Talk:Lich

Origins

While the term Lich is p --Rob W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.159.192.9 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 16 September 2004

not an expert at all, but I was paging through an Anglo-Saxon dictionary earlier, and I believe the term lich may come from the uninflected word for 'corpse': līc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.60.250 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 10 October 2006

Despite all this gaming nonsense, the legends of the lich are quite real (in that the legends absolutely exist) and there are a great many of them. The fictional portrayal of liches are fairly true to the idea as it stands. Whoever linked to The Golden Bough did the right thing -- there are several historical lich legends in there. We should really focus on that instead of the gaming nonsense and that "wonderful" picture that someone put up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.248.206 (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The gaming related things are not nonsense. They are a cultural phenomena and are relevant because they are a primary modern expression of this mythological creature as valid as other literature. I would advise to keep them in. 66.178.143.98 (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is Lich pronounced? --Neg 22:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's pronounced like "stitch" or "bitch." → JarlaxleArtemis 04:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've always hear it ponouced as 'Lish'. Ragzouken 14:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Artemis is right, "Ch" as in "Choo-Choo" Beatdown 01:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I've always heard it pronounced the same as the word "like." Check the dictionary link on the page, don't the earlier versions of the word appear to have a long 'i' and a hard 'k'? Milgex 01:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Webster's, lich (as in lych-gate) is pronounced to rhyme with witch. That's also how I've always heard it prnounced. Guest. 10:24, 28 May 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.156.231.55 (talk • contribs)

It can be pronounced several different ways, but the best candidates are: /laɪk/ (rhymes with "Mike"); /lɪtʃ/ (rhymes with "Mitch"); or /lɪk/ (rhymes with "Mick") as in the Heimlich Maneuver. The last pronunciation is not very likely though, and it is probably a corruption due to being used in a personal name. Interestingly, "lich" is a late Middle English spelling of the word "like," and "like" is derived from the same Old English root as "lich." A non-cognate term "lichen", that came into English with the same spelling as "lich," is acceptably pronounced as either /laɪkən/ or /lɪtʃ.ən/ However, most games and gamers (and other game-related media such as the D&D films) pronounce "lich" as /lɪtʃ/. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

First appearance?

The lich was apparently in a book from 1926, although it appears to be interchangable with a mummy. This is the quote i've seen(quoted in NetHack):

But on its heels ere the sunset faded, there came a second

apparition, striding with incredible strides and halting when

it loomed almost upon me in the red twilight-the monstrous mummy

of some ancient king still crowned with untarnished gold but

turning to my gaze a visage that more than time or the worm had

wasted. Broken swathings flapped about the skeleton legs, and

above the crown that was set with sapphires and orange rubies, a

black something swayed and nodded horribly; but, for an instant,

I did not dream what it was. Then, in its middle, two oblique

and scarlet eyes opened and glowed like hellish coals, and two

ophidian fangs glittered in an ape-like mouth. A squat, furless,

shapeless head on a neck of disproportionate extent leaned

unspeakably down and whispered in the mummy's ear. Then, with

one stride, the titanic lich took half the distance between us,

and from out the folds of the tattered sere-cloth a gaunt arm

arose, and fleshless, taloned fingers laden with glowering gems,

reached out and fumbled for my throat . . .

The Abominations of Yondo, Clark Ashton Smith, 1926

--JeffBobFrank 03:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is it too large a stretch of the imagination to think that, given how Dungeons & Dragons borrows so many elements from the Lord of the Rings, the lichs in D&D might actually be derived from the ringwraiths? Just a thought. Wyborn 21:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus - I never thought of that! --L. 4 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Made a small change - didn't think it appropriate that the article should say that other sources derived the lich concept from Dungeons and Dragons, given how old the idea is. --Wyborn 08:59, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Clark Ashton Smith seems to use the word "lich" simply to refer to a corpse; in "Empire of the Necromancers," he makes a distinction between two types of animated corpses: skeletons and liches. I take his use to mean that if there is still flesh on the bones, it is a lich. This is the standard, dictionary-definition of lich-- an archaic term for a corpse-- but used to describe something horrifying, that is, a walking corpse.

D&D borrowed "wraith" from the Ringwraiths, not "lich". D&D uses a general term-- lich, meaning corpse-- for something specific-- the animated corpse of an undead wizard. This is typical of D&D, and games in general, to use a general term (wizard, wight, wraith, warlock, just for the W's) to mean something specific; and in popularizing an obscure general term, many people either forget or remain unaware that there is a more general meaning.

So, when reading Clark Ashton Smith, for instance, don't expect every lich he refers to to be a powerful magician with his disembodied soul encased in a hidden phylactery. He may have written about such a creature (like maybe Malygris?) but it is D&D that "standardized" these characters as "liches," not Smith. Silarius 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The term "Lich" is also used in H.P. Lovecraft's short story "The Thing on the Doorstep" (1933), to refer to a corpse formerly, and possibly still, inhabited by the soul of an evil wizard named Ephraim Waite, who attempted to gain immortality by shifting his soul from one body to another. It's not clear whether he is using the term merely as an archaic reference to a corpse, or specifically to refer to a reanimated corpse, but a reanimated corpse does feature in the story, so it is possible. However, Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith and Robert E Howard (see below) were all part of "The Lovecraft Circle", along with many other like-minded writers, and frequently exchanged ideas with one another, so the question of who first used the term, and developed into its modern context may be unanswerable. Denorios 22:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Is it Lieber's "Gods of Lankhmar" that are being referred to here? --L. 15:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed "comes from the Slavic licho" since there is no reference regarding this etymology. In any case, the modern English "lich" is derived from the Old English word. Given the evolution of English from Anglo-Saxon, it seems unlikely that this word "comes from" a Slavic word, though they could have both some common Indo-European root (or the similarity could be coincidental). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.50.190 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 June 2006

Lich in other fictional works

On the subject of Voldermort, I rewrote that passage. It is unfair to claim that Voldemort isn't a lich simply because he hasn't been "referred to as such." Rowling has made a career out of taking things out of existing mythology and giving them different names. For example, in Half-Blood Prince, she adds monsters called "inferi," which are described as mindless corpses that some evil wizard has animated to do their bidding. Obviously, that's what the rest of the world calls a "zombie;" just because Rowlings makes up names doesn't change that fact. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... --L. 17:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Psyduck looks like a duck and... well, you get my point. Most Pokémons look like animals. That doesn't mean we have any right to claim they are real animals. Inspired, perhaps. But not the same thing. That should be clear also on the lich article. --Kaonashi 18:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

this section is getting rather large. liches are in hundred if not thousands of other fictional works.

perhaps an other page, a list page? or it should be removed altogether. Drag-5 16:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this article really about?

As far as I can see, this is an article about Dungeons & Dragons, not about Liches. Look I played my AD&D when I was young, but I really think this article is way too much about AD&D then someone stuck in some historical context as an afterthought. I think I can make this a better article, more useful to people who have never even heard of Dungeons & Dragons. I am going to work on clarifying and reorganizing this article tonight. GestaltG 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hang on there. The reason this article is about Dungeons & Dragons is because D&D invented the Lich. The "Historical background" section deals with things that are not liches, but merely similar to them and possible inspirations for the idea. If you know of some generic accepted term for "lich-like undead wizards" that the rest of that historical background information could be grouped under then splitting some of it off into a new article on that subject might be good, but reducing the D&D content of this article is definitely not the way to go. Bryan 00:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok then, so assuming for a moment that Dungeons & Dragons "invented" the lich. The editorial point I am trying to make here is why not just put in a sentence or paragraph saying that Dungeons & Dragons invented the modern lich (I notice now that it has been clarified) rather than having half the article be about all of the different Dungeons & Dragons games, references, and related computer games? A simple sentence would have sufficed to make that point, rather than several paragraphs. GestaltG 03:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I notice that you have now deleted the entire reference to Robert E. Howard's Sand Lich? Robert E. Howard died in 1936. I highly doubt that Dungeons & Dragons invented the Lich if it appears in a story by Robert E. Howard. I think you are trying way too hard to "rewrite" history so that Dungeons & Dragons somehow invented the Lich. At the very least, I would consider J.R.R. Tolkein's ringwraiths a kind of Lich. Why did you remove the Robert E. Howard reference? Next thing we know, you are going to try to tell us that Dungeons & Dragons invented sword and sorcery? GestaltG 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe you have me mistaken for somebody else. The last time I made a substantial change to this article (other than fiddling with the capitalization and pluralization of headers) was a little over a year ago, when I added non-D&D-related material. Here's the diff: [1]. Prior to that my only other contributions were to add a category and to add a paragraph mentioning demiliches [2]. As for calling ringwraiths "a kind of lich", that strikes me as being revisionist. Ringwraiths get their own article, which as it happens doesn't mention "Liches" at all. Bryan 02:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The Conan reference was moved up to the list of liches in fantasy fiction. "Conan and the Sorcerer" is a pastiche, not an original Robert E Howard story, and was published in 1978, after D&D debuted its own liches. -Sean Curtin 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with using the word "pastiche" and that is part of my confusion here. According to the dictionary, a "pastiche" is either 1) a work that imitates the style of a previous work or 2) a composition made up of selections from different works. Clearly by pastiche you meant the former; it may well be that Conan and the Sorcerer is an "imitative" pastiche published in 1978. My confusion comes from Conan the Conquerer, which is an original Robert E. Howard work, but is a novel pieced together from various original Howard writings. This work could also be called a "pastiche" of the second sort. Knowing a bit about how Robert E. Howard's works have been published, I thought the 1978 Conan and the Sorcerer (which I have never read) might also be a cobbled collection of Howard writings. At the least, this suggests that you should clarify the reference in the article to the 1978 work. GestaltG 02:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed Skeletor from Lich entry.

Ignoring the fact that Skeletor's physique is muscular and non-rotting and the fact that he is actually a living, breathing (fictional) person. His origin story (according to the original books sold with the action figures) is that he came from a planet of blue-skinned, skull-faced living people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.169.236 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 28 August 2006

But then again, Prince Adam was not a part of the original He-Man mythos, either, and yet all the iterations of He-Man after the Filmation cartoon include him. In the 2002 cartoon series, Skeletor was a living person whose facial flesh was burned off by poison. About to die, he then made a bargain with the demonic Hordak to save his life. The process stripped the remaining flesh from his face, changing him into Skeletor. This process could be considered a form of undeath, and Hordak states later in the series that Skeletor's continued existence depends on this magic. But whether this makes Skeletor a true lich is debatable. 24.116.226.59 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy concerning liches in Warhammer

Whoever wrote the article seems to be under the impression that the term 'necromancer' is applied to all magic-users specialising in the undead, and that the term 'lich' is reserved for the most powerful; as far as I know (unless there are definite GW sources to disprove this), necromancers are living undead-specialist wizards whereas liches are their actual undead counterparts- the before and after pictures, to look at it another way. I'll rewrite the passage if wanted, if noone has any objecion? Naturally if there's new GW source material that elaborates on this stuff then go with that, as I'm not totally up to date on new Warhammer stuff. 172.188.214.14 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Works Section Moved

I've moved the "Fictional Works" section to the bottom of the article because it is the least pertinent to an encyclopedic article on Lich. I'm not volunteering to do it right now, but the "Fantasy Works" section also needs to be cleaned up and probably pared down. The Fictional Works section should adhere to the general purpose and feel of an encyclopedia. Beatdown 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit impatient, so I took the liberty of cleaning up the Fantasy Works section. There is simply no need to post every obscure reference to lich that pops up in fictional works. Beatdown 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sauron is a lich?

According to what I understand about J.R.R Tolkien's writings, Sauron was actually a Maia, an immortal being incapable of dying in the regular sense of the word. Therefore, he would not be considered a lich or even undead at all. Note that when he died, his spirit was banished, as was Saruman's, who was also a maia. I propose taking his name off the list Sylverdin 23:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Sauron is not undead. SpectrumDT 16:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I will remove Sauron from the list. Simply he is not a lich. 62.1.174.197 05:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Even though Sauron is not undead, the One Ring does have similarities to a phylactery, in that his life is bound to it, similar to how a lich's soul is bound to its phylactery. Still, this is somewhat of a stretch, and is likely coincedental. 66.24.235.78 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, just an anonymous LotR geek. Incidentally, Sauron was not a Maia, like Gandalf and Saruman, but rather (originally) an elf. He was famous for betraying his kind to join the service of the then present dark Valar (god) Melkor (or Morgoth). Anyhow, cut a *long* story short, Melkor was banished to the void, leaving Sauron as the prime force of evil (though still a mortal) in Middle earth. He used to be incredibly beautiful and charismatic, apparently due to this, he managed to salvage his reputation and make good face with most of the leaders of the world from his citadel (located near Mirkwood, IIRC). Cut another *long* story short, he betrayed the world again when he forged the one-ring, binding his soul to it and rendering him immortal. Henceforth, he was effectively a lich, in that he was indestructible (each time he got killed he would simply 'come back). After defeated by the lord of Numenor the first time, he was dragged back as a slave, only to become the kings advisor (I didn't write this stuff), and condem the island kingdom to being sunk by the Valar for depravity. He survived the sinking of Numenor, though was much uglier and weaker (as drowned corpses often are) and fled to Mordor to recuperate. This is the sauron we all know and saw in the flashbacks of the movie(that gondor used to fight). As you know, he hid his horrible appearance in an elaborate suit of armour, and was 'killed' in the battle of the last alliance of elves and men prior to helms deep (you saw it, the part where he exploded after having his finger cut off). Anyhow, seeing as the ring was not destroyed, he lived on, though now had no physical form, and instead manifested as an eyeball (whatever floats his boat). Finally he was destroyed by frodo when he threw the ring (or had it wrested from him) into the fires of mount doom where it was forged.

Now in terms of D&D, it had always seemed to me that (like most of the 1st ed data) the Lich was a simple plagiarism of Lord of the Rings. Though it never explicitly said in any of the appendices that Sauron was undead, you can assume the point that he forged the ring and stopped dying when killed relates to that. Plus we also the fact that Demi-Liches' phylacteries are treated as artifacts, in that they can only be destroyed in very limited difficult ways (Sauron actually being a demi-Lich, at least by the time of Aragorn). Sauron was the original Lich. In fact, the label was created for him, so you must forgive him if he doesn't perfectly meet the standards for this retrospective template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.175.202 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 28 May 2007

The comments about Sauron are incorrect. He was never an elf, but he did appear to them as one in order to win their trust and create the One Ring. The destruction of the One Ring did not kill him, but rather left him in such a weakened state that he could no longer create a physical form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwhitcomb (talk • contribs) 17:21, 28 June 2007

Sauron was a Maia of Aule (the smith) which is why he knew how to make such powerful magical rings. He is not undead, he is simply immortal. The maia are divine beings, not unlike Christian angels. Anyway, "he ain't no lich" Queson 19:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sauron was living immortal and therefore fails to match the trait of liches being mortals who gain immortality in undeath. However, he is a major inspiration for the oher main (and possibly focal) trait of having a phylactery. Koschei is the only other source that matches exactly the condition of reincarnation upon death unless phylactery is destroyed. All other historical mythological creatures and fictional horror creatures are different in this aspect. Therefore even if Sauron is not a lich he is at least the second most influential factor as inspiration for liches! -Forcefieldmaker87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.190.88 (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sauron is definitely a rebel Maia, not a "lich". The Nazgûl are arguably liches, having "phylactery" in their Nine Rings (held by Sauron) and using this dark art to extend their existence. But Tolkien used the word "wraiths" to describe the Nazgûl, and the word "wight" to describe the lich-like evil spirit haunting the Barrow-downs in LotR. Tolkien would certainly have known the word "lich" to mean "corpse", but never used it to mean an undead, afaik.

Despite a complainer, below, the use of "lich" as "undead sorceror" almost certainly begins with the release of the first Monster Manual by the late great Gary Gygax, in 1977. —Yamara ✉ 20:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Lich picture from Wesnoth

i deleted that lich picture to make a point. it is not vandalizm. i knew someone would restore the picture right away. my point is in all the world can you not find a better picture of a lich than that stupid cartoon that is posted right now? a person coming here who does not have any knowledge of liches and how powerful and terrifying they are would look at that stupid cartoon lich and just laugh. it is a ridiculous picture and it is childish when you consider how mean and smart and powerful liches are. if i find a good picture can it be posted? can i draw a picture and post it so we can have a real picture of a lich and not some silly stupid nerd stuff like right now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hound of odd (talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 November 2006

If you can find a better picture to illustrate the article with it would be most welcome, and if you draw it yourself even moreso since you can post it under a free licence. Note that the Wesnoth image is under the GPL licence, though, which gives it an advantage over many better-looking but restrictively-licenced (or unlicenced) images out there. By the way, if you're going to make an edit that you know is going to be reverted, you probably shouldn't make the edit in the first place. We've got a guideline on this topic: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thanks. Bryan 06:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps either of these images may be more appropriate?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/DieVecnaDieCover.jpg)

(http://www.nascr.net/~jcburd/lich.jpg)

66.24.235.78 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Those images are copyrighted though. I'm not too happy with the Lich myself (would prefer one with a phylactery, since that is a feature discussed in the article). Perhaps somebody with sufficient skill could draw one? Borisblue 00:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Amusingly, we're now using a better lich portrait, but it's still from Wesnoth. --Zarel (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded a Lich picture that better represents what they look like in popular culture, i was given permission to use it, so im bringing it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Makrsh_P%27Tangh_from_The_4th_Coming.png, there is multiple versions to make the spell look more visible from Dialsoft i can upload later. Matthew Smith (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Demi-lich = demi (less), not demi (more)

In AD&D, a demi-lich is not "half Lich and half god". Acererak from Gary Gygax' Tomb of Horrors represents the first use of the term and should be regarded as the very definition of a "demi-lich". Acererak was actually far LESS powerful than a lich, having once been one himself. Per Gygax: "Eventually even the undead life-force of Acererak began to wane..." (ToH, page 10). Like a demigod, a demi-lich is a lesser version of the real thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asat (talk • contribs) 08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps the etymology of the name has varied over the years, but the current standard references for version 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons are quite clear that a demilich is more powerful than a lich and I believe it has always been that way. See the SRD's entries for the lich template (found in the basic "monsters" listing) and the demilich template (found in the "epic monsters" listing) - the demilich template is applied to a lich and adds 6 to the challenge rating. Bryan Derksen 04:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Bryan. I just added an entry within this article for NetHack in which a demilich is more powerful than a lich. Perhaps this isn't how demilich was originally defined, but it certainly seems more widely used to mean more powerful, not less. ahpla 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Demi-Lich is to lich what Arch-angel is to Angel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.175.202 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 28 May 2007

I agree. Demi Moore is not a lich.124.176.5.96 (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

ABOUT DEMI-LICH ICONOGRAPHY The original demi-lich appears in Tomb of Horrors, by Gary Gygax, as a bejewelled skull. Tomb of horrors was written in 1975 (first published 1978). A very similar (if not identical) being appears in "Thieve's House" by novelist Fritz Leiber, written in 1943 (and clearly predating Gygax's work). It's therefore straightforward where the iconography comes from, and the [citation needed] tag is clearly meaningless. You need a citation to prove the sky is blue? Too often [citation needed] demonstrates just that those who put it there didn't do their research. Marco - 17/06/2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.43.230.194 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 17 June 2010

please stop with the dungeons and dragons

the word lich is not exclusive to dungeons and dragons. this article is about lich, not about d&d. there is an article about lich specific to d&d. this article should be focused on the word lich and all its uses throughout history. it should not be biased towards d&d. the use of the word lich in any media or other works can not be attributed to d&d without a proper citation. coincidences can and do exist. Drag-5 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

additional, please review the following. http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?lich http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lich http://dict.die.net/lich/ http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/LICH Drag-5 21:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Its there anything falling under reliable where the magical girls of Puella Magi Madoka Magica fall under "lich" as claimed by TV Trope's Our Liches are Different?--174.99.238.22 (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering as how Puella Magi Madoka Magica never even once uses the terms "lich" or "undead" to describe either its magical girls, nor the witches they mature into, AND considering TVTrope's egregious notoriety in allowing personal analyses and really sloppy original research (i.e., that the "Our Liches Are Different" also claims that Jesus Christ is a lich), no, we should not mention the PMMM magical girls here, let alone say that they are an example of liches.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Voldemort does not belong under Historical background. I feel this information (and examples in other important fiction) is better suitable in a section titled Fictional Works, Fantasy Works or In Fiction (the first two of which used to exist on the page by the looks of it). It is questionable whether Voldemort fits the description of a lich at all. I'll move the information on Voldemort to its own section in a few days unless someone objects. —121.209.186.16 (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nazgûl are not Liches

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's even remotely correct. The Nazgûl were wraiths, beings of no substance at all, who could interact with the physical world, and wore clothing or armor as needed; whereas Liches are powerful spellcasting (in some cases) corpses/skeletons. The difference might seem slight, but there is a difference. Call me crazy if you will, but I think the inclusion of Nazgûl in the list of Liches is a mistake -- and while we're at it, why are wraiths in the list as well? The two are not the same at all. Also, I belive the term originates with Old English "lic" meaning corpse or body, but I may be mistaken.192.44.136.113 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Morality and perversity

The description of a lich states that it is a "(...) who has used evil rituals to bind his intellect to his animated corpse and thereby achieve a perverse form of immortality."

Why is that perverse and immoral? There is no explanation of why that would be wrong. I would have done it, without much hesitation for example. Crakkpot (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

immortality means to live forever =/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.222.249 (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's part of the "character mythology". Also, from a d&d perspective, the ritual used varies from setting to setting but is generally described as "unspeakably evil". Negative energy is used to animate the characters body, and this could be intepreted as corruptive to the personality. I know there's a description of good aligned liches in one of the manuals, animated by positive energy. In addition, there's Baelnorns, elven lich ancestor guardians, that are good aligned. You have to remember that in the d&d universe, good and evil is directly reflected in the universe and it's magic and vice versa. 79.136.61.34 (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

IPA Pronunciation in article

I added the alternate pronunciation to the article based on the obsolete use of "lich" as an alternate spelling of "like" (with reference citation) and the accepted pronunciations of lichen. This was reverted because:

"revert: the "lich" pronounced your way is an entirely different lemma, and doesn't prove that our "lich" was pronounced like that. may be etymologically related, but that is speculation on your part"

• It's not "my" way--the lemma of "like" is given in IPA as /'laɪk/--since "lich" is an (obsolete late Middle English) alternate spelling of "like," we know that the lexeme of "lich" includes that pronunciation (not to mention that a non-cognate world with the same spelling can have that pronunciation, q.v. lichen).
• I never said it was the canonical form of the lexeme, I said it is an alternate form (which is why it follows the word "or" in my edit, and appears in the second position).
• There is no speculation on my part about the etymology of "lich" or "like": http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lich, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=like, http://www.yourdictionary.com/lich, http://www.yourdictionary.com/like.

So I'm reverting to my edit. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the obsolete spelling of "like" was "lich" has no bearing on the pronunciation of "lich" the fantasy creature; although spelled the same, they are different words and have been different words for a very long time. Let's call the obsolete spelling of "like" A, and the word "lich" B. The fact that A, pronounced /laɪk/, used to be spelled the same as B, pronounced /lɪtʃ/, does not mean that B used to be pronounced /laɪk/. To put it bluntly, you can't make judgments about a word's pronunciation just based on the fact that another word was spelled like it a couple hundred years ago.

If you can find good, non-anecdotal evidence that people today pronounce "lich" /laɪk/, you are welcome to put it in the article. But there is no encyclopaedic value in pointing out that people a few hundred years ago pronounced an entirely different word, which just happened to share this spelling, /laɪk/.

Normally I would say I'll wait for someone else to come around and do the revert, but as this is a relatively low-traffic article I am going to do it myself. Please do not add speculation on the pronunciation of "lich" to the article unless you also cite a source verifying that that is how the word is generally pronounced now (as opposed to a hundred years ago). —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 03:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Since both "like" and "lich" (the word referenced by the article) derive from the same Old English / Anglo-Saxon root, and a late Middle English spelling of "like" is "lich," and a non-cognant word that came into English with the same spelling (viz., lichen) also supports the possible pronunciation of the lexeme as /laɪk/ (not to mention that there is plenty of, admittedly, anecdotal evidence of people pronouncing it as /laɪk/ in gaming forums)...I don't see what more is needed here.

To recapitulate: 1.) Etymologically, "like" and "lich" both have the same root; in the recent history of the English language the two spellings were interchangeable and context alone determined the nuance (not unlike the various connotations of the modern word "like" being context-bound). 2.) A non-cognate word shows that the lexeme is acceptably pronounced in modern English as the obsolete spelling of "like."

Given (1.) and (2.), please indicate what other lexical or morphological data is required to establish the alternate (note: alternate, not "normal") pronunciation. Thanks. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, I would recommend that you read WP:SYNTH (a subsection in the Wikipedia policy on original reasearch)...what you are doing is essentially making a speculation based on several other facts.

Now, on to the other stuff. English has the largest vocabulary of any language in the world, and in many cases tens of modern words came from the same Old English root and are pronounced very differently now—in some cases, you can hardly even recognize the original root in the current word.

About the archaic spelling of the word "like" (which I'll try calling lich^a, and the fantasy monster lich^b), again, that doesn't really have any bearing on the current pronunciation. They are two words with radically different meanings, which just happened to be spelled the same way a while ago. Just because lich^a was once spelled as "like" (and maybe pronounced as /laɪk/, although you haven't given any evidence yet to support that) doesn't mean that lich^b was ever pronounced that way. Again, they are different words, and there's not much use speculating about the current pronunciations based on archaic spellings.

If you want to include another pronunciation in the article, the evidence you need to bring is very clear-cut: you need a dictionary or other publication specifically saying the word lich^b is pronounced that way by people today. No other etymological data will do as, as I pointed out before, trying to synthesize a pronunciation out of other data would be tantamount to theorizing and producing original research. If you really want to put in the alternate pronunciation based on anecdotal evidence, you could insert it as a parenthetical expression in the beginning (something like "sometimes mispronounced /laɪk/ by gamers") and don't think anyone would remove it, as that kind of stuff is often given in articles without being sourced. But don't put in an alternate pronunciation like it's fact and then give a bunch of spurious evidence for it to make it look as if this is a widely accepted and factual thing. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 13:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll look for a source for the obsolete pronunciation of lich^b as lich^a, but since pronunciation keys, let alone IPA renderings, are of very recent provenance, I feel like you're setting the bar to an absurd height (i.e., "If you can prove that something that didn't exist back then really existed back then..."). And I've yet to see how you can call into question the fact (supported by modern lexical aids), that the grapheme "lich" can be identified with either the phoneme /laɪk/ or /lɪtʃ/ (as in the non-cognate word lichen, which came into English with the same grapheme). And that alone seems like justification for the alternate pronunciation. Regardless of etymology or semantic content, the grapheme itself shares the same phonemes--that much is indisputable. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing "absurd" about that standard; the very fact that you've admitted the supposed pronunciation is obsolete, even if it did exist, shows that there's no point citing it in the article. The point is to give the pronunciation that is relevant, not all pronunciations that people may or may not have used at some indiscriminate point in the past. Arguing over an archaic pronunciation is irrelevant to this article. Note that in my previous message I specifically said, "you need a dictionary or other publication specifically saying the word lich^b is pronounced that way by people today" (emphasis added).

And, once again, the fact that the spelling "lich" (it is not a grapheme, by the way; a grapheme is a single character...likewise, /laɪk/ is not a "phoneme") had two different pronunciations still does not come even close to proving that the word for a fantasy monster used both of those pronunciations. All you have proven is that some words spelled "lich" used to be pronounced /laɪk/; you haven't proven that this word spelled "lich" used to be pronounced /laɪk/. You have to remember that a spelling is not the same thing as a word. Take, for example the verb "desert" (to abandon, to leave) and the noun "desert" (dry place)...they share a spelling but are different words, and it would be ridiculous to say that one is pronounced the same as the other just because they have the same spelling. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What's "absurd" is asking me to provide proof of pronunciation for an obsolete pronunciation of the word, beyond the simple fact that the uncontested pronunciation of the cognate word, "like", is /laɪk/, and "lich" was (at one time) an accepted alternate spelling of that word. Since pronunciation keys and IPA were unknown at the time when "lich" was an alternate spelling of "like," and in the absence of contrary evidence, we can only assume that /laɪk/ is a possible pronunciation of "lich"--the onus probandi is on the opposition, to show that "like" could be pronounced as /lɪtʃ/ (in which case the alternate spelling of "like," while retaining the semantic range of "like," was pronounced as /lɪtʃ/). Further, without getting into semantic disputes over whether polygraphs may be properly called graphemes, or whether polyphones may be properly called phonemes, there is still the recalcitrant data that a non-cognate word, composed of the same letters, supports both pronunciations.

So, without contrary evidence, we have proof that "lich" could be pronounced as "like"; and, we have evidence that the characters that compose the term (however one may which to classify them, in whole, or in part) can be pronounced as either /lɪtʃ/ or /laɪk/ (q.v., lichen). Please tell me again what is missing here? Ps. Semantic meaning has little impact on the discussion regarding pronunciation: "I like you" and "He runs like the wind" have very different semantic meanings, but they are, as anyone must concede, pronounced exactly the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.3.27 (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting the idea that the burden of proof is on me, because on Wikipedia the burden of proof is on the inclusionist—ie, it's you who has to prove that information should be added to the article, not me who has to prove that it shouldn't. For the official policy, see WP:BURDEN.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but again, all you have proven is that the sequence of letters L-I-C-H was once pronounced /laɪk/; you have not proven that this word was once pronounced /laɪk/. A word is a different thing than a sequence of letters. You've shown that "like" used to be spelled differently, not that "lich" used to be pronounced differently. If you disagree with this, I suggest you go find one of the editors involved in articles such as International Phonetic Alphabet or related subjects to come here and give an outside opinion on the matter. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

One more little thing....you say "there is still the recalcitrant data that a non-cognate word, composed of the same letters, supports both pronunciations." Again, that is original research talk. On Wikipedia you can't speculate about what might be true, no matter how likely, or about what is supported; you can only cite things that already appear in reliable sources. If it's impossible to find reliable sources for an obsolete pronunciation, then, tough luck, there's no way to include it in an article. The best you can do is publish an article on why you think the word used to be pronounced that way, then come back to this article and say, "X has proposed that 'lich' used to be pronounced /laɪk/." You can't put forth that proposal here; you can only cite it once it's been put forth elsewhere (i.e., in a reliable source). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What I see as your burden is to show that the spelling of "lich," when used as an alternate spelling for "like," was pronounced as /lɪtʃ/--this is the only way I can see to rescue the claim that "lich" absolutely cannot be pronounced as "like." I've provided the respectable, lexical source which shows that "lich" can be pronounced as "like" (unless you can show that "lich," when used as an alternate spelling for "like," was still pronounced as /lɪtʃ/). Further, the verbal component of interest in the non-cognate term lichen is acceptably pronounced using either /lɪtʃ/ or /laɪk/--there is no original research on my part, it's simply a matter of fact that the same letters can be pronounced in different ways. It is up to you to show why this particular arrangement of letters is sufficiently different from the same arrangement of letters in the word lichen to exclude a particular pronunciation. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't about the letter sequence L-I-C-H, it's about a fantasy monter called a "lich." Therefore, it's not about the possible pronunciations of the spelling L-I-C-H, but about the pronunciations of the word lich when it is used to refer to the fantasy monster. Everything else, including "lichen," is irrelevant. We're talking about a word here, not a group of letters. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

But the name for the fantasy monster--"lich"--is derived from the Anglo-Saxon / Old-English / Middle English "lich" for "body" or "corpse," so the obsolete / archaic pronunciation of the term seems to factor squarely into the consideration. And if an obsolete pronunciation is /laɪk/, as attested by the modern, non-cognate term lichen--that seems relevant. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The old pronunciation of like was not [laɪk], but [liːkə]. Anyway, that's irrelevant. The word lich is pronounced /lɪtʃ/, period. Discussion is moot, unless you actually have a source for some other current pronunciation, not speculations about what the pronunciation might or might not have been a thousand years ago. kwami (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, 400-500 years ago (we're talking late Modern English--Chaucer and Spenser--not Beowulf), but close enough. And I'm not sure how it's speculation about the pronunciation, given the standard IPA of "like" (where do you get the pronunciation you give above?)--and given a non-cognate polygraph (or grapheme or whatever you'd like to call it) is acceptably pronounced /laɪk/ (again, see lichen). As I said, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that some gamers pronounce the word this way, we have a non-cognate term with the same spelling acceptably pronounced this way, and we have this term as an alternate spelling of a cognate term which is pronounced this way (barring you showing where your proposed pronunciation comes from). This seems like it is verifiable, not original research. However, when all is said and done, I don't care if this alternate pronunciation makes it in the article or not, I just don't see any reason to exclude it. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Simple: because interpreting sources for their implications is OR. If you have a reliable source that gamers commonly pronounce it this way, fine, but without that your alleged pronunciation is just that. kwami (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Kwamikagami just beat me to that, but I second what he said above. WP is about the content of the sources, not the "implications" of the sources. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 08:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you should have no objection to including the alternate pronunciation, since a notable source (Webster) gives "lich" as an alternate spelling for "like" (and without verifiable sources to the contrary, we know from verifiable sources that "like" is pronounced as /laɪk/). So, where is the OR again? Ah, yes, it's in the "implications" that you (or I) draw from the source. Of course--you're neutral and unbiased, and I'm just throwing all sorts of unsupported opinions around--or course. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again..... the dictionary gives "lich" as an alternate spelling for "like," not "like" as an alternate pronunciation for "lich." Since all you're doing at this point is repeating yourself and making the same speculations over and over again, I'm not responding to this anymore. I'm just going to revert if you add any speculation to the article. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Like I said, I have no vested interest in the possible pronunciations of "lich." It is interesting, however, that you admit that a notable, verifiable source gives "lich" as an alternate spelling of "like," yet you are unable to produce any notable, verifiable source for a different pronunciation of "like" than /laɪk/. But that's an unwarranted synthesis, of course (heh). 24.243.3.27 (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

China Mieville

Lich : this word is perfectly legitimate and indeed, like so many old words that have fallen into some disuse, should be revived. A recent example of its use in a work of fiction is in China Miéville's masterpiece : Perdido Street Station, where it is used in the modern meaning of 'an undead corpse' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.230.57 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Alive or Dead

Are liches alive or dead? I read a fantasy novel where the lich was a wizard who used a spell to prevent himself from dying. However, his body aged into a skeleton. In this way, the lich never really *died* but just aged horribly. I read another fantasy novel where the lich is a wizard who bound his soul to an object which, when he died, made sure he came back in a new body. This example shows a lich as being dead and then coming back as undead. In other words is a lich living but close to death or undead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.11.235 (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As per D&D, a Lich is basically a corpse puppetered/possessed by the wizard, while his soul is stored inside/bound to this plane by his phylatchery. The phylatchery basically replaces his living body. The body is in all cases inanimate, and the power that animates it is drawn by the enchantment from the negative plane. There's nothing that really states that the body has to be skeletal, but that's how antagonist liches are generally displayed, as they are meant to be very old. You could simply preserve the corpse via magic, but due to how negative energy works, the corpse would basically be kept in near-stasis in a state of perpetual decay. The best that could be done would basically be to keep the corpse in the state a corpse is in just as the last bit of warmth has left it. For a hundred years or so, anyway. ;D 79.136.61.34 (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Original Research--NOT!

An "original research?" note is attached to the sentence: "This image is consistent with the modern interpretation of the lich." If both the "modern interpretation" section and the Koschei section are substantiated, then the comparison is what the mathematician call "trivial"--it can be done "by inspection". If that is the kind of original research the Wikipedia abhors, then the Wikipedia is stupid. I will therefore delete the note.

If the Wikipedia is in fact stupid by my personal definition above--and since I have no authority whatever here, it is certainly free to be so!--it will be an easy fix to restore my change. But if this is done, I would very much appreciate knowing in what way the absence of the sentence can be considered an improvement for the reader compared to its presence. And if the argument is valid, then *I* will be, gratefully, less stupid! GeorgeTSLC (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

An OR tag doesn't mean the statement is wrong, only that it needs a reliable source to back it up. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to speculate and draw connections like this themselves; if this connection is drawn in a published source (which I imagine it has been) then that source should be cited. The tag doesn't mean anyone is asking for that paragraph to be removed; they're just asking for a source. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Still, what is this about?

After so much talk on this page, I'm surprised that the article is still so confused. We need to decide what the article is about and stick to that. First, wikipedia is not a dictionary so it shouldn't focus on the history of the word. I believe it should focus on the fantasy wizard-zombie monster, starting with the D&D version, since that is the version that most people are aware of, and then spread out so describe later version (other RPGs, computer games, etc) and the stories that D&D got inspiration from (pulp stories, older European folktales). Ashmoo (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. However, the D&D version has its own article, so that might be a problem. Also, I'll try to find a reliable source for the "Voldemort is a lich" claim. Edit: I took a look, and the only sources I could find are Reddit, SciFi.Stackexchange, TV Tropes, [arsmagisterii.blogspot.com/2017/02/voldemort-is-lich.html some] [thehogshead.org/is-voldemort-undead-or-how-to-lick-a-lich-2696/ blogs], and this article. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"In popular culture" cleanup

The article List of liches was becoming a mess of an article, so I started to try to clean it up but found that most of the entries don't really have any sources to justify inclusion, and there's already a small(er) list on this page, so I've redirected List of liches to Lich#In popular culture, and I plan on working on finding references for the entries, or removing the ones where a reliable source cannot be found. I wanted to place this on the talk page so that others can be aware of what I'm doing and to discuss if there are any issues. Consistent with WP:IPC, I'm going to try to find third-party sources that can show that an entry warrants inclusion; simply including a lich because it exists in a webcomic or game would bog down any article or list and give undue weight to entries that crowd out others that are supported by reliable third-party sources. - Aoidh (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I got ill and had to take it very slow, but today I went and cleaned up the section as best I could. I removed entries that I couldn't find non-trivial sources for, and added sources to each entry. There are some of the entries that I don't really think warrant a mention here, but I didn't want to just completely gut the list (just mostly gut it). I went ahead and removed the "unreferenced section" and "in popular culture" tags because I feel like I put a good dent in those issues if not resolved them, but I wanted to at least get the section to a half respectable state. But given that the section is still larger than the entire rest of the article, I'm more than happy to see someone trim it further if they feel it necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

4th coming lich

I have reverted the addition of this entry because it doesn't meet the very basic inclusion criteria. A wiki is not a reliable source nor is a forum post. If there's no coverage, there's no inclusion in the article. If, as is being claimed, it's notable because it's "one of the first" liches in an MMO, there would be a reliable source showing that this was notable. There are hundreds of instances of liches throughout games; just because they exist doesn't mean they need to be mentioned here. If an entry can't even be supported with a single reliable source showing that it's in some way worth mentioning, the article doesn't need to mention it. - Aoidh (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

a notable mention of it being one of the first mmos would be release date of 1999, the inclusion of it in advertisement, the "worth of mentioning" is not the case for everything, the game was played in 1999 to around 2002 and in very small communities to this day. it didn't grow like Ultima Online or WoW, but it does worth a mention as this predates almost everything on the list, Vircom went bankrupt and the other company Dialsoft that bought it doesn't care. proof of existence http://www.t4c.com/cms/realmud-server-rules.html, https://www.giantbomb.com/the-4th-coming/3030-32800/images/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Anthony Smith (talk • contribs)

It deserving a mention is up to reliable sources, not us as editors. We don't get to dictate what reliable sources show as noteworthy. You keep saying it's in "one of the first MMOs" but even that is lacking a source. It's not enough for it to have existed, it needs to be sourced and worth mentioning. Do you have any sources that support its inclusion in the article? I've looked for sources, it's just another run of the mill game that happened to have a lich, but no sources go out of their way to talk about the lich in this game. Not worth mentioning. - Aoidh (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing on In popular culture section

Hello JoePhin I'm just continuing our discussion on my talkpage here so that others can see and weigh in.

You point out WP:RSPRIMARY does permit some claims to be cited from primary sources. However more specifically to In popular culture sections WP:IPCV states:

If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources.

Which is precisely the issue at hand here. I have no reservations that all the listed works do indeed have a lich in them, and have no issue with primary sourcing to be used to establish that fact if needed. However the issue is that they should be established relevant to be included at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

The following RfC on sourcing in such sections lays it out even more clearly:

The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. [...] The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance.

The goal here is for a reader to be able to look at the section and understand works that have shaped the collective imagination for what a lich is. I don't really think the current section does that, it requires some more work. But one thing that I think hampers this goal is turning this into a random collection of works that have a lich in them. It makes it difficult for a reader to tell which instances are influential or important, by burying them in a pile of noise. And so enforcing a requirement on reliable secondary sourcing at least helps filter out some of the noise.

Regardless of all this, thanks for your contributions to this page. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't strictly agree with your interpretation @AquitaneHungerForce:, I'd say if someone bothered to include the entry in the first place then that's evidence enough that it's notable (what can I say, I'm an inclusionist) BUT! (and it's a big but) I agree in general that it's good to have secondary sources for these things, and if other editors (you, whoever else) want secondary sources for something like this, that's fine with me really. The philosophical distinction isn't all that important, I suppose, when I'll happily agree it's better to have secondary sources too, and I don't mind leaving those entries out until we have some.

Cheers! Joe (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

While I do like to have secondary sources to confirm an addition to the "In Popular Culture" lists, in my opinion, it's more important for the entry's notability to be confirmed or discussed. I find it frustrating having to sift through these lists of 5-word blurbs, and find out that the whatever-in-question is so minor so as to be not even mentioned in either the parent article or the parent article's list of characters. And this well before having to deal with the yahoos who come to this article to state Jesus and Skeletor are liches.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

'Jesus is a lich.'

Anyway, yes, amid all the myriad tests of notability, ultimately what is and isn't notable is just decided by the editors, whether that's a single editor adding an entry he/she thinks is notable or a cadre of editors coming to a consensus. But I think we all probably agree it's good to have secondary sources for these things, whatever our philosophical differences on the source (aha) of notability. Joe (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Kuva Lich

Should the Kuva Lich be mentioned in the video game section? It appears to be an in-name-only mention, as neither the official source given or official art don't explain how it is supposed to be an undead magician. I mean, the IP who keeps putting this into the list does know that the official site doesn't even use the word "undead," right?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

By now I think it's clear that my edit is being held to a different standard that others, after all, I'm using an anonymous IP, and thus I must be a vandal, correct? For example the point about Baldur's Gate only references a mere game review while I have provided quite a lot more.

Objection #1: The official sources do not describe them as "undead". Whether they use the specific word "undead" is not relevant. It is also false that the official sources do not describe them as "undead", "resurrected", "reanimated" & so on. To me it is sufficient that the official sources (ie the creators) refer to them as "Kuva Lich", which implies that they are a certain type of lich. In case that is still not sufficient, the official source further elaborates: "Tenno [the player], you are not the only one with the gift of resurrection. The most worthy Grineer soldiers are receiving the power of Kuva [a mystical red substance of unknown origin or nature, like most magic in games or other works of fiction]. Strike these Kuva Larvlings down and they shall rise again as a Kuva Lich, stronger and more ruthless than before." The other source I provided also stated that they are immortal except for the correct sequence of weapon mods that the player must deduce. They also hold power over Kuva Thralls. That is a lich according to the description at the top of the page.

Objection #2: This is not a notable example of a lich, or that no lich is notable if it's in a video game. That's subjective, but since this page had an existing section for liches in video games, and Kuva Liches are clearly liches, it seemed appropriate to include them on the list. Warframe is also notable, as at this moment Warframe is the #22 most-played game on Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/stats/ with 41,227 players currently in-game right now, and there are others on Nintendo Switch and PS4. If this is not appropriate for inclusion on the list, then I recall my comment in my original edit, that is if this is not appropriate for inclusion considering what I've provided then maybe there should not be a section for video games at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:D4DE:355B:4A0E:58D8 (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A game review is a secondary source. The Warframe website & Steam are primary sources; your analysis falls under original research. Please review both Wikipedia:Reliable sources & Wikipedia:Notability. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." - Since all I did was add another bullet point to provide another example this is very clearly not original research in Wikipedia's sense. I never made any "analysis" in the bullet point I added as you claim. Straw man.

"On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." - Once again, I only added a solitary bullet point. I never intended to create a whole new article on this, nor even to change the emphasis of this one, so I guess that's that. Another straw man.

Steam is independent of Digital Extremes, Warframe's developer, so I fail to see your issue with using their data concerning the number of people who play the game. If I used Digital Extreme's numbers I can see there could be potential for someone to question them, which is why I didn't use them. In any case I did not include this in the bullet point I added to the page, but to illustrate the number of people who played to someone who questioned whether this was a notable example. At the time I looked, Warframe was #22 out of more than 50,000 games on Steam. That's not notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:D4DE:355B:4A0E:58D8 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

re: reliability "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." I included a line stating that there were liches in Warframe and included links to the developer's website saying so. Do you mean to say that the sources I provided are unreliable on that subject and in that context, or that I misused them in some way? Would you also say that George Lucas is an unreliable source on the issue of whether Princess Leia has a PhD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:216A:3AE5:42D4:E8AE (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A game developer discussing its own game does not establish notability, in my opinion. See WP:PSTS "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." A game developer talking about its own game is a primary source. If you want to include this material, i suggest you find an independent, secondary source that discusses Kuva Liches and establishes how knowledge of this video game item helps the reader understand the subject of liches generally. As it stands now, the only reason this material is included is that it contains the name "lich". Bonewah (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

In the case of the issue of a game developer discussing whether people should buy their game and play it and tell their friends, then you would no doubt be correct to point out that the source of that claim could potentially be biased and unreliable. I also vaguely recall a real-life case of a chemist editing his own Wiki page and inflating the importance of his work. However I hope anyone can see that is obviously not the question here; the use of the developer as a source in this case could not be biased or unreliable as it is their own creation and does not imply any judgement, analysis, conclusion, etc on my part. Once again my use of the developer as a source is no different than asking George Lucas whether there is a gigantic planet-destroying space station is any of the Star Wars movies. Could there be a more authoritative source in that case? This is why I think game reviews are rather weak sources on the content of a game for the very reason that Wiki considers secondary sources to be preferable. Would you also please drop the notability complaint. The article I was directed to primarily discussed whether a topic is sufficiently notable to warrant creation of a brand-new article which I made no attempt to do. However the only applicable section of the Notability guide in fact states the opposite of what you seem to want it to say: "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies." Considering the "due weight" and "balance" principles, and that my edit was a single bullet point that barely added two lines to the article, and certainly did not change the its emphasis I really don't understand what the fuss is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:8D9A:B5D2:22B0:9624 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The 'fuss', as far as im concerned, is that this article has become larded down with trivial nonsense that does nothing to help the reader understand the subject. As i said above, the mere fact that the video game character contains the word "lich" does not establish an important enough connection that it warrants mention in this article. The fact that the video game character isnt mentioned in reliable secondary sources is a strong indicator that it is no real significance. Frankly, most of the 'Popular Culture' items are trivial and should be removed for the same reason. Bonewah (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You have only to see the history of this discussion to discern that it is false to suggest that the only reason to include this on the page is that the game includes a lich. It is trivial to verify that Warframe is one of the most-played on Steam, using Steam's data (again, which is independent of Warframe's developers), & to verify that Warframe is one of the most highly-rated and most-played multiplayer games available right now. I'll leave you to do your own homework on that. See for example many of the sources on the Warframe page. Once again, your passage from the Wiki guide on sources does not say what you want it to say. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Can you explain why then, that means I MUST invariably provide reliable, published secondary sources and no others? As if to say that the developer is a biased & unreliable source on the issue of whether a certain character simply exists in the game they created. Not whether it's good/bad, offensive/inoffensive, etc which are issues that would clearly have potential for bias. Is George RR Martin also a biased & unreliable source on the factual issue of whether a certain character dies in Game of Thrones? "As far as I'm concerned... most of the 'Popular Culture' items are trivial and should be removed for the same reason" well thank you very much for revealing what I've suspected for a while now. As I've said previously, if a single line about an example of a certain type of lich from Warframe is not appropriate for inclusion on this page, which is accurate, does not misrepresent its sources & does not violate the "due weight" & "balance" principles, then perhaps the whole section on video games should be removed. Or maybe refer this to an editor who doesn't have an admitted bias against pop-culture topics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:8D9A:B5D2:22B0:9624 (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The official source you gave does not mention anything about the Kuva lich being undead, let alone give any implication about it being an undead magician who stores its soul in a phylactery or other remote container, and the art style of the game does not suggest that it's undead, anyhow.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You have already attempted to claim that the sources do not characterize Kuva Liches as being undead, which once again I have already demonstrated is a false statement. In addition to the quotations I have already provided, I also found "The death of Grineer [the enemy faction that produces Kuva Liches] bathed in crimson [Kuva, the mystical substance] fuels an undying thirst for its creator: YOU." "Your Lich is immortal until you figure out the correct combination of Requiem Mods". Wikipedia's policies on sourcing do not oblige me to explain why I chose sources from the developer since there is no possibility of bias or unreliability in the way I used them, but I suppose I could humour you all anyway. I naturally did find secondary sources discussing these characters but they were all primarily guides on how the players could defeat them, and therefore would not not be appropriate to include as sources for the bullet point I added on this page. Thus, I went to the source since my edit concerned the lore, story, etc and not how to play the game. It is a much more authoritative source for the material I added anyway. Regarding whether Kuva Liches keep their spirit in a phylactery I might wonder when, since this discussion began, that became a concern and whether it was necessary for the other examples of liches given on the page to have a documented phylactery in order to be included? Why did you not mention it before? If it didn't matter then why would it matter now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:8D9A:B5D2:22B0:9624 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules very much require you to demonstrate that what your attempting to add will improve the article, and i dont feel you have done that. And, yes, i have a bias against trivia which does nothing to enhance a reader's understanding of the subject, this is why you must provide reliable, published secondary sources: to establish that some reliable independent source thinks the material in question is actually relevant to the topic. Bonewah (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You've also admitted to a bias against pop-culture topics, and that is quite relevant concerning an example here from a video game. We're not discussing chocolate-chip cookie recipes. Since you have admitted to this bias and continue to participate in this discussion someone could reasonably consider that to be evidence of bad-faith editing and could question your claim that you genuinely want to improve the page, or are equipped to do so. If it's not a topic you are interested in I think you are unlikely to be knowledgable about it. The right thing would be to essentially abstain or recuse yourself in this case. I have also found many errors in understanding & application of Wikipedia's editorial policies that you and others have committed, so that you do not seem to be knowledgable about that either. See for example the cases where I found that the Wikipedia policies do not say what you claim, or even say the opposite. You refer to "trivia"; I presume you mean Wikipedia & its editors' disapproval of trivia sections in Wikipedia articles? If that's the case then that is another falsehood as it will be plain to anyone who looks that the article in question does not have a trivia section. It had a existing section for examples of liches in video games, and I simply added one more which barely added two lines to the article. I was careful to keep it to barely two lines which surely did not violate the "due weight" and "balance" editorial principles. Perhaps by "trivia" you refer to the video game section itself? In that case it seems I've caught you red-handed again as that would be your bias talking, and further evidence that you are not editing in good faith and perhaps should refrain from further comment on this topic? The example I gave is indisputably an excellent example of a lich in video games, and I included a link to the Wiki article on Warframe to provide context for any reader who doesn't know what Warframe is and would like to know. Now that I think about it, that settles the "notability" complaint doesn't it? Warframe is sufficiently notable (as defined by Wikipedia's editorial policies) to justify creation of its own Wikipedia article. So it was unnecessary and only purely for your benefit on this talk page and for no other reason that I have provided player numbers from Steam which attest to the popularity of the game in this talk page. Steam is a digital distribution service with 75% market share and which is independent from Warframe's developer. It is in fact owned by Valve, which is a competing developer to Digital Extremes. It is a trivial matter to find other sources (such as reviews, etc) to see popularity of Warframe at the moment (particularily among multiplayer games) to convince yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:AC82:A649:8354:E207 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

If you feel im acting improperly you are free to seek redress. As it stands now, I am unconvinced your edits are productive and you have done nothing to change my mind. Bonewah (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Bottom line is nobody has been able to demonstrate that my edit has *violated any of Wikipedia's editorial policies*, as I said, in particular the use of a primary source, and due weight & balance. One might think "it would be nice" to have a secondary or tertiary sources indicating that it is not only an in-name-only situation but I would say that's their problem as the use of the developer as a source conforms to the standards given in this case, and I explained why I didn't use secondary sources. Is also incorrect to continue to imply that there is some doubt about this as I have given prolific examples that make it All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable.clear that the source characterizes Kuva Liches as liches in the sense of Dungeons & Dragons, whether or not they use specific words like "undead", "reanimated" & so on. Why must there be consensus with people who object to this edit but are unable to explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:AC82:A649:8354:E207 (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

At this point, your arguments haven't convinced multiple editors. If you check out WP:TALKDONTREVERT, there are a bunch of options to solicit outside opinions if you'd like to get more editors involved. Otherwise, please do not violate the three-revert rule. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't convinced multiple editors. They are the very same editors who have not been able to produce anything in Wikipedia's editorial policies to support their objections, and one of which seems to have a general dislike of all pop-culture topics that he/she/they were not honest about from the beginning.

Ok ill play along. One of the three core content policies of Wikipedia is WP:V Verifiability. That policy states in part "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material." (emphasis mine). The content of an article must be verifiable, not just its subject but the contents as well. What makes something Verifiable? Further down in [[WP:V] we find in the section titled "What counts as a reliable source": "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." ... " Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." The context here is an article on the concept and term 'Lich'. Not a video game. Not some character that appears in a video game, but the term and concept itself. The video game designer you keep pushing is in no way an expert on Liches and so is not an appropriate source for the concept of Liches. Moreover, WP:V further states that "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Your source is all of those things. As ive stated multiple times the only connection your edits have to the concept of liches is the name. At least with the other pop culture references its someone else besides the creator making the connect between the character and the concept of lich generally. You dont even do that. The only thing you have done is confirm that some element in a game is, in fact, an element in that game. Bonewah (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten that my edit was a single bullet point in an existing list in an existing section on video games and that said little more than "Warframe has liches". *That* is the context, not the article as a whole. The in-line citation that I included applies to the claim "Warframe has liches" in *that* bullet point. The sources I provided directly support the material presented and are appropriate to the straightforward claim "Warframe has liches". You did not provide evidence that Digital Extremes has a poor reputation for checking facts. On the contrary, I found numerous quotations from my sources (see them above) to indicate that they accurately characterise Kuva Liches as liches in the Dungeons-&-Dragons sense given at the top of this Wiki article (and also Wiktionary by the way). I am becoming increasingly puzzled that this belief persists among other editors as nobody has deleted them and they are genuine, verbatim quotations (ie not original research) from the sources which can still be found in links through the history page. So it remains false to suggest that the only connection my edits have to the lich concept is the name, or that my edit said nothing more than an element in the game is an element in the game. That is not to say that the material in the sources is organized in a manner that makes it convenient for someone to find information about liches in general, or the lich concept, but it is nevertheless there to see for anyone who has an honest look. You have also not provided evidence that the source has poor editorial oversight. I must also wonder, concerning the claim "Warframe has liches", what is the apparent conflict of interest that the developer could have in that case, and what is the evidence for it? There is no reason to believe that my sources are questionable as they relate to the edit that I made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:7076:A312:30E5:EA81 (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I just read through the sources in question here and I don't find any compelling case for inclusion. These are primary sources that fail to establish that it is a notable example and arguably fail to establish that it is an example at all. I think some of our existing sourcing is pretty weak but this is incredibly weak sourcing. I think that in reference to WP:IPCV and this relevant RfC that the sourcing very clearly fails to meet the established criteria. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"my edit was a single bullet point in an existing list in an existing section on video games and that said little more than "Warframe has liches"." Yup, and that is the core problem. Bonewah (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong again, you have confused Kuva Lich as a significant example of a lich in the sense of Dungeons & Dragons (as I have amply demonstrated) with significance of my edit in the sense of violating the "due weight" principle. It is another error in understanding and application of the Wiki editorial guidelines. I was very careful to limit my addition to the page to one line if possible, as I did not want this article to become about video games, naturally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BB36:D000:909C:388:2A34:7174 (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated that a Kuva Lich is a significant example of a lich. Bonewah (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You have not made an honest statement. What has all the stuff above been then? Considering the extraordinary quantity of opposition & constant fault-finding to my minuscule change to the page should I continue to believe that any of it has been honest & in good faith? If my source is an issue is there any reason nobody has proposed a tag? 2001:569:BEDD:2B00:41F0:53E1:50E1:BF33 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Lich (Dungeons & Dragons) into Lich

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge as Lich (Dungeons & Dragons) is an independently notable type of Lich with readers best served by separate pages. Klbrain (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

---

In my opinion the split from the main Lich article was totally unnecessary given that the monster originated from D&D. There is pretty much nothing in the main article that cannot be incorporated into this one. I would suggest it be merged back, and the popular culture section mostly removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

For background, I split the D&D lich into its own article back in 2006, at a time when it had no sources. [3] Your Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lich (Dungeons & Dragons) was closed as keep (no one supported deletion, but some supported merge) although the closer noted that a merge discussion could take place. Since then, its independent sources have grown, thanks in part to additions from users such as User:Daranios and User:Sariel Xilo and others. I'm not seeing that a merge is necessary here, but if so that would help the main Lich article at the expense of the D&D article. BOZ (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose the merge since Lich (Dungeons & Dragons) pretty firmly stands on its own. Potentially, Lich could be merged into a section (Lich (Dungeons & Dragons)#In popular culture). I think it is important to keep Dungeons & Dragons in the article title especially when the focus of the article is Liches from that specific media. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Im opposed as both articles are reasonably extensive with only some overlap. I guess i could be convinced otherwise. Bonewah (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bonewah: The issue is that the main article directly states that the "lich" as a type of monster comes from D&D. The term was used before in relation to undead but not really as a clearly defined monster. The Historical background section is just a mass of WP:SYNTH while the rest is WP:OR and listcruft. In reality I think most of the current Lich article will need to be deleted, but perhaps a bit could be merged. Either way, it is clear that Liches originated from D&D in their widely used fantasy monster form. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Separate Lich should be stubbified and the D&D and post-D&D popular culture content moved to the D&D creature article. Surely there are more pre-D&D uses? Of course, the real popularization of the Lich is actually Tomb of Horrors' (which made it into Ready Player One the book, if not the movie) demilich (Dungeons & Dragons) which is already redirected to the D&D lich, as it should be. (and we don't really deed a dab page for two entries, do we?) Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  Are you sure that the pre-D&D uses are not just WP:SYNTH? If there was a conception of a lich monster even before D&D then I would support them staying separate but it seems to just be similar yet different undeads with slightly similar gimmicks, but would be better off in Undead than here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure how the inclusion of various fictional entities called "liches" could possibly be considered WP:SYNTH. Synthesis implies that two sources are being used together in a way to explicitly draw some kind of original conclusion or inference not supported by the individual sources themselves. Listing things which have been called "liches" draws no inferences or conclusions (it's literally just a bunch of 'and' statements strung together) and so cannot be synthetic by definition. WP:SYNTH is explicit, not implicit, and if the listing of liches (say that five times fast without lisping) can be thought of as 'implying' something about liches, that, too, is not WP:SYNTH by definition. If one thinks the various liches throughout fiction do not form a cohesive type of fictional entity, well, lots of fictional entities have lots of different interpretations (see the Cupid page for an example), but there's nothing wrong with listing them or calling them by the name they're called in the RS. Joe (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Separate and keep both pages. It's fine if there's a little overlap between the two pages, they're (obviously) related, but the D&D page stands on its own and the main Lich page discusses the overarching topic. We don't need to merge every species page into it's corresponding genus page, even though species are subsets of genera; so too with this. Also, semi-related, there are many more liches in popular culture that we should be mentioning on the main Lich page - I've had it on my to-do list for a while. Joe (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.