Talk:Ghoul

Comment from a noob, IsaacJ

I'm new to editing articles, but according to my references, some of the Wikipedia article is accurate and some may not be. (Assuming my references on folklore/mythology are good) According to both "The Vampire Book: An Encyclopedia of the Undead" and "Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend," ghouls are indeed Arabic. According to "The Vampire Book," they played a role in several tales from the Arabian Knights and are a kind of jinn. It makes no mention of the star Algol.

There is considerably more detail in the "Vampire Book" reference that could be reworded and used here. Other than minor corrections in a few other articles, I have not attempted detailed corrections or rewrites before so I am hesitant to try that here. But since I'm inexperienced, perhaps someone else has more references they trust that confirm or deny the accuracy of the article as it appears now? A few other folklore entries differ also from what I have on hand, but I don't know how to raise questions about them. Could be that the articles are right and my information is wrong.

IsaacJ

• If the sources you cited are published books, then they're probably "good" (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). And considering that the article cites no references, it seems likely that credibility weighs strongly in your favor! If you believe that the article contains incorrect information (based on what your sources say), then I recommend that you go ahead and change it. Of course, you should not copy directly from your sources (that would be a copyright violation), but should instead phrase the text in your own words. And don't worry too much about using correct grammar—someone will come along later and fix it.
  

Also, I recommend creating a reference section and listing your sources. You should include as much information as possible, including the name of the author(s) (or editor(s)), the name of the book, the name of the publisher, the location of the publisher, the date of publication, and—most importantly—the ISBN number (if the book has one). It might look something like this (note: if you don't already know, use an asterisk to make a bulleted list):

==References==

• Author, Iam A. The Greatest Book Ever Written. Anytown, Anyplace: Acme Publishing, 2005. ISBN 0-000-00000-0.

This section should placed at the end of the article, directly after the ==See also== section.

Also, see Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style, for more practical examples of citing sources.

It would also be a good idea to footnote your information (see Help:Footnotes), which would give more credibility to what you write. I know this looks complicated, but it's really not hard to figure out. Basically, this consists of including a {{Ref}} template in the body of the article where you want the footnote to appear, and a separate {{Note}} template in a ===Footnotes=== section under ==References==.

In the case of the {{Ref}} template, you would include a unique label to identity the footnote. I recommend using the surname of the author and the page number in the book where the information appears. For example, {{Ref|Jones-108}}.

In the case of the {{Note}} template, you simply use the aforementioned label, i.e., {{Note|Jones-108}}, followed by the last name of the author and the page number.

A practical editing example might look something like this:

This is a paragraph in the article. It is a very short paragraph, but is used here as an example. It is also a terribly boring paragraph, and most people would be hard pressed to continue reading up to this point.{{Ref|Jones-108}} This is the last sentence of this short and rather dull paragraph.

==References==

• Jones, Samual. How to Write Boring Paragraphs. Snooze Publishing Company, 2005. ISBN 0-000-00000-0.

===Footnotes===

#{{Note|Jones-108}}Jones, pp. 108.

Which should look something like this in the main article:

This is a paragraph in the article. It is a very short paragraph, but is used here as an example. It is also a terribly boring paragraph, and most people would be hard pressed to continue reading up to this point. This is the last sentence of this short and rather dull paragraph.

References

• Jones, Samual. How to Write Boring Paragraphs. Snooze Publishing Company, 2005. ISBN 0-000-00000-0.
  
  

Footnotes

1. ^ Jones, pp. 108.
   
   

Or, footnotes and references can be combined together if (and only if) footnotes are the only references given, as in:

==Footnotes and references==

1. ^ Jones, Samual. How to Write Boring Paragraphs, pp. 108. Snooze Publishing Company, 2005. ISBN 0-000-00000-0.
   
   

I know this is a lot to digest, but keep in mind that most of this is just a recommendation. DON'T BE INTIMIDATED! Do as little or as much as you see fit. And don't worry about getting it right; someone else can always fix it later.

BTW, a friendly reminder... you might want to sign your posts with four tildes (i.e., ~~~~) so that your user link appears along with a date stamp.
-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 01:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed from article

I removed the following from the article:

Ghoul (1972-) born in Woodhaven Ny, can be found often at "junking" venues. In his younger years was referred to as flat face and could be seen with many a clams on his bomber jacket.

I don't know what to make of this. But in any event it doesn't belong here and should instead be spun into a separate article (that is, if it's legitimate).
-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 19:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ghouls in gaming

I've cut this out into a separate article. It should probably be deleted as *cruft, but would, no doubt, precipitate much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Heroes are welcome to trim down the popular culture section in order that it take up a appropriate proportion of the article. - FrancisTyers · 18:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ghoul / Ogre

I always thought that ghouls, as described in popular stories in Algeria (where I live), were the arabic equivalent of Ogres. --Amine Brikci N 16:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It ain't from a comic!

This particular piece of artwork (at the top of the Ghoul page) is the original pencilwork that would later be inked and painted for the illustration under the "Ghoul" heading in the Dungeons & Dragons v3.0 Monster Manuel. I don't think it's covered under fair use. In fact, I'm almost certain that the colored version has a copyright symbol next to the signature (I believe this is a Lockwood, but don't quote me on that). --Þorstejnn 14:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy of that book and can second that

Ghoul Éireann

12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)193.1.88.48 (talk)== Ghoul Éireann ==

The title of "ghoul" (pronounced gowl) is awarded to someone upon the decision of the Ghoul Éireann committee. The committee also decides the date of International Ghoul Day, an annual event of gaiety and fun. The official dance of Ghoul Éireann is known as the hornpipe. Date of IGD 2007 is 11/05/07.

This looks like a spoof to me--or at least, I should say, I can find no reference to either "Ghoul Éireann" nor "International Ghoul Day" in Wikipedia or on Google (both are Googlewhackblatts). I shall therefore delete the passage. If you feel the need to reinstate it, at least add some references (or preferably create a separate entry for this distinct usage of "Ghoul"). Gabrielbodard 20:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with this - this probably has to do with the Irish (Gaelige) word "gabhal", which is pronounced "gowl" - this translates as "c**t" and is a common insult in Ireland, but has nothing to do with mythological creatures. I would suggest deleting the reference to Ireland in the main article completely. --Datha04 14:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

                                                                                                As a matter of fact the user datha 04 is incorrect as ghoul translates to english person in "gaelige"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.55.94 (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 

Yes, "gall" (pronounced "gowl") does translate as "English person" "as Gaeilge", however this does not bear any connection with the term "ghoul" as we, in Ireland, use it. Datha04 is therefore incorrect in his uneducated guess that it is related to "gabhal". I would advise him not to attempt to make such translations in the future without any solid evidence. Furthermore, yes, it is true that the passage has "nothing to do with mythological creatures", but the author did not claim that it did. And it was clearly completely separate from the "mythological creatures" portion of the article. One would not find "ghoul" in any Irish-English dictionary, as it is slang and as it is an Anglo-Irish term i.e. a word from the English language but used in Ireland. Also, the rules of Irish grammatical structures would not allow such a spelling of an Irish word - this combination of vowels and consonants simply does not work - especially in the infinitive form. And to Gabrielbodard and Datha04, who both suggested deleting the reference in the article, I feel this is unfair and unjustified. Irish people should not have to justify our right to our own slang - and you would not find any reference to it in any literary manuscript, as the Irish do not, I daresay, feel the need to provide such justification. For the past number of centuries, Irish has been a spoken tradition first and foremost, rather than a literary one. Why, then, should we now start to write down our terms of language just for the sake of the understanding of others, who, by the way, will more than likely not require an understanding of such terms, as they will not encounter these terms in their everyday lives due to the fact that they do not reside in Ireland. Sincerely, ghouls 214 and 218. I completely agree with ghouls 214 and 218 above. We are the Irish people and the ones who use the term ghoul on a daily basis. It refers to a complete oinseach such as Datha04!!!!! Sincerely, ghoul 221 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.104.5 (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an unnecessarily insulting reference that completely misses the point of the objections. Firstly, if the word has nothing to do with the mythical creature "ghoul", then it doesn't belong in this article. Another word with similar pronunciation should have its own article, or none. Secondly, if there is no reliable, third party, written and published documentation for this word, then it does not belong in Wikipedia. (And if you don't want to write it down and document it, then you don't need it to be here either.) (It looks like Ghoul Éireann has been deleted already, so we're arguing over nothing. And I know, I'm feeding the trolls.) Gabrielbodard (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What's this about Gholas?

Perhaps a Dune 'verse expert can help out, but I disagree with the treatment of Gholas as a sort of reanimate being. I believe they are more like clones. Ftjrwrites (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are indeed cloned persons from the original, one just needs to read the novels to find this out. I don't know why they have been included in this article. I suggest that the reference be removed. A Ghola is something completely different from a Ghoul. So are the Face dancers and their masters. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.168.4 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed Renfield reference

The text was:

"Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula features a ghoulish character named Renfield. Under the vampire's influence, Renfield becomes his willing slave and develops a craving to eat living creatures in the hope of obtaining their life-force for himself. After being confined to an asylum, he considers eating a human hospital orderly, but finds he can only capture and consume flies, spiders, and the occasional bird."

I've removed it because he was "ghoulish" only in the World of Darkness-ghouls sense. There is no further explanation and/or clarification, and Renfield does not by any fact fit into the general definition of ghouls.

P.S. "Ghouls" as such were not mentioned in the novel, nor is any character described so.

arny (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's time to clean up the trivia.

Really, the references section is irritatingly long and full of *cruft. I believe this is obvious to everyone.

It makes sense to include major works that center on ghouls and evolve the definition of the word. Everything else needs to go. Sterlingjones (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed more stuff

I've removed the following paragraph:

In the game Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, ghouls are human who were once fed with vampire blood. They are granted eternal life, great strength, but are not as powerful as a vampire, however they can bear the sun light. They develop an addiction to vampire blood, and can only drink this. They also only have feelings for their master. Ghouls are the lowest class in vampire society and are often referred as the ones who will extinct the Vampires.

The reason is that there is already a paragraph about World Of Darkness, explicitly including the Bloodlines game. If someone thinks this paragraph contains some valuable additions to it, please merge that into the existing text. arny (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You did good removing that, aside from this not fitting in the article, it is not even accurate within the game setting, containing several errors. 2001:1A81:72CD:7000:257A:60E7:4E14:C20F (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Should we just create Ghouls in popular culture?

The article is now something like 80% popular culture/lit/film references. Any objections to just dumping all but a mere handful of clearly significant entries into a Ghouls in popular culture article, and let that appendix attempt to stand on its own terms? That would at least keep the main article cleaner for people actually interested in the millenniae-old folkloric aspects of the term. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguably they could just be dumped, period. I suspect most of the references are not notable ones; in any case there are no secondary sources at present indicating that they are. Wikipedians are rather split on Wikipedia:IPC, I think (as am I). Conceivably there are people who might find an exhaustive list of things in which X appear to help them for some kind of project they're working on, but for most people it will be of no point. Шизомби (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what, I think I'll just dump them all, copy a handful of the most important back, and then folks can just take the WP:IPC argument to that page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Eight Ounce Kitten restored the IPC stuff you deleted, is that a bot action? I'm not sure creating a IPC article is the best way to handle this, but since you've done it already.... Possibly articles should have a scrap paper area somewhere where people can dump info that doesn't yet merit inclusion in the article, but which might be researched further later. Dunno. Шизомби (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Arabic "Al ghul" vs. "Ghul"?

The article states that "ghoul" comes from "al-ghul", but isn't the "al" just the definite article? It seems that the actual word would just be "ghul" (غول), without the "the". Any reason that the article is left in the Arabic version in this article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Al-, yes. "A ghoul is a mythological monster from ancient Arabian folklore that dwells in burial grounds and other uninhabited places. The English word comes from the Arabic name for the creature: الغول al-ghūl, which literally means 'demon'" could be changed to "The ghoul is a..." or "literally means 'the demon,'" or possibly the al- could be dropped; I'm not quite sure of the conventions regarding that. On the arabic Wikipedia, the article is under just غول, though. Having "al-ghul" in this article somewhere makes sense to explain "Algol." Шизомби (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that those unfamiliar with Arabic may misidentify the "al" as part of the actual noun. Plus it brings up the confusiong "why does the English cut the al- off if the word is alghul?" I'd say better to just explain the "al" in the star Algol and leave the initial Arabic as غول. We don't say "Burro comes from the Spanish el burro," after all. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't much matter. There's plenty of room to explain what "al-" is and wikilink it here, though, if not in the lede then next to the mention and link to Algol. Шизомби (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with explaining "al-" when we get to Algol, but it's unnecessarily confusing up until that point. As noted, the actual word is "ghul", and I'm really not seeing any reason to include the article "al-" in the lede. Outside of Algol, there's really no context in which the "al-ghul" rendering helps make any sense of the subject to an English speaker. Plus, as noted even Arabic speakers file it as غول.MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

...Steals coins?

"The creature also preys on young children, robs graves, drinks blood, steals coins and eats the dead" It seems a tad out of place when its all listed out like that. It sounds like it was tacked on after the fact. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.56.194 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

The etymology is slightly (only slightly) incorrect. Arabic roots are not verbs but three-consonant formations - in this case, GH-W-L (the GH is a single consonant in Arabic). A good Arabic-English dictionary would give this.

Requesting help in article expansion

Hi,

Requesting you to have a look at

• Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Superstitions in Muslim societies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bookku (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): OppsieDaisy (article contribs). Peer reviewers: PyroMythology.

— Assignment last updated by Rockethound (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

More citations needed

I added a tag for more citations needed, I think some sections of the article are ok in regard to references but it could definitely be better, especially for a folklore concept as prominent as ghouls. My main concerns are the multiple “who?”s and “which?”s in the “Folklore” and “Islam” sections, and the “Modern ghoul” section, which is almost entirely unreferenced. If anyone could improve this, that’d be great! Eatingbugs (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)