Talk:Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When the article is done, and we can see what shape it ends up and what it contains, maybe a better more exact title can be chosen. But not till its better developed, so we don't change title too much. Thoughts:
- "Zoophilia in art and culture"
- "Sociology of zoophilia"
- "Cultural perspectives on zoophilia"
FT2 19:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The content of this article seems to have been entirely taken from various sources, many of them doubtful or outdated. The author also has also used only sources that prove the widespread existence of zoophilia in both currently and throughout history including almost anything against this opinion. Finally, many of the statements in the article aren't backed by any source: "...is said to be...”, "They probably do continue albeit less visibly and fewer", etc. I would ask of someone who is knowledgeable on the subject to review the article because large parts of it seem very dubious at the moment. Kostja 17:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Quick reply:
- 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?
- However, whilst incomplete it is fully sourced. It is not attempting to "prove" anything. rather, it is documenting the prevalence and place of the subject matter in cultures across time. Thus a summary of how and where it takes place is exactly the starting point. As fully referenced and cited material, that makes clear it was both common, but often and usually unacceptable, it is hardly "one sided". For example, what we know of human-animal sex in the middle ages is broadly: it happened, certain cases were documented, and that the church objected on theological and moral grounds and executed them where proven. That is literally, what we know from citable verifiable sources.
- An article on "birdwatching in history and culture" would probably sound like birdwatching happened everywhere too, and for the same reason -- its looking at where it did occur, not where it didn't. That is probably why you feel as you do, but it's appropriate for the article.
- Secondly, the neutrality of this article is shown by the very quotes you comment about. The expression "...is said to be..." you complain about occurs precisely twice. It is not an evasive statement, however, rather, both times is an exact literal citation from an original verifiable source, which is precisely how wikipedia says sources should be reported (WP:V and WP:CITE). "X says Y".
- Likewise, "they probably do continue" is verifiable. We know they were taking place at least in recent decades from various credible sources (not yet cited in depth), and you can look up anecdotal accounts of all these activities on google (I've checked that already) claiming they still continue. Since such incidents are generally anecdotal they are hard to cite, but since the accounts exist and we have no citable credible source saying these practices have suddenly all ceased, it is a fair statement for an incomplete article to say that they "probably" do continue.
- I hope you will see that in fact most statements are backed by sources. Especially considering that your chosen example is itself a direct source citation. What is missing at present, and I will agree, is a broader perspective of other sources views on it over time. But I am adding in all those I can find online, so it's hhard to see what is missing there. Perhaps you could do some research on that if you feel strongly some verifiable, notable information on specific cultural or historical views (as opposed to your own personal feelings) is missing? There is a limit to what one person can do to document an entire subject.
- In the meantime the points made are not supported by the text as it stands. So I have reverted the tags. FT2 22:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] comments on people by their enemies
A lot of these accounts seem to be by enemies of the group; e.g. anti-egyptians claiming that egyptians had sex with crocodiles and so on.
[edit] Racism
I find it vaguely racist the way African/Native American/Pacific Island cultures are all dumped under "tribal".Sinatra Fonzarelli 06:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hoax Pictures
I have removed both pictures that came from the wanadoo site, as they are most likely hoaxes.
The only "source" for them is somebody's homepage, and just calling the folders "museum" doesn't make it any more official...
The first graphic (presumably a cave painting, but more likely a Photoshop filter) just stands there in space, without any background (where are the cave walls?), and the second one has a big crack in the middle that shows no traces whatsoever on the depicted deer. --Frescard 02:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
