Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 16

message: It appears the edit on 19:30, 10 February 2006 68.170.192.231 (→Zoophilia as a lifestyle) removed the link based on discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gay_rights#Gay_rights_in_other_articles though it seems the link is relevant, even if the other change in that edit from "concerns are qualitatively similar" to "concerns may be qualitatively similar" is considered valid. Is it possible the edit was just to remove Zoophilia from the 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Gay_rights page?
150.101.115.231 22:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way the link seems valid. Its certainly useful if theres a reference to issues, to link to the article that lists those issues. Reinstated. FT2 (Talk) 04:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of link to Gay Rights

message: Humans belong to Animalia, too. Maybe an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to animals should be changed to an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to non-human animals. // paroxysm (n) 19:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed :) FT2 (Talk) 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm a zoo?

message: The section on Singer's article "Heavy Petting" states that Singer holds that sex with animals need not involve cruelty and "if so, loving relationships could form."  I think this is incorrect.  The closest thing that Singer writes in that article is that "occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop."  That's a far cry from "loving relationships."  The article refers only to sexual activity (and its moral permissibility) and says nothing about love.  I think the reference to "loving relationships" (in regard to the Singer article) should be removed. (Posted by: User:69.208.248.189)
:Fixed. After trying a few variations on wording I changed it from "loving" (inaccurate) to "mutually enjoyable" ("mutually satisfying" didn't flow as well). You're right, he doesn't call them "loving relationships", as much as enjoyable ones. FT2 (Talk) 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Singer 

message: Sues,
I mentioned a few times, to check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research. These two policies are what you are coming up against. I recognize you are trying to make a good contribution, and will try to explain again. If you need to, please feel free to discuss more until you understand the issue at stake, it's quite important to Wikipedia.
As an encyclopedia, Wikiepdia has two core policies which direct how articles are approached. 
* Neutral point of view (often abbreviated "NPOV") says, wikipedia does not judge rights and wrongs of views. To Wikipedia, the issue of "is zoophilia right or wrong", is not a concern. What is of concern is to document the significant (ie, notable) views related to it, so that readers may get a view that covers all sides and is biased to none. That can be quite difficult in controversial subjects, because naturally one wants to say "But its wrong, and this is why!" However, when we edit for wikipedia, we set aside all personal viewpoints, and instead edit on the basis we are documenting views "out there". Like anthropologists documenting rituals. We note that some people think is it bad, for these reasons, and others think it's good for those reasons, and we make editorial judgement if both sides are well presented and if we need to put in more detail, or remove superfluous detail, to capture the heart of any debate on the subject.
* No original research (often abbreviated NOR) is the counter point to this. It says, personal opinions, views, and discoveries, are not relevant. If a fact is verifiable and important, others of significant knowledge or standing will have said it. We are documenting information, not preparing a compilation of our own debates. We are characterizing an existing subject, and not re-engaging in a debate about it, here.
Put another way, the only debate relevant to Wikipedia, here, is "is the subject properly and fully represented in a view-neutral manner ignoring editors personal feelings", not "what views do we feel should prevail." We discuss if there are better ways of showing the relative positions of all sides, whatever side we personally are on.
With that in mind, I hope some of the editorial decisions make more sense now. I will again, go through your points above and try to show you where they work, or where they need reworking, as the case may be:
First of all, I don't claim that animals cannot consent because then they fall when Peter Singer's argument about them not being able to consent internally is proposed. Animals can consent, but within their own species. Just like us. We wouldn't be able to consent to an animal either. It's simple.
:* This is a personal view. What you may see as an objection or point, is not necessarily a documentation of a notable view. It's important to distinguish the two, and not make of any pro/anti list, a list of your personal arguments and onjections.
 What do you mean by this?: "But note that the points zoophiles put to match those, also need to be put into the article too." If this is done, then it's not NPOV. It takes the side of zoophilia because zoophiles have the last say. Rather, arguments should be proposed independently of the other side's arguments.
:* What I try to explain here is, that if you add a point that zoophilia is wrong because of X, then its important that you also consider or research, what zoophiles say on that issue, and add yourself if you are able, the balancing "opposing view" on that question, so the article itself frames the debate and doesn't just showcase one side's words. if you don't know how zoophiles would respond, or do respond to that, either research it, or leave a note on the talk page that it needs considering, if there is a note required. That is the purpose of my observation that points zoophiles might put to match those issues, need to go in the article too, to show both sides. An example is the homosexuality debate, a point "many religions say homosexuality is wrong" might be balanced by homosexuals comments that "religions conflict in beliefs and many people do not consider them authoritative". Thats an example, I hope it shows roughly what I mean. You may not side with zoophiles, but you need to consider how to research and show both sides fairly, if you wish to contribute well. This article is not a showcase either for "why zoophilia is bad", or for "why zoophilia is good". It tries to capture all the major points in the field. Another example of this is that if the point is included for one side, that some consider zoophilia wrong because it's unnatural, it is necessary for balance, to also note that others say that what's natural is debatable, and it isn't a convincing argument that natural is relevant. For example, cooked food is not "natural" nor are houses or artificial penises. This is so you can see, there really is a serious point zoophiles argue. Since we are not re-enacting the debate here, we don't need to reach a decision what "natural" means or if it matters. Instead, we simply record both views, and leave it at that, an open issue. (This is the reason I have reinstated that comment by the way)
What about this? This is simply a statement forwarded by zoophiles? Many zoophiles appear to have human partners and relationships; many have an attraction to species which are relatively inaccessible, such as dolphins; many others simply do not have a sexual attraction to humans; tending to oppose the view that they are simply 'looking for easy sex'."
:* No, that is pure research. It is documented that zoophiles often have affiliation to non accessible species, and that this is a source of psychological pain for many. For example it has been established that the zoophile support site www.zoophile.org has a significant number of bird zoophiles posting on it, who for the most part make clear that they never can nor will attempt to be penetratively sexual with their preferred companions, and remain virgin, sometimes lifelong, for that reason. That is clearly not a person "looking for easy sex". Supporting that this is not mere hearsay or dubious claims, it's well documented in research, as well as a clinical finding that zoophiles lacking attraction to humans are common. It's also well documented from others' work, that many zoophiles are in human relationships as well. By and large this sort of background is documented in peer reviewed psychological and sociological research on the field. Together, they form a rebuttal (according to the zoophile's viewpoint) of the argument, "zoophiles just want easy sex" or "zoophiles can't get human relationships". The source though is research, not hearsay. That is why it's so important in Wikipedia to read up on all sides of a subject (including the side you don't immediately agree with) before making major edits.In this field, we've found, popular belief is not usually aware of actual clinical findings, so writing from popular/personal belief usually leads not to neutral writing, but to unbalanced or misrepresentative writing, and often relatively less informed (rather than professional) views being added.
"Animals are simply used as means of sexual satisfaction (a thing), the closest you get to a human... This isn't actually an argument that it is right or wrong at all, but a simple statement of belief about motivation." You want me to write why using animals in this way is wrong? It is lowering their value. Showing lack of respect.
:* Here we write neutrally. You, personally may think it is wrong. In fact, I might think so too, for all you know. However, here, NPOV is what holds sway. Neither you or I bring our personal beliefs to this encyclopedia-writing. We have a mutual agreement with all editors, that personal views are left at the door. We are documenting a field, and for that, your personal view that it is lowering their value, is simply "another personal view". A zoophile would probably counter that it is in fact, when people ignore animals wishes and solicitation of an act that humans know to be pleasurable, which is the greater disrespect. Luckily I don't have to know or judge, or take sides. I just have to note what views are documented in research, how each side argues, and summarize that debate here for the article.
"People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. "People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoophilia", often regard it as an extreme form of animal abuse and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues" - Proof perhaps? Especially regarding the highlighted, what about deleting it?
:* Again, its evidenced. read Andrea Beetz "Love sex and violence" (cited in the article). Thats one of the sources. Miletski is another. What is clear is, people's views, do apparently strongly relate to their exposure to such relationships. That is what is therefore documented.
"Both male and female domestic animals of several species can experience the physical sensation of orgasm, and can strongly solicit and demonstrate appreciation for it in their body language, trusting zoophiles to consider this inclusively in a wider scope defining duty of care." It's theories all the time. And personal too. And this is completely foolish: "trusting zoophiles to consider this inclusively in a wider scope defining duty of care" I might as well say that the sky begged me to look at it. Or that animals truly hate owners having sexual intercourse with them although they may hide it. I am deleting the bold part straight away.''
:* Another editor added that. I assume he/she had a basis for doing so. I considered removing it, because like many points it was excessively wordy. However, no one individual owns wikipedia articles, so I left it instead, considering the matter borderline. What is clear is, animals behaviorally can show behavior that is solicitous (ie asking for a specific matter or response), and they can and do use that behavior in many contexts -- play, walks, scratches, affection-behavior-seeking, food-requesting, and sexual. Sexual solicitation and orgasm seeking is well documented in multiple species, There is research with documentation for both dogs and horses. The article Non-human animal sexuality may help.
"One on one companionships can form without reliance on any given leadership role. Social structure is flexible enough both to allow for different species in it and to encompass dynamically changing roles; animals are quite capable of taking the lead." ... "The instinct to mate exists in all animals including humans, and does not require sentient knowledge of the resulting outcome of the activity."
:* This is why the list was being kept short. Your additions have jossled the list (which is in itself not a problem, thats how Wikipedia works) and accordingly many views have been added. Some are viable here, some not, and some conceal a good point poorly worded.
Clearly the anti side has been too inactive in the debate. So it isn't neutral which it should be....but I guess it would never develop unless some side took initiative. We just need the debate out in the open and see what happens. Whatever is right will almost certainly be achieved by discussion.
:* Here there is no "anti" side, or should not be. We document all views. Some of us will, by inclination and personal background, be more familiar with one side of the debate than another, but that doesn't mean we write non neutrally. Each of us attempts to document both the "for" and "against" sides, and for each of these we try to give them an appropriate representation as their own advocates could or would, if they were citing sourced material fairly.
I hope this helps. I'll review this section again but meantime it is important you read Wikipedia policy carefully: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NOT are crucial ones for this article.
FT2 (Talk) 18:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you know, the list is now unbalanced. The second half is too long. The solution is probably, to make the list wording a bit more consise and look for simplifications: -  There's probably enough raw material there to capture the major issues. FT2 (Talk) 19:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could specify what aspect of it you find inaccurately representing how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and its policies? I'm not sure what part you consider "colored", nor have you explained it. What I have said is, that here, neutral viewpoint that respects and ackonowledges all significant views, combined with a complete letting go of any personal preconceptions and opinions one might bring to the table, are necessary, so far as you are able, and other editors will corerect material, no matter whose side it favors, if it is perceived someone has not themselves done so adequately. In a controversial article its more important, not less, to be aware of such balance. It's hard to see how that is considered "colored". Its an exact description of how one writes an encyclopedia piece, as opposed to (say) a more common opinion piece where personal views do matter. Can you summarize, having read Wikipedia policies, what you feel they should mean, in this article? FT2 (Talk) 04:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You'll noticealso, my last edits removed material from the zoophile side of the arguments. Same reason, too long and unbalanced, some secondary arguments probably needed to go. FT2 (Talk) 18:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of above

message: Status, dogmatism etc. Ok, as this probably won't do any good towards a dogmatic mind I'll try regardless. Definition, dogmatic:
:"dog·mat·ic / Ñ dQg'm&tIk; NAmE  Ñ dO;g-/ adjective(disapproving) being certain that your beliefs are right and that others should accept them, without paying attention to evidence or other opinions"
First of all, understand that you don't singlehandedly own wikipedia or Zoophilia (I do not know whether your desire of omnipotence extends to other areas). It is a user base, all people have equal 'right' to edit and contribute. 
Your reversing of my strengthening of the arguments against doesn't work. Then I could reverse yours...it's a behaviour that belongs in grade school or earlier. What about, we return to the article I edited it to and see whether you're the only one disagreeing or whether others disagree too. Why to my edition you might ask, because mine was more neutral, see further below.
Neutrality Second of all, NPOV, as regards POV you seem to be well versed in that. Neutrality is however lacking, see this definition:
:"neu·tral·ity / Ñ nju;'tr&lJti; NAmE  Ñ nu;-/ noun[U] the state of not supporting either side in a disagreement, competition or war"
Neutrality isn't when the arguments against have: 12 lines and the defence has 26 lines. Neutrality isn't when people against are referred to as: 
:"People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoophilia". 
In other words, narrowminded idiots making hasty decisions based on popularity. And the pro side is referred to as:
:"Mental health professionals and personal acquaintances of zoophiles who see their relationships over time tend to be less critical, and sometimes supportive"
In other words, enlightened heroes. Consider the fact that most people are opposed, these people are referred to as narrowminded idiots making hasty decisions based on popularity. Is that neutral? And especially, neutrality is not reversing an improvement of the opposing sides' arguments while editing ones own to become longer and better as a reply. And expecting (I assume) that these edits aren't reverted to a more balanced /neutral edition.
Argumentation, what was done During your lifetime, you seem to have missed out at least one core meta area. Argumentation. Before you contribute and reverse editions, try reading about argumentation. The primary fallacy you commit is the Straw man fallacy. The primary element of a straw man is to present (where you in your case prevent development of) the opposing point of views arguments in a weaker state than they are. Such as my retaining the argument "animals aren't sentient" which may be the strongest argument you can refute but is nevertheless a very weak one, and not rationally/scientifically based. Or even popular, if popularity is both your god and demon while it's used as you see fit. In other words...the argumentation is biased to the pro side.
On the other hand, see what I did to the article, I removed irrelevant, biased argumentation and I made the against and pro list closer to equally long whereas you, everytime something is added, you write your own small schemes of argumentation to attempt to refute it. These being longer than the arguments against. Balance and neutrality isn't when one part(a minority) say 1000 words and the other side (the vast majority) says 500 hundred, and everytime the ones saying the 500 words try to balance things out they are interrupted and the minority who has said 1000 starts babbling again. This is childish dogmatism. After deleting my balancing out of things...you add something like this?:
:"People choosing to take responsibility for an animal, have to also take responsibility for its sexual drive. Neutering and ignoring are a failure to accept animals as they are, often used to avoid facing an uncomfortable aspect of animal reality or 'best care'." [11]"
Now zoophiles are true heroes and normal people not making sure those they protect get sex are devils...it is beyond me how your own sensibility can deceive yourself to such a high extent. But, the main point is that it already is much out of balance. You revert my attempt to balance it out and make the opposition more realistic and less unintelligent, and add this very strong remark that people who aren't zoophiles or neuter the animal they are the guardian of or maybe doesn't neuter but doesn't have sex with a make sure they get sex are blamable. However irrational that is....
A simple reply: Are you pro arranged weddings? Do you think(if that is an unblocked ability of yours) a person who adopts a child should make sure the teenager (when grown up to 16 or the like) gets sex? Perhaps even doing it themselves? They are not biologically related. They take care of the teenager. There's no doubt neutering is wrong but that doesn't justify your alternative idea of a hedonist solution you seem to dream sweetly and ignorantly of. 
Another solution is simply not to neutere them. If we didn't trap them inside (especially in cities) in the first place it wouldn't be a problem. Your selfish choice of deciding to have a pet is the problem in the first place. Unless you have more of them/there are more in the area and they roam freely as they please but can go inside.
Bottom line Revert back to my edition, perhaps add and edit few of the things you did. Have balance in mind. Do not delete my improvements of the arguments, let others do that if they like and can give a good reason why. And let others delete yours if they like and can give a good reason why. Alternately, I am justified in reverting back to my edition where you would do the same, that just doesn't work. You need to focus on balance and the fact that you do not singlehandedly control the scripture. Now you may respond. --Seus Hawkins
::Sues -- First, thank you for a serious considered response. And I mean that. It helps dialog if we talk, then other editors also know what is going on. The talk page is exactly where issues like this are intended to get hammered out, so this is how Wikipedia's supposed to work. I've not asserted that I am closed minded, nor acted as owner, but if thats your perception then it was unintended. I am however quite careful to look at arguments, and you'll notice that I carefully analysed the ones you added, kept the core, removed personal opinion and arguments not actually addressing the issue of "reasons why some think its wrong / right". 
::If you do feel any analysis I made was incorerect, the reason for explaining is precisely so you can see that it's not just personal whim, it's carefully considered editorial work. You can disagree, and that's fine, thats what this page is for. If you do, let's discuss individual cases, and remember that I have not called you a "dogmatist" or "biased" for attempting to reshape a section to your preferred viewpoint. I've examined and critiqued it, and the issues that did appear genuine and supported, I kept, the rest I explained where they duplicated or seemed to not meet Wikipedia standards.
:: To quickly address your points above though:
::# You comment that "Neutrality isn't when the arguments against have: 12 lines and the defence has 26 lines". But in fact here is your edit: . Before you edited, the article had 8 anti / 9 pro, after you edited it had 16 anti, 9 pro, and most of those were not researched summaries of points, but mini-essays, personal views and other "original research" including much repetition. So your words in fact describe your own edits, which I then reviewed carefully and with thought as can be seen above.
::# You also mix two aspects. There is a list of "common arguments for and against". There is also a summary of how people's views depend upon prior exposure. The latter if you read carefully, is not a discussion of "anti" views, its part of a summary classifying that people who are unfamiliar, are generally hostile. When you state "these people are referred to as narrowminded idiots", that's not an interpretation supported by the text as written. You'll not find myself agreeing with what's yet another emotive personal opinion.
::# See above. An article like this contains the significant arguments on both sides. You yourself caused it to be re-looked at, and I commented that it would mean zoophiles would be likely to need their side updating too. Since a neutral editor cares for both sides equally and to represent both sides with equal care, when I did check material, I found indeed, a significant "pro" argument had been missed out. It was also documented. So I added it. I hope you aren't complaining about that.
::# You write "A simple reply: Are you pro arranged weddings? Do you think(if that is an unblocked ability of yours) a person who adopts a child should make sure the teenager (when grown up to 16 or the like) gets sex? Perhaps even doing it themselves? They are not biologically related. They take care of the teenager. There's no doubt neutering is wrong but that doesn't justify your alternative idea of a hedonist solution you seem to dream sweetly and ignorantly of." My comment is above. As I am editing to represent *both* sides (as you should be too), you in fact do not know if I have a view or not, privately. You may assume, but since Ive added and contributed to bring *both* sides up to par, whereas your contribution is to change a 9-8 balance to a 16-9 balance (remember "Neutrality isn't when <side A> has 12 lines and <side B> has 26 lines"?), and many of these were poor quality compared to the rest of the article's standard, it shouldn't surprise you that my present edits were not pleasing to you. But they were explained, precisely so that instead of general anger, you could discuss any given edit intelligibly. That doesn't mean Im against you. It means I personally feel you edited poorly, on that occasion, and I explained why so you would understand it was for proper reasons. All that you've written, the examples you use, basically says to me, "I have a personal view its wrong, so if you don't agree you must be for it". I emphasize again, your own personal views and mine that zoophilia is right or wrong don't count in shaping the article, and you need to leave them at the door. I've explained that several times already.
::# Please read Wikipedia:Civility and WP:FAITH carefully. On the dialog so far, you are not assuming good faith. That is, in fact, a breach of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Whatever you may feel about this discussion, a neutral party will quickly see that there is no actual cause for it, and unfounded bad faith assumption reflects badly on those who make it. Please read the guideline, and use words carefully and with evidenced factuality, in dialog. 
::# I find it hard to reconcile these 3 statements:  ** "Have balance in mind"  ** "Focus on balance".  ** "Neutrality isn't 26-12". when your immediate edit as evidenced, is none of these but is promptly to skew an 8-9 balance to a 16-9 balance by adding personal mini essays and "original research" views, then object to them being reviewed for factuality, relevance, repetition, and size. We document both sides here according to neutral sources, and do not add personal viewpoints. If you do not like that, please reconsider your ability to pretend you do.
::# Last, and this is just for personal curiosity, you seem new to Wikipedia, and have promptly homed in exclusively on this article, and this article only. That's fine, but i would like to ask, is it an unreasonable guess that you have a personal agenda for doing so? Wikipedia neutrality policy does often take time to get the hang of, you need to consider that you really do have some learning to read first. I have explained which edits of yours don't seem to make the grade according to policy, and why. Please do consider, that these are actually how it is and how it's meant to be, for all articles.
::Especially, note this section in WP:FAITH:"A newcomer's behaviour probably seems appropriate to him or her and a problem usually indicates unawareness or misunderstanding of Wikipedian culture. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their experience elsewhere."This is why I'm explaining this carefully. You have dived directly in on an article that is flagged as needing above average balance and editorship, with strong viewpoints and apparently no Wikipedia editing experience, that's all fine. But be aware, this page is as it is, because it's had now some 2 years work done on it, by editors of a wide variety of personal views, and this version, essentially untouched for some time, is as it is because it's by and large considered a broadly balanced version that covers the notable views and arguments. It's best not to assume it's got to where it is on a "bad faith assumption" basis. It hasn't.
::FT2 (Talk) 20:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I can try to explain, but can you listen to my views?

message: As I don't care particularly to write an entire new scripture explaining, I'll be brief and 
there's probably a lot of mistakes as I don't feel like rereading and editing. The status and subject is slowly killing me so...
*My primary element is the out of balance. Yes, it wasn't concise before. Feel free to specify it. Fx. the element that I improved the character of the anti sides argument so they aren't foolish which is clearly and promtly and rightly refuted by the pro side. The majority of people aren't idiots. Understand that.
*As for the judgement, I stepped slightly over the line, for sure. I know that. I think I have reason to be interested in balancing this out. As for the judgement hereof, I leave it to Voice of all to judge, each individual element. Perhaps lock the article. What he thinks is correct, I do not trust your judgement and I believe I am right in that and that assumption is based on your tactics and ways in this article. I don't necessarily expect Voice of all to agree with me in all aspects, I wanted an outside, neutral opinion on the subject. Yes, after having read the article and considered better arguments etc. I am against. Clearly, very much too. The discussion of this subject is even much more important than my existence as such. I can stay cool anyway though, and I think my way was neutral, you don't think so = conclusion is to bring in a judge.
*I have an interest in making the article neutral yes, I read the article, I thought, how stupid arguments the counter side has and much more reasonable the pro side has. Can it be true? And I started thinking and found various things. I wanted to improve those arguments. Not mini essays but logically based. They may be too long....shorten them, fine by me.
Do not reverse the improvement and then after that add your own new very strong argument to bring it more out of balance along with all the other newly added pro arguments. Why don't we just delete the anti/pro argument and leave it simply as a descriptive article? --Seus Hawkins
:I fixed this up a bit so it's easier for everyone to read, now I'll have a go and see what this is about :) Some sort of disagreement about article content I assume. Tyciol 06:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A tired reply

message: Man, that's great, I'd come across the term before but I never actually thought of applying it in this situation. It's definately quite applicable :) Btw, who saw the episode of south park where they made PETA look like zoophiles? It was pretty funny. Tyciol 16:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exogamy! 

message: I think reading the article, Sues Hawkins is right. It's too long and not really justifiable, for the most part. It's excessive detail for the main article as it stands, since the main article is for general information and not so much for lawyers legislative referencing. There's 3 obvious alternatives, and I'd be interested to see what peoples views are for whats best. We could:
# Delete the "legality by state" subsection completely.
# Move it to a linked footnote subsection where those interested can read but it's not adding wordage to the article for most readers.
# Summarize it ("legal in A,B, C, ..." then "Felony in P, Q, R, ...") so it fits on 3 or 4 lines.
We could also leave it as it stands. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk) 15:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, it does seem a bit excessive. This information is good to keep on wikipedia, but it's a better idea to put it in a different article. Perhaps something similar to age of consent laws, since information on those is good to have as well. We should link to wherever it's sent in the main article though. Having a separate article would allow us to categorize it as legal which would attract more lawyers to edit and stuff. Of course, I have no idea how to name such an article, or if it fits under a present category. Perhaps we could request some help? I wish I knew the appopriate tag. Tyciol 19:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Legality by US state seems like useful information; however, condensing it to two lists (legal, illegal) seems a reasonable way to summarize. Wikipedia is not paper, though, so there's no reason to delete the expanded lists entirely - just create a new article Animal sex laws in the United States or something of the sort and put the expanded list there. Check occasionally to make sure they stay in sync. Incidentally, it looks like someone (not logged in) just came though and updated a number of states which had been previously marked as zoo-legal. Thank you, whoever you are. ♥ Zetawoof 05:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but also see other policies -- does this merit an article to itself? It could, in principle, because it's encyclopedic and factual, but is it notable information worth an article, or not sufficiently notable to get its own article?  FT2 (Talk) 04:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We could. Historically we've tended to archive (not simply delete) when about 2/3 of the page is closed and finished. Most of this page concerns recent edits where its possible we might refer back to them or add more. A lot of this page is still possibly current, although in a few weeks probably yes, it will be visibly old. Not sure we're there yet, but when more of it is visibly old and dead, yep, then it'll be a good idea to archive again. If people want to archive now though, I dont much have a view either way, myself though. FT2 (Talk) 00:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legality by US state

message: I'm unsure if this is notable. It might even quite likely be a self-submission by the author (it seems very little known). But it is a zoophile article as such, and so I'm in two minds what to make of it. Could the author please justify its notability beyond "It's a failed novel about a bond with dolphins"? And any other views...? Thanks. I have asked the author to comment here, too. FT2 (Talk) 12:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm the person who put the edit in there.  I'm not the author of the book, though - I first found out about the book because it was linked in a Fark.com thread () and I'm a member there (if you search for my name in that link, you'll even see me commenting that I'm curious enough to read it).  Of course, there's no CONCLUSIVE way that I could prove to you that I'm not the author, I suppose that maybe I could be the author and I just planned out the whole thing from the very beginning in an attempt to deceive you.  There's a lot of evidence against that, though - I've used the username "Esn" on lots of other websites and forums and on none of them have I ever said that I'm a 40 (or something) man who lives in Florida and writes dolphin stories.  If you really want me to link to websites that make a convincing case for me not being the author, I suppose I could do it, but for now you'll just have to believe me when I say that I am not - I imagine that if you contact the author, he'll be as surprised as anyone that his book is up here.  Basically, I thought to put it in because a) it seems like it gives a good glimpse into the psychology of zoophiles - it IS fiction, but the actual story features many intimate details that are probably gleaned from some real-life experience, and b) it seems like a cool find to me.  It's not like there are exactly many novels about this subject, so it seemed a fairly unique and usefull addition to the Wiki article.  Finally, there isn't too much information about the dolphin angle of zoophilia in this article, so it seemed a worthwhile addition for that reason as well.Esn 09:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's good to have the background how it got added and why. means for something like that others can be sure whats gone on. It makes reasonable sense. FT2 (Talk) 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, good insight - the story does have a strong paranormal side to it (telepathy, out of body experiences, communicating with the dead) so in that aspect it doesn't show a very realistic picture of zoophilia. Still, I'll agree that it's worth mentioning. BabyNuke 15:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I'd heard of it; in fact, I've actually had email contact with the author recently, who says it's actually moving toward publication. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dolphin novel