Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 18

message: Was "zoophilia" another artificial splice of Greek by Krafft-Ebing, or is it derived from something actually encountered in Ancient Greek? JayW 00:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I'm not sure. Did he invent the term, reinvent an existing word, or was it already in use and borrowed/adapted for the purpose? Don't know. I'd suspect "borrowed or reinvented", since in Greek it apparently retains the meaning "animal lover", which suggests that was its original meaning in that language at least (if K-E had invented it, surely it'd mean what he invented in Greek too?). But I'm not sure. FT2 (Talk) 07:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the term was already in use, but referred to a non-sexual attraction. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Zoophilia" in Greek

message: has been formally identified as a sockpuppet of a known Wikipedia POV vandal. block log as has  .
The user concerned has caused serious POV damage to other articles, including forged cites, removal of valid facts, attacking of other editors as "biased", and imposition of own preferred POV via selective cites, often non-notable.
His talk page entries, as on the other article, are mostly intended to sway POV on the article and contain many personal attacks; I've archived them at /Archive17 if needed.
FT2 (Talk | email) 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JHartley edits

message: Someone recently removed the link to AnimalDB.com I added. I would like to put it back on the page but I will wait pending the result of a discussion I would like to see about this subject.
Someone reverted my external link addition (AnimalDB.com) to the Zoophilia article. The first reason given by the reverter was that the contribution to the page would be questionable. I beg to differ. AnimalDb.com is a searchable database containing information on bestiality publications such as movies, magazines, books and websites. The zoophilia article on wikipedia is, among more, about bestiality. Several (or possibly all) persons and movies named in the pornography section are also in the database. The database is the largest in his kind.
The second argument given, by the reverter, for removing the link was that the database possibly has illegal content for some countries. I believe this fact itself is correct in that some of the websites content might be illegal in some countries, because the database contains cover images for the movies and magazines. But again I have a different opinion about this being a reason for not mentioning the link in the wikipedia article. A lot ot the other sources and external links on this articles page do also contain the same kind of material. If you think this argument is valid then you should remove al those other links also (and not just in this article but throughout wikipedia on all subjects that might be illegal in some countries). I think adding a warning behind the link should be enough. Ik.pas.aan 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also in reply to the comment left on my talk page (I reverted the addition), the site seems to be nothing more than a huge bestiality porn database. Is it relevant for the average reader of this article to know that the movie "A Hot Dog night" lasts 60 minutes? Of the other sites listed in the article, none are purely aimed at pornography. Furthermore, as mentioned, bestial pornography itself is already illegal in many countries. Linking to a site which may contain illegal content for a large amount of visitors isn't wise, though I could live with a disclaimer. The site seems only useful for those looking for bestial pornography and I do not believe that is the goal of this article. I won't further protest it if the link is added WITH a suitable disclaimer, though I do not really feel it adds much to the article. BabyNuke 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the revert, which was done by others and I would support, is not because of modesty nor (il)legality. It's because Wikipedia is not an index of indiscrimiate links, nor a place where links are put to advertize a place, nor a site of resource links for people seeking information on pornography. This is a reference article, on a large subject, and porn site links or indexes do not usually add much essential information on zoosexuality and zoophilia. if you view the page history, you'll see that most porn site type links are removed, by most editors, upon addition, as well as a private request in the text of the page at various times, not to add spam or self-promotion links. AnimalDB.com falls under all of these, the same as zooskool.com (a porn/educational site) did, same as many other sites did. 87.114.1.61 07:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is also not censored. AnimalDb.com is a resource for information on zoophilia/bestiality publications. It is a database like IMDb.com is. Many actrices and movies named in this article can be found in this database with additional information. Ik.pas.aan 16:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The essential question is always "does this add anything to the article"? The answer is "no" - information on (as BabyNuke puts it) who starred in "A Hot Dog Night" and how long it ran doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of zoophilia. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to AnimalDB.com

message: I actually asked you several times in this discussion if you would like the H&S issues split, but you never answered the question directly. Never mind. It's quite pleasant to find that you are addressing the issues today.
Yes, the page needs to be split, if only because it is around 40KB and 32 KB is the recommended wiki limit. But we need to be careful we do not create a POV fork, so what is said here must agree with the text on the new page. The text that remains here should be carefully parsed, the less said the better, I would imagine. We have to look at naming conventions too so that the page is clearly related to the word "zoophilia".
I'm flying out of town for a meeting today, but I'll continue this in the next day or two. I'll answer each of your concerns then. I think we are headed in the right direction now.  Skoppensboer 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not all people who have sex with animals are zoophiles. But we can discuss the title. "Zoonoses and sex with animals", "Health aspects of sexual acts with animals" or "Zoonotic aspects of sexual acts with animals" is probably about as neutral as it gets. Would you be okay with that? FT2 (Talk | email) 21:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Split on Health and Safety Issues, Summary