Talk:Sudanese goat marriage incident

Old comments

The recent death mentions "Rose Tombe", but the article is entitled "Rose the married goat" and nowhere explicitly mentions the name "Rose Tombe" (although I'm sure this would be fixed with proper wikification; introduction, summary, etc). -- 74.102.186.243 (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Name of people involved

How is the name of someone involved in a news event NOT notable? I mean, should we go to the article about the disappearance of Madaline McCann and remove her name, instead just refer to her as 'a missing girl'? Really, what is going through people's minds here? --Darksun 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

He's just some random bozo who fucked a goat. I've no idea what this stupid article is doing on Wikipedia, but while we have it the least we can do is try to distinguish it from a tabloid news story. Naming this wretched man, who was publicly humiliated within his own community, does not serve any encyclopedic purpose. We don't provide a service like Yellow Pages; you can't type in "goat fucker" and have this guy's name pop out. Encyclopedias don't work that way. --Tony Sidaway 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a basic fact regarding the story. I really don't see how it's unencyclopaedic to include the names of people at the centre of an event. So what is your reasoning, to somehow protect this guy? I don't think that is our role here on Wikipedia. Would you advocate the removal of all references to Ian Huntley from the Soham murders article to protect him? The article could be just as complete without his name, refer to him instead as 'the murderer'. --Darksun 15:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The name of a living murderer is important enough to put into an encyclopedia. The name of a fellow who raped a goat is not. I'd say it's a matter of judgement. What do other editors think? --Tony Sidaway 10:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• PLEASE can we try to establish some consensus on this issue. I personally find it really unencylopaedic to just say 'the perpetrator' --Darksun 00:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  The goat-fucker probably wouldn't work either. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  Is that really a helpful comment? --Darksun 08:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  A perhaps misplaced attempt at levity. The sources have the names, which are not in any way important to the article. The name of the owner, for instance, could have been Smith or Jones or Brown, without any implications for the article content. A small matter for us, but perhaps important for the person himself. --Tony Sidaway 10:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  "The husband"? Neil ╦ 12:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  If the name is used in the sources then so should we, if the sources say "perpetrator" then we should too. Chillum 18:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

  Having the name of the central figure detracts nothing from the article and there seems to be only one person against it, as such I have added his name. The general consensus is that it is important to the article, please don't remove it based on your personal POV. BodvarBjarki (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Goatse-x?

Noting an interesting play on words here...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD Banner

If the article has been voted to be kept, can we get rid of the banner on the main page that says "marked for deletion"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.233.187 (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2008

That's an old deletion vote. Gimmetrow 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Human-goat sexual intercourse merge

Human-goat sexual intercourse should be merged, it's ok as an article but we don't need both, it would perhaps expand this article, if any of it's true:) The internet meme etc and history parts. Sticky Parkin 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, why? This article is about a specific incident where a man married a goat in Sudan. A merge does not make sense, Human-goat sexual intercourse contains loads of information that would not fit here, where is the part about Egyptian goat sex or having sex with goats believed to be an incarnation of the devil supposed to fit? -Icewedge (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

These topics are distinct as one concerns marriage while the other concerns sex. And the articles seem strong enough to stand by themselves. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge. The topics are distinct. There's a famous statute of Pan having goat sex, see animail worship and not child safe image. Bebestbe (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Amount of Dowry

The figure given in this article seems wrong. The article human-animal marriage says "ordered by the council of elders to pay the neighbour a dowry of 5,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) and marry the animal." this seems supported by the BBC article. I'm not bold enough to change it in case I've missed something :) 79.69.149.127 (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Her 'kid'

The article mentions that she had a 'kid'. Does that mean that she was unfaithful or ... not? --Auric (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's looking at you, kid. Paul (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No citations?

Couldn't help but notice that this article doesn't contain a single source. Perhaps the news story is still up and could be cited? Alexreiter512 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Are we seeing the same version? I can count 12 cites right now.--Auric talk 14:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)