Talk:Zombie (folklore)/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Self-help

There needs to be a "self-help" page on how best to survive a zombie apocalypse. --

I made some minor edits to other sections in regard to information being repeated over and over again, but mostly focused on "Zombies in film." I put a little bit about the situation today, and tried to clarify when directors "invented" different parts of today's popular zombie mythology. I also got rid of a lot of the information about Resident Evil, as I thought it was more suited for the Resident Evil article and not for the zombie page. While Resident Evil is, I suppose, responsible for introducing today's teenagers to zombies, I really don't think it's an important enough movie to the zombie subgenre to justify multiple paragraphs, details about its soundtrack, and a bulleted list of plot points. Inanechild 9 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)

Can anyone cite or give more info about the legal section? I have searched the New Orleans Municipal Code for "somnambulism", "zombi" and "zombie" and found nothing. Is this real, or an urban legend? --Jkonrath 19:53, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The content *is* copyrighted, works of fiction *can* be copyrighted, and for the credulous and gullible, "The Zombie Survival Guide" is a HUMOR book! Ever heard of straight delivery? At the very least you should have done a book review search, would have found that out quickly. Geez.

Paraphrasing content does not constitute copyright violation. Pacian 15:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the "Zombies in Science" section the the "Zombies in Fiction" section, as this is more a appropriate place for it. The "Zombie Survival Guide" is not a valid scientific document, and its claims have never been tested. Indeed, most of the claims paraphrased here stretch the limits of credulity to the breaking point. Don't get me wrong, it is a well thought out piece and the writer who did the original paraphrasing did a good job, but it is not science. It is science-fiction. Brian Schlosser42

I do not understand why someone keeps coming in and deleting the section of this article entitled "Zombies in Science." It seems very well researched and there seems to be no justification for it's deletion. If someone chooses to delete this section for a THIRD time, would you please have the courtesy to the original writer, who obviously worked very hard, to JUSTIFY or EXPLAIN your deletion here on the "talk" page? 204.251.1.189 20:47, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In Chinese legends, corpses are transported over long distance to their home town for burial under the command of a wizard who can control the zombies to hop on their own feet. If a person were touched by a hopping zombie, he dies instantly. Imagine a column of zombies hopping along in the middle of the night. What a scary sight! No one I know have seen such mode of transportation except in movies. However, my mother remembered there were such zombies passed by her village once in her childhood. Of course, she was too scared to go out to check what happened. Some people speculate that those zombies were just smugglers in disguise who wanted to scare off the law enforcement officers.

The above moved here until it has been shaped up a bit. Besides, does this not truly belong under the chinese title for the "hopping undead"? :-) --Anders Törlind

There are also zombie processes in Unix. -- Error

Why was everything that I typed removed completely? It was taken directly (though paraphrased and re-written, not copied directly) from "The Zombie Survival Guide", which is a thoroughly researched work on the mythology of zombies. I worked very hard on writing that it and there is no reason why it should have been removed. Certainally you can't claim it was removed due to lack of factuality since the majority material on "zombies" is widely considered to be fictional ANYWAY. 68.222.10.9 23:36, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Zombie Squad !!!

Does a zombie really engage in cannibalism? Zombies in fiction will eat humans but not other zombies. It seems to me that if a zombie ate a zombie or a human ate a human, both would be cannibalism. But since a zombie is no longer human, a zombie eating a human or a human eating a zombie would not be cannibalism. This argument was pointed out in Dawn of the Dead (1978).--Burzum 4 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

That's a pretty good point. I think there are some aspects to the use of "cannibalism" in describing zombie behavior that I could expand on. Since zombies are still human in form, when a zombie attacks and begins eating a human, there really isn't a word to describe the living/dead difference. For example, in nature, when a lioness takes down a gazelle and begins eating it, its actions are described as "hunting" and then perhaps "feeding". But what if a zombified lion (if such a thing were possible!) attacked a normal lion? A lion started eating another lion, even if the one lion is now undead. I think it's the same with zombies and humans - though zombies aren't human in personality anymore, they still are (more or less) in physical form. So you're absolutely right that really only a zombie eating a zombie would be truly cannibalism, for lack of a better descriptor, zombies eating humans could be called cannibalism, since zombies and humans are technically the same species.

On a further zombie-note, if zombies are so interested in consuming the living, how is it that so many living humans get turned into zombies? I suppose at the start of an outbreak, the incidence of those being bitten but escaping is much higher, so there's a turning point where the infected start outnumbering the un-infected, but still - a full-sized, ravenous zombie could probably rip enough flesh off of a struggling victim to render them immobile (living or dead). I mean, a zombie missing half of its leg muscles is going to have a tough time chasing down anyone. Any thoughts? -- thesmokingmonkey 06JUL05

JEAN ZOMBIE

i just found another wikepedia article concerning an actual former slave named jean zombi from the Haitian revolution.It says this maybe the actual origin of the zombie since the person in question would have french colonialist walk and then evicerate them while thay were walking,hence the walking dead,sounds pretty gruesome but its interesting check out the article concerning Haitian history or santo domingo slave revolt.It seems that the myth of zombie is the ideal of people who revert to sadistic and violent actions as a result of violent society,it stems from a fear of returning to slavery after the revolt and and that fear motivating the violence.

Picture?

I suggest we change the zombie picture. No offence to the artist, but it really looks nothing like a zombie.

I agree. With the hundreds of zombie movies we could screencap as fair use, there's no reason to have such a crappy picture for this article. And I have no problems with offending the so-called "artist"---just because some lame kid with a pencil, a scanner, and a copy of "Gradients For Dummies" can contribute to Wikipedia is no reason to support the practice. Normally I'd suggest that we clean up the sub-par text first but a message needs to be sent to any other tortured 15-year-old goths with notions of uploading their homework scribbles. For a laugh, check out the image history and note how the submitter tried to legitimize the image by listing it as "used with permission"---then check out the submitter's user page to verify that yes, he is the "artist". Let's trash the crap sketch while getting a screencap from a "Shaun of the Dead" press kit or a similar source. 138.88.100.140 00:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: check out the history for Image:Zombie.jpg. See, there was a decent image, but the tortured 15-year-old goth (identified as user "Thesmokingmonkey") killed it b/c of copyvio. Someone with fairuse experience should tell us if publicity photos are safe. 138.88.100.140 00:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. Picture changed to a movie zombie. Thiste 10:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Should some info about Zombies in board games be given?

Zombies in REAL LIFE

Crickets can get infected by a parasite that kills them and then takes control of their minds and bodies to take the corpse to water and be able to reproduce!

ZOMBIES!: A possibility?

According to the article, the parasite does not kill the cricket, but manipulates it to dive into water, whereupon the parasite leaves the body of the drowning cricket in order to continue its own reproductive cycle. The cricket is still alive while being manipulated by the parasite and hence, technically, isn't a zombie. --143.127.3.10 20:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like what happens to rats (and possibly humans!) infected with Toxoplasmosis.--Wasabe3543 07:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Both the cricket and human toxoplasmosis examples are cases of "parasite mediated host behaviour", but the toxoplasma literature (principally Flegr et al.'s work) shows a subtle effect on personality for latent toxoplasmosis infection. There is some suggestion that (childhood?) toxoplasma infections contribute to schizoprenia risk. I woudn't say that the Human cases really reach the scale of what is implied by "Zombie". Pete.Hurd 03:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

More on the topic see Moore J. (2002) Parasites and the behavior of animals" . Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-514653-0 Pete.Hurd 21:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed a link

Zombie Dogs - Scientists reanimate dogs in America.

The story is no longer available. --Arny 11:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Other uses of the word

Figuratively, a zombie is a very apathetic person, who may have little awareness of their surroundings, or may be easily manipulated by others. "Zombie" may also be used as a more critical alternative to "couch potato" to describe someone in the thrall of television. In fact seemingly healthy, well-adjusted individuals are zombies in the sense that they accept uncritically the tenets of consumer culture and behave unconsciously in the service of that culture.

-- removed the above as it belongs somewhere else - either on wiktionary, or the disambiguation page, or its own article. Niz 21:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Not so -- the "couch potato" use is derived from this use. It is a cultural consequence thereof. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 22:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Combat Guide Link

Why do people keep removing the link to the combat guide? It is a working, legitimate website with media relating directly to zombies. I consider the site as one of the best zombie sites on the web.

Wikipedia:Talk page highlights

A quote from this page has been added to Wikipedia's humor category. Durova 17:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Article is messed up

I don;t have time to sort this all out, but somebody put that ugly nonencyclopedic fan art drawing back up at the top and put the plan 9 zombie down lower, so the section reads:

Zombies in fiction

games]].

Which clearly means something got majorly cut off there.

Also, the Internet section is completely pointless and just a way to get things that don;t qualify for external links into the article itself, so I am removing it. DreamGuy 03:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

yes somthing got cut off (half a sentence). i restored it. agree internet section is 10-y-o schoolboys cruft and was correctly removed. BUT regarding image: the discussion above is NOT about the "zombie in sugarcane" picture, it was about some 10-y-o's "artists impression" that was there previously (which was removed). the sugarcane one is a PD image taken from wikimedia, and its perfectly fine, and useful, depicting a voodoo zombie rather than a fictional one. cheers. Zzzzz 09:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, the one there now looks like some 10 year old's impression. The image is rather poor art just made by somebody and not actually related to the voodoo zombie tradition other than being a rather poor artistic interpretation. Wikipedia articles are not for amateur art. Real images from movies or actual references are needed. I am removing it again. DreamGuy 06:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

-The internet section was muddled, so away it goes. But, those external links have a place on this page, and deleting over and over is doing no one any good. Give up and move on to more emotionally satisfying endeavors.

Says the spammer who keeps linking to his own site. DreamGuy 06:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

-Obviously a harsh cruel existence has hardened to the world, Dreamguy. You are so used to darkness and despair that you fail to apreciate the spiritual enrichment some extra external links would add to this site. I ask you, not as a random stranger and zombie advocate but as a friend, please, open up your heart. Let go of the hate, Dreamguy, let it all go.

Vodou vs voodoodoo

I suggest that the article be edited to indicate that Vodou is the appropriate term for the Haitian religion, whereas Voodoo is seen as politically incorrect given the ways Haitian religion has been portrayed in Western media over the years. Voodoo is now used to refer only to the media-constructed version of Haitian religion. Vodou refers to the real religion.Wikigonish (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Then again, this article is in English not French and Voodoo is the correct anglicised spelling!

- actually i think vodou refers to the religion as it is in Haiti and voodoo refers to its Louisiana cousin. just what i understood by reading up on it. Kay.ringsby (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

About the living dead

The Zombies are alot like us in a new whole way. Like an evolution, but here's are the ways zombies are dead people being controlled by Living virus. These are about the zombies, I'm not yet done so this is on the watchlist. --KNLR (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The zombie is controlled by a virus in their mutated form (although not proven) causing the virus to take control of its host. Their are a couple viruses that can be zombie viruses because they have simular symptoms that can causes zombification: Rabies and Ebola-Zarie Viruses. They are deadly viruses that if mutated...well who knows?

The virus mutates the brain into a completely new brain more adapted than any other Animalia brain. The virus makes the brain more "Independent from vital needs like food, water, oxygen, and organs. The virus shuts down almost every organ below the neck including the heart, the lungs however continue to function but does not obtain Oxygen. This can cause the blood to turn black and the skin to turn pale. The virus acts like an Immune System against diseases like bacteria and other viruses. The virus somehow thrive on other microbes and maybe, thats how the virus dosen't need food to keep the host alive. The virus creates hypersences by improving Sight, Hearing, Smell, and Taste. A human have 5 senses, the zombie has 4. The virus during mutation of the brain slows down the nerve signals causing the pain receptors to shut down which is the greatest advantage over an uninfected individual. The loss of coordination causes Rigor Mortis, which is one reason why the zombie is slow. The other is it that because its a corpse which corpses rot, the virus prevents Decomposition but not tissue stiffness.

The zombies have unlimited strength because they don't feel pain and have loss of coordination, which they can break through almost everything. The zombies improved senses helps them find their prey. If the wind is right, they can smell a living being more than a mile away. The hearing range of the zombie is little changed, somehow the zombie can pick out where the sound came from. The eyes of the zombie is more improved than a wolf, they have HD vision and specialized Night Vision. Even their is not a little bit of light they can still see clearly being little or not affected to the non-presence of light. The zombies has a taste of fresh meat which they prefer it alive, they don't need food but they have an unusually high appetite which cannot be satisfied.

The zombies reproduce by infecting other people with the virus that created them by bodily fluids. It is mostly transferred by bites, which means anyone get bitten is going to come back as one of them. The virus can travel by water and can infect the water supply. The virus however is not airborne, and their is no risk by burning or burying an infected individual.

Overtime zombies can evolve since mutating is what viruses are all about. The evolving zombie would loses tissue stiffness and could walk or run like a living person, the zombie would learn how to use weapons and rarely guns, the zombie would regain memories of their former lives which they regain the ability of speech and also the ability to think. No matter how they will be harder to combat after years to come.

Okay the fact that the virus evolves does not mean it would affect anything about the person, other than being able to infect animals without killing them, or perhaps speeding up the process. Many things are clearly just unfounded, (i know that sounds ridiculous to say about something that does not exist, but regardless). There would be no reason they would have unlimited strength, yes unlimited endurance and absence of pain would make them be able to stretch their muscles, but they do not have adrenaline. Their relentless pounding or pulling would eventually crumble anything. To say they don't have a sense of touch is very shortsighted. That would be like saying a zombie with its eyes and ears cut off/out, wouldn't ever know when to bite or grab. Their sight should not improve, not only due to the fact their human counterpart has no enhanced vision, but also due to the fact they more than likely wouldn't blink causing plenty of gunk to get into their eyes. The virus I doubt would be able to travel through a water supply simply due to the fact that a virus would have to have high survivability to due so. Most viruses do not, and the fact it doesn't have its host makes it far less believable. Simply put, as a virus simply controls the most basic motor functions of the brain, I find it highly implausible it would ever be such a complex virus as to reactivate centers of the most complex organ/computer/device/...thing on the planet. The brain should not be underestimated. Finally, the ability to feel pain is actually an advantage to humanity not a disadvantage. Let's not forget pain is what lets us know something is wrong, to feel that pain means we can fix something, the Zombie with a broken leg, it's broken forever rendering it incapable of walking again. An adrenaline filled human can easilly outpower a zombie. I personally love zombies because they raise the most evidence for being a menace to the world. Vampires and werewolves have recently been upgraded in cinema and literature, where humans are often shown to be feeble, to the which a point I ask "Why aren't they the dominant species on the planet then?" Zombies are the anti-human. It is why they are scary, they walk, they don't think, they moan, and their restless. Let's not upgrade zombies to be able to be more human than they already are, it actually serves the purpose of making them less scary, and less believable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.128.41 (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is original research and can't be put on the article. Also there are various ways zombies are created throughout the genre (Romero's Dead series doesn't involve diseases), so focusing just on disease doesn't make sense. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it sounds (reads?) like it's taken from The Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks mixed with Land of the Dead (Via Day of the Dead)! Doktor Wilhelm 23:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think those from small isles should be heeded. They are afterall from small isles, whose populations have exposure to so much, they gave us the lore of the werewolf on the moor also amongst many others. "Others[who?] have discussed the contribution of the victim's own belief system, possibly leading to compliance with the attacker's will, causing psychogenic ("quasi-hysterical") amnesia, catatonia, or other psychological disorders, which are later misinterpreted as a return from the dead. Scottish psychiatrist R. D. Laing further highlighted the link between social and cultural expectations and compulsion, in the context of schizophrenia and other mental illness, suggesting that schizogenesis may account for some of the psychological aspects of zombification." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.194.24 (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankenstein's monster

Is Frankenstein's monster a zombie? 67.160.174.24 (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please begin new sections at the bottom of the Talk Page, under a new heading. If you're responding to a discussion already in progress, please place your post at the bottom of that section, not the top.

As for Frankenstein's monster, no, because it's never been mentioned as one. It was a being created from corpses and brought to life with lightning, which is not how zombies are created. Nightscream (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

no it is not he is created from many people not just one any so there is no virses involved. ad so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.135.123 (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankensteins monster had body replacement parts, wow that sounds so familiar to present so called medical field. Doesn't that sound familiar? 75.168.194.24 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Old topic yes, but theres so amny definitions of zombies.... The Original zombis were people under the spell of a magician.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Frankenstein's monster a zombie? Yes and No. It all dependson how you look at it. Under one light he his definately a zombie. Sure he is made from the pieces of many people but he is a RE-ANIMATED being!!! Under another light if you look at where and how the term zombie originally came about you'll see that it wasn't really a dead personcoming back to life but a poisoned person acting out of character. Brandy Jenkins 12:36p.m., 12 October 2009

Mary Shelly's monster was intelligent. Regardless of being reanimated, he had a will of his own. That would disqualify him as a "zombie" if he's in Hollywood or Haiti. I'm not sure about Europe, though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.243.145 (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture for zombies in modern culture?

Does anyone think we should change this with something from Night of the Living Dead, being that A.) It's considered to the definitive and most iconic zombie film, and B.) It's in the public domain?--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

To replace the image in the Popular culture section, yes. But the main one up top should remain, since the pop culture version of the zombie is not the primary focus on the article, but rather, the version that originates in religion. Nightscream (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy to make a movie with

It probably ought to be pointed out in the article that Zombies are a rather popular movie monster probably for the simple fact that they are inexpensive to make. A bit of makeup on a group of people with ripped clothing is all you need - which is far less than designing and building a monster suit, or paying a lot of money on a CGI monster.--Pittsburghmuggle (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this should go into the Zombies in popular culture, if you have a verifiable source. Travisl (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburghmuggle!! you have a minor misunderstanding of this topic! Sure te make up and wardoe are simple to create but when you look at how many people actually fear zombies you'd understand why they really make so many zombies movies as you should know fear sells. and what better way to scre people than to show them a monster that many be easy to kill but they have no idea where it came from, why or it it'll come back. It's truly a ligit fear and thats the main reason they take pride in making so many zombies movies whether people see the ides played out or not. personally i love it!!! :) 12:47pm 12 October 2009 [[Brandy Jenkins] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.245.123 (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Zombie article

Stumbled upon this article, hopefully someone may find it of use:

Scientists Share Insights on Zombies

Regards, PC78 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientists also must have authorized the mass market introduction of acetone then also? hmmmm.... along with the chemical inundations via food stuffs you purchase.Do you think their buddy Parkinson of Prestige of Cutex is one of their scientists? or just some disease name coincidence?.....75.168.194.24 (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Worlds largest walk

There's some disagreement between Zombie#Social activism and Zombie walk#History. ~900 in PA in 2006, ~1100 in Toronto in 2007. Was there a larger one yet? Should probably be reworked to avoid being rendered incorrect again soon, but I lack the sobriety and initiative to fix it. BigNate37_(T) 17:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The official record was broken with 1227 zombies in Nottingham, UK, on the 31 October 2008 as I have added to the page. Funny how it was on Halloween, ask if you have any questions (I was there)! Olliffe Φ Obscurity 15:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

contemporaneous depictions in film

This article lists "I Am Legend" as a film which depicts fast zombies. The creatures in "I Am Legend" are vampires, not zombies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.91.178 (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} The last paragraph of the 'Popular culture' section of this article contains a mistake. In the film I Am Legend the creatures that cause or are a result of the apocalypse were vampires (strange vampires yes, but vampires none the less). A better film to use in its place would be the remake of Dawn of the Dead done in 2004 by Zack Snyder.

Done. Clark89 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

However, the book that I Am Legend is based on has been largely credited in cross breeding the concepts of an undead zombie with the idea of infection that vampires exhibit through biting, making the modern concept of what popular culture now commonly refers to as a "zombie".--Waxsin (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Small language variance

Regarding the possible etymology of the word zombie, the Kongo word 'nzambi' is said to mean both 'spirit of a dead person' and 'god', at 2 different points in this article. Is it similar to the Japanese word 'kami' which has several different interpretations, or is one of these merely an error?

Edited a few minutes later: It seems Nzambi was the name for the Kongo's (mostly) monotheistic deity, so I'm not sure how it would've come to mean zombie, although one of the things I read indicated him having a fairly direct role in the afterlife. None of the sources I read were reliable or complete enough to really cite though. So, anyone with a book all about Kongo religion - jump right in. 24.60.202.209 (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.202.209 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It could also be a variation of the environment, interestingly enough the reports indicated "chemical" lakes in those regions in africa. They look like water, but they are not water and they kill with a mist or fog. I guess that would depend on how much you know about the region. 75.168.194.24 (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Epic of Gilgamesh

Should this really be included? The quoted version just talks about releasing the dead upon the living. No indication of corpeal/ephermeral, ghost, corpse, mindless, concious, anything. It's like referring to any of the warriors up in Valhalla coming into Midgard as zombies. 75.95.230.25 (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's utter nonsense. There's no indication in the text that they should be considered to be like zombies at all instead of ghosts or other forms of what we now think of as undead. Calling them zombies is not supported by the evidence and just original research -- and bad original research at that. I've removed it. DreamGuy (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

28 days and no Zombies

I belive that it is worth mentioning that despite apperances the "Infected" in 28 days later and 28 weeks later are not zombies. They are simply human beings infrcted with a virus. Since they lack death, or rather still possess life they are not Zombies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pontifactus (talk • contribs) 10:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So Left 4 Dead, Resident Evil(game series and Movie Trilogy), and the Dead Series do not actually have zombies in them, according to you.

-In L4D, all the zombies are people who have been infected with mutated rabies; there is no indication that any of the zombies ever actually died.

-In Resident Evil(movie trilogy), the initial zombies are reanimated corpses. However, these zombies spread the disease to living hosts. It is assumable that if a living host died after being infected, they could reanimate.

-In the Dead series, zombies are always reanimated corpses. A person must first die before 'turning'. However, they are reanimated by a virus, not by blowfish powder.

Sir, 200X is long past the times in which people think zombies are nothing other than people who have been brought back to life via vodou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.162.21.24 (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

His point (the one you dodged completely and never actually disputed) is that a zombie is a reanimated corpse. He never stated anything about voodoo, which is probably why I am wondering why you even threw that in there. It doesn't matter if you are already dead, or you die from the virus, you can't be a zombie without ever being dead. The virus in 28 Days causes rage in their victims and never actually kills them. That means they are not zombies. To be a zombie you need A) A corpse and B) reanimation of said corpse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Real Stucco (talk • contribs) 08:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the support in that. I did indeed not refer to blowfish powder once. I will amend the main page next time im hear if there are no real disputes to my statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pontifactus (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There are only a few real zombie movies! look at the actuak voodoo stories for haiti they dont say that the person was dead just that they APPEARED dead!! (Tru the 28... Later craptastic movies arent zombies movies and never will be unless you go back in time and change the meaning of zombies, and while youre back there stop by and tell them that this movie is a TERRIBLE idea and a sequel is not okay either. Resident Evil is and was meant to be part of the zombie class! anyways back on subject)To the Real Stucco you can become a zombie without being dead. Sure zombies defy the laws of reality but remember when people said you had to be gay to have aids? same thing with zombies some people are scared of em, don't want anyhting to do with them and if they could they would send em to an island and blow em up, while some people could care less! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.245.123 (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nzambi translation

The second paragraph says nzambi, the Kongo word meaning "spirit of a dead person," but the third paragraph says the Kongo word nzambi, which means "god". "Spirit of a dead person" is correct, but I can't edit this page to fix it. ZombieGrrrl —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieGrrrl (talk • contribs) 06:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "Zombie"

There is no such thing as a purist term for "zombie". In fact the whole idea of a zombie being a reanimated corpse can largely be attributed to Western culture's perception of Voodoo practices, when in reality "zombies" in Voodoo were individuals drugged so that they were either in a state of physical suspended animation or in a mental state where they appeared to lack any free will. Neither in reality has a reanimated "zombie" corpse ever existed nor in mainstream culture has the word been used to strictly refer to a reanimated corpse, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/zombie. The research done here on how the term "zombie" emerged from the practice of Voodoo is also woefully inadequate in citing just one sensationalist source.--Waxsin (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

After no opposition, I've changed the definition at the beginning of the article and included a few more sources.--Waxsin (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I object! Firstly, the "reality" you cite is in dispute. (Actually this article should probably mention that.) Second, I think the definition you cite is meant to refer (slangilly) to a person who's out of it, i.e., "geez Brian, you're a regular zombie together. Have another five cups of coffee." Note that the definition you cite also includes the drink zombie, which is clearly not the kind of zombie we're talking about here. I contend that the out-of-it person is also not applicable.--Malvolio80 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, the automaton definition is historically accurate. Just because some kids these days never heard of it doesn't mean it's not real. DreamGuy (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How is the automaton definition "historically accurate"? I've already pointed out the Wade Davis controversy section...it seems unlikely that there was ever such a thing as a real-life "zombie." I still contend that the alternate definition does not apply to what we're talking about on this page. --Malvolio80 (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The fascinating thing is the evolution of a definition from old folkloric to new current, and this sort of thing should be comprehensive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

On further reflection, I'm even more sure that the definition of "zombie" provided by Waxsin is way off. Here it was again: "A zombie is a person who behaves like human automaton (usually after being resurrected and stripped of their soul), most commonly seen in fiction as a reanimated human corpse."
versus the one I prefer, the older version:
"A zombie is a reanimated human corpse."
But that's a huge difference, bigger than I think Waxsin or DreamGuy realize. Not only does the newer definition demote the importance of "reanimated corpse," but it creates a whole new criteria, that a zombie now has to - above all other things - behave like a human automaton.
But if that's our definition, how do you classify the creatures in the Return of the Living Dead series - reanimated corpses who, though single-minded in their hunger for brains, are able to speak and even have conversations? Going by Waxsin's definition, those living dead don't count as zombies.
I think the problem with Waxsin's definition is that he extrapolates it from the one he links to:
1. A snake god of voodoo cults in West Africa, Haiti, and the southern United States.
2.
a. A supernatural power or spell that according to voodoo belief can enter into and reanimate a corpse.
b. A corpse revived in this way.
3. One who looks or behaves like an automaton.
4. A tall mixed drink made of various rums, liqueur, and fruit juice.
But, definition #3 was never meant to be combined with #2b, any more than you can combine #4 with any of them. These definitions are meant to describe totally different things. #3 is someone having a bad day. This article is about #2b. --Malvolio80 (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on, DreamGuy, do me the courtesy of addressing my arguments here before you just undo my change. Your new definition makes it so Danny Boyle's movies have zombies, even though he disagrees; and it makes it so Return of the Living Dead doesn't have zombies, which is a huge stretch. That change is way too big to pass without discussion. --Malvolio80 (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a newsflash for you: when multiple people disagree with you, and you are the only one to object, you don't get to overrule everyone else. Danny Boyle's movies DO have zombies, regardless of his desire to be taken more seriously than that, and the Return o the Livin Dead would still be zombies, as most of them are still automatons. The more animoated ones are acting in un-zombie like ways, however, and to expand the definition to explicitly include them would bring vampires and other undead under the same umbrella. Now, please, respect the fact that you do not WP:OWN this article and understand that there are a great many sources that refer to automatons that are not animated dead, and those are perfectly valid even if you yourself prefer to only follow the modern fiction version. This isn't the George Romero zombie article, it's zombie article, and "—All You Zombies—" and I Was a Zombie for the F.B.I. and older references don't fit your favored definition, so yours obviously has to go. We don't rewrite history for one editor's benefit. DreamGuy (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, first of all I think you need to calm down. I don't know why you're taking such a personal tone. I don't think I've been unreasonable. And I know you think I'm being ganged up on, but right now I think it's only you and me having this discussion, so don't assert majority rule.

I don't think Danny Boyle's "desire to take himself seriously" has anything to do with his assertion that his movies don't have zombies. Seems like an ad hominem argument on your part. The fact is I just think you're wrong about this, and you think I'm wrong, which makes it pretty intractible. I've tried talking it out with you here but I don't think we're going to come to a consensus, so I'm going to ask for assistance from Wikiproject: Occult. --Malvolio80 (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think all forms of the term should be expressed in the article, yet not written as a dictionary term obviously. We should have the perception of the subject outlined, and its view as dynamic. It means different things, in different cultures I imagine. Even with respect to video game, movies, and other media mentions. Synergy 18:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes needed

In the article 28 Days Later is cited as a zombie film. It is not a zombie film as you can see, here:

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/14315 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.63.100 (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There are also refs to them being Zombies: http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/movie_review/stylus-magazines-top-10-zombie-films-of-all-time.htm & http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2007/may/06/features.review so maybe the words of the Director don't mean anything when it comes to what the world at large refers to a horror movie creature as being? Doktor Wilhelm 00:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Voodoo Zombie "Gait" Explanation

As stated the effects of the poison used to create "voodoo zombies" dont explain the gait or death like state. One popular explanation however is that if someone was poisoned, and then buried, revived from the poison and suffered oxygen deprevation while trying to escape from a coffin, the lack of oxygen could cause brain damage, and the victim would have stroke like syptoms (ie: paralysis of one side of the body causing a strange walk, and the inability to talk causing a moaning sound). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.107.253 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

- i think it has to do with the aplication of another plant drug from a plant called Datura. it's talked about in an article by Gino Del Guercio. i posted a link further down. Kay.ringsby (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC) (sorry if i'm doing this wrong.)

Etymology of the word zombie

I can't find any reference to it online, but Leonard Abrams, creator of the film "Quilombo Country," has suggested to me that the word zombie derives from Zumbi dos Palmares, a 17th-century Brazilian slave rebel, whose followers believed he would return from the dead. Any lexicographers out there care to comment?

˜˜˜˜ Ken Atkatz, katkatz@nyc.rr.com 03/05/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.11.23 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: What is the correct definition of Zombie

What is the correct definition of the word "Zombie"? Is it a reanimated human corpse, or a person who acts like an automaton? Could it be both, or something else entirely?

Can't it be both? Looking through Dictionary.com and I find references to both, as well as a West Indian snake god, a drink, Canadian WW II forces. Locate a source and cite it. If you both have conflicting sources, include and cite them both.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It can be both, but I think the two definitions are mutually exclusive. It seems to me that "human automaton" means robot-like, as in "waits around absently and follows orders," which is definitely a way that the word "zombie" is used, but it means something so totally different from what this article was about. Maybe what we need is multiple sections for different definitions, or a disambiguation page? I wouldn't know where to start. --Malvolio80 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

On the surface they might look exclusive. But when looking into popular culture and the deeper implications many media representations of zombie are making, there is a huge overlap. For example, both Dawn of the Dead and Dead Rising played heavily on consumer culture, Shaun of the Dead utilized the cross-over between the reanimated corpse and a person who acts as an automation, and references to Zombie Jesus are very much about the perceived sheep-like and mindless attitudes of Christians. I feel there is definite for both in an article about zombies since it already crosses the line between both supernatural and popular references. And at this point I doubt there is enough information in either section to support separate articles.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean for the most part. The term originates from a belief in creatures both living-dead and mentally enslaved, and has evolved to mean either of those. We just need to find a way to make both definitions fit into this article. (...should we ignore the drink?) --Malvolio80 (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To use just living dead doesn't acknowledge the fact that the term zombie has been used to describe creatures that don't fit the "living dead" concept (such as 28 Days Later and its sequel, Planet Terror, Zombieland, Cell (novel), Left 4 Dead, etc). Wikipedia shouldn't ignore this phenomenon just because it does not fit with the generally accepted definition of what a zombie is according to a certain group of people.

Possibly we could say "A zombie is a creature that appears in folklore and popular culture typically as a reanimated human corpse, but also may refer to a mindless human being." That sort of covers what this article is saying and since this definition is in the lead it should be a summary of the article (Wikipedia:Lead section).

And yes we should ignore the drink. There are a lot of drinks out there named after notable people and things and most Wiki article don't mention them. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it ZHS. Yes, and totally ignore the drink. I was being silly while pointing out the range of meanings the word has. Though consider I would like to consider rephrasing from ...but also may refer to a mindless human being. to A zombie is a creature that appears in folklore and popular culture typically as a reanimated human corpse, and in more recent usage sometimes used to refer to a mindless human being.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually maybe one more revision just to condense it: A zombie is a creature that appears in folklore and popular culture typically as a reanimated human corpse, and in more recent usage a mindless human being.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the "more recent usage" clarification. The Haitian voodoo zombies were mindless human beings (as well as being reanimated human corpses). Actually I don't think the term "human" needs to be in there either, necessarily. --208.73.29.10 (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe "mindless human being" is meant to cover the Philosophical zombie and not the voodoo zombie. Anywho here is another updated version: A zombie is a creature that appears in folklore and popular culture typically as a reanimated corpse or a mindless human being. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the anon. IP about "recent usage" as it seems inaccurate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Its already been removed. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If the RfC is resolved, then someone please close the RfC tag. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tag removed. John M Baker (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I just looked in the OED - it has "soulless corpse revived by witchcraft" and nzambi as the derivation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Undead VS Living dead

From what ive seen the recent debate over Zombie like creatures in history confused with creatures who are more undead and less living dead. The Drauger (I think that the spelling) is a nordic creature of 'zombie like' apperance but is definatly not a zombie, at least not the type that is deing discussed here at least. This is just an example. There are as many 'zombie like' creatures in history as there are cultures to create them. I think that there can sometimes be a fine line between the Undead creatures of cultural history and what can be called a true 'zombie'. Its just sometimes ahrd to tell the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pontifactus (talk • contribs) 16:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering that some interpretations of zombie can include sill living persons - rage zombies from 28 Days Later for instance. So, I'm not sure what your question or comment is trying to being up here.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again the 'Infected' in 28 days later are NOT zombies. And all I am trying to say is that its not always easy to see the difference between zombies and other creatures that have a 'zombie like' apperance or qualities in common with them, but there is a difference.

Pontifactus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

While there are definite arguments to state the infected are not zombies, there are other media sources which do refer to it as a zombie movie - the review at Rotten Tomatoes, for instance [1]. Even the creators themselves called it a zombie flick. As editors of WP, it is not our job to synthesize knowledge or speculate why one view of a topic is correct or not (WP:NOR), but report what others have said about the topic. Are there differences between zombies and "other creatures that have a 'zombie like' appearance or qualities"? Perhaps. But for WP's purposes, you better WP:CITE it.

In many ways, WP is more like writing up a news or magazine article. Good reporters only write on things they can directly reference. Of course excellent reports go out and dig, and they find the reliable sources needed to be able to say what they want to say.

The conflicting views about 28 Days Later represents an example of shifting cultural views on a topic. These things happen. Humanity has has sifting cultural views on many things, particularly in regards to language and word usage. There have been social changes in cultural views on topics simply in the last year, and perhaps even in the past month. Humanity is not static. It's what we do. We change and adapt. And in so doing, we change and adapt the language we use.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that what is or is not "zombie-like" is a) an opinion, and the part that was removed from the article was just somebody's opinion not backed up by any sources saying they are zombies, b) largely irrelevant, as there are lots of things that are "cat-like" that aren't discussed on cat and so forth and so on. That whole section was nothing but some individual person just yammering on about whatever he wanted to talk about and not from any reliable expert treating zombies as an encyclopedic topic. DreamGuy (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

While whoever wrote the Folklore section probably was partaking in original research, there is some merit to some of the connections and some preliminary research I have been doing has given me a few reliable sources that cover "zombie" creatures of different cultures. Hopefully after finals I can look more into it. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that info on the topic can be sourced, but the examples given were pretty odd... and I don't know how relevant the info would be anyway. We'll have to see how it goes. DreamGuy (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if it was orginal research, that's a big problem. But sourced matrial from other cultures would be good to help provide a good world view to the topic.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A world view to the topic would be good for an article like undead or something, but if it's not a zombie (by any of the variations of the definition) then it shouldn't be mentioned here. See alsos or in an overview of similar creatures in a more appropriate article, sure, but not on zombie. DreamGuy (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were

What is the criteria that is it not a reliable source? As far as I can tell, it is published by a third party publisher, which is all that is required for citing a book.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that there are all sorts of books that exist. By reliable I mean giving information that is accurate. This book is written from a fictional viewpoint treating fictional and mythological items as if they were real and engaged in some creative writing in the process. It deviates from the source material quite often. It's not a source that treats its material in a nonfiction way. It's an art coffee table book and full of inaccuracies. To claim that being published by a third party publisher is all that is required is simply not true, otherwise we could quote the novelization of Night of the Living Dead where it talks about the spacecraft making the dead walk around as a source for the asserting that satellite radiation causes corpses to go around eating people as a fact instead of fiction. Besides just the reliability in general there's also the question of whether the info fits in the article at all. The FBI is a reliable source for number of reported murders in a year, for example, but that doesn't mean that info belongs in this article. There are LOTS of things that need to be met before a book can be cited in an article, and The Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were fails all of them. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was not directly familiar with the book, so was trying to get more information about it. I was under the impression that it was simply a book discussing different mythic creatures from folklore. The deletions makes sense in that light. Thank you for the clarification.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Whence the taste for brains?

The article refers to Night of the Living Dead as the origin of the zombie-as-cannibal theme, which sounds right. But that movie has zombies munching on any body part they can get their hands on. Where did they start focus on the cranium? I apologize for my ignorance, but I'm not into horrow, and NofLD is the only zombie movie I've seen.

Why I care: Just finished play Plants Versus Zombies! Isaac R (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, funny game :) The earliest specific brain-seeking I can recall is the 1987 Horror-comedy Return of the Living Dead with the famous line..."Bring more paramedics!" Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Social activism

There is an awful lot of the artist, or possibly fans, telling me what the art signifies. For instance, what the paragraph describes is not the promotion of any political cause that I am aware of, so the writer is effectively declaring that Zombieness is a political cause. This is most certainly not a neutrally-toned summary style. Hopefully I will have time to fix this later. Oh, and perhaps someone can find a citation for 'Zuvembie'; I remember that being the voodoo name. I really couldn't swear to it, but if you have nothing to do... Anarchangel (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead wrong

Under reference #5, the link to Zora Neale Hurston is marked [dead link]. In this particular context, there can surely only be undead links. Frankly speaking (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

video games zombies

there is no mention at all about zombies in video games or any of the most popular zombie games either like dead rising, left 4 dead, resident evil, oh i think silent hill has zombie like creatures. user--Stephendwan (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

wow NO!!!!! hell no! Silent Hill is not a zombie anything! those "creatures" are more demon like than anyting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.245.123 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There should also be a link somewhere to the article about the popular college game Humans vs. Zombies. 130.85.216.180 (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Zombie gait and then a bit of the Haitian Penal Code.

(I originally wrote about the deathlike gait of the zombie, but found someone already had, please forgive)... (I had read that a Haitian zombies slow gait and/or mental slowness was what happened when the Voodoo Priestess/Priest didn't get back to the drugged body in time and so the victim would get brain damage from lack of oxygen due to being buried.

In that same article (that I have no idea where it is now but I'll keep looking) it said something about how once these Zombies were raised, even if they traveled back to their home villages they'd be treated as undead, strangers. Even calling that their "old life"...Like it is just accepted.)

I also read about a Haitian Law that makes it illegal to create zombies. Maybe that law should be mentioned on this page because it's a real legal thing about something more hidden and unbelievable. Sort of showing that is exists. Ok I just searched for it, all signs said it was Article 249 of the Haitian Penal Code, but it didn't translate like that to me. Article 246 and the little paragraphs after is the closest I could find. It's in French and I translated with Babelfish:

(original penal code - babelfish translation follows) Art. 246.- Est qualifié empoisonnement, tout attentat à la vie d'une personne, par l'effet de substances qui peuvent donner la mort plus ou moins promptement, de quelque manière que ces substances aient été employées ou administrées, et quelles qu'en aient été les suites.- C. pén. 240, 247, 262, 263, 334, 372.

Est aussi qualifié attentat à la vie d'une personne, par empoisonnement, l'emploi qui sera fait contre elle de substances qui sans donner la mort, auront produit un état léthargique plus ou moins prolongé, de quelque manière que ces substances aient été employées et quelles qu'en aient été les suites.

Si, par suite de cet état léthargique, la personne a été inhumée, l'attentat sera qualifié assassinat.- C. pén. 241 et suivant. Ainsi mod. Loi 27 Oct. 1864.

(babelfish translation) Article 246. - Poisoning, any attack with the life d' is qualified; a person, by l' effect of substances which can give death more or less promptly, of some manner that these substances were employed or managed, and which qu' in were the continuations. - C. PEN. 240,247,262,263,334,372. Attack with the life d' is also qualified; a person, by poisoning, l' employment which will be made against it substances which without giving death, will have produced a more or less prolonged state of lethargy, in some manner that these substances were employed and which qu' in were the continuations.

If, in consequence of this state of lethargy, the person were buried, l' attack will be qualified assassination. - C. PEN. 241 and following. Thus MOD. Law Oct 27, 1864.

Maybe there is more somewhere, but this is all I could find at this moment. Everywhere I read that there is this Article 249 in the Haitian Penal Code made in the 1800's that makes creating zombies illegal...well, it's not so obviously exactly that, is it...

If anyone is interested in researching this any further, here is a link to the "Legislation Haiti (Lexadin)" [2] where I looked under the criminal law link found a link to the Penal code: [3]

I think it would make this article more interesting to have this stuff in there. If it can be found, I mean more obviously would be nice. --UmiJune (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus

Odd that the article has no reference to the most well known zombie in history. How should he be included? 68.155.16.175 (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

thats just wrong. he wasnt a zombie. this isnt a forum for offending people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: suitability of webcomic as citation

This is in reference to a citation I included in a statement that zombie levels are a cliche in FPS multiplayer video games to the point of satire; the citation was to the webcomic, Least I Could Do. While I would agree that a webcomic is an unsuitable citation in regard to raw facts, a popular webcomic which is a simple example of such pop culture satire seems appropriate. It's certainly not the only piece of entertainment which satirizes the omnipresence of zombies in video games, and more examples would be beneficial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.183.48 (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Another Source refering to Wade Davis' zombie Discoveries

hi, i've never done this before, so i'm just gonna put the title of an anthropological article down

The Secrets of Haiti's Living Dead - A Harvard botanist investigates mysticpotions, voodoo rites, and the making of zombies. by Gino Del Guercio from Harvard Magazine, January/February 1986, pp. 31-37. copyrited in 1986 by Guercio

http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/dagrossa-p/articles/SecretesofHaitisLivingDead.pdf

(has no idea if she did that right... and cant figure out the nofollow thing to save her life)

just thought i'd put it out there since the article is locked and i can't edit it

thanks Kay.ringsby (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Zombie Apocalypse?

How do all these Zombie Apocalypses start? it always seem like someone wakes up and the world is in chaos with zombies roaming around (like in 28 weeks later and Dawn of the Dead). How do these Viruses come around. The only movie I saw that shed light on it was Quarantine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savre123 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Marxist theory on depiction of Zombies

Here is an interesting article on the meaning of modern depictions of zombies, although i'm not sure where it could fit into the article: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/11/cultural-notebook-3/ 86.29.16.231 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Gilgamesh

Ishtar asks the other gods for the Heavenly Bull to be sent to punish Gilgamesh for insulting her. When the request is denied she threatens to raise the dead who will then devour the living. This Sumerian story is over 3,000 years old. Although zombie was not a word known to the Sumerians the concept of ravening corpses clearly was. Nitpyck (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think to include this would be original research. If you can find some reliable sources that connect those dots, post them here and we can see how they might fit into the article as a whole. Quietmarc (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Nitpyck, you may want to review WP:RS and WP:NOR. Doniago (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well its in the Gilgamesh article and it is clearly seen in the Gardner translation. And in another translation at http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab6.htm

I will smash the door posts, and leave the doors flat down, and will let the dead go up to eat the living! And the dead will outnumber the living! How many more dots do you need? If you can accept zombies from a biological disease or from rays from a comet why not from a gods action? Nitpyck (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nitpyck. I think that what's needed here is a published, reliable source that says something like "...one could interpret the Sumerian story of Gilgamesh's punishment as being an early example of zombies." On wikipedia, something can look like a duck, it can walk like a duck, but we need an established, reliable publication to say it's a duck before we can include it. Quietmarc (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nitpyck, yeah, there's a rule against original research... essentially you aren't allowed to make your own interpretations of primary materials. If you can find some reliable sources which do make those connections, then please post them here! It's the secondary sources which fuel WP. - Chromatikoma (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So why is "The History of Gherib and His Brother Agib" allowed since it is about a ghul not a zombie - and the ghul are generally a form of demon and are certainly so in this story. And the footnote listed does not contain the word zombie. Now if a story about those risen from the dead who eat humans is not a zombie story or at least a predecessor to the zombie tale then a lot of the article has to go- essentially any film that omits the word zombie is out of bounds. The definition the article goes with is- A zombie is a creature that appears in books and popular culture typically as a reanimated dead or a mindless human being and that is what Ishtar is doing when she can let the dead go up to eat the living. This is not original research. If it meets the definition of a duck as established in the lede it is a duck. Nitpyck (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I....don't have a good answer for that. I dislike removing parts of articles I haven't had much involvement in, but if I were so inclined, I would certainly remove that paragraph without having some supporting source. I imagine there -MUST- be a source out there that we can use to say "many ancient cultures have included zombie-like creatures in their mythologies," and then cite these as examples.

I still think, though, that taking a line of translated text and interpreting that as describing zombies is original research, in both of these examples. I'll see if I can find some better sourcing for this, though. Hopefully later today. What do other editors think? Quietmarc (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Nitpyck - the Gherib and Agib ref is pretty weak, but I think is allowed because there is no real interpretation of the primary source. It just says that it features ghouls. It's not very useful. You could do the same as long as you keep it strictly as a mention of the dead eating the living, not as zombies, but a much stronger and useful reference for the article would be some scholarly interpretation which likens the Gilgamesh reference to the modern day concept of zombies. If you can find that and add it to the article, it might survive a cleanup of the article, which I'm not sure that the 1001 nights ref would. Be careful of attempting to justify material with other stuff which is as equally weak. The point is to improve the article, not put in a ton of questionable information. I think you're on the right track here, but please find a secondary source. -Chromatikoma (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that the pertinent section was tagged for poor sourcing for several months, I've gone through removing unsourced material and OR. I'd encourage other editors to review my changes. Doniago (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It will be difficult to find authorities working in Akkadian texts and who are also authorities on modern pulp culture. I was however able to find a professor at Temple who has made the connection: http://jimgetz.org/2009/09/16/ishtar-and-zombies/ This is on his blog, but he is published and trained in the field and I think has a right to be considered a reliable authority on the meaning of the Gilgamesh text. Any problem using this a source? Nitpyck (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Edit

I believe the "pre-industrial" in the quote, "in a world reduced to a pre-industrial hostile wilderness" should be changed to "post-industrial." Anonymous1726 (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Steven Schlozmans term

His paper on zombies is a work of fiction written from a neurological standpoint. His view is not an authority to define what are "true zombies" and what are not. Schlozman himself does refer to 28 days later and Dawn of the Dead remake creeps as zombies also in the interview, but states that they are not true zombies in the light of his (fictional) paper, which only considers the slowly walking zombies. The views on Schlozman should go under "other media", as his fictional paper isn't a movie.Shubi (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Modern zombie films" and "in other media" merged

I merged these two sections as both had information belonging under the other section and general information concerning both sections.Shubi (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

There's still a more or less comprehensive etymology section missing. Wiktionary has the term zombie be derived from Bantu jumbee, see [4] --79.193.35.83 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Zombie Blog

[5] Zombie Blog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderled (talk • contribs) 05:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Blogs and Discussions

[6]Zomblog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderled (talk • contribs) 05:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} In the short story The Nameless Offspring by Clark Ashton Smith, the ghoul is a cannibalistic humanoid which, besides eating the flesh off human corpses, gets to procreate with people erroneously buried while still alive. 190.84.72.6 (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly should be changed? fetchcomms☛ 23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add the following into the In Music section:

Send More Paramedics were a horror hardcore band from Leeds in the north of England. The band played in the 1980s crossover style, what they described as "Zombiecore...a fusion of 80s thrash and modern hardcore punk",[1] with lyrics about zombies and cannibalism, and are heavily influenced by zombie movies. On-stage, they dress as zombies and the drummer dons a Mexican wrestling mask (a homage to the character in Brian Clement's Meat Market films with whom he also shares the name El Diablo). As part of this on-stage persona, band members claim to be members of the living dead.

90.219.249.190 (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see this edit. How does that grab you? Unomi (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Urban Dead - Product Placement?

I'm not entirely aware of how protocol works on Wikipedia, but I assume that most people who read the 'Zombies in gaming' section would agree that the clear advertisement for a game named Urban Dead rather sticks out and spoils the flow a tad... Is the obviously intended advertisement not a tad irrelevant? "The massively multiplayer online role-playing game Urban Dead, a free grid-based browser game where zombies and survivors fight for control of a ruined city, is one of the most popular games of its type, with an estimated 30,680 visits per day." - Certainly a large chunk of text to include in what is essentially a list. I'd recommend deletion? 86.135.31.182 (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the overall size of the section, I wouldn't call one sentence a large chunk of text. Also, you neglected to mention that the information is sourced, which apparently supports the assertion about the game's popularity. If it was unsourced or unreliably sourced, I'd be among the first to vote for its removal, but as-is, the sentence seems appropriate and isn't giving undue weight to the one game. Doniago (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Marysmithco, 5 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Surviving the Undead Our society is woefully unprepared for a conceivable threat of epic proportions. Have you ever considered how you would survive a zombie attack? Surprisingly, there isn’t any empirical evidence or scientific studies comparing the pros and cons of each type. By comparing organisms that can behave like zombies and analyzing the limited data on zombies that is available, I propose that, should you ever find yourself in a battle against the undead, you’ll be better off going head to head with a slow zombie than a fast one. 1. Brief History Zombies have been around for ages, with the earliest known reference from 1000 BC in the story of the goddess Ishtar keeping zombie-like creatures under her control. Published observational studies of zombies date back to the 1800s. Our contemporary perception of zombies originates from Haiti and Africa with smatterings of reports throughout the Caribbean. These real zombies were said to have had their souls taken over by a sorcerer though it is now widely believed the walking “undead” state is induced by consuming psychoactive drugs or naturally occurring poisons that are ingested or applied to the zombie via open wounds. By all accounts, all of these real zombies were of the “slow” persuasion. The fast ones have come along much more recently in film, television and video games. 2. Study of Speed Assembling a group of zombies as we know them, be they slow or speedy, is no easy undertaking and, quite frankly, can be hazardous to one’s health. To study the speed differential of zombies, we’ll have to use real-life approximations. The classic movie Night of the Living Dead features slow moving zombies. While the swiftness of their step is not known, this author guesstimates their speed to be about three miles an hour – about as fast a non-zombie human would stroll through a park.

In the Hollywood hit movie I Am Legend, most living creatures are infected with a virus that causes them to become zombies – fast zombies. As the angry mob of zombies try to attack and kill one of the few uninfected humans (played by Will Smith), they seem to advance much faster than humans can run. According to EliteFeet.com, the average man can run about seven miles per hour. The same website lists that the fastest man is able to sprint at a rate of well over twenty miles per hour.

To realistically illustrate fast and slow zombies, we will use common animals based on their speed as well as common characteristics of zombies; the undead are always carnivorous, travel in groups and murderous. Domesticated housecats are known to run up to thirty miles per hour according to CatCustomer.com and it is reasonable to assume their ill-mannered cousins, feral cats, run about as fast. This is three times the speed of the average man, a close enough approximation of fast zombies. As for the slow zombies, there are no known predatory animals that travel at the leisurely pace of about three miles per hour. With some adjustments, however, one animal can fill in for our slow zombies – an injured bear. Texas Parks and Wildlife estimates uninjured bears sprint at a speed of thirty to thirty-five miles. It is further estimated that wild animals with injuries to their hind quarters lose up to ninety percent of their speed. This means our injured bears are advancing at about three miles per hour, perfect for our slow zombies. 3. On the Attack, On the Defense Finding a safe, zombie-free zone is nearly impossible. As soon as the undead realize you are alive, they will stop at nothing to sink their teeth into your brain. They may take a long time but they will find you. There wouldn’t be much to fear if they simply gave up and went back to the morgue, would there? You will, at one point or another, be forced into battle with them. If given the choice, you should always choose to fight the slow zombies rather than the fast ones.

Fast zombies, represented by feral cats, are the weaker of the two types. In hand to hand combat, the living have an advantage of greater strength. When fighting a feral feline, you would know where its weak spots are – clearly its neck and brain. If you had to kill or be killed, you would find the courage and have the strength to snap its neck or crush its skull. Fast zombies, just as feral cats, are much easier and quicker to kill if you are up against just one. This simplicity does not hold true when their numbers are multiplied.

A pride of feral cats will attack quickly and from many sides. It’s unlikely you’ll even see them all before they are clawing at your head and nibbling on your extremities. Fast zombies are much more persistent than the slow ones, making it unlikely they will simply turn their attention to someone else. If they have their sights set on you they aren’t likely to stop pursuing you until you’re dead. Because they are so fast, the idea of setting up a trap to kill the speedy zombies or feral cats is unfeasible. There is little chance that you’ll be able to defeat them from a distance because they often know where you are long before you see them. Slow zombies, represented by the injured bears, do not pose the same threat as the fast zombies. You have plenty of time to find a safe hiding area and set up traps or at the very least, search for weapons while they find their way to you. This isn’t to say they won’t find you, it will just take them much longer. While they are approaching, you are advised to go on the offense and begin attacking them as soon as you are able. Guns are ideal weapons against slow zombies when they are far away but make sure you have plenty of ammunition. The slower they are, the hardier they are and the more hits it will take to kill them. For those zombies you aren’t able to kill from a distance, you will need to be prepared for some very challenging hand to hand combat. Your best weapon against these resilient creatures is a chainsaw or, in the event you don’t have one handy, an ax works quite well. Because you can’t necessarily see their weak spots you should be prepared for a long battle with these guys. Slow zombies will not turn away once you have injured them, if anything they attack with even more enthusiasm. Another consideration is the size of their weapon. An injured bear’s paws are up to twice as large as a human head. One swipe of a mitt from one of these beasts and you’ll be a goner for sure. The advantage here is you’ll have plenty of time to outrun them, outwit them and possibly plan an attack to kill them before they get you. 4. Experts Weigh In In his article “The Zombie Velocity Test,” Curtis Silver compares the facets of zombie speed as they’ve evolved in movies and video games to come to his own conclusion of the “which is better” debate. While his commentary is more anecdotal than scientific, his opinion that the slow zombies are better to battle in real life and fast zombies make for better entertainment is still quite valid. Garrison Vandine is a self-appointed expert in the field of zombie study. He has years of experience killing zombies, boasting that he’s destroyed “tens of thousands.” When asked where the ideal location for zombie battles is, Vandine responded “in a tunnel with one way in, one way out.” When asked to elaborate, Vandine declared that “you can see them coming and they won’t be able to surprise you.” When asked about which is harder to kill, a fast or slow zombie, Vandine stated, “slow zombies are harder to kill but if you set up traps you don’t have to fight many of them.” Having beaten both Dead Rising (filled with slow zombies) and Left for Dead (game of fast zombies) on the Xbox, Vandine says he prefers the fun of killing the fast zombies but finds it is easier to survive the slow ones. In real life, neither fast nor slow zombies are good for your health. You may get your necessary exercise by running from them but eventually you will have to stop to fight. You are much better off fighting the slow zombies than the speedy ones if you are looking to outlive them. Works Cited Author Unknown. "How Fast Can Cats Run?" Cat Customer Date Unknown. 25 April 2010: http://www.catcustomer.com/how-fast-can-cats-run Phil. “How Fast Can Humans Run?” Elite Feet 22 July 2008. 25 April 2010: http://www.elitefeet.com/how-fast-can-humans-run Shane. “Are You an Average Man?” Elite Feet 30 March 2008. 25 April 2010: http://www.elitefeet.com/are-you-an-average-man Hiler, Ilo. “Animal Speeds.” Texas Parks and Wildlife 16 June 2008. 25 April 2010: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/nonpwdpubs/young_naturalist/animals/animal_speeds/index.phtml I Am Legend. Akiva Goldsman, David Heyman, James Lassiter, Neal H. Moritz, Tracy Torme. Francis Lawrence. Will Smith, Alice Braga, Dash Mihok, Salli Richardson, Willow Smith, Charlie Tahan. DVD. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2007. Night of the Living Dead. Karl , Russell Streiner. George A. Romero. Duane Jones, Judith O'Dea, Karl Hardman, Marilyn Eastman, Keith Wayne. Web recording. The Walter Reade Organization, 1968. Silver, Curtis. "Great Geek Debates: The Zombie Velocity Test." WIRED Magazine Apr 2010: Web. 15 Apr 2010. http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/04/great-geek-debates-the-zombie-velocity-test/

Marysmithco (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This article is about zombies and not about survival skills during a zombie apocalypse. At such, I'm unable to add in the info provided above. Bejinhan Talk 12:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a specific "Change X to Y" request, which is the purpose of {{editsemiprotected}}, so we have cancelled that template. Others can discuss the ideas here, and with consensus, the article may be edited. Chzz ► 12:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible NPOV?

Thanks to large number of films and video games, the idea of a zombie apocalypse has entered the mainstream and there have been efforts by many fans to prepare for the hypothetical future zombie apocalypse. Efforts include creating weapons [59] and selling posters to inform people on how to survive a zombie outbreak.[60]

Using the term "Thanks" makes one think that this is inevitable, correct? Just seems like it might be conflicting with some sort of Wikipedia rule. As a matter of opinion... these lines seem biased in some sort of way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.192.148 (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's idiomatic: "thanks to" means "because of". Nitpyck (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Zombies' Paradox

Did you notice that some Zombies have super human characteristics, and yet at the drop of a hat, their arms will dis-members this is worth exploring in a beer meeting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbysturgis (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Zombies in Comics

Hi! I recently had to create a log of all of Zombie comic books for work. In doing so I noticed that the "Zombies in Comics" was a little weak. If you want to post it, here is the list I compiled of all the published Zombie comics I could find. Is there any way a new page could be created just for Zombie Comics?

Comic (Year): Amazing Joy Buzzards (2009) Publisher: Image

Comic (Year): 28 Days Later: The Aftermath (2007) Publisher: Fox Atomic

Comic (Year): Abandoned, The: Book One (2006) Publisher: Tokyo Pop

Comic (Year): The Black Cherry Bombshells (2006) Publisher: Zuda comics, the online version of DC, can be found at

http://www.zudacomics.com/the_black_cherry_bombshells

Comic (Year): Biohazard #1-2 (1990) Publisher: Omni

Comic (Year): Black Gas #1-3 of 3, Black Gas 2 #1-3 of 3 (2006-7) Publisher: Avatar

Comic (Year): Blackest Night Series (2009-2010) Publisher: DC Info: In response to Marvels intensely popular Marvel Zombies series, DC came out with ‘Blackest Night’ in which deceased super heroes of the DC universe come back as revenants to kill the current DC super heroes. Prequel or “prelude” to Blackest Night: Comic (Year): Green Lantern (vol. 4) #39–42 (May–July 2009) Comic (Year): Green Lantern Corps (vol. 2) #33–38 (April–August 2009) Comic (Year): Titans #15 (July 2009) Comic (Year): Solomon Grundy #7 (November 2009) Blackest Night: Comic (Year): Blackest Night #0 (June 2009) Comic (Year): Green Lantern vol. 4, #43–52 (September 2009 – March 2010) Comic (Year): Green Lantern Corps vol. 2, #38–46 (2009 – March 2010) Comic (Year): Blackest Night: Tales Of the Corps #1–3 (September 2009) Comic (Year): Blackest Night: Batman #1–3 (October–December 2009) Comic (Year): Blackest Night: Superman #1–3 (October–December 2009) Comic (Year): Blackest Night: Titans #1–3 (October–December 2009) Comic (Year): Adventure Comics vol. 2, #4–5, 7 (January–February 2010) Comic (Year): Booster Gold vol. 2, #26–27 (January–February 2010) Comic (Year): Doom Patrol vol. 5, #4–5 (January–February 2010) Comic (Year): Justice League of America vol. 2, #39–40 (January–February 2010) Comic (Year): The Outsiders vol. 5, #24–25 (January–February 2010) Comic (Year): R.E.B.E.L.S. vol. 2 #10–11 (January–February 2010) Comic (Year): Superman/ Batman #66–67 (January–February 2010) Comic (Year): Teen Titians vol. 3, #77–78 (January–February 2010) Comic (Year): Blackest Night: Flash #1–3 (February–April 2010) Comic (Year): Blackest Night: JSA #1–3 (February–April 2010) Comic (Year): Blackest Night: Wonder Woman #1–3 (February–April 2010) Comic (Year): The Atom & Hawkman #46 Comic (Year): Catwoman #83 (Vol.3) Comic (Year): Secret Six Vol.3 #17,18 Comic (Year): Starman #81 (Vol.2) Comic (Year): Suicide Street #67 Comic (Year): Weird Western Tales #71 Comic (Year): Green Arrow and Black Canary #3 Brightest Day: Info: This will be a year long comic book series that will cover the aftermath of the Blackest Night series

Comic (Year): Bogus Dead GN (2001) Publisher: Jeroman Empire

Comic (Year): Containment #1-5 (2005) Publisher: IDW

Comic (Year): Dawn of the Dead #1-3 (2004) Publisher: IDW

Comic (Year): The Rising of Bub #1 (2004) Publisher: Dead Dog Comics

Comic (Year): Dead Eyes Open #1-6 of 6 (2005-6) Publisher: Slave Labor

Comic (Year): Debbie Does Dallas (2008) Publisher: Terminal Press

Comic (Year): Dead In the West #1-2 (1993-4) Publisher: Dark Horse

Comic (Year): Dead West GN (2005) Publisher: Gigantic

Dead World Comic Books: Publisher: Caliber- 1989-1997, Desperado 2007, Image 2006 Dead World #1-9 (Arrow, 1986-1988), #10-26 (Caliber, 1989-1992) Dead World Vol 2 #1-15 (Caliber, 1993-1995) Dead World Book Two TP (Caliber, 1988) Dead World: Bits & Pieces one-shot (Caliber) Dead World Chronicles: Dire Wolves one-shot (Caliber) Dead World: To Kill a King #1-3 of 3 (Caliber, 1992) Dead World: Road Kill one-shot (Caliber, 1993) Dead World Chronicles: The Plague one-shot (Caliber) Dead World: Necropolis one-shot (Caliber, 1995) Dead World: Daemonstorm one-shot (Caliber, 1997) Dead World Vol 3 #1-6 (Image, 2005-2006) Dead World Vol 3 #7-current (Desperado, 2007) Dead World: Requiem for the World TP (Image, 2006) Dead World: Dead-Killer one-shot (Caliber) Dead World: Dead Killer TP (Image, 2006)

Comic (Year): Eat the Dead (2007)

Publisher: Virgin Comics

Comic (Year): Escape of the Living Dead #1-5 (2006) Publisher: Avatar

Comic (Year): High school of the Living Dead (2008) Publisher: Kadikawa Comics

Comic (Year): I, Zombie (2010) Publisher:Vertigo Comic (Year): Land of the Dead #1-5 (2006) Publisher: IDW

Comic (Year): The Last Christmas (2006) Publisher: Image

Comic (Year): Little Gloomy: It was a Dark and Stormy Night (?) Publisher: Slave Labor

Comic (Year): Living with the Dead (2007) Publisher: Fantagraphics

Comic (Year): The GN Living with the Dead (2007) Publisher: Dark Horse

Comic (Year): Living with Zombies

Comic (Year): Living Corpse, The #0-1/2 (2007) Publisher: Zenescope

Marvel Zombies: Publisher: Marvel Info: This is a series that is still incredibly popular in pop culture. I don’t want to give too much away, but Spider-Man eats Marry Jane. Marvel Zombies series 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (2005-2008) Marvel Zombies Return (2006-2009) Marvel Zonbies vs. Army of Darkness (2009) Marvel Zombies: Evil Evolution (2009) Marvel Zombies: Dead days (2009)

Comic (Year): Night of the Living Dead: Zombie Chronicles #1-2 (2004) Publisher: Dead Dog Comics

Comic (Year): Plague of the Living Dead (2007-2009) Publisher: Avatar

Comic (Year): Raise the Dead (2006) Publisher: Dynamite

Comic (Year): Realm of the Dead #1-3 (1993) Publisher: Caliber Info: Crossover between Dead World and Caliber’s fantasy comic The Realm

Comic (Year): Re-Animator #1-3 (1991-1992) Publisher: Adventure

Comic (Year): Re-Animator: Dawn of the Re-Animator (1992) Publisher: Adventure

Comic (Year): Re-Animator: Tales of Herbert West one-shot (1991) Publisher: Malibu

Comic (Year): Remains #1-5 (2004) Publisher: IDW

Comic (Year): Reign of the Dead 6 (2004-5) Publisher: IDW

Comic (Year): Runaways: Rock Zombies (2010) Publisher: Marvel- Arch in Runaways

Comic (Year): Santa Claus vs. the Zombies (2008) Publisher: Strange Holiday

Comic (Year): Shaun of the Dead (2006) Publisher: IDW

Comic (Year): Shaun of the Dead: Something About Mary (2004) Publisher: Rebellion

Comic (Year): Strange Killings: Necromancer #1-6 (2006) Publisher: Avatar

Comic (Year): Tag (?) Publisher: Boom! Studios

Comic (Year): Tales of the Zombie #1-9 (1973-1975) Publisher: Marvel Info: Magazine Size

Comic (Year): Toe Tags featuring George A. Romero #1-6 (2004-5) Publisher: DC

Comic (Year): Trailer Park of Terror #1-5 (2003) Publisher: Imperium

Comic (Year): The Walking Dead (2003-2007) Publisher: Image Info: Very long publishing run culminating in 6 TBPs: Days Gone Bye, Miles Behind Us, Safety Behind Bars, the Heat’s Desire, The Best Defense, and This Sorrowful Life.

Comic (Year): Walking Dead (Books One and Two) (2006-7) Publisher: Image

Comic (Year): Xombie: Reanimated (2006-7) Publisher: Image

Comic (Year): Xombie: Resurrected #1-6 (2007) Publisher: DDP

Comic (Year): Zombie #1-4 (2006) Publisher: Marvel

Comic (Year): Zombie Bomb (?) Publisher: ? Comic (Year): Zombie Commandos from Hell (1999-2004) Publisher: Boneyard Press/ Frightworld

Comic (Year): Zombie Highway (2004-2006) Publisher: Digital Webbing Press

Comic (Year): Zombie-O-Rama (?) Publisher: Slave Labor

Comic (Year): Zombie Proof (2008) Publisher: Moonstone Books

Comic (Year): Zombie Tales (2005-2006) Publisher: Boom! Info: Long publishing run culminating in the following books: Oblivion one-shot, Death Valley #1-2, and The Dead one-shot.

Comic (Year): Zombies! Feast (2006) Publisher: IDW

Comic (Year): Zombie War #1-2 and Zombie War: Earth Must Be Destroyed! #1-4 (?) Publisher: FantaCo

Zombie World Series: Publisher: Dark Horse Zombie World (1996) Zombie World: Championship of the Worms #1-3 (1997) Home for the Holidays (one shot) Winter’s Dreg #1-4 of 4 Zombie World: Eat Your Heart Out one-shot (1998) Zombie World: Dead End #1-2 (1998)Zombie World: Tree of Death #1-4 (1999) Zombie World: Winter’s Dregs and Other Stories TP (2005)

Comic (Year): The Zombie Survival Guide: Recorded Attacks: Max Brooks TPB (2007) Publisher: Three Rivers press

Comic (Year): Zombie Calling TPB (2007) Publisher: SLG

Manga (Year): Zombie Loan

Manga (Year): High School of the Dead

Meganmetzger (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)