Talk:Vorarephilia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recent Deletions

I want to discuss the two recent deletions of this article. All information on this article is referenced and up to date. But since vore is a relatively new fetish on the web, articles are scarce. So the current references are best to describe this article, until new ones can be obtained. Please do not erase or delete any information on this, article simply because the reference is not up-to-date. Allow me some time, and I assure that this article will be up-to-date and unneeded to be erased. — NuclearVacuum 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I just gave the article a "clean up." I personally browsed the internet to find confirming resources and data. I also rewrote some information, as well as deleting unneeded ones. The overall article is the same, but is now up-to-date. — NuclearVacuum 02:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• The sources and content fail WP:V or WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JzG. William Ortiz (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Some random personal website isn't a reliable source. Friday (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Forums are also not reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Don't be silly. see also is for linked or related concepts, which this clearly is. Guy (Help!)

21:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Get over yourself. It's a "see also", and the link is so obvious that it needs to be there. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• JzG is right. Nobody is saying this is cannibalism- we're saying "see also cannibalism". That they're related concepts is obvious. Friday (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for explaining. I understand a bit better now.

• Jolly good. Yes, Wikipedia needs sources, and not just sources but reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Initial comment

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

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)

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)

• Welcome to the world of verifiability, reliable sources] and neutrality. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

* Neutrality isn't gutting an article when perfectly verifiable sources were presented. 0xGauss (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• But it is stubbing an article when the sources are blatantly unreliable and most fo the article was WP:OR. And that's what happened here. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please do tell me where all of Numa Numa's reliable sources are, surely that article should be stubbed if there isn't anything other than fancruft. 0xGauss (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• The point I am trying to make is that when rules are applied unevenly, so too is the backlash from those who get the short end of the stick. 0xGauss (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• In the opinions of everyone other than a tiny few obsessives, they were not "perfectly valid". Guy (Help!) 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

← 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)

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)

WikiFur?

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

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)

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

I put the link back. I'm really not sure why it was removed in the first place; WikiFur was designed to make useful articles for the kind of topic that Wikipedia can't cover. I think it has. GreenReaper (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It was removed because wikis, blogs, chats, ec. are not valid references for wikipedia. - 7-bubёn >t 04:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not being used as a reference. It's a site which contains information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. WikiFur is a long-running, actively edited wiki (see stats), and so is not excluded by the relevant section of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. GreenReaper (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is listed, it is reference. Wikipedia cannot link to questionalble texts. - 7-bubёn >t 04:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Reference" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. The WikiFur article is not being used to support any assertion of fact or opinion on this page, which is why it is not in a References section. Instead, like other external links, it is intended to provide useful, neutral information to complement the very limited coverage permitted by Wikipedia's policy restrictions.

The WikiFur community has expert knowledge on this specific topic, as evidenced by the fact that others have previously attempted to copy sections of it into this article. I feel an external link is a reasonable compromise that satisfies both the limits of WP:V/WP:RS and the people who actually want this article to be useful to readers. GreenReaper (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot promote links to sites of unknown verifiability. There is no evidence provided thta this iki is run by experts. The fact that someone wante to cut and paste some fancy text says nothing of its quality. If the information is verifiable, please add it to wikpipedia, with reputable reference. If it is not, it has no place here whether directly of indirectly. There are millions of websites around, with various useful information. THe goal of wikipedia is to have good info right here. Wikipedia is not web directory. - 7-bubёn >t 04:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bubën, can you please explain your understanding of the difference between references and external links, and the purpose of the latter? It seems to be inconsistent with GreenReaper’s understanding, as well as my own. Also, the guideline only says to avoid wikis that don’t have “a substantial history of stability” (I’m not sure what that means) “and a substantial number of editors” (which WikiFur seems to have). —Frungi (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There was nothing to clean up, since nothing was referred from reputable soures. `'Míkka>t 01:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

← 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If the core policies get in the way of making a good article, you can. Sure, it's ultra-rare, but when it can happen, let it happen. If you think that the cornerstone of WP is its usually good - but prone to backfiring - core policies, you couldn't be more wrong. The cornerstone of WP is good articles, even if the sources aren't from well-known guys with PhDs. 24.87.89.217 (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

I'd like to throw in my two cents. I'm not sure exactly how the talk page works, but instead of reading through thousands of guides I feel like I'll just edit the page and post something. It would help if unreliable sources were presented as there are currently next to no reliable sources of information. Keeping unreliable sources would create at least some interest in the topic. Currently voraphilia is a very unknown topic, and even peoples' opinions of it should qualify as information. It's similar to a discussion on love. Nobody's really qualified to talk on the subject, but people come up with their own opinions. Just because someone went to college and sharpened their opinion doesn't make it much more than that. There's little scientific fact out there about voraphilia because science never got around much to it. I feel like Eka's Portal or places like that offer at least some consensus on just what voraphilia means to those who claim to have it. I think that in consideration of the fact that the majority of the people that hold a coherent opinion of the definition of voraphilia at least are aware of Eka's Portal and it's views on the subject it would be useful to enumerate them here. The reliability of Eka's Portal as a source is difficult to establish because not even psychologists, who unfortunately yet have few facts to say on voraphilia, are qualified to arbitrate which sources are reliable and which aren't. I, for one, am for keeping inaccurate information up until better facts are presented, because at least incorrect facts can later be analyzed and proven or disproven. -- 11millionseconds, Eka's Portal 2009-02-05

Vore - furry link?

I've been interested in learning about this fetish, and what is the reason that it is so common among those who follow the furry fetish? To me they are quite different from each other. Oral Thrush (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The German link in the English version of VORE

somebody need to do a german version for this vore artikel. it is linked to cannibalism! thats not what vore is! thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forceswerwolf (talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Thx for noticing. - 7-bubёn >t

This is where core policies become epic fail

Yes, this is one of the few articles in the whole of Wikipedia which currently lies in a deplorable state due to the non-negotiability of certain core policies which favour dudes with PhDs over the best research on each topic. Some topics just haven't been touched by professionals, and the problem with that is that all of those topics will have completely and totally mediocre articles until some professional comes along and puts years in to studying them. Let's unprotect this article, find all the research we can and then raise it to the status of a featured article candidate because if the article on 4chan can make it there, so can this article. Let's focus on quality and not core policies, and if all you have to say is obvious stuff like "...but verifiability is a core policy!" and other inanities like that, don't post here. I want to see the best WP (or at least the few editors who have seen how awful this article is) can offer. 24.87.89.217 (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. In the page source, citations use up more space than content. Canada-kawaii (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Every academic topic, including the psychology that underlies the vore fetish, has a Terminal Degree (be it a Doctorate or an MFA) that can be earned in it. People with terminal degrees are the true experts in EVERY field. Don't argue with the system of peer review. -The Mysterious El Willstro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.150.198 (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets end the never ending debate (please read in full)

The problem here is that both sides have excellent points, but some of those on the talk page of this article do not care to even consider the arguments of others side even if some of those arguments are perfectly correct. This whole debate has devolved over time into a battle ground for a few stubborn people on each side who, despite the efforts of everyone else to find a compromise or understanding, seem to be so preoccupied with stoking the flames that they don't see how this has gotten far out of hand. While the current state of the talk page may not seem to some like a battle ground, this article has been in contention for years with all the same arguments being tossed around as people bicker about the other side. The guide lines for the talk pages make it very clear that these pages are never to be used as a battle ground and all users should avoid such behavior at all costs. I would assume, from your posts, that most of you are reasonable people and that the fault lays at the hands of only a small minority of both sides.

For one the subject of the article only seems to have come to the attention of other groups only recently, the subject group seems to have gained more self awareness due to the increased ease of forming connections and sharing material over the Internet. Due to its highly objectionable nature to many people, most who know about or are involved in it will not even acknowledge its existence or their involvement for fear of being found out by friends and family. This leads to the problem that very few if any professional psychologists or researchers even know of its existence and the few that do have more important research they could be doing. reading all this again I tried to find academic research papers on the subject. I used several different academic journal compilation sites including PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, APA PsycNET, Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection, Springerlink, JSTOR, LexisNexis Academic, Wiley InterScience, and others and despite using every possible search parameter and exhausting 5 hours looking through academic papers, books, and other references even looking at a few dozen articles whose sole purpose was to fully list all known fetishes and paraphilia I found nothing on this topic or even on tangentially related topics. This means that outside of the community it self there are no real verifiable sources that can be used for this article and there is little hope that any will become available anytime soon. The creators of this article must realize that Wikipedia is the first place many people will go to find information on this topic and a lack of information leaves them to draw their own conclusions; which given the subject matter it is understandable that they would want to avoid this situation as many people would draw very dire, gruesome, and disturbing conclusions; and they would likely shun any that claimed to be part of this group. As one of Wikipedia's main goals it to be comprehensive and to always try as everything possible to find sources for for material before deleting it it is hard to accept that such a collective consensus of most if not all involved in the subject of the article is not good enough for submission until better sources may be found. Unfortunately as much as the creators of this article would like it be otherwise, it is unlikely that creation of an acceptable and fully fleshed out article will be possible for a long time to come.

On the other side of this the editors are correct that verifiability of sources is stated as an immutable rule and even invoking the ignore all rules clause cannot override it as it is integral to the purpose of Wikipedia as a whole and a majority of the participating editors agree that this is not a time when it is appropriate to ignore it. The rule is there so that the site can be used as a verifiable tool for all and so that there is no false information leakage caused by un-sourced or poorly sourced material. This necessitates that much information that is in reality true must be left out to protect the reliability encyclopedia as a whole.

Unfortunately when editors decide that material must be removed they will almost always meet heavy resistance from those who spent time building the article, all be it poorly, in the first place. But even the editors are somewhat to blame for this massive verbal war that has been ongoing since its creation. In this case some editors in their communication do little to soften the blow of the removal and after listening to most of their comments they almost seem proud of removing the bulk of the article no matter how many time people try to rebuild it. They come off as being happy that they have the power to stop this group of people from telling anyone about themselves, which in itself seems to cause a serious conflict of interest on those editors part. Another important factor is that many of the creators of the article rightly state that many if not most of the fringe topic articles on Wikipedia are full of un-sourced or improperly sourced material, in many cases un-sourced material was tagged years ago as needing a source but has never been removed and its creators have never had to battle editors to keep their additions information. For instance, for the span of a year an entire class of marine invertebrates (I believe if i remember correctly it was Echinoidea or another class under the phylum Echinodermata) was listed on its own page as part of the wrong phylum (in that case they were listed as part of Annelida). While the reasonable people among the creators (most all of them) recognize that the bulk of the article was not usable under official policy and was deleted in compliance with the rules it none the less seems to the creators of the article to be hypocritical of the editors that they appear to be so heavy handed in, what seems to many of them, to be a targeted removal of objectionable material and an attempt to censor the information given to the public. While it is likely that a few of the editors are against this this information being available to the public (whether from personal disgust, religious viewpoints, or various other reasons). Most of the editors involved in the deletions would gladly welcome verifiable material if it was available and are just trying to do their jobs and remove un-sourced material as per the rules. They bear the creators of the article no malice and are simply trying to maintain the reliability of the encyclopedia.

My point is that this ongoing bickering, between a relatively small portion of both groups, is the only thing keeping this argument going and the only reason why there is so much contention over the current state of this article This needs to stop because it does no one any good and only makes both sides seem petty, obstinate, and foolish. This article needs to remain as it is until either verifiable sources are published or Wikipedia institutes a system for handling the creation of articles in this situation. To this end I propose protecting this article from both sides until such time as verifiable source material can be found (assuming that both sides agree that what is up on the page now is verifiable).

p.s. perhaps a simple color coded reliability indicator for articles or sources would work so that people could decide for themselves when reading an article if they want to use that information. (Also I should note this is my first post here so I may not have gotten some of the formating rite, and if that is so I apologize).--The everlasting Bob (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

First, let me thanks Bob here for trying to resolve some of the conflict on this subject. I agree with everlasting Bob after a review of the history of this article that indeed, a few people are taking this discussion needlessly personally. Understanding the nature of the topic, those behaviors are understandable. However, those behaviors serve very little in helping the users who navigate to this page.

Also, I think Bob is suggesting a very dramatic change to Wikipedia and definitely underestimating the impact those changes will be onto Wikipedia as a whole. The intention of Wikipedia is not to tell stories, but to tell facts. If it is not a fact it simply does not belong on this site. The idea of "color coding reliability" pretty much throws the original intention of Wikipedia right out the door. If we know how reliability it is, there should be no question whether it should belong on this site or not.

However I do notices that several link are removed from this article wrongly so. According to official Wikipedia policy WP:NOTLINK linking to a major fan site to this subject may be appropriate when there are a lot of fan sites. If we simply search Google on this topic, we can find that there are a lot of sites out there dedicated to this topic. Hence, there are no reason to exclude some of those external site even if they are not verified source, as it is considered accept practice base on Wikipedia official policy

Base on this finding, perhaps we can at least agree with a link to the biggest fan site for this subject? I know, at the moment, I'm an anonymous user. I simply don't use Wikipedia enough to justify for an account. However, I am willing to sign up to Wikipedia and take responsibility of such an addition shall this discussion come to some form of an agreement. 143.112.144.129 (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I find that either Eka's portal or vore.net are a suitable choice. Eka's portal seem to be by far more active and more popular, but vore.net appear to have higher search engine ranking due to it's age. Does anyone disagree with those choices? 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlht (talk • contribs)

Seem alright 24.83.68.214 (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikis and forums are not allowable references in wikipedia. Period. - 7-bubёn >t 16:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not strictly the case (consider a permanent version of an article or forum post by a known-reliable-source contributor); regardless, we're talking about external links here, not references. References substantiate facts, so community sites are normally not suitable. The goal of external links is different — to provide readers with more than Wikipedia alone can give them. It can make sense to provide links to forums, wikis, or other sites which "fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources," as long as editors consider these links relevant and useful. GreenReaper (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What 7-bubёn claims seem to be in conflict with this particular part of Wikipedia policy, WP:NOTLINK. Can anyone confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlht (talk • contribs) 12:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

7-bubёn, I’ll ask you again: What is your understanding of the difference between references and external links? They are not interchangeable. —76.110.173.70 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:NOTLINK, it specified "On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate."

According to external links under "Link to be considered" "3. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations."

In conclusion, including a link to a directory of website and /or a major fansite is deemed acceptable under wikipedia official policy.24.87.24.7 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide reliable references that the site in question is (a) notable and (b) provides reliable information. There have been several cases when hoaxers created whole domains just to bullshit wikipedia into accepting a bogus article. A web-savvy person can do this in 20 minutes. - 7-bubёn >t 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Given your user history showing numerous questionable activities, I'm going to request explaination on the following:

We are talking about external link, which part of the link you provided are relevant to this discussion?

Basically, can you explain how external links are considered reliable references?

I will be more then happy to purse a common consensus if we don't...

A) Actively ignoring direct inquires from other users on article talk page

B) Refuse to clarifies which part of the link provided are relevant to this discussion.

C) Refuse to answer inquires in his user talk page.

Thanks 24.87.24.7 (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

External links are sources of additional information. Please provide proof that the link you want to add contains reliable, encyclopedic information. Please refrain from personal attacks. Discuss article content, not editors. - 7-bubёn >t 16:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How can anyone with any knowledge on this topic possibly doubt WikiFur as notable and reliable source of information on a furry fetish? 12.44.31.197 (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

First, if there is no doubt, then please provide proofs if the form of reliable references. Second, this article is about vorarephilia, not about furries. - 7-bubёn >t 16:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

First, we haven't decided on a external site, we are deciding on the possibility of adding one.

Secondly, to SemBubenny, basically, I disagree with you. External links does not requires need to meet reliable references guideline. Otherwise, in the external links guideline. They would not have said "Relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." are still in consideration.

Regarding to your claim on personal attack, please retrains yourself from pointing finger. My concern are all evident base. You have so far refuse to cite your reference. Refuse to clarifies your point and decline answering question directed to you. I'm starting to have the feeling you are forgetting that this is a Community discussions. Not a court.

I will ask you again, in external links, reading the first few sentences (like the one I quoted) will show you that Wikipedia specifically stated that links not qualifies as reliable references are still considered long as it fits the WP:NOTLINK guide line. I went throught it, citing exact part of the links that contradict your argument. I would really appreciate if you can do the same.

Also, If you look above in this same talk page, we have tried numerous time on getting this piece of information out of you. We are not ignoring your point, we are Assuming good faith. So, please Civil, at the very least, cures our curiosity and show us where you get that idea you seem to guard dearly so. 24.87.24.7 (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

7-bubёn, we’re discussing an external link, not an encyclopedic source. Please stop confusing the two. —76.110.173.70 (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have recently spent a bit of time discussing in wikipedia chat with several moderator and we did came to serval conclusions.

Most noticeably, external link have nothing to do with WP:V,WP:RS, WP:REF or WP:N. All it need is agree with WP:EXTERNAL. It appears that there there are some misunstanding here.

I'm going to try WP:WQA soon and if we still can't get somewhere on this, we might have do WP:DRR if a general consensus can not be reach. Which I really hope we won't need. Wikipedia editors are busy enough as it is. Perhaps a WP:3O would be good too? What do you guys think? 24.87.24.7 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the recently featured articles you will find one about the game Alleyway, which supplies as external link "www.GameFAQs.com which hardly is a relaiable source either. There is countless of examples of articles with external links to unofficial webpages that all would have to be considered more or less reliable. Thats why external links are not references but additional information. As stated above this is defined in the rules as well. 12.44.31.197 (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Seem like the common consensus is to add something, can we nominate a link that will help the reader most?Hlht (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

http://aryion.com/weblinks seem acceptable24.87.24.7 (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Think we waited long enough for disagreement. So far the only disagreement is with link policy, not common consensus, so I'm going to go ahead and add that suggested external link. If anyone have a disagreement, be civil and talk over it here.

Hlht (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

References to websites of questionable authority are disallowed. No consensus can override the basic wikipedia policy. You seem to ignore what you was told. Your persistence to ignore wikipedia policy may be considered disruption of wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 16:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is a difference between a reference and an external link. Please don't make vague threats of "disruption" to other users. GreenReaper (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

An external link is a reference for further information. And it was a warning, not threat, but you may feel free to consider it as a threat. - Altenmann >t 18:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Not according to WP:EL. Links don’t need to satisfy WP:V. Maybe this debate should be taken elsewhere, such as the guideline’s Talk page? —76.110.173.70 (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Altenman, don't forget this core policy WP:SPIDER.

All joke aside, you are arguing about something very clearly incorrect. If you are unclear on wiki core policy, please head to WP:Question[1], otherwise, please provide evident of your claim. We have discussed this change in detail, there are no doubt the link is justifiable.

I also spent a few hours of my time with several active wikipedia editors to discuss this matter, just in case. One thing is certain from the discussion, external link do not require WP:V,WP:RS, WP:REF or WP:N. Please read WP:EL for evident, it clearly specifies that External link is for relevant information, and relies on general consensus, and are not necessary reference. If you have a question whether the sites in question are relevant, you should check them out and see what those sites is about.

Anyway I was hoping we can come to a mutual agreement with something so simple and clear about Wikipedia policy, but if after this line, we are still unable to agree on something so simple I will call one of those moderator and insist on a WP:WQA. 143.112.144.129 (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The way I read EL, the fansite link for a mental illness isn't appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Where in the EL was it show that it wasn't appropriate? Hlht (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't qualify under any item in what "should" be linked or what should be "considered" for linking. It's a directory of links to unreliable information and fansites - both of which fall under the list of links to be "avoided". Rklawton (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We would not exclude an Open Directory link, which has similar content for fan topics. Links to directories are preferred over direct links to individual fansites, especially when there is debate over which particular site to link to. The directory also appears to be updated more frequently than the average ODP list. I'm not in a position to judge its neutrality, but it seems open to new entries. GreenReaper (talk)

Undent. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion. A source is used to verify text, to demonstrate to the reader that the information is coming from somewhere reliable and can be trusted. External links are put in a specific section of the main pages (see WP:GTL), containing links to official pages or sites with neutral, accurate information that can not be integrated as footnotes. Accordingly, we should link to pages that are stable, informative, and reliable. A fan site, web forum, or wiki, would not be appropriate (prohibited by WP:ELNO points 10, 11 and 12). There is no reason to ignore all rules by linking to random fetish websites that can not contain factual or verifiable information. A small number or lack of external links is not a reason to add them. Since this is probably a neologism with minimal scholarly coverage (like most paraphilias) it is doubtful that it will ever expand beyond a rather short summary saying it is extremely rare. What other pages on wikipedia do not matter, if issues are found with those pages, feel free to correct them. Fan and fetish sites should never be linked to. Paraphilia pages should be treated with special caution because of WP:SANDWICH issues.

The DMOZ is a different type of page that we often link to because it can be useful. DMOZ does not have a page on this topic.

These are our policies. If you do not like them, you can try to have them changed, or you can leave. But the consistent removal of the links is certainly appropriate within the policies, and should continue, the opinions of a series of single purpose accounts notwithstanding. The lack of attention paid to this topic in reliable sources is not a reason to ignore other rules. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, WLU, for being civil and addressing each of the issues in question here (at least, as far as I can tell). One thing, though: WP:EL says that wikis with a substantial history of stability and number of editors are allowable. I’m not familiar enough with Wikifur to judge whether it has those, and I’m not sure what’s considered “substantial”; anyone else? —76.110.173.70 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiFur has been around for almost four years now. We have over 11,000 article pages in English, and projects in 12 languages. From our statistics site, we average 70-90 active editors (5+ edits) a month in English (data from February onwards is misleading due to a delay in XML dump generation). Personally, I would prefer linking to relevant sites within the vore community itself, rather than a related community, but it does give a good overview of the topic. GreenReaper (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think I'm trying to do? (You don't have to answer that. :-)

Excluding information over which there is no actual disagreement, just because there are no published sources to back it up, does not improve Wikipedia. It makes it less useful on those topics where a reference can best be provided by a community effort. This is a real problem because it undermines one of wiki's greatest strengths - the ability to combine the knowledge of multiple people into a coherent whole.

There is a difference between a fact and a verifiable statement. Of course such sites can contain facts. The issue is you cannot tell whether or not they are true. However, if all editors with knowledge of the topic are in agreement on the validity of such facts, and you have no reason to doubt it, I do not feel there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Wikipedia's policies for dealing with unreliable information have a reasonable basis. They are useful to settle disputes, and I would not be concerned if there was an active debate over the truth of what was being written. But they can be incredibly frustrating when taken to an extreme, to exclude coverage of a topic, as appears to be happening here.

I suspect those trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this topic will ultimately leave, given the reception. Perhaps they will start something of their own — and if so, I wish them luck. Their departure will not improve Wikipedia, however, nor help those who come here looking for information — and it saddens me, because I know it doesn't have to be that way. GreenReaper (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Since there are apparently no reliable sources on vorarephilia, wikifur can not itself be based on reliable sources, and is therefore unsuitable as a link on the page. Again, wikipedia is based on reliable sources - serious studies in scholarly journals, not internet memes, web fora postings and blogs dictating personal experiences. Wikipedia's coverage of vorarephilia will improve when the scholarly coverage improves, at which point the page can be expanded using reliable sources. In the mean time, the external links presented to date are inappropriate.

Greenreaper, regarding specific comments:

• excluding statements because there is no source to back it up is totally appropriate per WP:PROVEIT; if a statement has been removed, there is disagreement, and it is up to the "add-ee" to find a source to back it.
• this does improve wikipedia, because we are trying to be a reliable encyclopedia, per WP:ENC
• wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, does not "combine the knowledge of multiple people" because that would be a violation of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:RS because "people" are not reliable sources.
• WP:AGF does state we should assume good faith, but historically on articles about paraphilias, there is a significant risk of the page becoming a soapbox for the paraphilia, or part of editors' own personal fetish, hence the need to insist on reliable sources. Further, paraphilias are for the most part extremely rare, which is why they are poorly studied, and it is difficult to trace the difference between people with actual paraphilias, and bored teenagers pretending. Accordingly, again, we should not use statements by "people".
• If people who try to 'improve' wikpedia's coverage of vorarephilia do leave, I do not think it will be a particular loss because people are not reliable sources and wikipedia is based on reliable sources. We are not a fan site, a discussion board, or a place to socialize. We are here to build an encyclopedia, using encyclopedic, verifiable information. People who want to do otherwise are welcome to download the wikimedia software and start their own wiki, or join another one.

In short, if anybody has actual verifiable coverage of the topic in a reliable source, they are welcome to present it for integration, or integrate based on it. Otherwise, bluntly, the community is not interested in their input. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Your comments (and all those conflating the requirements for reliable sources with those for external links) do not square with WP:ELMAYBE, which specifically mentions "sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." An external site does not have to meet Wikipedia's standards for original research and verifiability. This has been specifically addressed this week on the appropriate policy talk page. GreenReaper (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please space your comments appropriately, with new comments below old. Who are the knowledgeable sources? Are they scholars? Are they published researchers? Are they investigative journalists? Or are they random people who have a fetish? They do not have to be reliable sources, but they should not be web fora, wikis or networking sites. What is the external link that people specifically feel should be linked to? How does it contribute to the encyclopedic nature of the page? How does it help readers who are interested in knowing accurate information about the topic and not just spam or promoting a website? How does the information improve wikipedia? Have any experienced contributors said "this particular website should be included", or is it all responses to generic questions? Because clearly several have advised caution at WT:EL and WP:EAR. If it is this link, then none of the links are informative, they are all fan pages, dubious wikis and personal web pages, all of which are specifically prohibited by WP:ELNO. As it says at the top of WP:ELNO, "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[1] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists; Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies); Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." If readers are interested in these sites, they can find them on google. I would venture that these sources are not knowledgeable because they are not scholars who have studied vorarephilia; at best they are individuals who have the paraphilia or something similar. That is not appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As one of the people "specifically addressing" the very narrow question presented to WT:EL, I want to confirm and clarify that the entire guideline must be complied with, not merely a single sentence. In particular, a link that fails WP:RS and is attempting to meet WP:ELMAYBE must comply with every relevant item in WP:ELNO.

I'll watch this page for a few days; if you want my opinion on specific links, then please list the links here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The proposed links so far are:

• Eka's Portal, or its art gallery, wiki, or list of links
• The vorarephilia article on Wikifur

—76.110.173.70 (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

None are appropriate, please see the discussion at WT:EL that I link to in the below section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Vorarephilia is a mental illness, and the links provided do nothing to reliable address the subject. Note that the Anorexia article doesn't include fan or fantasy sites, even though they exist. This article is no different. Rklawton (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the DSM, paraphilias are mental disorders that “cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning” (which I doubt vorarephilia does for most), and according to other sources, they’re not disorders. If it’s just your personal view that they are, you can’t use that to decide what others can add to an article.
As for the objections raised by WLU and others, I can’t argue, unless WLU answers my question about whether WikiFur has “a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors” (answered on the WP:EL talk page). —76.110.173.70 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Undent. It doesn't matter if it's a lifestyle choice or a mental illness, no matter what the external pages are not appropriate. Can we close this section? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the links; I am convinced that Eka's Portal does not conform to WP:EL, and I am very nearly convinced that WikiFur also fails. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Checks the refs at the wikifur article - sub-par. Also, it's a single page on a wiki, not a whole wiki devoted to vorarephilia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: even without considering those issues, I can't and don't recommend it or support it, which is a separate issue from whether or not it complies with the relevant guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Different types of vore

Shouldn't the types of vore be listed such as willing and unwilling, transformation, same size, macro, micro, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.172.207 (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no known reliable sources for most things pertaining to vore, let alone different types of it; community sites like aryion.com and Wikifur aren’t considered reliable, nor is community consensus, apparently. —Frungi (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right. Verifiable, reliable sources. Since we're basically talking about a mental illness, reliable information would come largely from medical sources. Rklawton (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure fetishes/paraphilias aren’t considered mental illnesses… but yes, psychologists and the like would be the most likely sources. —76.110.173.70 (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, paraphilia is a mental illness. Rklawton (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Only if it "causes clinically significant distress or impairment in ... functioning". I think "vore fetish" (which actually gets more Google hits than the "correct" term) or "vore fantasy" are more descriptive terms for the situation, unless you have someone who really can't function without eating someone/being eaten. This just goes to show that if you rely on medical references, you risk bias as well. GreenReaper (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are meaningless for wikipedia. If a reliable source comes up discussing vorarephilia as a non-paraphilic lifestyle choice, it can be integrated into the page. In the mean time, the "different types of vore" is not appropriate. Wikipedia repeats the steady, plodding mainstream. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow I never expected a fetish of mine to hav the longest talk page flame war (yes im saying that its a flame war, between two groups with different views) ive ever seen, yet the shortest fetish stub ive ever seen. Really wat it comes down to is that this fetish has a surpsisingly large amount of porn and devoted sites, but no psychologist will touch it. Im sorry but we may hav to consider changing verifiability policy becuz of this. No article due to no research is just not right. Please dont continue the war in this section due to this comment. Im staying out of this paragraph-filled minefield. I'll go find some actual information on encyclopedia dramatica (yes, sadly as much as they try to not hav real info and just be funny, their article on vore has more correct information than this article, even if it has a lot of slightly-off or incorrect info.)69.144.233.38 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Out dent:Changing reliable source guidelines because you can't find reliable sources is an unacceptable option. Look harder for sources. If none currently exist, wait for someone to publish something. And using consensus to get stuff in because no reliable source exists is also unacceptable. Just because reliable sources don't exist for your "fetish" doesn't mean you get to WP:OR in whatever you want. Especially just because a bunch of people who purport to have "it", say it's so. Like the rules say, find a secondary or tertiary source, Wikipedia is not for publishing original material. Period. End of sentence.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:EL

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Meaning

It isn't clear. It sounds like it's supposed to mean getting eaten, in a literal way. That makes no sense though. 98.14.15.12 (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear, because the rules, as interpreted by some, prevent it from being explained and clarified. Vorarephilia does mean "getting eaten, in a literal way", but it's a fantasy - it's all about sexual arousal through imagination. If you want to understand vore by talking to vorarephiles, look up Eka's Portal. 83.199.236.167 (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It does mean getting eaten in a literal way, although most voraraphiles have the sense of self-preservation that they wouldn't do it in real life. Also, real life creatures capable of swallowing a human whole are quite few. Basically, due to the difficulty of, self-preserving instinct against, and/or unethical nature of practicing vore in reality, voraraphiles do so in fantasy. Wikipedia has some funny rules that prevent the at least hundreds of thousands of English-speaking voraraphiles out there from describing it as they would in their terms because the vore community doesn't publish psychological literature and voraraphilia doesn't really draw attention from psychologists the way some other paraphilias do.

as it happens, most of the psychological research on the subject is incredibly vague bordering on naive, and looks like it was gleaned from an interview with one patient struggling to come to terms with their peculiar sexuality. This shouldn't really come as much of a surprise, since researchers likely do not spend inordinate amounts of time on the subject, whilst many voraraphiles do.73.25.110.186 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. I put in a link to a Wikifur article on the subject, which was MUCH more explanatory, and it got deleted.

Many WP editors don't consider Wikifur to be a reliable source (i'm not one of them, but i can kinda understand their point of view) --TiagoTiago (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoping to avoid an edit war... on a post that can be edited

I've come across an external source article ([2]) focusing entirely on vore, and specifically on Eka's Portal. I added it to this article. It's been removed twice by an editor who provided the following rationales (I quote):

1. Fetishists and Vorarephilia have nothing to do with each other. One is a disease, the other is a fashion. This article is about the disease.
2. The fact that a community website gets a mention in an article about something else does not mean it rates a paragraph in an article about a mental illness.

He seems to have realised that his first claim was incorrect. As this Wikipedia article establishes, with sources, fetishism and vorarephilia have everything to do with each other. And of course, vorarephilia is not a disease; to claim that it is suggests an utter misunderstanding of what constitutes a disease. Nor is it a "fashion". I know this can't go into the article, but every vorarephile will tell you that being a vorarephile is not a choice. Our sexual identity develops by itself, long before we ever hear of the word "vorarephilia", and long before we know that there's anyone else like us. Some of us chose to be "active" vorarephiles in the sense that we embrace our sexuality and reach out to one another, but it is not a "fashion", any more than being gay is a "fashion". I know a Wikipedia article cannot accept prime source testimony, but if that's the case, it would be nice for certain persons to stop trying to push the idea that being a vorarephile is a "fashion". I've seen an editor on this page claim that vorarephilia isn't real (i.e., that we're all faking it), and, on another page, someone said Wikipedia should provide as little information as possible on vore, because to do otherwise would be harmful and akin to promoting anorexia! (To say nothing of attempts to delete the article altogether.) And now it's being called a "fashion". We get told that we're either frauds or mentally ill; possibly both. My point is that this article seems to be guarded by people who not only misunderstand the subject matter, but are deeply prejudiced and hostile to it. What we should be doing, as Wikipedia editors, is following guidelines, not basing our actions on unconcealed prejudice against the topic at hand.
I should add that I agree that this article should not detail the different types of vore for which there are no non-primary sources. I've said as much on vore fora. Because Wikipedia policy guidelines are very clear on that point.
Now... The line I inserted in the article is this (a line, not a "paragraph"):

There is an online vorarephile community, notably "a vore discussion and fantasy board" at Eka's Portal.<ref>[http://www.movieline.com/2009/08/flesh-eating-sex-fetishists-confused-titillated-by-jennifers-body.php "But What Do Cannibal Sex Fetishists Think of ''Jennifer's Body''?"], Kyle Buchanan, ''[[Movieline]]'', August 14, 2009</ref>

You'll note that I didn't include a link to Eka's Portal itself. I considered doing so, but didn't. I will if there's consensus to do so, but not for the time being. What I did was finally provide an outside source recognising the existence of a vorarephile community. Given that this is the Wikipedia article about vorarephilia, it seems crucial, for the sake of accuracy, to acknowledge its existence if it can be sourced. Which it now is.
If there are reasoned objections to the mention of the name of the Portal (i.e. not merely dislike for it), then I would suggest trimming the line down to this:

There is an online vorarephile community.<ref>[http://www.movieline.com/2009/08/flesh-eating-sex-fetishists-confused-titillated-by-jennifers-body.php "But What Do Cannibal Sex Fetishists Think of ''Jennifer's Body''?"], Kyle Buchanan, ''[[Movieline]]'', August 14, 2009</ref>

I think that would be the absolute minimum that might be included. Since we have a source recognising the existence of the vore community, it would be (pardon the expression) downright idiotic of Wikipedia to deliberately suppress one of the most central aspects of the topic "vorarephilia". An encyclopedia should be here to inform, not misinform. Thank you for your consideration. 82.121.239.101 (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Disease/mental illness - don't split hairs. Just look up the definition of paraphilia. The "source" isn't much of a source, and only references the "community" as it relates to the article's subject - a movie. Vorarephilia is an exceedingly rare - and tragic - mental illness. Information provided about this mental illness should come exclusively from medical and academic sources (i.e. reliable sources). There is no vorarephilia "community". There may well be poser/fanboy communities. Posers, are as common as dirt - and whatever "community" these fanboys wish to set up has no bearing on the illness or this article. At any rate, they have no reliable information to contribute to this article, and we do not link to mental illness "fan" sites. Rklawton (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say your extreme prejudice, hostility and ignorance of the topic disqualify you from pushing your views. Calling it a "tragic mental illness" is your personal opinion. I don't see what's "tragic" about vore; what I find tragic is your blind prejudice against an unchosen but harmless form of sexuality. There is a vorarephile community. That's an objective and indisputable fact, as indicated in the sources (not just MovieLine's). The sources do indicate that vorarephilia is a community, not just a paraphilia. It's tragically ignorant, offensive and discriminatory of you to refer to vorarephiles as "posers" (which I assume and hope is not a word you would use to describe gay people); it suggests your hostility is so great that you're unwilling to be swayed by fact. The Wikipedia article on paraphilia itself notes:

"The view of paraphilias as disorders is not universal. Groups seeking greater understanding and acceptance of sexual diversity have lobbied for changes to the legal and medical status of unusual sexual interests and practices. Charles Allen Moser, a physician and advocate for sexual minorities, has argued that the diagnoses should be eliminated from diagnostic manuals.[7] Psychiatrist Glen Gabbard writes that despite efforts by Stekel and Money, "the term paraphilia remains pejorative in most circumstances." [8]"

Can we please leave your prejudices and personal opinions out of this now? I'm going to leave the name of the Portal out of the article for the time being, but I'm restoring the mention of a community, with the original source. Objectively, you cannot contest that it's a crucial aspect of the topic. I'd ask you to kindly not remove it unless other editors want to debate this. 83.199.173.109 (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be misperceiving your own biases as neutrality. Forums are not reliable sources, the existence of forums is of no encyclopaedic interest. Objectively I absolutely can contest that it is a "crucial" aspect of anything at all. Per our policies and guidelines, we go by what reliable independent secondary sources say. Feel free to produce a reputable authority supporting the supposed significance of your forum. While we're on the subject, "Weirdly beloved" is billed as comedy by many sellers and has an Amazon rank over a million - I'd be interested to see any independent evidence that this is considered authoritative. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on completely misunderstanding what I said in plain English. I'm not asking for any mention of the Forum. And I have said explicitly that I didn't think the Forum itself should be linked to, and that primary sources should not be used. You seem to be expecting bias where you hope to find it, and then imagining it there. I didn't say the Forum was a crucial aspect of the topic; I said the existence of a vorarephile community was. The fact that the vore community (not just the Forum's) is a central aspect of the topic at hand is indisputable. You cannot write an article about vorarephilia without mentioning that many vorarephiles are interconnected as a form of community. The problem we have had in Wikipedia so far is a lack of external sources saying as much - because there's a paucity of sources on vorarephilia altogether. I've provided references to it being not just a paraphilia but a type of sexual lifestyle, and to the word "vorarephilia" being used to cover this aspect. Heck, the sources that have not been deleted still say pretty much the same. Now if we could stick to the topic at hand, instead of discussing imaginary points that result from your misreading and preconceptions, perhaps we can get this article to actually reflect the reality of the subject it purports to deal with. (Oh, and are you seriously suggesting that Rklawton is in any way neutral and unbiased? If you want to at least make a pretence at having an NPOV yourself, you might at least address his own demonstrated prejudices.) Of course, you hardly qualify as unbiased yourself; you previously described vore as a "largely imaginary, supposed paraphilia". Which is, of course, wrong, unsupported, utterly unscientific, offensive and deeply prejudiced. Since you (rightly) insist on the importance of sources, can you acknowledge that your unsupported (and unsupportable) prejudice has no place here, and should not influence your editing of this article? Can you honestly say that you're editing it in a neutral manner, uninfluenced by your grossly incorrect prejudices?

We actually agree on the exclusion of primary sources (which you'd have noticed if you'd bothered to read what I wrote, instead of skimming through it believing you knew what I'd be saying). The question is: Do you or do you not acknowledge that the term "vorarephilia" actually refers to a community, in addition to anything else, and that, this being the main meaning of the word, the article is incomplete if it neglects it? The primary evidence to that is overwhelming, and would, unquestionably, overhwelm any scholar who looked into it. That is beyond dispute. Since primary sources are (understandably) inadmissable, surely reason dictates that a plurality of independently published secondary sources which attest to certain aspects of vorarephilia should be used by this article? I'd appreciate you considering that in as unbiased a manner as you can. Although what this article really needs is editors who are neither vorarephiles nor people who have made their dislike of the topic and their deep-seated, irrational bias abundantly clear. In the absence of such editors with genuinely neutral views, I see little hope of improving this article. 83.199.173.109 (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You ask: Can you honestly say that you're editing it in a neutral manner, uninfluenced by your grossly incorrect prejudices?. Yes. I have no prejudices in this matter other than those defined at WP:RS and WP:V. Wikipedia is prejudiced against information which is not described and analysed in reliable independent secondary sources: this is a feature, not a bug. This article has a long history of activism from the provably non-neutral members of a particular forum, to whom we have explained many times and with varying degrees of subtlety why their version of what vore means can't be included without reliable independent secondary sources, and why their forum is not appropriate as a source or link for this article.

You assert that the term means a community, offering as an example the existence of a web forum. You assert that this is the main meaning, offering in support... nothing. You assert that the absence of this, which you perceive as the main meaning despite being unable to offer reliable independent sources to its being a significant meaning at all, makes the article incomplete. The solution is incredibly simple: bring reliable independent secondary sources which attest to this meaning and its significance. If you need help judging what sort of source counts as a reliable, non-trivial independent secondary source then there are loads of people who will help you with that, but simply inserting the same claims over and over again in different forms but always without a proper source is just going to make it progressively harder for you to persuade anybody at all. Thus far the sole criterion by which sources have been judged by advocates of the forum has been: does it support what I want to insert? Sorry, that's not a valid criterion. You need mainstream sources of provable authority to overcome the activism and other crap we've seen here. And you need to make sure that absolutely nobody ever suggests linking to that forum again, because by now it amounts to a spamming campaign.

The definition offered by the eka fans does not become reliable or worthwhile as a result of being repeated in a film review. Web communities have a Humpty Dumpty approach to the meaning of words: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." I can find you plenty of web forums that define the holocaust as a fraud, that define America as the incarnation of evil, that define 9/11 as a fraud perpetrated by the CIA, that define paedophilia as a pejorative term used by bigots demonise the noble love of man for child and so on. Web forums are gathering places for all kinds of weird views, always have been. That's why we need reliable independent analytical sources, because we have no idea which of these views are real and significant and we are not allowed, by our own policies and for good reason, to make these judgements ourselves. It would be really helpful if instead of throwing accusations of bias against those who are at best no more biased than you, and probably a great deal less, you were to try and understand the underlying problem as documented here on this talk page for as long as I can remember. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. This will probably be my last edit. Believe it or not, I do see your point. And I agree, for the most part. My initial snappiness was due to frustration, resulting largely from the fact that those who reverted my edits (you and Rklawton) are people who have a personal bias against the topic of the article. Having said that, I agree (and always have agreed) that a forum is not a valid source for a Wikipedia article. I have said so again and again, and I have said so on Eka’s itself. I know that some vorarephiles have been adding unsourced material to the article, and I strongly disagree with their doing so. Wikipedia has rules, which are understandable, legitimate and which I take very seriously. For that reason, I do feel frustrated when it seems you’re lumping me in with previous editors, based on nothing more than your assumption that I was one of them. I have not added unsourced material to the article, and I would never do so. I added sources which seemed to me legitimate, because they were independent books from non-vorarephiles published by reliable publishers. I do see your point on doubting the validity of those sources here. I can’t say I really agree with you –far from it–, but I do see your point. Ideally, I would now like to see unbiased, uninvolved editors (who have never edited this article before and who are not acquainted with anyone who has) look at the issues here and give their views. I don’t suppose that will happen, though.
Second, Rklawton accused me, on your talk page, of trying to link to Eka’s from this article. That was blatantly incorrect. Not only did I not do so, but I made it clear several times that I wasn’t going to. Despite that, Rklawton jumped to an immediate assumption, and you backed him on it. I hope you can understand why I felt frustrated by that. It seemed to me, understandably, that you were not actually addressing what I was saying, but rather the opposite of what I was saying, or that you were trying to respond, through me, to previous editors that I have nothing to do with. So I hope you’ll understand my not having been too pleased at that.
Third, of course I have a personal involvment in the topic. I haven’t tried to conceal or deny it. What I have tried to do is be genuinely and honestly neutral in my edits. My aim was to improve the article by covering one of its central aspects. From the start, my intention was to add only properly sourced material, and to restrict myself to that. I hope and trust you can acknowledge that. Also, I’m sure you can understand why I said you were biased. You are. You and Rklawton have both made clear your personal views on vorarephilia. You have personal opinions which are incorrect and unsubstantiable, and which I was (and am) concerned influence your approach to this article. You cannot deny that you have a personal opinion on the matter, nor that you have invoked that opinion to justify your past edits and comments. The problem this article has is a lack of uninvolved, truly unbiased editors. Ideally, it should be edited by people who are neither vorarephiles themselves nor, like you and Rklawton, openly hostile to the very notion of vorarephilia. Can you see my point?
On: “Web forums are gathering places for all kinds of weird views, always have been. That's why we need reliable independent analytical sources, because we have no idea which of these views are real and significant and we are not allowed, by our own policies and for good reason, to make these judgements ourselves.” You’re completely and utterly right. Though your comment is somewhat beside the point. You’re neglecting the fact that I cited books, published by reliable independent publishers; I didn’t just cite MovieLine. (You’re simply wrong when you say the contrary, and the distortion of what I’ve been saying is one of the things that has most frustrated me about this discussion.) Of course I agree with your logic. Anyone would. The point, however, is whether the books in question are legitimate sources. I tend to believe they are, for reasons I’ve explained. But I’m quite willing to acknowledge that my judgement may be both influenced and questionable. Which is why I’m not going to restore the citations for the time being. Ideally, as I said, I’d like them looked at by people who are neither vorarephiles nor hostile to vore. But I don’t suppose that will happen, and in the meantime I acknowledge at least the potential legitimacy of your point.
Whew… I think that about covers it. I’ll leave it at that. I recognise the validity of much of what you’re saying. I think I’ll probably stay away from the article unless I come across additional legitimate sources. In closing, can you at least understand why I was concerned about you and Rklawton deleting content, in view of your statements of personal opinion and your own acknowledged bias on the topic? And in view of the fact that you (especially Rklawton) were gravely distorting and misinterpreting what I was saying? I’m not saying you were definitely wrong to revert me, but in view of your openly stated (and unsupportable) POV, I hope you can agree that any of your edits to the article are… potentially problematic. Anyway, thanks for being reasonably civil. Hopefully we’ll have gained a better understanding of each other’s concerns. 83.199.173.109 (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. This article needs real reliable sources, not fan sites, mentions in non-fiction novels, or other minutia. This isn't prejudice, this is an effort to write an encyclopedia on a page when individual judgement is suspect. Trivia should be avoided in general, and why would we include every single mention of a rare and unusual fetish in fictional books, or link to one of dozens of potential random fan sites? Guy's removal was a good call in my mind. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The real problem here is the mixing of two subjects in one article. Vorarephilia is a real if rare paraphilia, what is being proposed is that we mix in a whole lot of stuff about fantasy vore, which is not real, is of unknown significance and for which we have only in-universe descriptions sourced from sites which tacitly admit that it's a fictional concept. If we tried to split it out into two articles, the one on fantasy vore would probably be deleted as lacking credible evidence of notability for exactly the same reasons that we can't source it adequately in this article. I have a suspicion that most of these fantasists are emo kids trying to find something to gross out their parents, and I would lay money that if any of them saw a real act of cannibalism they would puke before running a mile, but that's just my cynical nature coming to the fore. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just come across this discussion, and may I say Guy shouldn't edit this article at all. Your last post is completely biased with no reasoning to it.

"I have a suspicion that most of these fantasists are emo kids trying to find something to gross out their parents, and I would lay money that if any of them saw a real act of cannibalism they would puke before running a mile, but that's just my cynical nature coming to the fore."

Utterly prejudiced and biased, this is just plain sad. You have now business editing this article, as your extremely biased and can't hope to write a neutral nor helpful contribution to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.134.154.43 (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't it funny how everybody independent of the fantasy vore community is biased, whereas the members of it are somehow not? Of course in the real world that tends to indicate that the precise opposite is true. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, no new sources provided for discussion, no reason to change the page and no reason to criticize other editors. This discussion is dead, start a new section if any new issues arise based on new reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Although it is true that it is hard to source this article any more than it has been, it's also true that Guy here is FAR too biased, unreasonable and ignorant to edit this article. There's moderation, and then there's just plain stupidity.

The fact that you think that you think a fetish is just an excuse for children to freak out their parents shows that you have utterly no grasp of the concept of fetishism, so what on earth are you doing editing an article about a fetish? If you can't even contemplate what a fetish really is, then you really don't have any business being here. That you've also managed to confuse voraphilia with cannabilism rams home that point.

And I am afraid that it is, indeed, those on the outside looking in who are more biased than those who are on the inside. Those who are part of the culture and have the fetish understand it far better than an ignorant and admittedly cynnical editor who clearly has little idea what he's talking about. It is those on the inside, who possess the fetish and fantasise about it, who are the most reliable here when explaining the nature of the fetish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.234.2 (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody I know is a regular visitor of Eka's, so I admit I am a bit biased in favor for, but he wanted me to take a look at this.

I think a little bit of original research is needed concerning the topic. There are little to no sources that Wikipedia will accept. I do not think people should go ahead and copy/paste the entire site but at least a little bit more then the page there is now, mentioning the subcategories and a minor explanation of them is a start (I noticed unbirth used to redirect here). I can understand that EKA's portal is not a credible source but it is one of the (if not the) largest sites about the subject. We have nothing to lose if we mention it. Show it to people, let people gather their own information. Maybe somebody of Eka's portal or somebody else will make a paper on the subject of 'vore' and then we'll make it a proper page.

I am all for rules and sources, the problem is there are no credible sources available. Does that make 'vore' go away? No. This is a sexual fetish which has the right to be recognized, but it hasn't been covered in the mainstream media. There are many, many overlaps with other fetishes which did get tv-coverage and this one fades into the background.

Alex 'phoenix' Wing (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Curious, that the existence of a vore community isn't allowable as evidence of it's own existence. It's a Wonderland logic. Jonathon Swift himself couldn't have written better satire. Voreaphilia also can't be both a disease and a calculated attempt to shock parents.

Pick one, and stick with it.

Moving on, the demand for a mainstream appraisal of the fetish is flawed on it's face.

1. By this standard, the only information that would have been allowed about gays and lesbians not long ago would have been thinly disguised propaganda against it. How many people were lobotomized in order to control their "disease"? We cannot allow POV opinions to censor an objective reality, whatever the reasoning behind it. Wikipedia is not the editorial pages.

2. The mainstream is not the vehicle for a neutral exploration of a fetish. It's subject to financial penalties for any such exploration. This is the task of the alternative press...assuming it doesn't play up the extremes. There's an unquestioned assumption in this debate that fetishists are helpless victims of their instincts, and unable to enjoy any form of mature relationship that isn't catered to the fetish itself. This is true for some people, sure...but not all. It can just as easily be one form of sexual desire among many.

Also, can we lay to rest the idea that vore is purely about cannibalism? Cock vore, anyone? Unbirthing?

Now for the part where I play Devil's advocate.

We also need to better define what is meant by a community. The critics aren't unreasonable in questioning what has been accomplished. While Eka's is indeed a gathering place for many like minded individuals, it's not uncommon to see individuals there who are completely abandoned, or at least feel they are, if they can't provide the exact form of sexual gratification demanded by others, with highly specific tastes. Others are mobbed, and come to feel like what they do is a volunteer job. Before anyone asks, yes, I'm a voreaphile...and we gain nothing by pretending we've discovered some universal truth that everyone can easily benefit from. We won't be taken seriously until we take ourselves seriously...as well as the genuine concerns of those who aren't like us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.240.215 (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Armin Meiwes

Armin Meiwes pretty much defines vorarephilia - so why the objection to listing his biographical article under the "See also" section? Rklawton (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I checked, the first source mentions Meiwes specifically. As a result, there's no legitimate reason to remove his name from the article. They are related, and this relationship is sourced. Rklawton (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It mentions him in connection with cannibalism, not vorarephilia. He doesn’t reference Meiwes after first mentioning vore, and it seems he did so only to bring up the Google hits. —Frungi (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that the apparent irrationality you’ve previously shown on this subject makes sense if you don’t understand the difference yourself. Vorarephilia is not the term for a cannibalism fetish. Cannibalism is an act of one person eating the flesh of another; vorarephilia involves fantasies of one creature ingesting another (neither of which is strictly human in many cases), be it via swallowing whole (soft vore, the predominant variety, as far as I can tell) or otherwise. Vorarephilia is perfectly harmless, because it’s wholly based in fantasy; cannibalism is not, on both counts. It seems to me that your view of the subject is significantly different from the general understanding. If you think I’m wrong, please elaborate on the “tragic mental illness” you’ve referred to in the past, and what differentiates it from cannibalism. —Frungi (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Google Vorarephilia and and Meiwes and you'll see that the confusion is all your own. This confusion likely stems from your inability to distinguish between people with this mental illness and its fanboys/posers. Rklawton (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought I asked this already, but: Please elaborate on this “mental illness”. —Frungi (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hoo, boy... I wasn't going to get involved in this mess, but after that crap... Rklawton, first of all, why are you editing an article on a subject for which, as has been established earlier, you have a hatred for? You have an extreme bias that is going to cloud your personal judgment, and you KNOW it. And I'll thank you to stop using that infuriating word "poser" to refer to members of a community of people with this fetish who've come together to share in it. Second, what you're really trying to reference is an example of a very specific type of voreaphile (human-on-human, with cooking and death/dismemberment before being eaten) who lost sight of the line between fantasy and reality. I suppose it is a case of a voraphile taking his fantasies to the real world, but it is a very extreme case that does -not- represent the community as a whole nor the fetish itself. As has been written, on the page itself, the paraphilia surrounds the idea of consuming or being consumed by another. It is wholly a fantasy paraphilia according to the sources included in this article, whereas actual cannibalism, as in the case of Meiwes, is a physical paraphilia (like pedophilia or coprophagia). The two are separate, should be kept separate, and adding such information to the article will heavily skew the view and meaning of vore from what it actually is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.254.136 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that vore fetish involves being attracted to the idea of devouring or being devoured, regardless of species, and regardless of actually having it happen or just fantasizing about it; that situation in Germany seems to fit. Vore and cannibalism though not the exact same thing, can overlap; one might be forced to eat (or be eaten by) others of one's own species and not like it, that would be cannibalism but not vore, and one may enjoy eating(or being eaten) by beings of a different species, which would be vore but not cannibalism. --TiagoTiago (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Being a voreaphile, I can safely say that TiagoTiago basically hit the nail on the head. Only some vore communities revolve around cannabilism, and their preferences/fantasies hardly resemble the actions of Armin Meiwes. Let me clarify, however, that vorarephilia is not strictly a "fantasy fetish"; many voreaphiles go so far as to consume living animals for their own pleasure, or for the pleasure of others. Also, not all voreaphiles are necessarily aroused soley by the concept of consuming or being consumed by another being, but can also be aroused by simply watching one being consume another, without any fantasy of taking part in the action. -- ArbiterQ19 (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reliable, verifiable source connecting Voreaphilia and Armin Meiwes? if there is please cite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.253.140 (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2010

I am adding Armin Meiwes to this article, as it is unquestionably a case of vorarephilia, and certainly the best-known. See, e.g. Carolina A. Klein, M.D., "Live Deaths Online: Internet Suicide and Lethality", J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 40:530–6, 2012. I don't appreciate having my edits reverted when they're so blatantly correct and useful.

At Meiwes's retrial, after which he was convicted of murder, there was unrebutted testimony from a psychologist that Meiwes had admitted continuing to have fantasies about eating people. The prosecution's whole case was that Meiwes killed to satisfy his sexual fantasy, and he was accordingly convicted on that basis. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4752797.stm

A simple wiki link to another page doesn't generally need a citation, and anyone reading the page on Armin Meiwes could easily see that it is a case of vorarephilia. In addition, the Armin Meiwes page links here.

With the consensus between medical and legal professionals, the justice system and Wikipedia itself that Armin Meiwes is a vorarephile, a link to Armin Meiwes from this page makes eminent sense. But just as importantly, I don't see the point of reverting edits that are so obviously worthy on a common-sense basis.

CarthCarsen (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The article on Meiwes makes no mention of vorarephilia. And, as previously discussed in this section, his was a case of cannibalism, which is not identical. And for future reference, please do not undo a revert when the revert’s edit summary promised an explanation, and before that explanation is even posted. —Frungi (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The short scholarly piece I've cited does, though, and the BBC article on Meiwes need not call him a vorarephile because it contains all the information to show that he is clearly one (i.e. he has the particular type of eating fantasy required). At this point it's not worth hunting up scholarly citations discussing the sexual aspects of his fantasies and the like, especially since those would probably be better suited to the Meiwes page instead of this one, and also probably a bit too microscopic in detail. Also, Meiwes is both a cannibal and a vorarephile. It certainly seems correct that the two are not coextensive, but neither are they disjoint. In addition, if there is some embarrassment about linking to the page on Meiwes from this page (which does link to this one), I don't understand why. He seems to actually be not a bad sort of person, and has done his best to reform in prison. CarthCarsen (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If personal bias is involved in objecting, I would guess it’s vorarephiles not wanting to be associated with an act that people do carry out that most civilized societies find abhorrent, which of course should not factor into an encyclopedia’s content. Factually, you do seem to know what you’re talking about in this case, and I have no objections to your points here. —Frungi (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Definition

I’m undoing Altenmann’s edit of the definition, as two of the sources give more information than “things eating things.” —Frungi (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No they don't. If you disagree (and I may be mistaken),please provide the quotation that "eating another" ius included. - Altenmann >t 22:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

True, none of the sources currently cited here mention fantasizing about being the one doing the eating, but [3] is more specific than “things”: “…the idea of a person being swallowed alive.” And I personally don’t think that such poor wording as “things eating things” belongs in an encyclopedia. —Frungi (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What if you stated "One being eating or devouring another being." (Katchabreak (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

What about plants? Or blobs? Or even inanimate objects? —Frungi (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Edon: This whole tyhing got out of hand, and i did not truly explain why there is Vore in the frist place no offense to those of you that actaully tried to explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.162.109.89 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you’re complaining that the article doesn’t explain why people become vorarephiles. Given the seeming dearth of reliable sources, there’s presently no way that such an explanation could be anything more than speculation. I haven’t even seen a consensus among unreliable sources. But you could try the article on paraphilia for more general explanations. —Frungi (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Credible sources

so Eka's portal isn't allowed as a source, what of Mamabliss? There is a Sexual Fetishes and Fantasies > Vore section on yahoo (http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Sexuality/Fetishes_and_Fantasies/Vore/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 'phoenix' Wing (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure links to directory listings of sites are discouraged on Wikipedia, and that directory doesn’t seem to have any WP:RS sites. Mamabliss is just an individual drawing comics, so that’d be a definite no. —Frungi (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hard Vore vs. Soft Vore

Shouldn't there be some mention in the article about the difference in preferences, where some people like the swallowed whole kinda cartoon devouring, and other like it more being bitten, chewed and swallowed piece by piece, a more NatGeo version of devourment ? --TiagoTiago (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that discusses hard/soft vore, yes. Otherwise, there will be strong objections to documenting anything that hasn’t been reliably reported. —Frungi (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Eka's Portal

Since the site isn't accessible to people under the age of 18, should we really be linking to it? It seems like a good article, but still... --97.123.4.47 (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Forums aren't good places to link to anyway, because it's more than one persons view rather than a solid back-up. I can see why people choose that site as it's one of the most known of it's kind though. MJN SEIFER (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I'm not sure how to set up a disambiguation page, but vore no longer redirects to this page, but instead to a small Albanian town. Some confusion might arise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.94.137.1 (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Vaginal Vore/UnBirth

It exists too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.206.114 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 27 July 2011

I wouldn’t say it technically exists, but as a fantasy/fetish, this is true. Find a reliable source and we can add it to the article. (I’ve tried suggesting we add information based on vorarephile consensus in lieu of reliable sources, and, aside from a couple opposing editors assuming bad faith, there are good reasons not to.) —Frungi (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to be a jerk but it still drives me nuts when I hear "Genital/Ass vore". I guess there could be an additional meaning to vore I've missed, but as I recall it comes from the Latin which means to eat, to devour. Sticking people up your genitals/ass isn't eating or devouring them. Casyle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to think less anthropocentricly. --TiagoTiago (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not realistically, but people can fantasize whatever completely absurd and anatomically impossible things they want. —Frungi (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

History of vore question

How far back are instances of this fetish recorded? Did vore, as currently defined, emerge only in the 20th century? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.220.6 (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

__Vore as a word essentially came into use around 1994-96.

It originally had no connections to Vorarephilia and was put into use because it was only one syllable long and was the Latin suffix meaning "to eat".

__It was meant to describe "moments in media where characters or objects are eaten" or as TVTropes puts it "Just eat him". That is, moments like Jonah's story in the Bible, to the ending of Tex Avery's "Jerky Turkey"

Old archived vore themed sites illustrate this with extensive archives featuring articles stemming from newspaper clippings of funnies, to comic books and TV shows.

"VoreTex's Various Sources section" (last updated 2010)

"Vore-Com's Clippings section" (last updated 2005)

"Rodent's Vore Video Archive" (Updated since the 90's, currently active, as of this post)

Vore and it's relationship with Vorarephilia comes from the confusion of people seeing the cannibal murderer Armin Meiwes hit the news in 2001, and then believing that it was short for this person's mental condition.

__I'm not one of the people who was there when it was being put into use, I only started becoming active in this community around 1999. But I definitely was active early enough to access many older websites when they mentioned that the word was new, and took notice of the fact that, because these posts were RP Logs, they were all dated. This data helped gauge when the word vore started being used more often.

__While I wish I could link articles for proof, most of these websites I'm talking about are pre-Google takeover era internet, and have all been lost to time.

__Most of the information in this article is just strangely misguided.

If you want more accurate information, I would suggest asking people who were actually there, like Cownugget or Strega.

__Vore has no business being described the way it is in this article let alone being linked to a murderer's mental disorder. While there is an overabundance of people who create pornography that features vore as it's main subject, Vore itself is not pornography, nor is it the paraphilia it is being described as in this article.

As stated,

Vore is not short for Vorarephilia.

Vore is a furry fandom word for the media trope known today as "Just eat him".

Vorarephilia is a mental condition that led to a real life murder and is more akin to pedophilia, considering the egregious acts that have been committed because of it.

The way people are using Vorarephilia to describe themselves is like how people use to think it was cool to say they had Schizophrenia.

__On a personal note, I don't find it right that this article has been taken over by people wanting to dictate their fictional sexual fantasies instead of actually looking into doing legitimate research on this subject. The fact that people actually look to this article for legitimate information on what something is has confused so many people into thinking that they are not only sexually aroused by a scary or silly moment in a movie or cartoon, it also has them thinking that anyone else who creates content like this is only creating the content for sexual arousal. Likewise, they are doing the same thing for any cartoon or movie that includes it. The amount of people I've seen trying to say the director of IT is a pedophile because it includes scenes where Pennywise eats children, or that the writers of cartoons, like Maomao Hereos of Pureheart or even Disney's Third Wheel are trying to get children into the thing that they themselves sexualize is astounding.

This entire article needs complete restructuring.

Vore needs to be separated from Vorarephilia as two different articles. Tanookicatoon (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

On recent edits

To CarthCarsen: I believe my comma usage in this edit is grammatically correct. As for “generally physically impossible”, the most common forms (hence “generally”—same-size soft vore, wherein one being swallows a similarly sized being whole; and macro/micro, where a giant person swallows a tiny person) are physically impossible. But I would question your claim of “universally illegal”, as I’m unaware of any laws against attempting to feed oneself to carnivorous wildlife. Granted, it’s probably grounds for being committed to a mental institution, but I don’t think it’s specifically illegal. —Frungi (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comma usage is incorrect, though we need not quibble if the sentence is reworked. I see your point about the illegality. I'm sorry, as I thought we were butting heads regarding the physical impossibility aspect. It doesn't make sense to claim that this paraphilia "generally cannot be carried out", since it quite obviously can at least in some forms. Nor does that word "generally" make sense in terms of physical possibility. How about something like this: Since satisfying the fetish in real life may be illegal or even physically impossible, depending on the specific vorarephiliac fantasy, it is most often enjoyed through pictures, stories, videos, and video games. CarthCarsen (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope you like the changes I've made. I tried to distinguish the two as well as I could, finding that it was quite a tricky sentence to write. Sorry for insulting your commas. CarthCarsen (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems an elegant solution. I’ve made a correction to an addition of yours, though, as vorarephilia doesn’t necessarily involve humans; as mentioned elsewhere on this Talk page, some vorarephiles enjoy the idea of merely observing, or even actually observing, e.g. in nature documentaries. —Frungi (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Great! CarthCarsen (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the first sentence to be more in line with that explanation: ... a paraphilia where arousal occurs from the idea of someone or something eating, or being eaten by, someone or something. It's not beautiful, but I think it seems more correct. CarthCarsen (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think something should be added to that explanation sentence to also stress the other difference from cannibalism: one's an act and one's a fantasy, though it may prompt acts. Would you like to do it? CarthCarsen (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

... and I'm wondering if "someone or something" in the first sentence shouldn't be replaced with "a human or animal", in both places. Thoughts? CarthCarsen (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Inanimate objects and nonexistent creatures (such as The Blob) can also be subjects of vore fantasies, and that wording would rule them out. Oh, and I forgot to mention about your “insult”: Haha, no worries. I still think my commas were grammatically correct, though; compare the opening sentence: “… eating, or being eaten by, …”. Not that it matters anymore. —Frungi (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

But as there exists no official medical or literary definition (to my knowledge), we should probably keep things as general as possible to avoid straying too far into WP:original research. —Frungi (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

The information PrinceTriton keeps deleting is accurately sourced. From the original paper:

"The individuals who were eaten (the victims) were often much smaller physically and were mostly portrayed, not only as willing to be consumed by a dominant creature but intensely desirous of it [...] Themes of dominance and submission pervaded these stories and vore fantasies often evidenced a variety of crossover themes, including macrophilia/microphilia (sexual attraction to unrealistically large or small people, such as giants or people the size of mice), pregnancy fetishes (sexual attraction to pregnant women), humanoid animal involvement consistent with ‘‘furry’’ fetishes (persons who don animal costumes and engage in sexual activity with each other), ‘‘unbirthing’’ (the idea of being swallowed alive by the vagina and returning to the uterus), and sexual cannibalism (sexual arousal associated with consuming human flesh)."

Per WP:V, one editor's personal opinion does not trump a reliable source. Our external link to WikiFur also confirms the cross-over with furry fetishism and unbirthing. KateWishing (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with KateWishing. And as usual, she's done good work to fix up another paraphilia article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Broader meaning

I seemed to recall that this (especially in the shortened form "vore") is often taken to mean a mouth fetish involving food, eating, chewing, etc. A quick search around on the interwebs demonstrates this to be the case (e.g. pretty-girl videos eating gummy bears, pasta, chocolate, etc., usually in a messy fashion, and labeled "vore"), even if this originally had a more specific and more fantastical meaning, and may retain that meaning in certain contexts. The article should be updated to reflect the broader meaning, when possible, though I'm not sure if any slang dictionaries, much less sexology and/or subcultural linguistics journals, cover this looser definition. 2601:643:8300:C96D:ACE4:8411:9A1:1E00 (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Any broader expansion needs to be supported by WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Furries

It should say furries rather than anthropomorphized animals on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.86.92.65 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Why? 5.34.183.64 (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

new source

Haven't seen anyone use it yet, not sure if it's a valid source, but: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201604/vorarephilia-and-being-eaten-sexual-pleasure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2C80:8E0:A485:D53A:42CB:4A09 (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed subtopics.

I propose we add subtopics to this article explaining common and uncommon variations on this fetish. It couold go into explaining Soft Vore, Hard Vore, other vore methods including Unbirth and Anal Vore, and Object Vore, among many other vore subtypes I have not listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mu5Hr00m99 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Without sources that meet WP:MEDRS, that's going to be a 'no'. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, greater information or description on this subject from a secondary source (perhaps a few researchers assisted in their research by a veteran or two of the community who are old enough and mature enough to give as unbiased information as possible, where the remaining biases are further pared down by the researchers) would be useful, but it seems like many of the edits made to this article are by fetishists who choose not (or don't think to choose) to be as unbiased and close to WP's policies as possible. It would be useful to bring in editors who have worked on other paraphilias or etc. in an unbiased fashion and proven their reliability. And particularly given the lack of secondary sources, it's not a very high priority to add the different ways vore is explored to this article. DriftWrench2k (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Add a new example picture.

This feitish is stigmatizated for a long time. In some other language wikipedia, it even be misunderstand as cannibalism.

When I introduce this feitish to some people, they think the example picure is a bit terrifying. (No offense, but it makes some readers think badly.) It is focus on the plot of disaster and one-to-many people. I think it needs second picture to show the form how this fetish often appears with.

In my opinion, making a good first impression is important. Cute animal characters (furries) are more friendly and easily to make readers realize this emotional feitish. so I am willing to provide this art on wiki for educational purpose. (The art which provide to wikipedia needs to quitclaim some rights.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by No0183 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC) 

I don't see how that same perception is less likely to occur with this other picture, given its text and multiple scenes. Having furries won't change that. And since it also includes furries, it conflates two different things and confuses the reader. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

As a reader, i hope it can be variety. That makes this page objective. He said “we don't need another picture.” for removal reason. Who's this "we"? I think Crossroads just has a prejudice in furry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:7500:57a:95a0:6d7d:7720:f73d:27f8 (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Came across this mild edit war recently, and No0183, I gotta say that the second picture absolutely does not belong. As Crossroads mentioned, it combines a second fetish, so it isn't a good representation of this one because it can make readers confused on how specific this fetish is. Secondly, my understanding is that the artist in the picture already on the page is notable for popularizing the fetish, with 40k followers on his deviantart versus your 14, as well as one of his works also being the title image for the vore page on knowyourmeme, so even if your picture did happen to be a good representation of this fetish, any similar picture from the other artist would still take priority because they are simply more notable. The fact that this same picture was warred back and forth last year as well without any discussion is sad. This page was already full of multiple edit wars, but while some other edit wars were simply original research that stopped a day or two after being corrected, this is just shameless self-promotion that somehow comes back a year and a half later. I know how miserable it is when an edit war thought to be resolved suddenly starts back up again, so No0183, please refrain from uploading the image again after it is likely deleted for being orphaned. If you want to keep the image, put it in your userpage or something. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing topics

This page is missing mentions of: soft vore, hard vore, phagophilia, endosomatophilia (encapsulation of one in another), anal vore, cock vore, navel vore, hair vore, wing vore, and breast vore. It has done good in mentioning "unbirthing" and macrophilia but that's about it. RainbowCardboard (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

i completely agree with you on this, do you have any source we can use for this information? Chri695a (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Question about mawahots

Do pictures of maws alone count as vore? 174.215.241.222 (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

just added something (vore type list in table)

if there is any error in what i have added please let me know.

i was unshure of the mention of tail and sheeth vore as it can lead the thoughts to furry teritory, what is the thoughts on this? Chri695a (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

what is a reliable source on vore?

Of course, research papers and so on are reliable sources on vore, but a website, that almost exclusively caters to the fetish, with its own WIKI on the subject. is that not considered a reliable source, if not i would love to know more about why not?

we cant rely on the mainstream to educate us on what is not mainstream. Chri695a (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Because that website is a forum, and forums can be easily edited without any citations, fact checking, etc. It's the same reason why a subreddit wouldn't be one. Research papers also have zero bias towards it, Which the forum would have. IowaBird (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

So, the fact that there is a forum to discuss the subject of the website the wiki from said website is not considered reliable?

Is that corectley understood? Chri695a (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any citations on that forum's wiki, so no IowaBird (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

When I can’t be used as a reference can it be part of a “read more here” section?

(Could also be called “experience it here”) Chri695a (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)