I'm Belac Reteet.  I recently added the Living Dead to the Immortals Category Page, as well as vampires and zombies.  However, these edits were reverted by Professor Tofty and Nickodemus.  Who would back me up in saying that undead creatures count as immortals?belacreteet (talk) 19:14, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

All information about the in-universe subjects on this wiki must come from sources within the Harry Potter canon. To my knowledge, the term "undead" has never been used in the series, so vampires and zombies would not count as such. Qualities from other myths, legends, folklore, etc. outside the Harry Potter canon do not necessarily apply to Rowling's versions. For example, all that's stated about vampires in canon is that they're pale, drink blood, and avoid garlic. As yet, there's no mention about immortality/undeath, turning victims by bite, wooden stakes, sparkling, or any other qualities. (Not to mention that even other fiction and folklore aren't universally consistent about them.) - Nick O'Demus 19:30, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
I'm Belac Reteet.  I would like to point out that living dead and undead mean the same thing.  However, in light of what Nick O'Demus (sorry about misspelling your name earlier) said, I will not make reference to other fictionel sources (by the way, what did you mean by sparkling?).  But now lets look at what we have to work with.  We have vampires and zombies.  They are not alive, but they aren't dead either.  Therefore, it would be only logical to asume that they are inbetween.  Now we must wonder what are they lacking in life?  One of the four criterea?  What ever it is, the living dead are considered by most to be closer to death than they are to life.  But since they are not completely dead, we must classify them in the same way that we classify life forms (and that's not just me, for vampires have being status).  Now that we've got that out of the way, let's look at my hypothosees.  If these creatures are more dead than alive, than it is highly unlikely that they age.  And if they don't age, they live forever.  And if they live forever, than they are immortal.  Catch ya later!belacreteet (talk) 20:05, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out that living dead and undead mean the same thing.
    • You're assuming that they mean the same thing, but there isn't anything in canon that says they actually do. The first bullet point in the "Behind the scenes" section of this article even states as much. "Living Dead" refers to the group these creatures belong to, but the qualities of that group are not stated. Even in the original source (Pottermore), the term is capitalized. It's a name for the group, not necessarily a definition.
  • what did you mean by sparkling?
    • Just a jab at Twilight.
  • They are not alive, but they aren't dead either.
    • Going back to my original post, where is this ever stated in the Harry Potter canon? There's nothing that says Rowling's versions of vampires and zombies aren't living creatures. Again, you're making an assumption based on characteristics from outside Rowling's canon.
Nick O'Demus 20:16, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
I'm Belac Reteet.  Living Dead and Undead always go hand in hand, they are practically synanims of each other.  Also, while my theories are half speculation with the other half consisting of logic and evidence, all you've been doing is telling me that they are not mentioned on cannon.  Meaning no disrespect, but if you could get away with that, then these debates would be pointless.  Isn't the whole point of these debates to think outside the box, and find answers that cannon can't?  I would like to challenge you to point out a flaw in my ointment without mentioning cannon, or the books.  Again, meaning no disrespect, just trying to make my point.  Catch ya later.belacreteet (talk) 21:34, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
Canon is entirely the point. Nothing is allowed within the main articles if it cannot be considered canon, and no amount of arguing can elevate something to canon that isn't canon. Therefore, your challenge is entirely invalid-- if something isn't canon, then that is the flaw in the ointment. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:07, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
Alright, then answer me this.  If what you say is true, then why has anyone ever wasted their time with a debate on this wiki (in repatition of my question at the end of the Sentient Horcruxes debate as well as my statements in the paragraph above yours).  By the way Prof T.; the closest you've ever come to agreeing with me on anything is my oppinion about ordinary objects, and even that was "to a limited degree".  Seriously dude, can you at least consider my point?belacreteet (talk) 02:23, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
The point is, this is the HARRY POTTER WIKI. The information on this wiki comes from J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series: books, movies, games, and other apocrypha. There's a reason we have a Canon Policy, and why it's one of the main policies on the wiki. The information we have on this wiki about vampires is what information has been presented about vampires within the Harry Potter series; not vampires as depicted by Bram Stoker, Anne Rice, or (god-forbid) Stephenie Meyer.
Now, SOME speculation and information outside the canon may be allowed to a reasonable degree within the "Behind the scenes" sections, but as far as using speculation and theories to "fill in the gaps" in canon? At BEST, that's Original Research, which is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia even prohibits Original Research as one of its three core content policies. At WORST, it's borderline fanon, which is definitely not allowed.
BTW, Tofty, I think you mean "FLY in the ointment". - Nick O'Demus 04:28, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Well, perhaps it was Belac that meant "the fly," because he was the one who said "flaw." In any case, I have to agree with what was said above. Application of policy isn't anything personal, it's just a matter of the fact that we can't "fill in the gaps." The truth is, there's a lot we don't know about certain creatures in the Harry Potter world because Rowling only provided limited information about them. In those cases, it's better to err on the side of caution. If we don't know, then why muddy the matter by trying to add information? Just leave it as it is, and move on. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:57, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we can call the "Living Dead" immortal as we don't know they are immortal; in fact, the name implies that they are already dead. I think "Living Dead" classifies as an entire type of mortality itself, rather than being just a group with no clear definition. --SnorlaxMonster 13:44, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
The thing is, all that's known about the group "Living Dead" basically comes from one line from Pottermore: The Zombie dwells only in the Southern part of America. It is an example, like the Vampire, of the Living Dead and may be recognised by its greyish colour and its rotten smell. That's pretty much it, so that's all we say in the article about the group from an in-universe perspective, at least until any new canon information gets released.
Now, the first bullet-point in the article's "Behind the scenes" section already states: It is unknown if the Living Dead are so named because they are actually dead creatures that have been reanimated in some form, or if they merely resemble the conventional definition of "undead". Since this is speculation, it is limited to the "Behind the scenes" section, but the possibility IS mentioned.
Nick O'Demus 06:53, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that we say that they are reanimated creatures, but the name itself is self-explanatory in that they are both dead and alive, which thus qualifies as a type of mortality. Regardless, having "Dead" in the names means they deserve to be in the "Death" category. --SnorlaxMonster 12:30, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
A whale shark isn't a whale. An electric eel isn't actually an eel. A shellfish isn't actually a fish, nor is a jellyfish. A waterbear isn't a bear. - Nick O'Demus 19:27, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
A whale shark is a shark, an electric eel is an electric fish, shellfish have shells, jellyfish are jelly-like, waterbears are water-dwelling. Even if half of "Living Dead" is a misnomer, both halves indicating a relation to life/death cannot be ignored. --SnorlaxMonster 06:28, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Living Dead = Undead

Sort of bringing up the old discussion above. Vampires are canonically undead (Herbert Varney is described as "short-lived (by undead standards)"). Is this enough evidence to say that the term Living Dead means that the creature is reanimated in some form? To ward off the potential rebuttal, returning original life to the deceased is the only magical impossibility in regards to resurrection. The existence of Inferi plainly shows giving new life to a dead body is perfectly possible. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 22:10, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

The only problem I would have with that thesis is that Zombies are given a natural range (southern America). If they were truly undead, would they not be found worldwide? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:23, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
If we can speak of undead vampires being "born", surely we can speak of (potentially) undead Zombies being "native" to an area? -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 22:40, December 20, 2013 (UTC)