Talk:History of zoophilia

sourcing/tagging of article

I'm concerned that, like other articles in this topic area, this article suffers from poor sourcing, original reasearch and/or synthesis issues. I've already removed one source entirely as it was marked as being ultimately sourced from a pro-bestiality internet forum, and removed some passages that don't seem to accurately depict what is in the source material, but I haven't had time to be thorough just yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Eurocentric

These acts take place elsewhere and are known as part of initiation rituals of African tribes, and formerly some native American ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:1409:90A2:1:2:9309:BDA1 (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

What we would need to add this information is reliable sources that verify it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Here (#REDIRECT Zoophilia#Historical_and_cultural_perspectives) there are some information with relative sources about Native Americans and Middle East indigenous cultures: "Bestiality has been accepted in a few North American and Middle Eastern indigenous cultures.". In the same page (#REDIRECT Zoophilia#Religious_perspectives there are information about India as well: "There are a few references in Hindu scriptures to religious figures engaging in symbolic sexual activity with animals such as explicit depictions of people having sex with animals included amongst the thousands of sculptures of "Life events" on the exterior of the temple complex at Khajuraho. The depictions are largely symbolic depictions of the sexualization of some animals and are not meant to be taken literally. According to the Hindu tradition of erotic painting and sculpture, having sex with an animal is believed to be actually a human having sex with a god incarnated in the form of an animal. However, in some Hindu scriptures, such as the Bhagavata Purana and the Devi Bhagavata Purana, having sex with animals, especially the cow, leads one to hell, where one is tormented by having one's body rubbed on trees with razor-sharp thorns.", in the page is also attached a 18th-century Indian miniature depicting women practising zoophilia . Attached to the page there are also two Japanese bestiality representation: Hokusai's (1760–1849) The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife and ukiyo-e woodblock print from Utagawa Kunisada's series: "Eight Canine Heroes of the House of Satomi", 1837 Digressivo (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Kinsey report

You mention the Kinsey report extensively here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Extent_of_occurrence so it may be mentioned on this page as well unless you prefer me to add it to here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Extent_of_occurrence. It already is noted that the reports accuracy has been questioned recently. Foorgood (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The section in the Zoophilia article cites several sources, properly explaining both what Kinsey claimed, and what has subsequently been said about his findings. Your edit cited a single source, and explained nothing. As for the source you cite, it says eight million, not one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Great 8 million it is. One source from top publisher Bloomsbury is sufficient but add to that this scholarly article from https://www.tierimrecht.org/en/about-us/who-we-are/ https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/5122976/zoophilia-an-unrecognized-problem-in-animal-welfare-legislation. Yes we agree that it is already stated that his work has been questioned.Foorgood (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The second source you cite is essentially the same as the first. Same authors, saying the same thing. Is there any particular reason why you consider these particular writers to be of such significance? Lots of people have written about Kinsey... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Wrong the books authors are Beetz and Podbersceck while the articles authors are Bollinger and Goetschel. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Extent_of_occurrence there is only one source used for the Kinsey statistics- source #9. Stop impeding detail improvement on these articles.

Foorgood (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I am not 'wrong'. The chapter in the book was written by Bollinger and Goetschel. I suggest you take the time to actually read sources before you cite them. And having done so, go and find some further sources to adequately cover the debate about the validity of Kinsey's findings. And then think about whether it is appropriate to stick content on Kinsey on the end of a paragraph discussing legislation in Nazi Germany. Which it clearly isn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I missed that the chapters have authors. Fine it can be added here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Extent_of_occurrence where Kinsey is discussed. Again there is only one source citing Kinsey's numbers (source #9) so this addition of a Bloomsbury source is sufficient. Don't invent a double standard.Foorgood (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not inventing double standards. I am trying to prevent your exercise in Google-mining turning this article into a random collection of 'facts' thrown together at random by someone who clearly doesn't have the appropriate subject-matter knowledge, and appears not to read sources before citing them. And you have still to explain what Kinsey has to do with Nazi Germany... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I simply meant to add it under 20th century but I just told you I will add it here instead where Kinsey's figures are discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Extent_of_occurrence Foorgood (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

We don't need two sources saying the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I will only add the more than a million zoophiles figure with the Bloomsbury source. I will make the first part a sentence so it's not a huge run on sentence.Foorgood (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

And I will delete it again, with a warning that repeated attempts to spam articles with the same source for no good reason, when better sources are available (including, obviously, the source already cited) is disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying I may add the million zoophiles into the sentence without adding an additional source?Foorgood (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No. And I'm not interested in arguing with you any more. If you don't want to be reported per WP:CIR, I suggest you find a subject you have a clue about to edit instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me the Bloomsbury source states Kinsey found 8 million zoophiles in America which is an important statistic and you have NO basis for it's exclusion.Foorgood (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Missing authors of a chapter is no basis for exclusion of a substantial fact by Bloomsbury publishing. Go ahead and report me Mr Grump I'll meet you there!Foorgood (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)