http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_an...es_on_zoophilia

This seems to be the general argument in the overview section:

Zoosexuality is very widespread some allowed it, some didn’t.
The nasty old church executed animallovers and their lovely animals if found guilty.
Zoophilia was treated as sodomy (the old pedophilia=homosexuality argument peeping through).
Non zoophiles don’t like it, and negative press in the west = moral panic.

It’s condemned, widely MISTAKEN??? as zoosadism (rather than a deep and abiding love for animals).
Even though it is mistaken as zoosadism, its only mostly evidenced online (no mention of zoo porn, duty of care, similarities between pro zoophile and pro-pedophile arguments, no mention of keeping Labrador retrievers for the purpose of sexual gratification).

Started and written largely by FT2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history


Some interesting snapshots:

FT2 really does have a thing about tails
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=28670257
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...2&oldid=4859569

Oh, so that’s HOW TO do it with reptilians!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=28715290

Ah, yes it’s a little bit much to call it “sinful, unnatural, and depraved”
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=28715041

Charged with mutually consenting sex?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=28715079

FT2 always had something against Peter Damian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=28748652
(On the other hand, other accounts are more possibly fictitious, such as accounts such as Peter Damain's)

One of FT2’s many many “it is important to note” notes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=40000722


And, NPOV defended by FT2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=30491876

(A bit of WP:OWN going on here I suspect, perfectly reasonable perhaps, FT2 being such an expert in these matters)


Doc

Are you, like, obsessed with zoophilia or something?

----------------
Now playing: Avril Lavigne - I Always Get What I Want
via FoxyTunes

Sorry, whats that about foxy tunes?

Doc

It's a Firefox plugin that hooks into iTunes and is able to control it, as well as display more information about the artists (I think some of it comes from Wikipedia) and insert "Now playing" signatures in my forum posts.

----------------
Now playing: Vega4 - Life Is Beautiful
via FoxyTunes

I remember that from the HBO series promo, thought Tracy Chapman's Change fit better.

Ok, a plugin!

So what do you think about FT2's article?

Doc

Why don't you tell us what you think about it? Again.

Ok, I think its another POV fork and a way for FT2 and friends to promote bestiality as something that has been "wrongfully" misunderstood as nasty, evil and horrid.

It also seems to involve some zoophilia jack off material for either trying to make it too yucky to edit, or just because they like to write about such stuff for their own pleasure.

What do you think?

Doc

I think that when you start getting all of these "spinoff" articles, that something's definitely up. Add in the article about "Zoophilia", "Zoosexuality" (look at all of the tags up top on that one....) et al....and you get a rather apparent "agenda" being obviously present.

They really need to try to write ONE, well-sourced NPOV article on this topic, since it doesn't seem that any of these articles really qualify there....

To be fair, Peter's deletion attempts stirred up some action towards that. However, the inequality of the battle is a major general issue. People who are evangelists for a view on a subject have a specific motivation. It is not always true that there is a balancing motivation on the part of others to do battle, so often, especially on fringe areas, it is likely that the viewpoint pushers can more than outlast the opposition.

If we consider bestiality (I refuse to use the Wikipedian neologism), although the community as a whole may be agin it, without knowledge and research of an area it is pretty difficult to oppose a particular bias; especially, as we have seen here, where the information at first sight appears to be referenced. The fact that Peter was motivated through personal reasons to take up that cause has made him something of a lone warrior, and has allowed people to characterise him as fixated - which may be true, but it is what is needed, and is not necessarily a bad thing.

So on distasteful subjects, who is going to step forward and represent that neutral view? Your average editor simply isn't going to be interested, and will of course not want to be associated with the subject, for fear of being tarred as someone who is unhealthily interested in the subject. So it seems to me that Wikipedia is pretty well stuffed if it assumes that a subject like this will magically tend towards neutrality and perfection.

Yep, I agree.

So the best thing to do is to find a particularly WPedia arbitrator (FT2), see what sort of warped crap they have on their mind, and flag it for the fringe pushing bullshit that it is.

Then relate it to the sort of crap they spout on a daily basis in the office of arbitrator

Anyone want to cultivate a bit of zoophilia? Perhaps get their family into it with the nearest pet shop? You know, meet up with a new and groovy culture who has all the Greek and Roman cultures down pat. Highly erudite and perfectly respectable! Introduce your children to the vast array of experiences that is: "loving" animals!

From Bomis porn to entertaining FTZoo. Grand High Wizard Jimmy Wales will be proud!

WP is incurably perverted from top to bottom. Just don't mention that you are a particular brutalizing fringe practitioner, and you are well away!

Free to edit and arbitrate!

No questions asked!

(at least, not until you turn up to push more of the same crap on WR)

Doc

This will cause a new level of caution when posting regarding ArbCom. "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on" could be grossly misunderstood.

Looks like a bestality cabal to match the paedophile (semi-legitimised with the term "pederasty" instead) one...

DB I agree with these points very much but PLEASE don't say I am taking this up for personal reasons. I don't work in academia any more, but I occasionally publish papers and my name is reasonably well known in the medieval community and I have a sort of reputation to protect. I have been fighting a battle against cruft on this project for a long time. That is the only reason for continuing this campaign. If it was personal, I would have stopped long ago.

Indeed! It also gives a whole new meaning to this lolcat:

Hi PD

I had a hard time trying to "sound" impersonal on these matters. And given the comments of FT2, and others on ANIs and other pages, they will call it personal as long as it suits them. So I simply don't bother any more.

The diffs do the real talking and the perpetrators have been caught with their pants down.

Doc

Sure, anyone having to deal with FT2 will need to somehow get around the problem of the particular biases towards promotion of said fringe.

And that includes trying not to mention anything to do with animals, teaching old dogs new tricks and so on.

Potentially highly embarrassing

Doc

WP has always been a lot like American Idol. Here's FT2's chance to really formally audition.

As to the embarrassment, well, what can we say.

As this will all become public when it goes to Arbcom, I publish Wales' email below. It's official - FT2's editing is NOT slanted.

[edit] I have asked him, though suspect will not get a reply, why in that case the edit below was oversighted (i.e. deleted from the Wikipedia database).

Sincere apologies. What I meant by the phrase was "reasons understood by himself but that I am not privy to". I realise that the phrase is ambiguous and there was no intention to imply that you had some real life interaction with this issue in any form.

That's OK. I am a bit sensitive about this at the moment with Jimbo sending these emails about what my 'accusations' are supposed to be.

Best

Peter

I understand, which was why I was entirely happy to formally clarify it for you.

I am not surprised in any way. In effect, Wales is encouraging fringe perv POV pushing, and discouraging people from cleaning up said perv POV.

As I said before:

"From Bomis porn to entertaining FTZoo. Grand High Wizard Jimmy Wales will be proud!

WP is incurably perverted from top to bottom. Just don't mention that you are a particular brutalizing fringe practitioner, and you are well away!

Free to edit and arbitrate!

No questions asked!"


With Wales' last comments above, its becoming clearer that its not just a matter of no questions asked: Its more a case of Wales actively encouraging every sociopathic POV pushing tactic from tendentious editing, to extreme information suppression, to election fixing, to downright bullying and dishonesty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141077281
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62331938
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17944
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown

And there will be much rejoicing (from the extreme fringe)

There are encouraging signs that some WP editors will remove the twisted creations of such admins as FT2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...on/NLP_Modeling

However, Wales seems to be siding with fringe promotion.

Doc

As a rapid inclusionist, I'm somewhat on the fence about this. For example, I think it's quite reasonable that an Encyclopedia Galactica might be a place for (adults) to go to learn about odd topics like fetishes and torture and zoophilia and The Dark Side in general. But since POV is hardly avoidable in these things, various Pro- and Anti- articles need to be spun off and clearly labeled, and then their proponents and believers given a reasonable amount of freedom, so long as the opposing articles and arguments are summarized and referenced. How else are we to learn about Satanism or homeopathy? As I said, we do this with religion; I see no reason we can't do it for any topic, appetizing or not.

The problem comes when articles are WP:OWNed by one side with a POV, and nobody will admit it. THAT side forces only a single article, and they make sure it comes down on their own POV, which they perceive to be neutral. Stray facts are not allowed, as for example in the animal rights article where "dominion" is noted in genesis, but not any of the various other clear referneces to animals as property in the bible.

We've noted the endless polishing of Keith Mann's knob on WP. Yes, the guy has a point of view, and so does Ingrid Newkirk, but who is there to speak up for the other side? And to point out the people like Mann make no sense?

Here's something interesting. Some time ago, some biologists at the Mammal Society totted up the kill of the average English housecat when allowed outside, in yearly numbers of small animals like mice, young rats, voles, small birds, lizards, etc. When multiplied by the number of cats in England, and fudged a bit because nobody quite knows what fraction of English cats are allowed out, the number of small animal kills by the UK's 8 million cats yearly comes out at least something like 300 million animals a year. Cut that by 1/8, if you think most cats are kept exclusively inside (which they are not). This the ~40 million or so animals is so much larger than the number of rodents used in all of UK medical research (order of hundreds of thousands a year) that it's not even close.

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi775/cat_predation.htm

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy...s/predation.pdf

Now, WHY are these animals killed? They are not killed for food, but almost entirely for pleasure. Most of these cats are NOT feral, and have plenty of food at home. Most of the victim animals do not die either quickly or painlessly (I speak as an owner of many cats, which I DO let outside).

So. Animal rights activists have gone crazy about hunting OF foxes. But not about hunting BY domestic nonferal cats. There are no "keep your cats indoors" campaigns (except, interestingly, by bird lovers!). From the animal rights activist side, there is only stealing a few hundreds of lab rodents while literally millions are being eaten alive. No killing of rodents to figure out medical problems. This is only allowed to keep pussycat happy.

The killing goes on as a quality of life FOR THE CATS issue (which is, in fact, why I allow it for my own cats). Ourdoor-access cats' lives are a bit better, albeit (we admit this) likely to be shorter. For this, all those small animals die. I'm honest about this. The owners of these articles on Wikipedia are not. Nor are their subjects.

The reason you hear no "indoor cat" campaigns from the likes of Keith Mann, is that it does will not serve his political purposes. Where's the drawma? Where's the danger? It's not really that he loves mice. Actually, he does not really care that much about mice when victims of cats (he cannot be THAT stupid or ignorant, and still be able to walk and talk and politicize). But he does apparently generally dislike people, because he's against mice being used even for basic research. But what he really likes, is attention.

Who, BTW, is polishing Keith Mann's BLP on Wikipedia? Three guesses. Okay, one.

The article at present has a strong POV, and as FT2 said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historic...es_on_zoophilia

"The article is acknowledged incomplete at present. Did you see the note "This article is being drafted at present and may be incomplete" at the top?"

Of course that was 2005

There is no attempt to include ethical views into the article (of which there are multiple, including the duty of care issue - neglected by WP in general)

The strategy of FT2 and other pushers is always to claim that the articles are in a shit state because of banned POV pushers. Wales seems to be claiming the same.

Of course, the result is we end up with warped articles such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

The fringe side largely defended by FT2.

And promotional articles such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_an...es_on_zoophilia



and similarly but commercialized POV pushing bunk such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_metaphor

All started by FT2 for the purpose of fringe POV pushing

The pattern of cruft is unmistakable

Wales can deny it as much as he likes. Its a damning picture and a typically shoddy product.

Doc

One can learn about Satanism or homeopathy without said subjects being promoted. That is the point. When FT2 tries to remove or sideline a medical experts' warning about the health risks posed by Zoophilia, then I have a concern. End of story.

Well I think that end of story goes a very long way. Judging by the head honcho letter above, Wales is championing gross misrepresentation.

Its not only postees here who find it distasteful, but there will be a lot of hard beaten and bullied WP editors who have to put up with the ramifications of his cruft sociopathy approval.

We've seen the posts of "boylove" sites, how they view WP as a useful medium for their "cause", and how they celebrate when a persistently pedocleanup editor is booted. The same will be true of bestial groups and others. WP will continue to be a save haven for anonymous loony fringe POV pushers for a long time to come.

Best just keep flagging it for what it is. The most effective misrepresentation device on the net, championed by someone who leads by example.

Doc

Well it's not the end of the story anyway, given that Wales has now agreed to my request for arbitration. Not a good idea in my - bound to be a train wreck of spectacular proportions, given the existing polarisation of the community. More later.

One of the parody Wikipedia's tends to label anyone who has a name of an animal in their user name or mentions animals too regularly as a "Furry".

Well I do have a mousey avatar, as does Moulton, One is an otter, Dogbiscuit is a dog/biscuit, Eva D is a cat, Fiery was a rabbit for a while. So maybe this forum is even more full of furrys than ED thought.

I thought it was great when Fox Moulder was labeled as a furry. However, the paranoia and conspiracy theories merged with furry identity does seem to be rather common, if you include WR.

The article is entirely TL;DR, because as far as I'm concerned, people who want to have sex with animals are pretty much just sick fucks who are fucked up in the head, and it's not something that I would want to consider in any more detail than that right now. I did skim over the article quite recently and it just reads like typical Wikipedese politically correct propaganda bullshit, full of neologisms that no one in the real world uses and the usual academic crap, whilst appeasing the views of said sick fucks and not including the views of every normal fucking person on the planet. Free, neutral encyclopedia my fucking arse.

Also, furries are just... so difficult to understand for me. Same goes for homosexual men - sure, they can do what they want, I don't care, but why the fuck are they the way they are when there are so many damned hot females going around and they're not even interested? That I will never understand.

Well, one man's promotion is another man's reasoned disquisition.

Is it really (under the table) promotion of skydiving if you don't have a picture of somebody with their thighbones rammed up though their pelvis because their chute didn't open? How much of that should be in there, before it becomes balanced and NPOV as to risks/benefits?

You see the problem is that risks are objective, but sometimes not quantifiable, and benefits are totally subjective. That's one reason why some people some people skydive and some don't, some people scuba and some don't, some women take hormones after menopause and some don't, and on and on and on. There's no such thing as NPOV here, because people are different.

So how are you going to write this stuff? Well, you BEGIN by aknowledging that NPOV is not even a good paradigm in most cases. It was a bad idea. It's an unworkable concept. It causes more havoc than help. But because it's Jimbo's own (or he thinks it is), we're stuck with it. And the warriors who really don't want sets of articles written from any points of view, will use NPOV to force all POVs into a single article, even thought it's like forcing acetylene into the same tank with oxygen. Stupid.

So yes, the cliquish POV-pushers on WP are a problem. But there's a meta-problem which is even worse. If you solve it, the cliquish POVers can go off in the corner and do their own thing, like that adult cinema which you walk past and don't go into, and everybody should be happy. Except busybodies.

And yes, WP needs a "brown paper wrapper" section that it's (at least harder for) children to visit. You could put it on a en.wikipedia.xxx/wiki or en.wikipdia.org/xxxwiki site or something with an easily identifiable tag so that parental controls already in place on browsers would "see" it. No, I don't think Bomis Jimbo is going to do this anytime soon.

Hi Milton

You said:


"Well, one man's promotion is another man's reasoned disquisition.

Is it really (under the table) promotion of skydiving if you don't have a picture of somebody with their thighbones rammed up though their pelvis because their chute didn't open? How much of that should be in there, before it becomes balanced and NPOV as to risks/benefits?

You see the problem is that risks are objective, but sometimes not quantifiable, and benefits are totally subjective. That's one reason why some people some people skydive and some don't, some people scuba and some don't, some women take hormones after menopause and some don't, and on and on and on. There's no such thing as NPOV here, because people are different."


Well, there are no pictures of zoosadismporn in the article. Of course there shouldn't be.

Its not really a case of removing anything quoted from reliable sources. Rather, its just a matter of allowing all relevant views in.

Its not happening because nobody is allowed near the article. Its being owned by FT2 and others. Even now, if you go on there and try to sort it out, you are under threat of being labeled conservative, tendentious, a reincarnation of a banned user and so on. You will be labeled as such by those pushing obvious pro bestiality argument.

Such activities are being ok'd by Wales.

Doc

I am getting the sense you might have a problem with the Wikipedian civility rules at this point.



To calm you down, here are some hot females

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHoF3a6Q9Wk

Simple law of nature - if you are rich, hot women don't want rich men. If you are hot, hot women want ugly guys. If you are smart, hot women want dumb guys.

Maybe they just can't get all of these hot women that you claim are out there because not even the straight men can get them?





Or an easy to identify place for kids to go right to. Making porn obvious just helps guide them to it.

I don't constructively edit Wikipedia anyway; I just troll and vandalise. I do like keeping on top of WP-related drama, though. I'm not wasting my free time contributing constructively to that site, although it can be fun to get a few laughs from pissing off the draconian admins.



Also: Girls Aloud are still going? Jeez. I thought groups like that are supposed to break up within 3 years of having formed.

Irony batteries recharging now.

[edit] And it's awfully hard to say at the time who will survive and who won't. I remember seeing a band called The Tourists many years ago, and the review next day called them a one hit wonder. That would be Annie Lennox and the Tourists.

Well, true enough about that with music. Radiohead for example were written off as probable one hit wonders after the release of "Creep".

I would emphasis more "wonder" and less "hit" for that song.

Ok, I'm an Oxfordian fan of RH. Lets stick to the subject though.

If we had a pint of porter down the Eagle and Child, what would you say about the patron who was quoting Greek philosophy to push bestiality as a new and trendy lifestyle? (with the local abertoir on Parks rd just round the corner!)

Doc

I don't recall any Greek philosophers emphasizing it.

Quite the opposite - Greek art always has the most destructive things resulting from acts of bestiality, at least with a cow and a goose.

Then I guess I'd have to buy you a pint!

Doc

Like kids looking for porn wouldn't know enough to go to Google and type "porn"?

It really is probably silly to worry about anything on WP, considering what's freely on the net. I keep reminding myself of this.

And if you think I'm wrong, then YOU go to Google and type "porn."

I don't think you can generalize. Europa and the Zeus-cow supposedly gave rise to Minoan civilization. There was born of this a good king Minos, not the same as bad king Minos. I'll let you read the wp article on Minos.

Which has incidently been worked over by user:Haiduc so as to make sure we know about Minoan "pederasty"

Nevermind that the quote only talks about homosexuality, and pederasty is not mentioned. Haiduc thinks it should be inferred. That's the pederasty OR which they appear to be special recipients of the benefits of, inasmuch as Jimbo himself has praised the special NPOVness of the pederasty edits on WP. Good for you, Haiduc! A barnstar or a pacifier-plug-star, or something, for you.

Haiduc is our most amazing pederasty editor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Haiduc

You're on.



Still leaves the Goose that leads to the destruction of many family based institutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minos#Poseido...d_Pasipha.C3.AB

Also, the Minotaur is mentioned there, which is the only bestiality that seems to apply.

Pedastry may be positive in Minos, but bestiality still seems to be negative.