Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 27
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 |
Crow and Ojibwa people accepted bestiality? Are we sure about that?
This claim is asserted in the lede, and attributed to only one source. The one source simply makes the same assertion, as fact, without any citation or supporting information. I cannot find a single other source that asserts that Crow and Ojibwa people have ever widely accepted or practiced bestiality. As we all know, bestiality is generally looked upon with disgust and contempt. It doesn't seem appropriate to characterize the Crow and Ojibwa people in this way using Wikivoice. It's not a good look to describe whole groups of people in degrading ways, with very scant evidence to back up the claim.
I propose that we either beef up the claim by finding additional sources, or, if a short period of time elapses and no other sources can be found, this claim should either be moved to the body & attributed to the author of the source, or removed entirely.
What do you think? Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd have to agree. A poor source for such a statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I decided to go ahead and remove the passage in question, since I can't find any other source, and nobody has offered an argument for keeping it. If there are other sources that describe the Crow and Ojibwa's acceptance of bestiality, I'd love to read them - but in the absence of such sources, this reeks of a stereotype about "savages" being granted an air of academic credibility that it doesn't deserve. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Suggested edit to remove POV
"Copulating with a female alpaca is still specifically against the law in Peru."
I think "still" should be removed 14.0.168.15 (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Given the poor sourcing (a passing mention in a book on a completely different subject), I'll remove the sentence entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Suggested correction on Germany's supposed ban of human-animal sexual intercourse
The article states in the "Legal status" section that Germay supposedly banned all human-animal sexual intercouse in 2013 which is incorrect. Presently, such sexual acts are not illegal unless the animal is being forced.
This misinterpretation probably stems from the specific wording of the law in question. Germany's court of constitution (Bundeverfassungsgericht) clarified the interpretation in their verdict against a challenge of said law in 2015 (Source 71 already linked on the Wikipedia article, https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html). The court specifically commented that the law has a condition to it. As long as the animal is not "forced" the law is not being broken. According to the court "forcing" an animal is comparable to the "use of violence".
Unfortunately, many sources quote both the original law from 2013 as well as the verdict from 2015 incorrectly or at least incompletely (Sources 72 to 75 on the article), adding to the confusion. It would be advisable to correct the article and remove sources that misrepresent the actual situation. Fijexaw931 (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Suggested edit to better represent source in "Perspectives on zoophilia"
In the "Perspectives on zoophilia" section, it says this:
The Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine (Vol. 18, February 2011) states that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself;[1] it also states that there are several kinds of zoophiles:[1]
but the cited article is quoting the DSM-III-R (while discussing the history of how the DSM has talked about zoophilia) and says "zoophilia" instead of "sexual contact with animals", which are not the same thing, as the beginning of this Wikipedia article acknowledges. The sentence could be reworded to reflect this, though it might be better to just remove that part instead, so the entire sentence reads:
The Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine (Vol. 18, February 2011) states that there are several kinds of zoophiles:[1]
"Beastforum.com" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Beastforum.com has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 27 § Beastforum.com until a consensus is reached. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)