need to feed off human energy, whether you decide you want to or not. There is not yet a medical explanation as to why real vampires need blood, and Renfield syndrome does not cover this. It may be more appropriate with paraphilia but should NOT be merged with any articles of vampirism, especially this one. Loocifah (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 US Census?

Really? You're really going to claim that the 2010 US Census indicates over a quarter million blood drinking vampires living in Los Angeles and that more than 1 in 3 people in Tacoma are blood drinking vampires? I don't make content edits on nutjob pages like this because it's not worth the edit war, but that's the most blatantly stupid thing I've ever read on Wikipedia.

Even if those ridiculous numbers are true, the US Census doesn't track people who pretend to be vampires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.195.8 (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Article Needs Cleaning Up

While reading this article I couldn't help but get the feeling that it was written by someone who actually believes in this stuff? The whole article needs sources and more information on all this being a physiological delusion and not a disease or hereditary trait (i.e. born with it). Also some information on the differences between people who are actually delusional and young kids just following a temporary fad. Allot of parents may be trying to find out information on there kids etc. This article is totally one sided and based all around the beliefs of the delusional people. I don’t mean to annoy anyone but this article is very strange indeed and really looks like something taken out of an occult book or something. Mothball666 03:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

( it's just a new spiritual movement with the Vampire as the archetype the follow..big deal if they believe they are vampires or not) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.110.123 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. For the record, I started this article years and years ago (7 of them, I think) after people following beliefs such as this appeared and started making trouble at my high school. Some of the adherents were well above 20, and I found there were rather a lot of these people all over the place; there are also minor connections to the otherkin community. The whole thing appears to operate somewhat like a frat. I don't know if it's really so much a bona fide delusion as a distributed group of people, loosely co-ordinated online and locally, who are living out a sort of fantasy similar to LARP, and I don't necessarily think there's a real distinction between fad-following junior high students and others in this sense. It's definitely worth noting that at least one academic paper has been published about this:

Keyworth, D. (2002). The socio-religious beliefs and nature of the contemporary vampire subculture. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 17(3), pg. 355-370.

I think that's still referenced in the article. Nonetheless, I would hate to see this page become (or become again) one written from the standpoint that this is a delusion equally as much as I would hate to see it positing that everything these people profess (and they do profess it) is true. It would be a serious error to fill it up with a psychiatric diatribe of some kind. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)