Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legality of bestiality by country or territory


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The consensus for deletion is overwhelming, and there is no need to drag this debate on any longer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Legality of bestiality by country or territory

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Another problematic article on zoophilia/animal rape. At a glance this appears to be well cited and researched, but a deeper look reveals serious issues. The main concern here is that an awful lot of this article is actually original research, in that its author's seem to have looked into the laws themselves and arrived at their own conclusions on the legality of raping animals in each jurisdiction, instead of relying on third-party reliable sources that have written about those laws and what they mean. This has resulted in a situation where the article is probably accurate about where animal rape is explicitly against the law, but every entry marked as "legal" or "unknown" is due to a lack of reliably sourced information found during the course of the original research, as opposed to a reflection of the actual situation in these jurisdictions. In some cases the repeal of sodomy laws has the unintended side effect of technically removing explicit laws on raping animals, but this cannot reasonably be taken as an explicit endorsement of the legality of animal raping.

In short, I don't think it is consistent with Wikipedia's goals and standards to have a half-baked road map of the world to help people figure out where it is possibly legal to rape animals. Conversely, suggesting that it is legal in certain jurisdictions could lead to actual harm for people who are actually interested in raping animals and think they should legally be allowed to do so, and so might go, for example, to West Virginia so they can have horse sex, only to find that it is not in fact perfectly legal to do so there, which could have very serious negative consequences for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per Beeblebrox. The sourcing of this article is utterly abysmal. For example, it uses, as the only source for bestiality supposedly being legal in four African countries (Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, Mozambique), an article on "Animal welfare in OIE member countries & territories in the SADC region" in which neither the word 'Bestiality' nor 'zoophilia' can be found at all. An article which appears not to even discuss the subject. Instead, whoever cited this source seems to think that because said countries do not (or did not, according to the cited source) have specific animal welfare legislation, bestiality must be legal. This dubious bit of WP:OR clearly doesn't stand a moments thought, given the history of laws against such sexual acts in many cultures, which have frequently been motivated by concerns over human morality, and on outlawing 'unnatural' sexuality (as defined by the relevant cultural norms) rather than over any concern for the animal concerned. Absence of specific animal welfare legislation simply cannot be taken to be evidence for the legality of anything. To assert otherwise is just plain idiotic.


 * This is only one example. From a brief further inspection, I can't see citations for any of the few countries the article claims that bestiality is legal which stand much scrutiny as valid sources for such an unequivocal assertion. And most of the sources cited thus are simply crap, unworthy of serious discussion. So I won't bother, unless someone actually wants to try to argue otherwise. The idea that something as complex as worldwide legislation regarding such a topic can meaningfully be reduced to a tick or cross in a table is simply untenable, and such content has no place in anything purporting to be a serious encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom and Andy, plus the following:
 * According to XTools this article was primarily authored by, a sockpuppet of , who is a pro-zoophilia user: see the SPI.
 * Another important contributor, has added 14k of content to this article but has only 4 contributions to the project. ACH300 and Gygas318 account for 40% of the current article's authorship.
 * A longstanding controversy about the situation in Germany has been involving, who has made no contribution outside of this topic area and has admitted to being a zoophile living in Germany.
 * All of this gives credence to the idea that this a sexual tourism guidebook. JBchrch   talk  23:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, I had not realized that the entire section US states was done in a single edit by someone who apparently already had the "research" in their pocket by their fourth edit ever to this project. No s there.... Beeblebrox (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per 'brox, AtG & JBchrch. Significant OR concerns, as explained by AtG, which are not reasonably resolvable through normal editing - an article of this type will always be prone to OR. - Ryk72 talk 00:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research on the most dubious of subjects. &rarr; StaniStani 02:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per the multiple thorough comments given above. An irredeemable and unencyclopedic article. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per TNT: OR wrecking ball, fails LISTN. per sanity. ——  Serial  12:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Having tried to find in depth sources for just one country lead me to the conclusion that there really aren't enough resources out there to confidently create and source an article such as this one. P.s. Even if this is not a main article some attempts at maintain a NPOV should be made. Opinionated wording such as "raping animals" are unnecessary and confusing as the subject of the article in question is "bestiality", a term which has been well defined in the main Zoophilia article! KuchenHunde (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pedophiles who rape girls would rather it was referred to as "having sex with underage women" but I won't play along with that bullshit either. If one party in a sex act cannot legally consent, it's rape. That's only confusing to people who think it is ok to rape animals. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In your example the established terminology would probably be child sexual abuse just as the established terminology here is bestiality
 * I would like you to think about what you just said: "If one party in a sex act cannot legally consent"
 * I'll assume that this sentence is in reference to bestiality and not child sexual abuse so that would mean you are viewing non human animals as a "party in a sex act" implying personhood but in the very same sentence you go on contradict yourselfe!
 * Legal consent requires legal personhood! Since non human animals are, sadly, treated as legal objects in most of the world legal consent is neither possible nor necessary to do anything with them. Basically you're arguing that "non human animals are people and because they aren't people..."
 * Srly: Touching someone without their consent is assault, animals can't legally consent -> touching animals is assault!
 * Restraining someone without theri consent is false imprisonment...
 * Don't even get me started on muder.
 * That's not only a piss poor argument but, unless we're talking about e.g. Tom Regan disagreeing with Peter Singer it also has no place on Wikipedia as, again, the established term for this article is "Bestiality" and using other terms is just unnecessarily confusing. If you can't keep your personal prejudice in check and use the established terminology to write just five sentences then I question your abillity to write and maintain NPOV Wikipedia articles. KuchenHunde (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * you can wikilawyer all you like, but this is just trolling. ——  Serial  13:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither Wikilawyering, trolling, nor arguing about the appropriate terminology for the behaviour which this article relates to are particularly relevant to this discussion. If the article instead concerned a 'List of countries in which Marmite can be purchased', the relevant arguments for deletion would likely be much the same. It is poorly sourced, contains a great deal of 'original research' (though 'partisan guesswork' would probably be a more accurate description), and is apparently based on the dubious premise that a complex issue can usefully be reduced to ticks and crosses in tables. I suggest that people who want to argue about the morality, legality and appropriate terminology for inter-species sexual acts find somewhere other than Wikipedia to do so, before they are obliged to, per WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the terminology used is really not what we are here to debate and I probably should've just said that. I freely I admit I have an extreme dislike of people who abuse animals,be it for sex or any other reason, but the problem here is not the subject matter itself, it's the blatant original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Same issue as what is happening at this TfD for a template on the same topic. Nothing but OR. The nontrivial details about Germany should be merged to the main Zoophilia article. –LaundryPizza<b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Beeblebrox and others. There's no need to debate on whether it is 'dubious' or bad faith (to be fair moral arguments seem to hurt the delete cause more than it helps), it's just pure, plain WP:OR and it's not in a good enough state to be salvaged. Uness232 (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I find it hilarious this guy's trying to censor this page about zoophilia laws around the globe but not the CP legality around the globe page.

Honestly this is a good page, informative and should stay up. It's not promoting or shaming the subject it's mearly stating laws around the planet that people need to be aware of.

It's unbiased unlike the person trying to censor this page below me. Yes people could use to to go to these countries but they could also use it to raise awareness about these countries to change the laws.

Yet again I see this page as unbiased and mearly stating laws around the globe similar to your one on CP or your legality of marijuana or any other subject. Because Wikipedia is meant to be unbiased, uncensored information about laws, countries and much more. Don't take this down because of mere moral panic. Information should be uncensored, unbiased and free. If you take this down then you have to take down the CP one, any laws on drugs around the globe, laws on LGBT rights and any other " controversial " topics because of " feelings ".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_child_pornography#Status_by_country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.175.110 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(Note, the above comment was erroneously posted at the top of the page, I have moved it here, and added a signature. The reference to the post 'below' presumably applies to the deletion nomination proposal by Beeblebrox above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC))


 * Please read the Introduction to deletion process. And then read the posts above explaining in detail why people are supporting deletion. This has little to do with 'censorship', but instead concerns an article which is thoroughly misleading. The 'information' it carries on the supposed legality of bestiality in a few countries is unsupported by properly-sourced citations, and is instead based on what amounts to guesswork. It is about as 'informative' as a flat-Earther's atlas, and lacks even the entertainment value that such an atlas might provide. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nomination; Wikipedia is not a host for original research papers.TH1980 (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete In principle I'm ok with an article existing at Legality of bestiality by country or territory, but the problems with this article are too deep to fix. WP:TNT applies. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't conceive of any way a table-based article of this format could possibly do justice to a complex subject like worldwide legislation on bestiality. It can't usefully be reduced to tickboxes, and attempting to do so would over-simplify it, even if legitimate sources could be found. If properly-sourced and appropriate content on the subject can be created, it should be be properly explained, textually, in the Zoophilia article where the broader context can be explained. Regardless of the subject matter, 'lists' which apply a false reductionism to complex issues don't belong in any encyclopaedia purporting to be a purveyor of 'knowledge'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What might work is a list of countries with laws explicitly covering bestiality and then putting the law(s) and an appropriate translation there...KuchenHunde (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. Having Wikipedians decide which laws are 'explicitly covering bestiality', and then deciding on how they are to be translated will create another opening for WP:OR and partisan spin. And there is never any realistic hope of such a list up to date. Such a list would be unencyclopaedic, inevitably incomplete, and giving an entirely false impression of definitiveness. Exactly the problems this article already has. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That would violate rules #2-5 of WP:PRIMARY. JBchrch   talk  19:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nom. Peter Damian (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt and kudos to Beeblebrox for digging into the references and the way they are being used. WP:NOTADVOCACY applies as well. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looking at the references there now I'm satisfied by the nom's argument that the article as exists is basically OR, and if the topic needs a deep delve into the laws themselves to outline then it's unlikely to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 23:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nominator, appears to have consisted largely of original research since 2006. Yuck.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep delete. It's an odd topic, and there's certainly plenty of WP:OR issues, but it appears to have coverage in multiple reliable sources and thus passes WP:GNG. These sources include a 2016 paper published in The Journal of Sex Research, a 2014 paper in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and a 2005 paper from Purdue University. I'm also finding law review articles (such as this one) that cover the topic from a U.S.-centric perspective. It's unclear to me if this would be better in a list format or if this information would be better incorporated into an existing article or if this article is WP:TNT-worthy, which is why my !vote for keep is a weak one, (update: I think it's probably WP:TNT-worthy) though I believe that the legality of bestiality passes the bar in significant coverage when we consider academic sources. If we do keep it, the article needs significant revision to be in line with WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOR. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The general topic (or rather two related topics - zoophilia and bestiality) is certainly notable. And there are quite sufficient sources to write an article on it. And, where appropriate sources are available, discussion of relevant legislation in specific countries is certainly both feasible and desirable. What is not however appropriate is any sort of article based around the premise that this one is founded on - that it is possible for Wikipedia to compile tables regarding such legislation worldwide, stating whether bestiality is 'legal' or 'illegal' in specific places. Ay such list-based article can only be incomplete, reductionist and consequently misleading, and open to the sort of partisan spin that we currently see. There is nothing of any consequence to 'keep' here, and the existing zoophilia article already discusses such legislation. What needs to be done is to clean up the poor sourcing and spin there, and expand the section on legislation accordingly, based around what we can safely state from the sources we have, rather than on guesswork regarding contexts where we clearly don't have adequate sourcing. As to whether a non-table-based article specifically discussing worldwide legislation regarding bestiality is desirable, I'd have to suggest that since the question of legality has been so central to the broader discussion of the topic, it probably isn't, and that as it stands, there isn't enough source material nor content in the existing zoophilia article to justify it anyway.  AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense; I'm moving from weak keep to weak delete. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete following the good work by the OP and the constructive reasons above. "This is a good page you're censoring" is not a valid reason to keep. This content appears to have been thrown together by sockpuppets and restricted editors, itself an issue. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as synthesis, and synthesis based on very shaky sources in many cases. firefly  ( t · c ) 10:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: I guess this is some sort of artifact of a page move, Legality of bestiality by country or territory (version 2) should also be deleted when this is. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Beeblebrox. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTRAVEL, etc. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete basically original research based on a bucket list of countries' laws and novel interpretations of court cases. Minimal to no reliable secondary sources. At minimum TNT applies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.