Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoophilia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was KEEP.
As the consensus is overwhelming on the 'keep' side, I've taken the liberty of archiving and de-listing this article early to cool some of the fires. Vacuum c 18:00, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Zoophilia[edit]
This page blatantly promotes bestiality ("zoophilia") and uses fake words like 'zoosexual.' --Ciz 18:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- After reading User talk:Ciz it seems some sort of temporary ban may be in order for User:Ciz?
- Keep. Controversy and POV are not reasons for deletion. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 18:37, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - A very thorough article. Seems fairly NPOV to me. Someone's put a lot of work into this article, I see no reason to throw it away. Satori 18:38, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, notable. Wyss 18:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - it is a matter of standing tradition that Wikipedia is not censored by topic or bowdlerized. Iff the page has POV problems, they should be fixed. - RedWordSmith 18:56, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This VfD nom is the perfect case for rejection and de-listing within 24 hours. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 19:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 19:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Ciz needs a bit of education. Agree with GRider. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and keep a watchful eye on Ciz for further actions of this nature. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Just because you don't like the topic of an article is not grounds to delete it. Read articles about less disgusting things if this isn't the kind of thing you want to read about. But at Wikipedia we don't make value judgments on our topics so it's going to stay. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 21:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and note that Ciz is currently facing the sharp end of an ArbCom request for a complete wikipedia ban, having gone through "Vandalism in progress", RFC, mediation, two 24 hour sysop bans, caused two vprot lockdowns of the article for vandalism including mass deletion of books and academic sources, editing of other users comments, multiple obsessive personal attacks on furrys, and libellous personal attacks on users talk pages and in article talk pages. Vote for presentation to ArbCom was: 9 for, 0 against. FT2 22:20, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This VfD is just another abuse of this wiki by a chronic POV-pusher. JAQ 22:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Zoophilia. Delete the vandal. --FOo 23:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Sillydragon 23:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: last I checked, losing a ten page debate on the article's talk page wasn't grounds for deletion. Shane King 23:37, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. For those interested, a request for arbitration with the goal of a permanent of ban of Ciz from Wikipedia is currently being prepared; see User:FT2/Arbitration re Ciz. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 00:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Can arbitrations have "goals"? Is FT2 willing to offer the accused a plea bargain?Dr Zen 02:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If you bother to look into it, you'll see plenty of attempts at measures less than banning. Ciz's rejection of them (and escalation of his efforts) resulted in FT2 and others seeking the only remaining remedy, thru arbitration. If you want to debate it, there will be a time and place for it; this isn't it. JAQ 03:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What makes you think I didn't look into it? I see a pretty POV article and an editor going the wrong way about fixing that. Perhaps he didn't know too well how things work here. Perhaps you don't. Perhaps in particular you're not aware that advocating for bans is frowned on. If you bring the case for arbitration, you are not the prosecuting attorney, and you do not recommend a punishment. And dude, there's always time for discussion, and it can happen anywhere. I don't like your attitude. I don't think it's helping and I think you have plenty to answer for.Dr Zen 23:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You seemed unaware of the previous efforts to reach a compromise short of arbitration (i.e. "plea bargains"), which suggested that you had not yet looked into the dispute. Ciz has had plenty of opportunity to learn how things work here, as well (I've coached him repeatedly, as did others before he wore them down). Although I'm pretty familiar with Wikipedia, I don't have any prior experience with arbitration here, so your suggestion against requesting a particular outcome is helpful. Likewise, if you have specific complaints against me, by all means let me know what they are. JAQ 01:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What makes you think I didn't look into it? I see a pretty POV article and an editor going the wrong way about fixing that. Perhaps he didn't know too well how things work here. Perhaps you don't. Perhaps in particular you're not aware that advocating for bans is frowned on. If you bring the case for arbitration, you are not the prosecuting attorney, and you do not recommend a punishment. And dude, there's always time for discussion, and it can happen anywhere. I don't like your attitude. I don't think it's helping and I think you have plenty to answer for.Dr Zen 23:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- (The reason why a total ban is sought and not a ban merely from this article is given in the draft request being prepared. basically we feel there is strong evidence that Ciz is not interested in the wiki process nor would he behave differently in similar circumstances on other issues he may come to obsess over. The sense of the consensus is that its not one article, its Ciz being felt liekly to be unsuited for a wiki community in general) FT2 07:45, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- If you bother to look into it, you'll see plenty of attempts at measures less than banning. Ciz's rejection of them (and escalation of his efforts) resulted in FT2 and others seeking the only remaining remedy, thru arbitration. If you want to debate it, there will be a time and place for it; this isn't it. JAQ 03:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Can arbitrations have "goals"? Is FT2 willing to offer the accused a plea bargain?Dr Zen 02:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Get a life, Ciz. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 00:59, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 01:02, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Eww. Gross. Also, an obvious keep. Unlike the childlove gang that tried hijacking the site a few months back with those articles of theirs, this is totally NPOV, totally encyclopedic and a totally referenced article on a real psychological disorder. - Lucky 6.9 02:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Did you read the whole page? Its treated as normal and ok. --Ciz 04:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Concur with Lucky 6.9. Incidently, Wikipedia also has articles on Nazism and The Holocaust, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedians think that its normal or ok to shove Jews or Roma into ovens. Edeans 07:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Do the articles try argue that Naziism is normal, ok, or acceptable? Does the article argue that Nazis are poor, misunderstood, people who are really nice if you get to know them? No. --Ciz 17:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Can you point me to any particular sentences like "Wikipedia hereby endorses the act of having sex with animals?" Just because the article describes such practices and the research surrounding the subject and doesn't call them immoral doesn't mean the article condones it. No matter how hard you try to push your point of view, Wikipedia will not make moral judgments like "these people are sickos" or "such and such an activity is bad behavior", simply because not everybody believes this. We are here to report universal knowledge, and to state who believes what, not to tell right from wrong. Whether or not an activity is immoral is up to the readers to decide for themselves. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 07:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- In addition there are strong "double standards" over animals (as utilities and property vs. as independent living beings worthy of respect) so often people are unconvinced that animals can consent, enjoy or understand sex in a meaningful way. So basically it implies that if you dont accept zoophilia its because you see animals as utilities and property. Psychological and sexology research concludes beyond this, that far from being "profoundly disturbed behaviour", zoophilic feelings and relationships are common, latent in many people, and can be authentic, relational, and genuine. Any questions? Zoophiles also note that people who have only minimal interest in animal consent of any kind generally (eg, for surgery, euthenasia, docking, castration, food, care, emotional security or dangerous activities), demand consent only when it relates to sex. They observe that in fact animals negotiate sex, form relational bonds, and give or withold consent in their own way in every kind of activity, and that this is both natural and unmistakable. Mmhmm? 'Castration' refers to neutering or spaying animals, which is recommended by most animal rights organizations because it keeps the animals healthier and prevents further animal overpopulation, while zoos condemn it because then they wont be able to have sex with them. The same goes for surgery, which is usually for the animal's own good. The same goes for euthanasia; if the animal is in pain and is dying and its life is miserable; vetenerians recomment having the animal put to sleep. ...Read the whole article; it doesnt tell you to do it but it does say doing it is ok and normal. --Ciz 17:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Did you even bother to read the headers for those sections? They are "arguments" and "counter-arguments". Wikipedia is not saying this, we're just reporting the opinions of others. If you think it needs to be made clearer that these are not everybody's opinion, by all means add phrases like "Some people believe..." and "It has been suggested...", but these are actual arguments being used in debate. In any case, VfD is not the place for debating this, since POV is not a deletion criterion. You're supposed to be convincing us that this article somehow violates the deletion policy, which you should have read before adding this to VfD as per the instructions at the top of the page. Otherwise this entry is nothing but vandalism. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 18:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Umm... no. The 'arguments against zoophilia' lists the arguments in a condescending way and criticise the arguments. ('In the main page, it says people who are against are people who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles, or who lack much awareness of zoophilia. It also says in that one of the arguments is "It is sick (wrong, twisted, disgusting, "icky")" (note the childish word 'icky'). The article also states as a fact that psychological and sexology research concludes beyond this, that far from being "profoundly disturbed behaviour", zoophilic feelings and relationships are common, latent in many people, and can be authentic, relational, and genuine. And in the Arguments for section it says Zoophiles also note that people who have only minimal interest in animal consent of any kind generally (eg, for surgery, euthenasia, docking, castration, food, care, emotional security or dangerous activities), demand consent only when it relates to sex. They observe that in fact animals negotiate sex, form relational bonds, and give or withold consent in their own way in every kind of activity, and that this is both natural and unmistakable. Instead using words like 'They think' they use words like 'observe' and 'note' as if its a fact instead of an opinion. They also make use misleading arguments to make it sound like people who 'have minimal interest' for the welfare of animals are the people against bestiality (when most animal rights organizations condemn it) and use misleading words that make it sound like people against bestiality view animals as property or utilities instead of living breathing creatures (which is also untrue.) --Ciz 19:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not going to continue this argument any longer, since, again, this this not the place for debating whether or not an article is POV. PLEASE read the deletion policy and tell me what criterion of that policy you think this article fulfills. Tell me why all this information is completely worthless, unencyclopedic and that there is not one shred of information worth keeping. That is what VfD is for, not for dragging talk page debates into the spotlight. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 21:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Umm... no. The 'arguments against zoophilia' lists the arguments in a condescending way and criticise the arguments. ('In the main page, it says people who are against are people who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles, or who lack much awareness of zoophilia. It also says in that one of the arguments is "It is sick (wrong, twisted, disgusting, "icky")" (note the childish word 'icky'). The article also states as a fact that psychological and sexology research concludes beyond this, that far from being "profoundly disturbed behaviour", zoophilic feelings and relationships are common, latent in many people, and can be authentic, relational, and genuine. And in the Arguments for section it says Zoophiles also note that people who have only minimal interest in animal consent of any kind generally (eg, for surgery, euthenasia, docking, castration, food, care, emotional security or dangerous activities), demand consent only when it relates to sex. They observe that in fact animals negotiate sex, form relational bonds, and give or withold consent in their own way in every kind of activity, and that this is both natural and unmistakable. Instead using words like 'They think' they use words like 'observe' and 'note' as if its a fact instead of an opinion. They also make use misleading arguments to make it sound like people who 'have minimal interest' for the welfare of animals are the people against bestiality (when most animal rights organizations condemn it) and use misleading words that make it sound like people against bestiality view animals as property or utilities instead of living breathing creatures (which is also untrue.) --Ciz 19:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Did you even bother to read the headers for those sections? They are "arguments" and "counter-arguments". Wikipedia is not saying this, we're just reporting the opinions of others. If you think it needs to be made clearer that these are not everybody's opinion, by all means add phrases like "Some people believe..." and "It has been suggested...", but these are actual arguments being used in debate. In any case, VfD is not the place for debating this, since POV is not a deletion criterion. You're supposed to be convincing us that this article somehow violates the deletion policy, which you should have read before adding this to VfD as per the instructions at the top of the page. Otherwise this entry is nothing but vandalism. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 18:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- In addition there are strong "double standards" over animals (as utilities and property vs. as independent living beings worthy of respect) so often people are unconvinced that animals can consent, enjoy or understand sex in a meaningful way. So basically it implies that if you dont accept zoophilia its because you see animals as utilities and property. Psychological and sexology research concludes beyond this, that far from being "profoundly disturbed behaviour", zoophilic feelings and relationships are common, latent in many people, and can be authentic, relational, and genuine. Any questions? Zoophiles also note that people who have only minimal interest in animal consent of any kind generally (eg, for surgery, euthenasia, docking, castration, food, care, emotional security or dangerous activities), demand consent only when it relates to sex. They observe that in fact animals negotiate sex, form relational bonds, and give or withold consent in their own way in every kind of activity, and that this is both natural and unmistakable. Mmhmm? 'Castration' refers to neutering or spaying animals, which is recommended by most animal rights organizations because it keeps the animals healthier and prevents further animal overpopulation, while zoos condemn it because then they wont be able to have sex with them. The same goes for surgery, which is usually for the animal's own good. The same goes for euthanasia; if the animal is in pain and is dying and its life is miserable; vetenerians recomment having the animal put to sleep. ...Read the whole article; it doesnt tell you to do it but it does say doing it is ok and normal. --Ciz 17:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Concur with Lucky 6.9. Incidently, Wikipedia also has articles on Nazism and The Holocaust, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedians think that its normal or ok to shove Jews or Roma into ovens. Edeans 07:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Did you read the whole page? Its treated as normal and ok. --Ciz 04:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep This page should not have been listed for VfD. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. the article does cover the many objections as well as the views of the proponents. Since there are still unanswered questions, the article would be flawed if it did try to draw its own conclusions. iMeowbot 09:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Extreme keep. This is hillarious. Where do I sign up to cancel Ciz's AOL account? —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and move to clean up. I am a bit concerned that all of the research cited in the Wikipedia article says that it is mostly not harmful but a UK Home Office Review of Sexual Offences produced a white paper [1] stating "Sexual activity with animals is generally recognised to be profoundly disturbed behaviour. A new offence of bestiality will criminalise those who sexually penetrate animals or allow an animal to penetrate them. This offence will complement existing non-sexual offences of cruelty to animals. Bestiality will carry a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment." Yet the summary of research in the Wikipedia article does not support this view. Presumably, the UK Government had research supporting this conclusion which should be cited in the article. The Wikipedia article seems to me to be pushing a POV at the moment. While I appreciate that user Ciz has not helped himself by his behaviour, I think that it might be wise to review this article so that we can be assured that it is not pushing a POV. Capitalistroadster 11:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- In general, history has shown that it is an extremely bad idea to ever "presume" that a government body must have had adequate reason for saying and doing the things it does. If you presumed that the Meese Commission on Pornography must have had access to research to support its anti-pornography conclusions, you would be dead wrong, since the researchers that the Commission itself appointed did not find the link that the Commission wanted and that did not stop the Commission from announcing that the link had been found. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed; it needs respectful, constructive editing to restore NPOV. JAQ 12:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- But wouldnt all that info make it negative? *gasp* --Ciz 17:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't. NPOV means that it would be neither anti-zoophilia nor pro-zoophilia. I know that's not what you want. It's probably not what some of the other editors want (who want it to be pro-zoo). But it's what several of us want, and most of the rest are willing to accept. So if you'd stop sabotaging the article by adding judgmental crap to it, and trying to remove anything you don't agree with (and now even the whole article, with this obviously inappropriate VfD), maybe those of us who really want a NPOV could achieve it. JAQ 18:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You seem to be siding more with the pro-side than the anti-side. --Ciz 19:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've disagreed with the pro-zoo side about the pamphetspeak saying what empathic and open-minded people zoos are, and about the authoritativeness of the handful of studies cited. I only stopped challenging them because there was a worse offender to deal with. Some of their edits have problems; many of your edits are problems. JAQ 22:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You seem to be siding more with the pro-side than the anti-side. --Ciz 19:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't. NPOV means that it would be neither anti-zoophilia nor pro-zoophilia. I know that's not what you want. It's probably not what some of the other editors want (who want it to be pro-zoo). But it's what several of us want, and most of the rest are willing to accept. So if you'd stop sabotaging the article by adding judgmental crap to it, and trying to remove anything you don't agree with (and now even the whole article, with this obviously inappropriate VfD), maybe those of us who really want a NPOV could achieve it. JAQ 18:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- But wouldnt all that info make it negative? *gasp* --Ciz 17:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I wonder if you noticed, the UK Home Office quote is already in the article #Arguments. What the Home Office quote is not, is a professional opinion by experts in the field. It is a view by legislators. The article states, NPOV, that legally most juristictions are against it, and that the UK view is as quoted. It also states that this is not an accurate representation of the professional view. FT2 18:32, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Its funny; APA has publically supported gay marriage, saying how homosexuality is normal and that legalizing it is important for the mental health of gay teens and such. I dont see them going out to the press and asking for 'zoophilia awareness' or to legalize bestiality. --Ciz 19:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Correct. And if you went back in gay history 40 or so years to when homosexuality was at the same stage of evaluation by the APA, I think you'll find a straightforward answer why thats so... (and no Ciz, that is not a statement in favour of any stance. Its an observation about how professional understanding is gained and views evolve over time) FT2 22:56, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- However, in the case of homosexuality most objections were due to religious reasons, not for possible abuse of one of the parties. No one said there was a victim in the homosexual relationship-it was depraved and both people were wrong. With zoophilia, the concerns are that one of the parties in the 'relationship' is being abused. Think about it; if two men are together both are equal and can take care of themselves. They're usually responsible for themselves. However, a human is not equal with an animal. The pet most likely relies on its owner for being taken care of; food, vet, ect. Their is also the intelligence issue; the animal closest to human intelligence are the monkeys (and even then there's a huge gap), with dolphins in second. Animals like cats and dogs come in third. --Ciz 14:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I wonder if you noticed, the UK Home Office quote is already in the article #Arguments. What the Home Office quote is not, is a professional opinion by experts in the field. It is a view by legislators. The article states, NPOV, that legally most juristictions are against it, and that the UK view is as quoted. It also states that this is not an accurate representation of the professional view. FT2 18:32, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. --fvw* 19:16, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
- Keep. (VfD tag is gone so not certain what the status of the article is, but want to put in my $0.02 on the "keep" side anyway). Certainly seems like a good, thorough, well-researched article that is reasonably NPOV. For what it's worth, yes, it does seem to me to have a noticeable pro-zoophile or zoophile-tolerant tilt, presenting that side of the case at greater length and with greater conviction than the other side, but that's not a VfD matter. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. No case here. --Szabo 02:29, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep I hereby volunteer to help in evidence-gathering if other users wish to drag Ciz before the arbcom. Pakaran (ark a pan) 19:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Looks like he's already been dragged, and evidence has been collected. That said, I will monitor the pages in question... Pakaran (ark a pan) 20:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Not entirely by chance, this VfD was posted shortly after a unanimous vote on the article talk page for Ciz to be referred to ArbCom for vandalism and personal attacks. Arbitration has now been requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Ciz. FT2 22:52, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Comment I think on balance Neutrality was probably right to remove the vfd tag from the article, but as this tag contains a link to the relevant discussion I have decided in the interests of caution and transparency to restore it. Let nobody in future be able to say truthfully that readers of the article were not made aware of this discussion on deletion while it was in progress. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a real part of life, and as such deserves an article. I can't personally say I agree with it, but if this article gets censored, pretty soon all of the "indecent" articles would start to go. PArt of being an encyclopedia means dealing with every subject, and this is one that deserves to be discussed. Coolgamer 03:38, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.