Talk:Ghoul

The article entitled 'Ghoul' states that 'The English word comes from the Persian name for the creature: الغول ghūl.' The article about the star 'Algol' (a star that is named after this creature) says that 'the name Algol means "demon star," (from Arabic الغول al-ghūl, "the ghoul")'. The 'Ghoul' article also states that 'The Arabian ghoul taken from the original Persian is a desert-dwelling, shapeshifting demon', yet a few lines later claims that 'The star Algol takes its name from this creature of Persian legend'. As Arabs and Persians, and the languages Arabic and Persian are often confused in the West, it would be useful to clarify this, even if the conclusion that is reached is simply that the Arabic and Persian words and legends are very similar. Emt00 20:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

-- It is my understanding that the word ghoul derives from the *Arabic* ghul which is further derived from a conjugation of the Arabic ghala, meaning "to seize," and describes a demon that digs up graves to eat the corpses buried there. They are generally associated with the element of wind/air and are occasionally attributed with various supernatural powers ranging from transformations of their body to superhuman strength. This information comes from some book on mythology -- problem is I've read so damn many books on mythology I have difficulty keeping the individual books straight. Given time I might be able to find the original source in which I read this information Marksman45 15:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here is *a* source. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ghoul Marksman45 23:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ghoul or Ghul is not a Persian word, but an Arabic one. See [1] and [2]. Heja Helweda 02:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

True the word ghul is Arabic, as the man said from the word ghala غال to seize. The old belief was that ghouls were people who robbed graves and it gradually evolved into monsters who ate the flesh of the dead as is seen in various Arabian Nights stories. Considering the mixed sources of the "Arabian Nights" tales it is understandable that Persian is considered to be the source of the word. However, the word ghul in Arabic is still used pejorativley on people considered to be horrendous in some way. Whether or not Arabic and Persian share the word is a legitimate question. I do not speak Persian. However most words borrowed into Arabic do not create their own three letter roots as is the case here, rather they tend to be used in one context alone. Therefore it stands to reason that even if the word is contained in Persian, it was likely borrowed from Arabic. If I haven't bored you to tears, I hope this helps! Angrynight 02:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Sighs* The word may go as far back as Aramaic- I'm looking into it, but it is beginning to appear everyone is wrong. Angrynight 22:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

  I believe that what is need here is a reliable source. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the verisimilitude of the information is — strangely enough — beside the point. Note the following official policy from Wikipedia:Verifiability:

  One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.
  
  "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

  If you can cite information from a verifiable source, then please do so; the important thing is to resolve this issue once and for all.
  -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 23:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Oxford English Dictionary says ghoul comes from the Arabic "ghul"

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.^[3] 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I have a copy of that book and can second that

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)Reply

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)Reply

                                                                                                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)Reply 

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 Darknes, 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

"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. ~~