Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Addition of pictures by anon. IP

I would severely question whether the picture added yesterday by the anonymous user is appropriate or improves the article in any way. I personally want to kill it, but please make lucid arguments and votes below. I will not delete the image until at least one other person says it should go, and delete votes outnumber keep, and there is no more discussion. Falcon 18:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It appears that the image has already been removed. Nevertheless, this debate will continue until Aug. 2 in order to allow everyone else (gabrielsimon, anome et al.) to have their say, and if consensus is to keep we will reinsert the image. Falcon 05:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strike that. The debate should continue indefinately. There is a discussion about this at the end of the page. Falcon 14:36, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Falcon 18:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This woman is a cosplayer, with no evidence that she takes part in the activities mentioned in this article. Lovely picture, though. -- Karada 23:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now. The photo has long appeared within, and still appears within, Vampire; if this article (Vampire lifestyle) is worthwhile at all -- which I doubt, but which has been decided via an earlier VfD -- then any detail in the section "The Vampire Subculture" of Vampire belongs here rather than there. Yes, it looks like an excellent entry in a fancy dress contest. The young lady is amusing herself by pretending to be a vampire. Well, that makes her similar to many, ah, practitioners of the "vampire lifestyle"; though she's probably not goofy enough actually to believe the mumbo-jumbo. She's also probably not stupid enough to drink blood, but then neither are self-described "psionic vampires". The photo doesn't tell us whether she pretends to be, or thinks she is, a vampire other than when attending fancy dress parties: maybe, maybe not. Meanwhile, the photo is decorative. -- Hoary 03:10, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Keep - What Hoary said. DreamGuy 09:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Merge?

The Vampire article suggests that a section of it be merged into here. See Vampire#The_.22Vampire_subculture.22 This seems reasonable to me. In fact it seems like that bit might make a good intro to this article. What do you all think? See also Talk:Vampire. Friday 5 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)

Yes! Merge that section here! Falcon July 5, 2005 05:41 (UTC)

seems like a good idea. Gabrielsimon 05:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. +sj +

Neutrality

Simply adding "allegedly" throughout an article does not make it neutral. This article needs a full retuning from a perspective well outside that of the community itself. How much space to devote to each aspect of a subculture, and how much to devote to its influence on other aspects of culture, are primiarly issues of neutrality.

You might add

• Comparisons with other subcultures. Where did this one originate? What is its history?
• Specific examples of people citing vampirism as a key factor in some otherwise-noteworthy event (extracts from some of the news articles mentioned, books, biogrpahies of prominent people if any)

You might compress most of the current article to half its size. There are no references; most of the text is original subculture research; and much of it is uninteresting or unencyclopedic due to its extremely speculative nature. Any sentence starting with "Some self-styled vampires claim that" or "Some claim that" is a good candidate for removalr and replacement with what little can be said definitively.

+sj + 06:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• I hotly contest your accusation that there are no references. Me and others have added a very large number, and they appear as blue links near the topics they are referencing. Furthermore, because this article is entirely about people's claims (and what religious article isn't), removing these would effectively entail blanking the page. Furthermore, none of this page is original research. All of the information was read somewhere or another by one of the editors. Although the page is arguably slightly PoV, I do not think it warrants the PoV warning tag. Additionally, we have inlcuded data regarding influences on events, per the various murders perpetrated by these people. Really, I don't know where you are getting this, unless you are talking about a very old version of the page <checks for another stupid revert>. Falcon 03:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Here's another outsider opinion. This article read like original research to me as well. However, there are links. #1 looks like real news. #2 - 10 ALL look like links from vampire lifestyle websites and random people's homepages. These are probably dubious sources and should go away. #11-12 are legit-looking health sources. I'm not gunna go trying to make major changes, but I agree with sj above that major changes are needed. Friday 21:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • dont talk about subject you know nothing about friday. Gabrielsimon 22:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I've reformatted this for you, Gabrielsimon. (i) How do you know that Friday knows nothing about the subject? (ii) How would ignorance of a subject disqualify somebody from commenting intelligently and usefully on the authoritativeness of the sources used for a would-be explanation of that subject? (iii) You really ought to figure out how to format your comments; it's pretty easy (for most people, anyway). -- Hoary 01:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • (i) - the answer to that is his edit history and history ith mythological subjects, along with my eamination of the links in question, which are legitimate, makes me beleive he knows little or nothing about this subject...(ii)... it doesnt, but if someones completly uninformed, they arent likly to sayanything oir contribute anything helpfull, aside from a possible outside view...(iii)...sorry about thqat.

Gabrielsimon 01:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, I don't think you understand what I mean. Please once again read WP:V. I'm not saying the sources given are or are not accurate. I'm saying they don't have a reputation for accuracy. Anyone can have a website, and write whatever they want on it. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on better sources. Likewise, your own interviews or experiences with the "Vampire lifestyle" would also be a dubious source. We need to stick with facts that have been reported by reputable sources. Friday 15:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

there are reputable sourcces here. if you can not see that , then you shouldnt edit this article. Gabrielsimon 22:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There are reputable sources in the article, but they're things like BBC news that explain little about this culture. The sources that do actually talk about the lifestyle don't have the authority that a source like the BBC or a .edu site might have. Ideally, some sort of serious study by a non-partisan organization would be good, but there doesn't really seem to be any that I can find. A few BBC articles that cover minor details doesn't make the article any more authoritative. It doesn't matter if these geocities sites are true or not, they still aren't sources that have any real authority by most peoples' standards.--Mattrichers 23:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

The principle by which the research has been conducted on this page is thus: while the individual sources are not reliable, because no "reliable" source exists, it can be concluded that more or less personal websites detailing the beliefs can be combined to state that the belief exists. For these reasons, however, the page is of course unable to state whether these effects are in reality factual or otherwise; it is only possible to state that some believe this way. Falcon 05:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Factuality, POV, etc.

I came here looking for things to merge into Vampire as requested. The very first sentence left me cold. I think the problem might be not in POV, but in sheer factuality. The wording makes it even worse.

The vampire lifestyle (or "vampyre" lifestyle) is claimed by a subculture of people who believe that they are vampires and that this lifestyle is one to be celebrated.

1. How is a lifestyle "claimed"?
2. Are there really people who believe they are vampires? In which of the many senses of "vampire"? Do they adhere to and identify with the same "lifestyle" and the same meaning of "vampire", that we can treat them as a group?
3. In what sense is this a lifestyle? If you are a vampire, then it's a biological fact and not a lifestyle.
4. Aren't there people who just like to style themselves vampires, as if role-playing life, while not actually believing in vampires?
5. Aren't there any people who believe themselves vampires, and yet consider it a curse (i. e. not to be celebrated)?
6. How do we know all the above, besides private organizational or personal websites?

The intro of the relevant section in the Vampire article looks better.

The vampire websites are OK as curiosities, but no more. As much of the text in this article seems to be from those sources, I definitely see original research (BTW, "original research" doesn't mean things one figured out only — it includes any kind of theory or study not published in a reputable source).

--Pablo D. Flores 13:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Good questions, good points. I agree that Vampire#The_.22Vampire_subculture.22 is generally better than this article. Interesting that nobody's responded to these good questions yet. BTW, similiar issues exist in Otherkin, which seems to be a superset of Vampire lifestyle and a few similiar things. I put a note questioning verifiability on the talk page, one suggestion I had was a merge. If there's not an abundance of verifiable info, maybe there's still at least enough for one article, if not several. Friday 03:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Aha! Intelligent criticism! I shall respond.

• Claimed? What's this? It can't be. That word goes.
• Yes, there are these people, and yes, they do share at least some beliefs. This is proven by the immense list of sources and variety of citations.
• No, it is not a biological fact that we are concentrating on because our topic is what they believe and how they act according to it, and to a lesser extent their actual characteristics (mainly preception thereof)
• Yes. I believe we make mention of them here, or at least did at one point in time.
• Yes again, but we can't find a single reference.
• Well, personal experience with these people on the mart of myself and Gabrielsimon, I think.

As to original research, I feel that the large number of sources somewhat validates the claim that these people exist and believe thus (mainly). Thank you for your intelligent criticism. It is greatly appreciated. Falcon 08:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring

I'm just about to refactor the page, grouping and moving sections around, deleting redundant and nearly duplicate content and some of the over-verbosity of the article... Everybody, feel free to revert, but I think careful editing is better at this point. Comments appreciated. --Pablo D. Flores 19:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Looks like the picture of the girl in the vampire getup has been the cause of some contention here. I think this boils down to the fundamental question of how we define "vampire subculture". For those who take it "seriously", this girl doesn't count because she looks like a cosplayer. To those who favor a broader definition, she DOES count, because some people in the subsulture just like to play, while a narrower subset literally believe in actual vampires. To me, this article appears to be about both groups, so I don't see what the problem with the picture is. Thoughts? Friday 17:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The girl is indeed a cosplayer. "Girl cosplaying Carmila from Vampire Hunter D at BayCon 2003", says the image page. She may be a "serious" vampirist of some kind besides that, but it seems to me she's just a garden variety manganime freak having fun with her friends. That being the case, if I were a vampirist I would feel insulted by the picture; and in any case, it does not belong because it's a sort of caricature of the "real thing".

But please, let's discuss this. As in "talk about it before we revert". --Pablo D. Flores 01:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

From reading this article, it looks to me like some of the vampire lifestylers enjoy playing vampire, and some of them believe they are actually vampires. (Actually, now that I read again, the article appears to contradict itself on this point.) Assuming this article is meant to be about both types, where's the problem with the picture of a vampire lifestyler of the first variety? Another problem is, certainly there's no point having a picture of someone who believes they're a vampire, right? There's nothing about a belief that shows up on film. If there's going to be any point having a picture at all, it has to be of someone who somehow LOOKS like a vampire, right? Friday 15:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There was a discussion of it. It is available in the archive, number three I believe. In any case, the picture is hardly a specimen. Nobody walks around like that, except maybe at an anime convention or something similar. The practicioners of this item (for lack of a better, less controversial term) most certainly do not dress like that. The picture is of a cosplayer, not of a vampire, and looks nothing like those people described here, and therefore should be removed. Falcon 14:16, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

If the majority at the top of the discussion still feel that the picture should be removed by the end of next week, I shall remove the picture. Any objections to this should be voiced with a vote. Falcon 06:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Just make a new page

Clearly this page is covering two or more completely different topics. I suggest simply creating a new page which would be linked to "Modern real vampirism" and/or "Sanguinarian". This will allow putting the information on folks who believe themselves to be vampiric on a seperate page from folks who love to dress up like vampires and play games as a major part of their life. In reality, while there is some overlap between the two cultures, they are NOT the same, and there's also a lot of areas where they don't overlap at all. (Folks who believe themselves to be vampiric usually dont dress the part at all, for example).

It may also reduce some of the hostility...this page is a seething arena of conflict between people who believe sangs are mentally ill, and sangs who are trying to improve their public image, lol. A much more objective outlook is clearly needed on this subject...more objective on both sides of the fence. I think seperating it from the Lifestyle article will both reduce the page length to a more reasonable size (which is important), and will help defuse at least part of that argument. Winged_Wolf 08:16 PM, August 13, 2005

I agree that there should be a division between people who believe they're vampires, and people who imitate vampire fiction. Better to have two short pages than one page where you have to be constantly clarifying which group you're talking about...

Then the names. What's the difference between "lifestyle" and "subculture"? I think "subculture" would be better than "lifestyle" for the vampires, and then there should be a simple name for the hobby of the vampire fiction imitators. --Pablo D. Flores 01:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, folks who believe they're vampiric aren't living any sort of particular lifestyle. I do think lifestyle describes the folks who constantly dress as fictional vampires, though. It's also in pretty common useage.Winged_Wolf 08:05 PM, August 14, 2005

I agree, this should be done. However, I am concerned that some person might choose to try and get the other page deleted using the excuse that it is under a new name. Falcon 14:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

In current use by several communities and subcultures, the term "vampire" can have several meanings, which vary greatly. This article currently does not make a distinction between four major types of people who either adopt the label "vampire," or have had it applied to them:

1. Lifestylers. Yes, they dress up as vampires. No, they do not believe they are vampires.

2. Criminals who get called "vampires." These people are a subset of criminals, not a subset of vampires. The distinction is rarely made, even though criminals who get called "vampires" by the media have never participated in Lifestyler goth club nights or whatnot, and do not behave in comparable ways with Real Vampires. Discussion of criminality has no business in an article on the vampire subcultre. I realize that it's an easy mistake to make, since nearly every scholarly work so far has gleefully blurred the lines between the members of the subculture and these criminals, who are really members of cultures-of-one. It makes good copy if you're reading a true crime novel, but we're here to clear up confusion, not perpetuate it.

3. People diagnosed with mental illnesses. So far, I have not come across any published papers in psychology or psychiatry that have acknowledged the belief that one is an Otherkin with any sort of mental illness. Clinical vampirism has been a diagnosis for a while, but the symptoms do not describe Real Vampires or Lifestylers. The references to personality disorders with no citations are the result of bias, not science. Many outside the community "feel" like being in the subcultre is the result of a mental illness? That's not a supportable statement.

4. Real Vampires Yes, they say they believe they are vampires. No, they don't believe they are the vampires of legend. It's a metaphor. The fact is, they believe they are a minority subset of the wide variety of human variation that we don't have a name for yet. So they use a metaphor. These are the only people to whom the "sanguinarian" vs. "psionic" or "psychic" distinction applies. There are no "psionic lifestylers."

There are people out there, we just have to categorize them properly.

Ok. Find a reputable source that agrees, and we're onto something. Otherwise, it's just original research and not suitable for inclusion. Friday (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

PS. You may be interested in Clinical lycanthropy, which is about a subset of this phenomenon from a medical perspective. I'd love to have some help organizing these articles and clearing out the original research and replacing it with supportable facts from reputable sources. If you want to get involved, I highly encourage you to sign up for an account, it'll make things easier. Friday (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Some problems with accuracy and sourcing:

There's a section of this article which reads: "A number of vampirists believe themselves to be the vampires of legend, or some other supernatural entity (for example, a "lost race" of Homo sapiens); see otherkin for further discussion of this type of phenomenon. Self-styled vampires of this sort will often claim that their own personal physical or psychological characteristics, such as pale skin, sensitive night vision, quick reflexes, emotional irritability and instability, and any number of self-professed psychic abilities are direct results of vampirism rather than independent or imagined traits. Many outside this group see this as a result of a mental illness such as disassociative identity disorder, schizophrenia, or antisocial personality disorder."

First, all of this is unsourced opinion; especially that final sentence which uses weasel words to make an unsourced psychological claim about those who hold the beliefs. Second, otherkin vampires do not usually believe themselves to be "the vampires of legend"... which legends, anyway, Brahm Stokers or the older ones where vampires were decaying revenents? Where is that claim even coming from, anyway? Unless it has a pretty solid source, it doesn't belong there. Much less followed up by a statement that most practitioners of vampirism do not believe themselves to be undead, making it sound like the otherkin ones do...

Also, is the statement "Many outside this group see this as a result of a mental illness such as disassociative identity disorder, schizophrenia, or antisocial personality disorder." sourced, or just assumed? (I ask because similar issues have come up on Talk:Otherkin, in which this article is mentioned.) ~~ N (t/c) 16:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Unverified information

I would like to protest the tag on this page regarding unverified information.

It has been verified and cited numerous times throughout the article that many of these people believe that these characteristics listed in the applicable section are bestowed on them. Therefore, the information (being about a belief, not stating that these are in fact actual characteristics) is verified and demonstrably true.

I will leave it to someone else to remove the tag, however, as I have none of the time, patience or energy required for the flame war which will surely ensue thereafter. Falcon 04:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a shot at this. Editors are not asking for it to be verified that psionic vamps are actually "really" psi, or vamps... rather, they're asking for outside sources that there is such a reasonable *claim* being made by them, and that this article isn't merely a wikipedia editors opinion, original research, or a complete fabrication. For example (from the above Talk section), You could write and source as follows:

"A number of vampirists believe themselves to be the vampires of legend (source1, source2), or some other supernatural entity (for example, a "lost race" of Homo sapiens) (source 3); see otherkin for further discussion of this type of phenomenon. Self-styled vampires of this sort will often claim that their own personal physical or psychological characteristics, such as pale skin, sensitive night vision, quick reflexes(source 1, source 6, source 2), emotional irritability and instability (source 8), and any number of self-professed psychic abilities are direct results of vampirism rather than independent or imagined traits. Many outside this group see this as a result of a mental illness such as disassociative identity disorder, schizophrenia, or antisocial personality disorder. (source 9)"

If you take a look at the Otherkin page, and it's rather long (and quite similar) debates on the talk page, you can see how the requests for verifyable outside sources gradually built up quite a strong list of sources (so strong, that now people are complaining that the Otherkin article has too many references). But at least they aren't complaining that the article is unsourced anymore. :-) Ronabop 06:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I must point out, of course, that we were already there before as seen in this snapshot. Why all the sources were removed, I cannot say, but they were, thus my frustration with the situation here. My point is, there is absolutely no case for some person to remove all the sources and then for someone else to come back complaining that they aren't there. Perhaps when I get home later today I'll go and scout for some different ones.

To further, from the talk archives, it was the case that editors were demanding their claims be proven as facts, but if that is no longer the case I am quite content to assume nobody is demanding this anymore. I believe, however, that there is some debate as to what constitutes a verifiable source. I must point out, however, that many of the Otherkin sources came from a single area of the internet (writings published on otherkin.net). The vampire community is observably much more tight-lipped and much less seemingly open to the publication of writings from various members of the community. Thus, many of thge cites are probably going to come from a relatively small number of sources. However, the thing I am asking is that (as in Otherkin) cites from sites which are published by members of the community (regardless of how much they paid for hosting) are accepted as cites. Falcon 10:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC) (from anonymous IP; this computer does not support login)

"Regardless of how much they paid for hosting" Well, if they can't be bothered to get a real site then they obviously aren;t very serious about what they say, furhtermore, free websites just set the bar extremely low to broke teenagers and obvious hoaxers and so therefore are obviously a whole lot less reliable.

"The vampire community is observably much more tight-lipped " Do you have a reputable, verifiable source for that? LOL. You just want to say whatever you want to say and have it go in the article, that's not how things work. DreamGuy 23:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there are still those who don't consider forum postings and personal websites to be reliable sources, no matter how many of them you have. Friday (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Those who don't consider = Wikipedia policy, by the way. DreamGuy 23:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but are you sure you want to go around saying that?? Gosh, if people find out it's policy, they might start following it, and then where would we be?? :) Friday (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I will concur that forum posts are not in fact good evidence to support most things. However, if you are only claiming that people say this, why is a link to them saying it not a reliable source? Furthermore, I was not aware of any wikipedia policy prohibiting the use of sources which make use of free hosting. The policy prohibits use of unreliable sources, which (again) is not the case where you are only supporting that someone (or a large group of people) is/are saying something. Falcon 17:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)