Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 16

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Archived May 14 2006

Removal of link to Gay Rights

It appears the edit on 19:30, 10 February 2006 68.170.192.231 (→Zoophilia as a lifestyle) removed the link based on discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gay_rights#Gay_rights_in_other_articles though it seems the link is relevant, even if the other change in that edit from "concerns are qualitatively similar" to "concerns may be qualitatively similar" is considered valid. Is it possible the edit was just to remove Zoophilia from the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Gay_rights page? 150.101.115.231 22:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Either way the link seems valid. Its certainly useful if theres a reference to issues, to link to the article that lists those issues. Reinstated. FT2 (Talk) 04:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of zooskool citation and quote

Zooskool was removed because (1) it isn't responding and (2) its primary goal is to sell pornography and memberships. The purpose of external links here, as elsewhere on the Wiki, is to provide further useful information, not to help promote commercial sites.

I also removed a link to the Philip Buble case, as we already have a link to the article.

Please reply here if you believe the site, or any of the source documents, provide information that should be added back to the article.

--Zetawoof 07:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

ZooSkool is back. I believe its unique insight as the only "out there" zoophile learning center is more germane than its porn, gives newcomers to this article a lot of insight and as an education site it has several unique articles, it's not "just a porn site" by a long way. As to zoophilia.net, agreed as discussed. Comments?
The article makes many assertations in a complex controversial but well documented field. Does it need a references and citations section to support any of these? FT2 02:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone with IP User:212.158.233.84 (contribs)has added a citation from zooskool.com and a link to zooskool.com, stating:

Arguments for zoophilia: "Inter-species engagements occur throughout the animal, insect and plant kingdoms. Animals in particular are inclined to view other species as an outlet for sexual interest (where those other animals are neither threatening or predatory, or seen as potential food source)" (source:[http://www.zooskool.com bestiality and zoophilia])"
Websites supportive of zoophilia: "[http://www.ZooSkool.com ZooSkool.com] Sophisticated bestiality, zoophilia and petlove interactive community, information and support site" added in place of existing link (deleted without discussion)

My immediate suspicion is that this has been added by an owner or fan of zooskool. Arguments against these entries:

There is already an article on non-human animal sexuality with a same-sex and interspecies sex section, arguably if that page does not mention such things, it is deficient or the material does not exist. I'm not sure that a reference to a sexual website counts as verification of biological observations, although an entry in the list of arguments may be worth adding.
The website link removed an existing link to a bona fide community resource site replacing its narrative with hyperbole ("sophisticated")
Zooskool is run and administered from the UK. The IP of the editor adding the changes (the only contributions this editor has ever made) are from the UK.
Whilst zooskool may be worthy of note, and has been discussed as a website, wikipedia is not an advertizing or promotion medium.

Provisional action taken: revert but retain information on interspecies sexuality -- but a link to the appropriate article and a neutral summary. If any of the above are incorrect please feel free to add corerections. FT2 02:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

My opinion - I think that if Zooskool supports zoophilia, then it has a valid entry in this article. I think that WP:POV should be followed to clean up the article's display. I also think that deleting bonafide links without discussion should be considered to be vandalism and treated accordingly, with the links restored. Whether it is a fan site or not, I think that it is relevant in explaining the community. However, there may be an issue about the notability of zooskool which in turn may mean that it is not a reliable source. Zordrac 14:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

ZooSkool is both valid and notable. However it's more a question of article balance. Above all, an article must be both neutral and seen to be neutral, and the zoophilia constantly teeters on that borderline. That's not surprising because its (in general) a [my opinion upon that of many researchers] wrongly despised subject. But neutrality means the article must not be seen as "pro-zoo". Too many pro-zoo references without matching views from the other side would create an impression of bias, and that's wrong for wikipedia. So instead editors here tend to have fewer "pro" citations and not as much as could be said, but more carefully chosen. We've tended to let neutral sources such as researchers do the talking for both sides instead. FT2 03:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am sure with a minimum of effort I can find 50 sites that oppose zoophilia. So you are saying that if I can find these and add them to this article, then zooskool will be re-added? Zordrac 01:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Zoo Code and talkers

Talkers form a major part of the zoophile community, and were commented on here, but not linked. I included a link to talkers, and also to one of the main zoophile talkers, the plane of animals, primarily because in the article it says "many of the major talkers closed down" and that was the only one of the major ones that did.

I also put in a link to zoo code, written by Acteon and Hobbes, in both German and English translations, as an external link. I would like to put something about that in the main article as well, however I am not quite sure where it belongs. It's like where do you put Geek Code if talking about geeks?

Perhaps one problem with doing this is that the plane of animals is currently on a Vfd, and hence referencing to something that may soon be deleted may not be desired. I for one find it ridiculous for something as notable as that to even be considered to be deleted, but regardless, if it is deleted, then my edits will have to be reverted. P.S. anyone who reads this can you please vote on its Vfd so that such an important historical site is not removed from wikipedia forever. Zordrac 14:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The thing to be aware of is, this is an encyclopedia entry, not a list of all known facts. Talkers were major, but are not any longer. Other talkers closed such as sleepies forest. And the zoo code really is as zeta says, a bit minor. Again, not saying its "wrong" or not of interest. Just that in the context of article balance not everything can be said that someone on one side or the other might, and zoo code is not notable. Not saying yes or no, just that not everything notable belongs. Neutrality and NPOV comes 1st, as does article balance -- see my comment above on zooskool.

Does anyone mind deleting these refs? Even though they are genuine information? They arent that major compared to the majority of the subject. Thoughts? FT2 03:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll qualify some of those statements with experience. Talkers were a major part of the zoo community from perhaps 1995 - 2000, but from 2000-present, they've virtually disappeared. By my count, there currently exist three zoo talkers. Those that still exist are getting very little traffic - it's rare to see more than two or three people online at a time. The zoo code was never taken seriously; from its creation, Actaeon classified it as "humor" on his web site, and most online zoos nowadays don't know what it is. I'd say that under 10% of 'net zoos know about it. --Zetawoof 04:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If thats confirmed fact then do you want to do the honors on the article, so to speak? The zoo code probably isn't notable, the talkers probably don't need individual naming. FT2 14:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be, based on the link to his web page. I'm happy enough to say its confirmed. After all, that link he gave, which gives the English version, wasn't able to be picked up by Google when I did a search for zoo code. A Google search suggests it was written in German then translated to English. So if he can pick that one up, that's enough evidence for me. Zordrac 20:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm absolutely certain that the Zoo Code was initially written in English. If you read the revision notes on the copy you linked to, you'll note that the revision notes start out in English, then move into German, and that the German text refers to a translation being made. --Zetawoof 23:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not name the talkers individually? There were only what 5 of them or something. That's not going to take up a lot of space. And if they were a major part of the community during that time, then they are probably notable enough to link to. Zordrac 20:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

if we were doing a history of the zoo community yes. But this just isn't that, it's for general people and for them the names of each individual place zoos met just isn't notable. Plus it would make the article seem more imbalanced if critically reviewed. I understand what you're saying, but I just disagree. Theres more important information to go into. Even the key research has been cut out drastically in the attempt to prioritize the article. FT2 01:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not a zoo so don't know the whole thing surrounding it. I just got here from following links. Zordrac 02:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You might find this historic version from Jan 05 interesting. It shows the degree of pruning that JAQ did on the article, and where it's come from, the full research section that was removed. That's how drastically the article's had to be curtailed. Its almost a year later and we're still respecting that decision, although some research will probably be added back in time. FT2 13:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles against zoophilia - for balance

Okay, I added a bunch of links from my google search "sex with animals" and "wrong". I could have kept going and got all 212,000, but I thought that the first few were enough. If you disagree that the links that I included belong in this article, and want some different ones, then feel free to go back to the search. Now you can feel free to add some more sites supporting zoophilia :) Zordrac 01:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ack. Quality links to material of general relevance, please. News columns about the Enumclaw incident don't cut it; neither does a short paragraph on the Bible's opinion. (That's already covered in the Wiki article, anyway.) And, on top of that, the link to "Heavy Petting" may be to a copyvio version. Still, I appreciate the attempt. --Zetawoof 11:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Quality material is the key, thats why there aren't a huge number of links on either side. It's a subject with a lot of discussion, but the largest part of it is very mundane (obvious and not very profound) and has been essentially covered and summarized in the article already. It's not an "either/or", or "If we add enough of A we can add B also". Its more like, "What reference material would be of additional value to a newcomer or researcher in the field, or someone with some interest, who has read and already digested the existing article and its links and sources."

The problem with the "sites for and against zoophilia" is a lot of them are summarized in the article and repeat common arguments similar to each other, again covered in the article. Even for well known or high profile authors, they mostly add very little new, nor are their authors especially noteworthy. A reprint of existing arguments in a rhetorical won't usually be of that kind of reference value. That's why theres a full list of academic and reference material in book and paper form, but not that many website links.

So it's not about wanting to justify adding pages to one view or another. It's about, do the pages justify themselves being added (AND if added will the article still feel balanced and fair in its presentation?). Most just don't, and that's as true for one side as the other.

FT2 13:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

(PS - I have tentatively added one link to a debate on zoophilia. What do people think?? Appropriate? Relevant? Sufficiently interesting to justify a non-notable source?) ~~

I think that the bible view at minimum was highly relevant. People quote from the bible a lot to try to "prove" that zoophilia is evil. But since you didn't like my research :( then I won't add it back in. I was only doing what you told me to do. Zordrac 02:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The Bible link you added had rather minimal content - it mostly just repeated material that is (should be?) in the article already, noting that Leviticus strictly forbids it. Now, a page that looks into this particular commandment in detail, considering the context which they came from and comparing it to other religions of the time, would be very interesting, and would make a worthy contribution to the related links. --Zetawoof 05:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Good thought, zeta. May I add one more -- this article really needs references added. Maybe if we pool effort, we can start putting citations to the information included. It's all known to be valid and based on valid citations, but "common knowledge" isn't the wikipedia standard, Wikipedia:Cite your sources is. For those that don't know, the wikipedia code to cite a source when a link isn't provided, is like this:

In the text:

blah blah blah FACT {{ref|NAME1}} blah FACT {{ref|NAME2}} blah FACT{{ref|NAME3}} ...

In a separate "references" section of the article:

# {{note|NAME1}} text of footnote 1

# {{note|NAME2}} text of footnote 2

# {{note|NAME3}} text of footnote 3

...

Each footnote has a name, such as "Singer_quote" or "BEETZ_PAGEREF_VIOLENCE" used to match the citation with the reference. The parentheses for footnotes are all "double curly brackets".

FT2 13:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

this page seems quite biased to the anti side ( i perosnally hold this view but i do think it needs at least some pro side) benon

I respectfully disagree - and, for the record, I'm on the "pro side" myself. --Zetawoof 09:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

on re-reading i now see its probably not biased benon

Fair enough. --Zetawoof 21:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Some editor removed the "(especially christian)" from the religious perspectives. The context was: "Some theologians (especially Christian) extend this, to consider lustful thoughts for an animal as a sin". As far as I can tell, this is factual. Lustful thoughts are not a "sin" in Jewish theology, and so far as I am aware not in Islam either. "he who thinks lustful thoughts has already sinned in his heart" is predominantly a christian approach, and hence the (especially christian) is factual. FT2^(Talk) 16:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own article on that verse Matthew_5:28 says "This sentiment was not original to Jesus being discussed in the Old Testament and in contemporary Jewish literature." Therefore I don't see how it is more Christian than Jewish. As for Islam even a cursory search reveals that "lustful thoughts" are heavily frowned upon. This should be obvious since the three religions share so much. It would be useful if whoever supports this parenthetical note would at least provide a list of notable Christian theologians who specifically condemn lustful thoughts about animals. 1:37, 7 January 2006 (ESD) (not sure how to do the automatic timestamp thing (if that exists..))

An editor removed the clarification of the likely forgery of writings under islam. I've put it back because it's out there, its on the net, people refer to it, and if it's not clarified then people won't know. On the other hand, is that really the best place and manner of stating it? The editor is right in that it really is a bit of a distraction. And yet the information needs to be there somewhere. Can someone else look at that paragraph both with and without that sentence in, and see what they think best? Thanks. FT2 (Talk) 11:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

We need a few more anti-sites, as we have zoo sites outnumbering them here, which is backwords. Like the NLP article, putting a disproportionate amount of facts/refs/sites that support or oppose can make it look POV, especially when you need a translation.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need more anti-sites? If the links are relevant or should be added according to Wikipedia:External links, we should add them. Currently I see 4 links on the "pro" side, 2 on the "con" side. I removed one not so relevant link from the pro side, so I think things should be more or less balanced now. There are also some very anti-zoophilia sites in the "Other" section, by the way. --Conti|✉ 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I see, perhaps the anti "other" articles could be moved to the list of anti sites. It just seemed unbalanced considering that there are way more con than pro sites out there. It seems fine now.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think it's outweighed to the pro site. The more links as mentioned and primarily the fact that the pro side reply directly to the against side (having the final say so to speak). Shouldn't the arguments stand on their own? "For" "Against"? Now it looks as if a zoo just went in and took the counter arguments and replied.

Regards User:Seus Hawkins 12:29, 6 February 2006 (+1 GMT)

Actaeon removal

rv domain-squatted link (whose main content is this article!) -Zetwoof

I apologize but my grasp of wiki slang is bad... even if a large amount of this article might be based on said website (which I'm not even sure of), this article is becoming unique, just like any wiki article, and distinctly different. I would like to add it back to the list. Even if it contains no additional information than this article (which I doubt too), sourcing information is a good practise. Tyciol 06:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If you take a look at the site, its only content is a couple of links (on the front page) and a copy of an old version of this article (cleverly named "wiki.html", and labeled as being "from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"). This article isn't based on that site... that site is based on this article. And there's no value in citing an article as a source for itself.

The site had previously been linked to from this article, as it contained some highly valuable writings and information. However, the current one has none of that, and doesn't seem particularly relevant. --Zetawoof 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a zoo?

Humans belong to Animalia, too. Maybe an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to animals should be changed to an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to non-human animals. // paroxysm (n) 19:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed :) FT2 (Talk) 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Peter Singer

The section on Singer's article "Heavy Petting" states that Singer holds that sex with animals need not involve cruelty and "if so, loving relationships could form." I think this is incorrect. The closest thing that Singer writes in that article is that "occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop." That's a far cry from "loving relationships." The article refers only to sexual activity (and its moral permissibility) and says nothing about love. I think the reference to "loving relationships" (in regard to the Singer article) should be removed. (Posted by: User:69.208.248.189)

Fixed. After trying a few variations on wording I changed it from "loving" (inaccurate) to "mutually enjoyable" ("mutually satisfying" didn't flow as well). You're right, he doesn't call them "loving relationships", as much as enjoyable ones. FT2 (Talk) 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions [Seus Hawkins discussions]

1: The article states: "Singer's actual philosophical point, namely "if it isn't exploitation and abuse [then is there any moral basis for objecting?]")" Isn't the argumentation for this particular point relevant? It just seems concluded out of nowhere.

2: Considering these additions against:

"Animals are simply used as means of sexual satisfaction(a thing), the closest you get to a human"
"It is taking advantage of animals. That is, their lack of understanding, males instincts to do anything to raise the likely success of their DNA, dogs social nature of having a leader)"

The first is a personal 'thesis' of course, but such are many of the other statements/arguments.

3: Considered adding this: From the article: "Likewise, if animals cannot give consent, then it follows that they must not have sex with each other (amongst themselves). [Also see: speciesism]"

Addition: Critics of this reasoning might say that: Humans and other animals cannot communicate cross species at that level. Animals are, however, capable of communicating internally with their own species(like humans), such as whales.

4: It might also be relevant that Peter Singer is a utilitarian and as such, focus on consequences. This meaning: That one of the arguments pro zoophelia that states that children have a memory and therefore it can affect their future lives even though they may(in this example) find pleasure in the act itself. However, if then, the child has Alzheimer's disease then the child is in the same category as the animal. Would pedophilia then be defensible? Or is there something in the act itself, irrespective of the (utilitarian) consequences, that is strongly disagreeable.

5: Isn't it slightly unbalanced to give the last say in the argument chain to the pro side? (The last say, so to speak) Wouldn't it be better to simply have a "For" and a "Against" not replying directly to each other.

6: Generally the child comparison seems usable in many more contexts. Such as the mutual relationship. Rather speaking of different types. A guardian like loving relationship (platonic love) and that involving sexually related love. Kissing etc.

Regards --Seus_Hawkins 00:00, 5 February 2006 Edited by Seus Hawkins at 12:23 (PM) +1 GMT

Review:

Review of the added items with minor rendering down. Not every last argument is relevant in an encyclopedia, which is why the list was short before (page length is relevant). The subject of length has come up before and been discussed. There's also a lot of duplication and original research in your additions. I've made a few edits to reflect this, and tried to explain in each case the reason:

Removed "(Such as the case with humans and children)" from the preamble. It's not germane in that sentence, and if relevant, will appear in the list of arguments, so it's more a repetition.

"Animals are simply used as means of sexual satisfaction (a thing), the closest you get to a human"

This isn't actually an argument that it is right or wrong at all, but a simple statement of belief about motivation. It's also a duplication: we already have "unable to get human partners".

"It is taking advantage of animals. That is, their lack of understanding, males' instincts to do anything to raise the likely success of their DNA, dogs' social nature of having a leader"

Reworded "It takes advantage of animals inate social structure which forces them to please a leader."

"Human minors are in many ways similar to animals, they cannot give verbal consent. Even if they did consent or take initiative, most people would still view it as completely unacceptable due to the lack of understanding in the child."

Duplicate of "unable to consent. (similar to arguments against sex with human minors)"

"As with human minors, humans have a guardian to guarded relationship with animals. Therefore Platonic love is of much value and sexual love is condemned."

"As with minors" is a repeat of the same point above, unnecessary. Platonic love isn't in dispute or an argument point. The rest simplifies to: "Humans are guardians in charge of animals. So a sexual relationship is to be condemned."

"Research will only reveal whether Zoophiles are mentally ill, not whether the act they perform is immoral or not."

Factually, this seems wrong. Research can reveal many things I would imagine, including whether the consensus of scientists is that animals consent or not or enjoy or not, for example. So factually I have doubts if this is not just personal opinion, see Wikipedia:No original research. What can be said is simply, "Science cannot judge the morality of an act", but that's a statement about science and morality, not an argument that it is wrong.

The last 3 points are all mini essays. I've tried to examine the actual point, rather than advocate their line of argument (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view):

"Utilitarianism, which Peter Singer is a follower of, doesn't focus on the importance of the act itself but only the consequences. I.e. if a human minor had Alzheimer's disease and would therefore forget the experience of being molested by a human, and would get a little pleasure from it, would it be acceptable? Or would it be exploiting the disadvantage?"

The first part is simply saying, the morality of act itself has to be considered, not just its consequences. The last part is an example, not an argument, and is already encapsulated within previous points, "Animals are... unable to consent (similar to arguments against sex with human minors)". But even to say that "The morality of an act has to be considered, not just its consequences" is not an argument as such. Why is it immoral? Because they cannot consent, or because they are abused or..." All these arguments already exist in the list. If there is a specific, important, actual argument that this item signifies, that is not in the list, can you discuss below?

"People fantasize about a lot of things, even things they don't want to do, especially in regards to the strongest desire, sexual desire. That is the reason for all the pictures. People's fantasies are based on desires and are therefore as far away from rationality (and thereby ethics) as can be. Therefore, the fact that the desire/fantasy has existed for along time via texts and pictures, justify and support nothing"

This seems to be your own personal view, again see Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is not a place to put mini essays, so to speak. What this point boils down to is "many people fantasize, but fantasy doesnt justify anything". However since nobody has claimed fantasy does justify anything, this is actually a tangential issue. It isn't an argument against zoophilia. It's an argument against fantasy being used to justify zoophilia, which isn't in question.

"Animals are selfishly behavioristically manipulated/exploited into doing things they would never naturally do, like performing oral sex. A Guardian to guarded relationship is thus degraded to a Master-slave relationship. Due to the activities/relation involved. This behaviouristic manipulation is only possible either because of lack of understanding of the situation, or because the involved has no choice. This is relevant both in human and animal context."

Again a duplication and mini essay. You need to reread WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The points made are all duplicates of previous points... guardian relationship, lack of consent, etc, overlaid with what seems to be your own personal views. Unless there is a clear point that is important, and missing from the list, this is basically a rework of previous points.

What we are left with is 3 actual arguments:

"Animals mate for no purpose other than to produce young, hence, they are deceived when these activities are performed."
"It takes advantage of animals inate social structure which forces them to please a leader."
"Humans are guardians in charge of animals. So a sexual relationship is to be condemned."

These sound more like genuine arguments, not bad at all. But note that the points zoophiles put to match those, also need to be put into the article too.

FT2 (Talk) 19:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply + new suggestions

Fine with the edits, I am not used to edit wikipedia discussions so....

You're missing the point on some of the issues. First of all, I don't claim that animals cannot consent because then they fall when Peter Singer's argument about them not being able to consent internally is proposed. Animals can consent, but within their own species. Just like us. We wouldn't be able to consent to an animal either. It's simple.

What do you mean by this?: "But note that the points zoophiles put to match those, also need to be put into the article too." If this is done, then it's not NPOV. It takes the side of zoophilia because zoophiles have the last say. Rather, arguments should be proposed independently of the other side's arguments.

The fantasy argument....I agree, it's ridiculous....I thought I read some argument stating that the fantasy was supportive..but I guess I read that elsewhere.

What about this? This is simply a statement forwarded by zoophiles? (in "") Many zoophiles appear to have human partners and relationships; many have an attraction to species which are relatively inaccessible, such as dolphins; many others simply do not have a sexual attraction to humans; tending to oppose the view that they are simply 'looking for easy sex'."

"Animals are simply used as means of sexual satisfaction (a thing), the closest you get to a human"''

This isn't actually an argument that it is right or wrong at all, but a simple statement of belief about motivation

You want me to write why using animals in this way is wrong? It is lowering their value. Showing lack of respect.

What about deleting all this?:

"They also assert that some of these arguments rely on double standards, such as expecting informed consent from animals for sexual activity (and not accepting consent given in their own manner), but not for surgical procedures including aesthetic mutilation and castration, potentially lethal experimentation and other hazardous activities, euthanasia, and slaughter. Likewise, if animals cannot give consent, then it follows that they must not have sex with each other (amongst themselves). [Also see: speciesism]

Critics of this reasoning state that animals can communicate internally (hence consent) within their own species, but cannot communicate cross species. Others state that animal communication is clear and unambiguous cross species as well." ?

"People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. "People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoophilia", often regard it as an extreme form of animal abuse and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues"

Proof perhaps? Especially regarding the highlighted, what about deleting it?

What about this?:

"Both male and female domestic animals of several species can experience the physical sensation of orgasm, and can strongly solicit and demonstrate appreciation for it in their body language, trusting zoophiles to consider this inclusively in a wider scope defining duty of care."

It's theories all the time. And personal too. And this is completely foolish: "trusting zoophiles to consider this inclusively in a wider scope defining duty of care" I might as well say that the sky begged me to look at it. Or that animals truly hate owners having sexual intercourse with them although they may hide it. I am deleting the bold part straight away.

"One on one companionships can form without reliance on any given leadership role. Social structure is flexible enough both to allow for different species in it and to encompass dynamically changing roles; animals are quite capable of taking the lead." Castles in the air.....again.

"The instinct to mate exists in all animals including humans, and does not require sentient knowledge of the resulting outcome of the activity."

Obviously an instinct doesn't require sentient knowledge? The statement is empty.

Clearly the anti side has been too inactive in the debate. So it isn't neutral which it should be....but I guess it would never develop unless some side took initiative. We just need the debate out in the open and see what happens. Whatever is right will almost certainly be achieved by discussion.

Seus Hawkins

+

What about deleting this section? It's irrelevant to most people anyway. And it takes up a lot of space in the article.

Legality by U.S. State

(as of July 3rd, 2004. This information was gathered by countless individuals over time from information freely available from the public domain. Please be aware that this data is not guarenteed to be current, as state laws change frequently and with little fanfare.)

Penal codes are cited where applicable.

Bestiality is legal (or, at least, not expressly outlawed) in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Bestiality is a confirmed misdemeanor in:

   * California (Penal Code Section 286.5: Misdemeanor)
   * Minnesota (Minn. Stat. @609.294, (1993): Either fine of not more than $3,000 or sentence of not more than 1 year)
   * New York (NY CLS Penal @130.20 (1994): Class A misdemeanor)
   * Utah (Bestiality 76-9-301.8: Class B Misdemeanor)

Bestiality is a confirmed felony in:

   * Delaware (11 Del. C. @777 (1993): Class D Criminal felony)
   * Georgia (O.C.G.A. @16-6-6 (1994): 1-5 yr. jail sentence)
   * Idaho (Idaho Code @18-6605 (1994): "length of imprisonment in excess of 5 years is in discretion of court.")
   * Kansas (K.S.A. @2103506 (1993): Aggravated crime, sodomy, security level 2 felony)
   * Maine (17-A M.R.S. @ 251 (1994): Class C Crime; 3-5 yrs)
   * Maryland (Unnatural/Perverted Sexual Acts Article 27, Section 553: Up to $1,000 fine, max of 10 years prison)
   * Massachusetts (Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 @34 (1994): Jail sentence of not more than 20 years - this is currently out of date)
   * Michigan (MCL @750.185 (1992): Jail sentence not more than 15 years)
   * Mississippi (Miss. Code. Ann, @97-29-59: Sentence of not more than 10 years)
   * Montana (Mont. Code. Ann, @45-5-505 (1994): 10 year sentence and/or $50,000 fine)
   * North Carolina (N.C. Gen. Stat. @14-177 (1994): Class I felony. 3-10 yrs)
   * Oklahoma (21 Okl. St. @886 (1994): "imprisonment not to exceed 10 years")
   * Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws @11-10-1 (1993): 7-20 years)
   * South Carolina (S.C. Code Ann. @16-15-120 (1993): 5 yrs jail and/or fine of at least $500)
   * Virginia (Va. Code. Ann. @18.2-361 (1994): Class 6 Felony)
   * Washington D.C. (DC Code @22-3502 (1994) ("Sexual Psychopath" chapter): Fine not more than $1000 and/or sentence of not more than 10 yrs)

Bestiality is otherwise illegal in:

   * Alabama (Code of Ala. @13A-6-63 (1994): "sodomy in 1st degree"; criminal offense)
   * Arkansas (Ark. Stat. Ann. @13A-6-63 (1994): "sodomy in 1st degree"; criminal offense)
   * Illinois (720 ILCS 5/12-12 (1994): Crime)
   * Indiana (Burn Ind. Code. Ann. @35-42-4-2 (1994))
   * North Dakota (N.D. Cent. Code @12.1-20-03, 12.1-20-07, 12.1-20-12 (1993): Various penalties; can be considered either "gross sexual imposition", "sexual assault" or "deviate sexual act")
   * Pennsylvania (18 Pa. C. S. @3101, 3123 and 3124 (1994))
   * Tennessee (Tenn. Code. Ann. @39-13-501 (1994))
   * Wisconsin (Wis. State. @944.17 (1993))

Seus Hawkins

Discussion of above

Sues,

I mentioned a few times, to check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research. These two policies are what you are coming up against. I recognize you are trying to make a good contribution, and will try to explain again. If you need to, please feel free to discuss more until you understand the issue at stake, it's quite important to Wikipedia.

As an encyclopedia, Wikiepdia has two core policies which direct how articles are approached.

Neutral point of view (often abbreviated "NPOV") says, wikipedia does not judge rights and wrongs of views. To Wikipedia, the issue of "is zoophilia right or wrong", is not a concern. What is of concern is to document the significant (ie, notable) views related to it, so that readers may get a view that covers all sides and is biased to none. That can be quite difficult in controversial subjects, because naturally one wants to say "But its wrong, and this is why!" However, when we edit for wikipedia, we set aside all personal viewpoints, and instead edit on the basis we are documenting views "out there". Like anthropologists documenting rituals. We note that some people think is it bad, for these reasons, and others think it's good for those reasons, and we make editorial judgement if both sides are well presented and if we need to put in more detail, or remove superfluous detail, to capture the heart of any debate on the subject.

No original research (often abbreviated NOR) is the counter point to this. It says, personal opinions, views, and discoveries, are not relevant. If a fact is verifiable and important, others of significant knowledge or standing will have said it. We are documenting information, not preparing a compilation of our own debates. We are characterizing an existing subject, and not re-engaging in a debate about it, here.

Put another way, the only debate relevant to Wikipedia, here, is "is the subject properly and fully represented in a view-neutral manner ignoring editors personal feelings", not "what views do we feel should prevail." We discuss if there are better ways of showing the relative positions of all sides, whatever side we personally are on.

With that in mind, I hope some of the editorial decisions make more sense now. I will again, go through your points above and try to show you where they work, or where they need reworking, as the case may be:

First of all, I don't claim that animals cannot consent because then they fall when Peter Singer's argument about them not being able to consent internally is proposed. Animals can consent, but within their own species. Just like us. We wouldn't be able to consent to an animal either. It's simple.

This is a personal view. What you may see as an objection or point, is not necessarily a documentation of a notable view. It's important to distinguish the two, and not make of any pro/anti list, a list of your personal arguments and onjections.

What do you mean by this?: "But note that the points zoophiles put to match those, also need to be put into the article too." If this is done, then it's not NPOV. It takes the side of zoophilia because zoophiles have the last say. Rather, arguments should be proposed independently of the other side's arguments.

What I try to explain here is, that if you add a point that zoophilia is wrong because of X, then its important that you also consider or research, what zoophiles say on that issue, and add yourself if you are able, the balancing "opposing view" on that question, so the article itself frames the debate and doesn't just showcase one side's words. if you don't know how zoophiles would respond, or do respond to that, either research it, or leave a note on the talk page that it needs considering, if there is a note required. That is the purpose of my observation that points zoophiles might put to match those issues, need to go in the article too, to show both sides. An example is the homosexuality debate, a point "many religions say homosexuality is wrong" might be balanced by homosexuals comments that "religions conflict in beliefs and many people do not consider them authoritative". Thats an example, I hope it shows roughly what I mean. You may not side with zoophiles, but you need to consider how to research and show both sides fairly, if you wish to contribute well. This article is not a showcase either for "why zoophilia is bad", or for "why zoophilia is good". It tries to capture all the major points in the field.

Another example of this is that if the point is included for one side, that some consider zoophilia wrong because it's unnatural, it is necessary for balance, to also note that others say that what's natural is debatable, and it isn't a convincing argument that natural is relevant. For example, cooked food is not "natural" nor are houses or artificial penises. This is so you can see, there really is a serious point zoophiles argue. Since we are not re-enacting the debate here, we don't need to reach a decision what "natural" means or if it matters. Instead, we simply record both views, and leave it at that, an open issue. (This is the reason I have reinstated that comment by the way)

What about this? This is simply a statement forwarded by zoophiles? Many zoophiles appear to have human partners and relationships; many have an attraction to species which are relatively inaccessible, such as dolphins; many others simply do not have a sexual attraction to humans; tending to oppose the view that they are simply 'looking for easy sex'."

No, that is pure research. It is documented that zoophiles often have affiliation to non accessible species, and that this is a source of psychological pain for many. For example it has been established that the zoophile support site www.zoophile.org has a significant number of bird zoophiles posting on it, who for the most part make clear that they never can nor will attempt to be penetratively sexual with their preferred companions, and remain virgin, sometimes lifelong, for that reason. That is clearly not a person "looking for easy sex". Supporting that this is not mere hearsay or dubious claims, it's well documented in research, as well as a clinical finding that zoophiles lacking attraction to humans are common. It's also well documented from others' work, that many zoophiles are in human relationships as well. By and large this sort of background is documented in peer reviewed psychological and sociological research on the field. Together, they form a rebuttal (according to the zoophile's viewpoint) of the argument, "zoophiles just want easy sex" or "zoophiles can't get human relationships". The source though is research, not hearsay. That is why it's so important in Wikipedia to read up on all sides of a subject (including the side you don't immediately agree with) before making major edits.

In this field, we've found, popular belief is not usually aware of actual clinical findings, so writing from popular/personal belief usually leads not to neutral writing, but to unbalanced or misrepresentative writing, and often relatively less informed (rather than professional) views being added.

"Animals are simply used as means of sexual satisfaction (a thing), the closest you get to a human... This isn't actually an argument that it is right or wrong at all, but a simple statement of belief about motivation." You want me to write why using animals in this way is wrong? It is lowering their value. Showing lack of respect.

Here we write neutrally. You, personally may think it is wrong. In fact, I might think so too, for all you know. However, here, NPOV is what holds sway. Neither you or I bring our personal beliefs to this encyclopedia-writing. We have a mutual agreement with all editors, that personal views are left at the door. We are documenting a field, and for that, your personal view that it is lowering their value, is simply "another personal view". A zoophile would probably counter that it is in fact, when people ignore animals wishes and solicitation of an act that humans know to be pleasurable, which is the greater disrespect. Luckily I don't have to know or judge, or take sides. I just have to note what views are documented in research, how each side argues, and summarize that debate here for the article.

"People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. "People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoophilia", often regard it as an extreme form of animal abuse and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues" - Proof perhaps? Especially regarding the highlighted, what about deleting it?

Again, its evidenced. read Andrea Beetz "Love sex and violence" (cited in the article). Thats one of the sources. Miletski is another. What is clear is, people's views, do apparently strongly relate to their exposure to such relationships. That is what is therefore documented.

"Both male and female domestic animals of several species can experience the physical sensation of orgasm, and can strongly solicit and demonstrate appreciation for it in their body language, trusting zoophiles to consider this inclusively in a wider scope defining duty of care." It's theories all the time. And personal too. And this is completely foolish: "trusting zoophiles to consider this inclusively in a wider scope defining duty of care" I might as well say that the sky begged me to look at it. Or that animals truly hate owners having sexual intercourse with them although they may hide it. I am deleting the bold part straight away.

Another editor added that. I assume he/she had a basis for doing so. I considered removing it, because like many points it was excessively wordy. However, no one individual owns wikipedia articles, so I left it instead, considering the matter borderline. What is clear is, animals behaviorally can show behavior that is solicitous (ie asking for a specific matter or response), and they can and do use that behavior in many contexts -- play, walks, scratches, affection-behavior-seeking, food-requesting, and sexual. Sexual solicitation and orgasm seeking is well documented in multiple species, There is research with documentation for both dogs and horses. The article Non-human animal sexuality may help.

"One on one companionships can form without reliance on any given leadership role. Social structure is flexible enough both to allow for different species in it and to encompass dynamically changing roles; animals are quite capable of taking the lead." ... "The instinct to mate exists in all animals including humans, and does not require sentient knowledge of the resulting outcome of the activity."

This is why the list was being kept short. Your additions have jossled the list (which is in itself not a problem, thats how Wikipedia works) and accordingly many views have been added. Some are viable here, some not, and some conceal a good point poorly worded.

Clearly the anti side has been too inactive in the debate. So it isn't neutral which it should be....but I guess it would never develop unless some side took initiative. We just need the debate out in the open and see what happens. Whatever is right will almost certainly be achieved by discussion.

Here there is no "anti" side, or should not be. We document all views. Some of us will, by inclination and personal background, be more familiar with one side of the debate than another, but that doesn't mean we write non neutrally. Each of us attempts to document both the "for" and "against" sides, and for each of these we try to give them an appropriate representation as their own advocates could or would, if they were citing sourced material fairly.

I hope this helps. I'll review this section again but meantime it is important you read Wikipedia policy carefully: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NOT are crucial ones for this article.

FT2 (Talk) 18:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So you know, the list is now unbalanced. The second half is too long. The solution is probably, to make the list wording a bit more consise and look for simplifications: - There's probably enough raw material there to capture the major issues. FT2 (Talk) 19:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Needless to say, I strongly disagree with your coloured idea of neutrality. I've written to Voice of all to hear his opinion on the issue.

Seus Hawkins

Perhaps you could specify what aspect of it you find inaccurately representing how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and its policies? I'm not sure what part you consider "colored", nor have you explained it. What I have said is, that here, neutral viewpoint that respects and ackonowledges all significant views, combined with a complete letting go of any personal preconceptions and opinions one might bring to the table, are necessary, so far as you are able, and other editors will corerect material, no matter whose side it favors, if it is perceived someone has not themselves done so adequately. In a controversial article its more important, not less, to be aware of such balance. It's hard to see how that is considered "colored". Its an exact description of how one writes an encyclopedia piece, as opposed to (say) a more common opinion piece where personal views do matter. Can you summarize, having read Wikipedia policies, what you feel they should mean, in this article? FT2 (Talk) 04:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll noticealso, my last edits removed material from the zoophile side of the arguments. Same reason, too long and unbalanced, some secondary arguments probably needed to go. FT2 (Talk) 18:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I can try to explain, but can you listen to my views?

Status, dogmatism etc. Ok, as this probably won't do any good towards a dogmatic mind I'll try regardless. Definition, dogmatic:

"dog·mat·ic / Ñ dQg'm&tIk; NAmE Ñ dO;g-/ adjective(disapproving) being certain that your beliefs are right and that others should accept them, without paying attention to evidence or other opinions"

First of all, understand that you don't singlehandedly own wikipedia or Zoophilia (I do not know whether your desire of omnipotence extends to other areas). It is a user base, all people have equal 'right' to edit and contribute.

Your reversing of my strengthening of the arguments against doesn't work. Then I could reverse yours...it's a behaviour that belongs in grade school or earlier. What about, we return to the article I edited it to and see whether you're the only one disagreeing or whether others disagree too. Why to my edition you might ask, because mine was more neutral, see further below.

Neutrality Second of all, NPOV, as regards POV you seem to be well versed in that. Neutrality is however lacking, see this definition:

"neu·tral·ity / Ñ nju;'tr&lJti; NAmE Ñ nu;-/ noun[U] the state of not supporting either side in a disagreement, competition or war"

Neutrality isn't when the arguments against have: 12 lines and the defence has 26 lines. Neutrality isn't when people against are referred to as:

"People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoophilia".

In other words, narrowminded idiots making hasty decisions based on popularity. And the pro side is referred to as:

"Mental health professionals and personal acquaintances of zoophiles who see their relationships over time tend to be less critical, and sometimes supportive"

In other words, enlightened heroes. Consider the fact that most people are opposed, these people are referred to as narrowminded idiots making hasty decisions based on popularity. Is that neutral? And especially, neutrality is not reversing an improvement of the opposing sides' arguments while editing ones own to become longer and better as a reply. And expecting (I assume) that these edits aren't reverted to a more balanced /neutral edition.

Argumentation, what was done During your lifetime, you seem to have missed out at least one core meta area. Argumentation. Before you contribute and reverse editions, try reading about argumentation. The primary fallacy you commit is the Straw man fallacy. The primary element of a straw man is to present (where you in your case prevent development of) the opposing point of views arguments in a weaker state than they are. Such as my retaining the argument "animals aren't sentient" which may be the strongest argument you can refute but is nevertheless a very weak one, and not rationally/scientifically based. Or even popular, if popularity is both your god and demon while it's used as you see fit. In other words...the argumentation is biased to the pro side.

On the other hand, see what I did to the article, I removed irrelevant, biased argumentation and I made the against and pro list closer to equally long whereas you, everytime something is added, you write your own small schemes of argumentation to attempt to refute it. These being longer than the arguments against. Balance and neutrality isn't when one part(a minority) say 1000 words and the other side (the vast majority) says 500 hundred, and everytime the ones saying the 500 words try to balance things out they are interrupted and the minority who has said 1000 starts babbling again. This is childish dogmatism. After deleting my balancing out of things...you add something like this?:

"People choosing to take responsibility for an animal, have to also take responsibility for its sexual drive. Neutering and ignoring are a failure to accept animals as they are, often used to avoid facing an uncomfortable aspect of animal reality or 'best care'." [11]"

Now zoophiles are true heroes and normal people not making sure those they protect get sex are devils...it is beyond me how your own sensibility can deceive yourself to such a high extent. But, the main point is that it already is much out of balance. You revert my attempt to balance it out and make the opposition more realistic and less unintelligent, and add this very strong remark that people who aren't zoophiles or neuter the animal they are the guardian of or maybe doesn't neuter but doesn't have sex with a make sure they get sex are blamable. However irrational that is....

A simple reply: Are you pro arranged weddings? Do you think(if that is an unblocked ability of yours) a person who adopts a child should make sure the teenager (when grown up to 16 or the like) gets sex? Perhaps even doing it themselves? They are not biologically related. They take care of the teenager. There's no doubt neutering is wrong but that doesn't justify your alternative idea of a hedonist solution you seem to dream sweetly and ignorantly of. Another solution is simply not to neutere them. If we didn't trap them inside (especially in cities) in the first place it wouldn't be a problem. Your selfish choice of deciding to have a pet is the problem in the first place. Unless you have more of them/there are more in the area and they roam freely as they please but can go inside.

Bottom line Revert back to my edition, perhaps add and edit few of the things you did. Have balance in mind. Do not delete my improvements of the arguments, let others do that if they like and can give a good reason why. And let others delete yours if they like and can give a good reason why. Alternately, I am justified in reverting back to my edition where you would do the same, that just doesn't work. You need to focus on balance and the fact that you do not singlehandedly control the scripture. Now you may respond. --Seus Hawkins

Sues -- First, thank you for a serious considered response. And I mean that. It helps dialog if we talk, then other editors also know what is going on. The talk page is exactly where issues like this are intended to get hammered out, so this is how Wikipedia's supposed to work. I've not asserted that I am closed minded, nor acted as owner, but if thats your perception then it was unintended. I am however quite careful to look at arguments, and you'll notice that I carefully analysed the ones you added, kept the core, removed personal opinion and arguments not actually addressing the issue of "reasons why some think its wrong / right".

If you do feel any analysis I made was incorerect, the reason for explaining is precisely so you can see that it's not just personal whim, it's carefully considered editorial work. You can disagree, and that's fine, thats what this page is for. If you do, let's discuss individual cases, and remember that I have not called you a "dogmatist" or "biased" for attempting to reshape a section to your preferred viewpoint. I've examined and critiqued it, and the issues that did appear genuine and supported, I kept, the rest I explained where they duplicated or seemed to not meet Wikipedia standards.

To quickly address your points above though:

You comment that "Neutrality isn't when the arguments against have: 12 lines and the defence has 26 lines". But in fact here is your edit: [1]. Before you edited, the article had 8 anti / 9 pro, after you edited it had 16 anti, 9 pro, and most of those were not researched summaries of points, but mini-essays, personal views and other "original research" including much repetition. So your words in fact describe your own edits, which I then reviewed carefully and with thought as can be seen above.
You also mix two aspects. There is a list of "common arguments for and against". There is also a summary of how people's views depend upon prior exposure. The latter if you read carefully, is not a discussion of "anti" views, its part of a summary classifying that people who are unfamiliar, are generally hostile. When you state "these people are referred to as narrowminded idiots", that's not an interpretation supported by the text as written. You'll not find myself agreeing with what's yet another emotive personal opinion.
See above. An article like this contains the significant arguments on both sides. You yourself caused it to be re-looked at, and I commented that it would mean zoophiles would be likely to need their side updating too. Since a neutral editor cares for both sides equally and to represent both sides with equal care, when I did check material, I found indeed, a significant "pro" argument had been missed out. It was also documented. So I added it. I hope you aren't complaining about that.
You write "A simple reply: Are you pro arranged weddings? Do you think(if that is an unblocked ability of yours) a person who adopts a child should make sure the teenager (when grown up to 16 or the like) gets sex? Perhaps even doing it themselves? They are not biologically related. They take care of the teenager. There's no doubt neutering is wrong but that doesn't justify your alternative idea of a hedonist solution you seem to dream sweetly and ignorantly of." My comment is above. As I am editing to represent *both* sides (as you should be too), you in fact do not know if I have a view or not, privately. You may assume, but since Ive added and contributed to bring *both* sides up to par, whereas your contribution is to change a 9-8 balance to a 16-9 balance (remember "Neutrality isn't when <side A> has 12 lines and <side B> has 26 lines"?), and many of these were poor quality compared to the rest of the article's standard, it shouldn't surprise you that my present edits were not pleasing to you. But they were explained, precisely so that instead of general anger, you could discuss any given edit intelligibly. That doesn't mean Im against you. It means I personally feel you edited poorly, on that occasion, and I explained why so you would understand it was for proper reasons. All that you've written, the examples you use, basically says to me, "I have a personal view its wrong, so if you don't agree you must be for it". I emphasize again, your own personal views and mine that zoophilia is right or wrong don't count in shaping the article, and you need to leave them at the door. I've explained that several times already.
Please read Wikipedia:Civility and WP:FAITH carefully. On the dialog so far, you are not assuming good faith. That is, in fact, a breach of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Whatever you may feel about this discussion, a neutral party will quickly see that there is no actual cause for it, and unfounded bad faith assumption reflects badly on those who make it. Please read the guideline, and use words carefully and with evidenced factuality, in dialog.
I find it hard to reconcile these 3 statements:
** "Have balance in mind"
** "Focus on balance".
** "Neutrality isn't 26-12".
when your immediate edit as evidenced, is none of these but is promptly to skew an 8-9 balance to a 16-9 balance by adding personal mini essays and "original research" views, then object to them being reviewed for factuality, relevance, repetition, and size. We document both sides here according to neutral sources, and do not add personal viewpoints. If you do not like that, please reconsider your ability to pretend you do.
Last, and this is just for personal curiosity, you seem new to Wikipedia, and have promptly homed in exclusively on this article, and this article only. That's fine, but i would like to ask, is it an unreasonable guess that you have a personal agenda for doing so? Wikipedia neutrality policy does often take time to get the hang of, you need to consider that you really do have some learning to read first. I have explained which edits of yours don't seem to make the grade according to policy, and why. Please do consider, that these are actually how it is and how it's meant to be, for all articles.

Especially, note this section in WP:FAITH:
"A newcomer's behaviour probably seems appropriate to him or her and a problem usually indicates unawareness or misunderstanding of Wikipedian culture. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their experience elsewhere."
This is why I'm explaining this carefully. You have dived directly in on an article that is flagged as needing above average balance and editorship, with strong viewpoints and apparently no Wikipedia editing experience, that's all fine. But be aware, this page is as it is, because it's had now some 2 years work done on it, by editors of a wide variety of personal views, and this version, essentially untouched for some time, is as it is because it's by and large considered a broadly balanced version that covers the notable views and arguments. It's best not to assume it's got to where it is on a "bad faith assumption" basis. It hasn't.

FT2 (Talk) 20:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A tired reply

As I don't care particularly to write an entire new scripture explaining, I'll be brief and there's probably a lot of mistakes as I don't feel like rereading and editing. The status and subject is slowly killing me so...

My primary element is the out of balance. Yes, it wasn't concise before. Feel free to specify it. Fx. the element that I improved the character of the anti sides argument so they aren't foolish which is clearly and promtly and rightly refuted by the pro side. The majority of people aren't idiots. Understand that.
As for the judgement, I stepped slightly over the line, for sure. I know that. I think I have reason to be interested in balancing this out. As for the judgement hereof, I leave it to Voice of all to judge, each individual element. Perhaps lock the article. What he thinks is correct, I do not trust your judgement and I believe I am right in that and that assumption is based on your tactics and ways in this article. I don't necessarily expect Voice of all to agree with me in all aspects, I wanted an outside, neutral opinion on the subject. Yes, after having read the article and considered better arguments etc. I am against. Clearly, very much too. The discussion of this subject is even much more important than my existence as such. I can stay cool anyway though, and I think my way was neutral, you don't think so = conclusion is to bring in a judge.
I have an interest in making the article neutral yes, I read the article, I thought, how stupid arguments the counter side has and much more reasonable the pro side has. Can it be true? And I started thinking and found various things. I wanted to improve those arguments. Not mini essays but logically based. They may be too long....shorten them, fine by me.

Do not reverse the improvement and then after that add your own new very strong argument to bring it more out of balance along with all the other newly added pro arguments. Why don't we just delete the anti/pro argument and leave it simply as a descriptive article? --Seus Hawkins

I fixed this up a bit so it's easier for everyone to read, now I'll have a go and see what this is about :) Some sort of disagreement about article content I assume. Tyciol 06:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy

Added for the record:

The reason why you are being described as non-neutral seems accurate. You are non-neutral.

Here is your actual agenda (Feb 27, extracts) http://www.vegsoc.org.au/forum_messages.asp?Thread_ID=2211&Topic_ID=8 :

Topic: Help requested/needed in the wikipedia zoophilia debate

Didn't know whether to post this in Animals / Animal Rights or Activism... 
 
First of all, zoophilia is ... In my position, exploiting and behavioristically 
manipulating animals. etc. etc...

I therefore request, specifically of you who know of wikipedia to make it more 
neutral and scientifically based, if you are against. [Note the last 4 words]

The only thing I could do and tried to do (the edits were mostly reverted) was
to improve the arguments...

Please help! 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia
 
Regards and thanks, Seus Hawkins

Even on that very page, you were told by one user:

"I don't support zoophilia or bestiality because classifications can be anything. But Matty and I have a special relationship, which is as compatible as any loving human relationship. Sorry to those that oppose, I will not debate about this as it would probably be pointless. Love happens."

Wikipedia has policies on editorial neutrality, and "original research". It is also not a platform for personal views or advocacy (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Trying to "drag" people onto Wikipedia to promote one specific agenda is not OK either.

TBP 06:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply

I didn't claim that I wasn't neutral in your sense, Ie. not having an opinion of the subject. Try to search for 'existence' on this page. Yes, I tried to spread the word in order to get facts clarified. I am not the only one thinking this article is POV as your eyes may inform you by looking on this page. "If you are against" was wrong of me, I give you that. But again (not a significant defence), POV is outbalanced, so what is primarily needed from my neutral (in a sense of being objective and not not having an opinion) position is considerations, biologists, facts etc. from the other side or neutral side. (As I think that which has been backed up with so far has been from a perspective of zoophiles. Seeking (biased?) data to prove their position.

Seus Hawkins 10:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. This is a bit of what you need to understand. Please read this carefully and if you don't understand or disagree please do clarify:

An article like this is not about "proving that zoophilia is right", or about "proving zoophilia is wrong". It is about collecting evidenced (verifiable) information on the subject, in all aspects, to make a comprehensive reference article on the subject.
Wikipedia's stance is by default, a neutral-sympathetic one. That applies to all subjects whatever their nature. Here are some examples:
- The article on homeopathy, a classic case of pseudoscience scorned by most scientists as implausible, does not say "homeopathy is a pseudoscience and wrong" in its introduction. Rather it states "The claims of homeopathy are controversial, and do not satisfy the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine."
- The article on Al-Qaeda, an organisation regarded almost universally as a terrorist body, does not give a view that "Al-Queda is a terrorist organisation". It says that Al-Qaeda is "the name given to an international Islamic fundamentalist organization", and that "the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States has said that it believes that al-Qaeda is responsible for a large number of high-profile, violent attacks..."
- The article on zoophilia does not state 'This is abusive and psychopathic and a dangerous trait' (for example) or that it is exploiting or manipulating animals (your words), because these are not factual conclusions within credible mainstream clinical research. It records that science and psychology when they actually study zoophilia itself are broadly neutral-positive, and that society and animal welfare are broadly hostile-negative. Those are fair views on the subject by any reading of the actual relevant research.
- Often, social and scientific messages are the same. Sometimes they differ. When they do, Wikipedia is about fact not emotion.
- In this manner, we do not prejudge an article, or write articles which convey "social messages."
A lot of the evidence has already been removed prior to your arrival. For example, there is evidence from past studies, that zoophiles (as opposed to youth offenders and preselected abusers) score above average for empathy, and below average for psychopathic thinking and 'control' mentality, on recognized international psychological scales designed to identify and recognise individuals with these traits. I imagine this is new information to you. It probably does not match your private, personal, beliefs. Why isn't it in the article? Although valid and supported by evidence, it was felt to give an inappropriate feel and made it too long. Instead, the solution of editors was that those who wish to research it may do so via the sources provided.
Whether 'right' or 'wrong', this article does not take a view in the debate. It documents the information pertaining to zoophilia - which covers a wide range of aspects as you can see from the 'contents index' of the article. As an editor with a bias, you must not insert your bias into the article, nor come here to promote that bias. If information is missing that is not mere opinion, that's different. But you have to be sure it's information, not mere opinion.
The article has formed over a long time, to a stable state, not because "some clique" has control of it (as you imagined), but because many sides have argued it to a mature consensus. For example in many cases editors have removed pro-zoophilia information too, for the same exact reason, it wasn't up to standard or wasn't valid by Wikipedia standards as encyclopedic information.
- See the section Canid pair-bonding (below) for an example of pro-zoo views being treated with respect and explanation, but being deleted (twice), for *identical* reasons that you've seen above: it's mostly opinion and mini-essay, not adding much fact.
The mature consensus will seem to some to be pro-zoophile, and to others to be anti-zoophile. That's probably unavoidable in an article like this, same as in the article on intelligent design where science and beliefs clash. The difficulty this article has to try and overcome is that the scientific and verifiable evidence does not appear to match common social beliefs. Scientific evidence says that the jury is very much out on zoophilia, but looks tentatively supportive of key claims, and the article accurately reports this in describing zoophiles and zoophilia as a psychological or human condition or a sexual or emotional orientation. If you wish to wade through them, the citations are in the references. If anything, the zoophilia-supportive research is toned down, and under described. Almost all genuine clinical research into zoophilia over nearly 50 years (as opposed to studies of youth offenders, prison convicts, known abusers, and psychiatric cases) challenges or disagrees with core assumptions you bring here, and Wikipedia gives preference to notable verifiable information and not personal opinion.
What this means is, your contributions are valued and welcomed. They have been taken seriously and the valuable usable parts of them were immediately kept. Your work and efforts were valued and not thrown out! But Wikipedia is not a mere collector of opinions. I hope you can see this.
This is an acknowledged controversial subject, and however sincere, people who lack actual knowledge of the research and facts of it (as opposed to personal impressions and media reports of zoosadism), will inevitably find that opinion is distinguished strongly from knowledge, on Wikipedia. That's not a problem, but does mean you may have to do some soul-searching to distinguish fact from wishfulness, so to speak. If you want to discuss and check facts, nobody here will have any problem with that at all (as with the stallion citation). That's in fact what this page is for.
In the meantime, please now review your original edits. See if you can now understand why they were stripped down and examined so carefully, and if you can now see the reasoning behind that. I know emotionally you feel "this is wrong/bad/abusive". But that's an opinion; it doesn't belong here or in any reference text. Wikipedia is a site with a global policy that personal views for and against subjects are left at the door completely. All of us who are interested in this article, try to do that. That equally includes the few self-acknowledged zoophiles who have contributed here, have had their edits removed or tweaked, if they were not to Wikipedia standard.

FT2 (Talk) 00:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Exogamy!

Man, that's great, I'd come across the term before but I never actually thought of applying it in this situation. It's definately quite applicable :) Btw, who saw the episode of south park where they made PETA look like zoophiles? It was pretty funny. Tyciol 16:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Stallion masturbation deletions inquiry

Following texts deleted:

Animals of many species also masturbate, even if other sexual partners are accessible.

Petplace.com horse breeding information] which states "Masturbation is a normal behavior in all stallions" and prevention "is strongly discouraged and can be harmful to the stallion".

Masturbation issur, Article solely stated it to be the case with stallions. -Seus Hawkins

I am confused by this deletion. If the article states it to be a case with stallions, then why is the explanation of it being normal behaviour in stallions deleted? Also, rather than deleting the entire first statement, why not just edit it to say some animals (such as stallion, link to study) also masturbate? Tyciol 21:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that stallions are far from the only other species that masturbates - a day's visit to the local zoo's monkey house will likely show you another fine example. There are, in fact, few mammalian species that will not masturbate if desperate enough. Zetawoof 21:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's far from "just stallions". It's advisable to research before relying upon personal impressions. This is a case in point, since in fact masturbation has been documented as occurring in at least: Primates, Lions, Vampire Bats, Walruses, Savanna Baboons, Rhesus Macaques, Bonobos, Common Chimpanzees, Savanna Bonobos, Vervet Monkeys, Squirrel Monkeys, Thinhorn Sheep, Bharal, Aovdad, Dwarf Cavies, White-tailed and Mule Deer, Zebras and Takhi, Mountain Sheep, Warthogs, Spotted Hyenas, Elephants and Cetaceans. Separately, birds masturbate against mounds and tufts of grass, some primates apparently also fashion tools specifically for sexual self-use, and several species apparently practice auto-fellatio to orgasm.

I have added this information to the article on "non-human animal sexuality" since documenting only stallions and leaving the rest as "many", obviously gives the wrong impression. Hopefully with the expression "many species" now specified and sourced, that concern is now put to rest. FT2 (Talk) 02:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply As long as it is scientifically backed up for a change, I am satisfied. Previously merely stating stallions and generalizing to "many" was quite extreme.

Seus Hawkins

Legality by US state

I think reading the article, Sues Hawkins is right. It's too long and not really justifiable, for the most part. It's excessive detail for the main article as it stands, since the main article is for general information and not so much for lawyers legislative referencing. There's 3 obvious alternatives, and I'd be interested to see what peoples views are for whats best. We could:

Delete the "legality by state" subsection completely.
Move it to a linked footnote subsection where those interested can read but it's not adding wordage to the article for most readers.
Summarize it ("legal in A,B, C, ..." then "Felony in P, Q, R, ...") so it fits on 3 or 4 lines.

We could also leave it as it stands. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk) 15:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, it does seem a bit excessive. This information is good to keep on wikipedia, but it's a better idea to put it in a different article. Perhaps something similar to age of consent laws, since information on those is good to have as well. We should link to wherever it's sent in the main article though. Having a separate article would allow us to categorize it as legal which would attract more lawyers to edit and stuff. Of course, I have no idea how to name such an article, or if it fits under a present category. Perhaps we could request some help? I wish I knew the appopriate tag. Tyciol 19:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Legality by US state seems like useful information; however, condensing it to two lists (legal, illegal) seems a reasonable way to summarize. Wikipedia is not paper, though, so there's no reason to delete the expanded lists entirely - just create a new article Animal sex laws in the United States or something of the sort and put the expanded list there. Check occasionally to make sure they stay in sync. Incidentally, it looks like someone (not logged in) just came though and updated a number of states which had been previously marked as zoo-legal. Thank you, whoever you are. ♥ Zetawoof 05:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but also see other policies -- does this merit an article to itself? It could, in principle, because it's encyclopedic and factual, but is it notable information worth an article, or not sufficiently notable to get its own article? FT2 (Talk) 04:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Just had a thought on this. Whilst a specific page just for US state laws seems odd, a page for *all* laws -- state and country -- would work better. The legal section would then be a summary and a link to "main article: ..." Thoughts? FT2 (Talk) 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply (Hawkins)

For once, I agree with you. Don't get used to it. :)

Also, pretty irrelevant here, but as a measure of cleaning up, any objections to deleting some of the sections (among them, those which I myself started)? Such as: Articles against zoophilia - for balance, NPOV? (no longer used and there is a new one in the bottom), Actaeon removal, I'm a zoo? (settled), Suggestions (pretty much settled), Stallion masturbation deletions inquiry(settled).

Seus Hawkins 00:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

We could. Historically we've tended to archive (not simply delete) when about 2/3 of the page is closed and finished. Most of this page concerns recent edits where its possible we might refer back to them or add more. A lot of this page is still possibly current, although in a few weeks probably yes, it will be visibly old. Not sure we're there yet, but when more of it is visibly old and dead, yep, then it'll be a good idea to archive again. If people want to archive now though, I dont much have a view either way, myself though. FT2 (Talk) 00:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexuality

The section reffered to above is highly POV. Mainly because who says these are the arguments and the counter arguments? I could care less whether or not you think the arguments are common. Opinion is not a citable reference. The pro-con nature of the section is POV. I have said it before and will say it again and again and again, THE PRESENCE OF OPPOSITE POVs IS NOT NPOV. IT IS THE ABSENCE OF POV THAT IS TRULY NUETRAL. Understandably, this issue involves controversy, however this is adequatley addressed in the various "perspective" sections. Such sections in articles merely showcase rhetoric that is of NO ENCYCLOPEDIC VALUE. The section should be completely deleted without concession. Thank you. Angrynight 06:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

These are condensed arguments from many sources. I take it what you actually mean by the above is basically, "could someone arrange for sources be cited for the arguments for/against section"?

If there were such a thing as "common views for and against", this is clearly encyclopedic. Many articles in Wikipedia have views of each side listed, often informally condensed from many sources. It helps readers to understand the actual debate in the field. What is non-neutral is when views are favored or not, because they come from one side or another.

Further thoughts? FT2 (Talk) 02:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

These kinds of sections strip the issue of nuetrality. It may seem encyclopedic. However, most people are capable, beleive it or not, of forming their own opinions without listening to rhetorical debate. The various sections of "perspectives" are sufficient. The main problem with argument is the tendency for counter-argument. That is to say, someone on the pro side may decide that the argument for their side is insufficient and unpersuasive, and change it to counter the arguments on the con side. If the someone on the con side does the same, we end up in a pointless merry-go-round of pettiness. Perspective is fine, rhetoric is obstructive to nuetrality. The opinions of notable individuals is one thing, but wikipedia is not a polling place for "common" arguments. How common are the arguments? Do you have measurements? If you can fathom the arguments on your own without any research, they don't belong in an encyclopedia. FT2, "diseases" is a broad category. Viruses are the only species specific pathogens. This is primarily due to their mechanisms of reproduction. Bacteria, prions and toxins are rarely if ever specific. Anthrax/Bacillus Anthacis, for example, is a bacteria common among livestock, but as is obvious from the news, it can go to humans. Angrynight 05:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

With regard to health (the easy section). I'm not an expert on infection, it sounds plausible. A source would be nice, rather than just one example, something in a medical journal that identified bacterial and other infections as passing easier than viral. Any chance? I mean, evidence to back the generalization, rather than just evidence that certain named infectious agents are readily transmitted?

I've also reworded the humanzee link - its a distraction almost and minor in this context, speculative or stretching plausibility at best. But even so "numerous myths" isnt a good wording, its better to be factual and say no such verified case has ever been seen, let the facts speak for themselves. At worst I'd put something like "despite occasional speculation, humans and animals cannot make each other pregnant" and footnote the word "speculation" to a footnote linking humanzee. Hope one or the other of those works for you too? I think we agree overall though.

The arguments section is more interesting. You're right, in that if it was debated, then it would be endless. But since points are listed and named, you'll see higher up on this page that attempts to turn it from listing key points, to advocation and debate, are generally removed. There are not infinite number of notable points on either side, the same few keep coming up. This list has been mostly static for almost 18 months now, a long time in wikipedia terms and suggestive that it is not especially going to be a "merry go round". The thing is, "most people can form their own opinions" is not a good argument why core points on each side should not be named. Most articles list views for and against without demanding quantification. It is factual that these are common views held, we do not say how common since we don't know, and we don't judge them since we don't have an "official" position other than to characterize the debate. Thus PETA, Trusted computing and many other articles list reasons why some believe this side, and why others believe that side, but none of these attempt to quantify the arguments and say what percent of people say which. Its enough that they are common notable arguments listed to inform the readers of the general debate positions taken by each side. The article presents both and lets readers judge for themselves based on considering the points of each side. There is much ignorance on the subject, and this section is not actually proving to be heavily contentious or abused.

FT2 (Talk) 13:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The most frustrating aspect of arguments is that often two parties are arguing at each other about two different things. Such arguements go nowhere because neither person understands what the other is arguing for. I'm not reffering to the section, rather, I'm reffering to the two of us, we seem to be arguing about many different things, and were not going to get anywhere tugging in all a manner of different directions, so let me pose my arguments in discreet minimalist chunks as open questions, so we can address our concerns efficiently. We shouldn't have to go around in circles just because we're both too stupid to argue about the same thing at the same time.

First of all,the easy stuff: Factual Issue: What kinds of diseases are specific only to animals? We can agree that biologically viruses are the only host specific organisms, at least as a class. You said it yourself, your not an expert, fine. We can't all be experts on everything and I'm sure you do something to pay for your internet connection. I am a biologist, among other things, I'm not going to certify this online but read this: There may be bacteria that are specific, but they are the exception rather than the rule. As for citaion, any biology textbook, period. Go to your local library, or check the entry on virus, under "Lifeform Debate" (the debate is on whether or not viruses are alive, specificity is not at issue) Specificity makes viruses unique, except for prions (which we do not fully understand), it is common knowledge in the scientific community that all other pathogens can and will infect opportunistically. It is the mechanism of the virus that makes it specific, bacteria on the other hand may prefer certain parts of the body or certain organisms due to conditions, but they will colonize pretty much anywhere. I'm not going to go through a whole lot of research to dig up what every biologist and attentive high school biology student already knows just because someone got it wrong in the first place. Have the person who made the entry originally cough up a reference, not me, the burden of proof rests with the originator. Especially while there are references abound within wikipedia. The answer in short is, with exception to viruses and certain parasites, any pathogen can infect any animal, we are animals, we can be infected by sex with animals of other species. QED.

Second, this is the hard one: Should rhetorical arguments be in this encyclopedia, and consequentially, this article? Even if they are not stated directly, but merely listed (so long as they are fair & balanced)

Stating what "people" say "commonly" without attribution is rhetoric. The example arguments are rhetoric. We can agree on that. Regardless of your political stance (and I'm not assuming yours by this, I'm using it as an example) Fox News has a tendency to use "talking points". As you may be aware, these "talking points" are rhetorical, and more importantly seem to be what the person on screen is saying verbatim. That is, they are redundant. The purpose of displaying them is to generate a dogmatic approach to argument that is rhetoric. This is why most political discourse has pretty much dwindled down to the same tired old arguments. Granted my assertion is motivated due to my frustration with the direction of discourse these days, it is not an attempt to create what I think is ideal. Rather I only seek to make this article conform to what is a Nuetral Point of View, a wikipedia policy. The views are laid out in the article's various perspective sections and adequatley state what the various parties think and explains their rationale. How the various parties bicker is unimportant, so long as it is understood that they do bicker. You do not see every article on contentious issues haveing a laundry list of such arguments. The reason being that they serve no purpose. As you stated, the merry-go-round effect didn't happen here. Does that mean everyone is satisfied, or that people are just glossing over a useless section they never intended to read? The Iraq War article does not have the whole, "Well maybe the had weapons/"Even if they did , we didn't negotiate"/"yes we did" /"no we didn't" and I hope it never does. Stating the opinions of notables and the specific attributable debates had between two persons is how you frame rhetorical arguments in an encyclopedia, since it represents the amalgamation of views of the supporters via the heads of the various factions. Uncited argument is liable to become a soapbox, even if it hasn't already we shouldn't set bad precedent, nor should we predict the future actions of readers by their past behaviors (especially when the edition pool includes any with half a brain and an internet connection) A nickel for your thoughts (due to inflation) Angrynight 00:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

PS You settled humanzee fine. Angrynight 00:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Quick comments (because it's late here)... virii/bacterial/other infections, I left. I'm not an expert, it seems plausible, it would be useful to have some quote from a textbook on infection or epdermology to support this "just for the record", but I don't see any reason to doubt it. It seems plausible even to me as a layman. So as far as I'm concerned that's settled unless any other expert says otherwise, in which case let the experts argue what statement best represents science. So that's two of the listed issues sorted out (humanzee being the other).

Regarding the arguments list, I think I see where we differ. Try this for thought:

Your comment is, "Should rhetorical arguments be in this encyclopedia [...]? Even if they are not stated directly, but merely listed [...]?"

I disagree with your classification and analysis, and now I'm more sure it's appropriate to disagree. My reasoning is, that your comment seems to show a slippage between allowing rhetoric (re-enacting of debate), and summarizing points upon which rhetoric is built (characterization of debate). Rhetoric would be, the use of those points to persuade, ie Wikipedia taking stances and playing out the debate. A simple listing of points, not in rhetoric form, is a factual summary of what is actually said, and very different. It is not in fact rhetoric. There is no element of attempt on the part of Wikipedia to persuade by so doing.

Symptomatic of this difference, "the purpose of displaying them" is not "to generate a dogmatic approach to argument that is rhetoric", but to inform each reader, who may or may not know the views and representations made, what in fact is represented in the debate, so that they may consider these and understand the debate better.

In fact "the views ... laid out in the article's various perspective sections" do not at all "adequately state what the various parties think and explain their rationale." Nowhere in the perspectives section for example, are most of the core issues raised in the debate named. An astute and neutral reader may guess some, but is unlikely to guess most, an uninformed reader or one with preconceptions is unlikely to realize the core issues in the debate if they are not clearly summarized. Likewise, when you say of the Iraq article, "Well maybe they had weapons/Even if they did , we didn't negotiate/yes we did/no we didn't", that's not something this article has had either, at all. Attempts to do so by occasional readers have been rendered down into points, as you've seen above, and very few points have been added over time, it's pretty static.

I do understand what you're saying. For me, it boils down to a careful watch must be kept on two things: 1/ That if points for and against are given on any topic, they must not be allowed to become rhetoric, that is, no mini essays and advocacy, and no re-enacted debate. 2/ That if the arguments section began to spiral and include more and more "yes they are/no they aren't" type "metacomments", it would need strong attention.

The rest seems to me an aesthetic issue, what Wikipedia should or should not consider within NPOV... but many many articles allow for listing of multiple views without quantitization being required.

What, for me, draws the line here is this: there is no debate. Nobody is saying "and in reply to your points.../Well I say this/Well then I say that" The points on each side are summarized in brief form stripped of all emotion and do not "speak to each other". Two separate lists are presented, which the reader may consider however he/she wishes. I think we can allow that many articles and policy itself anticipates qualitative "what do different views support", and that this is often done with minimal in-line debate. Its been static a long time. It seems a pretty good non-issue to me, except in the broader policy sense of the question "should Wikipedia list any views in any article, that are not quantitatively counted?" The whole of NPOV policy seems geared to ensuring that views are stated, but in a neutral manner, not in excluding them. NPOV doesn't mean elimination of this kind of section, it means characterization of the core points within debates, if relevant, must occur in a manner that does not anticipate taking any side, but treats all views and viewpoints (by whoever promoted) as unemotive facts being summarized and documented.

Last, WP:NPOV states and anticipates this very approach, when it describes how points and rebuttals in a debate should be done in sections rather than point by point, since the latter can appear less neutral. It does not in any way suggest such sections are non-neutral. Without excessive citing, please reconsider what NPOV itself says on subjects where there are views on both sides:

"The neutral point of view is ... a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates are described, represented, and characterized... background is provided on who believes what and why... detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better." (implication: debates are described, including summaries of the views on each significant side and sometimes in detailed articles, even the counter-view of each side on opposition points may be relevant)

"It generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents"

"An article can ... radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." (implication: opinion-of-proponent/opinion-of-opponent sections are not inappropriate)

FT2 (Talk) 06:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Canid pair-bonding

I removed this addition:

"Wild Canines form pair bonds. A male and a female bond together and reproduce together. Domestic dogs no longer do this. Despite this a loving sexual relationship between a human and a dog can give both something which is natural to them."

Its interesting but has a couple of problems:

The first part is really about canine social structure not animal rights/welfare perspective
The second part asserts a viewpoint, namely "A suitable sexual relationship can give both something". Wikipedia cannot assert that, it can only record that some say it can benefit both, and others say it is harmful. We, ourselves, cannot advocate or support either viewpoint, even if it happened that we knew a hundred zoophiles and their companions, read all the research, and were convinced personally of the truth of this statement. For example, people who oppose zoosexuality would say in response, that a loving sexual relationship indicates a dangerously self-deluding abuser, and by definition all such relationships are harmful. So this statement advocates one side's views, as it was drafted.

Please do continue to contribute, I hope the above makes sense. FT2 (Talk) 20:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Update (cross posted to user's talk page):

I've re-removed the section added to Zoophilia. Its a good attempt to add the same text more neutrally and I do not wish to seem that I'm deleting without reason, so I would like to explain, and if needed, discuss. The text read:

"Wild canines form pair bonds. A male and a female bond and reproduce together. Some humans also form sexual bonds. Domestic dogs usually no longer have the opportunity to do this with other canines. A loving sexual relationship between a human and a dog can give both something natural to them. Proponents can argue that it does not exploit the dog but acts in accordance with a dog’s nature. Opponents can argue that this subverts canine sexuality. Either views may hold root in value judgements. The dog will necessarily be made unhappy by the relationship unless zoosadism is involved."

Which basically summarizes to this:

"Unlike their wild Canidae ancestors, domestic dogs do not usually form dedicated pair bonds. Views on human-animal bonding include that none the less affectionate bonding is natural to both (and therefore this is is not exploiting their nature, but rather, is in accordance with it), or, that this subverts canine sexuality. Either views may hold root in value judgements. But everyone can agree zoosadism is a bad thing."

It's more neutral, but even so, what exactly is it adding? Another view for and against? The views in this paragraph are already listed under "arguments for/against", since social structure and bonding is discussed in that list, and zoosadism is obviously bad and also discussed. It also doesn't add much to the animal welfare section as far as I can see, because this is not central to that issue. I don't want to accidentally miss something. Could we discuss it, if I'm wrong or you think I'm missing something?

FT2 (Talk) 10:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dolphin novel

I'm unsure if this is notable. It might even quite likely be a self-submission by the author (it seems very little known). But it is a zoophile article as such, and so I'm in two minds what to make of it. Could the author please justify its notability beyond "It's a failed novel about a bond with dolphins"? And any other views...? Thanks. I have asked the author to comment here, too. FT2 (Talk) 12:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the person who put the edit in there. I'm not the author of the book, though - I first found out about the book because it was linked in a Fark.com thread ([2]) and I'm a member there (if you search for my name in that link, you'll even see me commenting that I'm curious enough to read it). Of course, there's no CONCLUSIVE way that I could prove to you that I'm not the author, I suppose that maybe I could be the author and I just planned out the whole thing from the very beginning in an attempt to deceive you. There's a lot of evidence against that, though - I've used the username "Esn" on lots of other websites and forums and on none of them have I ever said that I'm a 40 (or something) man who lives in Florida and writes dolphin stories. If you really want me to link to websites that make a convincing case for me not being the author, I suppose I could do it, but for now you'll just have to believe me when I say that I am not - I imagine that if you contact the author, he'll be as surprised as anyone that his book is up here. Basically, I thought to put it in because a) it seems like it gives a good glimpse into the psychology of zoophiles - it IS fiction, but the actual story features many intimate details that are probably gleaned from some real-life experience, and b) it seems like a cool find to me. It's not like there are exactly many novels about this subject, so it seemed a fairly unique and usefull addition to the Wiki article. Finally, there isn't too much information about the dolphin angle of zoophilia in this article, so it seemed a worthwhile addition for that reason as well.Esn 09:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's good to have the background how it got added and why. means for something like that others can be sure whats gone on. It makes reasonable sense. FT2 (Talk) 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, good insight - the story does have a strong paranormal side to it (telepathy, out of body experiences, communicating with the dead) so in that aspect it doesn't show a very realistic picture of zoophilia. Still, I'll agree that it's worth mentioning. BabyNuke 15:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd heard of it; in fact, I've actually had email contact with the author recently, who says it's actually moving toward publication. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Type of consensus

A small disagreement on wording has arisen:

"Regardless, there is a clear consensus which regards zoophilia with either suspicion or outright opposition."
"Regardless, there is a seeming consensus which regards zoophilia with either suspicion or outright opposition."

Esn's point is 'There is no clear consensus, there is only majority opinion'.

But isn't majority opinion exactly what consensus means, in this context?

Is there any significant part of society in general, where one can say "sex with animals is acceptable" and have it agreed socially? Is there any significant part of society in general where one can say "sex with animals is a suspicious or outright wrong act" and not have it agreed socially?

I've reverted to "clear consensus" because it seems that is the most accurate description for it. Debate? FT2 (Talk) 12:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be a difference of opinion on the definition of "consensus". The definition that I use is "A group decision that is acceptable to all members of the group" (this is the McGraw-Hill definition of the word). If the decision is unacceptable to even one member of a group, therefore, it is not a consensus - it must be one that they can all agree on. As is demonstrated by many statements on the wikipedia article itself, as well as the links that are linked to, there is indeed a sizeable number of people who do NOT feel that ""sex with animals is a suspicious or outright wrong act". Therefore, I believe that the use of "clear consensus" is innappropriate in this context.

The reason I changed it to "seeming consensus" is because those who find zoophilia agreeable would almost never publically say so unless they were granted anonymity. Therefore, it SEEMS like there is a consensus, where in reality there in not, at least according the definition of consensus stated previously.

I'll wait for your answer before changing it back.Esn 10:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think "consensus" was a controversial word. Usually consensus in a social sense isn't the same exactly as that. For example, the consensus of the forum was to do X, doesn't usually imply that every member of the forum utterly agreed. Rather, it means that the forum as a whole, as a group or body, has this view, if a body can be said to have a view. We would say that the consensus of scientists was that the earth is round, without checking if every last scientist was sure of that. We'd say the consensus in a Wikipedia discussion meant that there was a general sense this was the view of the discussion, even if several eduitors were not happy about it. I think it's fair to say that common usage of the word isn't what McGraw Hill say, ie, to be a consensus doesn't usually get taken to mean each person is agreeable, but rather that the "group sense" as a whole has a stance. If that's not okay then maybe we need a different word. "majority view" just seemed wrong. What I'm looking for is a word that conveys the sense "what society by and large thinks, even if some people within that don't agree." Any thoughts? FT2 (Talk) 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think "seeming consensus" is the best term to use for what you wish to describe, as opposed to a "true/clear consensus", which would require every member of society to agree. I suppose you could use "supermajority" if you really wanted to, but most people aren't too familiar with this term (except perhaps for Wikipedia editors). Esn 00:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those two really work for me. The impression I'm looking to convey is, "regardless of everything else, this is what society overall strongly feels." As such, seeming consensus and supermajority both don't work:

"Seeming consensus" carries a POV feel of "it seems a consensus but might not be really", or "seems a 100% consensus but isn't", whereas its not in doubt that 100% don't believe it, we've said that, but the overall general view of society in every meaningful sense, does strongly believe it.
"supermajority" says "most people", it doesnt carry the emotive feel of "society as a whole" though. Its atechnical term.

What about "the overwhelming consensus is that ..."? Surely "consensus" isn't literally 100.000% in general usage? We've made clear a minority don't believe it and possibly others too, we aren't misleading that way if we say that. After all the many views, its important to summarize by saying, that despite all that aside, the general social view is X. I'm sure you see where I'm at. Any further thoughts? FT2 (Talk) 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you've hit upon the bulls' eye. What about saying "general society view" or some variation or other of those words? Like "general view", perhaps? So the final sentence would be:

"Regardless, there is a general view which regards zoophilia with either suspicion or outright opposition."

"Overwhelming consensus" doesn't work for me for the same reason that "clear consensus" didn't - it implies that ALL members of society overwhelmingly agree on something. It seems that our definitions of consensus are indeed different because the definition that I (and McGraw-Hill) use literally DOES mean "100.000% of society agrees with the statement". If we use "general view" we could get around the problem.Esn 07:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what Wikipedia says about consensus and why I felt it was an acceptable word:

"In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it ... If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached." [Wikipedia:Consensus]

How would researchers such as Dr. Hani Miletski fit into this categorization? --Chibiabos 12:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Theres two things confused here. This issue doesn't really affect sources. The issue of consensus is one for editors and so far as we know, she is not an editor of this article. As a source, she is one contributor of views and information. She is a notable researcher in the field, her findings match support and generally agree with those of other notable researchers, and they have been peer reviewed, so they would tend to carry more weight than the comment of some non-notable layperson "on the street"'s views if we stopped someone on a street corner or one of the editors and asked them instead. FT2 (Talk) 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, there aren't two things being confused here. You gave a list that sounds all-inclusive that everyone should fit under. Is Dr. Hani Miletski one who largely agrees? No. Is she one who disagrees but agrees to disagrees without disaffection? No; she's had threats made against her, in fact, for reporting her scientific findings to state legislatures considering anti-bestiality legislation. Is she one who agrees strongly but respect a decision as a community decision without interfering? No, again, she has made attempts to intervene, though of course the "community" in the form of legislative bodies has disregarded and refuted her work. Is she one who doesn't agr ee but gives low priority to the issue? The amount of time and effort she's committed to the project and professional risk and cost she's endured, I think, pretty well answer a "no" to that as well. Is she a "vocal and unreconciled folk?" I guess this is the closest, but "vocal and unreconciled" gives the impression of a highly dismissive and disrespectful label for her scientific research, lumping it in the same category as terrorists and neo-nazis. Is she one who operates outside the law? There are some in the anti-crowd who have attempted to force her into this last category. I have heard rumors, that are not all that incredible, that for her efforts to present her research to the Missouri state legislature when the issue came up there after the Jerry Springer episode (the 'star witness' of that show, "Mark Mathews," was in Missouri and the state legislature felt embarrassed and reacted to it) earned threats she had to take seriously against her professional life. --Chibiabos 06:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also consider Google: consensus unanimity, and the detailed articles on Consensus and Consensus_decision-making which also confirm that in general consensus does not mean unanimity. Google picks up many comments such as:

"Consensus is not Unanimity"... "When we say consensus, we do not mean unanimity (although seeking unanimity is often a part) [mit.edu]..."Legitimate models of consensus exclude unanimous decisions and state clearly that unanimity is not consensus" [openpolitics.ca]..."Unanimity is the particular case of consensus where all individuals" [w3c.org]..."The dictionary definition sometimes gives the impression that "consensus" means "unanimity", and that is not what is intended." [dnso.org]..."An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole" or "General agreement or accord" [dictionary.com]... "general agreement" or "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned" [merriam-webster dictionary]

This ties in quite well with how I tend to use the word -- I'm used to consensus here and in everyday life being not the same as unanimity, and capable of allowing mild or minor (but not strong) disagreement. Hope that clarifies why I feel it's a legitimate usage. Can you double check for yourself how accurate it is said to be, to equate consensus and unanimity? Thoughts? FT2 (Talk) 10:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)