Talk:Cannibalistic attacks in 2012

In Finland

Well, there was some guy who went in front of a bus naked and bit a police officer in Finland. Here's a link to the news about it (it's in finnish): http://www.mtv3.fi/uutiset/rikos.shtml/alaston-mies-pysaytti-bussin-ja-puri-poliisia-tampereella---video/2012/07/1576669

I know it's not relevant enough, since it's not in USA, and he only bit the cop instead of actually eating any of his bodyparts, but I still think it won't hurt anyone to mention it on this talk page, so I'm doing that now. Anyway, if you can't read finnish (which is probably 99% of everyone), the news article pretty much has these things:
-the man was incoherent
-they used batons and sprays on him
-he was hospitalized because of his "confusion" and they couldn't get anything out of him
-the cop who was bitten had to be treated by a doctor
-it was considered: tort, resisting arrest, and assault
-the police are thought to have "used too much force" to arrest him

SekoIdiootti (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia is not a chat forum. The talk page should be used for discussing how to improve the article and so if the content is not relevant to the article and its improvment, it should not be here. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

verification needed

I removed this from the article

The Daily Beast created a Google Map of the incidents that they claim "may be the precursor to a zombie apocalypse."

While the AP states there is a connection to The Daily Beast, the actual map is made by "Sam". Do we have any verification of actual connection of map to The Daily Beast? -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's legit: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/31/map-signs-of-the-zombie-apocalypse.html — Bdb484 (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's inclusion is vital to the meaning and clarity of the article. If it's not in, we might as well delete the entire thing.HMKRich (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

what exactly is the meaning of the article? as stated now, based on the sources, it is a google trend of "zombie apocolypse" - I don't see how this is vital to that at all. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This does seem like a pointless article. 119.145.248.158 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta

Should not his crime (the murder of Lin Jun) also be added to this article? I thought that there were zombie elements or some cannibalism involved. No? I may be mistaken, however. Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to the empty section header, but I see that you have added a comment.

Although actions allegedly committed by him in a recent murder occurred around the time of the "Florida face eater" incident, I do not see any indication of "zombie-like" behavior. Cannibalism has not been conclusively shown. His actions after the incident also are not zombie-like. Taroaldo (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I should add that if you feel you have enough info to make a case for its inclusion, then be bold and add away! Taroaldo (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not that familiar with the case. Off the top of my head, I thought that I had recalled that he killed the man, dismembered him, and ate body parts (all while on film). Like I said, I could be wrong. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The video apparently shows all of what you mention, except for the cannibalism. That seems to have been inferred based on the actions of the person in the video (using a knife and fork), but no consumption was shown. Taroaldo (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

it is not included because there are no sources connecting it to whatever the supposed subject of this supposed article is. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Follow up

As I had originally suspected, there was indeed cannibalism involved. This Associated Press source indicates cannibalism. See: Jun Lin's Head May Have Been Found In Montreal. The article states: "A second, unedited version of the video seen by police shows him eating parts of the body." Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And? Without a consensus about what the subject of thei article is, it is premature to take any steps to include this incident. The subject of the article as currently defined is a number of incidents that led to a spike in the google search trends, and the Magnotta incident is not listed as one of the causes. see WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced descriptive material

Descriptions of the incidents which form the basis for this article should not be deleted (such as this edit, for example). Such descriptions are NOTSYNTH and have been included appropriately and in good faith. Taroaldo (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." None of the original sources are connecting the individual crimes they cover to "zombies", to a google search trend for "zombie apocalypse", to a rash of cannibalistic acts or to whatever the purported subject of this article is. By their inclusion as sources in this article, Wikipedia editors are making the implication of such conclusions, eww these hideous crimes that happened in a short time frame must be zombies.

See also WP:COATRACK "The nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there." Even if WP:SYN didnt apply COATRACK does for essentially the same reason. The subject of the article is not the details of the individual unrelated crimes, it is that they are supposedly related somehow, part of a zombie apocalypse or whatever the fuck this embarrassment of an article is supposed to be about. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your position, but I submit the difference between "zombie" and "zombie-like" is critical. The latter term is descriptive term which does not imply that Romero-esque zombies or Haitian-type zombies are involved. If someone shambles around in rags muttering "brains....brains" at Halloween, no one is going to think they are an actual zombie; that behavior would be described as "zombie-like". That is the same description used in this article, which was derived from numerous reliable sources. Sources which have used the term "zombie-like" to describe human behavior in different situations include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The descriptor is widely used in society to describe feelings associated with side effects of certain medications. As such, the use of the term "zombie-like" in the article is appropriate. Taroaldo (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

THAT is complete and utter ridiculousness. And my point still stands: that Wikipedia editors CANNOT use sources and make connections to "zombie" OR "zombile-like" (whatever the fuck that may mean) where the original sources DO NOT. -- The Red Pen of Doom 09:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

discussion in lieu of request for comment :subject and title and content

The community needs to determine a number of inter-related issues: 1) What is the actual subject of this article, ie "a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is."

2) What title appropriately describes the topic of the article.

3) Whether the subject of the article meets the notability reqirements, ie the subject of the article "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,"

4) How to determine what content can be included in the article without violating WP:SYN or WP:COATRACK.

discussion background

The article has had a number of names: Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 and 2012 Zombie controversy.

The first AFD was closed as "rename" - although there was never a discussion or consensus on what the new name should be. It was just moved and there was discussion and no evidence presented that the new title/subject was actually in compliance with the WP:N standard. There was a second AfD which was closed as speedy, based solely on the fact that the previous AfD had occurred recently.

The article has had a number of lead sentences, among them:

• "A series of unrelated[1] criminal events took place during the United States following May 26, 2012, which, according to CNN, led to "zombie apocalypse" becoming one of the top trending terms on the Google search engine on that Friday morning.[2] "
• "In June of 2012, a string of unrelated incidents occurred that reminded some people of zombies."
• The 2012 Zombie controversy is a name for a string of unrelated incidents that bearing characteristics that remind some people of zombies.
• "The 2012 Zombie controversy sometimes called the "Zombie apocalypse"[1][2] is an internet and media controversy surrounding a string of macabre incidents which resemble "Zombie"-like characteristics. "
• "A series of criminal events took place in the United States after May 26, 2012." (my personal favorite as exemplifying everything that is wrong with this article)

Several editors have repeatedly re-entered sources for content which merely describe details of the individual crimes, without any mention of the (non- )relation to the other crimes, to a google search or even to zombies (in fact one of the current ones specifically states "not a zombie").

This article is a complete mess and embarrassment to Wikipedia and needs to be addressed from the top down, starting with a consensus on what the actual topic of the article may be, down to what types of sourcing would provide valid content within Wikipedia's standards without violating WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose -- RfC premature -- If the article were titled "Zombie apocalypse 2012" or "Zombie incidents in 2012", there would be serious problems with it. Such an article could not viably exist on Wikipedia and it would be an example of WP:SYNTH, because the conclusion inferred (that zombies are roaming around North America in 2012) is falsely derived from the factual incidents in Florida, New Jersey, and elsewhere. However, the article uses only a descriptive term for the incidents, "zombie-like", which evolved outside Wikipedia, was reported on widely, and then became the subject of a Wikipedia article.

The description of the incidents within the article is directly related to the subject of the article, none of which is SYNTH. Perhaps the OP is confusing zombie behavior with zombie-like behavior, or they are inferring that the title suggests zombies of the kind envisioned by George A. Romero. This is simply not the case and, ironically, such a conclusion would actually be the item that would be considered SYNTH.

In any discussion where SYNTH is claimed, editors should also consider the following:

1) SYNTH is not an advocacy tool

2) SYNTH should not be enforced zealously

3) SYNTH is not ubiquitous

4) SYNTH is not a policy

5) SYNTH is not just any synthesis

The other issue that should be addressed is this RFC itself. Certain steps should be taken before initiating a RfC. These steps were not taken in this case. Additionally, there is an open talk page discussion immediately above the RfC, but the OP did not engage in discussion there, opting instead to start the RfC. Third, an RfC should consist of a succinct statement "so that the RfC attracts a clear and actionable response". In fact there are four requests for action -- all of which should have been discussed on the talk page first. Note also, that Action 3 has already been determined at AfD with speedy keep. Taroaldo (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

per your request i have removed the formal Request for comment.

If you will so kindly provide an answer to questions 1 and 2, we can begin the discussion there.-- The Red Pen of Doom 09:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

statement of subject of article and article title

What exactly is the subject of this article?

Currently according to the WP:LEAD, the subject is an spike in a google trending for an unusual phrase. If that is indeed the proper subject of the article, the name will need to be changed, and much content removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that there is absolutly no verifiable sources of humans coming back to life, I also fail to see what makes this notable? Three separate incidents of similar behaviour does not warrant a wikipedia article Alphaswitch91 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont think anyone is seriously promoting an article about people actually coming back from the grave. But there was a lot of chatter on the internets using the metaphore of "brain eating zombies" for the acts of cannibalism that occurred in the end of May, and media coverage of the buzz on the internets, and so the "Zombie Panic of 2012" or "Cannibalistic attacks related to bath salts" or "Wingnuts with zombie fixation" or some other framing of the events could potentially be the subject of a legitimate article if some reliable sources happened to cover the events in a way that meets WP:N. (see Summer of the Shark where studies have shown that during a year of fewer shark attacks than normal, the media fixation on the attacks that did happen helped to greatly erode the public attitude toward sharks, and that has impacted the efforts to protect the species.) But what framing and which sources giving that framing substantive coverage have not actually been identified and incorporated into this article outside of gross violations of WP:OR/WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks as though this article should either be scrapped completely and replaced with an article in a similar style to the Summer of the Shark article. As you say the article is currently in violation of WP:OR/WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK. Alphaswitch91 (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added further comments in the section below. Taroaldo (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But could you provide what you think is an appropriate lead sentence to adequately introduce and encapsulate what the article is about / why it is notable and what the title should be to reflect the same? -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'll work something up and post it here for discussion. Taroaldo (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This article doesn't really seem to be about the "zombie apocalypse". If it is changed to something along the lines of 2012 Cannibalistic attacks, maybe the lead sentence should say "In the summer of 2012 there was an outbreak of crimes involving cannibalism". Then it lists the recent attacks. The article could go on to say how it affected popular culture by people talking about zombies more than ever and how the word zombie is used in a newspaper a legitimate story follows. Those are just some suggestions. If the article kept the current subject, there needs to be more than just two sentences. There should be an entire section on the zombie apocalypse if that is what the article is about. Wikipediman23 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

the reliable sources all describe the canabalistic attacks as non related WP:INDISCRIMINATE / WP:COATRACK / WP:SYN. and there is no "meta coverage" of the media's sudden fascination with promoting sensationalised coverage of such crimes. such a move would mean the article fails WP:N and needs to be deleted, unless you can find some of that meta coverage. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Do any of these help? I think the last one is exactly what you're looking for. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/01/zombie-apocalypse-trending-as-bad-news-spreads-quickly/

http://gcn.com/Articles/2012/06/04/Zombie-Apocalypse-hits-social-media.aspx?Page=2

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/06/10/could-the-internet-bring-on-a-zombie-apocalypse.html Wikipediman23 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything other than trivial passing mentions that "zombies are popular on the web". what exactly are you seeing that you think is substantial coverage of an actual encyclopedic topic? -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe we should just can the media thing because there isn't that much to talk about. The article should move in the direction of citing the recent outbreak of cannibalism attacks. There is one thing that ties these incidents together: drugs.Wikipediman23 (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

actually, the thing that ties them together is initial rumors of drug usage that have almost always been proven false or not related at all to the attack. but again, there is no sources saying "hey, look at all these stories that we have been so quick to blame on drugs before there is really any evidence and then we still cover them as drug related when the drug tests come back negative" Just say Yes to coverage of drug use equals zombies-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the article about the zombie apocalypse buzz on social media like facebook and twitter, or how it affected the news media? The social media craze died down a week after the miami zombie attack, but major newspapers like the huffington post and the international business times continue to use terms like zombie apocalypse to describe the acts of cannibalism that are going on. Maybe that should have something to do with the article. Wikipediman23 (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

but again, just because they loosely use the word "zombie" or "canibal" to describe yet another unrelated attack does not mean that we can decide to lump them all together. for a while, List of cannibalistic crimes of 2012 might have seemed like a possibility, but the Miami case was not canibalism, just attack by biting. List of crimes called "zombie attacks" by the media in 2012, well now thats just getting silly and is certainly not encyclopedic. There is an interesting mingling of media sensationalism, zombie fascination and jumping to connect weird crimes to the scery new drugs based on rumor and heresay, just waiting to be explored, but there is no reliable source who has yet done so.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Returning to the former list and bath salts

In a former version of the article (archived here) I organized the incidents in list form which I think works better since there were something like 4-6 big and because as sections which end up being a WP:COATRACK

The other big thing I think we to do is include a section on bath salts which are presumed to be the cause. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Before you put any amount of work into the article, it would be better to participate in the discussion to determine what exactly the topic of the article is. See above. Once that is decided, then editors can actually evaluate what is the best method of presenting the appropropriate information. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

and regarding bath salts, at this time I think it is pure speculation about whether they were invovled in ANY of the incidents. Do you have any sources documenting their actual involvment? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think for now we should implement Cartoons's archived version of the page as it is significantly better than the current policy violating mess we have now. After this has been done we should work out which incidents should be included in the list and whether bath salts is worth a mention. Alphaswitch91 (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

except that

1) the only thing that I think everyone can agree upon about the first AfD is that there was a consensus that zombie controversy was entirely made up subject that is not an appropriate article topic. (and that the result from the first AfD was seconded by the closer of the second AfD)

2) if you go in and actually look at the content of the sources, you will find that the claims and content in the article are NOT supported at all by the content of the sources, thus it is even a bigger violation of WP:OR than the current version, which although it strings together ideas and content to present / imply conclusions and connections not present in the original sources, in the current version at least the individual claims and content in the article are actually verifiable as being in the source material.

so, no. I don't support that idea. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think article present name Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 should be renamed to "2012 Cannibalism attacks in United states" or something else. Dr meetsingh  Talk  04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A few references would need to be added to the archived article which I will state here -

2012 Miami cannibalism incident, Rudy Eugene eats the face of Ronald Poppo. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/30/face-eating-victim-stable-condition?newsfeed=true A manhunt is launched for Luka Rocco Magnotta, who is suspected of sending a severed body parts to different political parties in Canada. - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18326432 Alexander Kinyua admitted to eating his roomate's heart and part of his brain in Maryland. - http://globalgrind.com/news/morgan-state-student-alexander-kinyuaadmits-eating-mans-heart-brains-zombie-apocalypse-details Wayne Carter cut his chest and threw pieces of his intestines at police. - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/wayne-carter-threw-intestines-at-officers-stabbed-self-new-jersey_n_1554126.html

With these sources to back the article up I don't see how it would be violating any policies. The examples of sources I gave above are just from a quick search I'm sure that their are plenty more that could be used to verify the article. I think the title will have to remain the same though as their haven't been reports of cannibalism in all cases. Alphaswitch91 (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

and again, we are back to needing to define what exactly the topic of this article is to be able to determine if the suggested content and sources is within Wikipedia's policies of WP:OR / WP:SYN or if it is just Wikipedia editors stringing together stuff they think has a connection or is interesting. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Going back the idea that Zombie controversy or Zombie apocalypse isn't the issue, wouldn't these sources say otherwise:

• 'Zombie apocalypse’ trending as bad news spreads quickly
• After gory incidents, online 'zombie' talk grows
• Feds vs. Zombies: CDC officially denies 'Zombie Apocalypse'

They all clearly link the events as well as the controversy to the unified theme of a Zombie "apocalypse" or "controversy." CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

How about "2012 zombie controvosy" it works as the title and the general topic. Alphaswitch91 (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually reading beyond the headlines of the articles? For about the millionth time, these sources say ZERO about any type of a "zombie controversy" and the AFD overwhelmingly concluded that "zombie controversy" is a non-starter for a name or topic of the article.

And if you actually read the articles, the only thing they say about "zombie apocalypse" is that it was a high trending term on google search for one part of one day. That is not valid coverage of a subject allow a Wikipedia article.

Yes, they mention a number of cannibalistic acts that happened during the same week, but they specifically call out that the events are not related

We can only report what the sources support, connected in ways that the sources connect them Unrelated cannibalistic crimes of 2012 or CDC confirms no zombie virus are likewise non-topics.-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• The events have been linked outside of Wikipedia (by the type of behavior, not by motivation, perpetrator, chemical or biological entity, or by anything else). The behavior descriptive is "zombie-like". I also know this first hand because I started to see lots of things on Twitter and Facebook about zombie-like behavior. I was curious what people were going on about so I Googled it and came up with a number of hits about recent incidents such as the Florida "face eater" and the "intestine flinger" in New Jersey. The phenomenon occurred and was reported widely, and then was written about in Wikipedia. This was not synthesized any more than the reporting of the incidents related to The War of the Worlds (radio drama). Taroaldo (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

your comparison is completely inapplicable. To start off with there is no standalone Reaction to War of the Worlds (radio drama) nor Reaction to fictional newscasts and furthermore the sources all explicitly connect the incidents specifically to the broadcast of War of the Worlds.

A more apt comparison would be like trying to create an article Bad traffic day based on multiple news stories that covered how horrible traffic in Cleveburg was today because Center Bridge is closed to construction (adding references to the history of the construction project), a deadly accident of an overturned bus which closed North Bridge during rush hour (adding reference to several stories about the deaths of the children) and the South Town Faire which had South Bridge closed for the annual parade (several stories about the historic fair).

Yes there are several reports in reliable sources that specifically talk about "bad traffic" and mention the three incidents. Yes there is lots of twitting about the traffic. But if there is no significant coverage of Bad Traffic Day itself, that isnt a valid article. Currently there is nothing other than passing mentions that there were several unrelated cannibalistic events that happened to occur within a short window of time. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly "apt" when you are comparing the mundane to the highly unusual. Taroaldo (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Then replace the bus roll over with an escaped elephant, the bridge construction with an asteroid strike and the parade with a gang of escaped criminals. But my highly unusual situation is STILL not worthy of an article for Bad traffic day and the very sources that you want to use state quite clearly "people do horrible things to each other on a daily basis" and "Fact is, horrible crimes happen all the time.".-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure but "zombie"-like crimes do not happen every day and the media/internet does not trend an escaped elephant weeks after it happens nor create maps of where the elephant might go to nor ask the highest government body with regards to animals about whether or not this has a serious impact. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If your position is that something entitled "Signs of impending zombie apocalypse" is anything other than pure entertainment, then I have no reason to continue to pretend to believe that you are actually acting or capable of acting in the best interest of Wikipedia and this "discussion" is completely over. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a single person here is claiming that an actual "zombie apocalypse" is happening. However, there is an internet/media sensation around the idea which is noteworthy and is different then something like a car crash or escaped Elephant. I'd question your own WP:COMPETENCY if you seriously entertained that idea, especially when me and other editors put down "causes" for a media fascination.CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

you cannot have it both ways, claiming that "no one is saying there is an actual zombie apocalypse" and then trying to use as a reliable source one that frames its content under the banner of "impending zombie apocalypse" -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

show some sources that back your claim that the internet sensation is noteworthy. All we have now is a claim that "zombie apocalypse" was a top trending google search term for one morning. And the "causes" that you and others have put down are pure WP:SYN making connections and claims and inferences that are not directly stated in the source material.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying no editor thinks there's an actual zombie apocalypse especially since the words "impending" were never in the article nor any source for it. However there is paranoia and sensationalism which is a real topic, it's why the original title for it was "controversy."

To your other point, It's not the fact that that it's an "internet" sensation but a sensation in general, you're essentially asking for proof of noteworthiness for multiple internet sources that themselves show something noteworthy. If it wasn't noteworthy there wouldn't be multiple sources talking about it. That or you missed the part in all the sources the mentioned that it was trending; like no one is using a Google trends url as a source, CNN, AP, RT etc. were all saying it was a top trending topic which obviously shows that it's noteworthy. Plus it's not limited to searches, The Daily Beast and Newsweek are the sources that created that map and it even reached the CDC because of how widespread the sensationalism was.

And secondly I doubt an article from the AP would count as WP:SYNTH which from what I can tell was the only source used to explain the sensationalism around the issue.

At any rate I think the article should be about the incidents and the sensationalism around them as a "zombie apocalypse" scare. It's also why I think at least we should reinstate the old list to give reference to the attacks in some kind of readable format. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

that would be all fine and good if we were able to SYNTHesize the content of the articles to create our own subject. But as you yourself state, there are not sufficient reliable sources that actually cover your suggested topic sensationalism around the so called zombie attacks of 2012 - I have looked for something similar and THE SOURCES ARE NOT THERE. and if sensationalism is the subject of the article, then by all means any detail of the incidents themseles is irrelevant - our sources would be describing how overboard and puerile those descriptions all are. (and sorry for misrepresenting the map as using the word "impending" - it uses the even more weaselly and insipid "may be the precursor to a zombie apocalypse.")-- The Red Pen of Doom 05:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

see Summer of the Shark to see that there are subjects of media sensationalism that DO get the significant coverage OF THE SENSATIONALISM and the impact the sensationalism had (loss of tourism dollars, setback in public perception of sharks and protective efforts) swithout Wikipedia editors creating the topic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What I said was there weren't stories on internet stories of trends, there are however just stories of internet trends. I think that would obviously count as sensationalism or perhaps better words to use are panic or controversy etc.

The structure ought to be a list of "zombie" incidents, the reaction to them, and causes for the reaction (ie the AP article). CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

the sources do not say anything other than a single sentence that for one part of one day one of the highly ranking google search term trends was an unusual phrase. please stop SYNing. the structure ought to be a topic sentence about the subject of the article that can be supported by more than passing comments about the subject as identified in the topic sentence. followed by more content specifically about the subject of the article which doesnt require wikipedia editors to string together sources to make or imply connections that the original sources do not explicitly make.

please provide your suggestion for what the topic sentence should be-- The Red Pen of Doom 06:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

with this source [6] we might now have a source to start to make this an actual encyclopedic article about the media zombie sensationalism, but I still dont think a single article counts as significant coverage . -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fourth Incident

There was a guy in Florida who got naked and ate off a chunk of another guys arm. I think this should be added. Here are some sources: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-zombie-attack-naked-man-storms-girlfriend-house-bites-chunk-man-arm-article-1.1099760 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/us-man-strips-naked-bites-off-chunk-of-mans-arm/story-fnbzs1v0-1226405622503 http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/article/233180/57/Police-Taser-Naked-Man-After-Eating-Another-Mans-Arm http://datelinenews.org/charles-baker-another-zombie-eats-flesh-of-jeffrey-blake-in-miami/99874 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.138.28 (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

despite numerous requests for people to present their options, we have not actually come to any kind of agreement as to what the subject of this article is, and therefore it is premature to discuss whether or not the sources cover this incident in a way that makes it relevant to the article. Note that just cause |things look like they might be connected, Wikipedia editors cannot add them willy nilly - reliable sources must interpret and present them in an encyclopedic manner. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to be rude or anything, but isn't this article about citing the acts of cannibalism that happened in the summer of 2012. It's a weird phenomenon, kind of like the Summer of the Shark. This is one more incident, and it adds to the outbreak of cannibalism. I think adding more incidents, (that have actually happened) would add to the quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.138.28 (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

But that is not an an analysis that we can make and place into an article. The subject and scope of Wikipedia has to have been determined by outside reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

But aren't things like the new york daily news and dateline news reliable sources? It was even mentioned on Conan last night. Although I do understand Conan may not be a reliable resource. And I think we can choose to put other incidents of cannibalism onto the article, especially since all of those articles call the man a zombie. If there are twenty more cannibalism incidents this summer, are we just going to ignore them because you don't want to change the article? Wikipediman23 (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

In general they are reliable sources, but only as sources for content that comes from analysis that is specifically made and wholely contained within the particular story in that source. We cannot string things together and make connections that they do not. And until we can decide on what specifically the topic of this article is, we cannot know if what is in those sources directly connects with this article or if we would need to stretch beyond what they have specifically analysed. Unrelated cannibal attacks of 2012 is not a valid encyclopedic topic. And if it was the topic of this article, then we couldnt include the Miami case because the autopsy showed that he didnt commit cannibalism. People who bit each other is even MORE ludicruous.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. We shouldn't add anything to the article until we completely know what the subject is, and how all the events tie together. If not, really unrelated things could be added and the whole article is a bunch a different stories. That is what you're saying, right?Wikipediman23 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand all of that, and I don't think anything should be added at this point either. But just for the sake of being correct, the guy did bite off a chunk of another mans arm, and when the cops came, they tried to use stun guns on him, but he seemed immune to them. Kinda zombie-like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.138.28 (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

new Incident

Michael Terron Daniel arrested for strangling, eating neighbor's dog:

By Associated Press, Updated: Wednesday, June 27, 9:23 PM

"WACO, Texas — Bond has been revoked for a Texas man who police say killed and starting eating his housemate’s dog after chasing a neighbor on his hands and knees while growling.

Police say Daniel told people at the home he had taken K-2, a form of synthetic marijuana, then assaulted them and started biting the dog’s flesh."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/texas-man-accused-of-starting-to-eat-housemates-dog-killing-it-while-on-synthetic-marijuana/2012/06/27/gJQA8rUr7V_story.html

μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

until the actual subject of this article can be identified and agreed upon adding "additional incidents" is premature. Per the current topic sentence the new incident is irrelevant as it had no impact on the buzz that caused the "zombie apocalypse" search blip back in the beginning of the month. Although it is, like the others, entirely unrelated. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware that I had added this material to the article. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If you did not intend to add it to the article, then we can remove this section. This page is for discussing how to improve the article and not for discussing zombie attacks. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You might do well to read WP:OWN, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL while you are at it. I'll not be responding to you further outside the context of a wider discussion. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

So I am still unclear - do you want to discuss adding this to the article or do you just want to discuss it? -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added the material for the future reference of myself and other interested editors. I am not aware of any other article where additional incidents of zombie-like behavior would be relevant. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you! Can you help come up with a lead sentence that encapsulates a topic wherein the topic specified is covered by reliable sources in a non trivial manner that would be able to incorporate the incident that you have found? -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

and now after reading the article, i would like to suggest Weird unrelated criminal acts involving biting things that have been linked to drugs based on rumor hearsay and wild speculation. What do you think? -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Cannibal attack in China.

(There seems to be a strict guidline as to what could be included in this article, so I'll let the "proper" Wikipedians decide wether this is any good. I hope these article are enough, though there are more.) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/chinese-cannibal-attack-caught-on-video-as-drunken-bus-driver-chews-off-womans-face-7903914.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167493/China-cannibal-attack-Drunk-bus-driver-leaps-woman-street-chews-face.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cannibal-attack-china-drunk-bus-1111517 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/01/face-eating-attack-china-drunk-bus-driver-chews-_n_1641217.html 92.7.111.9 (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

there is no connection to what the current topic sentence describes as the subject of the article: the three unrelated attacks that lead to spike in search for "zombie apocalypse" in early June . see WP:COATRACK and WP:SYN. If you can develop a topic/subject sentence that is supported by reliable sources that would legitimately encompass this incident, feel free to suggest it here. the Independent might support a move to 2012 face chewing incidents and a re-write of the article-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Does the current topic sentence really describe the article? Because there is only two sentences about the "Zombie Apocalypse". The article is mostly about recent acts of cannibalism, (which I personally think the articles subject should be). If there was more about the zombie apocalypse, I think people might stop asking to put up new incidents. Wikipediman23 (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No one has offered a better sentence. Do you have one? If so, please offer your suggestion up above Talk:Incidents_of_zombie-like_behavior_in_2012#statement_of_subject_of_article_and_article_title or else trim the crap out of the article which doesnt belong. I have tried, but it keeps getting put back in.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This example certainly fits the bill of recent cannible attacks, and not necessarily a "zombie apocalypse" theme. I agree that this article has it's flaws, but it's worth making the effort to clean up as this is somewhat of a recent phenomenon worthy of an article. Shall I add this example in? or do we really need to establish a sufficient topic sentence first? 92.7.111.9 (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The only reason we can't make this article just about the recent cannibal attacks is because there is nothing tying them together. The only thing we can think of at this point is how the media reacted by calling these events a zombie apocalypse. If you could find something else that ties these and other events together, then I'm sure it could change so that it just talks about the recent cannibal attacks. Otherwise, a list of unrelated cannibal attacks would not be an encyclopedic article.Wikipediman23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

None of the present sources that you provided above (within the reliable source portion and not reader comments or tags) refers to the china incident as being "zombie like attack". so no you cannot add it to the article unless we change the article to "cannibal attacks" - at which point we would need to remove much of the other content as stabbing yourself and throwing your guts is not cannibal attack and the miami "zombie" has been shown to not have committed cannibalism, merely attack by biting. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

How about this link: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/chinese-zombie-attack-drunk-chinese-man-eat-woman-face-cannibal-assault-article-1.1105920 ? The first line says 'Bus driver responsible for the zombie-like attack took a long liquid lunch before jumping on the hood of a passing woman's car, biting her when she got out, reports say.' - Spgilbert (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

simply because someone used the word "zombie" is not enough any more than we could make an article compiling "brutal killings" based on the fact that a report report used the word "Brutal". are suggesting the article should be retitled "cannibal craze" as the thing that links these completely non related acts together? because s i have only heard that used in this source. (and the NYDN is not exactly the source with a great reputation for fact checking and accuracy) -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything. YOU said 'None of the present sources that you provided above (within the reliable source portion and not reader comments or tags) refers to the china incident as being "zombie like attack"', so I found one that did specifically that. Now, you're saying that because 'someone used the word "zombie" is not enough'....for an article titled 'Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012'? Spgilbert (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

i wanted reliable sources and you bring tabloid headlines, because thats all there is. wikipedia is not a tabloid. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Brutal killings are a lot different than "zombie" attacks. Brutal killings have been going on since the beginning of time, but people have only recently started to call these incidents "zombie attacks".Wikipediman23 (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

re: "but people have only recently started to call these incidents "zombie attacks""- WP:PROVEIT. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a rather good consensus in favor of expanding this article. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

you may claim consensus, but the policies WP:V and WP:OR clearly override local consensus. -- The Red Pen of Doom 09:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

New edit

I edited the article so that it's more suitable for more zombie attacks to be posted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.137.110 (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

unfortunately, your edit completely fails multiple policies and so the article has been reverted to a version that at least someone meets some of wikipedias policies. see the above discussions Talk:Incidents_of_zombie-like_behavior_in_2012#statement_of_subject_of_article_and_article_title -- The Red Pen of Doom 09:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

But the I wrote it made it so that more incidents could be added and it would make sense. What else should I have done to make it perfect and that it wouldn't be reverted? Because right now, the article is not about a spike in google searches. The lead sentence may be about google searches, but thats the only time it's ever mentioned in the entire article. Plus, I even gave a section where that could have been talked about. You keep asking what ties these events together, but it's right in front of you. These are the only attacks in history that have been labeled as zombie attacks. That is unique enough don't you think? It has become a common term in the media now and some pop culture has been based around it. And if you really believe this article is about google searches, then make it about google searches, because the way it is written now people are just going to want to keep posting new attacks and you seem very against that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.137.110 (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

but we dont write articles "so that more can be added"*. we write articles based on what reliable sources support in manner that doesnt make or imply claims which the actual sources dont. If you wish to change it, you will need to provide actual reliable sources that directly support the content you wish to add to the article.

• and we specifically DO NOT make claims like some connection to drugs when the reliable sources that report the actual toxicology reports (and not just wild speculation) show that there WERE NOT drugs involved. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

But there are MORE INCIDENTS OF ZOMBIE LIKE BEHAVIOR IN 2012 that have happened since the article was made. It makes sense to add more to it. And aren't biographical articles and articles that cover new events in history supposed to be added to as MORE HAPPENS. And there are many reliable sources that talk about incidents of zombie like behavior, but you keep making excuses not to add them in. Countless people have found sources to the incidents that they want to add. But you keep telling them that this article is about google searches, despite the fact that there's only one sentence about it in the entire article. So unless you or somebody changes this article so that it is about google searches I'm going to keep trying to make this article about the recent zombie attacks. And I never said that drugs were the connection, I said the fact that they were called zombie attacks tied them together. That is notable, seeing as zombies don't exist.

you reverted to a version where the lead talks about the connection to drugs that doesnt exist.

the reliable sources need to make the connections, not us. and the reliable sources are not making the connections, only wikipedia editors are. the reliable sources are specifically calling out that there is no relation between the incidents. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I do admit the drugs thing was a mistake, but when multiple newspapers say So and So is the Next zombie, they're making a connection that there are a bunch of unusual crimes going on and we are labeling them as zombie attacks. That's how these events are related, they have all been labeled zombie attacks by the media — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.137.110 (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Attacks labeled "zombie" by the media is still yet another FAIL in the category of encyclopedic article topics. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

edit warring, please comment

I have filed a complaint about the recent edit warring here, where comments are welcome. μηδείς (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to this request, I have fully protected the page for a few days. After looking through the history here, this article is, frankly, a mess. Trying to lump every random, gruesome murder or incident into a manufactured media meme is problematic. I would suggest very specific criteria be set for inclusion, but even that may be problematic and against WP:OR. If there are no comprehensive media pieces listing the specific crimes associate with this theme, then avoiding a "list of examples" here would be a good idea. Kuru (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I had been waiting till after the holiday weekend to ping User:Taroaldo who had stated that xie was going to be working a drafting a new focused topic sentence [7]. If they are no longer interested, would you suggest an RfC to see if people can come up with a reliably sourced focused topic or going straight to another AfD? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC would likely be the best route considering the recent xFD results. I'm afraid this is likely to continue to be a chore to upkeep, with or without a strong consensus on a theme and topic. I've lost track of the number of times I've reverted edits to The Zombie Survival Guide claiming the work is non-fiction. Kuru (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Third Incident

That third incident should stay on the list. For those of you who are taking it off because one source doesn't use the word zombie, here's two sources that do: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/31/zombie-alert-man-throws-his-own-intestines-at-police/ and http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/05/30/hackensack-man-stabbed-himself-and-threw-intestines-at-officers-more-zombie-behavior/. So please add it back. Wikipediman23 (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Article titles are designed to be intentionally attracting - and are not recommended to be quoted here - there is no worthwhile discussion of the zombie issue in the body of the article - also these two citations are below the quality of reporting that wikipedia is here to report - tabloid sensationalism is the focus here not encyclopedic long term notability -there are also WP:BLP issues about this otherwise sensitive content about this not notable living persons serious illness - using such twaddle as an excuse to publish his one event illness to the world connected to zombies is a violation of all en wikipedia policy - Youreallycan 17:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. But can another incident such as the second attack in florida be added? Here are four sources and each one says in the article that this is the new zombie attack. http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/zombie-attacks-continue-man-under-the-influence-gets-naked-bites-off-chunk-of-mans-arm http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-zombie-attack-naked-man-storms-girlfriend-house-bites-chunk-man-arm-article-1.1099760 http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/article/233180/57/Police-Taser-Naked-Man-After-Eating-Another-Mans-Arm http://datelinenews.org/charles-baker-another-zombie-eats-flesh-of-jeffrey-blake-in-miami/99874. Can this be added? Wikipediman23 (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

again, until there is a consensus on what exactly the topic of this article is, and determination that that specific topic meets the WP:N requirement that there has been significant coverage about the actual topic (and not merely coverage of the incidents) then it is premature to be discussing whether any incident should be added. feel free to bring your suggestions and sources to Talk:Incidents_of_zombie-like_behavior_in_2012#statement_of_subject_of_article_and_article_title-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

if there is any encyclopedic merit to this article, it will be from a discussion of the media's sensationalistic coverage of the various incidents - the details of the incidents themselves are meaningless in such such a context. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Witness: Woman Working At Inn Brutally Murdered By Naked Man

TRACY (CBS13 [Sacramento, CA]) – A naked man who may have been on drugs was arrested Saturday for killing a Tracy motel employee. http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/07/08/woman-brutally-murdered-while-working-at-a-tracy-hacienda-inn/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

No mention of Zombie like behavior in the citation - that is the problem with this article - its just worthless red top titillation and opinionated sensationalism - Youreallycan 05:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, did I add this to the article? It is here as a matter of future reference. Talk pages are for improving the article. Please keep your opinions to yourself. μηδείς (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - its of no benefit to the article if it doesn't mention zombies in the citation - this talkpage is not for spamming worthless externals of no benefit to the article - lol - get on board with the project dude - Youreallycan 05:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Your juvenile vocabulary and manors would get you a swift response on the street, or at least your sock pulled off and stuffed somewhere convenient. Don't expect me to lower myself to answer your comments. μηδείς (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha - you don't need to you have exposed yourself more than enough - lol - Youreallycan 06:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

again, until there is a consensus on what exactly the topic of this article is, and determination that that specific topic meets the WP:N requirement that there has been significant coverage about the actual topic (and not merely coverage of the incidents) then it is premature to be discussing whether any incident should be added. feel free to bring your suggestions and sources to Talk:Incidents_of_zombie-like_behavior_in_2012#statement_of_subject_of_article_and_article_title-- -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

and after reading the article, are you suggesting that we retitle it Crimes committed while naked and blamed on drug use without any evidence ??? -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@The Red Pen of Doom -- If this article should exist in the first place, why on earth would you include the phrase "zombie like bahavior" in the title? The behavior is physiological and can be described in these terms. There is no need to reference a fictional monster from the movies. ask123 (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

just for the record, I didn't choose this title- the article was moved here by another editor from an even worse title (although there was no discussion or consensus that this was the most appropriate title). I have been waiting for a response from one of the more vociferous supporters of this article (or the media to begin a self analysis of their insipid coverage) before I take the next step to attempt to gain consensus about the future of this article. Stay tuned and look for something shortly, maybe this weekend if I have not heard back.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Title

This article needs a rename or should be deleted. "Zombie-like behavior"?! Really??? C'mon. ask123 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even convinced that there is a good raison d'etre for this article in the first place. These incidents can be mentioned as possible bath salts incidents (if there are sources to support the speculation) in the bath salts article. ask123 (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact, there's an "Incidents" section already there and also a separate, linked article (albeit a small one) titled "Incidents involving the drug bath salts." ask123 (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, but the most high profile incident in the string has been shown to have NO connection to bath salts, other than a speculation made by someone not involved in the incident and then incidious repetition of that false speculation. you can bring your specific ideas to the section above: Talk:Incidents_of_zombie-like_behavior_in_2012#statement_of_subject_of_article_and_article_title -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Run for Your Lives? Has the Zombie Apocalypse Begun?!"

So...this link is a story on discovery.com. They specifically state 'zombie' attacks (in quotations, as they know that these aren't REAL 'zombies') and are compiling them together. So, it doesn't seem to be OR or SYNTH anymore. I'm not touching this article though. http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/2012/07/zombie-like-cases.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spgilbert (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

are you suggesting that Wikipedia go with "zombie" in quotes for our title, too? feel free to offer specifics here: Talk:Incidents_of_zombie-like_behavior_in_2012#statement_of_subject_of_article_and_article_title. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

it is hard to take seriously as a source something that was published yesterday and in the lead paragraph states "Rudy Eugene ... have been blamed on a form of synthetic marijuana now infamously known as “bath salts.”" but then doesnt until the final paragraph state "it turns out that Eugene had no trace of bath salt, only marijuana " as high quality reporting that we should be using as a model. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

no, i'm not suggesting that. i was just stating that information. you keep asking for specific types of articles, so this is just another one. it might be helpful if you weren't so defensive about this article. it's obvious that you want it deleted, but you are keeping others from even wanting to edit it (myself included). Spgilbert (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

One particular editor's disdain for a topic is of no relevance whatsoever. The source above mentions:

   o May 26: Key moments in Rudy Eugene's face-chewing attack on homeless man
   o May 31: New Jersey man throws bits of his own intestine at police
   o May 31: 21-year-old 'stabbed and dismembered his roommate with knife then ate his brain and heart'
   o June 27: 20-year-old man allegedly attacks a 77-year-old with a shovel after taking bath salts
   o June 29: Texas man arrested for eating family dog after smoking synthetic drug
   o July 1: Drunken bus driver in China goes after a woman’s face
   o July 2: Nude carjacker in Arizona may have been consuming bath salts
   o July 11: Naked Florida man climbs on roof, bites home owner and cop

μηδείς (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

restore three incidents

I am unaware of any consensus to gut this article. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

you are aware of the fact that several were removed because the sources did not support the claims? There needs be no consensus for applying WP:V and WP:OR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

and removal by 3 different editors leads to the consensus that you need to provide valid content and explanation for inclusion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

plus see also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#New_York_Daily_News_-_reliable_source_for_attribution_of_.22Incidents_of_zombie-like_behavior_in_2012.22 -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

and here User_talk:The_Anome#Incidents_of_zombie-like_behavior_in_2012 -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A whopping TWO attacks?

Two is barely a list. There have been dozens of attacks in the last year.

Doubledragons (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The consensus for Zombie-like

It seems clear to me that there's an overwhelming consensus for the article about to be about "Zombie-like" incidents and not just cannibalism (and that includes the discussion about what the article is about) with the only person opposed being TheRedPenOfDoom who frankly has been uncivil about the whole process and the reliable sources which clearly describe it as a "zombie" phenomenon.

This is also not about the title which can be changed after the content has been fixed but it as about the consensus which has been halted for no good reason. My suggestion to TheRedPenOfDoom is to either go with it or for us to go to dispute resolution because it makes no sense for an obvious consensus supported by sources to be blocked by one user. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

what "consensus" are you looking at? You need to look at: Talk:Cannibalism#Merger_proposal and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#New_York_Daily_News_-_reliable_source_for_attribution_of_.22Incidents_of_zombie-like_behavior_in_2012.22 and User_talk:The_Anome#Incidents_of_zombie-like_behavior_in_2012. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

and even if you solely look on this page and see there are a lot of people who like "zombies", there are zero people who have been able to provide significant coverage in third party reliable sources about an encyclopedic framing of the "zombie" meme. A local consensus does not override WP:N WP:OR WP:IINFO. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no real consensus for a cannibalism merge (you just did it yourself) and the NY Daily News source is just one of many. The bigger question is regarding the discovery source along with the incidents in the CNN source which clearly links them as being "zombie-like" so it's not WP:OR. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

get your facts straight dude. the move WASNT done by me [8] and even if it was, to claim that this Talk:Cannibalism#Merger_proposal is not a consensus to move is just plain WP:COMPETENCE issue. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

and re your two sources, what exactly is the significant content about the zombie meme? All i see is "there have been a number of attacks lately that the media has used the term 'zombie' to describe. Zombie was big on google one day". Thats not an article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is more than just a majority vote, it has to be nearly overwhelming and backed by reasoning as I can see it almost everyone has wanted it to be regarding zombie-like incidents not just cannibalism. The fact that source is covering it is the significance and it's not just "one day on google" it's CNN, Discovery, RT, Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, and Associated Press. This is either getting changed here or in dispute resolution. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus IS most certainly more than just a snout count vote. it is a weighing of the policy behind the positions, and the weight of policy guidelines WP:N / WP:NPOV / WP:SYN / WP:COATRACK / WP:NOTNEWS ect. vs ZOMBIES!!1!!!! is certainly clear. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So far as I am aware there is a consensus of one user opposing any reasonable title for this article, or the existence of any article whatsoever. Indeed, the prime story, the Miami Zombie, did not eat his victim's flesh, and, except for the Magnotto story, which was excluded, no other story involves cannibalism in fact or repute. This article should be restored to what it was, one on the press phenomenon, and be expanded to include all examples. Any argument making this into an article on cannibalism simply opens the door for creating a proper article on the zombie press phenomenon, which is exactly what will happen if this disruption continues here. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

there has never been a version covering the "press phenomenon" because there are no sources that have been provided covering the "press phenomenon" that can lead to any article other than "there have been a number of attacks lately that the media has used the term 'zombie' to describe. Zombie was big on google one day. Expect zombies till labor day". if you have other sources please provide them because an article on the media's insipid behavior about these incidents and sensational false attribution to bath salts would be a great article, but no sources have gone there yet. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The AP and others obviously covered it as a press phenomenon and the "zombie" theme/phenomenon has been covered for months. You can't seriously be saying that months of sources covering a "zombie-like" phenomenon is just a coincidence or "big on Google one day". And again the very fact that a phenomenon is covered by AP, CNN, Discovery, RT etc. for months warrants notability.

If you think its some coincidence of news that either (a) doesn't warrant an article or (b) should be dramatically scaled back then please take it up in dispute resolution because no one else here thinks that. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I am seriously saying they are not covering the phenomenon. They are just a bunch articles with the word "zombie" in them, but no analysis of any type or substantial commentary about the sensationalistic use of the word "Zombie". Yes, it is a phenomenon - lots of papers and some normally very good papers practiced a lot of really really bed tabloid journalism. No, no one has taken a long hard look in the mirror and written "wow - look at the crap we have been putting out." -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

list of incidents

This is a comprehensive encyclopedia. A list of such attacks is perhaps the main point of interest in such an article. Individual incidents can be challenged and removed if not relevant, but opposition to a list as such is inappropriate. If the list becomes to large it can be made into a separate article. μηδείς (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Rashes are NOT cannibalism by ANY extreme stretching of the concept. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

biting assaults are not cannibalism, and WP:REDFLAG you would need an exceptional source to make such an assertion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I did remove the rash incidents and a few others that were simple assault. μηδείς (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your review appears to have missed that many of the sources dont actually ascribe ANY actual cannibalism. After having checked 3 6 and found all threesix to be lacking, i have sufficient reason to doubt them all and fully reverted. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)