Talk:Revenant

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)

This may be the oldest conversation I've continued here, but, it has to be said: that's complete nonsense. Trying to claim that folklore that featured characters *exactly* like vampires couldn't really be vampires because the name didn't exist yet is just silly. Words are created to name ideas that already exist. The concept of vampires already existed for millennia before the modern English word vampire came along. DreamGuy (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The Santa Compaña, the procession of the dead and the Wild Hunt are similar but they are more impersonal, should they be mentioned? --Error (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of accounts of revenants in Old Norse sagas, which are presented as if true stories, and thus might be candidates for expanding the list. There are two such accounts in Grettis Saga alone. B.Bryant (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

fiction

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

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)

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:

• Medieval Britain
• Medieval Spain
• Medieval architecture
• Medieval climate optimum
• Medieval commune
• Medieval chronological timeline
• Medieval cuisine

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)

older than the oldest literature?

I have a problem with the statement, "Fear of the walking dead is older than the oldest literature." Unless there is some sort of non-literary documentation, then there is surely no basis to make this claim. (It is of course likely that anything documented by literature existed at least slightly before the documentations, but if this statement is meant only in that sense then it hardly needs stating.)

Further, the citation of the Ishtar quote seems of questionable relevance to me. That there was a myth where a goddess threatened to return the dead to the land of the living, hardly equates to there having been a belief or fear of the dead visiting the living on other occasions. This is like using the myth of Prometheus to support an assertion that the ancient Greeks had a fear of having their livers eaten by eagles.

This might belong in some more general article about historical conceptions of the dead, but it is a stretch to bring into this article about Revenants.--Ericjs (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This caught my eye as well. It seems illogical to claim that such a fear pre-exists the literature, unless you can give non-literary evidence to support the claim. As it is, it comes across as something being said to be impressive. R0nin Two (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What, no Neolithic and Bronze Age practices that can only be interpreted as keeping the dead in their secure resting place? With all our reading (!) we come up with nothing of this? --Wetman (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ericjs about the unsupported statement about prehistorical beliefs, so I removed it. I also agree with Ericjs that the literature references are not necessarily relevant, so I have removed them as well. In response to Wetman, please provide a citation; I don't know much about prehistoric practices. Citations would need to show that the practices you refer to are only interpreted as implying a fear of revenants, or of something close enough to revenants that this article would be a good place to mention them. --Allen (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(The blanked section)
"The threat

I shall raise up the dead and they shall eat the living.

I shall make the dead outnumber the living.

is repeated by Ishtar twice in the Akkadian literature and also by her Underworld sister, Ereshkigal."

"I shall raise up the dead and they shall eat the living". Wikipedia's definition, beginning the article, is "A revenant is a visible ghost or animated corpse that was believed to return from the grave to terrorize the living." QED. Blanking sourced text does not move the encyclopedia forward. Savvy readers of Wikipedia always read the related Talkpage. --Wetman (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for putting the text I removed here on the talk page, Wetman. I definitely should have done that. It seems to me that what you're saying is that you consider a revenant to be any "visible ghost or animated corpse that was believed to return from the grave to terrorize the living". This article, as well as an admittedly casual internet search, suggest to me that "revenant" is not a term used to denote any entity that fits that description, but rather is used to denote a subset of such entities as imagined by certain cultures and literary traditions. It seems to me that these literary quotes might be more appropriate for an article such as "undead", which unlike "revenant" seems to be used as an umbrella term for any entity that meets some loose criteria, regardless of cultural context. But I'm clearly not an expert, so I'm open to evidence or argument that I'm mistaken. --Allen (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

etymology

The word "revenant" is derived from the Latin word, revenans, "returning" (see also the related French verb "revenir", meaning "to come back").

I have no Latin grammar reference within reach, but I think the Latin word would be reveniens not revenans (it's not an a-stem verb). The French equivalent is revenant, though. —Tamfang (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Harmless Revenants

This article doesn't seem to account for an entire class of revenants that really have nothing to do with terrorizing the living. At least in early Irish literature, the revenant has returned from the dead, or more usually lived an exceedingly long life, in order to fill in the gaps of history before writing. Some examples that come immediately to mind are the Acallam na Senórach and the Recovery of the Táin Bó Cuailnge. Fintan mac Bochra is a revenant who returns time and again in various guises in order to pass along the tales found in the Lebor Gabála (Book of Invasions), which detail the earliest settlements of Ireland from the time of the flood.

Some references include: 1. Emma Nic Cárthaigh, “Surviving the Flood: Revenants and Antediluvian Lore in Medieval Irish Texts,” in Transmission and Transformation in the Middle Ages : Texts and Contexts, ed. Kathy Cawsey and Jason Harris (Dublin: Four Courts, 2007), 40–64.

2. Hill, Eleanor, "The Hawk of Achill or the Legend of the Oldest Animals," Folklore, 43 (1932), 386.

3. R.A. Stewart MacAllister, ed., Lebor Gabála Érenn: The Book Of The Taking Of Ireland, 6 vols. (Dublin: The Educational Company of Ireland for the Irish Texts Society, 1956).

4. Ann Dooley and Harry Roe, eds., Tales of the Elders of Ireland (Acallam Na Senorach) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

5. Thomas Kinsella, tran., The Táin: From the Irish Epic Táin Bó Cúailnge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970).

I'm working on a thesis on early Irish literary history at the moment, but if someone else would like to take this up, I'd be happy to help where I can. If not I can work on it when I have more time. Also, this is my first post here, so please pardon if I haven't done it right :)

Hystorically (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Hystorically

Interview With the Vampire Uses Term

Rice uses the term to refer to vampires who were buried and, unable to feed, became brain-damaged vampires in contrast to the variety that could speak. Should this be discussed in the article?--64.134.237.32 (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Very poor source making overly broad (and potentially even totally baseless) claims

A significant part of the article depends upon a single source, "Medieval Vampire Stories In England". That source is being used to describe what medievalists as a whole supposedly believe. I find no record of any source by that name. "Unearthing Medieval Vampire Stories In England: Fragments From De Nugis Curialium and Historia Rerum Anglicarum" by Jason Nolan, which is listed as "published online". There is no indication that this is someone who is in any way an expert on the topic, and even if he were he could not speak for all medievalists. Another site online says the writing was a "draft for the Third World Conference on Dracula" by Jason Nolan of the University of Toronto, but with no info about his connection to that university. The only Jason Nolan I found that seems like it might be a match is someone who is listed as being "assistant professor in the School of Early Childhood Education" at a different school in Canada but who had some again unspecified role with the University of Toronto. By now it should be more than clear that this essay was written by someone with no qualifications as an expert in any topic related to this encyclopedia article and it was not professionally published. I don't know who originally came up with it to be listed here, but that person didn't even get the title right and knew nothing else about it, or withheld that information to make it sound more reliable than it is.

Looking for suggestions on how to rewrite this section to remove the bad information... if I don't get ideas I'll take a stab at it myself later. DreamGuy (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Description section

@Ceplm: In this edit, you reinstated a paragraph that I removed back in October, with the edit summary 'Undid uncommented random act of vandalism by anonymous author'. Is it possible that you were confused by the article history - as you can see, I am not anonymous, I left a descriptive edit summary when I removed it, and it was certainly not vandalism. I removed it because I don't believe the paragraph can stand in its current state, for a number of reasons:

• It describes revenants, in Wikipedia's voice, as if they actually existed - there are no caveats about 'they are described in legend as being...' - it's written factually, but it's about a being from folklore.
• It contains prose that excessively lurid - phrases like 'reeks of corruption', 'glow a fiery red in the darkness' would be appropriate for a ghost story, but are not encyclopedic.
• It is very detailed and specific about the description, but is entirely unsourced - where do these descriptions come from?

If the content had any citations, I would have done a re-write to attribute the descriptions to the relevant sources, improve the formality etc - however, there is no sourcing at all for the whole section. I wasn't happy with creating content based on nothing at all however, and since I don't think the paragraph really adds anything useful, I simply removed it. I'd be keen to know what you think about the existing text, and whether you know of any sources that would allow us to write a more encyclopedic description. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you are silly (e.g., the infobox is called “Mythical creature”), but whatever. I have unsubscribed from the page, so you can do whatever you want. Ceplm (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

OK Ceplm, perhaps you're not familiar with our policy on no personal attacks - please read it. I know that saying I'm silly isn't the most crushing insult in the history of the world, but you are supposed to comment on the content, not on the editor; you're fine saying 'I think that line of argument is silly', but 'I think you are silly' crosses a line. Some people are quite touchy about that kind of thing, I'd urge you not to interact with other editors like that.

I'd also note that, when you have made a mistake in reverting someone, as you did in your edit summary, it's polite to acknowledge that, and even to apologise.

In response to your comment about the infobox, I recognise that the article, overall, makes it clear that the subject is mythical; however, that is not a reason to have an entire (unsourced) section written as if they actually existed. It's not silly to try to work towards better content, even in an article like this one. Thank you, however, for noting that you have no objection to the reinstating the removal of the content. I'll see whether any of the other sources cited in this article could be used to support a description, otherwise I'll remove it again. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, so you are not silly, but if you want to parse a nit, then it is very silly (I would use stronger world, but than I would give you opportunity to be offended, so I will not use it) to ignore two scholarly sources mentioned in that infobox (Grimms' Fairy Tale and Calmet's treatise) and few of them mentioned elsewhere (see References) and declare the infobox unsourced. However, as I said, I gave up on this article. Do your best. Further communication here will go to /dev/null. Ceplm (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ceplm: What are you talking about? I assume you didn't follow the diff I gave you at the start of this section - I did not try to remove the infobox, I have no problem with the infobox or its sourcing. Perhaps, as I suggested in my original post, you're confusing me with the IP editor? It was the poorly written and entirely unsourced 'Description' section that I removed, and which you reinstated, with an edit summary asserting that my removal was vandalism. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with GirthSummit. Some of the text "describes revenants, in Wikipedia's voice, as if they actually existed". WP:NPOV does not require we give credence to, or create ambiguity about supernatural beliefs. I've edited the lead and added some references to better frame the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Article in Portuguese

There is a corresponding article in Portuguese: Morto-vivo. 189.92.197.74 (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)