Jump to content

Talk:Vorarephilia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 90.190.195.86 (talk) at 10:41, 31 December 2008 (→‎WikiFur?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vorarephilia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please help improve the article by providing references to reputable sources which discuss the subject. Your own personal experience is irrelevant for wikipedia and will be deleted.


What the hell happened to this article... the old article from like a year or so was much more informative and allowed me to learn what and who I was... reading this article now I feel like I've learned nothing about the subject. 68.229.55.89 (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)m³[reply]

I believe the article you’re referring to was copied from WikiFur. That article had a lot of cruft, and rather than removing the cruft, the entirety of the article was discarded. If I understand correctly, it’s because the useful information hasn’t been found in any reliable sources, and a consensus on this information among every single other source does not constitute verifiability. —Frungi (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where has everything gone?

It was a reasonable article last time I visited, Now it looks like a dictionary defenition-user:GeorgeFormby1 17:46 10 March 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Neutrality isn't gutting an article when perfectly verifiable sources were presented. 0xGauss (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difference being, vore is divided into a barely-documented but real phenomenon and an unreal fantasy phenomenon, whereas Numa Numa has been everywhere and discussed as a meme in reliable sources. Apples, oranges. We have no shortage of fans of fundamentally unverifiable subjects telling us that we're deleting factual content, and so we may be, but unless it's sourced from reliable sources that's what we are supposed to do. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with that, and support such a policy, keeps people from making articles purely meant to shill for a given point of view. What I'm not fine with is perfectly valid sources being turned down for not being "scholarly", when acceptance of personal pages in freewebs appears fine elsewhere. Know what? I'll just dig up the best sources I can, and see if we can't make this article something a bit more quality than it is right now. 0xGauss (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a healthy community (several, in fact) of vorarephiles, as one can see from an internet search or from the deleted links and references, and their observations should not be hastily dismissed as original research. Also, WP:Ignore All Rules seems to apply to this article (“If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” (emphasis added)), as it certainly needs improvement, and I urge all who strongly feel one way or the other about that to read about what "Ignore all rules" means. With that said, this article should not delve into the subject as deeply as various revisions have, but some detail should be included. If you insist on ignoring IAR and requiring sources for every phrase, then you could consider every vorarephile who edits the article to be a primary source (and, of course, that means you can delete things like speculation and quantification by these editors). I believe consensus exists among all vorarephiles for much of what was in longer versions of the article, and would like to be proven wrong before a final decision is made re IAR. —Frungi (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is not one of the rules you can ignore. It is a core policy and is not negotiable. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought IAR applied to the core policies as well, being one itself (a pillar, in fact) and specifically stating “all rules” in its name and in various other places. Of course, the qualifier is that one must be improving Wikipedia at the time of the ignoring, and I believe that adding general details that are agreed on by everyone involved with the subject would be a genuine improvement. Neither side has shown much moderation here, and I think moderation is the key: those who add such content must not get carried away and solely observe IAR, and those who keep the first group in check must not indiscriminately remove every piece of information without regard to whether it’s general knowledge (among vorarephiles, at least). I’m not endorsing anarchy here, I just want this article to actually be useful and informational. —Frungi (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. WP:V is not negotiable, and neither is WP:NOR, and neither is WP:NPOV which requires verfication from reliable sources and no original research. Adding content from unreliable sources and personal opinion is not generally regarded as improving the encyclopaedia, as such. Guy (Help!) 01:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you improve this article without ignoring rules? That’s what IAR means, and it applies to all rules, including all policies and guidelines—at least, that’s the impression I got from the Wikipedia namespace pages concerning it. But again, that’s only if those rules prevent the article from being improved. That said, would what I proposed not improve the article? You seem to be accusing me of advocating original research and personal opinion, but avoiding exactly that was what I meant by moderation. I proposed adding facts supported by consensus among those familiar with the subject. If those editors stray into OR or opinion while doing so, you and others can edit or delete it as needed. Or does what I asked for fall under the definitions of OR or opinion? If there’s a problem with what I asked, please assume good faith and tell me what the problem is, rather than making accusations without supporting details. —Frungi (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did improve it. I took out a load of twaddle that read like someone's personal fantasy. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I meant from its current state. Why do you even bother responding if you’re not even going to make an effort to have a real discussion? —Frungi (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← I am explaining to you, since you don't seem to understand, why the vast swathe of personal opinion backed by unreliable sources - or no sources at all - had to go. It's been restored several times, I don't see any attempt to exyand the article within policy, only to assert that core policy need not apply to this subject. WP:V/WP:RS does not mean we use reliable sources unless we can't find any, in which case we use unreliable ones; it means we use reliable sources or we don't include the content. Simple principle. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked about the personal opinions you deleted, nor that personal opinions be added. I’ve been asking about allowing facts to be added, which at this point would require invoking WP:IAR since WP:V prevents improving the article in such a manner, as none of the many websites about the subject seem to be considered reliable sources. Please tell me your interpretation of what I’ve proposed, since it’s evidently different from what I’m trying to communicate. —Frungi (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFur?

Why is there a wikifur article to this? Tarthen Brown (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s because that link contains a good deal more information on the subject than many editors are allowing Wikipedia to contain. Under the WP:EL guideline, this seems to be acceptable: “Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.” —Frungi (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a largely furry fetish, remember... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.29.83 (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Фиг вам! It's NOT a furry fetish, it's a MENTAL DISORDER!!!!!!!

WP:V or WP:IAR?

You silly elitists. All the psychologists don't know about the fetish, so don't look for sources with 10 years of university when there aren't. Consensus should be enough in this case. Canada-kawaii (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from insults of fellow wikipedians. Wikipedia policy about citing reliable sources is a cornerstone one and cannot be superseded. `'Míkka>t 15:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that consensus on the facts should be enough. If every vore-related website, and every vorarephile who didn’t just learn the word yesterday, unanimously agree on something, in my opinion, it should be in this article. And WP:IAR is also a cornerstone policy, and supersedes all others (hence the name) when it applies, and I believe it does apply here. —Frungi (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get what you are driving at, but the link stays out because it fails our external link guidelines, being a user-edited site of no obvious authority. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Canada-kawaii and Mikkalai were both referring to the argument about WP:V vs WP:IAR, two official policies that, in my opinion, conflict in this case. The argument was over a substantial amount of content that was removed without any attempt to clean it up. —Frungi (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing to clean up, since nothing was referred from reputable soures. `'Míkka>t 01:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Rules we ignore, policies we don't. Ignoring rules to violate policy does not "improve the encyclopaedia", and that is the justification for ignoring rules. Canada-kawaii makes this point eloquently: "all the psychologists don't know about the fetish" - which means that there are no reliable sources for verification so coverage will give undue weight to a fringe, and largely imaginary, supposed paraphilia. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word “rule” in the policy links to WP:Policies and guidelines… aren’t policies a subset of rules? Can you explain the difference? —Frungi (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check through the policies. Some are non-negotiable. But what you're doing is known as wikilawyering, the point remains that if the only way you can get your preferred content is to ignore policies on verifiability, sourcing and neutrality, then your content is doomed. The onus is always on the person seeking to include content to justify its inclusion, here the "vore fetish" mob failed in that. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I’m wikilawyering by invoking IAR? I must have missed something… I just want this article to contain useful and accurate information, which I believe would improve it, even though the only sources currently available are an overwhelming consensus of unreliable sources. If I’m wrong, please point out a major point on which those sources disagree, or why including the information wouldn’t improve the article. —Frungi (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are wikilawyering by invoking IAR as a supposed justification for content which fails canonical policies. Wikipedia is not the place to blaze a trail, get your content in reliable independent sources first because we (Wikipedians) are not allowed to weigh primary sources and judge their merit, we have to leave it to people whose credentials can be independently verified and venues where critique is applied. In case it wasn't obvious, this absolutely and categorically does not include special-interest wikis and web forums. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, either you feel that adding material to this article that is supported by the consensus of all familiar with the subject, though not supported by any reliable sources, would not improve it, or you think that rules such as verifiability are exempt from IAR (I never got the idea that any rules were, from the policy page and its related essays). I wasn’t talking about wikis or forums; every source I’ve seen on the subject agrees on many aspects of it. I don’t want this to be a complete reference on the subject, at least not without reliable sources; I just think it should include several facts that everyone agrees on, so it can be a useful article. —Frungi (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been told numerous times in various expressions that no amount of agreement anywhere can override the basic wikipedia policy: publication in reliable sources. You can generate any amount of "agerement" in internet about any nonsense, but this will not produce any valid sense for wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 04:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
adding material to this article that is supported by the consensus of all familiar with the subject, though not supported by any reliable sources - bingo. Not supported by any reliable sources means that we must not include it. Rules such as verifiability are exempt from IAR - spot on. Core policies that underpin our mission as an encyclopaedia, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. These policies reflect consensus. Your supposed consensus reflects the agreement of a tiny number of like-minded people. The lack of consensus among those who are not inside this closed circle is obvious here. Guy (Help!) 07:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus I was referring to was on the nature of vorarephilia, meaning that what I’m talking about adding would not be challenged on the basis of accuracy by anyone familiar with the subject. Don’t misunderstand me, the article that was restored numerous times (copied directly from the Wikifur article, it seems) was a mess; I mean basic information about the subject, beyond two or three sentences. As I’ve said, the only way we can include this information right now, unfortunately, is by ignoring WP:V. And again, I’ve never seen anything indicating that the “all” in “ignore all rules” was not literal; but if you think Wikipedia would not be improved by doing so in this case, so be it. —Frungi (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "all" in IAR is literal, but please don't forget that you are not the only editor. You may ignore all rules, but be prepared to be strongly opposed, because some rules were clad on blood, sweat and tears. and WP:V is one of them. `'Míkka>t 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a genuine consensus on the "nature of vorarephilia" which reflects your preferred content, then it will be trivially easy to document from reliable sources. However, as you have admitted above, this is not supported by reliable sources. SO no such consensus exists. There may be a level of agreement among a tiny number of like-minded people, but that is not a consensus. Guy (Help!) 07:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guy: You’re assuming that reliable sources have written anything on the subject, which they haven’t. As far as I can tell, there are several established details that all unreliable sources (websites, wikis, individuals, etc.) agree on—for instance, the definitions of terms like “soft vore” and “hard vore” are consistent. If I’m wrong, please correct me and point out a conflict between sources. —Frungi (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't have to point out anything other than what he has already pointed out. Find Reliable Sources and add to the article. Unreliable sources will never improve an article, no matter how many rules you ignore. --Iafrate (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I’m actually taking issue with his claim that “no such consensus exists” among unreliable sources. First, if it does exist, the information that seems to be general knowledge among all familiar with the subject would improve the article, if it weren’t wholly unacceptable to ignore WP:V. Second, if the foundation of my argument (that there is no disagreement over said information) has been wrong all along, I want to know. —Frungi (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now it seems more about making a WP:POINT than to actually improve the article. I don't think I can add more to this discussion now, so I will not continue unless something new is brought to the table. I hope you will succeed in finding Reliable Sources so that this article can be improved - happy editing. Iafrate (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I’ve said, improving the article has been my goal since the beginning. This article is missing information that no one who is familiar with the subject would disagree with. JzG thinks otherwise, but instead of giving an example of disagreement, he used false assumptions. —Frungi (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't "improve" a Wikipedia article by violating core policies. That is not what improvement means here. Bring sources or shut up. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic logic?

Firstly "Vore" is a name, no doubt inspired by carnivore and herbivore, but isn't derived from the Latin vore, because if it had been people would have simply said that they had an eating fetish, just like foot-, crush-, baloon-, ass-...fetishes.

As others have stated here Vore is the act of swallowing something whole and alive, the fact that you can be the one doing it or be the one getting swallowed or just enjoying the show makes it even tougher to grasp. But that it isn't eating should be easily recognized by the fact that much of the vore leaves both predator and prey unharmed. (Typical cartoon vore.)

Saying that you have a "(Getting?) Swallow(ed)ing whole and alive"-fetish is quite the mouthful compared to example a foot-fetish, hence the obvious need for a name. "Vore" also happens to be cool sounding, short, easy and catchy.

This all brings me down to the linguistic battle that occurred years and years ago, and I only bring it up because for some reason the nonsense is in the actual article. Vore as a fetish isn't derived from the Latin word, but rather named inspired by it, evidently by vore not needing to include eating. People enjoying vore to the extent that they considered it their fetish at some point figured that that ought to make them voreaphiles (or whatever spelling suits your fancy) seeing as every other fetish was labelled philia and the follower a *-phile. The linguistic battle I'm speaking of was when some who figured that they knew better started lobbying for the term phagophilia, because vore is Latin and philia Greek. That doesn't stop terms such as homo-phobia, which is guilty of the same linguistical crime. But more importantly, no vore ever refers to themselves as a phag, nor to the act as phaging (phagging?) and hence the part of phagophilia should be removed from the article since it is just nonsense.

Perhaps I should make yet another section, but I want to adress the reason to the lack of sources for vore and it is quite simply so that the community is frail and has always depended on a few sites and hence people. That means when they disappear for some reason or another the potential source(es) often goes with them. For example The Shrine went offline in 1999, the Big Gulp was reduced to a bullet board in 2000 or 2001. and still the bullet board served as a nexus for vore, by it's very nature a bullet board doesn't save information for later, Big Gulp in specific at times pushed messages off of the board in a single day. Another important site was Stuffed online which went offline in 2003. Big Gulp as a message board more or less crashed when a troll was in position to make real life threats to the Admin of the board in 2004. Leaving much of the community without a place at all. (Specifically ones only really interested in vore and thus not prone to visit furry or giant/giantess sites where vore is more or less common.) Arion.com came along in 2005, but since the founder and admin of the site isn't a vore herself, it has never and will probably never wholly be a vore only site even though at one time a rule was implemented that all art to the galleries should be of vore or unbirth nature due to massive uploads of all sorts of art.

I've seen people wanting to use Arion.com's wiki as a reference, but it hasn't even left the beta test stage yet so using it as a source is not advisable, no less since it is more or less in a lockdown since 2006 when a few people decided to lobby for a few very drastic changes, unfortunately quite a few of their changes are present in what is currently up. Throku (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By way of comparison, the Futa page here is chock-full of 'citations needed' but apparently does not have an aggressive editor like this page, else it too would be one paragraph long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.213.217 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No longer. Thx for bringing attention. `'Míkka>t 14:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start over here...

There seem to be a lot of arguments and some random yelling going on here, so how about we start over?

I'd really like to get this article fleshed out and whatnot instead of solely being dependent on third parties, which often don't know what they're talking about. What exactly is the problem with using Eka's as a source here, and/or linking to it? It's definitely relevant to the vore fetish, not to mention it's likely not only the largest but also most frequented site of its kind online. I'd trust Eka's long before a newspaper, corporate site, or other third party in a matter such as this, as asking one of them would be like asking an American soldier in Iraq how Iraqis live; depending on which one you get, credibility could be severely lacking.

Also, even without any sources that some here would consider 'credible', 'verifiable', or otherwise, it's still easy enough to look at somewhere like Eka's Portal or any other place with vore and note the general categories vorarephilia can be sectioned into. Making such observations and noting them here would be the same as noting the sky is blue, the grass is green, or that Wikipedia's logo looks like partial sphere made of puzzle pieces with symbols on them. It did seem like people were attempting to do so before, though maybe not in the most organized way. Wouldn't it be possible to make a very simple outline as such?

I don't mean to stir the pot here of course. I simply want to inform those who visit here and have this article be the best it can be with what limited resources we have. I would like suggestions as to how to improve this within the rules as well, aside from simply 'find more credible sources', as most newspapers and such see vorarephilia as some kind of sickness/oddity that they don't want to go into much depth with.

JfishSoM (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was trying to suggest above, but others, primarily JzG, either seemed to misinterpret what I was trying to say, or insisted that observing and documenting the general consensus of unreliable sources (e.g. Eka’s Portal) would do more harm than ignoring them. Personally, I believe that adding such content would improve the article greatly, and see no reason not to invoke WP:Ignore All Rules to do so, as long as it’s done within reason (i.e. without getting into too much detail, or including information that’s obscure even within vorarephilia); however, there seems to be disagreement over the meanings of both “improve” and “ignore all rules”. I honestly don’t see the problem with expanding the article in this way if common sense is used. —Frungi (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vorarephilia&oldid=261067715"