Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 25

Edit request
Please take a look several statement under Religious perspectives for Buddhism:

"Buddhism addresses sexual conduct primarily in terms of what brings harm to oneself or to others, and the admonition against sexual misconduct is generally interpreted in modern times to prohibit zoosexual acts, as well as pederasty, adultery, rape, or prostitution. However, according to the Buddhist philosophy of the Eightfold path, sexual activity with animals can be accepted so long as it is not cruel, has good intentions, and involves compassion . Any kind of sexual activity, including those with animals, are expressly forbidden for Buddhist monks and nuns, who are expected to be celibate.

Maya was the mother of Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism. According to legend, Maya had sex with a white elephant and was impregnated by it."

The first incorrect statement:

"However, according to the Buddhist philosophy of the Eightfold path, sexual activity with animals can be accepted so long as it is not cruel, has good intentions, and involves compassion."

Because:

That is clear a personal opinion, no mention under above link, wrong interpretation and totally mislead since Buddhism has strong point to include bestiality under immorality act:

"When immorality prevails, human lifespan decreases till it reaches a minimum of 10 years at the base of human bestiality." .

The second incorrect statement:

"Maya was the mother of Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism. According to legend, Maya had sex with a white elephant and was impregnated by it."

Because:

That is clear a personal opinion because those link above Never mention that queen Maya had a sex with it:

""One full moon night, sleeping in the palace, the queen had a vivid dream. She felt herself being carried away by four devas (spirits) to Lake Anotatta in the Himalayas. After bathing her in the lake, the devas clothed her in heavenly cloths, anointed her with perfumes, and bedecked her with divine flowers. Soon after a white elephant, holding a white lotus flower in its trunk, appeared and went round her three times, entering her womb through her right side. Finally the elephant disappeared and the queen awoke, knowing she had been delivered an important message, as the elephant is a symbol of greatness in Nepal.""

and ""According to Buddhist legend, Maha Maya dreamed that a white elephant with six tusks entered her right side, which was interpreted to mean that she had conceived a child who would become either a world ruler or a buddha.""

Secondly,

Her Husband also married to her sister, Mahaprajapati Gotami, which has son, named Prince Nanda and born only 3-4 days after Sidhartha Gotama birth and. Maha Gotami did not had a dream like her sister's but both pregnant by Sudhodana King on almost the same days and Prince Nanda was also become an Arahant.

So, the statement "Maya had sex with a white elephant [..]" was only a personal opinion, wrong interpretation and totally mislead.

Suggestion:

Please correct those statement or back to statement:

"Buddhism addresses sexual conduct primarily in terms of what brings harm to oneself or to others, and the admonition against sexual misconduct is generally interpreted in modern times to prohibit zoosexual acts, as well as pederasty, adultery, rape, or prostitution. Any kind of sexual activity, including those with animals, are expressly forbidden for Buddhist monks and nuns, who are expected to be celibate."

Best regards,

--May20112011 (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: If you read books by Buddhist scholars, you will see that the information regarding Maya is in fact correct. The Buddhist doctrine can be interpreted in multiple ways -- either against or for zoophilia. Keep in mind that Buddhist views of bestiality are not always condemnatory. Because both interpretations are represented in the article, it wouldn't make sense to remove one and not the other. Your proposed change would only represent the anti-zoophilia view, which is why it isn't being done.Plateau99 (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Plateau99,


 * which of those books that you had mentioned that have a correct information? none.


 * Per Maha-Parinibbanna sutta, on section The Four Great References 8-11, Buddha's view is always base on Suttas and vinayas [Dhamma and the Discipline] and not base an interpretation that interpreted from an certain article. So, can you mention just only one of the suttas that give permission to bestiality? there is none, my friend.


 * Beside that, fact per Cakkavati Sihananda-Sutta had clearly stated that human bestiality as an immorality act that make human lifespan decrease.


 * Secondly,


 * Regarding to Maya, All of the reference never mention that Maya have a sex with an elephant and both Maya and Gotami pregnancy were only 3-5 days different and by the same husband.


 * This is my final argument.


 * Tks.


 * --May20112011 (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  Happysailor  (Talk) 09:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"Abusivness"
is trying to put "such acts are usually non-abusive" or "the notion that such acts are abusive is disputed" into the lead. Now, I'm not arguing whether they actually are or not, as that's something for WP:Reliable sources to determine. And Plateau is citing this newspaper article. I don't believe that article supports the statement that it is referencing. The article cites several people, zoophiles and the researcher Milteski, as claiming that viewpoint, but using that to support the the sentence is contrary to WP:Undue weight. The article, doesn't claim that, it only says some people claim it, and does identify it as a fringe opinion. It's fine to include Miletski's viewpoint in the "arguments for" section, but putting in the lead, is undue weight in my opinion. I'd like that sentence removed from the lead.

Also, I'd like to ask you to use an edit summary with every edit. It makes it a lot harder to work together when you don't.

We have the common goal of making Wikipedia a neutral and reliable source. Let's do our best to achieve this. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed: a reliable source saying Joe Blow says X cannot be used to cite X, only that Joe Blow says it. Otherwise, we could document that the queen of England is really a lizard person from outer space because a New York Times article states some lunatic believes that. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are additional sources which could be used to back up the idea that the "abusiveness" is a controversial subject when it comes to zoophilia (for example, this link and this link). The point is made that a distinction should be made between specific cases deemed to be "abusive" and specific cases deemed to be "non-abusive". These and other sources could be used to prove that the debate over zoophilia's "abusiveness" is not a fringe subject.


 * Nonetheless, I suggest moving the sentence about laws (the sentence that says "zoosexual acts are illegal under animal abuse laws") down to the section about the legality of zoosexuality, and I also suggest moving the other sentence (the one that says "the notion that...") be moved down to the section about debate over zoosexuality. The reason for the additional sentence was as a counterweight to the sentence about anti-zoophile "abuse" laws. But if both were moved, it wouldn't be an issue anymore. Plateau99 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * From your suggested sources, I see a number of those who are zoophiles saying it is not abusive or distancing themselves from those they consider to be abusive. I also see one ethicist questioning whether there should be a problem with non-abusive zoophiles. I do not see reliable sources saying many/most zoophiles are not abusing animals. Saying there is "controversy" based on this is like saying most rape is consensual because numerous rapists said "She said 'no' but meant 'yes'" and one ethicist said consensual sex is o.k. We do not have sources saying anyone other than a number of zoophiles say it is often/usually/whatever not abusive. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are a few sources which come from non-zoophiles who say that it is not necessarily abusive; for example, Peter Singer's article Heavy Petting. The thing is, does there really need to be five citations after each sentence in order to prove its validity?Plateau99 (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Singer is the ethicist I was referring to. Per the sources you cite, he discusses the question of whether non-abusive beastiality should be considered a problem. This is a far cry from the claim "such acts are usually non-abusive". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily five, but with such a controversial topic, reliable sources are the only thing that makes it possible to write about the subject. And the statement you're proposing will definitely need sources, and real good ones to add to that. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about changing the sentence to something like "the ethics of zoophilia is being debated" or "anti-zoosexual laws have been criticized"; that way it would relate more to Singer and other sources (such as this link) Plateau99 (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't say that because there are no independent reliable sources saying the ethics are being debated or that the laws have been criticized in any meaningful way. Singer does not demonstrate a debate, he demonstrates one ethicist discussing the theoretical case of whether or not "non-abusive" beastiality should be considered immoral. Your newest link is an article by a first year JD in an upstart journal of no apparent prominence. Yes, those accused of various crimes often challenge the legitimacy of the law. This is not unique to this case, nor does it seem to be particularly noteworthy. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Enumclaw farm not a brothel
The Legal Status section refers to the stallion farm in King County Enumclaw Washington as an "animal brothel", when this is clearly not the case. The owners of the farm were ignorant of the actions of Pinyan and Tait, resulting in Tait's conviction of trespassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.147.250 (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The words "animal brothel" are in scare quotes to denote that it may not meet everyone's definition of what that means and/or that it was merely described that way. But I also added "described as" (in [| this edit]) just to make it even clearer. I'm not sure why you would say "this is clearly not the case". Nowhere does it say that it meets some legal definition of a brothel or that the owners of the land were responsible. I would assume (as I'm sure most others would) that an "animal brothel" is a place where people can pay to have sex with animals, which is exactly what was happening on that farm. MsBatfish (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

ARTICLE REWRITE
This article is way past due for a major revision or re-write. This is one of the worst articles I've seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brechbill123 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This article needs to be rewritten and the sources need to be rechecked. Most of the materials added comes from one, biased editor who loves to add his/her own opinion by using random sources as references. Most of the sources are unreliable and do not support the claims made. The state this article is in right now is laughable. I'm removing biased, unsourced material to at least improve it. Someone963852 (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes/ slant of the article
I see someone has compared this to homosexuality, with the implication that animals are A) not harmed by sexual behavior with humans and B) that animals can give consent, either because they have the level of sentience required or that we can clearly understand their intentions. I would argue that this is not provable one way or the other and that the situation differs little if at all from that of a person engaging in sexual relations with a person of diminished capacity, the ability of whom to consent to such acts is in doubt under the law. It would appear that the burden of proof otherwise is upon the person who initiated engaging in the sexual act. There seems to be a pro-bestiality undercurrent in the article that would create an outcry if similarly found in an article on pedophilia, which is considered to be a crime due to the vulnerability of the minor party involved and their inability to give informed consent. I can see no difference between the two situations except that animals are even less able to express their consent to engage in sexual activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.3.63 (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed it. 1) The basis of the argument is already mentioned in the support section. There is no need to be redundant about it. 2) Why does every zoophile feel the need to compare it to homosexuality? Comparing it to or mentioning homosexuality does nothing to further or justify its arguments.
 * I also changed zoosexuality, zoosexuals, and zoosexual to zoophilia, zoophiles, and zoophilic (respectively) for consistency and a neutral, unbiased tone.
 * Jezebel is not a reliable source. Someone963852 (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Stating that someone or something is "zoosexual" is not POV -- it is simply a more specific way of referring to zoophilia. Zoophilia is the generalized attraction to animals, and zoosexual refers to the specific person's attractions. Stating that someone or something is "zoosexual" does not imply a pro-zoophilia tone. Zoosexual is also a term used when referring to groups. Here are a few links which use the term "zoosexual":


 * http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/A_Case_Study_of_a_Male_Sex_Offender_with_Zoosexual_Interests_and_Behaviours.pdf
 * http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=G_MwT9OHj4AC&oi=fnd&pg=PA201&dq=zoosexuality&ots=ZKK70QSpFz&sig=DIaqtKljqhEWI1lElbFMv-UoA-A
 * http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Da6puODWxrQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA91&dq=zoosexuality&ots=iaUeewA_yB&sig=LbwOSGqtBU9MxgimNJRAFmYpvm0
 * http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=G_MwT9OHj4AC&oi=fnd&pg=PA201&dq=zoosexual&ots=ZKK70QSrxF&sig=Tlc1vESkOKuK8qFLsHSGyzBmwIE
 * http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2004-15900-001
 * http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DBsFXPewfXAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA109&dq=zoosexual&ots=KhoKTOdMS6&sig=2gVL1ZvxfCkEQ2Zg1Yj8Gxbd2yQ
 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1752928X11000102
 * http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DBsFXPewfXAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA109&dq=zoosexual&ots=KhoKTOdMS6&sig=2gVL1ZvxfCkEQ2Zg1Yj8Gxbd2yQ
 * http://www.springerlink.com/index/XJW2736170737347.pdf
 * http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/146179/
 * http://www.springerlink.com/index/45wh01u1j717t33v.pdf


 * As these sources show, the terms "zoosexual" and "zoosexuality" are used, and prove that "zoosexual" is not just some urban dictionary slang word; on the contrary, it is a legitimate term used by many professionals. Also keep in mind that "zoophilic" is not an accurate term when describing zoophilia-related terms. For example, "zoophilic" is generally used in a biological sense, as in these sources:


 * http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2230.1993.tb02176.x/abstract
 * http://www.aaem.pl/pdf/aaem0021.pdf?referer=www.clickfind.com.au


 * When referring to zoophilia, it is misleading to use the term "zoophilic" because it can be used in definitions such as those above (i.e. "Ecophysiology of zoophilic pollen" and "Control of zoophilic malaria vectors"). Zoophilic is a word that is used in microbiology, whereas "zoosexual" specficially addresses the human sexual attraction to animals.


 * Just because "zoophilia" and "zoosexual" are spelled differently doesn't mean they're inconsistent. In fact, they are completely consistent.


 * Constant reverting is not productive to Wikipedia.Plateau99 (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "zoosexual refers to the specific person's attractions."
 * "Zoosexual is also a term used when referring to groups."


 * That's the thing, the article is not talking about specific groups, it is talking about zoophilia and zoophiles as a whole.


 * I kept the terms the way I did: Zoosexuals as zoophiles and zoosexuality as zoophilia to be consistent with the article's name. If the terms are completely consistent like you said it was, you would have no problem with the changes. Zoophilic can also be used to describe the zoophile's activity, the same way "pedophilic" can used to describes a pedophile's (not the term pedosexual).
 * Other changes:
 * Jezebel.com is not a reliable source.
 * An opinion article such as this one does not represent the whole Libertarian community. Also, it is not reliable.
 * That is unsourced and obviously non-neutral POV so it is removed.
 * The linked Wikipedia article are named with the term Zoophilia (e.g. Zoophilia and the law) so changed for consistency.


 * - Do not go nitpicking and finding every little detail to put in the article just because it seems like it supports zoophilia. And do not summarize an article and cite it with an unreliable source that doesn't even support the claim.


 * This source is no longer available for referencing
 * Find the actual page number and reference it correctly. 'Hustler', September 2001
 * http://www.neutering.org/ This does not even support zoophilia.
 * http://www.breezejmu.org/opinion/columnists/article_f08fbb0c-42ca-11e0-ab43-00127992bc8b.html This article is an opinion piece.
 * isn't even worthy of being referenced.
 * Where in this article did you get "Although there are many arguments for zoophilia, when people (for example politicians) are confronted with the issue in public venues, the arguments for zoophilia are rarely or never mentioned because of the social taboos associated with zoophilia and the prejudice against it"?


 * From the Wikipedia article:
 * According to the Scientific American, the majority of zoophiles are not cruel to animals
 * From the source that that statement supposedly came from: In other recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive toward animals in any way—far from it, they said.
 * Where exactly did the Scientific American article stated that "the majority of zoophiles are not cruel to animals"?


 * Thebigview.com mentions nothing about zoophilia so I removed the section.


 * Also, actually look at the changes before you revert everything to fit your POV. That is not productive to Wikipedia.
 * Someone963852 (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated in WP:NPOV:


 * As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased.


 * For a controversial subject such as this one, arguments for and against it are likely to come up in most of the sources acquired for it -- it is inevitable. To simply remove huge chunks of information just because it seems to be "biased" is akin to censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored.Plateau99 (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed them because they weren't in the sources. You seem to have a thing for adding your own opinions and using random articles as sources when they do not even support the claim.
 * Also, this article is full of non-neutral POV which I removed. Removing non-neutral POV is not censorship. Do not use that as an excuse to revert my changes.


 * In the Arguments against zoophilia:


 * - The belief that bestiality is "unnatural" may be subject to the naturalistic fallacy.
 * - It has been proved that the HIV virus cannot be transmitted from animals to humans.
 * - But if the approach is conducted with kindness and care and stopped if the animal shows signs of discomfort, as zoophiles describe ideal sexual interactions with animals, Beetz believes there is no need for trauma to result
 * - (Then the against section is followed by the materials and opinions in favor of zoophilia that isn't backed up by any sources.)


 * You're providing arguments against zoophilia but then counter it by adding your own opinions all in the same few sentences. My edits and changes are trying to keep the article fair and balanced.
 * Your edits, on the other hand, are not and are slanting the article towards one side. Someone963852 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the pro-zoophilia content from the "arguments against zoophilia" section; note though that the HIV sentence is not pro or anti zoophilia, it is simply a fact.


 * If you have a relevant argument against zoophilia, add it to the "arguments against zoophilia" section, but do not remove entire chunks of information just because it appears to be biased. As I said before, bias of any kind (pro or anti-zoophilia) is inevitable in this kind of article.Plateau99 (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the only problem. The "chunks of information" are not supported by the sources provided and/or the sources are not reliable. It's original research. Someone963852 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It would appear that nothing I say can convince you that what you are trying to do to the article is wrong. The information you keep removing, which you claim to be original research, is cited thoroughly and does not need to be removed. Perhaps modified, but not removed altogether. The fact that you keep placing a citation tag on the "arguments for zoophilia" section, but not on the "arguments against zoophilia" section would seem to suggest that you have more of a problem with the "arguments for" section, which would explain why you keep erasing content from that section. Stop doing this and stop constantly reverting my edits.Plateau99 (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sick and tired of your constant and relentless reverting and edit warring, so I am going to request an arbitration.Plateau99 (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The information was poorly cited. 2) Some materials weren't cited at all. 3) Claims were not supported in the source provided. Original research and personal opinion were added and used random sites as references. 4) Changed zoosexuality to zoophilia, zoosexuals to zoophiles for consistency. 5) Article was not neutral and had a pro-zoophilia tone.
 * Stop reverting my edits because it doesn't fit your pro-zoophilia point of view. Someone963852 (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice: errors / missing refernce

 * the provided references in the following line do not name dolphins:
 * "Because there is scientific evidence that interspecies sex often occurs in nature, critics argue that it is unfair to label bestiality as "unnatural";[105] also, individuals of various species (such as dolphins) appear to be sexually attracted to humans; this is known as "reverse bestiality".[106]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.222.19.83 (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority of the sources do not back up the statements presented in this article. I'll remove it. Someone963852 (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Full Protection
I full protected the article for a week in response to the ongoing edit war. In the meantime, please try to discuss the issue. thanks--Guerillero &#124; My Talk  03:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Zoophilia". Thank you. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   04:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional legal info for Sweden
The following link may be of interest: http://www.thelocal.se/37614/20111128/. Allens (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh?
Uhmmm something is not right. Etymologically, shouldn't "zoophilia" mean the orientation of agreeing, having appetite to, being in favor with or even just being interested in something that is about animals? Example: animalists loves animals and nature, so they're zoophiles. The term described in the page is only the zooerasty, which is explained to be only some sort of synonym "fallen out of use".. This sounds waaay incorrect to me. :/ Greek radicals are incontestable, and the page itself describes them perfectly.. Why is there such a contradiction? Plus, I noticed that every other language (except for one or two) describes the term as it is here :T btw: my apologizes if my English is not that good xd --Nickotte (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

PETA
Actually, PETA (specifically Ingrid Newkirk) has said pro-zoophilia comments -- but PETA as a whole still doesn't really approve of bestiality. I think Nprieve's edits should be un-reverted with the mention that Newkirk is the one who said it, not PETA. And since this is an article about zoophiles, it's only fair that articles from the zoophile's perspective are used as sources. This is a quote from one of Nprieve's sources:

''While he [Singer] came under heavy fire for his comments, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk not only defended Singer, but also bestiality. "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong… If it isn't exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong."''

While the quote came from a guest column, there are other sources out there that have the same information. Plateau99 (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are "other sources out there that have the same information," find the reliable ones and don't use the unreliable ones. Someone963852 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If Ingrid, pro-zoo, and/or has experinced an intercourse with dog or other none-human animal, then she should speak honestly about it her talkings sounds to me like she is a hypocrite. Zoo folks might gain powerful allay if PETA gets on there side. But I don't think anything is gained if sex with animals are allowed but hunting and killing them is banned thats actually turning the hypocrite argument upside down. Since humans are omnivore and thus need to eat both meat and plants to survive. Humans should just admit that they do like to hunt, eat, have sex, and experiment with none-animals, saying one or 2 of those are not ok is hypocritical, And matter of fact most source in this article are pro-zoo and might confligt with Wikipedia reliable rules 157.157.219.48 (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. Now, do you have anything from reliable sources that might actually have something to do with improving the article? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Zoophilia as a sexual orientation
Since zoophilia is not officially recognized as a sexual orientation, there does not need to be much discussion about. However, it is a fact that both commoners on the Internet and PHD researchers (such as Miletski and Beetz) believe that zoophilia could be treated as if it were a sexual orientation, hence the term "zoosexuality". Since it exists, it needs to be mentioned.

Also, the following statements are opinions:

''[Quote] By who? Vague statement, used title from source. I still think it has nothing to do with the arguments for zoophilia.''

pro-zoophilia statement that has nothing to do with "Legal status" and is not in source; statement that has nothing to do with arguments for zoophilia.

Removed; zoosexuality does not fit the definition for sexual orientation

Has nothing to do with legal status; doubt it's in the source

sexual orientation describes attraction towards which sex/gender, not animals, children, shoes, etc.; not all sexual interests are considered sexual orientations.

These are opinions which contradict the findings of Miletski and Beetz. -- Plateau99 (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What does "The fight against zoosexual discrimination has been described as being the "new frontier" of civil rights" have anything to do with arguments for zoophilia? And how does my opinion of that statement being irrelevant to the section "contradict the findings of Miletski and Beetz"? Did they even claim that "the fight against zoosexual discrimination has been described as being the "new frontier" of civil rights"? No, the zoophiles did.
 * "Sexual orientation describes attraction towards which sex/gender, not animals, children, shoes, etc.; not all sexual interests are considered sexual orientations." That is a fact. And when did those facts contradict any of the findings of Miletski and Beetz?
 * What are you trying to argue here? Someone963852 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason why the "child, shoes etc." argument isn't valid is because (at least in this case) sexual fetishes are used to assert an aspect of something (for example, the age of an individual [i.e. pedophilia], or the feet of an individual [i.e. foot fetish]). However, zoophilia does not rely on any "aspect" of anything -- it simply is (which is why Milektski, Beetz, Masters and Weinberg concluded that zoophilia may in fact not be in the "fetish" category). As such, it is debated as to whether it is a sexual orientation. You are correct in asserting that it is not officially a sexual orientation, but the fact that researchers have discussed the matter should be mentioned.


 * Also, I should have clarified when I said the above statements contradicted Miletski and Beetz -- I meant to also include the author of the "Broward Palm Beach" article (which is where the "civil rights" sentence came from). In the case of that sentence, proper citation would be attributed to the author of that article. The sentence is relevant to the "arguments for zoophilia" section because it represents a shift in societal thinking patterns, a set of patterns which stand in contrast to the arguments against zoophilia.


 * In addition, some of the information added about zoosexuality was added by User:MsBatfish in addition to myself. Plateau99 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That last statement is irrelevant, since the materials I removed were added directly by you.
 * Also, only zoophiles claim that "zoosexuality" is a legitimate sexual orientation. Other than that, there has been little to no debate on the issue. Unless the topic is currently being debated and discussed by notable, respectable researchers or research institutions/ organizations (such as the American Psychological Association (APA) for example), and not by few people (Miletski and Beetz) and zoophiles, it does not belong in the article. Read FRINGE WP:UNDUE Someone963852 (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the revision MsBatfish added (which you reverted):


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=463811416&oldid=463438877


 * The findings of researchers such as Miletski do not count as "Fringe", and mentioning their findings regarding zoosexuality is definitely not "undue weight". Also, "Fringe" has more to due with pseudoscience, and the claims made by the research were done with the scientific method and are not outlandish. Your claim that there is "Fringe" involved is invalid primarily for this reason: it is not just Milektski who is discussing the issue, but there are multiple people discussing it. -- Plateau99 (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
 * Besides Miletski and the zoophile community (obviously), who else is discussing the topic and whether "zoosexuality" should be recognize as a sexual orientation?
 * Also, I didn't "revert" the edit, I simply removed sexual orientation. There is a difference.

Someone963852 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "undue weight" is not valid because the researchers are prominent and have all drawn similar conclusions. In addition, Cutteridge, Taylor & Francis, JC Adams, Weinberg, Michael Roberts and Masters are other people (in addition to Miletski) who agree (at least to some extent) on this issue. Because so many people agree about it (to some extent), it is not "Fringe", and because it is mentioned (and those mentioned are prominent), it is not "undue weight". The notion that such information is "Fringe" and "undue weight" is an unjustified opinion. -- Plateau99 (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I said, those views are held by an extremely small minority from the same field and the "so many people agree about it" are the zoophiles, which do not make those views any more legitimate.
 * Given your past history of adding original research by using random sources as cover-ups and the hesitation to your statement ("who agree (at least to some extent)") I doubt those people actually did discuss the topic in great detail to make it credible enough to belong in the article.
 * Unless reliable sources with discussion and information from valid, notable researchers/organizations are provided, it does not belong in the article to avoid undue weight.
 * Relevant past discussion on the Sexual Orientation article.
 * Someone963852 (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it does not belong in the sexual orientation article and that that would be giving it undue weight. But I do think it can and should be mentioned in the zoophilia article, it just has to be clear who thinks that and not give it a disproportionate amount of space in the article. We can't say, "zoophilia is a sexual orientation". -MsBatfish (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * While I don't agree with all of Plateau99's edits to the article, in fact I have reverted or altered some of them myself, I do feel that it is important to mention that zoophiles, zoophile support groups, and some researchers describe it as a sexual orientation.
 * I added the following statement to the article:
 * The term "zoosexuality" is often used by zoophile forums and support groups, which define it as a sexual orientation, which manifests as a person being romantically and/or sexually attracted to animals.
 * which was altered by Someone963852 to remove which define it as a sexual orientation.
 * I do not see what is wrong with mentioning the feelings of a lot of zoophiles in an article about zoophiles and I do not believe that it gives the statement undue weight. It is clearly attributed and its coverage is proportional to more mainstream views on the subject (meaning the latter are given much more space and weight in the article). I had hoped that my edit would help put a stop to this ongoing edit war between you two.
 * My thoughts for Plateau99 are that perhaps people would take you more seriously and not be so quick to revert your edits if you didn't make such frequent and sweeping changes to the article, and that all tend to put zoophilia in a more positive light than is currently accepted by the majority of the non-zoophile public. When you repeatedly make edits that misrepresent the source material or are WP:original research or WP:SYNTH, it becomes easy for people to assume any edit you make does that and see a red flag every time they see your username in the edit history.
 * It may not be good practice for editors to do that - as we should deal with the message (whether it belongs in the article) and not the messenger (whether we like them or their editing methods or agree with their presumed beliefs) - but it happens nonetheless. I would suggest you (Plateau99) try making smaller edits at a time that strictly comply with Wikipedia policy/guidelines and/or bringing up proposed edits here on the talk page first.
 * I have to stress to everyone involved here to remember that it doesn't matter what our individual personal beliefs or opinions are on the subject and to stick to discussing relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that goes for edit summaries too.
 * My thoughts for Someone963852 would be that when you don't agree with an edit it is much more helpful to try whenever possible to alter the content as opposed to just reverting, which I see you have done in some cases. And to try to make sure you are not just reverting because of past experiences with another editor or because you think they might have an "agenda". And please try to have clearer edit summaries. You could also bring up suspect edits here on the talk page first, especially when they are not clear complete violations, in order to get input from others about if and how they might be changed in order to avoid complete removal.
 * Thanks. MsBatfish (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And the article is full protected again. If you can flesh something out via this discussion then I will unlock the article --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  02:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I over-stepped my editing too much; for some of the things I added, I can understand how such additions could be interpreted as WP:OR. However, there are also edits I've made which are clearly not WP:OR and not WP:DUE (such as the mention of zoosexuality). I cannot re-add the zoosexuality info for the next 24 hours because if I did I would be breaking WP:3RR (and due to the article's protection). -- Plateau99 (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can not edit the page. It is locked so only admins can edit the page --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  02:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked Guerillero to look over this matter as it appears that nothing has changed (regarding this edit war) since the last time he edit-protected the article. His decision was to protect the article again. Hopefully Plateau99 and Someone963852 can come to an agreement or compromise here on the talk page so that Guerillero has a bit of confidence that if he un-protects the article the edit war will not just start back up again. Plateau99, you can still have an edit war even if you have not broken the 3 Revert Rule. An edit war is when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Any edit warring behavior can lead to sanctions regarding the article and/or the editors involved. So, do either of you have any ideas on how we can avoid this happening in the future? And what do you think about the suggestions I made above? MsBatfish (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oy vey! User:Someone963852 just removed a sexual orientation mentions I'd made, and I came here to say "I respectfully disagree, but clearly have some work to do", only to find it's the top "issue" here on the talk page!

Uhm, yes. I clearly do have some work to do! Thank you.

And happy editing. This will take me some time to unravel, for sure. :^) :^)

Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;contribs&#125; &#123; ζ &#125; 19:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Xeltifon. Someone963852 is simply going by our rules on this. There won't be enough work that you can do to make it acceptable to mention in the lead that zoophilia is a sexual orientation. It has been made extensively clear on this talk page and elsewhere that it is a fringe assertion to call it a sexual orientation, per WP:FRINGE. The Fringe theories/Noticeboard would also make this clear if this matter were taken there. Zoophilia either shouldn't be called a sexual orientation in this article at all or can only be called one with WP:DUE WEIGHT; it is already mentioned with due weight lower in this article. You saw where it is mentioned lower, as you added it in; however, such a sexual orientation mention was included lower in the article before at some point (different points in time).


 * And with regard to what you stated in this edit summary about the lead, that is not exactly what WP:LEAD says. Citations may or may not be allowed in the lead, but are usually advised to be in the lead for controversial topics. Zoophilia is clearly a controversial topic.


 * And regarding bolding the terms, alternative names should be bolded in the lead. Sometimes, they are also bolded lower in the article at first mention. See WP:BOLDTITLE. I would object to your removal of the alternative names from the lead, per WP:Alternative titles, but, also per WP:Alternative titles, "If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended." And, as you know, there is a section in this article to discuss these terms. Still, it is sometimes best to mention the alternative titles in the lead as well, especially if one or more of them is/are very well known as an alternative title.


 * And going back to this edit, forums are not WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just want to say thank you, Flyer22, for the considerable time and effort you clearly put into your response. I've got more work to do now just following the links you've very helpfully provided.  Maybe I'll wind up disagreeing with you later on about something fairly substantive, but for whatever it may be worth, here (more-or-less) at the outset, I really don't intend to go and do something like that completely recklessly 'til I've at least begun to go through things around here a lot more systematically.  If that means changing commas to semicolons for the time being, then so be it.  I can but hope the situation here does not degenerate to the level which has earned Mexican-American War its downright shameful place on the roster of WP:LAME.


 * Working on far less controversial (and less highly-trafficked) articles has helped me to hone my skills considerably; but where working collaboratively is concerned, well -- let's just say I'm very new to that, although I do look forward to contributing more here in time and certainly meant no offense by my now-several-months delayed revisit to this page. I'm only sorry I haven't had the time since my little one-night editing spree back here in January (which I really only started, if memory serves, entirely haphazardly) to follow up on this particular article with anything even remotely approaching the care and attention which I personally believe the subject matter deserves.  On the most superficial level imaginable -- specifically regarding lead sections' stylistic concerns -- please rest assured it wasn't my intent to wreak havoc on anyone's citations, since they are (dare I say it?) the very heart and soul of the core principles around here as I only very imperfectly yet understand them.


 * I know that Zoophilia's a very controversial topic. It is, in fact, impossible for me not to take personally insofar as even skimming some of the edit war related comments here physically pain me sometimes to the point of near debilitation for some days on end.  Maybe I will object to some of your objections later on, once I am better versed in your particular concerns, but for the time being (at least) I see no terribly compelling reason why I should not defer to your considered judgment.  One of these days I may even get back around to editing something here on the article itself.  In the meantime, though, let me once again repeat my opening statement: thank you.


 * Very sincerely, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123; ζ(3) &#125; &#123;did it&#125; 13:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. And your delayed response is what I would call a "few months late" instead of "several months late," but others would call such distinguishing "semantics." As for my objections to some of your edits, as shown above, I objected to things that contrast Wikipedia guidelines or policies. So objecting to those objections of mine would be objecting to Wikipedia guidelines or policies. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to come back here and explain your line of thinking. And, again, you're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)