Vampire folklore by region has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 29, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 19, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that in Slavic vampire folklore, vampires could take the form of butterflies?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Folklore Mid‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Eastern Europe (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe Occult Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Radloff source cited is practically inaccessible, with no copies existing online, and is practically impossible to track down with the author being quoted as Vasili Vasilyevich Radlov (in worldcat)or Wilhelm Radloff in other citations (by Robert Lebling, but the original article doesn't exist any more) and by the historical context, that the guy in question was apparently german. If anyone has any copy of this i would much appreciate any access to it.

Also, this is contradicted by the Hungarian wiki page, where https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szendrey_Zsigmond s research mentions the introduction of vampires to be recent and the "Magyar Mythologia" book by Arnold Ipolyi from 1854, the author says that he doesn't know of the form or name of these creatures within the current hungarian people. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=Ja2CYqcm7KoC&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA231

This could, however, simply mean that Radloff was simply aware of more than Ipolyi in 50 years earlier. N0B0DY-1MP0R7AN7 (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section appears to be based on the so called Codex Kassai, a manuscript that is supposed to be a sourcebook for the operations of the Inquisition in 13th-15th century Hungary - however this source is considered to be an invention of a 20th century Dominican, Jenő M. Fehér by virtually every historian who dealt with the topic. Imho this section should be removed or completely reworked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locassen (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that "Among the beliefs of the East Slavs, those of the northern regions (i.e. most of Russia) are unique in that their undead, while having many of the features of the vampires of other Slavic peoples, do not drink blood and do not bear a name derived from the common Slavic root for "vampire"."

As far as I can see, the earliest mention in Russian of a vampire is in the primary chronicle (1047), where a priest is called an "upyr likhiy" ^[1], or wicked vampire. Since the article doesn't say what these Slavs in fact called their vampires, I have to guess that they're talking about "Upyr", which at face, doesn't appear to be the same as "vampire".

If this is the case, the assertion is incorrect - upyr is from the Common Slavic root for vampire, "opiri" ^[2].

If this is not the case, the word being asserted as not related should be stated, so the statement can be evaluated. If it can't be defended, the statement should be removed or modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpiatek360 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be vampire myself cyrus fernandes 106.220.236.227 (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This section looks like a very similar version (if not almost identical) to the Upior section. Seems like a waste to duplicate content that's already from another page into this GA page. Suggest to remove this recently added section. Danial Bass (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited statements in the article, including entire sections. I also think the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

There are some uncited statements in the article, including entire sections. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article came about after being excised from the (large) parent article. Been ages since I looked at it - will do so at some point this week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Casliber do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A few bits and pieces (citing or removing the Cambodia section, also pondering about what to do with the Folktales section at bottom) and rejigging the lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, follow up poke, just checking you're still interested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Will do over weekend. I have commented out unreferenced section as I suspect it will require more snooping than I am prepared to do currently - I'll make a note on the talk page for later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't seen any activity since December apart from one section being commented out, I'm inclined to close as delist unless someone intends to make improvements soon or there's a consensus to keep. Potentially this could be kept by excising the remaining unsourced material. @Casliber and AirshipJungleman29:, any thoughts? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had commented out the main chunk of material (I thought all of it...??? Oh, found and removed some more). The outstanding issue was rejigging the lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not too sure what to do about the lead. Is a little small but as much of the article is quite listy in its content, it'd be making a mini-list in lead, which I don't think is that helpful Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am unsure how to evaluate the broadness of this article. The article states that "the entity known today as the vampire originates almost exclusively from early 18th-century Central Europe", but the article body seems to extend the article to... anything that drinks blood? If the focus is the 18th-century mythology, then the continental division doesn't feel like it makes much sense. If the focus is anything drinking blood, or similar, then the balance between the sections seems very off (even then continental division seems unlikely to be related to vampires, but taking it as a rough category is probably fine). CMD (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chipmunkdavis, seems to me that one issue could be resolved by renaming the article "Vampiric folklore by region"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be highly suspect if the regions Vampiric folklore developed in turned out to be modern conceptions of continents. CMD (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have some thoughts on this I just wanted to update, and rather than just correct I thought it better to create this section to get a second opinion. The factual mistakes are obviously just needing correction but I think the framing is wrong too.

I looked into this as this article and places replicating the content were the only references I could find to this monster aside from a book of the same name from the seemingly self published A World of Vampires book series by Dani Hoots, which raised alarm bells for circular reporting.

So I looked up the original source and there's two minor errors: the book is called Wyandot Folk-lore (1899) by William Elsey Connelley and not Wyandotte Folklore as footnote 88 lists, and I found a Google scanned copy on the Internet Archive. This is also where I found the section on the Hooh-Strah-Dooh appears on pp91–93, and not pp48–49 as footnote 88 shows.

However, this brings me to the main issue. The article currently frames them as body possessors and while that is mentioned, that doesn't really align with the majority of their description in the book.

Currently the article says:

Among the Wyandots was the legend of the Hooh-Strah-Dooh. A cross between what current fiction/legends portray as zombies and vampires, the Hooh-Strah-Dooh was an evil spirit that inhabited recently dead bodies and caused the corpse to rise and devour the living. The redbud was believed to be an effective ward.

But I don't think this really aligns with the original text, especially when it appears to be the only source for this creature:

XV.-THE STONE GIANTS.

Like the Flying Heads, the Stone Giants, or Hōōh'-strāh-dōōh', are attributed to two sources. By one account they were descended from the Hōōh'-keh Giant and the Wyandot women they carried away with them when they fled through the Wyandot camp. I believe it improbable that the Wyandots would ascribe the descent of so obnoxious a people to women of their own blood, and consequently, I believe this conception of their origin must have originated with an alien and unfriendly people. But of this I cannot be sure, for I heard this account from Wyandots only, and more frequently than the other account.

The second account says the Hōōh'-strāh-dōōh' were made by Täh'-wěh-skäh'-rěh to assist him in the war he so wantonly and unjustly waged against his brother, Tsēh'-stäh, and wherein he lost his life.

The Hōōh'-strāh-dōōh', were medicine men as well as Giants. They were clad in coats of pliable stone. These garments are represented as covering the body completely. Their stone coats were made by smearing the crude turpentine from the pine tree over their bodies, and then rolling in the dry sand of the shores of the Great Water. This process was repeated until the coats were of the required thickness.

The Hōōh'-strāh-dōōh' were cannibals. They slew the Wyandots for the express purpose of devouring their bodies. They are represented as having been half-a-tree tall, and large in proportion. A Hōōh'-strāh-dōōh' could eat three Wyandots at a single meal.

There is no account of any particular war between the Wynndots and the Hōōh'-strāh-dōōh'. The Wyandots seem to have been annoyed and plagued by them from time immemorial; and always to have been in terror of them. Sometimes they combined in great numbers and attacked one of the Hōōh'-strāh-dōōh'. If by any great good-fortune a chance arrow reached one of the vulnerable points (eyes, mouth, etc.) the Wyandots were victorious; if no such good-fortune attended them in the unequal combat, a bundle of blood-stained, dripping Wyandot slain was carried from the fatal field on the back of the victorious and bloodthirsty Stone Giant for his supper.

The Wyandots sought the aid of the Little People in an effort to expel or conquer the Stone Giants. After a long contest they were divested of their stone coats, and so far reduced that they did not dare to openly attack the Wyandots again. But they lived in solitary places, and attacked hunters and travelers that slept at night in the woods. A favorite stratagem of theirs was to enter the dead body of some Wyandot that had died, in a solitary hut, alone. When his friends discovered him, or a belated traveler stopped at the hut, and slept, the Stone Giant animated the corpse, which stealthily slew and devoured the unfortunate sleepers. A "medicine " made of the bark of the dēh'-täh-tsēh'-äb, or red-bud tree, was supposed to afford the Wyandots complete protection from such attacks of the conquered Stone Giants.

The dēh'-täh-tsēh'-äb, or red-bud, was, in a sense, a sacred tree with the Wyandot people. Its name means "the fire tree," and when its scarlet bloom flames along the bleak hillsides in the early spring the Wyandots say that Tsēh'-stäh is returning again, and bringing with him the spring.

So, obviously it's not untrue that they possess deceased bodies but it just feels like a much further leap from the structure of a vampire - possession of the dead, rather than the dead becoming a monster; eating flesh rather than blood and the whole previous history as 'stone giants' - than the text implies. Still fascinating, but just wanted to see if anyone else agreed that reframing would be acceptable? Warlach (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]