Talk:Vorarephilia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Would it be too silly to add the comment "possible, albeit only once"? 85.226.122.222 07:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply : Yes it would

Did it anyway. Objections?

none.

Support:

1. Meekohi 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This proposal met with no naysayers for two months, so I went ahead and did the merge from Soft vore with a redirect. If the subsection here grows so large to warrant its own article, it can break out at that time.

02:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Unbirthing is considered Vore only when it is "Female Genital Vore" and not Cock vore or "Male Genital Vore". Even so Unbirthing done for pure Sexual activity that is mutual, consentual, and erotic, without injury is usually not considered "Vore" at all.

Unbirthing

Unbirthing is simply a "reverse" birthing from outside into a vagina. This of course in a pure sense can only be into a female. It is an Adult fantasy and fetish, it can only be an adult into an adult female. It is sometimes referred to as "Female Genital Vore" -- especially when forced or it results in injury or death. Others think of it as a mutual, erotic and consentual activity with no injury to the sexual partners involved -- in that case it is not considerd a form of "Vore". "Male Genital Vore" or Cockvore, of course, can not be a form of true Unbirthing. Unbirthing comes in two forms:

1. The most common form of Unbirthing is known as "Total Unbirthing". A total adult body into an adult female would require a size difference of extremely small proportion (< 1:20) to be actual. There are various fictional stories (try an adult search). It probably has never happened -- even between very tiny midgets and real giantesses of the required size ratio. It is a popular fantasy with those who enjoy macrophylla and various back-to-the-womb fantasies.

2. The other form of Unbirthing is called "Partial Unbirthing". It is the only practical unbirthing possible and is a variety so extremely rare that only a few know about real cases. Even then it is only a "partial" unbirthing -- consisting of just the adult head into a vagina. Because less than one in a thousand women have a huge "justo major pelvis" (giant pelvis) whose boney opening would allow this, and because extreme vaginal stretching is required, it is an extremely rare sexual activity. Because of the commitment required between partners before starting to do it, and the extensive stretching practice to prepare for it, it is only a consentual, erotic, and mutually enjoyed sexual practice. Less than one couple in a million actually practice this sexual activity. This makes "partial unbirthing" or so called "adult heading" one of the most rare forms of human sexual activity.

Proposal for a merge with endosomatophilia and a complete rewrite of the combined article. Any in favor? The two are VERY closely related, and would probably be more informative to have them together. Also, would it be feasable/acceptable to use the Aryion vore wiki as sources/citing? --Animowolf 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've been thinking about doing that as well and would support you merging them. Please be careful in the rewrite to source any material you add. Of course a simple declaratory stub can usually get away without alot of sources but if you start to get into more descriptive assertions about the philia and it's community then sources will be a must. As for the Aryron wiki, I don't believe that is acceptable as a source. You should reviewe the

reliable sources guildline for more specifics. If you want/need any help go ahead and drop me a line at my talk page. NeoFreak

20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Support the merge as per above. I've placed merge tags on both articles. Robotman1974 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, think it's about time for the merger, with support and nobody saying anything against. Was thinking of giving a general overview of the subject (Vore is an umbrella term, etc etc... used to describe...) and then breaking down the many different parts to it (hard/soft, digestion, endosoma, nonconventional vore) etc in an explanation of how it's used in role-play, and so forth. Support or objection for this format?--Animowolf 04:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the articles should be merged finally too. I was actually bout to do this, but I don't know enough about the topic to do much more than a simple cut and paste job. I support the ideas you expressed above regarding the move. Robotman1974 10:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The endosomatophilia page has just been eaten (by and merged with this article. Tried a different style of explaining the fetish than either of the two previous pages had attempted. Support or constructive criticism for this new format and the content contained in it?Animowolf 02:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merge but I have removed all the unsourced conjecture,

reliable sources. NeoFreak

19:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is, this subject has no reliable sources by publishing standards, and probably won't be any. Looks like this page is going to be a stub for a while yet. Animowolf 00:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

) is the interest/sexual fetish in which a person fantasizes about eating another person and/or creature, being eaten him/herself, and/or watching another be eaten. Preferences vary, but most prefer to fantasize about being devoured whole and alive (soft vore), as opposed to those who prefer to be torn, chewed, and killed (hard vore).

Most vorarephiles are largely uninterested in the idea of cannibalism.

So how can one fantasize about eating another person, yet be uninterested in the idea of cannibalism? Seems sorta contradictory to me ~Capi crimm

Canabalism Is the cooking and tearing apart of the "prey" while vore is eating the "prey" alive and whole, hope that clears alot of this up...

Different "scripts" for each fetish, as well as a different focus. The two are quite separate - most cannibal fetishists are largely uninterested in vore situation, whereas vore fetishists often have no interest in more generic cannibalism situation. The scripts are all highly specific, and often have quite clear differences in tone. -- Kirby1024 11:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what i thought, but i think some specification would be good, to explain what these differences are...-Ya'ir Hunter 21:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

From my experiences:

• The Vore script generally sexualises the act of swallowing, rather than any other section of the scenario. Reading Vore stories, the most detailed sections are generally the section that deal with mouth-to-body contact (often there is a certain amount of licking and such before the actual swallowing act), and the actual act of swallowing the victim. In the general case, there's an emphasis on the victim being alive throughout the process, and often for some time after the act.
• The Cannibal script, on the other hand, tends to focus much more on the preperatory aspects. Sexual cannibalism fantasies often get a great deal of mileage out of the parallel between the body and a slab of meat, often spending a great deal of time focusing on preparing the body as one would any other meat. The actual act of eating, in many sexual cannibalism fantasies, is quite secondary to the act of preparation. In cannibalism fantasies, the victim rarely survives the actual cooking process.

This is, however, mostly original research. I don't think I've seen much scholarly or even lay-research into the differences between sexual cannibalism and Vore fantasies. This should give a reasonable distinction between the two fetishes though, and I may very well attempt to find some scholarly discourse on the subject. -- Kirby1024 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have merged unbirth here. I hope there are no objections! Lotusduck 16:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if the Unbirth section may be able to be pushed out into it's own article - the two philias seem rather tangentially related, and considering the bunch of new information that the Unbirth section has started to pick up, it might well be a candidate for an article of it's own.

I'll probably nove the section in a week if there are no objections. -- Kirby1024 13:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote for having them be two separate articles... they are only related tangently, if that, and in many cases they are completely separate. Sylocat 02:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, make it a new article! crazyfurf

There are no

reliable sources to support an independant article. NeoFreak

22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody deleted Cock Vore

This has been removed: "- A male version of this fetish, known as cock vore, referring to a person's desire to enter a male body through the

.

- How this fetish came about is unknown, although it may have links to

."

I believe that I could remove what this person put up under the same reasoning they use--this doesn't make sense to me and my thoughts on what vore is, so it's gone. What does everyone else think? This is why we have to cite our sources, so that people can't take down anything and put up anything else under the guise of "I know what I'm talking about." But what do you people think? What's central and important to the Vore article? Lotusduck 04:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with citing sources for vorarephilia and other such 'non-mainstream' fetishes is, of course, that few sources exist. Well - actually - that's inaccurate. Few sources exist that don't consist of members of the 'vore fandom' - I don't think anyone has written a book about us yet. ...If they have, though, uh... Hey, point me in that direction, wouldja? >.> User: Kaoru Nagisa 1:09 AM

    William Levy has written a Vore book, and if he included a bibliography page, we may be able to     
    pull some credible references from it.  I don't think we can quote Bill himself; professional
    cartoonists aren't exactly credible sources for psychological matter. ;)  --Animakitty 00:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all of the

01:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Are the links really appropriate? I'm not asking appropriate as in censorship, but they appear to be personal sites/message boards. As they aren't RSs and don't seem related, I'm not sure why they appear here. Titanium Dragon 10:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think so. The problem is there are so few sources on this topic that without some kind of proof that it even exists than it would need to be deleted. Since these sites fail

WP:RS they can't be used as sources. Still, external links have much looser guidlines and these links can be used to demonstrate that the philia does, in fact, exist. I am hoping that some other actual sources will emerge and the links can be shit canned. I was planning on pruning the links section though, feel free is you would like to do it yourself. NeoFreak

21:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Look...there are certain things that the normal article criteria simply do not work for. The deletion criteria are meant to improve the usefulness of Wikipedia, not serve as an excuse for hacking out every article you find that meets them.

You're using the fact that there are no large-scale sources to support the assertion that the article has no relevance, but the truth is that the fact that there are no sources has no relevance to the article. The fact that Time Magazine has never written an article on it doesn't make it disappear. That's just stupid. There's a lot of vores and there's a lot to know about the different permeations of it. However, the only people who know those things are vores. Thus, the only way you're going to have any information at all is from "original research."

In short, the deletion criteria are betraying their intended function. There's f***loads of proof that vorarephilia exists and there's a lot of information to be had, but all of it violates Wikipedia's policies. We're not allowed to link to our own community pages or write articles about ourselves, even though we're the only ones who KNOW anything. In a nutshell, Wikipedia is telling vores that we don't exist, and intentionally locking out all the proof that we do.

It's retarded to assume something entirely unscientific doesn't exist just because there's no scientific papers on it. Dismissing the input of a person who has a fetish when talking about that fetish is equally retarded. Telling that person that he needs to bring external proof that the fetish even exists transcends retarded and elevates into pure delusion.

Yes, I'm a vore. Stop and think what this looks like from my perspective, given that you're basically saying that the deletion criteria justifies believing that you don't exist. What would your first impulse be?

Hello? We're RIGHT HERE. WE EXIST. Trust me. I just checked. Took a pulse and everything. If the deletion criteria say we don't, then it's the deletion criteria that are wrong, not us. It's kind of hard to justify thinking otherwise, since if that were the case I couldn't be typing this.24.2.94.25 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Duamutef

Why has a large section been deleated? This wasn't stub when I first read it! MJN SEIFER 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Because most of the content on the page could not be sourced, or was otherwise original research. Content on wikipedia pages needs to be sourced from other references, rather than sourced by wikipedia authors. -- Kirby1024 12:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame really, because most of it was true. And I should know for reasons that should be obvious MJN SEIFER

Would it be ok to add that you can get this "fetish" (If that's really how we have to describe it) at a young age (I started around five, although It took me years to learn of the term "Vore" and the like.) Now I don't know how common it is to have fetishes at the age of a child, as this is the only one I have but I have spoken to other voraphiles (On Line) and (Like me) say they remember being "turned On" (For lack over a better term) by vorish scene (Most of which from cartoons as being swallowed is quite comon scene there) When they were young children - So it's direct fact in a sense. MJN SEIFER

Can you

original research which is not allowed. NeoFreak

22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you verify that you, as an editor, exist by providing a

reliable source

? Just, you know. Out of curiousity.

The problem is with the policy, not the article.24.2.94.25 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Duamutef

Shall I get you a tissue? If you have a problem with the policy this is not the place to cry about it. Instead of sarcasm, attempts at wit and broadcasting your total lack of understanding of why wikipedia rules on verifiability exist why don't you shuffle over to the

village pump and in a kind and civil tone inquire what you can do to go about changing these things. Try the talk pages. In the mean time I shall bone up the polices on not biting newbies and civility. NeoFreak

01:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The following are various threads from a vore forum I am a member of, I hope that counts. Although there will be others, Some of the posts stated that some of them started young (Although most of them - like me - didn't know that it was a named term).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

I hope these are enough - although I'm suprised "real Life" evidence is classed as "Original Research". MJN SEIFER

Internet forums, usenet groups, etc are not accepted as reliable soures. I would suggest you read the policy on reliable source:

WP:RS. Once you have read that and the policies on verifiability and original research you will have a better understanding of what is and is not acceptable. NeoFreak

20:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, I will not use forums as "sources" in future.

Just a question: Surley the fact that I AM ONE should be enough evidense? (If not fine but I'd like to know why) MJN SEIFER

Click

this link. Read it. NeoFreak

17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough...I guess. MJN SEIFER

Why is this being conciderd for deletion? First a lot of stuff is taken out, then you plan on deleting it? Do we even matter to you?MJN SEIFER

The reason this article is being considered for deletion is probably because there are so few reliable sources on the subject that it's questionable by wikipedia standards on wether or not it even exists. With so few sources, there is no way to put enough information down to explain what the thing even is, so for wikipedia it would just be easier to delete it. What needs to happen for this article to stay up, and just in general, is a reliable source be published on the subject. If someone were to go through the bureaucratic scientific process of taking notes, listing sources, citing surveys, chalking up numbers and graphs, then this won't be such an obscure subject.Animowolf 22:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If Abe Lincoln came back to life and posted to say that he saw the man who shot him, and it wasn't Booth, would you delete it? Of course! After all, who's Abe Lincoln? Just some guy who got shot. What does he know about it? We all know that the real facts come only from pre-existing knowledge in history textbooks. By extension, I wish to remind people here that all knowledge decends from some manner of peer-review by experts. Experts are generally those that invent/discover/live through the topic to be discussed. Sometimes, these experts don't meet pre-established notions of what an expert should be. Let's just remember that the WP:RS page begins with the following warning: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." 71.232.192.57 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Alarmed Guest.

Please avoid personal attacks on the talk page. This is just one of the many sections that I've seen flame wars on. There are already far too many, and I'm considering removing them all myself. Everyone here needs to remember the "assume good faith" rule of thumb. Wiki wants reliability, everyone else wants information, and everyone must compromise. In this particularly case, I would urge the mods to be more generous in information that is permitted, as well as some of the vores to take this less personally and be more patient, or possibly even try to write a publication of some sort on this.

Now be nice, or nobody gets eaten. Animowolf 03:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

“Everyone else wants information”? How does deleting this or any article help anyone get information on a subject that already has “so few reliable sources”? If I come across a word I’ve never seen before, and I look it up on Wikipedia, I don’t want to see a blank page. I want to see at least a description, if details are too suspect. —69.172.154.213 01:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the main problem here, is not whether people exist who are afflicted with what is being called here, vorarephilia. I for one find myself aroused by images, stories and even thoughts of being eaten alive, so I know that the condition of the fetish is quite real. The problem, however, is the use of the word, vorarephilia. This is a term that has been applied by the people who 'suffer' from this fetish, and not by any established, medical institution.

New words and terms are added to the dictionary every year, but even those must go through a process of peer reviews, before being accepted. In time, I suspect vorarephilia will be a defined word as a recognized sexual fetish, though the definition given to it is still anybody's guess. The question now, is if wikipedia is willing to accept a new term. Perhaps it could be categorized as 'slang', as you will often find in dictionaries, until the word is properly added as legitimate. I for one, believe this entry should be kept, though the context of the entry should make it clear that a definitive, alternate term has not yet been formulated by the psychiatric establishment. Amberax 21:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What you are reffering to is called a neologism. The wikipedia guildlines for how to deal with neologisms can be found

here. NeoFreak

01:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, look mom! I don't exsist.

Despite the rather sarcastic title, I am not going to rant about this as others have. I simply do not understand how there is not enough proof that we exsist. Placing "vore" into nearly any search engine will bring forth several results on us.

Any scientific research into the subject, even done by vores, has failed- not because it does not exsist, but simply because "vore" is too broad a subject to easily explain away. Several attempts have been made to explain exactly why we like vore. I myself have conducted polls among vore, only to find each one seems to enjoy an entirely different aspect of it.

From what I have learned, several vores simply did not move out from the oral phase. Another selection enjoy it due to extreme domination/submission roles. Others enjoy it due to the fatality of it, and still more simply like the feeling of "completely satifying thier pred in any way possible."

I am certain that scientific research has not been conducted to prove the exsistence of storylines for videogames, which wikipedia continues to host. However, the storylines have been experienced, and that is proof enough that they exsist. Before simply deleting this article, I would ask you to attempt to study the vorephile community yourself- to experience it, just the way plots from stories have been verified through experience. http://www.aryion.com is a very steady source, as it contains a vore wiki, vore and unbirth forums, and a chatroom where vore, as a fetish, takes place at almost nearly any time during the day. If believing the word of several vores is not enough, please conduct the research yourself.

"What if?" 02:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)SeruOmen

There are three possibilities for why this is happening. 1.) There is a vast anti-vore conspiracy and all these editors just hate you. 2.) That all these editors are retarded and can't establish the fact that vore is a real fetish. 3.) There is a good reason that these policies, developed over years by thousands of dedicated editors, are in place.

If you so choose to adopt one of the first two positions then I don't know what else to tell you. Go play in traffic maybe. If you so choose to entertain, for just a moment, that the third explanation might just be possible then I would recommend that you actually read the policy pages and spend some time discussing these poices on their respective talk pages. Maybe then you will get a better understanding of why these policies exist and wy things are run the way they are here. Maybe. NeoFreak 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are not the only three possibilities. For example: 4) Wikipedia is still in it's infancy, and the rules that exist, while good for many things, are far from perfect. As is true with any system, especially new systems, the rules may cause some subjects to fall through the cracks, and show a bias in one way or another. In these cases, judgment calls must be made.

Wikipedia's rules need some tweaking, and will need tweaking for quite a while. As it stands right now, there are plenty of articles that exist and shouldn't, and some that don't exist and should. 71.223.116.248 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've found two articles that aren't about vore, but do mention it, although the definitions aren't 100% accurate.

[5]

[6]

71.158.179.102 13:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

On the off chance the entry for Vorarephilia is not deleted, should it be associated with Paraphilia? According to the definition of Paraphilia ( http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/paraphilia.html ), it is: "...a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depend on fantasizing about and engaging in sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme."

While vorarephilia does result in sexual arousal, it does not require the engaging in any manner of sexual behavior or activity. I believe this is one of the things that makes vorarephilia so confusing to many people; especially those who are not vorarephiles themselves. The intense desire to eat or be eaten does not require sexual interaction, as evidenced by those who wish to be eaten by animals, but have no physical attraction to that animal. Or those who enjoy the idea of being eaten by inanimate objects, such as furniture or machines.

Perhaps as vorarephilia becomes more widely recognized, real research will be done and a better understanding of how to classify it will be discovered. Amberax 03:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as sexology and psychological studies would be concerned, vorarephilia would most certainly fit as a paraphilia. Certainly, the paraphilia page seems to specify this. The term "paraphilia" in most psychological/sexological research is used primarily as an umbrella term to describe atypical sexual behaviour, which vorarephilia most certainly would be, compared to the general populace. Typically, arousal is enough to be counted as a paraphilia, as noted in the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criterion for paedophilia - arousal + distress is sufficient for clinical diagnosis, participating in the act is not required. -- Kirby1024 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with having links is that many of them would be considered unsuitable. As it is, this page should be expanded upon, being one of the very few definitive sources for its definition.

Unsuitable how? As for the page being expanded because it is a "definitive source" wikipedia does not condone

already published by a reliable source. NeoFreak

20:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Attributability

This is one of the more likely to be attribute-able kinky pages I've seen, but nobody seems to have taken the time. I'm sure if I nominate it for deletion, if there is a published source that talks about vore, someone will find it then. But must I? Can't someone just do it?Lotusduck 19:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I added one--Sex in Video Games by Brenda Brathwaite. I think it may have been brought up in a previous AfD, but never actually added to the article. The book is pretty new, and the only one I could find easily, but as with all things largely internet-based, I think that we can expect more publications in the coming years. --Sopoforic 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you then agree that we lack the sources to expand this to full article status while conforming to attributab-ility? If that is the case, this and related stubs should be grouped together in a single article. Lotusduck 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I don't know. There's the straight dope article in addition to the textbook I found, and there are probably a few others if I were to look. If you want to talk about merging, then you'll need to give me a list of what stubs you think ought to be merged together before I can make any sort of judgment. I am of the opinion that if we cannot (now) find enough reliable information to make this very much more than a stub, that probably won't be the case in the near future (a year or two is near, in my opinion). I'll look around later for any other sources while I wait for your response. --Sopoforic 03:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The question we need to ask is what form of stub this article should be in. Mering unattibutable material is really not productive as the material can just be removed from the end-product which will cause a recreation of this article. Of course this can also be taken to AfD (again) but the "Vore community" will rally in indignation of such "persecution" (again) and the closing adimn will fail to do his job and close the AfD according to consensus based on policy (again) which will result in a keep based on the wishy-washy "maybes" and "might be's" of the inclusionist crowd and the outraged hoard of single purpose accounts (again). So, my suggestion is to keep this as a small stub based on the bare minumum of what we can gather from the material on the net. This is not a "fake" fantasy fetish so I'll just have to advocate biting the bullet and accepting that this article is not going anywhere. NeoFreak 13:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Microphilia and macrophilia are two very related stubs that could be merged into some common article with vore that I am not currently clever enough to think of the title for. Is there a technical term for sexual fantasies that cannot practically happen in reality? If so, we could put all of these stubs in that article. If we can't we could just settle for

07:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if you realy want to work on merging Paraphilia articles then I would suggest you start in the "Garment Fetishes". Check out the bottom of this page for a list of stubs that are either unscourced or sparringly so. I was planning on merging these into a single much more easily attributable "Garment Fetish" article. We can get rid of 20 unneeded articles right there with a general overview of the concept of the fetish and then a few examples citing the more notable ones already given individual coverage.

As for "Imaginary Fetishes" I think the appropriate term is "Fantasy Fetish" but I'm not the expert, you might want to ask another editor of at the Paraphilia article.

Also, Marcro and Microphila used to be merged but they got unmerged for whatever reason, I fully support you remerging them. NeoFreak 12:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In John Steinbeck's story, "The Snake", a woman visits a scientist's laboratory and asks to buy a rattlesnake, and to watch while it swallows a rat whole. She seems to participate in the ingestion, following the snake's movements with her face. Vorarephilia? We know that the scientist is based on Steinbeck's friend Ed Ricketts, who may once have had a visit of this kind. Caesarc 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. In order for something to be a source for our definition of vorarephilia it must use that word, otherwise we are participating in original research. Secondly, that makes no sense. This page is for a sexual fantasy. There are probably quite a lot of literary passages where someone watches someone or something eat. Lotusduck 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary literary or other media sources are sufficient to document a name for a type of behavior,and to document that this behavior is something which people either do or fantasize about. They by themsselves justify an article if the behavior is worth the description. For behavior with no established name but that nonetheless deserves discussion, we can use the most likely name constructed parallel to other such behaviors; if the ultimate name should change, the articles can be edited accordingly. DGG 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are suggesting that we should decide what the definitions of words are and create encyclopedic classifications and distinctions rather than document them, although I am not really sure what you are talking about here. Lotusduck 00:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose for the following changes. #1 The spelling; Voraphillia has been just as commonly used, if not more than Vorarephillia. #2 Vore in it self is not a fetish, its an act. To be more precise, its the act of swallowing someone or something, or being consumed or swallowed by someone or something whole. This act is recognized and regarded as a fetish only by those that create and, or observe the act specifically for sexual gratification. Not every vore act is designed, or viewed for fetish purposes, therefore Vore and Voraphillia should not be classified together, but should instead have there own pages.

  My final proposal is to add the other available mediums that safely display vore.  Currently there is no mention of the movie shorts and videos comprised of full size props with live actresses & Actors.

Reddmann 15:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding

) 15:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Myself and of course most people viewing the article are not experts. We must act in good faith, but we must also edit the article. Your assertions are not uncontroversial and not obviously true, so I think that you should add what you are talking about only when you can attribute to a published article or book that says what you have just said. Lotusduck 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed all of the unreferenced material just now. With what is referenced, it appears a merge to containment fetish or macrophilia would be appropriate. thoughts?Lotusduck 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against merging, since the only material we really have references for amounts to little more than a dictionary definition, but there are two points I'd like to mention: first, we have no article 'containment fetish' and I'm not sure what would go in it except for this (would you put things from BDSM with it? that probably wouldn't be appropriate); second, vorarephilia isn't related to macrophilia, so there's no good reason to merge into it, and I think that the fact that they are unrelated is a very good reason not to do so.

That said, we have a lot of articles which are only a couple of sentences and might reasonably be merged into one article of lesser fetishes. I've gone through the list of fetishes in the template and picked the ones that are extremely short. These are:

Wakamezake

. These are the shortest of the articles in the box; some (few) of them do have references, although many of the references are somewhat suspect. Also, I think a few of these could probably be expanded to larger articles--in particular, Biastophilia is 'rape fetish,' which I imagine has been written about at some length. Further, a few of these have tags recommending they be merged into other articles; this would be helpful probably. However, better targets for merging aside, I'd support merging all of these into a 'list of uncommon fetishes' or such article, and just using section references for them, and splitting them off if and when we have enough content for more than a couple of paragraphs.

You might find that more than a few of the others listed in the box would be better merged once the unsourced (unsourcable) material is removed, especially since many of those that I didn't list also have no references. But, one thing at a time. I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether this would be appropriate. --Sopoforic 08:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have further discovered that the only citation mentions vore for a half of a paragraph, and basically says that people that like vore like video games. It definitely can't stand alone as an article and should be merged somewhere. Lotusduck 03:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There are very few, if any, resources available for one to look up & research vore. This means that others that do not understand will depend on your information provided here to get an understanding. For you to label Vore along with its fetish counterpart "Voreraphillia", would be the same as directing all inquiries of feet to "Footfetish"; individuals who love blood and gory movies would be automatically labeled "Masochist, or saddist". They may not like snuff films, but love Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street. Should we then label magazines showing off feet for pedicure products and sandals as Fetish publications? movies involving kidnappings and hostages fall under "Bondage"? The meaning of Vore is no different. example, how about the national geographics, and Animal Planet episodes depicting a snake eating a rabbit whole? Does this mean that PBS, the Learning Channel & educational television condone the broadcasting of TV shows to Jerk off to? YouTube is probably the most mainstream outlet currently depicting all facids of vore. If you look it up there, you'll see episodes of the muppet show where Ms. Piggy was eaten by an alien, scenes from cartoons, video games, children's movies & Books, even commercials. Do you really think these organizations would intentionally create childrens material designed for people to masterbate to while watching? Of course not. This factor alone should be concrete enough evidence to show that vore in itself is NOT A FETISH. Classifying these commonly accepted and harmless acts as Fetish will implicate all vore material as sexually deviant. Altering the perception of vore falsely will ultimately sway public opinion of any works related as inappropriate, thus causing the unecessary CENSURING of good entertaining material. For the record, I do realize that there are many depictions of vore that are truely sexually driven in nature and fetish intended, just as there are perversions of about anything you could think of, from arm pit fetishes to boot licking. These, however, do NOT represent the general meaning of vore. I strongly feel that the definition of Vore remains as the process of devouring something whole, and nothing more. This has always been its meaning. Voraphilliacs use the term Vore to describe what turns them on. The way one fetishist may say "I'm in to FEET", a voraphilliac may say "I'm in to Vore". Vore isn't the fetish. the Fetish lies in the person that appreciates the vore act for sexual gratification. Reddmann 10:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding

) 10:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

While most of the time I'd just say "Hey, no sources? Too bad." In this case though we don't have the a

reliable source to back up the fetish being refered to as just Vore, although I'm sure some do. It also seems to be more of a semantic or grammatical issue than an issue with the accuracy of terms. I've removed it. NeoFreak

18:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Vore to have an independent definition thread

I checked here on one occassion (maybe about 3 or 4 days ago), and Vore had its own definition page. The info was quite accurate. It basically described Vore as meaning to take in/eat or swallow something whole, and discussed the use of the word as a suffix to describe what an animal may eat(herbivore, carnivore, omnivore). It also explained that the word originates from the word Vorare, which means to devour something. This is the most accurate, and appropriate description/depiction regarding the purpose of this word. I propose for that to be the the information available to a Vore search, instead of directing someone to the fetish counterpart (vorarephilia).

) 00:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Agree, except that you are talking about a disambiguation page. I'll go make it, actually.Lotusduck 03:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

whoever removed the content is a dumbass, its a flipping WORD! definging and explaining a word dosent need a source other than a dictionary, since its slang you wont really find it in an actual dictionary, instead you must use the internets, and wikipedia rules needs revamped or ignored if they think the international hub of all that is vore dosent even have an accurate description of the coined term, so whoever is screwing with this article #@42@! off, your ruining wikipedia.

you want a source? heres your fricken source

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. This page is a guideline(sic), not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages." - wikipedia:rs article.

Yes, well, if you want to be a rules lawyer,

WP:V

(which is a policy) reads:

This page in a nutshell:

• Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
• Editors adding or restoring material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
• The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

It is regrettable if the description we provide is incomplete or inaccurate. If you feel that there are not sufficient sources to to write an accurate article, you may wish to

neutral

article, but this is perhaps an instance where my tendency to inclusionism isn't helpful to the encyclopedia.

Therefore, please do find sources so that we may write a better article, or, if you feel that it is impossible, you may choose to nominate it for deletion. Either of these are healthy ways to improve Wikipedia. What is not healthy, though, is attacking other editors as you've done above. None of us wants to ruin Wikipedia, although many of us have different ideas about what sort of things might ruin or improve it. Please

keep that in mind in the future. --Sopoforic

11:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Loss of content

PLEASE revert to an earlier version of this page with MORE content... I would rather have a stub than a microstub... Canada-kawaii 13:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Content has to comply with policy...Lotusduck 02:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What policy are you referring to? Canada-kawaii 02:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

02:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

SOMEONE needs to make a reliable source on Vorarephilia... anyway, if you have all the #chan, N64 kid and AYBABTU garbage articles, why don't you make a good article on Vore??? 216.232.204.77 03:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be nice to have reliable sources. Some of the information which was removed is probably non-contentious enough to be added even sans-source (since we do only require sources for contentious material). However, when you reverted the article you also added stuff that probably would be contested, as well as removing the sources that had been added. Therefore, I've reverted you reversion--much though I regret it. If you want to have a better article, the best thing you could do would be to find some sources so that we can add more. I've tried, unsuccessfully, to find any other sufficiently reliable sources, but that doesn't necessarily mean that none exist. --Sopoforic 06:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit my reverts to meet policy, without reverting to that pitiful one-line waste of space. 216.232.219.185 13:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits to meet policy. If you would like to have more than a single line then, by all means, find some additional material that you can

reliable sources. NeoFreak

14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the sources... not too unreliable. 64.180.173.214 23:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You can find the criteria for

reliable sources here. NeoFreak

00:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that I looked, they are dingy sources. We need to get a few people to look for reliable sources! 64.180.173.214 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If you find anything that you might think fit the criteria go ahead and post them here, I'll be able to look them over and give you some guidence. I'd also recommend you

register an account. NeoFreak

01:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible references: [7] [8] [9]

Some art examples: [10] [11]

Best I can find. 216.232.204.77 04:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OMG you say WikiFur isn't reliable? That's because you think Wikipedia is the most reliable wiki, and all others suck. Advice: Wikipedia is vandalized 800% per article more than WikiFur. Please accept WikiFur as a reliable source. 216.232.204.77 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliabloe source either. That's why we don't self-reference. It would really help if you registred an account or resumed this discussion on my talk page. NeoFreak 19:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm just saying that Wikipedia doesn't want to reference other wikis because they're "inferior". 216.232.204.77 19:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesnt reference WikiFur because it's not reliable. Some wikis are (for what ever stupid reason) considered reliable such as WikiNews and WikiSource. NeoFreak 19:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The irony of this statement that a HUGE chunk of anthro-fetishism, especially the more, shall we say, /AH/-level out-there fetishes are NOT going to have any sort of "credible" source. There is nothing "official" about it; Its a couple thousand people on the internet expressing a sexual fantasy or praphilia or whatever you want to call it for certain physically impossible sex acts that, for whatever reason, few people ouside 'the fandom' seem to share.

WikiFur is not reliable? Look at Uncyclopedia :) 216.232.204.77 20:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a draft that I sporked from vorarephile.ayrion.com! Fix any remaining copyright infringement, and please try to expand it! Vorarephilia is a fetish in which a person has intense interest in the thought of being eaten or eating someone else. Cannibalism, animals eating each other, amoebas engulfing other microscopic creatures all are things a vorarephile may be interested in, depending on the individual's personal preferences. A vorarephile's reaction to their fantasies usually happens to be erotic, but can vary from gentle, joyful surrender, to the adrenaline rush of panic and pain. Vorarephiles may enjoy the thrill of the hunt as either predator or prey. The word "vorarephile" was coined as a broad term for this fetish, and can take on many meanings depending on one's personal definition. There are numerous spelling variations for the word vorarephile. Since this is a new coinage, created by people who share this fetish, there's no official dictionary entry to go by. Voreaphile, voraphile, vorarephile, etc. are all used as spellings, but the term is unique enough that the spelling differences don't confuse anyone. The word was derived from the Latin root "vorare," which means to swallow or devour, and "-phile," the Greek suffix meaning "lover of." "Vore" is the commonly used abbreviation by vorarephiles (though occasionally lazy typists will use "vor" to avoid typing the final "e". Another term that is often used for vorarephile stuff on the net, but really only describes monsters eating women, is "gynephagia." Because vorarephile is the most common spelling.The most correct term for this fetish is actually phagophilia (from the Greek "phagos", meaning eat), but the term "vore" has been used for some time now, and people are familiar with it. Phagophobia is a documented fear of being eaten or swallowed, and one would imagine that it is related in a way to the mechanics of the vore fetish. Vorarephilia is a very strange fetish, but when one thinks about it, the triggers for this kind of fetish in one's life are fairly abundant. Some vorarephiles want to go back to the womb, quite literally - taking regular intercourse, and extrapolating it to involve going inside your partner completely. (This is usually called "genital vore," and can involve male or female genitals.) Many mothers play with their children when they are very Young. some mammal species bite or suck during mating or the early stages of mothering. Vorarephiles, for the most part, have just that - an elaborate fantasy life, involving eating or being eaten by someone or something. Very few vorarephiles actually practice "Real Life" vore, where one consumes (presumably live) prey, such as goldfish, birds, etc. And it's not practical to be eaten alive by an animal or another person, so many vorarephiles will never actually live out their personal fantasies for "real." Because this is almost all fantasy, vorarephilia tends to be a very harmless fetish. With the availability of the internet, fantasy life has gotten much richer - virtual reality role-playing abounds in chat rooms, images and stories can be shared, and people from around the world can find each other to discuss their fantasies. 64.180.173.214 13:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ayrion.com is not a

attributed to a reliable source. NeoFreak

15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it reliable? Oh. I'll check the policy, and either agree or complain later :). 216.232.219.185 01:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone here should set aside some time to find reliable resources, because the article is currently a pitiable fool. Canada-kawaii 01:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. You seem to be interested in the subject, why don't you go ahead and get right on that? NeoFreak 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I want help from the "Uber-smart" admins. 64.180.173.214 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I can improve this pitiful fool! Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Canada-kawaii 02:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you add

WP:OR, so you can add whatever you want, to what is supposed to be an attributed encyclopedia, is not constructive. NeoFreak

12:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be quite late, but it seems to me that you just made the case FOR

WP:IAR

, NeoFreak. IAR is meant to prevent rule lawyering, bickering, and to help flesh out Wikipedia. It is designed, specifically, so that articles CAN be created and edited and given information WITHOUT someone - someone exactly like you - coming in, waving a rule sheet around, and demanding that this and that be deleted because they don't conform to YOUR interpretation of the rules. The way it appears from where I am sitting, your strict, and selective, adherence to only the rules YOU deem worthy is harmful to this article, and thus, Wikipedia's completion as a whole. The rules from Wikipedia are still in their infancy. While good for many scenarios, they are FAR from perfect. But there is a built-in "out" so to speak for allowing content that helps Wikipedia. This is such content. It's time for you to back off, and let this article thrive. Let this article be completed, and before you go spouting off your rules again, remember that WE are following the rules as well, specifically the rule that says we CAN complete this article by ignoring the rules you list when they would prevent the article from being as complete as it could be.

"Despite its name, 'Ignore all rules' does not sabotage the other rules. Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building an encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared to that goal. Zero. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated." - Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means. NeoFreak, the rules and your interpretation of them are interfering with the stated goals of Wikipedia. Ergo, they ARE to be ignored, and by holding so tightly onto them, YOU are the problem here, not this article.68.98.35.111 (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I will obey anyone (within reason) who finds reliable sources on vorarephilia. Let me see, it's the first anniversary of

13:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm saying this before war breaks out: NeoFreak, I know A LOT MORE about this topic than you do. You personally hate vorarephiles for some dumb reason, so I'll prepare for Armageddon with this article. Here's one final peace deal: you leave this discussion permanently and stop reverting my edits and I will find reliable sources. Canada-kawaii 02:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't threaten me, don't disrupt wikpedia to make a

original research and it's not acceptable here. Lastly, don't make assumptions like "NeoFreak hates vorarephiles", I could care less about what people get off too, I just don't want this article to turn into a unattributed original research mess. NeoFreak

02:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Am I allowed to summarize what you just posted, because if I can, here's a summary: Canada-kawaii is a donkey's donkey. Is that accurate? Complain on my talk page if it's not! ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!! Canada-kawaii 03:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. There's no need to

policy

. Your knowledge of the topic is valuable--it helps you to spot errors, gives you an idea of where to look for information, and what reliable sources may exist. But your expert knowledge of a topic is not an acceptable source to be used for the article.

I agree that the information you've been adding is essentially correct; you know it and I know it. But, imagine that someone with no knowledge of the topic were to come here for information. How could he tell which information was correct, and which might have been added by people who were misinformed, or vandals? There's no real way to tell, unless the information is attributed to reliable sources. Since Eka's Portal is self-published, we can't consider it as reliable enough to use as a source (after all, Joe's House o' Lies might be a self-published source, too; we can't know how reliable such a source is). We do, however, provide a link to the site, so people who want to find information that we can't provide due to lack of sources can look there and judge for themselves how reliable the information is.

It's understandable if you disagree with these policies; it can be frustrating not being able to add things that you know are true since you can't find a source. However, it's all in the interest of informing the reader with information he can be (reasonably) sure is correct. If you want to discuss this, please feel free to do so, but remember to remain

personal attacks don't help the discussion at all. We need to work together to provide the best information we can; we can't do that if we're attacking one another. --Sopoforic

05:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone should set aside some time (I'm too busy) to find reliable sources. Canada-kawaii 13:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello? ''Canada''-'''kawaii''' 13:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, what? Someone should find some sources, but you're too busy. We're all busy. I've spent a few hours looking for sources and the ones I found are already on the article. If you want more, I'm afraid you may be on your own. If there's anything in particular you need, I don't mind helping, but I've done my share of the legwork for this article already. --Sopoforic 19:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, I can see a DDoS attack on Wikipedia by voarephiles... I wouldn't endorse it. Maybe we need IAR right now, regardless of the fact that attributability is a fundamental rule. ''Canada''-'''kawaii''' 03:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really tired of your threats. I suggest you learn to contribute within the rules of the comunity or you simply move on. NeoFreak 12:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't make threats; they serve no one. If you want a wiki about vore that doesn't require sourcing, I recommend the vore wiki on Eka's portal. No doubt there is some wiki that will accept information without sourcing, but Wikipedia isn't that wiki. You could possibly even start your own wiki on Wikia or on your own server. But if you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you need to follow Wikipedia's rules, including referencing.

If you find it too much work to write articles properly, from sources, how about this: if you find any acceptable sources (articles in academic journals, books not from vanity publishers, even newspaper or magazine articles that focus approximately on vore), then I will happily include the information in them in the article and reference them myself. If you want the article improved, just find me a source and I'll do the rest. --Sopoforic 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... Maybe I should find a Wikipedian who also is an Eka's Portal member who is willing to ask cyber-friends to give this article more "cowbell". ''Canada''-'''kawaii'''

As much as I dislike Wikipedia's stance on original research, the vore article does fall under that heading, and should be tagged as such or deleted outright until the community has a verifiable source to cite. I've run into this problem before on this site, and though editors who eliminate information like this are in fact adhering to Wikipedia's rules, it's still a loss of information that violates what many see as the spirit of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, our view of the site's purpose doesn't match up with that of the higher-ups. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, displaying information taken from other sources, which in turn was taken from other sources. It has no room for original research, which is all we have available at the moment. Until a psychologist publishes a paper on the fetish, or a magazine or newspaper prints a column about it, our knowledge is useless to wikipedia. Not wrong but useless. I suggest we direct our energies toward sites free of these restrictions for now, improving those resources. --Animakitty 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much an

AfD. NeoFreak

21:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Because prod is only for uncontroversial deletions and this one is nothing like uncontroversial? That aside, though, I left a note on your talk page about a week ago suggesting that we merge this and a few other paraphilia articles into a single article, along with a preliminary version of such an article to show what it would look like, and asked for your comments on the idea. You haven't yet responded. Perhaps that would be a better course of action? --Sopoforic 22:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry I didn't respond. I just get really busy and get sidetracked, it's not that I was ignoring you. The only reason why I'd put up a prod first is in the hope that people will understand and so I can say that I tried. Any AfD of this article will turn into a mess of single purpose acounts, IPs and angry and "insulted" vorarephiles. A merge might be a better soulution but only if it stays that way. As I've discovered with similar material once a week or so some vorrarephile will come along and say "Hey, some asshole got rid of 'my' article!" and then move it back. I really don't feel like having to revert back to a merge or redirect every week or so. NeoFreak 14:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't trying to be accusing; I just wanted to point it out in case you missed it. I agree that it's a little annoying to have to continually revert articles, but there's nothing that can be done about it, really. I don't believe that it's appropriate to delete this article, however. It's true that it's quite short, but it is likely, I think, that we will eventually find enough sources to make it at least a decent paragraph. The magazine article that the IP user provided shows that there are probably more sources that my searches didn't find; it's not unreasonable to assume that they will (slowly, I guess) appear before us to use.

As for merging: I feel pretty ambivalent about whether it's really the best idea, actually. It would facilitate maintenance, a bit, but most of the paraphilia articles don't seem to have much trouble with that. Plus, I think that the page I made up, which contains only a few of the articles that it ought to contain if it were used, is horribly ugly, and would get worse as more is added. This is why I wanted feedback; I don't think that what I did is really better than the current situation, so I'd like any suggestions on how to improve it, if merging is indeed a good solution. --Sopoforic 15:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I know for a fact that I can make a convincing argument for the article to be deleted at AfD but I'd rather have the article brought under an "umbrella" article before going that route. I've already done the same with almost all of the unsourced or poorly sourced clothing fetish articles at

verifiability problems. Unless this can be fixed I'm leaning toward a merge or deletion. The benefit of a merge is that anytime more sources emerge we can restore the article with no trouble. NeoFreak

17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current article definitely has no verifiability problems--it's just too short. As I've said, I don't think that it will remain that way indefinitely; I expect that eventually (in a day, in a month, in a year), we'll have collected enough sources for a decent article--if still a short one. For this reason, I think it shouldn't be deleted. However, merging does seem like a reasonable thing to do until we have those sources.

So, if you'd like to merge this article (and others) into an umbrella article, I will happily help with that. But, I think that there is probably some nicer way to do it than what I've got written up right now (User:Sopoforic/Sandbox2). I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look and give me suggestions. Canada-kawaii has already provided me with the very useful "BOO NAY!", but I'd like your opinion as well. --Sopoforic 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that example was just what I had in mind. I wouldn't mind seeing that up in the next few days. Do you mind if I do some additions myself? NeoFreak 18:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free. (More detailed response forthcoming on User talk:Sopoforic/Sandbox2). --Sopoforic 19:28, 1 May 2007

"So, if you'd like to merge this article (and others) into an umbrella article, I will happily help with that. But, I think that there is probably some nicer way to do it than what I've got written up right now (User:Sopoforic/Sandbox2). I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look and give me suggestions. Canada-kawaii has already provided me with the very useful "BOO NAY!", but I'd like your opinion as well. " Hahaha. I like that sarcasm. NOT!! 142.179.123.133 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the devouring scene is described as very sexually involved, I am okay with it, however I am wary of collecting things and defining them as vorarephilia that are not otherwise documented as such. We are on the cusp, if not in the throes of, original research.Lotusduck 03:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the passage in question (I loath Piers Anthony) but I'm inclined to agree with you. Still with a article that is pretty much just a dicdef thanks to the inability to verify anything else I'm rather hesitant to be adding an "examples" section. NeoFreak 03:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is composed of a single source that is not primarily about the topic. The article mentions Vorarephilia in one paragraph then dismisses it and never mentions it again-- I believe one appropriate merge is simply to blank this article and redirect it to macrophilia.Lotusduck 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The thing is very marginally notable, with only the two sources available, but that's not a reason to make a redirect to an unrelated topic. It'd be like redirecting Plastic to Aluminium--both materials might be used in similar circumstances, but that doesn't mean that a redirect is in order.

Deletion outright may be too extreme. As I mentioned above, I'd support merging many of these poorly-referenced or unreferenced articles on fetishes and paraphilias into a big List of uncommon fetishes and paraphilias or something like. Many things which might not (yet) merit their own articles would be appropriate for inclusion in such a list, and it would allow us to say, strictly, "Find at least one reference for each section. Sections with no references may be removed without warning." Having these in a central location would make them easier to maintain, and the things could be split off if and when enough sources became available to create a full article--or at least a decently large stub.

You didn't really respond to my suggestion when I gave it above; perhaps you missed it. I'd like to know what you think about this. --Sopoforic 20:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Acutally I'd have to agree with Sopoforic here. I'm not really sure that the redirect makes alot of sense here. I also agree with Lotusduck that the single reference provided isn't really a strong enough one to support the article without additional refs.

British Medical Journal a fetish is a fixation on an inanimate object. So what we'd need is a umbrella article for "Obscure paraphilias". of course there will be objection from the covered fetish communites claiming that they're not obscure but the lack of sources says otherwise. NeoFreak

20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I just couldnt help noticing some of the ignorant people who dont know about vore and then try to assume something. I like vore, i know what vore is, macrophilia is a subtopic of vore. There are DIFFERENT variations of vore. vore is the general topic. heck ill look for a reference in my free time since all these non vore lovers who probrably dont spend time looking for vore are causing problems.

Pathetic

I did not know what a "vore" is and tried to look it up here, and must say that is the most pathetic wimpish article I have seen in Wp, 100 % pc, 99 % having been removed. What happened to "be bold"? What an incentive to the writers. What a service to the readers. Ekem 01:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Being bold does not mean "add bad or unattributable material". There is not enough

reliable sources? NeoFreak

01:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but simply as a reader who does not know what a "vore" is, I find that this article provides just about no service. Can we not recast the article ackowledging that apparently current reliable sources are difficult to come by, and placing requests for citations into the text where appropriate? My point is simple, and I am writing as a reader who wants to know more. Isn't it preferable to have information that is given with a caveat than to have nothing? Ekem 02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What myself and a couple others have done here is create a basic explanation of what "Vore" is. What we have here is what we can

attributed then we have provided external links to the community itself. If you have any ideas on how to make the article better without adding unattributable material in the hope that someone finds sources I'd really like to hear about it. Hit me up here or on my talk page. NeoFreak

02:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't you Uber-smart admins draw conclusions on what Vorarephilia is from 20 websites? What I mean is stuff that 5 or more websites agree with, regardless of your pitifully restrictive and authoritarian policies? If 5 different websites agree on something (They can't list each other as sources), it HAS to be true. 64.180.173.214 12:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

1.) I'm am not nor is anyone else who has commented here in some time an admin. 2.) Please don't come in here and start to insult people and make ridiculous assertions like :if five websites agree on something it's true". NeoFreak 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

He kinda has a point though: if the rest of the Internet has a consensus on what something is, and no conflicting views exist (reliable or otherwise), shouldn’t Wikipedia reflect that? If such is the case, then reliable sources would follow. —Frungi 15:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We would hope that

neologisms. This is one of the biggest reasons why articles on neologisms are discouraged, they do not support differing views or reliable sources because they are new terms, often self-identifing and seldom support reliable sources. "Vorarephilia" is not a real medical term, it's made up by the people that perscribe to the concept. If you look through the message boards and various websites you will actually find that there is much disagreement and confusion over the definition of the term within the self-declared "vore community" itself. NeoFreak

16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, the Article could stand to be cleaned a bit; maybe, in so many words, perform a 'Liposuction' and take a bit of the unneeded fat off. However, Vore is kept, and therefore, the different types and categories of vore is as well. As long as it doesn't stray beyond that, then it should be fine to keep a list of the different types of vore, along with small-medium descriptions. Jwguy 06:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes and sensors: The subject has been altered too many times. I suggest adding content, not censoring.

I do not get the prudish nature of the sensors. Go to any major SciFi convention and you will eventually know what this subject talks about.

It exists, get over it.

As weird as I see it, the subject only adds to the total of our understanding of human nature and alerts us to where to or not to go.

We as individuals need to make our own selections of choices, but to make a proper choice we need all the information, opinion or otherwise. Removal of opinion as part of the facts is tantamount to censorship.

I also do not like the notation that certain edits are being erroneously marked as spam and anything else to red-flag it rather then actually mark it as a ‘personal’ complaint about your desire to remove content on a personal level. This is not a personal website and such should be open to all information be it good bad or ugly.

The removal of information is like someone going to any famous art museum and splashing paint on famous 18th and 19th century nudes as protests. Just because it satisfies your need to impose your ideals, religious monologs, and prejudice does not mean it is right by everyone else.

Let the Vore Community explain themselves properly. Maybe some sites need to be fixed for verbage, or references, but come on! Censorship?!

And I am tired of these Bots who other censors create destroying work others took time doing and continue to research.

That's rich. I don't want to offend but neither I nor wikipedia cares what you think about Vorarephilia because it's

WP:RS. Also, the accusations you are throwing around are rather inappropriate. As a final note please sign your talk page comments with 4 tildes (~) NeoFreak

19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

I keep adding more references and NeoFreak does not read them, just auto censors them. What mannor or Direct discussion do we have? I do not understand this un-warranted block threat.

I am adding references and expanding the understanding of this subject. SO far the objection to the content are not sited. Or not made clear.

It would be better to have a Editor from Wiki who is open to the subject rather then objects to it outright without looking at the references. One of the best direct long term proof this is a valid subject worthy of better understanding is the novel by Bram Stroker, author of Dracula, and that would be Lair of the White Worm.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. There are plenty of cited references and I do not understand the refusal to use them in this article. I suspect it is based on personal moral beliefs rather then whether this is a subject. And I would say the entire time I have been at SciFi conventions anywhere this subject has come up, whether we had a name or not. It is nice for no other reason then educational reasons and any encyclopedia needs to “include” and not exclude information.

And "(rv to last version by NeoFreak for the same reasons as last time, please see the talk page)" made no more sense then it did before. I reverted it back due to what I would term as censorship or vandelism of working work. I would say have the balls to hear it all out before you censor again.

I feel like a broken record, please read the guidline on what a reliable source is according to wikipedia. I've also left you other relavent links all over the place. If you feel like you're getting a raw deal here you have two options, either

third opinion. Also do me a favor and tone down the censorship accusations, I've heard it all before, it's really old and most experianced wikipedians don't respond well to newer editors getting into content disputes and crying "censorship". I don't have any more time for this right now, maybe later tonight. I hope you've contacted another wikipdian in the mean time and made some progress. NeoFreak

20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a better response then the personal ones, but also "high and mighty" or "holier then thou" attitudes do NOT help any in trying to understand. Stating one is new or newly started comes off that way. That comes off as a slam to me and others.

Your own profile points to your preference to censor rather then allow by the quotes you place. (This comment here also indicates you have little interest in looking into the information or helping us allow for it to be included.)

To help maybe look at one reference and cite how it can be included, what are we doing wrong and what are we doing right.

Just pointing to the rules, and we are not seeing a problem, is not helping. WHAT IS MISSING, do one example, please! If your going to take the time, and I implore you to do so edit with notes why…

Or are the sources like Bram Stroker and other notables not important enough. I do believe he wrote a kinda well know novel, what was it again? Dracula. There are more. Lair of the White Worm, which the movie version was a good example of the subject.

The point I think others here are seeing is the removal of relevant information no mater the subject, makes no sense if you can not explain why. Maybe you feel you have. Obviously we do not see it.

Maybe the problem is those censoring never saw the subject in the light described and are repulsed by the idea? Just guessing here. Sometimes information shocks, when that happens one often learns.

It could be a issue of Wiki not being easy to understand nor does it make itself easy to understand... This give the Senior editors the opportunity to show their skill and explain or maybe correct the way people get to understand Wiki. If they can do this then they deserve the title senior and with warranted skill in their editing skill.

If you have heard other call you a censor, since it comes from more then one source then maybe you should entertain the idea maybe you are. Saying you survived such claims makes me believe you are a censor and not seriously doing the work. -- ValarClan, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote:

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

this can be very opinionated. To one person a trustworthy person is a thief or liar to another.

"The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors."

note the word CONTEXT, a very fungible point. Splitting a definition this way only confuses to the end user and allows editors to choose or not choose on a whim. But it is nice to see a related source should be INCLUDED. Such as the community involved in Vore would be a good source for information on VORE. Not a community on Electronics. The sources given are from the DIRECT sources, and I can see no reason NOT to include. This seems to be a obscuration of the factors involved.

Unless a Military person is a expert in sexual fetishes then I would say they would and should not be the defacto source or editor of a article on the subject unless they can cite the reason why. If you are a PHD on the subject or a member of the community I have little belief on the factor of your editing the page.

The reverts I have done is because of failure on NeoFreak to be a cited editorial mastery on the topic. This is not vandalism, spam, or other unrelated claims, but corrections. It would seem NeoFreak is the Vandal in this case and other BOTs set to change or censor the page.

ValarClan 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Please help improve this article or section by expanding it."

How can one ask for expanding the article and yet the editors keep cutting it?

ValarClan 22:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Here's the deal. you've provided two types of sources. The first type is unreliable

neologism

and articles on them are discouraged for this exact reason, they are very, very hard to source and often we end up with very simple stubs. Lastly all of the assertions made in the body of the information you have added are not actually stated by any relaible source.

As a final note, do not jump to conclusions about me. Your only possible explanation for my editing patterns is that I'm a bigoted religious or prudish extremist that is "shocked" or "offended". In both my persoanl life and my work on wikipedia I've been exposed to much more "interesting" fetishes and paraphilias than Vorarephilia. Please stop with the atacks and assumptions about my character. Alot of the stuff you've been adding to the talk pages and your own userpage would be viewed by many as

personal attacks which is against poicy here. Personally I don't really care if you want to demonize and/or hate me and for what ever reason want to share it with the world. You're not going to hurt my feelings. Still, please consider that others (with the authority to block you) might not feel the same way. NeoFreak

23:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

NeoFreak, ValarClan, STOP ARGUING. Just agree on the fact that this article "

13:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Magazine article from 194.125.98.74

News article with some substance on voraphilia.

http://www.thewavemag.com/pagegen.php?articleid=22026&pagename=article

Quell the argument, or does it not count still?

(Moved by Sopoforic from the article page)

This does appear to be a usable source; unfortunately, there doesn't really seem to be anything in it that isn't already in the article, except perhaps a claim that "Imagining digestion at the very end may come into play, but it's painless in the vore niche." I suppose I can add in a note to that effect, since I did promise to add any new material that was found. --Sopoforic 00:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

One problem; the article is incorrect in that bit Sopoforic mentions above. While many prefer the painless fantasies, a significant portion prefer more realistic digestion, pain and all. If you take the stance that Wikipedia isn't interested in correcting sources but merely representing what's there, then this isn't an issue. But at least in this respect (I find no other problem with it), the article isn't 100% right and the error shouldn't be perpetuated here. --Animakitty 04:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, of course; thus my use of the word 'claim' above. I tried to hedge a bit by saying 'may' when I added it, but it's not ideal. The problem is that it won't be obvious to anyone unfamiliar with vorarephilia that painless digestion is even an option, so having some mention of it is probably better than no mention. Improvements to my wording are welcome. --Sopoforic 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

all this article — are complete bullshit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.192.55.2 (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No one with your grasp of the English language has the right to critique anything. This article is in a state of flux, and is likely to remain that way for months before any real improvement is possible. --Animakitty 20:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And it is completly terrible. It is very redundant, choppy, poorly written, has terrible grammar, and uses Urbandictionary as a source. Something needs to be done.73.185.121.192 (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You're describing the article as it is now? I find it hard to believe that a two sentence definition is redundant, and if there are grammatical errors, please fix them. How long could it take? Where do you see Urban Dictionary used as a source? There's really no excuse for not being specific with so little material there to critique. --Animakitty 20:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He was referring to this revision, actually. Someone had inserted a lot of unreferenced stuff, and a link to urban dictionary also. The criticism was well-founded, although the problems were only a couple of days old--the insertion of material slipped past me until that message. I probably should have left a note here that I'd corrected the problems. Mea culpa. --Sopoforic 00:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I happened to see a Wikipedia article, Gameloft, that has unsourced facts all over it, and has for some time, but its Talk page is utterly devoid of complaints, and there don’t seem to be any major revisions. That seemed to validate this thought: Why not simply write this article to the best of ability and consensus, inserting {{fact}} tags where references don’t yet exist? I don’t mean every detail of every preference, but at least the basics should be here. —Frungi 21:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy on

reliable sources simply don't exist. A fact needed tag is used to bring attention to statements that can be sourced and have not been or that could be sourced and have not yet. This is not the case with any removed material here. This article is on the brink of deletion anyway for a lack of reliable third party sources. NeoFreak

03:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In the middle of writing a reply, I checked

WP:V and it actually seems to support having an article here: “Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article.” I searched the Talk page for clarification on what’s “likely to be challenged”, and found this from WAS 4.250:

All sources have limitations and if we only had claims that were without doubt by anyone we would only have a blank page. The point is to be as useful and credible and accurate as we possibly can be so we have all these policies to help us do that. But the policies only work in the context of intelligent people using good sense. The policies can not substitute for actual informed understanding and reasonable judgement. Keep in mind our objective to produce an unbiased free (libre) credible encyclopedia and you won't go far wrong.

This is exactly what I’m proposing: we include basic information, material that isn’t likely to be challenged, from people with an actual understanding of the subject. —Frungi

19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I meant WP:V supports having an article as opposed to what’s here now, not as opposed to deleting the article. —Frungi 02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not likely to be challenged, they are being challenged, by me. You've cited the opinion of another editor, not a policy or a guidline. I'd also suggest that you read up on the

reliable sources as is required by wikipedia policy. NeoFreak

19:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you challenging? There isn’t anything in what now passes for an article that could be challenged, except the (uncited) sentence about a Japanese movie I’ve never heard of. Or are you challenging the article itself? That’s been done. Anyway, I’m not suggesting OR—that could, should, and would be challenged. I did cite a policy: my point was that WP:V specifically does not say that all material must be sourced, but “material that is challenged or likely to be challenged”. I’m suggesting that since this article continues to exist, we should put some actual content in it, as long as it doesn’t break either of those policies. —Frungi 02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you were advocating the reintroduction of unsourced material that I had removed earlier; this article used to be much bigger. I don't have an issue with any new material being added as long as it is properly sourced. The problem is that due to the nature of the subject (a

neologism

) there are no reliable sources available. 15:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Reintroduction of earlier material, or introduction of new material, as long as it isn’t OR or likely to be challenged. My understanding is that, for instance, the bit about the Japanese movie could be challenged, and could be considered OR if a plot summary doesn’t exist anywhere; but basic information about the topic itself that everyone agrees on, such as “hard vore hurts,” isn’t likely to be challenged (and thus doesn’t require a source per WP:V). —Frungi 15:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. Anything added to this article that is not sourced I will remove. If you're wondering why review the extensive discussion on the rest of the page or its archive. Also, your example only works if there is a reliable source defining what "hard vore" is. Being a recently made up

neologism there is not. NeoFreak

10:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Wikipedia article that didn’t have a single unsourced fact or sentence, except for this one. I’m also unsure how a term that was around several years ago (late 1990s at least) qualifies as a “recent neologism”. Anyway, my thinking was that, since this article and its three sources have established that the paraphilia in question does exist, those who indulge in it (primary sources) should be able to add non-controversial details about it. I don’t mean statistics or anything like that, just more explanation of what it is. —Frungi 21:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Wikipedia editors are not primary sources. The exception to this rule is non-controversial and neutral fact correction by a biography article's subject. This is an article about a demographic and its interest. As a demographic no wikipedia editors or even groups of wikipedia editors can act as representatives of the entire demographic. What you are describing is cut and dry

. I have already provided you this link once, I would ask that you please read it this time. For ease i will provide several examples of original research as covered on the policy page:

• It defines new terms
• It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms
• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source
• It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

For a definition again of what is considered here to be a neologism

00:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I’ve read WP:NOR before, and did again when you first mentioned it the other day, and none of the examples it gives seem to apply here. And as I said before, and as you just quoted, sources are mandatory only for quotes or “material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged,” which has been my point much of this time. I asked for a simple explanation of the subject; are members of a demographic not allowed to add non-controversial and neutral facts about it? You’re right about possible conflicts of interest, but that’s moot until and unless any actual editing is allowed. —Frungi 02:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

For what I hope is the last time: I have challenged and will challenge and revert any unsourced material added to this article. So in this case, I think it's safe to say, it is "likely" to be challenged. NeoFreak 17:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I really think that this article needs to be exempt from verifiability and reliability policies because they stunt this article's growth. All Wikipedia editors who are slaves to these policies should loosen up in this specific situation. The whole thing about ayrion.com not being a reliable source comes from the fact that the bulk of the site is a forum, but vorarephile.ayrion.com, as far as I have seen, is attributable. The "b" in "a.b.c" does not show everything: the "a" does, but only when it's not "www". Please try to expand this article. Canada-kawaii 01:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really a useful approach though. If you relax the requirements for one article, where will it stop? It's purely arbitrary, thus entirely abusable. What really needs to happen is that Vorarephilia needs to get more press, but of course that's not something that can be wished into existence. The alternative, of course, is to build a different wiki for these sorts of subjects (I've been told that Wikiphilia is a wiki built specifically for sex subjects that can't build up to the verifiability standards of Wikipedia, so perhaps if you want an article without such stringent requirements that you should contribute there. -- Kirby1024 14:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would work if you could do transwiki redirects, but MediaWiki doesn't provide functions for that, so this sucks. Anyway, vorarephile.ayrion.com is a reliable source, while www.ayrion.com isn't. 64.180.170.24 02:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What Canada-kawaii described is a Wikipedia policy: Ignore all rules. This policy states: “If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.” I’m not sure it applies here, because the accompanying essay, “What "Ignore all rules" means”, says: “‘Ignore all rules’ does not mean that Wikipedia is anything other than an encyclopedia of verifiable facts built by a community of volunteers with a wiki.”
That’s the troublesome part… if these facts aren’t verifiable (by “reliable sources”, which every single search result apparently is not, even though they all say the same thing), then they shouldn’t be here. I thought that since vore itself was verifiable, then those familiar with it could add non-contentious facts about it, but NeoFreak has made it clear that he simply doesn’t want that. —Frungi 04:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I sorta agree, but vorarephile.ayrion.com is reliable! Canada-kawaii 02:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But is it

reliable according to Wikipedia? —76.108.14.227

05:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be, anonymous IP. If that is true, I pity the foo', and he'd be you! Canada-kawaii 13:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not. The key part of the when-a-self-published-source-is-reliable part of the guideline is: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field." So, if, for example, a well-known sexologist had written the information on that site, then it would indeed be considered reliable. However, I can't find any indication that this is the case. I will welcome being corrected on this. --Sopoforic 14:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It was written by a vorarephile who is somewhat well-known in the vore community, and that's as close as you can get to the guidelines. We should put consensus-based content in this article, NOT purely goody two-shoes 100% compliant content. Canada-kawaii 14:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset> Not only can core policy not simply be overridden because a few editors don't want to abide by it there isn't even a clear consensus to try and do so. So, no. NeoFreak 15:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

NeoFreak, you still haven’t answered my question: Having established that vore itself is verifiable, are members of that demographic allowed to add non-contentious facts about it? (By “facts”, I mean bits of information that, if not supported by WP:reliable sources, are at least supported by an overwhelming consensus of unreliable sources, and that everyone familiar with the subject agrees on.) —Frungi 19:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Because of the nature of the subject almost anything added to the article can be considered "contentious". Since finding this article some time ago I've taken in active interest in the subject to try and learn a little more about it, figure out where all the annoying trolls and window lickers that wander in are coming from and to attempt to find some reliable sources so the article can be expanded. I'm not expert on the subject but even an outsider such as myself, after reading through a dozen different sites and countless forums and community discussion boards, can realize that this is still an emerging community (

neologism) and there is still alot of contention over the definition of different names given to different aspects of the paraphila. There is disagreement over what is and isn't vore, what counts as softvore and hardvore, if cannabalism is vore, etc. If you review the history of the page you will find many unsourced assertions made in this article by a vorarephile that were reverted by another vorarephile because it wasn't "true". So who's the amateur authority? The dogma, if you will, of vorarephilia is still emerging and the community is still cementing itself so the "facts" of the paraphilia, or fetish, is still emerging. In time it will pan out and more reliable sources will emerge as the topic gets greater coverage. Then, as now, the only additions to this page that can be kept are those backed by reliable sources. NeoFreak

20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You are to upholding obscene policies as Willy on Wheels was to breaking sane policies. You do not get to call the shots on this article, a proper admin does. So go ahead and complain to your goody two-shoes buddies, and then we'll see who rules this article. Sorry if this is a personal attack. Canada-kawaii 01:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was that everyone gets to call the shots on a given article (and if they can’t agree (which seems to be the case), no one does). Anyway, you need to read

this before calling anyone else a “goody two-shoes”. Also read NeoFreak’s last comment; it’s far from unreasonable. By the way, who or what is Willy on Wheels? —Frungi

13:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we need an actual admin policing this article, because it's an anarchy. It seems like NeoFreak, ValarClan and I are the warlords... Did that make sense? Canada-kawaii 14:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really… no offense, but it seems to me that you haven’t done much more here than yell at the others for “being slaves to policy” or somesuch. The article is pathetically small, but as much as we all want to expand it (and from previous comments on this page, both NeoFreak and Sopoforic would if they could justify it), if NeoFreak is right about the degree of disagreement between vorarephiles, it’ll have to wait for more sources. —Frungi 15:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the job of admins to 'police' articles when people can't agree to make changes. The fact that we disagree--and are discussing our disagreement--is fine. This discussion should, eventually, lead to consensus. It may take a while, but I'm willing to be patient and see where this leads. --Sopoforic 15:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is still an anarchy. NeoFreak obviously won't budge, so we just have to come up with some other solution. Canada-kawaii 00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have stumbled across this article via black plague and have never heard of this fetishism word Vorarephilia before! To be honest its cannabilsm but you get sexual pleasure from it. I have read the comments made and it concerns me the amount of control one person has taken up on this, even when there is an admission this is a new thing.

The state of the article in its present state is no more than a dictionary definition - as such if its staying like that I think there could be grounds for it to be deleted or merged into the main cannibalism article --PrincessBrat 19:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In cannibalism, the victim is dead, and often cooked. (There are also some who get sexual pleasure from that, for some reason.) In vore, the victim is whole and alive, as the article says, and possibly of a different species.
Which one person are you talking about? One who’s limiting the article on the grounds that no consensus exists for definitions? Or one who insists on not letting it be deleted? —Frungi 15:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This article should use an HTML redirect (With a "you are leaving Wikipedia, content may be unreliable" prompt) to the WikiFur article on Vorarephilia. If not, you should just let some actual vorarephiles edit this article to death until they agree on something. If you don't agree with that... the 250,000 useless large (as in "Culturally significant phrases from The Simpsons") articles should be deleted, or reduced to microstubs or dicdefs due to their irrelevance. Vorarephilia is one of the 1,400,000 relevant articles on WP which should be expanded. Canada-kawaii 01:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I stagnate the conversation? 142.179.121.11 13:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Neofreak, the entire point of Wikipedia is to give people information. I understand that you can't find any source reasonable and decided guard this article against input. But deleting the only thing left that will actually give visitor more insight, seem to be doing the way against what wikipedia is here for. Also. I would like to know which rule the WP:EL is against this particular external link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.107.242 (talk • contribs)

Under "links to be avoided" in

WP:EL you will find that to be the case. If you have any other questions about what is or isn't acceptable for external links feel free to ask on that page. Now that you are familiar with the exact reasons why these links are not appropriate please do not add them again. NeoFreak

21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The site does not fall under, 1, 2, 10, and 11. at all. Firstly. The portal have soical networking and blogs sections, but is not the focus of the site. As for 1 and 2. I fail to see where the site uses mislead or unverifiable research. I do not see where it's resource are duplicated else where. Therefore, your claims are incorrect. (24.87.107.242 04:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

I understand

WP:EL. Please do not remove it again. (24.87.107.242

04:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)).

Wow. How tired of this am I? I've been working on being nicer to other wikipedians because I'm aware that I can be

guildline to external links

. Simple. This site in not acceptable for inclusion in this encyclopedia.

Now, why did I support the inclusion of the link before where as now I do not? Because I'm not the type of guy that believes on Wednesday what he believed on Monday regardless of what happened on Tuesday. Follow? Some time ago a lot of

WP:EL

. I discussed alot of material on that page with the resident experts on the guidline that dwell in that musty corner of the encyclopedia and I've come to accept and agree with their reasoning. There are endless discussion logs there and clearly laid out points in the guildline itself if you so choose to make the rather tedious effort at combing through all of it.

The short version of why these sites are strongly objected to is because anytime that wikipedia links to another site on a specific subject wikipedia is making a de facto endorsment of the information contained there and it's verifiability. Of course any personal site devoted to or dependent on a changing body of contributors in an unfiltered and unfact-checked manner cannot be considered to be a reliable source of any information. External links are basically "further reading" for any material that is not going to make the cut because it is either superfluous or simply goes into a depth of tedium/technicallity not needed in a wikipedia article. External links are not meant to suppliment articles with material that cannot be included in an article because it fails the inclusion criteria for information we have here. Because the site in question falls into the second category of links it is not acceptable for inclusion here. I'm going to give you the chance to reply here before I remove the link. I fully expect to do so barring a revalation of some sort by you or another editor but I want to give you the chance to do so first. After a few days if you have not yet replied the link will be removed again. If any of this doesn't make sense to you or you feel that I've misunderstood

independant third opinion if you would like some outside input. I hope this has helped you understand my position a little better. NeoFreak

22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

All personal feeling aside. I don't care how your personal feeling is. I don't care if you are a dick or a jerk. On wikipedia, I don't gave a damn. You are either right, or wrong.

Now, I don't think you are the only one who think the article is pretty much entirely useless. And having a few links to compromise is only within reason. And, I don't believe you are the type of person who will believe one thing on Monday and something else on Friday neither, that is the whole reason why I decided to point this out to you.

Look at this current article, how did it improved from 5 months ago? There are still no info whatsoever. So this is my question: Why is this compromising no longer seem necessary? There used to be five links, but they are now ALL taken away, not even one left? I personally no longer see anything useful on the article, and as you have supported before, until the article become somewhat useful in itself. The links should stay. That is within the guideline of wikipedia, you used it before, you should know it better then I do.

As for the labeling about 'community' site. I think this is a bunch of non-sense. There are material moved into a community site before. We are talking about material, not which site host them. If a site have material that are verifiable, it should be allowed according to

WP:EL. (24.87.107.242

20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

Hmmm. Very well then. I've already explained, in detail, everything you've raised in your last post. I've broken this down Barney style. The fact that you hold the position of "That sucks, I don't like it" is not an acceptable reason to be adding inappropriate material. The link will be removed, I'll have another editor do it so to reenforce that this is not me just edit warring with you because "I don't like it". Feel free to hit me up on my talk page as well. NeoFreak 00:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the page is only one line long, if it wouldn't be seen in a featured article or a good encyclopedia, it isn't allowed in any article. It is a community site, and what material it does have generally wouldn't be considered a reliable source anyway. If someone wants to find a community site they can search the web. Even a reliable, encyclopedic article on the subject wouldn't be allowed, as by the EL policy we can't have links that would be redundant if the article was 'perfect'. I would be extremely surprised if you were not a member of the site yourself, and wouldn't be at all so if you were its owner. This is also the only article you have edited, which shows your experience here is little, and your aims are narrow. All in all, I don't think that makes a good case for keeping the link. Richard001 02:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, your actions verge on

WP:EL as NeoFreak has already demonstrated. If you add it back, your actions could be considered linkspamming and edit-warring. --Mdwyer

03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Delusional, is that what wiki come down to? I have no problem if you bring back any other links the article had for years. And I have mentioned that before so you can cut the personal interest accusation out of the discussion. The attempt to safe guard an article according to rule that specifies it need to be ignored in some case, is, in itself, conflicting. I admire your righteous, but in my opinion it lack sincerity and are not done honorably. I know, you don't care to be either, you just want to follows the rule, but that is not my point.

What I am saying is, there have been exception made to many article in the past, and rightfully so. But why this article in particular? We are talking about a behavior, and I see this as some form of catch-22. without some reasonable recongization there are just no way a niche behavior like this can have enough feature. Attempt have been made and the fact remain that there are no verifiable source of info. That very fact make this a misrepresentation of the whole subject with incomplete information. How exactly do you get an understand of a behavior without allowing to reach out to those people? All I am asking, is that this is an article that do requires someone to go somewhere and look for input. You don't want a community site? Fine, there were about a dozen of links before and many were not community or personal. Feel free to select any of and bring it up, please.

To those that see the need to safe guard this article. You are probably tried of this, and so am I. Remember, the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule, and the common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both. This article, again, obviously exist, I can only imagine how long it will take for everyone of you to change your mind and finally accept that certain article do call for special treatment ( let me add, of which, wikipedia already have accounted for specially in it's rule, and which you actively ignore) in order to preserve the original spirit of wikipedia. 24.87.107.242 19:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with

WP:EL. Anyone who disagrees with our policy on external links is welcome to try to get the policy changed, by going to the appropriate talk pages. It's not appropriate to claim 'this page has special reasons why it should be exempt from policy.' One reason to *have* a policy is to save time having the same debates over and over again. EdJohnston

19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What about linking to the Gallery section of that site? I can’t think of a better way to explain something like this than with pictures. Or if one section of the site is completely unacceptable due to some of its other sections violating policy, post a picture depicting it. I just realized that I haven’t seen a mention of a policy that the site violates (WP:EL is a guideline); is there a relevant policy? Either way, the site’s Gallery doesn’t violate the guideline, as far as I can tell. —Frungi 12:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In the past I have tried to add stuff to this page, and evidently so have many others. What they have said is completly true, I know this because basically, this article is about myself.

However these true facts are deleted becuase they don't meet the "

20:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is, "Who are you?". There is no way for you to prove to me that you are an expert on the subject. Instead, you have to use sources that we can check. Otherwise, I can edit this page and say that "I'm a psychologist, and I say voraraphiles eat babies" and there's no way for you to contradict me.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying we don't want your expertise here. Quite the contrary. We hope that your expertise will enable you to find great

verifiable sources a whole lot easier than I can. --Mdwyer

05:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably the best explanation I've had since I joined Wiki. Thankyou for explain it to me, I stll will try to find ways of prooving my points. I am mainly doing this to help certain people (the ones who don't know) but I take your advice and get the sources. MJN SEIFER 11:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to look at this.

I'm not suggesting we go nuts. I just think that we need to add content. Remember, every article is a work in progress. We can work on content, then find sources. Having sources is important, but it's not everything. --60.230.200.219 11:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While every article is a work in progress and all articles have to start somewhere adding material that has been established as unsourceable is not acceptable or allowed. Ignoring all the rules with the hope that "it might be fixed later" is not productive. If you want to write unverifiable material about Vorarephila an encyclopedia is not the place to do that; there are many free web hosting serivces you will find much more agreeable. NeoFreak 12:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need to add content, but note that

WP:BOLD

does specifically mention (in the "...but don't be reckless." section) that "be bold" shouldn't be taken to mean that we can ever disregard verifiability (or neutrality, or other core policies). It just means that if you can improve the encyclopedia, you don't need to ask permission. The addition of unsourced material is generally not considered an improvement.

Having sources isn't everything, it's true, but it is important enough that we shouldn't be adding unsourced material. We can add material that clearly could be sourced (although it's better just to add the references when adding the material), but unfortunately it's not clear what material about vorarephilia could conceivably be sourced. The only sources I (and others) have found are the ones on the article, so it's not clear whether any additional material can be referenced at this time. Our best chance at improving this article for the moment is to search for more sources; there are probably some out there that we haven't found, and new things can be written at any time, so this isn't so hopeless. I do appreciate your desire to improve the article, and hope that we can eventually produce an article that we are all satisfied with. --Sopoforic 17:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I didn't intend to refer to

. I was just saying be bold.

I still think that I have a point. "It might be fixed later" is the whole point of Wikipedia. That's what all the editors out there are for.

But

10:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you have a point; although "it might be fixed later" is a fairly poor argument, it is sufficient in some cases, such as adding uncontroversial well-known information without sourcing where sources certainly do exist. The problem with adding information to this particular article is that it isn't clear that any other editor could fix it, since it's not clear that any sources exist for them to fix it with. It's a rather unsatisfactory situation for all concerned--some want to add unsourced information, some want to remove unsourced information, and nobody is happy with the present lack of information.

Thanks for being reasonable; establishing a consensus with other editors is much easier when we're all willing to listen to one another. I hope that you do understand where I'm coming from, even if you don't quite agree. --Sopoforic 07:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read this discussion. I've seen the article. I know that I don't have the minimal 500 editions for not being ignored, but still I think I have something to say, mostly because I'm a voraphile. At this moment the article is a mini-infra-stub. The article in Eka's portal is by far much larger (and I think, better). But I understand that Eka's Portal isn't good as primary source accordly to

. Sincerelly, I prefer having: Or a good article, that explains something, or have nothing. Then, if we can't find a good source, a usable source on Wikipedia, then, an article of this size doesn't have reason to exist. If we found something good, usabe and accordly to WP policies, then, we can create again the article. At this moment, it's so small, that the recreation work will be almost nothing. We must to consider that "Voraphile" is a term used on the internet and self-given by us. If, by example, "phagophilia" is the exact medical term, then, why don't redirect voraphile to there? I think that all the fight I've read here is useless. --DragonTrainer 13:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First: I, at least, wouldn't ignore you even if this were your first edit. Indeed, I don't believe I've ever checked how many edits someone has made before considering their words. If you have something to say, I'm happy to listen and consider it.

Regarding your comment: I tend to think that even having a small article that does little more than provide a definition is still preferable to having no article, if only barely. As I've said above, though, if you feel like the encyclopedia would be best served by deleting this article, you may feel free to

nominate it for deletion. I don't think that I would vote to keep if you did, although I wouldn't vote to delete either. You would probably be successful in getting it deleted. I've got the references saved as BibTeX

entries, so we wouldn't lose anything substantial if it were.

Regarding the problem of naming: I've seen the term used in other places (the references section lists all the refs I've found), so for now it will do. I'm under the impression that the medical community isn't in the habit of diagnosing things like this, so we're really more discussing a cultural phenomenon by using the common term for it (although I suppose that just 'vore' is more common).

So, please don't feel like you'll be ignored if you have something to contribute. You should do what you feel is best for the project, and I'll support your right to do so. --Sopoforic 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finally adding content! 75.157.191.45 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)