80.238.132.90

Zoophilia

Hey there.

Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines on external links; external references not following those guidelines are always removed as a matter of fact. — Coren ^(talk) 19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello there!

Sorry, why are WP:EL guidelines not fulfilled exactly?

Regards

Well, it's not the organization that doesn't meet a standard, but the link itself (or more precisely, its presence in the article). The site you link to contains an essay and photographs that are, in essence original research, and since it does not meet the criterion for reliable sources, it's not appropriate to link to it from within an encyclopedia article.

As a rule, we tend to require external links to be pointers to large resources containing information that could not be placed in the article but are nonetheless central to the contents; official sites of organizations, repositories of peer-reviewed research, etc. Self-published sources of advocacy, regardless of which point of view it advocates, are generally not considered appropriate. In addition, it is neither possible nor practical to try to insert links to even a significant fraction of web sites related to the article topic, so we keep the number purposely very small (or, in most cases, zero). — Coren ^(talk) 20:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Coren,

Coren wrote: > Well, it's not the organization that doesn't meet a standard, but the link itself (or more precisely, its presence in the article).

What do you mean by that? Are you trying to say I should have placed it under another subtitle of "Zoophilia" than "Research" or "Other"?

Coren wrote: > The site you link to contains an essay and photographs that are, in essence original research

So does Wikipedia have a rule against scientific or research content? That seems very weird indeed.

Coren wrote: > , and since it does not meet the criterion for reliable sources

What??? So you are saying the photographs and videos on that site are *NOT* reliable, in other words are some kind of forgeries which do not in any way document actual and real happenings in a reliable way? Sorry: If you do not accept photographs and films as reliable sources, WHAT do you accept as a reliable source? Please state why you think the sources of the Organization for Animal Dignity do not meet Wikipedia's reliable sources. In particular the article titled "Animals like Sex" with its numerous photographs and videos proving *VERY* reliably the sexual behavior of animals. Please be more specific.

Coren wrote: > :As a rule, we tend to require external links to be pointers to large resources containing information that could not be placed in the article but are nonetheless central to the contents;

Nothing against that rule at all. But the animal's perspective on "Zoophilia" seems to be a relevant part of the issue in the topic of "Zoophilia", since the animal is one of the two participants. So it seems only fair to shed some light on the animals' point of view and sexual behavior or preferences, as the Organization for Animal Dignity does very nicely be documenting zoophile behavior in animals *VERY RELIABLY* by numerous images and videos which, I don't think you can ALL call forgeries without being seriously biased.

Coren wrote: > Self-published sources of advocacy, regardless of which point of view it advocates, are generally not considered appropriate.

This is not about any kind of advocacy, but about adding *valuable* new information to Wikipedia about the animals' point of view on "Zoophilia" which happens to be the subject-matter of this article if I'm not mistaken. The information from the Organization for Animal Dignity, especially images and films, are self-evident and as such carry no other message or advocacy than the the truth, the true happening of the occurrences which they document. Are you really saying all those images and films are pure forgeries that have absolutely nothing to do with reality? Don't you think producing image and video forgeries of such quality would cost an incredible amount of money? Who do you think would pay millions of dollars to produce such image and video forgeries? Sorry, I don't see the rational in your argumentation.

Coren wrote: > In addition, it is neither possible nor practical to try to insert links to even a significant fraction of web sites related to the article topic, so we keep the number purposely very small (or, in most cases, zero).

Yes, I'm aware of that. But as I said: I feel the Organization for Animal Dignity with its article "Animals like Sex" with its images and films which seem like *VERY* reliable sources to me adds the animals' point of view and behaviors in connection with "Zoophilia". And since animals are one of the parties involved in "Zoophilia", that seems to be relevant to this article and to me, which is why I feel Wikipedia would be well-advised to include the link I have provided.

Regards, B.Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.233.101 (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

---