the Bestiality article is called 'zoophilia' in an attempt to legitimize the practice, despite this term being used half as often or less.

FT2 is involved in writing it, for which a bloke has got blocked for saying it means he might be a bit sick and wrong. Of course where we edit doesn't necessarily reflect our own personal hobbies.

I don't think he is behind most of it but there seems too be a strong pro-bestiality slant to the article, which is not NPOV

Having this kind of article on WP really doesn't surprise me.

Was that DUROVA. you know how she loves to consort with animals.

rofl that lasted 6 months without being changed

There's something to be said for using scientific instead of pejorative terms. Remember, as all major encyclopedias have figured out (Wikipedia doesn't count), true neutrality is independent of how many people like or dislike something.

hmmm but a minority view is a minority view, and people should not be misled that it is anything else.

And it only got changed when I myself outted it! For all her bragging about "complex investigations" and "wiki sleuthing" and knowing our "Plans B, C, and D", you'd think Durova would have kept more careful watch over her own namesake article!

Thank you for noticing the tenure of that edit. How many times do we see the media spout off that "most vandals' edits are corrected almost immediately"? It's like saying "most passenger aircraft at Wiki International Airport take off and land without crashing in a horrific ball of flames". It may be true, but is that the point?

Greg

It's kinda standard for wikipedia articles not to insult the subject, too. So it would be pro-bestiality.

That's the problem with spending a lot of time working on secret complex investigations: it leaves very little time left for working on encyclopedia articles. Which is the point of Wikipedia.

Obviously, I don't condone vandalism (especially "revenge" vandalism), but tools such as Flagged Revisions might have helped prevent silly things like this from showing up on Google and dozens of WP mirrors. Flagged Revisions was first proposed at Wikimania in 2006. The software has been available since March 2007. It is almost 2008 now.

This made me laugh. I'm not sure why.

I think we may be flogging a dead horse with this one.

If you're into necrophilia and S&M as well as bestiality, that might be your thing.

The original edits from user FT2 come from that topic and all topics about sexuality.
I suspect FT2 to be a friend of Jimmy or an associate from the "old days."

Maybe another mine field in the history of WP.

There does seem to be a limitless supply of hidden land mines and closeted skeletons in WikiLand.

The wordfilter didn't change horse to hourse, which is the Brittish version...........





Until these links die:

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/...t-20071217.html
http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/...t-20071218.html

I think what is really highly telling is the fact that this statement has been the basic conclusion of the lead section for as long as the article has existed:

"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.[citation needed]"

Its basically the NAMBLA argument as applied to animals, and it is answered by most of the ethical arguments that go against it. Its utterly disgraceful. There are similar unanswered statements (that do actually have well sourced but seemingly absent answers) throughout the article. In fact I would class it as an "excuse" article. I think there are many such articles all over WP. It may be a good idea to list them sometime. This one stands out as about the most repulsive though. Docknell

It's a bit beyond NAMBLA. An adolescent male if gay can be horny, though probably not for a fat overweight man who is somewhat old.

As for animals consenting, it's hard to tell if the animal is just going along with it like when it goes along with things it doesn't like such as taking a bath. The only time you know the animal consents is if the male animal dryhumps a human (dogs do that) or rapes a human (very rare).

Dogs of both sexes "dry hump". Our young bitch does it occasionally to other dogs and very occasionally, people. It is not sexual activity, it is establishing dominance. It is an instinctive, not a considered, action.

Dogs are very trainable and will do most things for a biscuit, including things that they do not much want to do. People generally establish a very dominant relationship over their dogs, so it is not surprising that a dog would tolerate fairly unpleasant behaviour.

We have a guide dog puppy and so are very into training. We were quite surprised how easy it was to get it to urinate on command, and to a lesser degree of success so far, to defecate on command. It is therefore entirely unsurprising that you can get dogs to perform other bodily functions on command.

Children of any age hump things. Its a natural activity and it is sexual or pre-sexual behavior. However, if a 2 year old starts humping your leg, it is very very far from ok to join in. Common or garden ethics would indicate that we have a duty of care over both animals and children. That rather massively important argument has been rather sneakily minimized to the point of non-existence in the article by such editors as FT2, Zetawoof and others. Its something that belongs loud and clear as the answer to the namblaesque argument that predominates in the lead and main article. Docknell.

These are good points. Thank you. Note here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...a&oldid=8984651

FT2 makes an interesting series of arguments on the pro-zoo side (the section beginning ‘Comments for Dr Zen’).

The whole thing is worth a read but I am intrigued by his assertion that ‘I can't find an recent academic willing to take what is supposed to be society's "normal" side on these two specific questions’ [the questions being 1. whether zoophiles are sick 2. whether zoophilia is harmful to animals].

On 2 at least he seems to have ignored Frank Ascione’s 1993 article which claims 'bestiality may be considered cruel even in cases when physical harm to an animal does not occur (this is similar to the case of adult sexual activity with a child where consent is presumed to be impossible).' and a more recent paper by Piers Beirne (Professor of Criminology at the University of Southern Maine) who points out that 'for genuine consent to sexual relations to be present...both participants must be conscious, fully informed and positive in their desires'.

Grateful for anyone who can locate more research on the other side.