![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Archived July 7 2006
This archive relates to HeadleyDown ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who attempted to POV edit the article, and was blocked shortly after commencing. FT2 ( Talk | email) 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello. According to NPOV policy, this article has a lot of problems. I understand that some may be sympathetic towards zoophiles, but realistically, the vast majority of people will find it distasteful. This is not handled properly in the article. In short, there is too much argument for arguing zoophilia may be love for animals, and not enough simple straight statements of fact.
I'm sure editors should have noticed the word "however" appears in places in the article, and I see no reason apart from promotionality, that editors have choosen to leave them in. There is also an absence of descriptions of the kind of damage incurred to animals. In fact, the only kind of image that should appear in the article is the xray slide sort, of various injury to animals.
The images are also promotional. As zoophilia involves pornography, I see no way how any such art images can be justifiably used in the article. To place classical art as an illustration will leave the article open to much rancor in future for the majority who find zoophilia abusive and distasteful. There are clearly many more negative images that could be placed in the article. Also, the Michaelangelo is a painting about classical mythology full stop. The swan is not actually a swan, but a greek god (Zeus). The swan is a representation of Zeus.
So I am going to be bold and take action on the problems presented in the article. I understand NPOV policy pretty well, so if anyone has any problems with this, please state specific guidelines. Thank you. JHartley 05:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I received this note on my talk page, and was going to reply to it on JHartley's own, until I realized there was already discussion here. So instead of splitting the discussion I'll put what I was going to say, here, instead.
Re your note.
I appreciate it. Its no bad thing to have additional information.
You might find the following drafts relevant however, before you assume bad faith or assume that information on harm to animals via abuse is being omitted:
Since zoophilia is a summary article, it seemed unfeasible to summarize something for which there was no main article. Those are areas I'm working on in the background.
Perhaps if you could help contribute to these, we can then summarize them in the main article. That's the main concern that came up in reviewing the article, namely, sub areas needing in-depth cover should have their own articles separately. I've made a start on both, and put in placeholders for abuse. The ' asa' article's really the one I've been wanting to research most, because that's really needed, and thats the one where your help would be really valued, and some of the points you're making would be likely to be far more appropriate.
I also would like to hammer this out on the 'asa' article because I have concerns reading your note. May I comment on it, to clarify so that you know where I am and we can set about working well together on it.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 08:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking further, I see edits to the article. I also see that
User:Raul654, am editor who has not been associated with the editing of this article except in his role in Featured Article decisions and cleanup of proposed F.A.'s, has reverted them, which suggests to me that they were probably agenda based or unsupported. My comments follow:
FT2 ( Talk | email) 08:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually would value help on the animal sexual abuse article. If that one could be collaborated on... the animal porn one I'm happy on, but that one I want more input and co-authoring please. Anyone? Please! FT2 ( Talk | email) 23:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Reply to FT2:
Zoophilia is seen as unethical because it is always against the welfare of the animal, regardless of intention. This ethical point has been de-emphasized throughout the article, and has been argued against using non-ethical psychological facts. This is inappropriate and creates a pro-zoophilia article. Furthermore, the article is presently set up to appeal to zoophiles. It displays a complete lack of empathy for animals, and shows that it is possible for pro-zoophiles to promote and emphasize their arguments on Wikipedia. The article needs a lot of work to balance this out. I understand I must work on this cooperatively with all editors here, and I also realize there are going to be pro-zoophilia editors. So I will do my duty to point out editor's biases in this correctional activity.
FT2: Sympathy is not the aim. But nor is pandering to repugnance or distaste. Most researchers into it also seem sympathetic which is probably rather more relevant.
JH: Pandering is not my intention. Neutrally explaining why there is repugnance is important. Most research here is psychological an not ethical or legal. The psychological research generally makes no moral decision on zoophilia, and it is inherently sympathetic to zoophiles because they often have problems getting on in society. A good deal of the ethics and legal papers are not sympathetic. Most of humanity finds it very distasteful, bizarre, or just ridicules the "preference". So the article is extremely skewed already. There is insufficient explanation for why humanity finds it repugnant, abusive, or ridiculous. The ethical side has not been handled at all well. This, together with the religious side, connects strongly with law. As law makes up a great deal of humanity, it requires a much larger portion of the article with full rationales for why zoophilia is illegal. This can all be handled within the reasonable file size (a third of what the article is now). Once all the rambling excuses for abuse and ethically lax illegality have been cut down to size, the real views of the world can be represented. I would like to emphasize this is all to be done perfectly neutrally. Above anyone here, I don't want the article to seem like it is written by by a bunch of fanatical tea swilling animal loving tree huggers (like myself:) Once the views of the intelligent world have been presented neutrally, the reader can make up their own mind.
JH:* "Realistically, the vast majority of people will find it distasteful."
FT2: The like or dislike of people is noted, in several places, and its made clear it is strongly disapproved. But beyond that, we've had this discussion and asked others for clarification. The consensus is clear -- beyond that, the "feelings of people in general" do not guide how a matter is represented. Clinically, if zoophilia is harmful, or can be, then thats important to note, but that would be because it is harmful, not because people find it uncomfortable as a concept. The "distaste" is noted, but otherwise of low importance.
JH: There are reasons why people intuitively find it distasteful. This may be based upon various scenarious in the minds of people (would you allow someone to do that to your rabbit, chicken, swan, cat, horse, gerbil, ? etc). There are ethical reasons behind these intuitions and they exist somewhere in the literature. So lets dig them up and ignore the promoters when they say they don't exist.
JH:* "This is not handled properly in the article. In short, there is too much argument for arguing zoophilia may be love for animals, and not enough simple straight statements of fact."
FT2 "Too much" by what standard exactly? Your personal opinion?
JH Neutral editing is the goal. Lets focus on that, rather than cast aspersions on my intentions.
FT2: My concern here is the implication that this is not handled "properly". The article is fairly full of "statements of fact", and carefully researched, a fact noticed in its recent peer review by editors not associated with its writing, and also supported by its long term stability. Assuming you mean that it is missing statements of fact about harm to animals, rather than statements of fact in general, then I would agree more, however then the concern is that the authorities on the subject make clear their view that harm seems minimal to them. So we may have to distinguish what harm is possible under certain circumstances, from judgement of a sexual act. That is an important aspect of writing in this field.
JH: There are many spurious and argumentitive statements in the article that seriously need chopping out. If you want to defend them, then add citations.
JH: * "the only kind of image that should appear in the article is the xray slide sort, of various injury to animals."
FT2: This is where your approach starts to disturb me. Why would this be the "only kind" which should appear? This statement concerns me more than the previous. Omitted statements of fact are easy to judge. This one suggests editorship with an agenda, which is not what Wikipedia is about.
JH: Again, what is my agenda? Please point out exactly what I am here for. Take your pick: I hate zoophiles, I am just here to cause trouble, I am stupid and don't understand NPOV policy, I am only interested in poking fun at those who prefer animal erotica, I am here to create a nasty and deliberately biased article.
Which image would you like to give me?
Its time to point out your biases, FT2. I'm a new editor here, and I've made some suggestions to make the article more neutral. An xray of damage to an animal is one neutral consequence of zoophilia. The present images are in no way neutral. Right now I suggest there should be no images at all in the article.
JH: * "The images are promotional. As zoophilia involves pornography, I see no way how any such art images can be justifiably used in the article."
FT2: And again, this word "promotional". Summarizing research may not be your viewpoint, but it is Wikipedia's, and labels don't change this. Please carefully read WP:NPOV, the guiding policy for how articles are balanced. Wikipedia is not a traditional source, and has a strict line on how differing views are balanced. We call this Original research, meaning it is for the most part likely to be personal view rather than validated fact. I'm not aware that zoophilia must "involve" pornography, any more than say, homosexuality must. From what I've read this is not an especial feature, and may not even be a norm. Can you please explain this statement?
JH: I am here because I see some editors (especially you) have found the present state of the article to be satisfactory. I disagree entirely and see that it needs a lot of work to balance it out. You are even now defending the present state of the article. So what do I think of you now? I know precisely what OR is. I can read. I did not say that zoophilia must involve porn. Zoophilia is strongly associated with pornography. Zoophiles often use animal erotica and porn and there is a porn industry supporting this activity. In fact some pedophiles also like animal porn (and yes many of the issues and arguments overlap). The article has actually tried to erroneously seperate too many factors here. Zoophilia is a paraphilia and there is often overlap. There is no distinct difference between zoophilia and zoosexuality. That hasn't been represented much at all. The image promote the idea that it is glamorous and a "god given" right to be a zoophile. This goes against common feeling, it goes against common morality, in the context of the subject, it encourages a disregard for the welfare of animals, and the presence of all of those images shows that there are promoters here, and shows that any non promoters have been irresponsible in allowing those images. The practical problem also is that if they are there, a lot of conflict will result. So ditch the tacky erotic art ASAP!
JH: * To place classical art as an illustration will leave the article open to much rancor in future for the majority who find zoophilia abusive and distasteful"
FT2: Classic art is Wikipedia's standard solution when wishing to illustrate some kinds of topic and subject. You'll see that elsewhere too. We're an encyclopedia. We draw on a variety of sources, not just literal ones. I'm not seeing any "rancor" except your personal disapproval as yet, and several of those images you cite have been up for around 2-3 years.
JH: As above! The images are inappropriate in this context. It is a zoophile's erotic art.
JH: * "So really, the article you have worked on is far from neutrally presented. I intend to remedy this rather big and obvious set of problems"
FT2: The agenda again. When you do so, please remember to cite relevant sources, and that zoophilia is not the same as animal abuse in any dictionary or research on the field which I have seen, or have access to. There may be animal abuse, or not. But Wikipedia is not a place for agendas and many editors have worked hard to ensure that agendas -- on both sides -- are not as major feature of this article. Please respect that.
JH: So far I have only seen your resistance to balance, resistance to responsible editing, and resistence to getting the article into shape. I intend to encourage neutrality, to represent the views in proportion to the world in general (as opposed to zoophiles' angle on the subject), and to encourage responsible editing.
Right now, the article is just as zoophiles would have it. It needs to be as Wikipedia and the world would have it. JHartley 04:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Zetawoof. According to Beirne (one of the proper citations you removed for whatever reason), male sexual activities towards animals in rural areas, and in urban areas are the most common form. Sex with animals is predominantly male activity towards animals. Concerning porn, yes a lot of females feature in zooporn. But also a great deal of it is about humiliating women. Either way, it is abusive to animals according to many people. Placing images of animals as the sexual initiator, is completely biased and disproportional representation. The easy solution is to remove those disproportionate and promotional images. The horse humper is still offensive, but at least it is representitive of zoophilia. It doesn't glamorize so much as the other erotic art. But of course, the easiest way around this is to remove all images. The fact remains, zoophilia is similar to pedophilia according to a great deal of the literature. It is predominantly what humans do to animals, and what males do to animals. The images bias and misrepresent the facts. Your inclusion of anal sex and homosexuals is quite off base. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality (I believe). Two communicating and consenting adults having sex, specifically communicating their desires during sex, being able to call for help if they are abused, is not at all like someone in power coercing a life form that cannot communicate its desires, that has no defense, and having sex with that animal. I'm sure most homosexuals would agree with me. Homosexuals do not generally have sex of any kind with infants, animals or in fact any creature who has no way to express consent or any creature for which they have a fiduciary duty of care. Zoophilia is mostly about a male's advances towards animals according to the research. The images in general have it all the wrong way round. In this regard, the whole article is biased. There are lengthy and in detail descriptions of animals trying to hump biologists, and long rather OR descriptions of alleged miscitations. I'm sure if I tried to add a similarly lengthy description of a zoophile trying to have sex with a rabbit dog or chicken, I would be accused of POV pushing. There are also lengthy arguments for why zoophiles think it is fine to have sex with animals including all reasoning. The majority view (against zoophilia) does not have the reasoning properly represented at all. Any minor reasoning there has been relegated to the notes section at the bottom. So the article needs a lot more balancing to make it close to NPOV ideals. No significant research needs be deleted, and all views will get a good airing. Neutrality is the ultimate objective here. JHartley 05:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
FT2, tell me who is less informed? Legislators? Ethics professors? JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
FT2, You are talking about me biasing the article? Look at your muddling and deliberately biasing of issues in the opening, see below. JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem at all with psychological research. But it is a neutral view, and says nothing about the legal or ethical side of zoophilia and does not explain at all why most of the world does not like the idea. You have it written in a way that it looks like psychologists support zoophilia. JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I have said that I will point out your bias in order to get this article into shape. You are a pro-zoophile editor. Your edits show that you are willing to write argumentatively and reduce the knowledge level of the article. JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
FT2, who are we to say that a source is uninformed or not? Are Linzey and others uninformed? Look at their credentials. They are perfectly suitable for the opening. Your writing seems to infer that psychologists support zoophilia and they are informed, whereas all others are not. The article needs to show exactly why there are laws against zoophilia, and it needs to say why some believe those laws should remain. (Care of animals). JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
FT2 The article is not neutral because pro-zoophile editors such as yourself, are pushing the fantasy that psychologists generally support sex with animals.
I will be more precise: In this para: “Sexual acts with animals are often condemned as "crimes against nature" and animal abuse. However some, such as philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argue that this is not inherently the case. Although research has broadly been supportive of at least some of zoophiles' central claims, common culture is generally hostile to the concept of animal–human sexuality.”
Now it says “However”. That is argumentative. Does Singer say that it is not always a crime against nature? No! He actually says it is not natural. In the issue of cruelty, he says that if a dog rubs itself on your leg it is not cruel. Then you say research is broadly supportive. Supportive of what? Crimes against nature? Animal abuse? Sex with animals? That line on research is so vague and transparently biased, the writer must think the reader is dumb. The research says nothing about why people in general are hostile to the idea of zoophilia. As a paragraph it is entirely biased towards zoophilia, and it is misleading.
“There is presently considerable debate over whether some aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an aberration or as an orientation. The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person. Critics point out that that DSM-IV says nothing about acceptability or the well-being of the animal, and many critics outside the field express views that sexual acts with animals are always either abusive or unethical. Defenders of zoosexuality argue that a human/animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, and that animals are capable of forming a genuinely loving relationship that can last for years and which is not functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.”
OK, then you start with research again (splitting research into two paras is misleading). Then you have critics again, and well being. Well actually, the wellbeing argument spreads throughout the whole legal-ethical field, rather than just the psychological. Many critics outside the field? So you are inferring that psychologists don’t consider zoophilia to be always abusive. As far as I’ve read, they really make no judgment on ethics or law. They simply present figures and facts. Then you add a nice big fat conclusion: Zoophiles are into deep loving relationships with their animals.
That is a couple of highly biased paragraphs. Now compare that with this:
"There is presently a debate in psychology whether some aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an abberation or as an orientation. The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person. Defenders of zoosexuality argue that a human/animal relationship can go beyond sexuality, and research exists that supports that perspective. There is also the belief among zoophiles that animals are capable of forming what is claimed to be a genuine loving relationship that can last for years and is not considered functionally different from any other love/sex relationship."
"Common culture is generally hostile to the concept of animal/human sexuality. Sexual acts with animals are often condemned in law and society as immoral, a "crimes against nature" and animal abuse. Philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argues that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal. Legal and ethical experts such as Belliotti (1993:231), Beirne (2000:328) and Lindzey (2000:29) say that, similar to pedophilia with infants, zoophilia is always abusive and coercive, and in order to reduce the likelihood of animal abuse in the short and long term, zoophilia should be illegal."
There is no argument in the latter. The issues are separated (first para: psych and what zoophiles say, and second para: Legal and ethical reasoning for why it is generally seen as bad, harmful, and illegal. The facts are informed by the literature. The literature is very solid on this. Zoophilia is seen as abuse by significant sources no matter what the intention. It is widely seen as similar to pedophilia. This latter version is without bias, without argumentative phrasing, and deals with the issues as they exist in the literature. No information has been deleted. FT2, your recent edits are clear evidence that you are here to bias the article towards promotion of pro-zoophilia argument. JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I see legal and ethical being used to advance a point of view. In effect the logic of your edits is, "never mind that people who actually know most about zoophilia and have studied it in depth, conclude it's not as commonly stereotyped, let's give primacy to the legal side and philosophers, who have no specialist qualifications, as 'the right view'." Which, by strange coincidence is the view you personally make clear you want to push into the article. Now... go read the literature of those who have actually researched it, before making personal belief statements about what psychologists and professionals do or don't hold as consensus.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 09:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
FT2, you have misrepresented the issues in the article, and have misrepresented my constructive and cooperative actions.
Who's view is it that the young offender's research is mis-cited? There is a whole section on mis-citing of research. It looks like a criticism of animal welfare workers. If an editor here is the only person saying that there is a mis-citation, then it is OR, and the whole sections should be removed. JHartley 05:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a whole section on miscitation of research. Unless it is the view of a reliable expert, the whole section is OR. Who says that those animal welfare links are misciting research? An editor here, or a reliable source? If there is a reliable source, it should be presented. The size or even existence of the section should be dependent upon who says it is so. JHartley 06:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Archived July 7 2006
This archive relates to HeadleyDown ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who attempted to POV edit the article, and was blocked shortly after commencing. FT2 ( Talk | email) 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello. According to NPOV policy, this article has a lot of problems. I understand that some may be sympathetic towards zoophiles, but realistically, the vast majority of people will find it distasteful. This is not handled properly in the article. In short, there is too much argument for arguing zoophilia may be love for animals, and not enough simple straight statements of fact.
I'm sure editors should have noticed the word "however" appears in places in the article, and I see no reason apart from promotionality, that editors have choosen to leave them in. There is also an absence of descriptions of the kind of damage incurred to animals. In fact, the only kind of image that should appear in the article is the xray slide sort, of various injury to animals.
The images are also promotional. As zoophilia involves pornography, I see no way how any such art images can be justifiably used in the article. To place classical art as an illustration will leave the article open to much rancor in future for the majority who find zoophilia abusive and distasteful. There are clearly many more negative images that could be placed in the article. Also, the Michaelangelo is a painting about classical mythology full stop. The swan is not actually a swan, but a greek god (Zeus). The swan is a representation of Zeus.
So I am going to be bold and take action on the problems presented in the article. I understand NPOV policy pretty well, so if anyone has any problems with this, please state specific guidelines. Thank you. JHartley 05:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I received this note on my talk page, and was going to reply to it on JHartley's own, until I realized there was already discussion here. So instead of splitting the discussion I'll put what I was going to say, here, instead.
Re your note.
I appreciate it. Its no bad thing to have additional information.
You might find the following drafts relevant however, before you assume bad faith or assume that information on harm to animals via abuse is being omitted:
Since zoophilia is a summary article, it seemed unfeasible to summarize something for which there was no main article. Those are areas I'm working on in the background.
Perhaps if you could help contribute to these, we can then summarize them in the main article. That's the main concern that came up in reviewing the article, namely, sub areas needing in-depth cover should have their own articles separately. I've made a start on both, and put in placeholders for abuse. The ' asa' article's really the one I've been wanting to research most, because that's really needed, and thats the one where your help would be really valued, and some of the points you're making would be likely to be far more appropriate.
I also would like to hammer this out on the 'asa' article because I have concerns reading your note. May I comment on it, to clarify so that you know where I am and we can set about working well together on it.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 08:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking further, I see edits to the article. I also see that
User:Raul654, am editor who has not been associated with the editing of this article except in his role in Featured Article decisions and cleanup of proposed F.A.'s, has reverted them, which suggests to me that they were probably agenda based or unsupported. My comments follow:
FT2 ( Talk | email) 08:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually would value help on the animal sexual abuse article. If that one could be collaborated on... the animal porn one I'm happy on, but that one I want more input and co-authoring please. Anyone? Please! FT2 ( Talk | email) 23:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Reply to FT2:
Zoophilia is seen as unethical because it is always against the welfare of the animal, regardless of intention. This ethical point has been de-emphasized throughout the article, and has been argued against using non-ethical psychological facts. This is inappropriate and creates a pro-zoophilia article. Furthermore, the article is presently set up to appeal to zoophiles. It displays a complete lack of empathy for animals, and shows that it is possible for pro-zoophiles to promote and emphasize their arguments on Wikipedia. The article needs a lot of work to balance this out. I understand I must work on this cooperatively with all editors here, and I also realize there are going to be pro-zoophilia editors. So I will do my duty to point out editor's biases in this correctional activity.
FT2: Sympathy is not the aim. But nor is pandering to repugnance or distaste. Most researchers into it also seem sympathetic which is probably rather more relevant.
JH: Pandering is not my intention. Neutrally explaining why there is repugnance is important. Most research here is psychological an not ethical or legal. The psychological research generally makes no moral decision on zoophilia, and it is inherently sympathetic to zoophiles because they often have problems getting on in society. A good deal of the ethics and legal papers are not sympathetic. Most of humanity finds it very distasteful, bizarre, or just ridicules the "preference". So the article is extremely skewed already. There is insufficient explanation for why humanity finds it repugnant, abusive, or ridiculous. The ethical side has not been handled at all well. This, together with the religious side, connects strongly with law. As law makes up a great deal of humanity, it requires a much larger portion of the article with full rationales for why zoophilia is illegal. This can all be handled within the reasonable file size (a third of what the article is now). Once all the rambling excuses for abuse and ethically lax illegality have been cut down to size, the real views of the world can be represented. I would like to emphasize this is all to be done perfectly neutrally. Above anyone here, I don't want the article to seem like it is written by by a bunch of fanatical tea swilling animal loving tree huggers (like myself:) Once the views of the intelligent world have been presented neutrally, the reader can make up their own mind.
JH:* "Realistically, the vast majority of people will find it distasteful."
FT2: The like or dislike of people is noted, in several places, and its made clear it is strongly disapproved. But beyond that, we've had this discussion and asked others for clarification. The consensus is clear -- beyond that, the "feelings of people in general" do not guide how a matter is represented. Clinically, if zoophilia is harmful, or can be, then thats important to note, but that would be because it is harmful, not because people find it uncomfortable as a concept. The "distaste" is noted, but otherwise of low importance.
JH: There are reasons why people intuitively find it distasteful. This may be based upon various scenarious in the minds of people (would you allow someone to do that to your rabbit, chicken, swan, cat, horse, gerbil, ? etc). There are ethical reasons behind these intuitions and they exist somewhere in the literature. So lets dig them up and ignore the promoters when they say they don't exist.
JH:* "This is not handled properly in the article. In short, there is too much argument for arguing zoophilia may be love for animals, and not enough simple straight statements of fact."
FT2 "Too much" by what standard exactly? Your personal opinion?
JH Neutral editing is the goal. Lets focus on that, rather than cast aspersions on my intentions.
FT2: My concern here is the implication that this is not handled "properly". The article is fairly full of "statements of fact", and carefully researched, a fact noticed in its recent peer review by editors not associated with its writing, and also supported by its long term stability. Assuming you mean that it is missing statements of fact about harm to animals, rather than statements of fact in general, then I would agree more, however then the concern is that the authorities on the subject make clear their view that harm seems minimal to them. So we may have to distinguish what harm is possible under certain circumstances, from judgement of a sexual act. That is an important aspect of writing in this field.
JH: There are many spurious and argumentitive statements in the article that seriously need chopping out. If you want to defend them, then add citations.
JH: * "the only kind of image that should appear in the article is the xray slide sort, of various injury to animals."
FT2: This is where your approach starts to disturb me. Why would this be the "only kind" which should appear? This statement concerns me more than the previous. Omitted statements of fact are easy to judge. This one suggests editorship with an agenda, which is not what Wikipedia is about.
JH: Again, what is my agenda? Please point out exactly what I am here for. Take your pick: I hate zoophiles, I am just here to cause trouble, I am stupid and don't understand NPOV policy, I am only interested in poking fun at those who prefer animal erotica, I am here to create a nasty and deliberately biased article.
Which image would you like to give me?
Its time to point out your biases, FT2. I'm a new editor here, and I've made some suggestions to make the article more neutral. An xray of damage to an animal is one neutral consequence of zoophilia. The present images are in no way neutral. Right now I suggest there should be no images at all in the article.
JH: * "The images are promotional. As zoophilia involves pornography, I see no way how any such art images can be justifiably used in the article."
FT2: And again, this word "promotional". Summarizing research may not be your viewpoint, but it is Wikipedia's, and labels don't change this. Please carefully read WP:NPOV, the guiding policy for how articles are balanced. Wikipedia is not a traditional source, and has a strict line on how differing views are balanced. We call this Original research, meaning it is for the most part likely to be personal view rather than validated fact. I'm not aware that zoophilia must "involve" pornography, any more than say, homosexuality must. From what I've read this is not an especial feature, and may not even be a norm. Can you please explain this statement?
JH: I am here because I see some editors (especially you) have found the present state of the article to be satisfactory. I disagree entirely and see that it needs a lot of work to balance it out. You are even now defending the present state of the article. So what do I think of you now? I know precisely what OR is. I can read. I did not say that zoophilia must involve porn. Zoophilia is strongly associated with pornography. Zoophiles often use animal erotica and porn and there is a porn industry supporting this activity. In fact some pedophiles also like animal porn (and yes many of the issues and arguments overlap). The article has actually tried to erroneously seperate too many factors here. Zoophilia is a paraphilia and there is often overlap. There is no distinct difference between zoophilia and zoosexuality. That hasn't been represented much at all. The image promote the idea that it is glamorous and a "god given" right to be a zoophile. This goes against common feeling, it goes against common morality, in the context of the subject, it encourages a disregard for the welfare of animals, and the presence of all of those images shows that there are promoters here, and shows that any non promoters have been irresponsible in allowing those images. The practical problem also is that if they are there, a lot of conflict will result. So ditch the tacky erotic art ASAP!
JH: * To place classical art as an illustration will leave the article open to much rancor in future for the majority who find zoophilia abusive and distasteful"
FT2: Classic art is Wikipedia's standard solution when wishing to illustrate some kinds of topic and subject. You'll see that elsewhere too. We're an encyclopedia. We draw on a variety of sources, not just literal ones. I'm not seeing any "rancor" except your personal disapproval as yet, and several of those images you cite have been up for around 2-3 years.
JH: As above! The images are inappropriate in this context. It is a zoophile's erotic art.
JH: * "So really, the article you have worked on is far from neutrally presented. I intend to remedy this rather big and obvious set of problems"
FT2: The agenda again. When you do so, please remember to cite relevant sources, and that zoophilia is not the same as animal abuse in any dictionary or research on the field which I have seen, or have access to. There may be animal abuse, or not. But Wikipedia is not a place for agendas and many editors have worked hard to ensure that agendas -- on both sides -- are not as major feature of this article. Please respect that.
JH: So far I have only seen your resistance to balance, resistance to responsible editing, and resistence to getting the article into shape. I intend to encourage neutrality, to represent the views in proportion to the world in general (as opposed to zoophiles' angle on the subject), and to encourage responsible editing.
Right now, the article is just as zoophiles would have it. It needs to be as Wikipedia and the world would have it. JHartley 04:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Zetawoof. According to Beirne (one of the proper citations you removed for whatever reason), male sexual activities towards animals in rural areas, and in urban areas are the most common form. Sex with animals is predominantly male activity towards animals. Concerning porn, yes a lot of females feature in zooporn. But also a great deal of it is about humiliating women. Either way, it is abusive to animals according to many people. Placing images of animals as the sexual initiator, is completely biased and disproportional representation. The easy solution is to remove those disproportionate and promotional images. The horse humper is still offensive, but at least it is representitive of zoophilia. It doesn't glamorize so much as the other erotic art. But of course, the easiest way around this is to remove all images. The fact remains, zoophilia is similar to pedophilia according to a great deal of the literature. It is predominantly what humans do to animals, and what males do to animals. The images bias and misrepresent the facts. Your inclusion of anal sex and homosexuals is quite off base. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality (I believe). Two communicating and consenting adults having sex, specifically communicating their desires during sex, being able to call for help if they are abused, is not at all like someone in power coercing a life form that cannot communicate its desires, that has no defense, and having sex with that animal. I'm sure most homosexuals would agree with me. Homosexuals do not generally have sex of any kind with infants, animals or in fact any creature who has no way to express consent or any creature for which they have a fiduciary duty of care. Zoophilia is mostly about a male's advances towards animals according to the research. The images in general have it all the wrong way round. In this regard, the whole article is biased. There are lengthy and in detail descriptions of animals trying to hump biologists, and long rather OR descriptions of alleged miscitations. I'm sure if I tried to add a similarly lengthy description of a zoophile trying to have sex with a rabbit dog or chicken, I would be accused of POV pushing. There are also lengthy arguments for why zoophiles think it is fine to have sex with animals including all reasoning. The majority view (against zoophilia) does not have the reasoning properly represented at all. Any minor reasoning there has been relegated to the notes section at the bottom. So the article needs a lot more balancing to make it close to NPOV ideals. No significant research needs be deleted, and all views will get a good airing. Neutrality is the ultimate objective here. JHartley 05:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
FT2, tell me who is less informed? Legislators? Ethics professors? JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
FT2, You are talking about me biasing the article? Look at your muddling and deliberately biasing of issues in the opening, see below. JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem at all with psychological research. But it is a neutral view, and says nothing about the legal or ethical side of zoophilia and does not explain at all why most of the world does not like the idea. You have it written in a way that it looks like psychologists support zoophilia. JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I have said that I will point out your bias in order to get this article into shape. You are a pro-zoophile editor. Your edits show that you are willing to write argumentatively and reduce the knowledge level of the article. JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
FT2, who are we to say that a source is uninformed or not? Are Linzey and others uninformed? Look at their credentials. They are perfectly suitable for the opening. Your writing seems to infer that psychologists support zoophilia and they are informed, whereas all others are not. The article needs to show exactly why there are laws against zoophilia, and it needs to say why some believe those laws should remain. (Care of animals). JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
FT2 The article is not neutral because pro-zoophile editors such as yourself, are pushing the fantasy that psychologists generally support sex with animals.
I will be more precise: In this para: “Sexual acts with animals are often condemned as "crimes against nature" and animal abuse. However some, such as philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argue that this is not inherently the case. Although research has broadly been supportive of at least some of zoophiles' central claims, common culture is generally hostile to the concept of animal–human sexuality.”
Now it says “However”. That is argumentative. Does Singer say that it is not always a crime against nature? No! He actually says it is not natural. In the issue of cruelty, he says that if a dog rubs itself on your leg it is not cruel. Then you say research is broadly supportive. Supportive of what? Crimes against nature? Animal abuse? Sex with animals? That line on research is so vague and transparently biased, the writer must think the reader is dumb. The research says nothing about why people in general are hostile to the idea of zoophilia. As a paragraph it is entirely biased towards zoophilia, and it is misleading.
“There is presently considerable debate over whether some aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an aberration or as an orientation. The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person. Critics point out that that DSM-IV says nothing about acceptability or the well-being of the animal, and many critics outside the field express views that sexual acts with animals are always either abusive or unethical. Defenders of zoosexuality argue that a human/animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, and that animals are capable of forming a genuinely loving relationship that can last for years and which is not functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.”
OK, then you start with research again (splitting research into two paras is misleading). Then you have critics again, and well being. Well actually, the wellbeing argument spreads throughout the whole legal-ethical field, rather than just the psychological. Many critics outside the field? So you are inferring that psychologists don’t consider zoophilia to be always abusive. As far as I’ve read, they really make no judgment on ethics or law. They simply present figures and facts. Then you add a nice big fat conclusion: Zoophiles are into deep loving relationships with their animals.
That is a couple of highly biased paragraphs. Now compare that with this:
"There is presently a debate in psychology whether some aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an abberation or as an orientation. The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person. Defenders of zoosexuality argue that a human/animal relationship can go beyond sexuality, and research exists that supports that perspective. There is also the belief among zoophiles that animals are capable of forming what is claimed to be a genuine loving relationship that can last for years and is not considered functionally different from any other love/sex relationship."
"Common culture is generally hostile to the concept of animal/human sexuality. Sexual acts with animals are often condemned in law and society as immoral, a "crimes against nature" and animal abuse. Philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argues that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal. Legal and ethical experts such as Belliotti (1993:231), Beirne (2000:328) and Lindzey (2000:29) say that, similar to pedophilia with infants, zoophilia is always abusive and coercive, and in order to reduce the likelihood of animal abuse in the short and long term, zoophilia should be illegal."
There is no argument in the latter. The issues are separated (first para: psych and what zoophiles say, and second para: Legal and ethical reasoning for why it is generally seen as bad, harmful, and illegal. The facts are informed by the literature. The literature is very solid on this. Zoophilia is seen as abuse by significant sources no matter what the intention. It is widely seen as similar to pedophilia. This latter version is without bias, without argumentative phrasing, and deals with the issues as they exist in the literature. No information has been deleted. FT2, your recent edits are clear evidence that you are here to bias the article towards promotion of pro-zoophilia argument. JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I see legal and ethical being used to advance a point of view. In effect the logic of your edits is, "never mind that people who actually know most about zoophilia and have studied it in depth, conclude it's not as commonly stereotyped, let's give primacy to the legal side and philosophers, who have no specialist qualifications, as 'the right view'." Which, by strange coincidence is the view you personally make clear you want to push into the article. Now... go read the literature of those who have actually researched it, before making personal belief statements about what psychologists and professionals do or don't hold as consensus.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 09:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
FT2, you have misrepresented the issues in the article, and have misrepresented my constructive and cooperative actions.
Who's view is it that the young offender's research is mis-cited? There is a whole section on mis-citing of research. It looks like a criticism of animal welfare workers. If an editor here is the only person saying that there is a mis-citation, then it is OR, and the whole sections should be removed. JHartley 05:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a whole section on miscitation of research. Unless it is the view of a reliable expert, the whole section is OR. Who says that those animal welfare links are misciting research? An editor here, or a reliable source? If there is a reliable source, it should be presented. The size or even existence of the section should be dependent upon who says it is so. JHartley 06:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)