Talk:Pyromania

Expansion

• What should be included in this article? The popular culture references are minimal.....[[Judgesurreal777 06:08, 27 February 2006

Pyromania involves deliberate and purposeful fire setting on at least two occasions. There is typically tension or heightened arousal prior to the act and gratification or relief afterward. The fire setting is not done for monetary gain or an expression of anger, vengeance, personal gain, or psychosis.

• i am a pyromaniac and yes, i like to burn things..... i dont no why, but when i look at a flame i feel difrint, a filing of joy. i dont no if that what it means to be a pyromaniac but i have bin none to set my backpack on fire in p.e., and.... some times just random things but, i cant help it i dont no why, i just do,... and this page thing is probably gowing to be deletid eny way but i just wontid to say this

                      and my name is someone something

• [cough] Lemme translate that last bit:

I am a pyromaniac and yes, I like to burn things... I don't know why, but when I look at a flame, I feel different, a feeling of joy. I don't know if that's what it means to be a pyromaniac, but I have been known to set my backpack on fire in P.E. and sometimes just random things. But I can't help it. I don't know why, I just do. And this page thing is probably going to be deleted anyway, but I just wanted to say this.

Yeah, that's kind of creepy right there. I agree, though. This article is in need of some attention. Anger, vengeance, and personal gain would probably just qualify as arson, not pyromania. Psychosis... is debatable. I'm sure it could still cause an attraction to and gratification from fire, but if hallucinations are to blame... So I'd personally rule out psychosis. I think I'll look into working on this article. 70.16.94.96 03:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Let me just say this to the above: I don't think anyne fully understands pyromania, not even me, and I'm a pyro. But I've never been one to question my state of mind...or much else for that matter; I just sort of roll with things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.125.21 (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I inserted a cleanup tag in the section "Symptoms & demographics" because it's, well, rather odd. "Immaturity" is really vague, and I doubt that bed-wetting has much to do with pyromania. —Saric (Talk) 00:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And are you a psychologist? Have you studied this? It could very well be that bed-wetting is highly correlated with pyromania, non-obvious as it may be. 131.225.236.26 21:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Jon Wilson

Dont worry, that comment is way before the article got to its current state. Judgesurreal777 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

GA status

The article seems to have a good lead and seems to fit the MoS, the one image is properly tagged, broadness seems fair but not great, it seems NPOV and reads well, and it looks like every single sentence in this article is referenced, assuming that the refs at the bottom cover the information in the introduction. The biggest two things I can think of for advice here is to maybe find another picture, Pyromania is a bit of a famous phenominon and I'd think there would be many good pictures out there, and with broadness, I think the history section could use more information. Specifically, try to discuss when Pyromania may of been first recognized as a real psycological condition, or any other major changes to psycological board definitions of the condition as times changed. Maybe include some of the most famous instances of Pyromania, maybe any record holders (Like most houses burned) and a short mention of figures in damage as history has progressed if its possible to find such things, or maybe the most damaging instance of Pyromania ever if there even is such a thing. Homestarmy 22:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Commonness

Pyromania's way more common than that: about one in four are.

no. what you are referring to are shameless teenage attention whores who want to feel special and are saying they have a disorder to gain attention. true pyromaniacs are far less common.

And just becuase someone likes to watch things burn, it doesn't necessarily mean they're a pyromaniac. Hell, I burn things for fun all of the time. I don't experience "relief" from it, but I love to watch it go.

I love puns!

". . . analyzing it to help the patient extinguish the behavior." Yikes. Was that intentional?

Pyromania as a cool thing?

Should something be added to the article about Pyromania among younger generations? I'm sure we've all met kids/teenagers who think it's cool to call themselves a pyromaniac and say they like to play with fire to get attention. Kind of retarded, but still rather common. Yeorin 14:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's much more of an opinion. But in the MacDonald triad article, they mention this. Perhaps this article could as well. 71.106.243.15 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just my opinion, but I'm a pyromaniac, I'm a teenager, and I don't think it's something cool. I even try to hide it as many people think we are psychos by the way OTHER TEENAGERS ACT. I'm not saying they don't find it cool but (if it's included what you're saying) that it should be included how they give a wrong picture too. --MirroRMimi (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

From a pyro's perspective...

I am a pyromaniac. Under this term, I reject the assertion that it is a mental illness, or a moral deficiency. Pyromania is simply a safe love of fire. We love to set things on fire, but unlike arsonists, we always make sure that we're in control, and only set fire to things in a safe and controlled manner. After reading the entry in the Gale Encyclopedia of Childhood and Adolescent Impulse Control Disorders, a friend made the astute observation that "they keep calling it a disorder. Do we do any harm to anyone? Do we set fires in anything but a safe and controlled manner?" I personally find it disturbing that we are treated as diseased, and as a subject for therapy. There is nothing wrong with pyromania, as long as the fires are set in a safe and controlled manner, and closely observed. --HubHikari 05:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was meant in offence. People are frightened of anything they don't understand, and if it's someone who sets fires, that scares them witless.

What can you do? The media portrays pyros like you and I with people like Zolf J. Kimblee, who devastate everything in their path with fire and explosives. They view us as sadists who enjoy destroying things for the hell of it, and this belief has somehow been carried over to just about every field. Are there pyros like Kimblee? Sure. But for the most part, there are people like you and me who love setting things on fire but control the fire. Maybe we should start some sort of Pyromaniac Awareness Group....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.125.21 (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think in the same way. It IS a disorder when they don't control it, as anything in life, like alcohol for example. Some of us do it in a safe way... I'll even use the alcohol example again: People enjoy drinking (In my opinion it's disgusting, but im just a girl) but in a responsible way. When people make a bad use of it, then alcohol is showed as something bad. It happens the same with pyromania. People who don't control it attract attention, the people know that cases, and then it's showed as something bad when it's not. --MirroRMimi (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I also love puns!

"...help the patient extinguish the behavior." It's perfect!

Oh, and also, am I a pyromaniac for deriving joy from setting things on fire? I thought everyone liked burning stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.106.192.35 (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Another Expansion

Your question is like asking: If a fire will warm your body and when the fire goes out, you feel depressed and cold; does it mean you are addicted to fire?

It seems that some of the information about pyromania here has holes and, easily mistaken that anyone that flicks a lighter and sets dead bushes on fire is a pyromaniac. I see pyromania somewhat like OCD; that the pyromaniac feels no need, but has a ritual for self-gradifacation. In the mind, the sight of fire would be a sort of a high for the pyro; as it had said in the article that a pyromaniac would have possible reactive hypoglycemia and that sounds like a natural kind of high. Also, the article had said that abnormal levels of neurotransmitters, norepinephrine and serotonin, were also a blame for an impulse control disorder, meaning that the pyro gives no thinking of how burning something will effect them later. Like the person who had burned his/her backpack in P.E. and possibly not thinking that he/she needed the backpack to carry papers and books for the rest of the school day. A pyromaniac is NOT someone who will burn papers or anything to impress their friends and family, previously stated. And the pyro's perspective section here seems to be saying that a pyromaniac, or ALL pyromaniacs, love to burn and dislike that it is refered to as a mental illness or moral definceny; which is untrue. Even though I'm no brain genusis, I do know that even in a perfectly healthy and mentally stable person that a fire,ie candle, would give them a relaxed feeling; and that is for anybody and everybody, not just pyromaniacs. For true pyromaniacs, they don't believe that it is a disorder, more like something they just do and love it. That statement looks as if someone is just trying to reach out and say burning stuff is ok and cool, and that they support being called a pyromaniac when they know that they truely aren't. Then the statement says controlled fires are the way all pyromaniacs go, this is in reverse. Think of fire as a drug and a pyromaniac addicted to fire. The pyromaniac would be so mesmerized by the fire's effects on his body, that he would do anything for a little fire to give him that high he wants. And as he feeds the addiction, the fires would increase uncontrolable and that is the fear people have of pyromaniacs; that personal property would be destroyed by the pyro at a moments chance. Pyromania is a mental disorder, better said that it is an obsession of fire. Pyro means love of fire and mania means over reaction. Put those together and what do you get?

the expansion in top of this one is ridiculous

I don't like fire unless I'm in absolute control. I'm a bookworm and fire destroys books readily. So even that doesn't apply everywhere. But yes, only people who burn things *COMPULSIVELY* are pyromaniacs. 84.230.103.185 (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Etiology... What is it talking about?

The etiology section of this article makes it sound like a pyromaniac is also an arsonist, potential serial killer, and mentally handicapped person.

Pyromania is obviously not a disease or a brain deficiency, it's a personality. People who like fire and love burning things, (not houses and living creatures), are just people who like burning stuff. Aga the Wolf 02:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That is called liking fire, pyromania by definition is a compulsion to set things on fire for relief. It IS a disorder. There is a difference between setting things on fire for attention and cool points, announcing it to the world, and having a bona fide psychological problem. Learn it.24.175.72.249 (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In this same section it quotes "some smart people". Is that okay for a "good article"? It really burns me inside to think so. --Denise from the Cosby Show (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a pretty short article to be GA...

I'd consider removing it from the list or seeking a review. It seems to be accurate, but not really detailed enough.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is, is the article comprehensive, not is it shorter than other articles. What do you think should go into the article? Judgesurreal777 14:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Pyrophilia into this article

There's a suggestion to merge Pyrophilia into this article, but I disagree with that idea. From the looks of things pyrophilia is not the same thing. The suggestion to merge has been up for a year, so unless someone says they think there should be a merge I'm going to remove the tag. Nanobri (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture Caption

I was browsing through WP today and came across this page and noticed that the picture of the burnt plastic container has no caption on it. Is this an example of the work of a pyromaniac? If so, what should its caption be. If not what is it doing here?Jsonitsac (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

I think this article should be re-assessed and changed to B class or A class at most, as it could still be expanded a lot more. OlEnglish (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

GA status

Not of GA status as too limited in scope.

• what is the history
• what are the causes
• no images
• how is it diagnosed
• what are the associated problems

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pyromania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):Does not go into depth b (MoS (Med)): does not follow WP:LEAD

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): insufficient references

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): No

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Yes

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes and ref issues

I just finished some cleanups of the article, primarily regarding citations. The article had a mixture of footnotes and parenthetical references; I changed everything to Harvard citations. I did some cleanups where wording seemed awkward, and fixed some inappropriate capitalizing. I didn't try to address the GA review, but perhaps the citation fixes will help a little.

One of the original references was "Oliver, David. 'Pyromania.' Bipolar Central. Print." I couldn't find any indication that such a document ever existed, in print or otherwise. I left it in anyway, in case there's some reason I missed it. There is also a dead link in the references which might well mean the item was moved; I just don't have time at the moment to try to run it down. If I do later, I'll update here; otherwise, perhaps someone might take a shot at it.

Rhsimard (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead reference link fixed.

Rhsimard (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Impulse vs Control?

This entry fails to point out the distinction of control in the impulse from criminal and non-criminal fires. "Impulses" are not entirely outside of the domain of "control", as is often a misconception. A person who feels the impulse to set a fire does have the ability to decide when and where to set one. The compulsion does not require that the fire must be destructive to property. A pyromaniac may feel relief by simply starting a lighter and observing the flame for a few minutes, causing no harm to anyone or any property.

originally inserted in main article by 2001:558:6030:e:1075:830a:3a90:1ef1, 30-Oct-14

moved here by Spike0xff (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Causes"

The causes section is complete nonsense written by numbskulls trying too hard to pretend they're smart and who have never spoken to another human being.

Fire is pretty. That's it. There's nothing unnatural, insane or asocial with human fascination over destruction. We have freaking TV shows and videogames dedicated to the spectacle ffs. 93.175.216.215 (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)