Talk:Revenant (folklore)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Revenant (folklore) is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Contents

[edit] Footnote

There's a footnotes that reads: "Vampires, in the modern sense, were first "invented" by Lord Byron in the early 19th century. Newburgh and Maps descriptions arguably have some modern "vampiric" characteristics."

What are you basing this on? What do you mean "modern"? There is LOTS of vampire folklore that predates the early 19th century and that is very similar to modern fictional representations. It seems like the footnote is making artificial distinctions here that don't hold up. DreamGuy 02:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Our modern notions of vampires are, I believe, pretty much a product of the Romanticist writers, as our Vampire article says. The word vampire first appears in the 18th century. Certainly, as the article shows, the concept of a revenant is far older, but these were not "vampires" as we know them today. That is the point of the footnote, there were not "vampires" in the Middle Ages as we know them, it is anarchonistic to use the term, it had not even been invented yet. Stbalbach 04:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revised lead

Stbalbach: In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I agree that "undead" or "souls of the dead" are not ideal, but if the use of the former is considered anachronistic, it is plainly inconsistent with this view to have retained the latter in the previous version.

More generally, the overall presentation the previous was sub-standard in that it did not confirm to the standard and basic WP format of "[subject matter] is [accurate, concise and objective description of subject matter]". And characterising revenants as a type of anomalous phenomenon is obviously a desirable improvement when the previous provided no such context.

Whatever problem exists with the use of "anachronistic" terms, absolute reversions which wipe everything without regard for constructive improvements - and give an offhand edit summary - are amongst the most disagreeable types of wiki-conduct. A constructive attempt to replace physical plane A would be welcome, bearing in mind that I have already worked up the underlying article to make it more relevant and useful, that physical plane B can be discounted as a separate concept, and that issues around the suitability of this link were referenced in my first edit summary. 203.198.237.30 05:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your post here after posting the below. Im not really sure I see whats wrong with the current lead. It describes what it is in terms that are not modernistic; not every article has the full title bolded, its not absolutely required. This article is about "revenants", I added the "medieval" just for disambig reasons, if required we can rename the article to simply "revenant". Not sure of the etymology of the word "undead", that carries a lot of modern notions like "ghoul" or "vampire"-- im trying to stick with terms and concepts that were used in the Middle Ages, to keep the article on a professional level and not slip into original research and modernism. Ive done the research (see references) and know a bit about medieval cosmology and believe whats here is an accurate representation, without being modernistic or sensational. Ive never read or seen these things described in the manner or choice or words your using, at least in a professional manner.
  • As a sign of respect, because its you, I'm going to do something that's a first for me on WP and defer to your version, with the caveat that I think it is simply not up to scratch. This is because if you really see nothing wrong with the article, then I'm not up for an edit war with this particular article and will just agree to disagree. If anyone else comes along of course, then I will have a certain agenda. Of course, I hope you will reconsider and that arbitrary absolute reversions (of good faith, substantive edits) which never result in an improved article are out of character. 203.198.237.30 06:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Damn, there are so many basic variations on the theme that would improve the article, but which basically retain what you had. For example:
In the Middle Ages, a revenant was commonly believed to be the soul of a dead person who had returned to earth to haunt the living [fn1], and were well documented by contemporary English historians of the time.
With just the merest of helpful nods to our faithful readers, we could then throw in something about how this is seen as a type of anomalous phenomenon (understanding, of course, that this is neologism simply encapsulates a host of "anomalous phenomenon" for WP purposes and doesn't really need to be deconstructed, just now, as a foul descent into modernism).
203.198.237.30 06:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ive rewritten the intro, addresses the bolded titles issue, and uses the terms that those in the Middle Ages would use (the use of "soul" was incorrect - in the modern sense these are more akin to zombies, "animate corpses" as William of Newburgh says). I'd say the description with the terms below would be original research. If needed the article can be renamed to just revenant and drop the "medieval". --Stbalbach 16:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for responding to the issues and for editing the article in response to what has come up here. I'll put in anomalous phenomenon as a see also link only. 203.198.237.30 07:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anachronistic terms

  • anomalous phenomenon - this term has no place in an article about medieval history. It is anachronistic. There were no "scientific bodies" of knowledge in the medieval model of the universe.
  • This sentence makes no sense: "A medieval revenant was" .. there is no such thing as a "medieval revenant", except in a rhetorical sense, the title of the article is simply to disambiguate. In the Middle Ages they didnt call them "medieval revenants", they were called "revenants".
  • "returned to the physical plane".. again, anarchonistic. The notion of the real world and physical plane in the Middle Ages was not the same as today, those terms and concepts simply didnt exist, the medieval model of the world was very different from ours today. It is frameing the concept of renevants according to modern terms and ideas, which would be entirely unknown to people in the Middle Ages.

Re: this comment: "previous was in sub-standard WP format & had easter egg link, inter alia" - no idea what that means. -- Stbalbach 05:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • First comment above is not internally inconsistent. We are in a modern, contemporary context commentating on something from the medieval period. We characterise it as objectively as we can. You're just not making sense at the moment with this argument (granted I may not be either). Please explain further.
  • Re last comment, please refer to my last comment above (temporal proximity of posts here) and respond.
  • To reiterate: Bottom line is that whatever formalistic objections exist, the format is currently of low quality (in so far as I think all WP articles should present a high standard in style and content).
  • If I make further changes today, it will be a constructive effort to improve the article in light of your comments. Please confirm that you will observe 3RRR and not revert again.

203.198.237.30 05:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only English?

Do we have any other medieval accounts but those from England? Newburgh and Map's stories seem quite isolated, regarding their characteristics (that's why vampire enthusiasts regard them as "unique" descriptions of vampirism, without parallel in France and Germany). If it's a purely English 12th century phenomenon, that should be mentioned, and perhaps the whole article should be re-named. --194.145.161.227 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fiction

A further reversion without constructive changes will result in this template:

 This article or section may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction.
Please edit this article, according to the fiction guidelines, to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

Tuoreco 11:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, the article is a history article - revenants were not fictional for people in the Middle Ages (it says: A revenant in the Middle Ages) - saying they are fictional stories is confusing, wrong and a modernism. This is how historians write about it, it's pretty clear and self-evident that this is a history article and that it makes no claim that revenants actually are real. -- Stbalbach 15:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's revisit the issue of fact vs fiction (but leaving to one side your confusing and wrong claim that to state that revenants are not actually real is confusing and wrong). For some time now the article has opened with "a revenant was a animate corpse...", a statement of apparent fact. Our audience is not medieval, and we can do much better than this. As it happens, when you originally wrote the article, you opened with "...the idea that souls of dead return to earth and haunt the living was commonly believed". You've obviously already pondered these issues, so can we now get the article back on track? Tuoreco 14:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok qualified as "legendary". The original wording you've uncovered in the article history was awkward as an opening sentence, since the first word is supposed to be the title of the article in bold, and not sure if it was accurate ("commonly believed"). -- Stbalbach 18:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

Please discuss before renaming. Revenant's were not "mythological" in the proper sense and such terminology is confusing. Stbalbach 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you move it to something that adheres to basic Wikipedia standards. The name clearly isn't "Medieval revenant". It is simply "revenant", so add a parenthetical disambiguation that's to your satisfication. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 19:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Which guideline are you referring? Most of the medieval history articles by convention use Medieval at the start of the name and not in parens to disambiguate. They may exist but I have never seen a "name (medieval") article on wikipedia, it is always "medieval name" or "name in the middle ages". Some examples:
If you want to change this convention I suggest we use Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages as a forum since it will effect a lot of articles. -- Stbalbach 23:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Those aren't comparable at all. "Medieval" is a necessary adjective to indicate what kind of architecture, cuisine, or what have you the article is about. People refer to those things as "Medieval x". We're taking about a imaginary creature that's here only because revenant is already taken. Nobody refers to this creature as "Medieval revenant", as indicated by the lack of use in the actual article. It'd be like having Mercury (mythology) at Mythological Mercury. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 00:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course they are comparable. "Commune" is word with many meanings, but we use "Medieval commune" and not "Commune (medieval)". -- Stbalbach 04:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have an argument beyond the existence of other "Medieval x" articles? It's not a particularly compelling reason to keep this at something that people never refer to the creature as. If a term is used by different things, those different things are placed in a "Term (context)" system. It's that simple. We don't have element mercury, mythological Mercury, planet Mercury. Your examples are not comparable at all because nobody says "cuisine" and expects people to realize that the person meant "Medieval cuisine". The same is not the case for revenants, a fact supported by the lack of the phrase "Medieval revenant" in the article itself. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 09:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Medieval is a term of periodization and is the same as "Name in the Middle Ages", which is how this article starts out. I don't really see how you can say "Medieval cuisine" is not comparable. In any case, if you would like to write a complex system for determining when an article title should be "Medieval name" versus "Name (medieval)" and then get consensus for it on some sub-set of articles, that is your right, but most people want it one way or the other for consistency reasons. You could make an argument either way, I'm not saying your position is invalid, but typically people want consistency and for the past 4 years people have consistently used "Medieval name". Also the planet thing is not really the same, Medieval is a term of periodization, like Ancient Greece - this is how historians and academics use these terms. -- Stbalbach 13:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)