Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 18

Untitled
Archived November 25 2006

Updated December 15 2006 (Line art and zoonoses)

This archive covers discussion relating to: - a question of whether Leda and the Swan should be described as "rape", use of the word "zoophilia" before Krafft-Ebbing, the temporary split of the article into a zoophilia article and a bestiality article (later reversed following discussion), another couple of socks of a blocked POV vandal, links to AnimalDB.com, size of zoophile/furry overlap, long article tag removal, sources and discussion of zoophilia and Islam, copvio line art tracings,

Subseqently added also: discussion/dispute over zoonoses and health resulting in creation of Zoophilia and health.

Mythology
I think it's important to change the wording around Zeus and his so called "seduction" of Lena and Europa: which is more accurately described as rape. I really believe it's important not to play down and consequently normalise the sexual violence against women that permeates the classics. However, I'm not knowledgeable enough to pin down the exact terminology and events - can anyone help out?
 * Try reposting the question on the appropriate Reference_desk/Humanities reference desk. Its exactly their kind of question.

"Zoophilia" in Greek
Was "zoophilia" another artificial splice of Greek by Krafft-Ebing, or is it derived from something actually encountered in Ancient Greek? JayW 00:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm not sure. Did he invent the term, reinvent an existing word, or was it already in use and borrowed/adapted for the purpose? Don't know. I'd suspect "borrowed or reinvented", since in Greek it apparently retains the meaning "animal lover", which suggests that was its original meaning in that language at least (if K-E had invented it, surely it'd mean what he invented in Greek too?). But I'm not sure. FT2 (Talk) 07:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the term was already in use, but referred to a non-sexual attraction. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 08:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Own page for bestiality?
Seeing as zoosexuality got its own article (though I must say that the difference between zoophilia and zoosexuality isn't made very clear), perhaps bestiality could also be given its own article since I'd consider the difference between bestiality and zoophilia a lot bigger than the difference between zoosexuality and zoophilia. Sections like legal status, health and safety, mythology, media discussion and pornography would all fit in this bestiality article, so little new content would have to be written. It'd also reduce the length of the zoophilia article, as it's a bit lengthy at the moment. BabyNuke 13:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about the "what belongs in what article" issue myself a bit. It doesn't help that history has left us with ambiguous terms. In an ideal world (!) "zoophilia" would cover the paraphilia. But in reality, it also covers sex and relational bonding with animals in all senses. I can see how in an ideal world there could be a separate article on "zoosexual acts", and that it would cover the acts, their legality, health, and similar.


 * I think overall, given the confusion, the main article should be called "zoophilia". This is the term widely used for all aspects of sexual and relational bonding between people and animals. Given that, do we need a separate article on "sex"? I don't think so. We might benefit from articles on "legal", or "views on", or "religion and" ... but the sexual act itself? Not really.


 * Zoosexuality has a technical meaning. Perhaps that article could benefit if renamed "zoosexuality (orientation)" to clarify this. But as sex, eroticism, and intimate relationships with animals are so closely tied up, it would make sense to me, that we handle all those in one article. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk) 14:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, zoosexuality is a very rarely used term. To put it in perspective, zoosexuality gives 960 hits on google while zoophilia gives 1.6 million hits on google. Besides this, zoosexuality does not appear in the dictionary. These two things combined make it hard for me to truely figure out the meaning of the term zoosexuality. In most cases where I've seen it used, it's pretty much a synonym for zoophilia. I guess zoosexuality could be seen as a purely sexual attraction, while zoophilia goes beyond that.


 * I would just include zoosexuality in the zoophilia page as currently, the seperate articles in my opinion only confuse the reader as the exact difference does not become clear. Bestiality would become a seperate article, containing the topics of legal status, religious perspectives, animal rights, historical and cultural perspectives, health and safety, mythology, media discussion and pornography. In short, all topics dealing with the actual act fall under the bestiality article, while all topics dealing with the sexual orientation fall under the zoophilia / zoosexuality article. Only the arguments section kind of goes both ways. BabyNuke 16:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the article on zoosexuality. It is notable in its own right, and defined within sexology, as distinct and separate from a general article on "people and animals". Google hits are (in this case) not a good uindication of notability. You don't need to "guess" how they differ. Read that article and you'll see. If it's still not clear, how the two articles differ, say so?

That said, if the subject didn't have such conflicting definitions, I would broadly say that much of zoophilia would belong in an artiicle titled "zoosexuality". But as it is, zoophilia is the more recognised term for much of it, and it helps to have the article on the orientation kept "clean" and just about the orientation as an orientation". I think just leave it as it is, and focus on cleanup and missing areas in the field, is best, for now. FT2 (Talk) 21:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No less than four definitions of zoophilia are given on the zoosexuality page. Further, this is how the difference is defined in the beginning of the zoophilia article: "Zoophilia, from the Greek ??? (zôon, "animal") and f???a (philia, "friendship" or "love"), is a paraphilia, defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to a (non-human) animal. Such individuals are called zoophiles. The more recent terms zoosexual and zoosexuality describe the full spectrum of human/animal orientation." However, the definition here of zoosexuality doesn't match up with the definition given on the zoosexuality page itself where it is noted that zoosexuality only covers the sexual orientation, and so not the "full spectrum" (which would also include the emotional aspects).


 * And then there's this part from the professional views section: "Zoosexuality implies a sexual orientation toward animals... And Donofrio (1996) reports that the concept of zoophilia, being a sexual orientation, was supported by his doctoral study." The way I read that sentence, zoophilia is used as a synonym for zoosexuality. A little further down in the same section, this happens again, even more obviously so: "Not clearly named in this list is the form of zoophilia, that is characterized by an emotional as well as a sexual attraction respectively love to an animal, which is called zoosexuality by other authors (Donofrio, 1996; Miletski, 1999)."


 * I find it strange for two terms that are obviously VERY closely related to have seperate articles, while bestiality which is obviously not the same as zoophilia or zoosexuality does not get its own article, even though this would be a good way to reduce the length of the zoophilia article. BabyNuke 11:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First, just to clarify, the main "zoophilia" article is being split out into sub articles. That became clear from 3rd party editors on the Featured Article review. So the main article will be simplified a lot over the next while. That will help in part, by allowing excessively long sections such as porn to be moved to separate articles and summarized instead. That will help a lot.

On the issue you're raising, it's not ideal, but given the range of terminology and the historical conflicts in usage I'm not sure we can change that. To take an analogy from another orientation, if there was any commonsense we'd have 3 articles, on 1/ homosexuality in psychology (re its classification as a sexual orientation), 2/ gay culture, lifestyle, legal, societal views, and related stuff (overview split out to subarticles), and 3/ anal sex (legality, consequences, safety etc). That would be sensible. But I just don't see Wikipedia having an article on "how to have sex with your animal", and we have a separate legal article, so the latter isn't likely to happen. (Also "bestiality" is seen as pejorative in the field and Wikipedia tries to avoid pejoratives where a more neutral accepted term exists). So the little that is said on the act itself is best folded into the general one on the lifestyle, people, views, etc. FT2 (Talk) 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously the bestiality article wouldn't be some sort of "how to" article, it'd be largely made up out of existing text from the zoophilia article. And I must say that currently, the seperation between the zoophilia and zoosexuality articles only confuses readers and does not make the topic any more transparant, this because you can't get around the fact that the terms zoophilia and zoosexuality are very close to being synonyms and are normally used that way as well. The nitpicking over definitions has only made the entire subject more vague. I personally strongely suggest having only one zoophilia / zoosexuality article, as the article was a lot better in that construction, together with a bestiality article (instead of splitting up the zoophilia article in a dozen smaller sub-articles, again making the topic less transparant for the reader). As for bestiality being a pejorative - it is a commonly used word and the most likely word people will search for on wikipedia (people are unlikely to go and search for a term like "zoosexual acts"). BabyNuke 13:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, I'm having a go at putting the section into that sort of format. Setting aside the actual choice of article name, it's obvious that whatever article discusses zoosexuality as a sexual orientation, is likely to be of a size and definition to need an article of its own, with a brief summary + link within the main article. That's the usual approach for articles covering a whole field: - subarticles covering identifiable major aspects, and a main article summarizing it all with links for more details to each.

Once that's done, I think we will broadly agree, one main article to cover it all, whatever its title may be. But that can't be done until the major chunks are farmed out, which is what's happening in the background, and which takes time. The reason it takes time is that when a subject such as "zoo and the law" becomes a separate article, at that point it must have its own balance and cover its own sub-areas. You can see this in zoo and the law, which covers issues such as how zoo laws come to exist, and their backgrounds, which was new material. So that's why it's a bit slow. But I think broadly that's a direction that's good, and when more of the bulk is moved to subarticles, then creating the main article (under whatever name) to cover it all, will be much easier.

As far as I'm aware, about 4 or 5 articles are being worked on in this way, as subarticles to the main article referencing them, as the Featured Article review suggested. The problem is that you can't fit the whole subject into one article, and nor (as I see it) should you try. A one article summary, yes. But subarticles will then be needed to expand on that. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk) 15:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's one of the reasons why I suggested an article for bestiality in the first place. The current article is too long and a bestiality article could take over a lot of its content, without having to create even more subarticles. BabyNuke 16:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Problem there is, merely moving material from article title A to article title B doesn't change anything much. Let's let the subarticles get done, which will shorten stuff, then see what's left and how it looks, and make decisions, I reckon. There's one I'm working on if you'd like to help on it? FT2 (Talk) 18:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The porn article I assume? I don't know if you need any, but I'll read it and perhaps leave some comments on the talk page or add a bit if I can. BabyNuke 20:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats the one. And yes please. FT2 (Talk) 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for zoophilia and bestiality pages
Right now, it's a bit chaotic and vague, with a long page on zoophilia which contains some sections which do not really belong to it. Already, some new pages are in the works. So, here's my suggestion for the articles on all things zoophilia and bestiality related:
 * Zoophilia / zoosexuality article (no seperate articles anymore), contains all sections regarding the sexuality: lifestyle, non-sexual zoophilia, zoophiles and other groups, sciences studying zoophilia, mythology and fantasy literature, social community and finally books, articles etc.
 * Bestiality article, contains sections regarding the sexual act: perspectives on bestiality, health and safety, arguments, media discussion and pornography.
 * Bestiality and the law article, contains information the legal status of bestiality around the world.
 * Animal sexual abuse article, contains information on the sexual abuse of animals. I could see this article being incorporated in the bestiality article as well if it's not too long.

Little new content would have to be made and little content would be lost. It's largely a matter of improving the organisation. Some key changes here are that the terms zoophilia and zoosexuality will be used as synonyms as that is how they are most commonly seen. The term bestiality is used in those cases where the actual sexual act is being discussed, and thus something like arguments for / against sex with animals would fall under bestiality and not zoophilia. Also note that I did not include animal pornography as a seperate article but included it with bestiality, though if needed this can be kept as a seperate article as it is being worked on now. All related pages could have a little box somewhere showing the other related pages. Feedback is welcome, I think this would greatly improve the situation on zoophilia / bestiality. BabyNuke 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've started making the changes needed. BabyNuke 17:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * edit: moved the first few sections, ones that were easy to move without any serious modifications. Other sections will require more work as to make sure it fits the article and no content is lost or misplaced. BabyNuke 17:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the changes you're suggesting. What I'd ask is, go slowly to allow time for reflection and assessment, and consensus, if you're able. Myself, I'm going to read and then think how it looks now, and will comment more in a day or 2. I'd like to see what consensus says so far, before more editing, to see if people like the direction it's gone in. As I said a while back my own instinct is to do little until the fork sub-articles are more complete. I'm still pondering, I can see the sense of it but still have some concerns that I want to think through before concluding if I'm happier this way or have questions. The one aspect of it I'm not sure at all of, and therefore don't want to be done at this point without much more discussion, is merging from zoosexuality, because that's a technical term and a well defined topic, it's not a duplication even if the title might suggest it to lay-people. Either way it is a set of brave edits. The question how it looks now is what I'd like to check consensus on, befoire more's done though. Thanks! :) FT2 (Talk 21:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I decided to go ahead with the changes since there was much talk but little action. As for the zoosexuality / zoophilia merger - I've said it before: the referenced literature states TWICE that zoophilia and zoosexuality are synonyms. And I am not a lay-person and I don't get the difference either. Though perhaps it has been used differently on occasion, in general it is not and I am under the impression that that is also the consensus when looking at the referenced literature, references you added if I'm not mistaken. Plus, I feel the zoosexuality article doesn't contain much new information. BabyNuke 10:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference would roughly be the same as a difference between two articles called "gay" and "homosexuality", or between "homosexuality (as lifestyle)" and homosexuality (as orientation)".

Basically zoosexuality has a technical meaning, as an orientation, and within that are questions such as, What is an orientation? What research is there each way on it? Why is it classified as an orientation? Thats very different from an overview of zoosexuality as a lifestyle. it's worth looking at the article on Pragmatism for a similar situation, where a word with one commonly-understood meaning actually is a technical term in philosophy, and the article on the general or popular meaning is a separate philosophical term in everyday use. FT2 (Talk 10:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that literature does not support your point of view as it considers the two to be synonyms, at least in the references provided. Zoosexuality is NOT commonly seen as different from zoophilia and if I have problems finding the difference then it must be even more confusing for the average reader. All I want is for the subject to be as transparant as possible and trying to differentiate zoophilia from zoosexuality in complex wording while contradicting the references mentioned does not help. BabyNuke 20:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand. The thing is, unfortunately *all* terminology is problematic, because of its origins:
 * Zoophilia is the common term, but also denotes a specific psychological condition of a much stricter definition
 * Bestiality is an act only, not a lifestyle or orientation, and has POV connotations according to consensus of past editors (see early talk history)
 * Zoosexuality is an unfamiliar "newer" term, that is technically more accurate but is both not in common use, and also is used in psychology with a specific meaning as an orientation, which zoophilia is not.
 * That's why I want the "terminology" article completed. Because of these complexities. Can we do that?


 * I do also have a possible answer in mind for article titling, but would like to think a day or 2 first on it. And it'd need consensus. Is that okay? FT2 (Talk 00:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. BabyNuke 09:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * edit: Could you provide some sources using the term zoosexuality in the manner you describe? Terminology should not be a seperate article btw, if that's what you were planning. Not worth it. BabyNuke 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * @FT2: so did you make up your mind yet? BabyNuke 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, and yes, I have.

I wanted to give it some time, for two reasons, first because its a good way to see others reactions, and ones own over time, second because I've edited a lot on this article and its important not to act as if it is in any way WP:OWNed. So I've stayed away from editing in this area, to see how it goes, see what others say and edit, focus on other areas (mainly the Wikipedia: workspace), and come back to it. I have a few thoughts, but I'm clearer now on them.

We probably agree that one way or another we need to split off sizable chunks of content from the main article. So I see the main issue as being what main articles should exist (zoophilia, zoosexuality, bestiality, sex acts with animals, ...), and what content should be in each.

Basically, my feeling is that yes we need to split the article out. But not by fracturing it into two. I don't think a split into "zoosexual acts" (bestiality, sex acts, legal, health, porn) v. "zoosexual lifestyle" (lifestyle, societal views, myth, religion) is going to work well, and instead we ought to consider forking off carefully chosen sections that are well defined, such as "zoosexuality and law", "zoosexuality and religion", "zoosexuality and health", etc instead.

This will make the main article more concise and give focussed sub-articles their own space. It leaves one master article with summary sections, not two parallel master articles. The only question then will be what name to give that article.

I don't think a separate "bestiality" lead article is going to be best, long term, even though its one way to keep it shorter, and reading it, I don't really think the split has worked that well in practice. For that reason I'd suggest we re-merge bestiality back -- but then shorten it by forking out substantial sections which we agree by consensus are worth their own article, keeping the main article shorter. In other words, individual sections get forked if theres consensus, but the article as a whole (which overviews the entire field whatever name it's given) doesnt split into 2 along an acts/lifestyle line.

I will come back to the question of "What titles should articles have" and "What do we do with the zoosexuality article" later if needed, because that's an important part of the problem, but first, this question:

There are two approaches, keep one master article for all aspects of zoosexuality/zoophilia/bestiality and fork out substantial content areas, or fork the article itself into lifestyle v. sexual acts. I'd like to hear thoughts on that before going further. FT2 (Talk 08:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The bestiality article at least should not be merged with zoophilia again as the two are not the same. Zoophilia describes a sexuality, bestiality describes an act and those who practice bestiality needn't be zoophiles (and the other way around). I still favour having these two as the main articles, possibly with a few sub-articles where needed. I feel some things need to be partially rewritten and can then be moved to the bestiality page. For example, the arguements section in this article belongs more to the bestiality article, afterall, the issue of "right or wrong?" has to do with the act, not the sexuality. The same goes for religious and historical perspectives, they also deal with the act. However, the current wording does not support this view, so these sections require editing.


 * I am not in favour of many sub-articles. I do not believe the subject warrants it, as someone commented on the pornography article, the articles needn't go that deep. So I am still in favour of two main articles: sexuality and bestiality. This way, you keep it simple and transparant. Splitting it up in to a dozen articles that perhaps give more information than the reader needs does not. As for titles: Zoophilia and bestiality are to the point and the most likely terms a person would look for. BabyNuke 09:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, there's two main topics we're really looking at:
 * Zoophilia, aka. bestiality - the sexual act.
 * Zoosexuality - the sexual orientation.
 * This would suggest another possible way of logically splitting the topic - have those two as main articles, and a redirect from bestiality to zoophilia (which it's most closely related to).
 * However, I don't think this is the right way to go. The biggest issue is that there isn't much independent usage of zoosexuality as a sexual orientation distinct from zoophilia - a quick Google check, for example, shows that it mostly shows up on Wikipedia mirrors (!), with some uses as a synonym for zoophilia. Quite honestly, I don't think there's a strong distinction between the three in practice. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 01:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Zoophilia is NOT aka bestiality, though it may occasionally be used that way by some. Bestiality refers to the act, zoophilia to the sexuality, being pretty much synonymus with zoosexuality. A zoophile does not per definition practice bestiality, and someone who does is not per definition a zoophile. Hence, I feel the need to seperate the articles. It may be worth noting in the bestiality article that it is used as a synonym for zoophilia by some though, though in my opinion incorrectly so. To quote the encarta dictionary:


 * zo·o·phil·i·a
 * noun
 * Definition: desire for animals: a sexual attraction to animals


 * bes·ti·al·i·ty
 * noun
 * Definition: (note: only the sexual definition given here)
 * sex with animal: sexual activity between a human being and an animal


 * A fundamental difference if you ask me. BabyNuke 14:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a difference. But is it a helpful difference to split the article with? Most people see the whole subject as one area, attraction and acts alike. The term "zoophilia" gets used for both attraction and sexual activity (rightly or wrongly), as does zoosexuality (spectrum and activity).


 * The term "bestiality" is unambiguous; however past consensus firmly concluded that this is a term implying a specific viewpoint. It places all acts in a "purely sexual" context, separate from any other relevant factor disclosed by research, separate from any relational motive or wider lifestyle choices. By placing the two separately, it conveys the same message as separating "gay lifestyle" from "gay sex", and the term itself has a distinct "specific viewpoint" flavor, as discussed in the past. You weren't here for that with Ciz I don't think, but it was a major decision.


 * So maybe that will help explain my view. The main terminologies which are inherited in the field all have problems. But a split between "the act" and "the rest" seriously de-contextualizes both in a field where experts who have written already say that is a major miscontext.


 * Hence why I came to feel that I don't mind a split, or forking of sections, but this way I feel is not a good decision. FT2 (Talk 14:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So, in an attempt to summarize, here's basically the two options then:
 * -One main article dealing with zoophilia / zoosexuality AND bestiality with most major topics handled in detail in their own article.
 * -Two articles, one on sexuality and one on the act, with possibly one or two subarticles.


 * As I've stated, my preference goes towards the second option, this to keep the subject as transparant as possible (information not spread over several articles) and to keep the sexuality and the act clearly seperated. BabyNuke 16:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Basically, what it comes down to in my mind is this. Yes, some zoos do separate out "zoophilia" and "zoosexuality" and "bestiality" and whatnot. However, few of them agree on exactly what the differences are, and most outsiders neither know nor care - inclusive of the psychological community, for the most part. Thus, to me it makes a lot more sense to handle this like most of the other large articles on Wikipedia and split out subtopics, rather than using this weird two-article structure. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 08:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (Minor observation to the above: to my mind the important thing is that this is true for people in general. It matters since the article should not be cast to represent zoophiles view any more than views of those against zoophilia. The fact both sides have similar issues is what makes it important. Just wanted to clarify that, if it matters. FT2 (Talk 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC))


 * I guess that makes it two to one then, so I suppose we'll stick with that lay-out. BabyNuke 13:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

hello people. perhaps its not my place but I'd say that a single article would probably give a easier hierarchy to work with. i don't see the difference really. In the toon world, bestiality is a more exciting word because its more naughty but I dont think thats a good reason to split articles. also can somebody send me the ref for the opening (incorrect to say bestiality is synonymous with zoophilia). I'm going to write a piece on this for a toon article. Toondreams 08:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Earlier in this discussion I posted the encarta dictionary definitions of the words, zoophilia being a sexual attraction and bestiality the sexual act. The main need to split articles comes from the fact that the zoophilia article is / was too long. BabyNuke 13:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Summary style's a good way to take care of that; you're right, and that point came out also during the FAC review. So no question there and agreed. Summary style'll take care of that. Once thats done, the article will probably cease to be too long. That's that way I was thinking to approach it. FT2 (Talk 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I can understand where Babynuke comes from. Originally I was in favor of having two separate articles, one for bestiality and then another for zoophiles. It makes sense, keeping the definition and explanation between zoophilia and bestiality in separate articles. If I was in charge of organizing the article from the beginning, that is how I would have originally done it.

However, there are some problems with that method and conflicts that would arise with what we already currently have. Right now what we have is one big umbrella topic where the others merge out of. As far as the flow of information goes, this seems very practical and much easier to follow as opposed to two separate articles where a user would have to search for (or not even know about) the information in the other article. I don’t think the article being too technical is going to be a problem at the level it is as long as it is comprehendible. There are many other articles in wikipedia that deal with complex and sophisticated math and science issues that many of use might not be able to understand just from reading the articles (and that hasn’t been an issue as long as those articles were accurate.)

Zoophilia and bestiality may not be the same thing (as baby nuke pointed out in the definition) but I don’t think that automatically warrants the division of this information on the same topic to be divided and split up under two definitions. I think there is a way we can address BabyNukes concern without having to massively change the format of the articles. This article is more of a general topic of interspecies sex and if necessary you could have little sections specifically on the various definitions (but I thought it was already addressed well in the article.)

Anyways, I just wanted to say that I see where BabyNuke comes from but I think it would be better to improve on the direction that the article is already going in. It reflects the same method that is already the standard that many other articles are using in wikipedia.--Steele the Wolf 05:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've re-merged the split, since the consensus was unanimous in the end (noting BabyNuke's concerns and the like). There's two outstanding concerns from this, and they are important not to be overlooked:
 * First, that this is part of an overall direction for the article, which was also an equal part of the above discussion -- namely there was consensus that some sections need to be pulled out via summary style, and possibly the article titles to be reviewed (zoophilia/zoosexuality ambiguity) once that's more achieved, and maybe even a different split in future once we've done that as best we can.
 * Second, a minor cleanup point: a prior definition of bestiality contained some repetition ("Bestiality signifies a sexual act between humans and animals, regardless as to motive or intent. It does not by itself imply any given motive or attitude."). Any preferred versions how to keep the sense of it and remove the duplication?
 * FT2 (Talk 10:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

JHartley edits
has been formally identified as a sockpuppet of a known Wikipedia POV vandal. block log as has.

The user concerned has caused serious POV damage to other articles, including forged cites, removal of valid facts, attacking of other editors as "biased", and imposition of own preferred POV via selective cites, often non-notable.

His talk page entries, as on the other article, are mostly intended to sway POV on the article and contain many personal attacks; I've archived them at /Archive17 if needed.

FT2 (Talk 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Link to AnimalDB.com
Someone recently removed the link to AnimalDB.com I added. I would like to put it back on the page but I will wait pending the result of a discussion I would like to see about this subject. Someone reverted my external link addition (AnimalDB.com) to the Zoophilia article. The first reason given by the reverter was that the contribution to the page would be questionable. I beg to differ. AnimalDb.com is a searchable database containing information on bestiality publications such as movies, magazines, books and websites. The zoophilia article on wikipedia is, among more, about bestiality. Several (or possibly all) persons and movies named in the pornography section are also in the database. The database is the largest in his kind. The second argument given, by the reverter, for removing the link was that the database possibly has illegal content for some countries. I believe this fact itself is correct in that some of the websites content might be illegal in some countries, because the database contains cover images for the movies and magazines. But again I have a different opinion about this being a reason for not mentioning the link in the wikipedia article. A lot ot the other sources and external links on this articles page do also contain the same kind of material. If you think this argument is valid then you should remove al those other links also (and not just in this article but throughout wikipedia on all subjects that might be illegal in some countries). I think adding a warning behind the link should be enough. Ik.pas.aan 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also in reply to the comment left on my talk page (I reverted the addition), the site seems to be nothing more than a huge bestiality porn database. Is it relevant for the average reader of this article to know that the movie "A Hot Dog night" lasts 60 minutes? Of the other sites listed in the article, none are purely aimed at pornography. Furthermore, as mentioned, bestial pornography itself is already illegal in many countries. Linking to a site which may contain illegal content for a large amount of visitors isn't wise, though I could live with a disclaimer. The site seems only useful for those looking for bestial pornography and I do not believe that is the goal of this article. I won't further protest it if the link is added WITH a suitable disclaimer, though I do not really feel it adds much to the article. BabyNuke 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason for the revert, which was done by others and I would support, is not because of modesty nor (il)legality. It's because Wikipedia is not an index of indiscrimiate links, nor a place where links are put to advertize a place, nor a site of resource links for people seeking information on pornography. This is a reference article, on a large subject, and porn site links or indexes do not usually add much essential information on zoosexuality and zoophilia. if you view the page history, you'll see that most porn site type links are removed, by most editors, upon addition, as well as a private request in the text of the page at various times, not to add spam or self-promotion links. AnimalDB.com falls under all of these, the same as zooskool.com (a porn/educational site) did, same as many other sites did. 87.114.1.61 07:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is also not censored. AnimalDb.com is a resource for information on zoophilia/bestiality publications. It is a database like IMDb.com is. Many actrices and movies named in this article can be found in this database with additional information. Ik.pas.aan 16:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The essential question is always "does this add anything to the article"? The answer is "no" - information on (as BabyNuke puts it) who starred in "A Hot Dog Night" and how long it ran doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of zoophilia. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 20:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate/Unfounded claim [zoophile/furry overlap]
This is a minor detail, but an important one nonetheless. It wouldn't be correct to say that 5% of furries are zoophiles. Many of them claim to have practiced zoophilia at some point in their lives, and even more do not consider it taboo. The sentence quoted below is most definately unfounded and should be removed. (discuss)

"The size of this group is not known, although an oft-cited figure is 5% of furries, which is not dissimilar to typical estimates of the percentage within the population generally." 03:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.93.193 (talk • contribs).


 * I'll turn that on its head. Where does your claim that "many [furries] claim to have practiced zoophilia at some point in their lives, and even more do not consider it taboo" come from? That would require significantly more citation, as it flies in the face of all common wisdom on the topic.
 * Back to the point, though: The sentence you've pulled out doesn't cite sources. However, it fails to do so because there are no sources available - to the best of my knowledge, there have been no large-scale surveys of the furry fandom which collected relevant data. There was an informal ongoing survey on alt.lifestyle.furry known as the "Furvey", but it appears to have been inactive since 2000 or so, and no statistics are available. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 03:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence of how the zoo/furry overlap works comes from 2 main sources: One assumes on such posts, those with a specific interest are more likely to post a comment. So it is likely that those posting are not representative of furries as a whole, but more tend to represent those with some specific interest in the topic.
 * 1) Zoophilia is usually marginalized and often not approved of in the furry community. In forum posts about the subject, views against are strongly put, and usually (and consistently) seem to outweigh those for.
 * 2) In polls about zoo and/or furry in the furry community, of those who are both, around 75% say they were already zoophiles and later decided they liked furry too. But the number who don't approve still significantly seems to outweigh this.

Taken together these tend to support (for me) that most furries are not zoophiles and those who are, were before discovering the furry community, which is why I haven't much challenged the point. I wouldn't be surprised (personally) to find a higher proportion than in "everyday society" but that's not what the anecdotal word says (as best I can tell). I'm not sure what one can say in an encyclopedia except that anecdotally this is what's said. There just aren't any decent sources to draw on other than "anecdotal evidence", so that is the source cited. If there is something thats more, it would be useful to know. FT2 (Talk 09:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

One question -- is there a source for the "many claim"? Or an indication of the proportion, to show that its a larger proportion and not just that they are more open talking about it (or other confounds)? That would help. FT2 (Talk 09:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll agree that the 5% figure seems unfounded. I would say that zoophilia is more common amongst furries (and the other way around) than in the rest of society, however, estimates are hard to give. Possibly also because sex with real animals doesn't seem to be tolerated or is a taboo subject in many furry communities. But it is obvious that furry is very much aimed at animals and I feel an overlap with zoophilia is only to be expected. BabyNuke 09:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Coming back to this, I do think that our visitor has a valid point. I don't see evidence for "many furries are zoophiles". But what is certain is that the article makes an assertation, namely that its "not many" and "5% is oft-cited", and it's up to the article to substantiate that, or at the least give whatever information editors do have on it, to the reader. If this is indeed "oft-cited" presumably there should be places in the furry community it's cited? or is it only cited verbally by individual furries when the topic comes up? Can we find some pointers to better sources than an anonymous "it's oft-cited" (that lacks a citation), from anyone who knows more of the furry community? FT2 (Talk 10:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, these are numbers I got from a poll on alt.lifestyle.furry, part of the "furvey" zetawoof mentioned:
 * "Yes, I am a zoophile" [1]    :  65 furs      = 28%
 * "No, I am not a zoophile"     : 146 furs      = 63%
 * "No, but I'm curious about it" : 21 furs      =  9%
 * That number supports my claim that zoophilia is more common amongst furries. I feel the group questioned (232 individuals) is sufficiently large for it to be representative. BabyNuke 14:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should include any numbers. The same question asked on alt.fan.furry would probably give a much lower rate of zoophiles, it all depends where and when (That survey is 8 years old!) you ask. --Conti|&#9993; 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, but it does show that zoophilia is more common amongst furries than the general public, which is something that could be mentioned without giving any numbers. Eight years old or not, there's no reason why this would no longer be the case now. BabyNuke 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't know that's so. Here are some examples of "confounds" (issues which could influence the apparent interpretation of the results):
 * It might be that although the same proportion of furries are zoophiles as in the general public, they feel more able to discuss it, so those who are zoophiles are more likely to speak up?
 * It might be that those who believe in "live and let live" form a higher proportion of furries than of the general culture (eg if furries themselves are a minority and contain many alternate sexualities) and therefore a large number of those who are not zoophiles did not post or have an interest in expressing an opinion?
 * It might be that many zoophiles tell their friends or ask them to vote, when the topic comes up, either because it's of special interest or to give the appearance of a higher proportion of zoophiles? It wouldn't take many to significantly influence the result.
 * It might be that there's a more subtle confound, a causuality relationship -- perhaps surveys on zoophilia/furry are much more likely to take place in furry communities with a significant zoophile presence (not an unreasonable possibility), because of being the one furry community that accepted zoophiles, or where zoophiles congregated, and therefore the few furry communities with such surveys are by definition very atypical of furry communities as a whole?
 * How about this as a footnote: "No definitive statistics exist, and much of the information is either anecdotal or swayed by questions of representativeness. (For example, do those who have no interest respond to such surveys as much as those who do?) Surveys such as LINK LINK LINK have consistently suggested that even allowing for positive bias, zoophiles are still a small minority amongst furries. Opinions are divided because of such questions, whether furries contain a higher than usual proportion of zoophiles, or about the same proportion. But either way it appears clear it is a minority either way."  FT2 (Talk 21:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how a minority or majority could be clear either way. If you mean minority as less than 50% then I would agree, but 'minority' is up to interpretation.  That footnote would be good and unbiased, minus that last sentence. 68.164.94.111 01:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How about The Sociology of Furry Fandom, which cites a 2% value? It is probably as close to a reliable source as you will get for a survey specifically of furry fans, and it states its methods. GreenReaper 20:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It surprises me is that this number is very different from the results from the "furvey". BabyNuke 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe that this link should not be added. It is nothing more than an ad site to purchase animal porn, and has nothing of educational substance to offer. zooskool is an excellent site because, while it does offer porn, it also offers valuable information about why zoo's are interested in the zoo lifestyle. Please do not readd this link.

Long article tag
I've removed this tag. The article body itself is well within the bounds of WP:SIZE, because its very specific that it's the main body of text, and readibility concerns that are at stake. A rough breakdown of article length is as follows:
 * Counted within the size calculation:
 * Main text -- 48 KB (7600 words)
 * Excluded from the size calculation:
 * Lists in the main text -- 9 KB (1350 words)
 * Footnotes -- 25 KB (4000 words)
 * Other reference sections -- 9 KB (1400 words) (books and articles, see also, links)
 * Non-counted characters -- about 8 KB (formatting, links, unicode, other language links, etc - my word counter reports 93 KB of actual displayed text, whereas there is about 101 KB of markup)

According to WP:SIZE the long article warning is not for technical purposes, but for stylistic (readability) reasons. Stylistically it's the main text (excluding reference information and lists) that is relevant to length, per WP:SIZE. With these excluded an article should be around 6 - 10k words (roughly 30 - 50 KB) before being considered "long", and this article is 7.6k words long, so the warning tag seems unnecessary.

Zoophilia & Islam!
in "Religious perspectives" is written:

"Views of zoophilia's seriousness in Islam seem to cover a wide spectrum. This may be because it is not explicitly mentioned or prohibited in the Qur'an, or because sex and sexuality were not treated as taboo in Muslim society to the same degree as in Christianity. Some sources claim that sex with animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to masturbation and lesbianism (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 link). A book "Tahrirolvasyleh", cited on the Internet, which quotes the Ayatollah Khomeini approving of sex with animals under certain conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery."

This is not right. zoophilia is Haram(forbidden)in islam; as stated:

"Passages in Leviticus 18 (Lev 18:23: "And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." RSV) and 20:15-16 ("If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." RSV) are cited by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality."

"sex and sexuality were not treated as taboo in Muslim society to the same degree as in Christianity" is also wrong.

"Some sources claim that sex with animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to masturbation and lesbianism " is also wrong. musturbation and lesbianism are also forbidden in Islam, and have punishment. I also didn't find it in the cited resource (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 link)

"A book "Tahrirolvasyleh", cited on the Internet, which quotes the Ayatollah Khomeini approving of sex with animals under certain conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery."

yes, it is a forgery. I have seen the "Tahrirolvasyleh", and zoophobia is not permitted under any condition, and even the animal should be killed in some conditions.


 * Given that this seems to be a serious book on sexuality in Islam, it's worth noting what it says:
 * "Female homosexuality (musahaqa), while equally condemned, is treated with relative indulgence ... only the same reprimand as those condemned for ... bestiality..."
 * A plain reading of that text implies that bestiality is "treated with relative indulgence" too. That is the view of one author, but it suggests, taken together with other sources, that views in Islam "seem to cover a wide spectrum". That is why the article states as it does. It's also notable that bestiality was widely condoned in Bedoin and Arab tribes. We can't be sure those were Muslim, but again, it is visible that it was never condoned in Christian or Jewish cultures. I'm not an ethnic expert though, to know if such cultures were Muslim. But taken together they do suggest that sexual acts with animals may at least have been treated somewhat differently under Arabic/Islamic cultures, than Christian ones, historically. It's also common for law and practice to differ. That is why it's described that way.
 * The possible forgery is stated as such, but at the last time the section was reviewed, no clear authority was found to confirm that either way. It seemed worth noting in case it was a forgery, that others would not be misled, and in case it was true that it was documented. FT2 (Talk 19:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm telling you, I have the book(Tahrirolvasileh), and I searched for the sentence above, but there wasn't such thing in the book! It's fake. bogus. forgery.


 * "...bestiality was widely condoned in Bedoin and Arab tribes. We can't be sure those were Muslim, but again, it is visible that it was never condoned in Christian or Jewish cultures. I'm not an ethnic expert though, to know if such cultures were Muslim..."

If some of the Cristians do something in contrary to the Cristian jurisprudence -as there are many instances in the past history, and at present-, would it be right to say "cristianity is such..."?! Even if it's true that "bestiality was widely condoned in Bedoin and Arab tribes", and if they were Muslims -and these claim are not verifiable WP:V, and thus can be deleted from wikipeadia- this doesn't mean that Islam accepts it. In all of the islamic jurisprudences(and even in Tahrirolvasileh!) zoophilia is Haram (forbidden). Maybe it was condoned in Arabs before Islam, but Islam prohibited and outlawed it.--Seraj 11:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's helpful. Could you do a favor and check the copy of the book you have. make sure it's the right volume or version, and provide the publisher, date of publication, and ISBN number. That's for verifiability purposes, so others can check it is bogus, as it is reported on the net and others will want to double check it.


 * However, I don't see a basis for deletion of valid information. That text is cited on the web, at the most what we now need to do is edit the text to say "confirmed false" rather than "possibly false". The rest of it, you have deleted without good reason, and this is why it's being reinstated.


 * As background, you are mistaken in your assumption. Bestiality was confirmed as tolerated by Arab/Bedouin cultures well into the 18 - 19th centuries, a thousand years after the rise and dominance of Islam in the region, by a variety of anthropologists. Sources for this are in the related article Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia. What is being stated of Islam is the same as was stated of Christianity -- the range of opinions of writers on the religion and sexuality, and observation:
 * Authors on sex and Islam state a range of views from "abhorrance" to "relative indulgence". For Christianity and Judaism, I am not aware of any writer who stated "relative indulgence" is permissible.
 * In Christianity almost all incidents of bestiality in the culture were treated as a very serious offence, with death or at least 10+ year imprisonment the norm for persons found to engage in such acts, of any age. In a variety of Arabic/Bedouin cultures it was commonplace or accepted that young herders would have sexual relationships with animals. This was confirmed by a variety of anthropologists and sexologists such as Miner and DeVos, Havelock-Ellis, Kocher, Mondiere and can be checked on the Berlin sexuality institute's encyclopedia of sexual practices.


 * What is stated of Islam is quite specific. It is stated that bestiality is not specifically mentioned in the Qur'an. You haven't disagreed with this. If it is, please cite a chapter or verse or section. It states that although not explicitly mentioned, bestiality is nonetheless generally denounced by Muslim theologians, the same as Christian and Jewish theologans. This is no different from what you say above so I assume it's not disputed. It states that views of those writers cover a wide range, that some treat it with "abhorrance", and others treat it with "relative indulgence". This seems accurate, especially as an example of that wide range by a writer on Islam and sexuality has been quoted. So I'm not really seeing anywhere that the current text is in error. FT2 (Talk 11:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The OBVIOUS wrong state is "views of those writers cover a wide range, that some treat it with "abhorrance", and others treat it with "relative indulgence". This seems accurate, especially as an example of that wide range by a writer on Islam and sexuality has been quoted."

AND "Views of zoophilia's seriousness in Islam seem to cover a wide spectrum...Some sources claim that sex with animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to masturbation and lesbianism (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/bouhdiba.htm). A book "Tahrirolvasyleh", cited on the Internet, which quotes the Ayatollah Khomeini approving of sex with animals under certain conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery."

1. I didn't find it in the cited resource (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam None of the Islamic sources http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/bouhdiba.htm)

2. I have seen Tahrirolvasileh from the right publisher. There's no such thing in the book.--Seraj 06:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

...and I didn't find the "Berlin sexuality institute's encyclopedia of sexual practices" book. neither in http://www.amazon.com, nor http://books.google.com. I also searched http://www.chapters.indigo.ca. Does this book exists?!

In addition, note that in the 5th it says "Homosexuality (liwat) incurs the strongest condemnation. It is identified with zina and it is advocated that the most horrible punishment should be applied." But in the 6th paragraph it says as quoted above, that bestiality is not so heavily punished, and is considered on a par with masturbation. This contrast also tends to support that statement.
 * This is why I ask you to check more carefully.
 * The cite you say "I didn't find" is not only quoted above, it's also in the 6th paragraph of the page link you give too. Please recheck.
 * This is why I asked, "Could you do a favor and check the copy of the book you have. make sure it's the right volume or version, and provide the publisher, date of publication, and ISBN number." You still haven't. It's the 4th volume that's relevant. The one that some people say exists, others say does not. That is why I would like enough information to verify this myself. At present the article says "could be a forgery", which is accurate. And you do need to re-read comments rather than just react, that this is widespread and noted on the net, so deletion is inappropriate. This was mentioned before.
 * As for the Berlin source, you need to read the whole article. The sources are provided there, as well as (above) a link to the other article with other relevant sources. I can't make you read them, though. You have the links. Go use them and research carefully. Ask if you have more questions.
 * FT2 (Talk 07:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Line drawings
68.88.200.230 added some line drawings found on commons, a change which was reverted. Now, I can understand the reason for the revert, on the other hand, the images aren't exactly hardcore pornography and are a more realistic depiction of bestiality than the current artwork. I'd incorporate them in to the article, even if I do understand people finding this objectionable. Feelings? BabyNuke 13:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My primary concern is that the line drawings in question look a lot like they were scanned from a printed source - in other words, a probable copyvio. (Yes, I'm aware that the images in question are tagged with a free license - but I'm still kind of suspicious, and curious where they came from if they are freely licensed.) Beyond that, I'm honestly not that sure how well those four images represented the variety of things which zoophiles do. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 10:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, perhaps - obviously it's impossible to say for sure what the source is. Possibly the uploader could elaborate. As for the acts - the goat image seems a bit odd but the others seem reasonable. BabyNuke 10:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added the source info you requested to the drawing's information page

"There has been some concern as to where this line art came from. I can assure you that I (Human_sexuality78) am the originator of this work. This is my drawing that I have provided. And I turn it over to the wikipedia commons for any sort of use."

I hope this reduces the confusion. If you have any requests for additional drawings I'll see what I can do. (Note: My user ID is from the commons). Human_sexuality78 12 November 2006


 * You'll have to excuse me for remaining somewhat skeptical about the sources of these images. How were they created? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 08:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I drew them. There is no source and I'm afraid that because of this, it makes it very hard to prove. I suppose you could have me draw something, then you'd see that I'm the creator of these works. Human_sexuality78 (commons) 13 November 2006


 * Fair enough in my opinion. BabyNuke 14:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Proven copyright violation
I've just confirmed that at least two of these images are tracings of commercial publicity stills. As they aren't freely redistributable, I haven't uploaded them to Wikipedia; however, confirmations are available at my personal site:
 * Image:Zoophilia Man Sex with Dog.png is a tracing of http://petlust.com/images/previews/M25-11.jpg: overlay available at http://zeta.woofle.net/Zoophilia_Man_Sex_with_Dog-trace.jpeg
 * Image:Zoophilia Man Sex with Goat.png is a tracing of http://petlust.com/images/previews/M21-08.jpg: overlay available at http://zeta.woofle.net/Zoophilia_Man_Sex_with_Goat-trace.jpeg

I haven't tried to find sources for the other four, but it's pretty much a given that they're traces as well: all six images are done in the same unusual style. As such, I'm removing that image from the introduction and working on getting them deleted from the Commons. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, and relevant policy from WP:FU:
 * Simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free.
 * Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, let's then at least find a more suitable image than "Lena and the swan". Odd that tracing a photo is a copyright violation though. BabyNuke 11:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the image should depict the reality of this activity, not a motif from Greek mythology, in which Zeus came to Leda in the form of a swan. It's très tasteful, I'm sure, but could appear to be an attempt to gussy up this page - more pamphleteering, readers may think. I know there is some art somewhere, old art from 17/18th century, that depicts the reality of bestiality. I'll see if I can find something on the 'net and upload it. Skoppensboer 11:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here we go, take your pick. The website claims these paintings are up to 1,000 years old. Some examples:     Skoppensboer 17:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure if those would qualify as fair use. Some of them would work though, others still seem too artistic. BabyNuke 17:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Those ancient works are in the public domain, surely. No need for fair use at all. Skoppensboer 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Only applies if they're actually unembellished pictures of ancient artwork, of course. Which isn't a given - I wouldn't be surprised if there had been some significant touchup work. You'd probably better ask them before you snag it. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 20:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Health and Disease Issues
Health and Disease issues must not be trivialised, minimized or glossed over. Many of the edits made to this section have attempted to hide the consequences of the behaviour from readers. First the markers that defined subheadings for each disease were removed, then text was amended to imply that the threat is small. But the threat is NOT small. For instance, while Brucellosis infections are relatively rare in the USA (~100 per year), they are very common in many other countries (it causes more than 500,000 infections per year worldwide), and in these countries sexual contact with, say, a dog, would most likely lead to infection. Brucellosis can kill but more commonly, it disables --a truly horrible disease! It is a chronic debilitating illness with extensive morbidity. Skoppensboer 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder about that. None of the diseases mentioned seem to be a true STD, so I wonder if they can be seen as risks specific to sexual contact with animals, or if you could also just get them from frequent close contact with animals in general. I'd believe so. I suppose research on it isn't available though. BabyNuke 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wonder no longer. Animal semen is a potent vector for some of these diseases, and fellating or rimming an animal exposes humans to many times the number of, for instance, toxocara larvae, than would normally be the case in everyday life. The CDC (see page on toxocara) only call toxocariasis a mild disease in adults because they do not expect adults to be eating dirt like a child would, and so the exposure is expected to be small. I suspect the CDC would give far more urgent guidelines about this disease, which can threaten eyesight, if they knew that it could be an STD. Skoppensboer 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I need to add that the edits I removed had an inexplicably US-centric slant, as if all the readers of this page are US residents. That is not the case. Just because a disease is relatively rare in the USA does not mean the WP should be written to suit that one audience. This is ethnocentrism at its worst. There are about 192 other countries to consider. Skoppensboer 19:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's without a doubt healthrisks, but it can't be said this view can be considered neutral either. By deleting the statement that "Most of these are transmissible in everyday life, and are known to farmers and the like, and occasionally seen by vets." it makes it seem that these diseases are bestiality-specific. Dog roundworm is labelled as a "major problem", whilst it is in general considered to be benign and can be obtained in various ways, sexual contact probably not being the most common one. I am not interested in fighting a POV war, so I am not going to edit the section again. Criticism is welcome as this article often tends to be a bit pro-bestiality, but be careful not to push it to the other side either. BabyNuke 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with you inserting a statement along the lines that these diseases can be contracted in various ways, not only through sexual contact, although it must be highlighted that the intimacy of sexual contact makes transmission much more likely, as explained above. In the case of the nastiest disease, brucellosis, semen and blood are specific risk factors, so sexual contact greatly increases the risk. Skoppensboer 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

-

I think you're misrepresenting the issue. The majority of the edits you reverted were ones which gave specific information regarding the relevance of these diseases to bestiality. For example, in the section on brucellosis, you removed the text:
 * "It is most common amongst cattle, and in puppy farms and breeding establishments lacking proper medical controls, with the secretions of pregnant animals being a common carrier."

- which gave relevance to the disease in this article - with some generic text describing treatment for brucellosis, which really belongs in an article on brucellosis in general, as it's in no way specific to brucellosis contracted through sexual contact. Let's continue: Above that, you removed a citation (!) on zoonotic diseases. Below the section on brucellosis, you reinserted some totally redundant content ("ocular involvement can cause loss of visual acuty" - gee, really? worms in your eye can cause you to not see well?) and reinserted another redundant sentence at the end ("allergic reactions [...] may include a severe allergic reaction" - no kidding?).

The US-centrism which you're citing as a reason for reverting is a red herring. Inserting information about the relevance of these diseases in the US isn't "US-centrism" - it's adding context where none existed. Please read before you revert. The main changes made were cleaning up and expanding upon your contribution, not "whitewashing" it. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Brucellosis is vectored by semen. It's a major threat to anyone handling animal semen, such as people doing animal husbandry in the form of artificial insemination. Do some research before spouting off. Talking solely about "puppies" and "pregnant animals" minimizes the risk and must not stand. It is extremely common in dogs in many countries, so citing cattle is irrelevant and tends to minimize risk, once again 2) The effects on the eye are very important and should not be deleted. 3) The possibility of anaphylaxis, a reaction that can cause death, to animal secretions is a serious health threat and should be mentioned. It is not a vanishingly rare occurrence either. 4) Modifying this international encyclopaedia for the US audience is not wise unless you preface such comments with text that allows non-US readers to realize you are talking about a particular country. Please discuss all future edits here first. Skoppensboer 04:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The term "brucellosis" is most commonly used to refer to Brucella abortis, a bacterium which affects cattle and other ruminants: see the eponymous article. Brucella canis - which is, in fact, a separate organism from Brucella abortis - is most common in dogs involved in breeding programs (references available if necessary), as it spreads primarily "through breeding and contact with aborted fetuses" (again, quoted directly from Brucellosis). It's virtually unknown in the household pet population in the US - this is probably worth mentioning, just as one might mention that, while mosquitoes can carry malaria, it's only a threat in certain regions such as sub-Saharan Africa.


 * "...spreads primarily "through breeding and contact with aborted fetuses" - you seem intent on making my case for me. Skoppensboer 06:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mentioning that an allergic reaction can cause anaphylaxis is redundant. Anaphylaxis is a term used to refer to the immune response present in any allergic reaction. Anaphylactic shock may be what you mean, but that's still really a non-sequitir - anaphylactic shock can occur as a response to any severe allergy; there's nothing specific about animals' bodily fluids (semen, vaginal secretions, etc) which makes the risk any different or any worse than any other allergy. Animal allergies can cause anaphylactic shock, but so can any other allergy.
 * Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Zetawoof, I find your comments unhelpful and inaccurate. I know exactly what I'm referring to when I use the term anaphylaxis, whereas you apparently do not. Semen IS a specific risk factor, as the scientific literature shows (see my citation on main page). I'm afraid I shall not respond to you further because there's just too much polemic and unscientific confusion in your arguments for me to pursue this. Sorry. Skoppensboer

-


 * The exact texts that are in contention are below:

While standard STDs – syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes – are human-to-human, not animal-to-human, any zoonotic diseases [those transmitted between animals and humans] that people could get through casual contact with animals, they could also get through sex.
 * The problem with this reassuring sentence is that it misses the point that the intimacy of sexual contact vastly increases the transmission of many diseases. Skoppensboer 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. That sentence already says more or less what you're recommending: Human STDs don't exist in animals, but some zoonotic diseases can be transmitted through sex. I don't exactly see how you're reading this as "reassuring". Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a separate concern with this. It's got too much loose wording for an alarmist statement. "Vastly increases" for "many" diseases is a very strong expression. Does it?  For "many" diseases? Which ones are at "vastly" increased risk (however this is defined) compared to intimate but non-sexual contact (farming, animal care, usual pet ownership or animal love, etc)? FT2 (Talk 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

... that sometimes gives false negatives, and double testing is required according to the CDC.
 * This text must stay, for it alerts people to the possible inadequacy of simple blood tests. I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but this is reality. Skoppensboer 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure how it's directly relevant, though. The source doesn't even say that this is due to the "inadequacy" of such tests - it just recommends that two tests be performed. For all we know, the test could be perfect, and the double testing could be there to exclude the possibility of reinfection. In any case, that's general information which probably belongs on brucellosis, not here. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Details on brucellosis testing regime belong in brucellosis. This is excessive and remote detail for the main zoophilia article. There's no conspiracy -- other material (on both sides of the debate) is brevified too, for identical reasons. FT2 (Talk 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of these are not sexually transmitted diseases and therefore not specific to zoophilia; for example, rabies is transmitted through the bite of an infected animal, and Lyme disease is transmitted when ticks are brought into the home by pets.
 * Keep that sentence if you add that zoophilia increases the risk of transmission, or else the effect is to minimise the perception of risk, and encourage risky behavior. Skoppensboer 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So, then, why did you remove it rather than fixing it? More to the point, though, the assertion that the risk of transmission is increased by sexual contact is unsubstantiated. There is, for example, no verifiable evidence that Lyme disease can be transmitted sexually at all, even in humans; evidence of transmissibility between animals and humans is entirely lacking. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm unaware of any evidence that ownership and close contact plus sex increases the risk of rabies and lyme disease, compared to (say) ownership and close contact without sex? The original sentence seems entirely accurate, the concern of editors is not to bias our articles in order to encourage or discourage any activity, but rather, it is simply to provide information. The diseases where increased risk seems plausible or documented should state this; but those where it is not at increased risk or there is no (or inadequate) evidence or increased risk should not be exaggerated to say that such increase exists. FT2 (Talk 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

and these may include a severe allergic reaction or anaphylaxis
 * Why would you want to remove this simple medical fact? Unless, of course, you have an agenda here. Skoppensboer 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Answered this one above. Anaphylaxis is an allergic reaction. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting question would be: are the health risks of intercourse with animals greater than that of intercourse with humans? Especially if you want to use it as an arguement against bestiality, this would be interesting to know. BabyNuke 22:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Allergies to animal fluids can include allergic reaction. But this seems relatively uncommon, and relatively few people report "severe" allergies to animal fluids, much less anphylactic shock as this sentence seems to imply. Again, there is a strong sense of exaggeration of risk and severity when I read the present suggested edits. FT2 (Talk 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment on health issues - summarize and brevify
User:Skoppensboer commented: "Why would you want to remove this simple medical fact? Unless, of course, you have an agenda here."

Its important to note that we, as editors, should neither encourage nor discourage any specific behavior. It's relevant to report what may happen, and also relevant to report if this is common or rare in different places (Skoppensboer's point which I agree). But it's also important to balance the article, and to summarize the several views that seem to have come up. These seem to be the key points in the current debate on zoonoses:


 * 1) Zoonotic diseases exist and are common in many countries, so in many countries there is perhaps significant risk if engaging in sex with animals of unknown health.
 * 2) In others, including most of North America and Europe, most zoonotic conditions of serious concern to humans are comparatively rare and will not often be encountered by domestic pet owners, and there is little risk. So the risk in such countries should not be exaggerated.
 * (The low incidence of notifiable diseases such as brucellosis in North American and European countries compared to the millions of people believed to be practicing zoophilia in those countries, may put the risk in some kind of context.)
 * 1) Most diseases which might be vectored through zoophilia, can and usually are caught through non-sexual contact. So the risk to be aware of is of easier transmission if the animal engaged sexually happens to be a carrier of some sexually-transmissible illness.
 * 2) Animals kept as domestic pets in general good health are (in the West especially) least likely to be covert carriers of dangerous diseases.
 * 3) There has been no specific study of health risk in zoophilia.

"Zoophilia" is a broad article that has to cover a lot of material. Health issues are comparatively a small part of a large field. It may be worth moving the detail to an article "Health implications of human-animal sexuality" if the full detail is really important and if it's not provided in existuing articles (which I think it probably is). But in this article the detail provided is just too much for good balance and readability in an article on zoophilia.

We do not need to give all details of all diseases. That belongs on pages dealing with the specific diseases concerned. This article has had a lot of material brevified, and this section needs that too. It's pretty inappropriate to list each and every disease in detail for this article. I would suggest therefore a simple summary as follows, for zoonotic illnesses:


 * "Conditions which people can catch from animals vary by country. In many countries conditions such as brucellosis, a disease often associated with cattle and dogs, are endemic and may infect a significant number of animals, whilst in other countries such as North America and Europe the same diseases may be comparatively rare (according to notifiable disease reporting statistics), and are often not an issue in a domestic context. Such diseases may not show symptoms. Zoonoses are usually transmitted non-sexually when humans catch them, and are well known to farmers and breeders. For the majority of zoonoses, sexual contact would not be a specific high-risk factor (non sexual intimacy or high levels of close contact would be an almost-equal risk), but for a few conditions, sexual activity or body fluids may create a significantly elevated risk of transmission. Examples of zoonotic diseases include:
 * Brucellosis - dangerous, infectious and potentially life threatening in humans. Very rare in North America (100 cases/year USA, 500,000 cases/year worldwide), but carried by up to 10% of dogs in many countries. May not show symptoms. Double blood testing required for diagnosis according to CDC.
 * Dog Roundworm (Toxocariasis) - infects the intestines and feces of almost all puppies at or shortly after birth, where the mother is herself infected, and easily caught by dogs thereafter through contact with infected feces of other dogs. Generally benign to dogs, and routinely removed by means of worming tablets. The zoonotic illness involved, T. canis, is almost always a benign, asymptomatic, and self-limiting disease in humans, although (rarely) brain, ocular, pulmonary or hepatic involvement can cause severe and potentially life-threatening conditions.
 * Other dog-bourne diseases - a variety of diseases can be transmitted by dogs to humans. Sexual activity may increase the transmission risk in some cases. In others the disease is transmitted by parasites (eg, tick or insect bites) rather than body fluids and there is no increase in risk.

This is a short, simple, accurate summary of zoonoses. I think given the balance of the article, the section needs to be summarised. Details on all the above as ever are accessible through the usual internal wikilinks for anyone seeking further reading. FT2 (Talk 04:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * FT2, I like your concise summary, albeit with the following caveats:
 * 1) brucellosis is very common in parts of Europe, so remove "Europe" from your initial paragraph. Additionally, since this is by far the worst disease you can catch without getting bitten (rabies), the fact that semen and blood are laden with bacteria, and are thus to be avoided in endemic countries, should not be overlooked or minimised by stating that "Zoonoses are usually transmitted non-sexually when humans catch them...For the majority of zoonoses, sexual contact would not be a specific high-risk factor (non sexual intimacy or high levels of close contact would be an almost-equal risk)." Both T. canis and brucellosis are Skoppensboer 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Brucellosis is much more likely to be transmitted with sexual contact. I really believe that stating that sexual contact is as risky as casual contact is as dishonest and misleading as saying the same about human-to-human disease transmission. I can name any number of diseases you can get with far greater frequency by having sex with someone rather than shaking their hand and saying "Hello". Please, let's not play games.
 * 2) In all cases, make wikilinks of the relevant diseases
 * 3) do not lose the helpful and informative CDC and other links I provide in paragraph one that allow the interested readers to explore further
 * 4) Anaphylaxis, a life-threatening event, which I now use with a perfect citation on the page, is not that uncommon on exposure to animal semen. Doing a little research, today I found a website called Beast Forum that has at least two posters asking about what are clearly episodes of anaphylaxis in their "Zoophilia" section (hives, dizziness, swelling, painful rash, difficulty breathing). Others members of that website actually encouraged the posters to repeat their contact with the animals, a course of action that may literally kill. I believe this sort of dangerous ignorance would be counteracted by a proper wiki page.
 * 5) The statement "variety of diseases" could be linked to a footnote that lists them.
 * 6) The physical threats (not my edit) should be left intact. Skoppensboer 05:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am also absolutely agreeable to the entire health and safety section getting its own separate wiki page. I think the subject matter is serious enough to warrant it, if it is to be covered in depth. Skoppensboer 06:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding brucellosis, here's an anecdote that may be useful: I once saw a TV program on a female artist, whose name I forget, and who lived in Spain with her young boyfriend and a pack of dogs. She had cat-like tattoos all over her face and her paintings mostly depicted tasteful renditions of her bestiality fetish. This woman nearly died from brucellosis, as she related in a later TV interview. It took a year of antibiotic treatment to recover. Now that's just one person, but this is not an area of special interest to me, and yet I've already come across the phenomenon in the general media - an ominous sign. Does anyone know this person's name? Skoppensboer 06:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let us never lose sight of the fact that the plague of modern times, HIV/AIDS, started off in animals and was transmitted to humans in Africa, probably via the consumption of improperly cooked "bush meat". Had the Africans had sex with the primates instead of eating them, the transmission would also have occurred. Terrible diseases can be and are transmitted from animal to man, and the closer the contact with the animal is, the more likely we'll contract the disease/s the animal is/may be carrying. This is true of any sort of disease: viral, parasitical, bacterial etc. Pick any disease ... leptospirosis, let's say. Do a search for "leptospirosis semen" and you'll see that animal semen is the main vector and risk factor. So it goes for many animal (and human) diseases. In addition, bestialists mouth kiss animals, fellate them, and carry their sperm in their rectums and vaginas. This is infinitely more dangerous than patting a dog on the head and saying "Nice dog." So sorry to have to break this to you, but someone has to say it. And this information should not be suppressed by people with sexual fetishes who are attempting to create a pro-bestiality atmosphere on this page. Skoppensboer 06:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I wanted to watch the debate a while before diving in, to see what issues come up. My main concern is the appearance of 'original research' or "OR", (wishes or views of individual editor masquerading as verified neutrally presented fact), which is what needs checking before any final edits. Thoughts on the specific points mentioned are:
 * How much and which parts of Europe are "very common" for bvrucellosis? Some examples? Are we talking Eastern and Southern Europe, or Western European countries such as UK, France, Germany, Holland, etc as well? How common is "very common" there, do we have any stats on it?


 * From the CDC:


 * I'm concerned about stating that zoonoses are "much more likely to be transmitted with sexual contact". Even if true for T.canis and brucellosis (as you cite), these are only two of many zoonotic infections, I don't see evidence that any more than a minority of zoonotic diseases have significantly elevated risk via sexual contact (compared to say prolonged and close nonsexual contact). Your evidence seems to be "I really believe..." but what you believe isn't the point, we need more than what some wikipedia editor believes to add such a view to the article. Even amongst the two infections you state are elevated risk with sex, one is dubious: T.canis is intestinal and so far as I am aware not a high risk to be obtained through either penile penetration of a human by a male dog, or vaginal intercourse with a female dog (I might be wrong, but as far as Im aware there's little evidence that any of canine sperm, the usually-concealed part of the canine penis, or the interior of the canine vagina, are likely key vectors for roundworms, all sites mention feces as the main vector). Your comment on this ends by analogy with human sex: " I can name any number of diseases you can get with far greater frequency by having sex with someone rather than shaking their hand" which again is only useful in terms of specialised infections from human to human. Its too much an attempt to apply personal "X is a risk, so my opinion is Y is a big risk too" logic and personal concerns, to a scenario where the ground assumptions differ. You just can't do this kind of fallacious inductive step in a Wikipedia article without good grounds.


 * If we need to grade each of the dozen or so infections mentioned according to their elevated risk of spread through zoophilic activities, I'm prepared to take the time to do the research to do that. I'll grant you that T. canis was not the best example and we can't have inductive reasoning in WP. If you want more exact data, I'll get it. Skoppensboer 15:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Anaphylaxis can kill (anaphylactic shock). Its pretty rare to be that seriously allergic (except for a few well known allegens such as nuts or bee stings, a list not known to include animal fluids). I've just checked your source, and good job on the research. My concern is that beastforum today states it has 254822 users, a relatively plausible number if there are nearly 500 simultaneously online at this moment. Of these 1/4 million, two represent themselves having allergy issues, and even for them you haven't provided the citations to show how serious the issue was. It seems to me if the issue was clinically serious, they wouldn't be asking about how to repeat their activity; they would either be in hospital, dead, or swearing never to go near animals again. Allergic reactions vary and a person who has a mild to moderate reaction to some allergen on one occasion (0.001% of Beastforum by your sample?) is still by no means visibly evidenced as being at any significant risk of "a course of action that may literally kill". Again, this seems alarmist, and merely confirms what's already known about allergies, that allergic reactions to animal fluids are uncommon, and within allergic reactions strong/potentially fatal allergic reactions are very much a tiny minority.


 * Let's reduce this to its essentials: animal sperm allergy exists, and it can be serious. Anaphylactic reactions can occur and get do progressively worse, no matter what the allergen involved. The first reaction may leave you wheezing and covered in hives, do it again and you'll die. This is not an exaggeration, and anaphylaxis should not be removed from the article. We cannot use Beast Forum stats to decide what to include and exclude. PubMed is a far better source. Even if one in 1000 people are at risk, it should be mentioned. If it's "too much detail", then I suggest a separate page for health concerns. Skoppensboer 15:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking up Beastforum again is instructive in regard to zoonotic risk. In 250,000 members, and 1.3 million posts, can you let me know the proportion of (presumably bestialists/zoophiles) who report having encountered a zoonotic disease through a sexual vector? I've just checked on www.zoophile.org and in close to 2000 threads there isn't one mention of a person who wants to ask if their disease came from sex, or let others know they caught a (significant?) disease via sex, or has a concern some (noteworthy) disease was received from sex, even though people there do regularly ask and let others know of all other types of information. The conclusion I come to is the same conclusion others seem to have come to -- such conditions transmitted sexually are vanishingly rare, at least amongst English-speaking countries such as North America, Australasia, and Europe, where such forums have the majority of their members.


 * Once again, Beast Forum is not a definitive source, with over 80-90% of its contributors from the USA, an area of relatively low risk for most zoonoses. I know it's hard to think globally, but we must. Secondly, people do not trumpet their medical problems on such eroticism-oriented fora, as should be obvious. Skoppensboer 15:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You end with 2 bullet points, both of which are pretty much just personal experience. You have come across a brucellosis victim in the media. I've come across things in the media in the course of my life that are also vanishingly rare. I haven't come across brucellosis in the media, but that doesn't seem to be proof of anything either. I'm not sure what it proves except that you are media aware and the media emphasises the unusual and eyecatching (even if extremely rare) over the mundane. Likewise your point about HIV may be an important point in politics, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, our job isn't to judge the need to exaggerate to warn people off, on the speculative basis that it might (or indeed might not) eventually lead to emergence of some possible disease that would scourge humanity. (And the obvious opposing view is that probably over the thousands of years of intimate daily contact, including large periods of time where bestiality was not uncommon worldwide, and including free transmission of fluids, breeding, blood, killing, and such, anything serious that dogs or other common domestic species could transmit to people, has already evolved and transmitted and become part of the human world.) We can't write the article slanted because of a speculative risk that if we don't exaggerate someone may have sex with an animal leading to a plague of some new disease. Thats not what Wikipedia's about.


 * With 500,000 new brucellosis infections annually, you shouldn't be using the term "vanishingly rare" in this regard. I made the error of including an anecdote to illustrate the definite possibility of infection occurring in zoophiles, since many here seem to believe the whole idea of infection is trumped up and agenda-driven on my part, and now this is used against me as an example of POV thinking? Come on. The HIV comment was also meant to underline the reality of zoonotic risk. There are also emerging zoonotic risks, like equine-borne viral diseases that are poorly understood at this juncture. People do have sexual contact with horses, as we know, and there is a risk in this regard of a new HIV-type disease emerging, e.g. Hendra virus and other novel zoonotic viral diseases Skoppensboer 15:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Last, notice the exaggeration in the same paragraph, "infinitely more dangerous". It's indicative of the same problem. Your concept of "infinity" seems to need careful rethinking.


 * My hyperbole is for effect. This is not the WP page, it's the discussion page Skoppensboer 15:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally, your final comment, "So sorry to have to break this to you, but someone has to say it. And this information should not be suppressed by people with sexual fetishes who are attempting to create a pro-bestiality atmosphere on this page" - please be aware that using Wikipedia to further an agenda (either for or against any stance) is not okay.


 * I have no agenda against bestiality, but I do have an agenda against ignorance and tragic illness. Skoppensboer 15:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (You might also want to read No personal attacks whilst on this subject, since you are presumably accusing specific editors of bad faith editorship.)


 * Someone before me (see above) mentioned the pro-bestiality slant this page has long had. I'm not the only one to see it. Skoppensboer 15:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As you can now begin to appreciate, this page has stabilised in the way it has, mostly because it has been carefully balanced by many editors over time, to present valid (rather than exaggerated) information on each side, and both sides of any debate. If your concern is that somehow there is a conspiracy to present a "pro bestiality" page, then you need to stop and look hard at your edits, because in the same way Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to push for pro-bestiality agendas, it's also not an appropriate place to push an anti-bestiality agenda via exaggerated statements or personal opinion through the health issue. Neither side and no information needs exaggeration here. People will rely on the information given, and to exaggerate a danger in a covert attempt to present an agenda against such acts (however well-meaning), would be as wrong as using the article to present an agenda for them. FT2 (Talk 11:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I repeat, I have no agenda against bestiality, but I do have an agenda against ignorance and tragic illness. Skoppensboer 15:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edit of Health and Safety Issues, discuss
Here is my current proposed edit, please comment:


 * Skoppensboer 19:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nearly there. Cut the bit about the brucellosis blood test giving false negatives - that's a given for all blood tests, and there's no evidence in the linked page that it's any more common than usual, as I mentioned earlier. (The linked page says that double testing should be performed. Whether that's to rule out false negatives, to check for reinfection, or something else, though, is entirely a guess.) There's some other work to be done to distinguish better between B. canis and B. abortus in that section, though. Then, in the section on "general dog-borne diseases", something should be said about those diseases not being specifically sexually transmitted. It's significantly more general, and more useful, to just note that a number of other diseases can be transmitted between animals and humans - no need to be canid-centric here. :) Zetawoof(&zeta;) 22:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Blood test text modified. Modified canis/abortus text, and made a footnote thinking of making it a footnote (will investigate markup) . The proviso for "not being generally sexually transmitted" is catered for in para. 1, and note that some of the diseases, e.g. leptospirosis, is specifically transmitted by semen. Yes, the text is a little canid-centric, but this is based on a poll at aforementioned forum that showed the majority of zoophiles engaged in canid-oriented sexual practices. Skoppensboer 22:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved dog roundworm to "General" area since it is of limited significance in this context. Skoppensboer 23:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Beginning attempt to codify disease by transmission type to help readers isolate sexually transmitted from other. Using color coding as per allowed by Manual of Style.


 * Color works nicely for a table, like the article's got right now. For running text, though, it's a little bit garish. (I actually rather like the tabular treatment - it's probably superior to the paragraph on dog-borne diseases that's drafted above.) Zetawoof(&zeta;) 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

New table format works well for me too. FT2 (Talk 06:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Continued attempts to nullify health issues

 * I reversed the changes made by FT2 on the grounds of "saving space" (very odd, when the page is otherwise chock-full of rambling drivel and hot air just begging to be culled, as numerous others have noted on these discussion pages). I shall continue to do so, and if this gets into a war I shall escalate it as far as I can. I believe the current edit is factual, informative, concise and fair. It took me a long time to put it all together. Looking back, I see that FT2 and this page's other habitual editors have allowed the health section to exist for a long time in an appalling format, and I quote from a few months ago: "Infections due to improper cleaning could be an issue for either party. Most viruses are specific to particular species and cannot be transmitted sexually, so humans and animals cannot catch many viral diseases from zoosexual acts." This misinformation and mealy-mouthed trivialization of peril borders on the criminal, like telling people not to bother wearing a condom when exposing themselves to HIV (a zoonosis itself!). "Improper cleaning" - pshaw! I have to wonder why it was allowed to exist in this blatantly incorrect form by the perennial editors of this page, like FT2 (who professes in his User Page to have a special interest in Science issues!) Skoppensboer 19:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It would help if, instead of seeing antagonism, you would look to see that we have all been pretty much working on the same "side" as editors. In the course of this article, several sections have been cut down, often significantly, and others have over time only developed when specific attention has focussed upon them. For example, the health section you are focussed upon, was introduced by JAQ in his January 2005 edit (before after), which was a brevifying edit and reworking of the article.


 * In the same edit, the entire section of research was taken out of the article. Perhaps that will give you some idea how tight space has been considered here - that the actual core research of the entire field was removed in order to leave room for other key points in the article. You can see that in the same diff. You'll also see that it was not contested by myself or others; because by consensus the article needed trimming down and some sacrifices of space were needed.


 * There clearly has been little to no attempt to save space in this article in a rigorous way. I'm thinking of calling for some sort of admin oversight to cut some of the fat and bloat from it. I see a lot of baroque flourishes that only people who are themselves involved with this fetish (I see zoophilia as a fetish, although it's a paraphilia in DSM-IV, but either way it's classed as a mental disorder by psychiatrists) would entertain or find relevant. This article seems to have become a place for members of the public with a rich fantasy life in this area to expand upon their obsessive thoughts and encourage each other. That's my honest impression. I'm not "sickened" by this article, as many commentators have stated, but I do find it to have strayed off course, away from encyclopedic towards something else. Definitely. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Far from "mealy mouthed trivialization bordering on the criminal", the health and safety section was made possible by that loss of other important research information, and contained in summary the key information that a person researching the field might expect in an encyclopedia article. That is why it was short; space was at that tight a premium. As Wikipedia states, it is not a medical guide, and it was agreed the article on zoophilia did not need to rehash all known information on clinical conditions which may be better suited to their own articles. The edit by JAQ and writing of the medical information was agreed by consensus, and has stood by consensus. The facts stated in it are accurate as best I can tell, and your current edits have not shown any great inaccuracies in any of them:


 * I find the H&S section is nothing more than a summary as it stands. Come on, FT2, we're talking about an activity that is about as serious medically as an activity can get. Interspecies sex = disease transmission central. Any veterinarian or doctor will tell you that. It's nonsensical to relegate these important albeit distasteful facts to stubs, footnote, or wikilinks, ostensibly to save space, but more likely because it clashes with the romanticized and proselytizing tone of the rest of the page. I could easily make the H&S section into an entire page of its own - do you want that? There's a LOT more detail I could add in. Wow, this is a huge subject, all the species, all the different diseases, methods of spread ... zoonosis would become a vast science with many zoonotic specialists if zoophilia became a really widespread activity. So no, ther is no way this tiny section contains "all known information on clinical conditions". Not even close, but nice try. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Most sexually-transmitted diseases are specific to particular species and cannot infect others (factually accurate). Some less common but treatable infections such as canine Brucellosis [LINK] can be transferred (factually accurate). Animals' standards of hygiene usually differ from humans', and as with intimate human-to-human contact, inadequate cleanliness can lead to infections [...] for either participant (factually accurate). Animals' and humans' bodily fluids are not inherently harmful to the other, but allergic reactions occasionally occur (factually accurate)."'''


 * "Most sexually-transmitted diseases are specific to particular species and cannot infect others (factually accurate) Factually inaccurate. Provide a link that states most sexually transmitted diseases (which include simian HIV, brucellosis, leptospirosis etc) are species-specific. It's not a statement I've come across anywhere, so it looks like original research. And even if in the main they were species-specific, the statement is an example of non-information designed to reassure rather than inform. Readers do not need to know vaguely that many diseases are species-specific, they need to know, urgently, that many major diseases are NOT species-specific, and that these diseases are in some instances very serious. That's why I said a lot of this is "mealy-mouthed". It's like inserting a sentence saying most people don't have HIV/AIDS onto a page about HIV/AIDS. What possible purpose could that serve other than obfuscation? People need to know factual risk statistics, not be vaguely reassured of non-risk ... unless your intention is to encourage the behaviour. "Some less common but treatable infections such as canine Brucellosis [LINK] can be transferred" (factually accurate) But vague, and not accurate for all areas of the world. Infection rates with canine brucellosis can run up to near 50% in places, so why are we deciding for the reader that this is a "less common" condition? Are we writing for the US audience again, showing our ethnocentrism once more? "Animals' standards of hygiene usually differ from humans', and as with intimate human-to-human contact, inadequate cleanliness can lead to infections [...] for either participant" (factually accurate) No, this is completely laughable nonsense, absolute rubbish in fact. Please put this comment to a MD or vet, if you know one, for comment. I simply cannot be bothered arguing science with someone who thinks personal hygiene would affect disease transmission outside of simple contagious diseases. "Animals' and humans' bodily fluids are not inherently harmful to the other, but allergic reactions occasionally occur" (factually accurate). 1) "Fluids are not harmful to each other"? What sort of absurd non sequitur is that? It reeks of more vague, irrelevant, unscientific "feel good", pro-bestiality twaddle to me. Allergic reaction is mentioned, but not the possibility of a severe reaction. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What you have done, is to make the existing statement more precise, and rigorous, and rounded the meduical side out, and that's valuable, and nobody has objected. But the original statement is fairly accurate and was written with balance in mind and supported by broad consensus. That it can be improved upon and made more clear does not make it appropriate to talk with hostility about the several authors nearly 2 years ago who wrote that section as it stood, and to make your dissatisfaction a source of exaggerated personal attack. And it is not appropriate to make threats to any editor (myself or others here) to make and escalate some kind of "war" on the basis of such hostility.


 * When I say "war", I mean escalation to admin powers. Their input here is sorely needed anyway, so keep on administering death by a thousand cuts to the H&S section and you'll drive me into their arms, leading in all likelihood to a severe curtailment of the excesses of the article. Your choice. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You then reverse the following edit en masse on the basis it is "wrong in many ways". Here are the two versions, with some differences highlighted:


 * {| border="1" cellpadding="5" width="90%"


 * Skoppensboer version
 * FT2 edit of that version
 * There are many infections that are transmissible between animals and humans, called zoonoses, as documented by the National Agricultural Safety Database (NASD) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Some of these diseases may be transferred through casual contact, but others are much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to the semen, saliva, feces and blood of animals. This means that sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity. It is advisable for practitioners of zoophilia to assess their relative risk, since risk varies for each species involved, for each disease mentioned below (and others not mentioned), and for each region in the world.
 * Infections that are transmissible between animals and humans are called zoonoses. Some of these diseases may be transferred through casual contact, including farming, breeding, or ordinary pet care, but a few are very easily transferred via semen, saliva, feces or blood of animals. Risk rates vary from extremely low (many western domestic pets) to moderate (certain countries or animals not subject to regular high quality veterinary care). In some countries, certain zoonoses have a fairly high endemic rate. This means that sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity. It is advisable for practitioners of zoophilia to assess their relative risk, since risk varies for each species involved, for each disease mentioned below (and others not mentioned), and for each region in the world. Further information on several well known zoonoses can be found on databases operated by the National Agricultural Safety Database (NASD) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
 * Each animal species may carry a specific range of diseases that can be transmitted to man. Some species, such as horses, carry emerging viral diseases in some regions of the world, for example Hendra virus.
 * It is possible, although uncommon, for animals to carry emerging viral diseases in some regions of the world. For example, Hendra virus was originally found to stem from flying foxes but is capable of transmission between horses and humans by means of "direct exposure to tissues and secretions from infected horses" . The first outbreak of hendra known to clinicians happened at a farm in Brisbane, Australia in 1994, and killed 13 horses and one human.
 * }
 * Each animal species may carry a specific range of diseases that can be transmitted to man. Some species, such as horses, carry emerging viral diseases in some regions of the world, for example Hendra virus.
 * It is possible, although uncommon, for animals to carry emerging viral diseases in some regions of the world. For example, Hendra virus was originally found to stem from flying foxes but is capable of transmission between horses and humans by means of "direct exposure to tissues and secretions from infected horses" . The first outbreak of hendra known to clinicians happened at a farm in Brisbane, Australia in 1994, and killed 13 horses and one human.
 * }


 * Perhaps you might point out the "many" errors of fact you are referring to? I can't see them.


 * The many errors are: 1) moving the paragraph on a disease (brucellosis) that threatens the most zoophiles worldwide to a footnote, a scandalous attempt at threat minimization and obfuscation in my eyes, especially since that paragraph itself contains many key footnotes in turn, that were then lost. 2) Introducing mealy-mouthed and misleading statements about diseases being transmitted through "ordinary pet care", when the table makes it clear that semen, vaginal fluids, urine and feces are involved. It's a total waste of space and an act of intellectual bastardry to imply that f**king an animal is really no more serious than brushing its fur, which is the impression a casual reader would get from phrases like "extremely low" (true in SOME western countries only). Then to highlight the Hendra virus (vanishingly rare) while banishing the info on brucellosis, you effectively allow readers to get the impression that zoonoses are, like Hendra (one human death), of little real significance to them. That was a really underhand move on your part: promoting to prominence a non-threat while hiding to footnote the biggest actual threat. But it was a transparent move. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, the right hand versions seem more factual, and balanced though, they start with a definition as is good practice as well. The alarmist tendency of your previous edits is at issue in the version you wrote, still. I'd be interested whether others have a preference for either versions of these paragraphs?


 * You characterize the current edit as "alarmist"? Please give the exact phrases that are alarmist, and I'll work on them. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Last, I come back to the approach. You need to tone down statements that could come over as personal attack or otherwise untoward aggression. For example, threats to escalate rather than collaborate if your view is not agrreable to others in some areas, and bad faith casting such as "allowed to exist" and such with associated finger pointing. As explained above, the rationale for space is a historic one on this article. The fact that your personal pet section is not necessarily able to take all the space it might need is addressed by my earlier comment (which you have agreed) that a separate article on health aspects of zoophilia may be valuable. That would be the appropriate approach. Not hostile editing and threats of edit warring. Not misdescribing edits as some attempt to "nullify". And not from someone who has already stated a preference for hyperbole and using Wikipedia's article to make a point and whose understanding of the subject is limited to lead them to describe the article as "chock-full of rambling drivel and hot air". Thats... not very likely to get anyone much respect. Your good points are respected, but that doesn't mean your edits are unable to be improved and made more neutral.


 * This is all argumentation and could equally apply to you. After all, who went ahead and completely rewrote the section without seeking any consensus here first, despite being so requested? Is this not the sort of behaviour likely to provoke disharmony? Think. Your sense of ownership of this page is a little inflated. Take a deep breath please. My other issue with the paragraph above is that some editors are so intent on expounding on their subject from a certain angle that for them, making an edit "more neutral" is tantamount to watering it down to suit an agenda of which they themselves may not be fully conscious. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In the meantime perhaps now the steam is blown off, you can revisit the two versions above and check if there really are "many errors" (and if so perhaps name them), and calm down, realise we're on the same team, and understand that what you see as well edited, others have seen as including exaggeration, hyperbole (by your own admission) and alarmist statements that are factually untrue at the extent claimed. That is why your edits are reworked, and rightly so. Not because of some cabal or conspiracy. FT2 (Talk 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

FT2 (Talk 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to reply to this at length in the next couple of days, so stand by. I understand what you are saying, but I have specific issues with some of your wording which, for me, has a reassuring tone that is utterly inappropriate and more than a little disturbing. I'll expand on this later. I also take issue with the relegation of the entire Brucellosis paragraph to a footnote, effectively banishing it from the casual reader's attention, when 1) canids are the most common animals involved with zoophiles and 2) in many countries, 10-45% of canids are carriers of this awful disease. But it's a long weekend, and I'll go into details later. Meantime, study the current version of the Health and Safety section as it stands, then scan carefully through the rest of the page and ask yourself what material may sensibly and profitably be cut. I can spot a lot of flatulence and argumentation, can you? Skoppensboer 04:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One more quick thing: the creation of the floated table to the right was done with the express purpose of greater clarity and space saving. The text to the left of the table is almost the same length as the table, so it is a specious argument to say that deleting text from the Health section will save on scrolling and length. Skoppensboer 04:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Something that nobody seems to have mentioned (or, at least, noticed) yet is that there's a serious undue weight problem here. I'm not sure if you're seeing it - but in all of your edits, there are implicit assumptions:
 * That these diseases can be sexually transmitted between animals and humans. It's likely for a few of the diseases you've mentioned, but there's no hard evidence that it is - and anything else is considered original research.


 * If you are saying that research into animal-to-human disease transmission based on bestial activity is lacking, you are correct. However, veterinarian and animal husbandry workers handling urine, semen and other fluids have been infected, so it is a logical deduction that introducing the infected fluids into the human urethra (males) or vagina (females) or rectums and mouths (both) would carry not only the same risk as those exposed occupationally, but a far greater risk. I suggest to you here, and this may be prescient, that the inevitable future research on bestiality will show that I have been circumspect and measured in my statements, and that the risk is really very high indeed. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That these diseases are common in animals which zoophiles have sexual contact with. The "10-45% of canids" infected with canine brucellosis are likely to be heavily skewed towards feral animals, which will generally flee from or attack humans (including zoophiles) - making sex kind of difficult. This is original research too, but the fact that I can't cite anything is instructive:


 * Nonsense. That high figure is from canid research in China, see footnotes. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This highlights an important part of the original-research policy: Deductive reasoning isn't exempt. Unless you can point out a source which uses the same logic to arrive at the same conclusion, the article shouldn't draw that conclusion. Wikipedia is for presenting facts, not opinion and speculation.


 * Straw man argument. First show how my reasoning is substantially faulty. To use the well-known lack of research into bestiality/zoophilia as a reason to exclude pertinent information is agenda-driven, in my opinion. Humans can be infected occupationally, ergo sexual activity will carry the same if not far higher risk. This is common sense rather than OR, and I'd like to see this put to an impartial judge if you continue to contest it. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also: article length refers to the number of words - the length of the text, that is, not the physical length that it shows up as on screen. The fact that there's a table alongside that particular bit of text is irrelevant. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is full of fat. The medical stuff is some of the most solid and impartial. I'd welcome editorial oversight by someone at wikipedia. Perhaps I should seek it out. Skoppensboer


 * It's probably worth waiting for your fuller comment, but in the meantime I do have a couple of brief thoughts to bear in mind.
 * Yes, brucellosis can be an "awful disease". But in the context of Wikipedia it's just information, same as everything else. We are not writing an editorial piece. There are many "awful" things described on this encyclopedia, and that they may be considered "awful", is still not a valid basis for exaggerating them, or giving them excessive placement. A full clinical description about Brucellosis is however awful, still only a side-issue to an article on an emotional/sexual matter, exactly as HIV is a side-issue on homosexuality. I'd like you to go and look at how much space the far worse condition HIV gets there, for comparison. That is what inter-article wikilinks are for. (Zetawoof correrctly points out that WP:SIZE is about textual length and word counts in the main article, not column centimeters.)


 * "A full clinical description about Brucellosis", for instance, would run much longer than this entire article, so that's a silly comment. And you fail to acknowledge that I have excluded a host of other, less serious diseases from more than vestigial mention. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Referring to your comment about how little space is devoted to HIV on the homosexuality page, I need to point out to you that your argument is illogical. Most HIV transmissions in the world occur through heterosexual sex, so why should HIV be given heavy weight on a page on homosexuality? In the case we have under discussion here, semen-vectored diseases like brucellosis should indeed be give at least one paragraph, considering the 500,000 human infections each year, and the gravity of the disease. Skoppensboer 16:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My other concern is that given some of the comments to date, your ability to "spot a lot of flatulence and argumentation" is surely suspect. Here are some examples:
 * Your posts contain numerous exaggerations which seem quite exaggerated or alarmist. We know this because we've been trying to spearate fact from exaggeration the last while over them, as you're aware.
 * You state in your talk page posts that the evidence for much of this is your own personal beliefs, and your own personal inductive logic, and mix these with bona fide information to support the conclusion you seem to wish to present.


 * Please point out my beliefs that stand apart from facts. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have in some instances picked examples carelessly or wilfully, that are deeply flawed or irrelevant, but that prima facie support the view you feel supportive towards.
 * You imply that some issues are higher risk if sexual activity occurs, when in fact clearly and very evidently on close examination they are not.


 * Examples? Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You willingly cite "Beastforum" as a source for allergy issues - then immediately it's pointed out that 2 of 250,000 users is tiny you reverse your view and state instead "We cannot use Beast Forum stats to decide what to include and exclude".


 * Let's stick to the facts. This looks like a squabble and argumentation. Please take the actual section as it stands now and contest it, not my character or past statements. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You do not check your facts, for example the claim that people do not trumpet clinical issues on erotica boards when it is clear they do discuss such aspects when they feel the need (and especially on www.zoophile.org which is a major zoo support site already checked out by contributors as being used by bona fide zoophiles, for non-erotica issues). This has been checked as the question was raised, and the complete absence of serious reports on not one, but 3 very different and popular boards with entirely different populations, is rather telling.
 * You use (in your own words) "hyperbole" for "effect", rather than neutrality.
 * You add a long list of possible zoonoses a number of which you knew were irrelevant or at best only remotely relevant to zoophilia, such as rabies, again leaving the clear impression you are trying to create an impression to support such a view.


 * Rabies is NOT irrelevant to zoophilia. Mouth kiss an infected dog and you'll get rabies. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You respond to criticism by assuming bad faith, and by claiming that information is being "suppressed by people with sexual fetishes who are attempting to create a pro-bestiality atmosphere on this page" followed immediately by a claim that "I have no agenda against bestiality". But you do sound like you come here with an agenda and a bias, and that's just not right for a wikipedia article.


 * Argumentation. Pointless. Just the facts, please. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A final problem is that you clearly have not even fully read, digested, and understood the article you are trying to edit on. If you had, you probably would not insultingly and dismissively label editors who might critique your edits, as "people with sexual fetishes", but would have gained a better awareness that the term "fetish" means something completely different, and that current scientific understanding does not consider zoophilia a "fetish".


 * A sexual focus on a non-human object or life form is a fetish, as far as I am concerned. But again, this is irrelevant to the H&S section. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the impression to date, from your edits and own choice of words, is that you wish to present a view to support an argument 'zoophilia is a problem because it has very great health risks that can seriously hurt or kill'. Whatever our moral judgement of the subject, neither you nor pro-zoophile editors should use Wikipedia to make a point. It seems several of your examples and wording have been selectively chosen not to be neutral, but to support such an agenda/view, and that whilst there is a kernel of truth that all sexual acts can transmit disease more readily than non-intimate contact, the degree of risk is not as you present it, but seems to be relatively low: very low in the USA and much of the West, and even in third world countries maybe lower than many human STDs. I hope this impression of your editing is not so, but you need to be aware that rhetoric and poor precision can leave a poor impression when proposing edits for an article like this, where high quality edits and low rhetoric are historically the norm.


 * "Kernel of truth" - ha! You are now arguing medicine with me, and I suggest you get 3rd party input here, because you are wrong. Again, I'd welcome expert arbitration on these topics. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you see the problem, from my point of view. This simply appears like yet more agenda-based editorship, using exaggeration of health issues as the means. I do accept you are adding and substantiating valid information to a section that will benefit from it, and hope you can see in fact your information is being very carefully checked and questioned for precision (not censored), that good information is being retained and poor information filtered out, and that the issues being raised are in fact valid. In other words, please do edit - but edit with care.


 * Tit for tat. To my reading, which is perhaps wrong, your own editorship absolutely stinks of partiality and POV motivations. You have and continue to try to censor my little contribution, and I shall continue to oppose it and watch it indefinitely. And when I say "war", I mean bringing in the big boys. This article could benefit from a major overhaul anyway. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure we will discuss this field more, but for your own credibility's sake I would strongly ask that you check your facts and arguments better, do not exaggerate risks or occurances, do not pick and choose (or change) whether you like a given source depending whether it supports your view or turns out to undermine it, do not employ personal views as Wikipedia source material, do not assume others who critique your material (as they would all material) are "against" you or are "people with sexual fetishes" intent upon "suppression", ..... you get the idea. FT2 (Talk 09:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I could level many of these statements back at you, as others already have in the past. But it's becoming a food fight now, so please let's get back to the actual section in question. Post below the changes you still feel are necessary, and why. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I see a lot of aggressive posturing, and yet more assumption of bad faith, none of which is needed.

I am going to suggest that the two of us directly seek mediation - specifically around this section, and in more general terms around the question of neutral editing and appropriate style of discussion and interaction on the talk page. In more detail: Rather than spiral, set an unhelpful example, and waste effort, I would rather we took the early step of asking a reputable and neutral third party member of the mediator committee to mediate and help us get the basics of this discussion back on an even keel, if you are willing. The focus would be twofold: Let me know if this is agreeable to you. FT2 (Talk 01:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel your current comments exaggerate matters. More specifically, I am concerned that they may be semi-deliberately exaggerated to support an agenda. You seem to disparage material which in fact, is not inaccurate, try to impose material which is irrelevant but would support the case you seem to be trying to present, and you seem to have a habit of assuming hostile motives to edits which do not fit your preferences. That's not an editing style with which I feel I can work productively, until you becomes a little more willing to relax and talk mutually without hostile assumption and language.
 * The issue isnt to score points, it's to ensure the article is the best it can be. It is clear you feel strongly. It is clear (to me) that you have taken a stance on the subject and on this section particularly, which is problematic to me when reviewed in the context of the article. The above discussion shows strong signs of going off at a personal-attack tangent and that's not the primary goal - ensuring the article is good, and compliance with core Wikipedia policies.
 * We could both edit, but it looks like you are threatening reversion issues. That doesn't bother me, but I'd rather sort out issues then edit, rather than the other way round.
 * There is probably enough material on this talk page and edit history already, that we both know where we stand, so mediation may be an early call, but is probably no bad idea.
 * The issue is in depth enough that I am not convinced RFC is going to help, since RFC is more about requests for simple opinions and not an in depth mediation service.
 * There are a number of personal allegations raised which muddy the waters; so this is about editorship and not just facts. Specifically, you are raising trust as an issue for you, and essentially alleging bad faith on behalf of a cabal of editors, and from where I stand you have come here with accusations and have tried to use this section to promote an agenda. People who lack trust and carry personal agendas tend not to be able to work well together with others on their common goals.
 * 1) This section specifically, and
 * 2) Reaching mutual understanding of acceptable v. nonacceptable issues in the approaches seen, so that there is clarity whether any of the mutual concerns over editorial approach are merited and if so to resolve them by means of mediation.


 * I really can't respond to all the interpersonal issues that you broach, FT2, because I'm not here to network with people and schmooze, and I'm prone to plain speaking and calling it like I see it. This seems to have upset you because you have a consuming interest in this topic and you virtually own this page, looking at the history. I didn't know this was how WP worked, that it allowed single individuals, or a group of like-minded editors, to take ownership to this extent, and then high-handedly reverse edits without discussion, even when asked to discuss, like you did recently. I'm simply interested in the page representing a fair version of the facts, especially in the Health and Safety area. I'd welcome mediation on this one topic, but I specifically want the mediator to be knowledgeable in the medical/health area. I suggest we ask for someone with a medical degree to make a judgement here. If that can be arranged, I'm more than willing to stand by what he/she decides. Skoppensboer 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not have expert adjudicators as you seem to imagine. The concern here is bias in editorship, failure of the collaborative system, and policy related issues, and these tend not to need experts with degrees in the specific subject to be detected.


 * You cannot adequately adjudicate medical questions without someone trained in the medical sciences. Skoppensboer 12:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My concern with your editing is not your medical knowledge, but your agenda driven approach in demanding it should be given exaggerated presentation, and the personal attacks and bad-faith accusations you resort to when this is frustrated.


 * You make bad faith accusations against me with every comment you make here! "Editorship to an agenda" indeed! I suggest you stop this childish process of venting your miffed feelings at great length and instead seek an expert editor post haste. There are numerous doctors and veterinarian editing WP so finding one to adjudicate should be easy. Skoppensboer 12:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For example, looking at your work on other article you put significant work into, I find a similar statement of editorship to an agenda on the section Talk:Matt_Drudge, that you in part edit for the purpose of putting your own view of things in the public eye, and that other editors (at least on that page) have taken strong exception to that. (I admit to being unfamiliar with that article; my main purpose in referencing it is to see if this pattern is a unique issue here or if you edit in a way that concerns others elsewhere too. Clearly the latter is the case).


 * This is bad form! Going to other pages I've worked on and looking for other conflicts to support your position (in that case a true cabal of conservatives control that page, and bad faith is clearly present) is really annoying to me. Good job on building consensus here with that attack. Skoppensboer 12:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to the ongoing personal attacks.


 * So do I, so please stop them immediately. Skoppensboer 12:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll notice from my user page that I edit on a wide range of articles, and that this is only one of a large number of articles I'm active on. I take an interest in it, and regularly return to it, because it interests me, and I watch for policy compliance on it since it is a controversial topic with few people involved in it and much misinformation abounds.


 * But when any attempt to put negative information into that article is made, even if it is factual, you either delete or "tone it down". Your history on the page is clear for all to see. This is why Citizendium is becoming a necessity. You still have provided no reasonable objection to my H&S edit, and now ALL of your comments are long-winded ad hominems, to which I shall henceforth cease responding. Skoppensboer 12:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So this is the point: I'm not "upset" or emotional with you. I'm simply seeing a new editor on the block, who has explicitly stated they edit against Wikipedia policy (with "hyperbole" to make a point), ...


 * Oh please, stop being so obtuse! I said I used hyperbole (once) by using the phrase "infinitely more" during argument on the talk page, for effect, as people do in argument, and which is perfectly reasonable. It has nothing to do with "editing against policy" and the fact that you should attempt to caste it in that light shows that (a) you have a reading comprehension issue or (b) you are deliberately conflating events to make a meretricious point. I suspect the latter. Skoppensboer 12:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ... whose edits seem to include bias, who has edited here and elsewhere in a manner that more than one editor has felt contained a personal agenda, and who has little knowledge or understanding of the subject beyond their pet interest and wishes to bias the article towards their area with little understanding of the article overall, leading to a potential emerging undue weight, neutrality, and personal attack problem.


 * If you think a few paragraphs on health and safety gives "undue weight" to this serious issue, while retaining screeds of nebulous text and copious footnotes about how zoophiles think animals are honest, or devoting an entire paragraph to showing how zoophiles are not related to people who act like animals during sexual play, etc, then you clearly have a poor understanding of editorship, and the issue, in my opinion. Skoppensboer 12:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not okay and mediation seems to me the obvious answer, since you are unable to accept these comments from article editors. It's for that reason I suggest mediation, to discuss the differences in approach, which allows each of us to discuss our mutual concerns on an equal footing. If you agree, then let me know. if you disagree then please also state this for the record. Either is okay in the Wikipedia community; mediation is not compulsary. You might wish to read Mediation before deciding. Note that mediation will be likely to cover approach not just content, and (as with mediation in general) its aim is to help people who are not seeing eye to eye to reach some level of agreement, rather than to provide an expert opinion on a field of content. Please either way, and without a speech, let me simply know if you accept or decline this. FT2 (Talk 10:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The second step in a dispute should be to step back and bring in another editor. I have suggested a medically trained editor. That could completely settle this issue without the need for a long and time-consuming mediation. An RfC is a good first step. Skoppensboer 12:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Its unfortunate you see things that way. The issue here is more about policy compliance. The information itself is not at issue. What is at issue is (to my mind) personal approach based. In that context, seeing how you edit elsewhere is completely normal here. After all, if you obtain comments that suggest you engage in personal attack and agendas elsewhere, then this reflects on your neutrality as an editor, which is at the heart of the issue here. And when we look elsewhere, we find that your editorship on other articles gets comments that you are less familiar than you think with core policies, that you are running agendas there too, that others seem to have the impression you have a predetermined intention for at least one other article, that you make "personal attacks" there too, and that this too centers around sexuality related issues. Of course that's relevant. Of course your editing history on Wikipedia as a whole can suggest more relevant interpretation of your editing history here. I admit to not being an expert in that article, but the opinion of more than one other editor there seems very similar to the impression you give here. To date even relatively mild and usual suggestions here are resulting in personal attack, which is a hinderance to neutral editing.

By example, your comment on the edit above, where I asked what "many errors" you found:
 * Moving the paragraph brucellosis -- giving a section different emphasis is not any kind of factual error, editorializing this as "scandalous" and an "attempt at threat minimization and obfuscation" is rhetoric and personal opinion of imputed bad-faith motive, no key footnotes were "lost", and whilst we do not know how many zoophiles are threatened, in the subject of zoophilia overall, brucellosis is a corner of the health field, which itself is only a corner of the field overall, and that leads to an undue weight issue as zetawoof points out.


 * If brucellosis infects up to half of all dogs in some areas of the world, and routinely infects 10% in many areas of the world, nobody in their right mind would characterise it as a "corner of a corner" issue, or consider giving it one measly paragraph as "undue weight". This is the heart of our dispute. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Introducing mealy-mouthed and misleading statements about diseases being transmitted through "ordinary pet care" -- Most zoonoses are transmissible through ordinary animal or pet care. The table makes clear that for a few - and only a few - zoosexual acts are known to be a significantly heightened risk. For the majority they arent, or there is no scientific basis stating they are, or for a few they are only relevant for practitioners of anal-oral acts upon animals. Your past examples of tick and flea bourne disease are classic examples of the kinds of conditions that you cite as fear factors but which are transmitted through ordinary pet or animal care and not sexually mediated, as are several of the others, and that matters to make clear.


 * There is every scientific basis for stating that zoosexual acts are risk heightening. The studies showing how many animals are infected by zoonoses is the scientific basis. You cannot deny it and still pretend to have an open mind on this issue. It is a real risk, and a very significant risk in many parts of this world. I have never cited flea or tick borne diseases as fear factors, although you are undeniably at greater risk of having contact with these insects if you engage in sex with animals, especially farmyard livestock. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a total waste of space and an act of intellectual bastardry to imply that f**king an animal is really no more serious than brushing its fur, which is the impression a casual reader would get from phrases like "extremely low"... - I don't think I implied that. I stated that "Risk rates vary from extremely low (many western domestic pets) to moderate (certain countries or animals not subject to regular high quality veterinary care)." This is clinically accurate. The incidence of sexually transmissible zoonoses is extremely low in many western domestic pets, and is moderate in certain countries or places without good control, so that is what is stated. That is factual even if it is not what you would like to hear. It's also backed by sources you suggested, showing that neither zoosexuality forums with 1-2 million posts, nor zoophilia researchers, highlight disease as an issue they have encountered.


 * Why do you feel it is necessary to state that the risk is "extremely low" when it is only low for some people in some countries? That is the interesting issue. And why reduce my exact list of countries to the vague "certain countries"? Why give less information rather than more? And please stop raising the beast-sex erotica forums of the internet as proof of any darned thing, ok? It just looks silly. I only used that example to show that severe allergic reactions can and do happen. I'm surprised anyone had the guts to raise their anaphylaxis to dog sperm at all, given the sweaty, breathless atmosphere that prevails in such forums. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then to highlight the Hendra virus (vanishingly rare) while banishing the info on brucellosis... - You mentioned Hendra, not I, initially, raising the alarmist impression that many exotic conditions were awaiting transmission. As is appropriate, I did not prejudge this. I researched it, and then added in the factual information about Hendra to round out your addition, ie when it was identified and the like. If you wanted to introduce an exotic condition (non sexually related) to "prove a point", then you must expect that point to be put into a balanced form. In fact most exotic conditions are very rare, that is precisely why they are exotic. We discussed your exaggeration and that wikipedia is not a crystal ball, earlier.


 * As we argue on this, thousands of dogs (inter alia) are being killed to stop the spread of bird flu to humans. So exotic conditions are awaiting transmission, indeed. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That was a really underhand move on your part: promoting to prominence a non-threat while hiding to footnote the biggest actual threat. But it was a transparent move. - again, more personal attack. As you can see, there are no errors of fact referred to. The differences are all about editorial balance and personal attack with allegations of bad faith. That is why mediation is an appropriate recourse.


 * I stand by what I said. Your edits all tend to minimise perceived risk and your intention is clearly to give the entire topic a gloss of safety and normality, I presume for personal reasons. Let me ask you directly: are you a zoophile? We should be told. It would certainly help to explain your edits made without consensus-seeking. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of what the "next step should be" is partly correct, it is to include another editor. The editors who specialize in editorial dispute are the mediation committee. The content here is not much at issue, but your editorial approach is (for me). Again, yes or no, are you agreeable to requesting mediation on this? And this time may I have a yes or no, rather than your own opinion how Wikipedia's dispute resolution process should (in your opinion) work. I'm happy to work with a medically skilled editor for the record, my concern here is that I don't think thats the heart of the issue. As discussed, we actually don't disagree much on the actual medical side; we agree on most of the science, it's presentation and weight and editorial collaboration that are the more significant issues. For example, the question is not "how serious is brucellosis", it's whether given it can be a serious condition if caught, but is to a significant degree tangetial to the article and has its own article for fuller detail, should it be wikilinked, or described in a footnote, or described in the main text, and so on. That is a mediation issue not an expert opinion issue.


 * If you don't like me, and want to take me to task, that's one thing, although I'm not interested in your interpersonal issues, your proprietorial air and sense of outrage, as I stated. But if you actually have no problem with the Health and Safety edit as it stands, just leave it be, and you won't have to deal with me again. Problem solved? Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The other question is that given the almost non-mention of zoosexual-transmitted illness on any related website (despite having millions of posts searched on the site you yourself suggested for the purpose) and a near-complete non-emphasis in academic and clinical articles related to zoophilia (for and against), should we over emphasise the fact that some (a small number but uunknown) of conditions can be sexually transmitted, and should we use conditions not at all related to zoophilia to give an exaggerated impression of realistic clinical risk when these do not seem bourne out in practice. Again, this is editorial approach and neutrality, not expert testimony.


 * Again, please stop using pornographic erotica forums for proof of what we should or shouldn't say here. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You have stated you are prepared to "escalate" it, apparently having a somewhat limited notion of how Wikipedia works. You are very sure that your accusations of bad faith, and that editors here are "people with sexual fetishes" intent upon "suppression", are justified. I would like to ask, are you prepared to back your words with an agreement to request mediation with me to resolve this, as I have suggested? And will you agree to work at resolving our current differences in good faith if agreed and accepted? Again, a definitive one word answer, yes or no, is requested, please: yes, or no.


 * At this stage, no. I want to go step by step, getting comments first, as WP allows. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

''Last, a request, for ease of reading please place your comments, in their entirety, in one block at the end of the section, rather than "threading" them which makes it hard to read others complete comments. Thank you.'' FT2 (Talk 13:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Health and Safety Issues
This dispute centers on the content and length of the Health and Safety section of the page on Zoophilia.


 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute


 * I find the current format (length and content) both concise, fair and germane. Editor FT2 does not. Details above. I seek comment especially from medically trained wikipedians. Skoppensboer 12:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that User:Skoppensboer has stated his approach to include "hyperbole", examples that are not germane, and an aggressive personal attack style, and that whilst we do not in fact disagree much on the facts of the matter, the due weight and emphasis is a concern.
 * Comment by FT2

Attempts to rely upon a wikilink or footnote to brucellosis result in personal attack; this user wants the entirety of brucellosis as it might apply to humans, included in the body of this article, whereas it is a corner of the health issue, itself only a corner of the full field. I've sugested a summary style section with a fuller article on health and such where it can be expanded at length, this has been agreed but not yet been taken up. The issue I have here is that brucellosis is less of a concern to zoophiles even by Skoppensboer's own sources, and that he is trying to make a point that the article should present zoosexual acts giving the impression of high risk, when in fact actual sources indicate this is unproven or far from the case.

Skoppensboer has not hidden that he is hostile to this subject and is hostile and suspicious of the good faith of its editors, who he accuses in general terms of being "people with sexual fetishes" seeking "suppression".

The editorial style has included personal attack and agenda driving, and a pattern that has happened twice now is that User:Skoppensboer has introduced material to make a point and when this has been reviewed has alleged that attempts to look neutrally at the material are cause for yet more personal attack. Two examples of this:


 * To show that allergic reaction was an issue (which it shoudl be noted was already included in the article) Skoppensboer introduced that two users from a zoophile web forum called "beastforum" had reported allergies. So I looked at this forum to confirm the matter. When I pointed out that 2 comments out of 1/4 million users and 1.3 million posts, and those moderate or queries only, actually tended to support the existing view that this was not a major problem, his response was that whilst 2 reports of allergies were validly citable, the complete lack of any other significant zoonosis (on the same board of 1/4 million users and 1.3 million posts and two other major boards) was unacceptable to be cited and showed editorial bias.


 * To add a section about animals containing a resevoir of exotic conditions which could be transmitted to humans through zoophilia (which has never been the source of a study in the field), Skoppensboer dug up a virus I had never heard of, called "Hendra virus", and added a section which made it sound as if these were common. Upon researching I found this was not the case, and added what is factually known, namely when it was found, where it came from and what happened. User:Skoppensboer used this as the basis for a further personal attack.

The risks of zoonoses in zoophilia were also quite exaggerated in presentation, and several cited examples also turned out to be non-sexually transmitted (tick based infections etc). Here are a before and after of two paragraphs that are alleged by User:Skoppensboer to be edited "scandalously", with "many errors". A fuller discussion can be found above.


 * {| border="1" cellpadding="5" width="90%"


 * Skoppensboer version
 * FT2 edit of that version
 * There are many infections that are transmissible between animals and humans, called zoonoses, as documented by the National Agricultural Safety Database (NASD) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Some of these diseases may be transferred through casual contact, but others are much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to the semen, saliva, feces and blood of animals. This means that sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity. It is advisable for practitioners of zoophilia to assess their relative risk, since risk varies for each species involved, for each disease mentioned below (and others not mentioned), and for each region in the world.
 * Infections that are transmissible between animals and humans are called zoonoses. Some of these diseases may be transferred through casual contact, including farming, breeding, or ordinary pet care, but a few are very easily transferred via semen, saliva, feces or blood of animals. Risk rates vary from extremely low (many western domestic pets) to moderate (certain countries or animals not subject to regular high quality veterinary care). In some countries, certain zoonoses have a fairly high endemic rate. This means that sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity. It is advisable for practitioners of zoophilia to assess their relative risk, since risk varies for each species involved, for each disease mentioned below (and others not mentioned), and for each region in the world. Further information on several well known zoonoses can be found on databases operated by the National Agricultural Safety Database (NASD) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
 * Each animal species may carry a specific range of diseases that can be transmitted to man. Some species, such as horses, carry emerging viral diseases in some regions of the world, for example Hendra virus.
 * It is possible, although uncommon, for animals to carry emerging viral diseases in some regions of the world. For example, Hendra virus was originally found to stem from flying foxes but is capable of transmission between horses and humans by means of "direct exposure to tissues and secretions from infected horses" . The first outbreak of hendra known to clinicians happened at a farm in Brisbane, Australia in 1994, and killed 13 horses and one human.
 * }
 * Each animal species may carry a specific range of diseases that can be transmitted to man. Some species, such as horses, carry emerging viral diseases in some regions of the world, for example Hendra virus.
 * It is possible, although uncommon, for animals to carry emerging viral diseases in some regions of the world. For example, Hendra virus was originally found to stem from flying foxes but is capable of transmission between horses and humans by means of "direct exposure to tissues and secretions from infected horses" . The first outbreak of hendra known to clinicians happened at a farm in Brisbane, Australia in 1994, and killed 13 horses and one human.
 * }

Skoppensboer has a history of being reprimanded for alleged agenda driving, and civility/personal attack issues and such in the sexuality field by more than one editor, on at least one other article's talk page (Talk:Matt Drudge). I have explained that here we follow a neutrality policy and offered mediation, this has resulted in further aggressive accusations and inappropriate editorship. I have requested mediation one more time, and in the meantime this too, in case RFC can help. FT2 (Talk 15:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are deliberately flouting WP rules for RfC here. Please remove this long argument. The rule states:


 * Instructions
 * 1) Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the article talk page with a brief, neutral statement of the issue. Example

Skoppensboer 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct. And you have done this. But WP:RFC does not gives direction to other editors how to state their concerns in response. My main concerns here are about conduct and policy compliance, more than content, as you know, and that's what is described. If you want to limit the RFC specifically to a 3rd party opinion "how serious are zoonoses in zoophilia" and exclude the editor conduct concerns of others, then you need to be careful to assure existing editors that your interest is in that question only and this issue of your conduct and approach isn't going to be a problem that immediately repeats on other sections or articles ("But if you actually have no problem with the Health and Safety edit as it stands, just leave it be, and you won't have to deal with me again" ), and will not be used as a basis for continued breaking of other policies such as WP:AGF, undue weight and neutrality, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.


 * (If that statement is sincere and intended in good faith, then I don't mind dealing with the limited topic of health and zoonoses balance/emphasis as a content issue. If it's not a genuine statement, but merely another means of gaming the system by deflecting concerns about conduct, then we're back to conduct issues as above.)


 * Coming back to the conditions and purpose for of RFC, RFC also requires you to work with other editors, to Be civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions." You have not "worked towards resolution", rather (as with more than one other article) you have edited with aggression and made bad faith assumptions on all other editors, with an agenda, with strident demands, and when disagreed with have launched personal attacks rather than factuality and added emphasis that you will escalate "however high" is needed to make your view win against consensus. You have not been civil. You have assumed from the outset bad faith, with hostile assumptions towards all editors and especially those who differ with you even when reasonably explained. That is why I feel content RFC is not helpful here, and why I have suggested mediation. My concerns are as to your editorial approach more than the content, since you have implied an intent to treat the entire article and all editors of the article similarly. Those are my concerns.


 * However I am willing to try and make RFC work if it can, and for that purpose offer this suggestion: that we both take a week's break from significantly editing the article (or at least the health section), and ask other editors to accept the same, to see what RFC turns up. if it helps then good, if not then we're back to mediation - which at that point I will ask you to accept if the position and approaches haven't seemed to change. Are you agreeable to this? FT2 (Talk 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am of the opinion that your repeated attempts to steer this issue towards a debate about my style as an editor, and way from the actual content of the article, are designed to change the goalposts halfway through the game. You persist in accusing me of a variety of editorial sins while yourself indulging in long-winded denunciations of my person in a way that can only escalate hostility. You have yet to address the fact that you significantly re-wrote the Health and Safety section without any attempt to seek consensus, despite my explicit request for such and despite Zetawoof's friendly participation in that consensus, and despite Zetawoof's agreement to the look of the section as it stood. So really, you are the one whose editorial style needs careful examination rather than I. I would hope any mediator would be able to see through the logorrheic thicket of words you spin, with your endless invocations of Wikipedia rules and tenets in a manner designed to cloak you in an aura of righteousness. I still await comment on the actual text, and hopefully some will be forthcoming. I suspect you know you are on shaky ground with this, for the text stands up well, hence your refocussing of the discussion with interminable ad hominems. As for taking a break, I'll take a permanent break if you agree not to gut the Health and Safety section again. I am also agreeable to spinning it off as a separate page with a {{main| tag linking it to the Zoophilia page H&S section, as I've offered before, and to which you have never agreed, your recent comment about this notwithstanding. Skoppensboer 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First mention of creating a separate article:
 * "Health issues are comparatively a small part of a large field. It may be worth moving the detail to an article 'Health implications of human-animal sexuality'..." FT2, 04:57, November 18
 * "I am also absolutely agreeable to the entire health and safety section getting its own separate wiki page." Skoppensboer, 06:06, November 18
 * (Your memory seems to have failed you, or else perhaps you were waiting for my agreement, which had already implicitly been given when the suggestion was made.)


 * The more significant point is, I am not seeking to lose your input on facts. I am concerned about your editorial approach and conflictive style, and I want to know if that is something I and others have to address or not. If I don't then the health and safety section is simply a content issue. If I do then the health and safety section becomes an example of a bigger problem over conduct, and it's likely that dispute resolution will escalate. I would rather a hundred times over that the article retained good editorship from all types of approach, and that this resulted in a better written article, even if there was incidental stress over friction though.


 * On a pure content level, I list below my main concerns, one per minor section, to see if we can at a content level, discuss them independently and neutrally from a clinical perspective. I hope this make my concerns clear. A fair bit of research has gone into this and I cannot find any credible source describing zoosexual acts as high risk from a zoonotic perspective, and much evidence that taken together says it is probably not. 11:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Concern #1: undue weight (brucellosis placement)
Brucellosis as a full description in the main article is undue weight. It either needs to rely upon a wikilink, or the detail goes in a footnote or a separate expanded article. Any of those will do. The content is valuable and needs to be "somewhere" readily findable, but it doesn't have the urgency for main column inches that it presently is given in a dense article that has to cover everything. That decision has been made equally on various sections (both pro- and anti-zoosexual) in the past. A separate article on health and safety would be fine, if it gave a balanced view of risk which reflected fairly what is known about disease issues within human-animal sexuality in clinical science, epidemology, the zoophile world, and zoosexuality research. FT2 (Talk 11:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's give brucellosis its rightful place on the Health page. It really is a huge threat to zoos everywhere, especially in certain countries, even though you seem to be having a hard time imagining it. I'll give it one pithy paragraph. Let's let that stand on the Health page, and give it at least a mention on the Zoophilia page too. It would be easy to write a lot more about brucellosis on the Health page, but conversely it's difficult to compress the important info to less than one paragraph. Brucellosis is also a threat from different species, not just canids, and I'll build that into a table (see below for description). Skoppensboer 06:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sources, please. While there may be a theoretical risk, it's just that - theory; I've never heard of it actually being a practical risk. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? 500,000 human infections a year -- what more proof do you want? We know what fluids vector the disease, we know how many infections there are, now what? Must I prove to you that sex with animals will bring a human into contact with those same fluids? Yes, we have no way of knowing how many people are infected by contact with animal blood and how many from having sex with animals, but short of research that we have no expectation of ever seeing into an activity few will admit, what do you need? Skoppensboer 07:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This quote from the CDC site is a classic quote in this regard:


 * Agreed, on the health page it should be mentioned. Here, it's barely due a sentence though. Not even a paragraph. If people know there is a disease that is rare in some places but moderately endemic in others, and it's called brucellosis, and can be caught through some level of contact with infected animals' body fluids, then they can look it up if needed. Summary style is all about that approach, and a link to more comprehensive information (if desired) is appropriate use of article space for reference material on an overview article.


 * With regard to zetawoofs comment, if it is a theoretical risk then it must be stated as such. if there is a degree of risk then likewise. But it is notable and verifiable that out of 1.5 million posts or so on 3 boards, we have no accounts of zoosexuals reporting significant zoonosis infection. The quality of the source can be described neutrally in a way that adequately reflects that it is a community of interested oparties and not a community of clinicians. That is factual and verifiable too. That seems fairly representative for a significant number of Western countries and citizens, even if it is not representative for others. It's not a case of "this view or that one". It's more a case that a neutral comment encompasses all these and leaves the reader with the core information underpinning all of them. Since we have no information how those 500k infections arose, we have no evidence that even one of them is due to zoosexual activity, even though in all likelihood so far as we know, a number could be. FT2 (Talk 21:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Concern #2: range of risk (very low to moderate) should be fairly represented
The section should make clear equally that some places and conditions have higher risk, but other places and conditions much lower risk. You seem reluctant to concede the obvious point that stating some animals/places are extremely low risk is equally notable to the fact that other animals/places have moderate risk. I'm looking for neutrality that gives recognition to both these and that the article cannot give the impression of universal high risk if the evidence simply isn't there. Some populations will have very low or near-zero risk and some will have quite high risk. The practitioner needs to evaluate their own situation, and need to know both extremes can exist without bias. FT2 (Talk 11:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I intend catering for this need (risk per region) in the new page. I won't ignore this. For brucellosis, the current edit does say the US is a low risk region, albeit with caveats (some studies say in CA, for instance, only about 10% of cases are reported). It may take some time to tease out geographic risk for all major zoonoses, and you may be helpful in this regard, if you have the time. I suspect the page may take some weeks to months to finalize. Skoppensboer

Concern #3: Absolute disease risk levels should be fairly represented
It is notable and can be cited, that disease is not usually considered an issue by the online zoophile community (generally the western developed english speaking nations such as USA, canada, europe, australia, but also germany and russia where email has achieved the same check), on several major forums with upwards of a million a posts where zoophiles meet (already checked) or in clinical research on zoophilia. It's also got enough of a reputation for safety that the notion "people have sex with animals to avoid diseases such as HIV" is widespread in underdeveloped countries and documented by researchers and the media. They may be underdeveloped there, but given that Kinsey found 50%+ incident rates amongst rural/farming communities in the modern USA, there's a fair chance that if zoonoses in zoophilia was any kind of significant risk in reality, then cultures such as the Masai, the Riffian, the Tswana, the Gusti, the Appennine shepherds, the Tamil, the Gauchos of South America, and a hundred other cultures where such activity was quite common, would have noticed an epidemic of zoonotic conditions from it by now or would have ceased the practice long before it became documented.

Tribal peoples are very aware of such aspects of nature (witness the keen awareness of how different parts of different plants in their locale have different medicinal properties if prepared in different ways, even amongst primitive peoples) and a higher rate of illness following sex with animals would surely have been noticed over time in such cultures. It seems no such epidemic is reported either medically or in folklore, or indeed in modern communities or research into them. Additionally, current brucellosis (or other disease) levels are not claimed by any medical publication to be related in significant part to zoosexual activity. In fact there is no measure I am aware of that indicates a high practical level of infections resulting amongst zoophile practitioners in any country, and there are multiple routes such a fact could and would have emerged by now if it was the case. Insofar as this is verifiable, it is important that when we describe risk, we don't misrepresent the actual risk that seems to be "out there", even though in some places the conceptual risk is higher (which we must also document). FT2 (Talk 11:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This just isn't convincing. Anecdotal evidence from erotic fora on the net just cannot be used to decide anything at all, and I only used such data to show that even on such sickness-unfriendly places people had reported severe allergic reactions. Please, let us not mention these fora again, they simply must not be used in an encyclopaedia to prove anything. And as for studies and research, as I've noted elsewhere, there is an utter dearth of published studies into the entire field of zoophilia, meaning we have nothing on which to base risk assessment other than the incidence of each zoonosis for each species in each region. Once that is known, the risk of human infection with sexual contact can be deduced. This is standard epidemiology. You state that sex with animals is common in certain cultures, but I've lived half my life in different countries in Africa and I even speak an African language, and I can assure you that such practices are neither common nor tolerated. I don't want to get into a long argument about what happens in each country of the world and what evidence there is for the claim, whether anecdotal, dated or otherwise flimsy, but just as zoophilia is classed as an extremely rare paraphilia in DSM-IV (we are talking about the act, not the fantasy, which is probably common), let's stick with that modern assessment and assume that 1) these acts are not common in rural communities (despite the claims of the increasingly discredited Kinsey) and 2) we know nothing about brucellosis (for example) infection rates in such communities anyway (I've seen studies showing that in some countries blood tests prove that the majority of people have antibodies to brucellosis, proving exposure and possibly active infection). Primitive countries (have you visited any?) are seething cesspools of infections and ill-health in many cases. To assume that people are healthy there in the same sort of way most people are healthy in the USA, and that there is no risk in some culturally sanctioned zoophilic activity, if such indeed exists, is to assume too much.


 * So, in summary, we cannot misrepresent risk on the high or the low side, we should simply state the possible diseases, regions of particular concern, modes of transmission, species affected, and any key factors that may be of import. Most of this could be nicely worked up in a table, and a paragraph or two attached for general comment or greater detail on a few key zoonoses. That's how I see the page developing. Skoppensboer 06:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To take your points one at a time: you cannot use a forum to try and show that people do report one condition (2 items in 250,000 people) and then complain when others point out that no person out of all of these appears to have reported worse, or other conditions. Both are equally valid observations. They are not clinically precisionist; but neither are they without value.


 * Evidence is like threads. The fact that there are millions of posts and people are willing to report even mild allergies, but no person appears to have reported a serious zoonosis; the fact that over time there is much human experience in zoosexual acts but no human myth of disease in its wake; the fact that where myths about zoosexual acts and disease exist they invariably emphasise that it is a way to reduce disease in the perception of practitioners; the fact that such myths exist in places where brucellosis and its like are endemic and still such myths exist; the fact that neither major studies into zoosexuality nor multiple govenment enquiries have revealed any serious concern over zoonosis as a high level issue in zoosexuality... these are all evidences. There is no such body of suggestive evidence (whether clinical or anecdotal) to suggest this is materially incorrect. So the statement that "Risk rates vary from extremely low (many western domestic pets) to moderate (certain countries or animals not subject to regular high quality veterinary care). In some countries, certain zoonoses have a fairly high endemic rate. is an accurate summary of the sources we have access to.


 * Your personal experience of Africa is OR. It is clear that credible sources who are much more familiar with zoosexuality than you are, have over the years documented authoritatively in a manner not greatly disputed by peers, such statements. In the same vein I don't see evidence for your comment that "these acts are not common" is the "modern assessment". In fact it seems not to be.


 * I have yet to see that scientific consensus agrees Kinsey is significantly "discredited". In sexology his findings are still apparently considered reasonably foundational. Perhaps you could update the Kinsey article and if there is a consensus there that Kinsey is in fact discredited, then that can be relied upon here. I don't think this article is the right place to hold that particular debate.


 * Last, this point seems noteworthy:


 * If "in some countries ... the majority of people have antigens to brucellosis", this seems to suggest a second area of conclusions somewhat different than you have attached to it: if the majority have antigens then brucellosis in such countries is 1/ not a risk to most people since the majority already have regular endemic exposure and antigens against it, 2/ presumably a majority of people would catch it and recover anyway even if not sexually involved with animals, and 3/ the condition is evidently survivable even in countries with minimal or no national healthcare, in such countries as is endemic. (As with many diseases; eg. native peoples living in a malarial zone are often more resistant to malaria than visitors.) If a "majority" of people will catch brucellosis from their lack of general hygeine and close living contact with animals, then it is hard to perceive that zoosexuality adds much of a risk factor, because "the majority" already have become infected, develop antigens, and recover anyway regardless of zoosexuality simply due to their present non-sexual lifestyle. FT2 (Talk 21:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Concern #4: for most zoonoses, sex itself (compared to other forms of contact) is not a major risk-increasing factor
It is important to distinguish that we know of relatively few zoonoses where zoophilia/zoosexuality is a specific risk factor. Obviously commonsense suggests that for conditions spread via sexual fluids or saliva this is an issue, and yet relatively few (under half a dozen) well known zoonoses we have discussed are documented as being spread through saliva and sexual fluids from animals to humans. For most zoonoses, sex is not a factor - tick and other parasite bites are not sexually mediated, for example, and in rabies any oral contact is a risk factor, including mere licking of skin. (The number of rabies cases caught via kissing, as you describe, is likely to be minimal bordering on zero, and the risk is there for other oral/saliva contact, so this not a major risk in relation to the "zoophilia" article.) The issue is contact (not sex) for most zoonoses, and contact is associated in general with pet care, farming and breeding. For a minority of zoonoses, as stated, absence or presence of a sexual connection appears to be a significant issue.

That is because of two issues: 1) the majority of zoonoses are non-sexual contact mediated (including urine/feces contact which are far more associated with farming, breeding and pet care than zoophilia) rather than sexually mediated and will give a risk to all persons in close contact, and 2) in any case only a relatively small number of zoonoses have anything like real notability in epidermological terms and a significant number of these seem to be of the kind where zoosexual acts are not very implicated.

(The anal-oral route is agreed to be a higher risk activity within zoophilia, especially with unwormed animals, and it may be worth mentioning this, but it doesn't seem to be a very common activity nor an essential part of zoosexual activity, and relatively few zoophiles report engaging in it.FT2 (Talk 11:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that rimming is probably rare, but to be encyclopedic it must be mentioned, for it does occur, and oral-fecal routes must be noted. Insect-vectored diseases should also be mentioned, if only because intimate contact with animals for prolonged periods will definitely increase the risk of flea and tick bites. Rabies is specifically spread when the animal's saliva contacts human mucous membranes, not skin.


 * As a general comment: you seem to be saying, repeatedly, that if an infection seems unlikely in Smalltown, USA, then it shouldn't be mentioned. I've lived in places where rabies is very common indeed and many pet dogs contracted it. I simply refuse to edit ethnocentrically. Perhaps that's because I have lived in so many places in the world.


 * You make numerous comments with no published proof to back you up, or you use the lack of research as proof that no problem exists, which is nonsense. Many of your comments are simply your own feelings or intuitive insights, as you see them, into this subject. Without wishing to be unkind, I do find your arguments mostly lack merit scientifically and even logically. Please don't take it personally. But if your main contribution to this effort is to plead for as little as possible to be said on the grounds of your convictions that there is minimal risk, you are wasting your time. And I really don't want to waste any more of my valuable time going over the issue of risk (is there? isn't there?) with you any further. Skoppensboer 07:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, its notable that rimming is a higher risk practice. I'd be happy to see rimming noted briefly as "anal-oral practices may result in a higher degree of risk." with a footnote that this is due to the presence of intestinal parasites and other fauna, such as (list). Can I skip the response to assumptions? FT2 (Talk 21:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Concern #5: Exotic emerging zoonoses, if rare, should not be implied to be other than rare
If we are going to introduce new and exotic conditions, or state that animals form a pool of these (as you have), then it's important to equally note the rarity with which they actually are "out there" infecting humans. For example (your insertion) Hendra is indeed a zoonotic infection transmissible via fluids. But a balanced view would note that with very few cases worldwide, it is exceedingly low risk as far as any individual zoosexual practitioner goes, whether they are in America, or Africa, or even in Australia where the outbreak occurred. If that changes then so be it. But for Hendra it hasn't yet and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

The other possible concern, that there are many virii and therefore a high risk for humans, is probably clear original research since we have no way to know how many diseases in the animal kingdom are posing what degree of risk, or how many will emerge to humans or how easily or localized/widespread. We only see that in fact very few such diseases actually do emerge.

As an afterthought, because most domestic animals (in whatever locale) have probably shared whatever communicable illnesses they currently have with local human carers, an emerging exotic zoonosis will usually requires a new infection to a domestic species, which itself must then infect a human through a sexual route. Wild animals would be a higher risk for this cause, but research suggests zoosexual acts are almost entirely restricted to domestic species in the vast majority of cases. FT2 (Talk 11:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Simian HIV was incredibly rare, until it engulfed the whole human population. Hendra could be the next HIV. People having sex with animals should be allowed to know that these things can happen, and that intimate contact is risky in this regard as well. Bird flu is a zoonotic disease, one that may substantially cull the world's human population one day. Dogs can catch bird flu and may then vector it to their human sexual partner. Now mentioning that would be crystal balling, sure. But Hendra is a proven example of how a novel zoonosis can suddenly emerge. Anyone following the link would have noted its rarity, and I can certainly mention that as you request.


 * The other possible concern, that there are many virii and therefore a high risk for humans, is probably clear original research since we have no way to know how many diseases in the animal kingdom are posing what degree of risk, or how many will emerge to humans or how easily or localized/widespread. We only see that in fact very few such diseases actually do emerge. You are seemingly unaware that the annual influenza strains that sweep the world and sometimes kill millions of people often originate in animals. As I said, FT2, you really are not well versed in this area and perhaps you should get a medical person or epidemiologist to debate this with me. The simple fact is that many humans illnesses can and do originate in other animals, and are therefore zoonoses, and these zoonoses are far more likely to infect people who are sexually intimate with infected animals than people who have no contact with infected animals, and their risk is at least as high as the known-to-be-elevated risk of those who own, farm, breed, kennel, slaughter or otherwise deal with infected animals. Skoppensboer 07:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Hendra could be the next HIV."
 * As stated: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. FT2 (Talk 21:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Page Split on Health and Safety Issues, Summary
I actually asked you several times in this discussion if you would like the H&S issues split, but you never answered the question directly. Never mind. It's quite pleasant to find that you are addressing the issues today.

Yes, the page needs to be split, if only because it is around 40KB and 32 KB is the recommended wiki limit. But we need to be careful we do not create a POV fork, so what is said here must agree with the text on the new page. The text that remains here should be carefully parsed, the less said the better, I would imagine. We have to look at naming conventions too so that the page is clearly related to the word "zoophilia".

I'm flying out of town for a meeting today, but I'll continue this in the next day or two. I'll answer each of your concerns then. I think we are headed in the right direction now. Skoppensboer 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Snowed under with work, but back on this soon, days not weeks. Skoppensboer 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The title should be "Health and safety aspects of zoophilia" or "Zoophilia and health". Let's get the page started with the current edit and then discuss content on its talk page, not here. Skoppensboer 01:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not all people who have sex with animals are zoophiles. But we can discuss the title. "Zoonoses and sex with animals", "Health aspects of sexual acts with animals" or "Zoonotic aspects of sexual acts with animals" is probably about as neutral as it gets. Would you be okay with that? FT2 (Talk 21:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)