Talk:Attraction to disability

Translated from Bulgarian

This is a translation from the Bulgarian Wikipedia entry (also written by myself) with significant editing and amplification. I have not bothered to add edit summaries, since they would be superfluous at this early stage. I trust the article is of interest and help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Livedvalid (talk • contribs) 19:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

To "go with" the article, I also wrote stubs on devotees, pretenders and wannabes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Livedvalid (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

Suggestion to merge

There has been an anonymous suggestion to merge this article with Disability Fetishism. I reject it entirely.

1. The nature of the attractions described here is much broader than fetishism. Therefore, the result would be to misinform.

2. Disability Fetishism is practically a stub and as such is most uninformative.

My counter suggestion is for Disability Fetishism to be cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livedvalid (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

DPS & DPW

The article uses these acronyms constantly without defining them. What are DWP and DPS? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sloppyjoes7 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

DPW stands for Devotees, Pretenders and Wannabes. I believe this is written in full at first mention, with the abbreviation in brackets, after which the abbreviation alone is used. This is common practice to save space and verbiage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livedvalid (talk • contribs) 17:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

DPW is defined, but DPS is not. Cz10 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"DPS" was a mistake, long since corrected. Livedvalid 00:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Needs copyediting

There has also been a suggestion that a copyedit is necessary. Unless this is from a US source, I am at a loss as to what grammatical or stylistic errors it addresses. The article is, and is intended to be, in British English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livedvalid (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This currently reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article; it needs copyediting into standard Wikipedia style: see Wikipedia:Manual of style. -- Karada 23:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of this article appears still not to be in English: for example, what does "An extreme devotee pale desires..." mean? -- Karada 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the phrase you give means "an extreme (far removed from the mainstream) pale (fringe, environ, surround, area close to the edge) of devotees want ..." Surely, such elaboration feels patronising!? If I were to rewrite the article to suit non-native speakers or sixth-graders, it would occupy twice the bandwidth. However, you do have a point in that there is much compression in one or two passages, so I'll do an edit. Do let me know how you feel about the result when passing-by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livedvalid (talk • contribs) 09:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Nature section

The nature section badly needs citations... It states a lot of statistical figures without argument or citation to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kipperoo (talk • contribs) 00:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a great deal of this is rubbish - taken from old Freudian beliefs. Pure speculation and suggestions are better than stating things like "Devotees are suppressed homosexuals." I may have misunderstood the intent of this statement, due to it's formatting -- it says nowhere that this is a psychiatric hypothesis among many, although several other similarly absurd suggestions were mentioned, without being cited as speculation. Kipperoo 00:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Disability devotee basically repeats a few of the statements on this page, with only a little elaboration. I think any relevant content should be moved here and the page should be deleted. --Grace 06:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Captions

Some of the captions seem informal, NPOV and comment on more than just the image shown. For example: "Pegleg: Captain Ahab and Long John Silver may be fictional characters, but there is nothing fictional about devoteeism, however bizarre it may appear to disabled people and the general public; yet, scientific explanations offered are seen as unconvincing, offensive, or both; the initiative in answering the Why? is now moving to the devotee community." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.164.77.105 (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Why so long?

WHY IS THIS SO LONG, HOLY SHIT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.224.131 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete

This article is long, and written in a style not suitable to wikipedia. It contains many terms and assumptions generally offensive to people with disabilities. I note that it was orginally written in Bulgarian. In many cases, the translation of documents into English, for a different cultural audience, presents readability problems. Altairah 13:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This page is embarrassing to wikipedia. Deptstoremook 05:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deptstoremook (talk • contribs)

Disagree. It may be too long but it contains information of great value.

User:Abasios 21:30, 26 May 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.88.145 (talk)

create new page for "devotee"

I've edited this page for relevance to it's title. Since attraction to disability, or a person with a disability does not equal "devoteeism", I suggest a page on that subject.Altairah 10:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Altairah,

I have restored the version you vandalised.

Your remarks on length and socially appropriate language have not been posted for discussion in the usual manner, and have not been supported by other users on this page. See Wiki Isn't for notes on political corrrectness (no, it ISN'T).

As to your "edit," your poor grasp of grammar (as exemplified by "it's" herein above, plus other instances too numerous to mention) sits awkwardly side-by-side with your criticisms of my English.

I have not bothered to leave a note on your page, since you did not have the courtesy to leave one on mine.

If you persist in vandalising this page, I shall report you in the due manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livedvalid (talk • contribs) 22:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Page ownership issue

To the unsigned user who modified my last comment-Please read vandalism, number 13 under types of vandalism.

For an understanding of "vandalism", see vandalism. My edits were, and are well intentioned, and I have an established history of making constructive edits.

For reference to my remarks on length and language posted for discussion, see my comments on April, 7th, 2007.

As my edit consisted primarily of deleting content from the original version, and only one sentence was added for continuity, any grammatical errors were present in the original copy. Please feel free to correct them. Please see the above discussion on incorrect grammar.

It is not customary for a user to leave a note on the pages of other users who may have previously edited the page in question before or after making edits.

I believe this page may be suffering from a problem of page ownership. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

As Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia, a continuous process of edits is to be expected. If you are seeking a medium for academic publishing without peer review and alteration, this is not it. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

As for reporting me in "due manner", I do agree that this issue should be posted for wider review and discussion. I will refrain from making further edits, or restoring my edited version until I have posted this issue of page ownership for administrative review. Altairah 01:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Livedvalid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account which in its first edit after registration here created the "Attraction to disability" article.

The Wikipedia Ownership of articles policy says:

If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and allow them to do so.

Article ownership issues can prevent articles from becoming encyclopedic. Users who, like this one, believe they own an article, may engage in tendentious editing to discourage others from participating.

When civil attempts to work cooperatively with such editors are fruitless, the dealing with disruptive editors section of the disruptive editing guideline suggests:

• Requests for comment/User conduct for community input
• Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for administrator intervention
• Community ban via the Community sanction noticeboard.

As you can see, these matters are taken seriously. — Athaenara ✉ 22:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:3O request

I have removed the request relating to this page on WP:3O because it is not clear what disagreement exactly a third opinion is sought on. If you disagree with the conduct of another user, please follow the instructions at WP:DR. Sandstein 08:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Boxing Helena DVD cover.jpg

Image:Boxing Helena DVD cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you got a few things wrong

First thing:

    DPW is the shortened version of Devotee, Pretender, and Wannabe, and they are different. Devotees 
are the only people in that group who are sexually attracted to people with disabilities. 
Pretenders pretend to be disabled, and wannabes want-to-be(come) disabled.

Second thing:

    Devoteeism can occur in wannabes and pretenders, and does.

Third thing:

    Because devotees are the only people that have a sexual side to the problem, saying that the 
problems of DPWs are sexual is a misleading fact.

Fourth thing:

    If someone who is researching DPWs, they are going to want to know what the actual names of the 
disorders are. Wannabe's disorder is BIID: Body Integrity Identity Disorder (taken from the DSM).
 Pretenderism does not have a disorder tied to it. Devoteeism's disorder is abasiophilia, or
 the attraction to people with physical impairments.

Final words:

    I like the idea that there are articles about DPWs, but I do not like the way that this specific 
one talks about DPWs being sexually attracted to disabilities. Sorry to say this, but try doing 
some more research before writing the article.

Citations:

    biid-info.org
    transabled.org
    paradevo.com

Thank you for writing. I am unclear as to what motivation you attribute to wannabes and pretenders. The authorities all state it is sexual gratification, albeit of an unusual nature. You appear to contradict this by stating that it is devotees who are sexually motivated, while P and W are not. (Granted, you do state devoteeism can occur in PW, but what then motivates those in whom it does not occur..?) I am, of course, aware of the sites you list and sadly find that they do not provide acceptable insights into the motivation. BIID is serious and laconic and I would be minded to include quotations in a future reedit, but the eternal problm of sources remains. Transabled is a collection of blogs which raise questions, rather than answer them. Paradevo is frankly sexual in nature. Livedvalid 01:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer some things, biid-info is a more up-to-date source on everything BIID. Go there if you have remaining questions.

NPOV?

I'm trying to assume good faith, but this article just seems to have been written by delusional disabled people who want to pretend that disabilities are attractive. Is seems the basic theme of this article is that "there are many people who are secretly attracted to disabilities but are afraid to tell anybody." and it lacks evidence. For example, one of the image captions says that "No detectable disability, from the most minor to the most profound, lacks its devotees." which cannot possibly be proven so even asking to cite it would be pointless. The article is also full of underground disability fetish slang and just seems completely informal. 76.185.165.138 06:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This argument should be over.

I fully agree with the comment above my own that list the things gone terribly wrong. I have been researching this subject for about a month now for my thesis project and even I (someone who does not have BIID, apotemnophilia or anything related) knows that this page is horribly mislead, under-cited, offensive, and just plain wrong. It needs to be deleted. Also, to the person that odviously wrote this page: you need to listen to what people are saying and not worry about what you consider to be proper grammar. Now how do we get this page deleted?

Your answer: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_debates#Prerequisites Altairah (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Having been directed to this article from learning what feet binding is, I found this article to be nowhere near the standards of Wikipedia. It reads less as an encyclopedic entry and closer to somebody defending their own fetish. The POV is nowhere near neutral, the wording is unprofessional, and the citations leave much to be desired. Casual research also suggests that this page should be merged with other pages as this disorder seems to be a symptom caused by other existing conditions. Jtlloyd (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Major errors

DPW may mean Devotee Pretender Wannnabe, but to categorize them into one big thing is way incorrect. I have BIID, or wannabeism as it is often called, so I know that what I want is not to have sex with someone with a disability, but to gain a disability.

My point is is that devotees, pretenders, and wannabes only have one thing in common: something about a disability. Devotees gain sexual arousal when they see or think about someone with a disability. Pretenders pretend that they have a specific disability (polio, SCI, blindness, ...) by using assistive devices and temporarily 'disabling' themselves in the process: you must use crutches while wearing bilateral HKAFOs. Wannabes feel that they need to gain a disability, the traditional one being a below the knee amputation of the left leg, but anything counts. This article was written from a standpoint that implied that DPWs all think about sex, and as part of that community, you just gave the world a false label for us! This entire article is, on top of that, out of date. Look for stuff by Dr Micheal First, the leading expert on this, and you will quickly see what I mean.

This article needs a total rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.100.122 (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting to split and rework the whole article

As already stated by others, this article lacks not only in-line references but in general is very long, treating multiple phenomenons as one. Several parts of it are highly offensive to both disabled people and the ones who are attracted to them ("suppressed coprophilia" comparing human body parts to feces, "Treatment" indicating that having a different sexual orientation should be considered as an illness). While I agree on the political correctness thing, there are no citations on these making it just a unverifiable statement offending a group of people. The sources are just a list of articles and books but do not indicate which kind of information is taken from them and which is just the author's personal opinion.

I propose to split the whole article, making it more of a landing page with just the lowest common denominators of all Devotees, Pretenders and Wannabes, while creating a new article for Devotee and Pretenders/Wannabes to give readers a more differentiated perspective on the topic and adressing the fact that the article is considered to be too long. Furthermore any offensive or pejorative passages should be deleted unless a proper citation for it is inserted, addressing both the lacking citation and the informal tone issue of the article. Kjell-the-Nordic (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Was it your intention to uses the 'split dab' tag over just 'split'? This appears to have caused the page to be marked as a disambiguation page, which as far as I can see this article is not as it stands now. Perhaps Template:Split-apart or just Template:Split would be better suited to this request.France3470 (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Since there was no reply, I've gone ahead and changed the tag to Template:Split-apart. I can only assume this was the intention, if not feel free to correct it. France3470 (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV, offensive material

Half of this article is utterly and absolutely unencyclopedic, it consists of apologetic for the point of view of DPW. They are entitled to their opinions, however, these opinions are being misrepresented in this article as objective information. The interpretation of DPW behaviour is distorted in many respects, and the article lacks sufficient counterweight from the perspective of people with disabilities. The condoning of freak shows in the article is just one example. In the 21st century? Really? Objectifying inanimate things in paraphilias is one thing, objectifying people with a disability under the guise of informed analysis is vile. OttawaAC (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.outsiders.org.uk/

  Triggered by \boutsiders\.org\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 02:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Attraction to disability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628205920/http://www.amputeedating.net:80/guide/meeting/ to http://www.amputeedating.net/guide/meeting/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120050006/http://biid-info.org/images/d/d8/Desire-for-amputation-of-a-limb.pdf to http://biid-info.org/images/d/d8/Desire-for-amputation-of-a-limb.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)