Talk:Vampire watermelon/Archive

This is an archive of past discussions about Vampire watermelon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think this is totally bogus. Can anyone confirm this belief? Jwrosenzweig 21:03, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Try google for "vampire" "watermelon". ("vampire watermelon" is just Terry Pratchett). Rmhermen 21:10, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

I did--sorry if I wasn't clear. :-) vampire+watermelon is the way I indicate that, but maybe that's wrong. Anyhow, you get a lot of sites when you search for them, but none of the sites (that I can see) are talking about vampire watermelons....they just mention both things in seperate sentences. Nothing indicates the folk tale told by this article. That I can find, anyhow. Jwrosenzweig 21:26, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You need to enclose the phrase in quotes when Googling it. You get a different result when using the plural: "vampire watermelons". Hu 02:11, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

From VfD

Vampire Watermelon -- if the title doesn't say it all to you, a google search for vampire + watermelon leads to some amusing sites but nothing describing these apparently foul figments of a user's imagination. An excellent nominee for BJAODN though, in whatever form BJAODN has taken. Jwrosenzweig 21:06, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You realize, this is all true. Delete it anyways. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:37, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Delete. Content can be moved to a better location, but under this title, it is unverifiable and POV. Daniel Quinlan 21:38, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Keep. As strange as it sounds, it's probably true. A quote from [1]

Sources

According to The Vampire Encyclopedia by Matthew Bunson (Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1993), Moslem Gypsies in the Balkan countries believed that if pumpkins or watermelons were kept longer than ten days after Christmas they would come alive. First a drop of blood would appear on them. Then they would roll on the ground, growl, and become streaked with blood.

The Seattle library has a copy of Bunson's book (a 2000 edition; their copy of the 1993 edition is lost). Wiml 06:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) Update: The Wikipedia article is nearly a direct quote from the Bunson book's entries on pumpkins and watermelons. (The bit about disposing of a vampire melon with a boiled brush does not appear in the book.) The book does not cite sources for specific entries, but the bibliography does mention two books by Jan Perkowski, including the one which is mentioned later in this discussion page. It seems likely to me that that is Bunson's source. Wiml 23:46, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perkowski, Jan. The Darkling, A Treatise on Slavic Vampirism. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, 1989
Perkowski, Jan. Vampire of the Slavs. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, 1976

[A copy of the latter in the UC Berkeley library shows "Slavica Publishers Inc., Cambridge, Mass." - mako 06:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)]

Another quote from a different site: Even inanimate objects and animals were thought to be able to become vampires: pumpkins, watermelons and other fruit that was left out past a certain amount of time, latches that were left unlatched too long, dogs, horses, sheep and snakes are among the objects with vampiric potential in older superstitions of the Slavic gypsy community.

Terry Pratchett says he didn't make it up: [[2], scroll down to entry for p. 150. - Sandman 19:02, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Keep, unless User:Sandman is also making it up as he goes along. Onebyone 12:54, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Keep, unless somebody can prove the above sources wrong, Amazing stuff!JackLynch 21:02, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Keep. Davodd 06:19, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
Keep. (How can people belive in this? It sounds crazy!!) Noone 23:55, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This page should be featured on "did you know...?" some time. hehe --Sonjaaa 12:18, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

I have done extensive Internet searches on this topic. 99% of all hits are for either Wikipedia or for domains that index Wikipedia. I have found but three sites that are blog-like entries. Two reference gypsies...only one references Matthew Bunson. I am trying to get my hands on the book to see for myself. Kingturtle 10:11, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest you ought to add Google's Groups archive of Usenet to your research sources; it has the advantage of being dated, as well as including material not available elsewhere.

The claim that "various Balkan heritage groups expressed dismay....a crass commercialization of their rich heritage" seems too, well, tongue-in-cheek, even speaking within a bubblegum context. How could the myth of vampire watermelons be considered a "rich heritage"? Just how much bubblegum sales would be lost by potentially "...alienating the lucrative Balkan-American market..."? I don't know the truth, but alarm bells continue to ring considering this superstition. osugeography.

Given the links in the archive of VfD above, what is the nature of the dispute about the factuality of this article? -- ke4roh 12:34, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Potential damage to Wikipedia

I would defend the right of anyone to add anything to Wikipedia; the concern is how this is done.

This article is constructed as if factual, when it is actually a spoof (Yes, I know that's what a spoof is!). The point is that this kind of spoof is used to support those who accuse Wikipedia of trivialization and lack of control.

In addition, the article is a classic slur on the Roma peoples, who probably put up with more than their fair share of such 'humor'.

And finally, the addition that brings in Cadbury-Schweppes and a brand of bubble gum is probably verging on commercial libel (probably why Wrigley's was not used!).

I have attempted to understand the discussions on removing such rubbish, but I simply cannot follow the complexity of several years' discussion with no clear policy (sorry). So failing that, I have editied the article to make it's origins and underlying untruth more visible.

I welcome comments and discussion, but request my views are not deleted. Heenan73 16:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You don't want your views deleted, fine, but why do you have to rip the guts out of an article which has been debated over a considerable period of time? Where was the discussion of your concerns? Jumping in like this is more likely to damage Wikipedia's reputation IMNSHO. Restraining myself from reverting out of hand because I know that would just inflame things ... mutter ... mutter --Phil | Talk 17:09, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

With respect, I have not 'ripped the guts' out of anything. And I am not 'jumping in', I am trying to ensure that this entry - like all Wikipedia entries - is a accurate, and useful as possible, and as little misleading as possible. While there has been much discussion, there has been little attempt to resolve that and move on.

Did you have a specific concern with my editing, or just the general objection to the outcome? Heenan73 17:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

At least some of your text is factually wrong. You say "Vampire watermelons have no place outside the novels of Terry Pratchett" but this is clearly contradicted by the reference to them in Matthew Bunson's "The Vampire Encyclopedia" - and Pratchett himself reportedly says that he didn't make up the story. I think your assertion that the story constitutes "a slur on te [sic] Roma peoples and their gullibility" is also far too POV. I do have doubts about the story of the vampire watermelon bubblegum, as the contributor provided no references, but when a named source is provided for the rest of the material I think the onus is on you to refute it. You haven't done so, other than to assert (on what basis?) that it's all a hoax. I don't think this is adequate, so I've reverted the article but removed the bubblegum claim until it can be confirmed. I hope the anon who provided it will do so. -- ChrisO 17:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Origin of the story

The "Gothick Herbal" (website defunct, but text available from http://members.lycos.nl/Shades/plants/vampiricplants.htm ) traces this idea to an article by T. P. Vukanovic in the Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, via Jan Perkowski's 1976 Vampires of the Slavs (ISBN 0893570265, probably out of print). From the site:

Vukavonic did field research with the gypsies in Serbia during the 30s and 40s. Of course, these same gypsies told Vukavonic that they believed certain agricultural implements could also become vampires, so I suspect that either the Rom were pulling Vukavonic's leg (not unheard of) or there may have been some mistranslation or misinterpretation of their beliefs.

Further digging reveals that "Vukanovic" is the correct spelling. He was in Serbia in 1933, 1940, 1947 and 1948; results were published in four parts under the title The Vampire, in the third series of the JGLS between 1957 and 1960 (volumes 36 through 39 inclusive). Note that as of 2000, the journal is called Romani Studies ( http://www.gypsyloresociety.org/journal.htm ).

I can try to track these articles down through the British Library if there's any interest. (The BL catalogue has these issues, but it may take a while to get things sent up from London.) I haven't made any changes to the Vampire Watermelon page yet, because I get an academic twinge when thinking about referring to sources I haven't actually seen. --AlexG 20:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"The Islamic gypsies of Bosnia ... believe that pumpkins and watermelons ... can become vampires ... just after Christmas."

So these Romany Muslims believe in Vampires and Christmas? Whoosh! Heenan73 09:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I may have not expressed myself clearly enough. I think you're right that there are problems with the way the legend is presented in most modern sources, and that's why I think it would be interesting to see what Vukanovic actually wrote. That page suggests that he (a noted Balkanologist, incidentally) was responsible for introducing the story into the English language, in the context of Romany lore. Then Perkowski cited him in a book specifically about vampires. Then other authors, writing their own vampire books for a non-academic audience, took the story from Perkowski. At each stage, there may have been misunderstandings or omissions - probably at the most recent step more than the others, because undead vegetables don't exactly fit in well with contemporary perceptions of vampires. It's of course possible that Vukanovic doesn't discuss vegetables at all. In any case, I think it would be interesting to see what he actually said, and put an extract in the article. Then readers can decide for themselves whether he was hoodwinked.

I may be able to look at originals of the relevant volumes Wednesday or Thursday - if not, it'll have to be BL photocopies. Either way, I'll post what I find, and I really do hope it's interesting and useful. --AlexG 19:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, the ball is in the British Library's court now. --AlexG 14:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note that it makes little sense to "believe in" Christmas, as it is definitely observed by very many people in many different ways. It was additionally not a Christian holiday originally; the pagan holiday Yule was merely appropriated by them, as with many other holidays. Nor does the holiday as currently practiced have anything to do with Christianity except superficially. It's quite reasonable for Muslims in the Balkans to observe a non-Christian European holiday that happens to be on the same day. --Eequor 19:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This watermelon looked normal when bought, but after being left to its own devices for four days, started taking on a bloody appearance.

Pictures

As luck would have it, I bought a watermelon that later turned vampire. (The evidence for a Wikipedia article set me back USD3.) I bought the melon at the Raleigh, North Carolina farmers' market and set it on the counter in an air-conditioned kitchen for four days, achieving the results photographed here. Upon observing the phenomenon, I wouldn't doubt that less scientific people supposed the watermelon had some relation to vampires. -- ke4roh 17:01, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I took a few bites of the watermelon as I was cutting it in preparation for eating, and it didn't taste very good (the red part tasted less sweet, leaning in the direction of the typical rind flavor). Further tasting after refrigeration confirmed that the melon had past its prime and probably would have done better scrubbed and burned as recommended in the article, though the two of us who've tasted it haven't suffered ill effects. -- ke4roh 22:02, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

May I point out

This webpage? --Sgeo | Talk 21:04, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, my. Someone with the Website of vampyreverse.com has called Wikipedia silly. - Scooter 21:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This entry is still here? Wikipedia's inability to excrete refuse like this entry is an inherent flaw. The linked website is quite accurate, though it does conclude by dismissing all of Wikipedia. Wetman 21:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, my, my. I guess we've been told off. We'll have to be more careful about checking our sources, and sticking with only inarguable facts like the barely covert steamy eroticism of Rapunzel. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, hopefully Wikipedia is respectable enough to ignore rabid polemic. --[[User:Eequor|η υωρ]] 21:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another disingenuous contribution from a notorious jokester. Wetman 21:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "Vampire Watermelon Fan Club", as well as the email @heenan.net, indicate that this article is the work of User:Heenan73. This user got very excited about this article, and started spamming the article namespace with polemics about the "Vampire Watermelon Fan Club" and "Wikipedists" (members of the VWFC). This is despite various other editors pointing out that Terry Pratchett, by his own admission, did not invent the legend. If you look at the talk above, you will see that I have requested some papers from the British Library (which haven't arrived yet) which should settle the issue. In the meantime, it would be helpful if people did not make extensive changes to the page without being familiar with the history. AlexG 22:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The entire site is run by Heenan73, who took great exception to my comments above (never had my User page flamed before :-); he also runs a bunch of other sites. I don't have time to check out whether they're all reliable or factual, but I would question the completeness of a website on vampires which fails to mention Anita Blake anywhere (or indeed anything much but movie-based lore). (Not to mention the name of his vampire site, which my eyes insists on reading "Vampy-reverse" :-) --Phil | Talk 13:12, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to point out Andrew Heenan's Guide to Flaming, which has been linked from Flaming ever since he put it there, and Heenan's Universal Dictionary, with entries for "Wikipedist" and "Wikipedian" that demonstrate his approach to editing disputes. It's a pity he's gone off in a huff, because he does seem to have plenty of knowledge, despite his rants. Let's avoid personal attacks and remember that nobody here has demonstrated any anti-Roma agenda. I'm confident that we can make this page into something acceptable to everybody, and that means staying calm, keeping a neutral point of view, and using the written sources available. AlexG 00:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just TRY to find a website (NOT a Wikipedia mirror) that claims there really was a belief in Vampire watermelons.

Websites, due to their dynamic and date-free nature, are a much less reliable source for historical research than the Google Usenet archive. Will you settle for this message from the Google Usenet archive? While the post does not quite predate the World Wide Web, it clearly predates all incarnations of Wikipedia. This does not prove that the legend could not be a modern fabrication, but does conclusively show Wikipedia can be blamed at most for its perpetuation, not its fabrication.

Thanks to...

Thanks to User:Auric The Rad who first perpetrated this juvenile imposition. Thanks to the editors who voted to keep it, when Jwrosenzweig attempted to delete it. Thanks to irresponsible editors like ke4roh, who have succeeded in keeping some doubt alive in the minds of the naive. Thanks to the ongoing sententious claptrap of Eequor, who tried to make editors feel guilty at doubting Islamic Romanies who believed in Christmas, etc. In Wikipedia's transparency, everone's genuine nature shines forth. Wetman 21:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jan L. Perkowski

"It is present in some scholarly works dealing with vampires, most notably Jan Perkowski's 1976 book Vampires of the Slavs which introduced the idea to the mainstream of vampire-related writing." From what i can tell, the quote seems to have been inserted on September 16 (with the notice "let's be a bit more level-headed") by User:AlexG— an innocent error, to be sure... Could we have Perkowski's quote mentioning vampire watermelons, do you think? Wetman 08:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I inserted this because every vampire fruit account I am aware of cites Perkowski. While I haven't seen the book myself, other people claim they have. It's possible that Perkowski doesn't actually talk about vampire fruit, but I don't think it's that unlikely that he would. One of the web references below claims to quote Perkowski quoting Vukanovic, though it's not clear exactly what is being quoted. Obviously it would be better to get a real citation from Perkowski's work, but I do think the present state of affairs is preferable to saying that the idea originated with Pratchett. As you will see from the talk above, I originally held off from putting this in the article, but I'd rather have that there than an assertion which is definitely wrong.

Once the Vukanovic papers turn up from the British Library, I'll put in a quotation from him. If he doesn't mention vampire fruit, that will also be noteworthy. Sgeo asked above for web references: there are of course very few, because of the obscurity of the topic. Even though there are lots of vampire fans with websites, they hardly every mention this, presumably because of its obscurity and its incongruity with their ideas about what a vampire is. The references there are will mostly be found elsewhere on this talk page: [3] (same text at [4]), [5] (entry for Serbia), [6] (in Italian, see "Mulo"),[7], or [8] quoted at [9].

It's not hard to find reputable references to non-watermelon aspects of Perkowski's or Vukanovic's work. As far as I can see, it is not disputed that these works exist, only whether they mention vegetable vampires. Various websites claim that they do, as does the Bunson book. Do you have any reason for believing that this is not the case, other than that it sounds a bit unlikely? AlexG 13:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What websites? --Sgeo | Talk 16:05, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Did you look at the ones I linked in the second paragraph? Incidentally, there are very few websites dealing with Romany folklore at all. That's why I want to look at the written sources, rathe than relying on what's said online. AlexG 17:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as I cam tell, those sites are about vampires in general, not "Vampire watermelons." --Sgeo | Talk 01:32, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

How familiar in Slavic folklore do you imagine an African watermelon was before World War II? This ironic entry, introduced by User:Auric the Rad, is designed to demonstrate the gullibility of Wikipedians and to show how unreliable Wikipedia is as an information source. It has succeeded. Wetman 16:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that the story (as originally told, if it was told at all) concerned watermelons. Bunson seems to refer equally to melons and watermelons, also mentioning pumpkins - and so do the various websites. Pratchett talks about watermelons only; presumably the present title of this page was influenced by that. It's more likely that the "legend" is about some kind of gourd.

Alternatively, it could genuinely have originated around the WWII era - perhaps as a joke on Vukanovic, whose visits to Serbia came in 1933, 1940, 1947, and 1948. Or perhaps it was just a funny story they came up with when seeing blotchy red marks on old watermelons, at a time when the fruit was new to them. I don't know. In any case, the non-Wikipedia references to this idea suggest to me that if it is a hoax, it's older than Wikipedia.

(Another idea: perhaps the story we describe here was garbled or mistranslated at some stage. The Italian link above says that a mulo can lose its bone structure and take on a "vegetable aspect". It could be that Vukanovic was told this, but misunderstood and thought they meant vegetables could become vampiric.)

I do appreciate your scepticism, by the way. Maybe we should recast the article in a lit-crit kind of way, tracing the "legend" through the various citations. It would certainly be worthwhile pointing out the "African watermelon question" and the "Islamic Christmas question". While Wikipedia is not Snopes, I think this would be a useful direction to take. AlexG 17:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's more likely that the reference to Christmas is simply a convenient placeholder for some celebration of the winter solstice, which is close to Christmas and commonly recognized by non-Christians. Keep in mind that Europeans and particularly Americans have been more eager in the past to insert references to Christianity anywhere they please, regardless of appropriateness.

Watermelons appear to have been discovered by David Livingstone sometime in the early 19th century. It is quite possible that watermelons were well-known in Europe 100 years later. --[[User:Eequor|η υωρ]] 03:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Historicity and scientific skepticism represent the broadest international mainstream of modern culture. I've made my point here. Time to take the Watermelon off my grocery list. G'night folks. Wetman 17:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vampire Watermelon

When passing this article off as upsurd to my mother, she told me that her grandmother used to tell a similar tale. My mother thought grandma was just turning senial when she used to mention the vampirization of watermelons. Apparently, she also spouted off a few of Aesop's fables as well. Just thought I'd add my experience... doubt it sheds any light on the oddity of this article.

Memepool citation

This was added to the article but is better placed here:

Note: This entry was the topic of an article posted to memepool.com on Sunday, November 7, 2004 under the subject Culture.

I found the article in question herewhich is a non-static list. --Phil | Talk 13:43, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

A source link that doesn't appear to be a source

What's http://www.vampyreverse.com/facts/mythology.shtml doing in the "sources" section? It doesn't appear to be a source of information on vampire watermelons used in writing this article, rather it appears to be about this article. I would have simply deleted it but I notice that there's been a bit of a kerfuffle here on talk: so I figured I'd ask what others who've been participating in it think first. Bryan 05:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Definately not a source, and not even relevant to this article, removed. Would be a fine link addition to The Wikipedia Article about Vampire Watermelons, but that's an entirely different article. --fvw *

On the other hand, it is the only web link I'm aware of that casts doubt on the story (other than this talk page, User_talk:Heenan73, etc.) so I could see keeping it on that basis. On the third hand, the central assertions of that page are that the story was invented by Pratchett (demonstrably wrong) and that its inclusion here is based on some sort of anti-Roma racist vendetta (both offensive and wrong). User:Mako098765 has some interesting news on my talk page about the facts of the case, confirming the Vukanovic connection — so vampyreverse is looking increasingly irrelevant. AlexG 18:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not so much casting doubt, as going "Ha ha, look at those silly wikipedians". As long as they don't either give a worthwhile source or at least a coherent argument, I think the page is pretty much irrelevant to this article. Also, see a doctor about that hand thing. --fvw * 18:39, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

It isn't worth mentioning; as noted above, the site is run by Heenan73. --[[User:Eequor|η υωρ]] 20:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, Heenan's link stays gone. I've just integrated a long quotation from Vukanovic, based on mako's research: http://satori.freeshell.org/projects/vampire/watermelon.html. I have refrained from direct linking from the article, or uploading images here, because I'm unsure of the copyright situation. AlexG 21:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could Vukanović's reference to "KM" actually be to Kosovo & Metohija rather than Kosovska Mitrovica, to which it's linked? -- ChrisO 09:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right; KM. is an abbreviation for "Kosovo-Metohija". - mako 00:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since the whole point of Vampire Watermelon is to show how gullible we Wikipedians are, the link http://www.vampyreverse.com/facts/mythology.shtml seems quite essentially relevant to me. --Wetman 21:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Relevant to Wikipedia:Accuracy of Wikipedia perhaps, but definately not to this article, which isn't about wikipedia but about vampire watermelons. --fvw * 23:48, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

Title

Now I know I have just discovered this article today and lots of angst has already happened over it, but it seems to me that the title is a little inaccurate. It's about melons and pumpkins, not exclusively watermelons. The title "vampire watermelon" also sounds extra silly and probably adds to the ridicule surrounding the article. Why not Vampire vegetables, or Vampire fruit? (I know, those are silly too, but perhaps not quite as silly). I don't know enough to say if I think these sources are credible or not, but I do think the page should be moved to a more accurate title. Fishal 04:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If we want to be absolutely correct, this article should probably be merged with Vampire. It's part of a body of hard-to-stomach vampire beliefs that should go all together. (Coincidentally, someone just added a mention of the vampire agricultural tools, which are supported by my source, but the wording could be a bit less sensational.) For historical reasons, however, I believe the title should stand. - mako 11:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)