Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zoophilia/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Zoophilia

Interesting article. Well cited and referenced for a controversial topic and quite neutral. Good FAC candidate. --Mercenary2k 3:54AM May 7, 2006

  • Support. Nice and easy to read. I would add information on places where it is acceptable and the law doesn't condone it. I would also add more inline citations but in all it was interesting to read. Lincher 13:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Law is often very hard to track down, especially as many countries prosecute such things creatively. For example, I gather one place that didn't have a law against zoophilia, and where they couldn't prove cruelty, attempted to prosecute it under "sex with a minor" - medium breed dogs typically living to 9 - 14 years. (Presumably that would make horse stud breeders be 'encouraging delinquency in minors'?) Others define all such activity as "cruelty", "sodomy", "immoral conduct", or "against religious law" and prosecute it that way. So it's risky to say where it's legal. Its much safer just to list where it is illegal, because then we can definitively be sure we aren't misleading readers. FT2 (Talk) 17:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
If no reliable sources can be found, then wikipedia shouldn't make a statement either way. Wikipedia does not provide advice. Andjam 12:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Correct... which is why the article only states when it is clearly illegal, and does not offer a view on places where it isnt clear or may be legal or illegal. FT2 (Talk) 20:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Unsure. Problem is, an article on a subject like this inevitably has to be _above_ average, due to its nature. It's well cited and referenced, and stable, but even so is it really ready for something like FAC. (I'm one of the editors on it). FT2 (Talk) 17:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Zoosexuality" should not be used to describe an act. JayW 23:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
(a) The "FAC" is for zoophilia not zoosexuality, (b) zoosexuality isnt a word to describe an act anyhow, read the article, (c) This seems a complaint about something other than article quality, relevance to FAC? FT2 (Talk) 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
"Zoosexuality" is misleadingly used to describe human-animal sexual relations (i.e. an act) throughout this article. JayW 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
One would talk about a "homosexual act between two men" (googled), and UK as well as US legislation plus US Airforce law speak of a "homosexual act" in this manner. A "zoosexual act", performed by "zoosexuals" exploring their "zoosexuality" is correct usage of the term. Would you advise clarifying this in the article then? And, comments on the rest of the article? FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Object for the following reasons:

  1. Social community section seems to be largely original research - or at least written in a tone that suggests that it is, this section is also very long considering it is discussing a subculture which may or may not exist
    Clarification: what is not clear is whether it should be termed as a "community". That there is a subculture is confirmed. FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    It is still not clear to me why this needs to be elaborated on at length.--nixie 05:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    I think I anticipated this in my comment on #8 below. The whole of the community, and its subculture, and its main features and history, is basically this one section. Compare the dozens and hundreds of complete articles which together perform the analogous description for homosexuality/LGBT. For this reason, the comparative for length of this section is the total of a large part of the content of:
    FT2 (Talk) 07:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. "Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexuality" needs to be summarised, lists of quotes are not a replacement for good prose, same goes for "Religious perspectives", "Other popular references",
    Editors have discussed prosing "arguments" - sensible idea. Not sure how you mean about religious section, thats mostly prose already. Have you got a better example article to point us to? FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. What are the items listed in "Books, articles and documentaries", are they references for the article or something else, this needs to be made clear
    Title change "Books, articles, and documentaries about zoophilia" any better? FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Leagal status only covers selected countries from the first world, what about elsewhere? This section would be a good one to split off into another article, leaving a summary in this article.
    Split-off has been discussed, sensible idea. Research not yet undertaken by anyone. FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Quotes should not be in italics, see the MoS
  6. The "Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia" section is empty - comprehensiveness problem, shouldn't myth and fantasy follow from here?
    Empty section except for "main article" link. Isnt that the norm in other pages (eg WP:ABOUT#How_Wikipedia_differs_from_a_paper_encyclopedia) too? FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    No, see Wikipedia:Summary style--nixie 05:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, I've been trying to research content, I'm not to familiar with Wikipedia style guides except by example on other pages I've seen. Much appreciated, I'll read it and try to incorporate it in other articles I work on too. FT2 (Talk) 08:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Although some refs are use cite.php there is an assortment of html links in text that I assume are references, that should be converted so one system is used throughout the article.
  8. The ordering of the sections seems slightly odd - you might want to try and make the flow between sections more logical.
    Part of the problem is an unusal conflict in the article. Because it is socially deemed negative, fully reporting whats important gets strongly seen as "promotion" by some readers, and splitting to multiple articles is seen as promotion (eg "you're making a minor sick perversion bigger than it should be") too. We've had that one on the talk page already recently (see talk page). So we're trying to keep most of it in one article and balance it fairly for readers too. So the flow has suffered somewhat as a result. A good idea to review it though -- will probably benefit the article. FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
--nixie 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
As said above, I too am "unsure". Some good suggestions here that'll help. Some I think I can answer so answers added where available. FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • The Legal status and Religious perspectives lists should be split off.
    • Consider putting a paragraph or two summary under all empty section headings, such as "Zoophiles".
    • I see at least two external links that are not formatted consistently with the footnotes
    • Not enough citations. None under "Zoophiles and other groups" for example.
    • The list of Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexuality should be turned into prose
  • Tuf-Kat 02:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
nixie suggested several of the same points too. But one you mention catches my eye. We've tried to avoid adding articles. You reckon we should be splitting off more? "Zoophilia and religion" for example? Should we be doing that more? FT2 (Talk) 08:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, my primary concern is that the religious section in this article is both a list and uncited (both major problems). I think fixing it will necessitate a subarticle. Tuf-Kat 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose because featured articles act as ads, and the sexual exploitation of animals shouldn't be promoted. -Barry- 18:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This objection is inactionable. Raul654 17:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Relevant on opinion websites and blogs. Not here. Wikipedia article handling isn't about personal opinions. if we can take a controversial subject and editors collaboratively can still make a balanced article of it, so much the better "advert". On this basis we wouldn't consider putting articles such as abortion, communism, Al_Qaeda, pornography, intelligent design, on featured articles either, since these are all highly objectionable as subjects to a large number of individuals who would not want them "advertized". Wikipedia is showcased by its full range, and debate on this page is about whether they meet Wikipedia criteria or not. FT2 (Talk) 00:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written, impressively well-referenced. A fine example for sexuality-related articles (which are often poorly written and unreferenced). And it's even illustrated! Exploding Boy 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose lack of inline citations is a definite problem. I'm also worried that the article is not encyclopedic in tone - for example lists are used. A good job has been done considering the topic matter, but FAs should be based on article quality, not effort involved. Andjam 12:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fair. can you point me to a style guide which discusses when lists should and shouldn't be used, and what to use in their place, or examples? I would have thought some places, lists would be the logical way to document something. be useful to learn. Thanks FT2 (Talk) 20:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The presence of lists should not be an immediate disqualification. Sometimes lists are the best way to present information. As long as the bulk of the article is not in list form, there should be no objection. Exploding Boy 02:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A list is a degenerate form of prose for people who are incapable of forming sentences and coherently stringing them together. A number of sections in this article are lists which should not be, including the sections on "legal status", "Sciences studying zoophilia", "Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations", "Psychological and research perspectives", and "Other popular references". Furthermore, it has a trivia section (!), which is *very* poor form and should be terminated post-haste. Raul654 02:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well meeyow. Exploding Boy 03:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking at those, Raul, and it seems to me a list is by far the clearest way to present at least some of these. Others could probably be put into prose paragraphs. But prosing for prosing's sake is not in any obvious way, in and of itself, an improvement and to some of these it seems simply, would add text and remove ease of reading, without any commensurate gain. Also it seems some of them the material more naturally falls into list form. For example, what exactly is the gain in taking the legal status by country and allocating a paragraph to each rather than a bullet in a list? Would it change the clarity of communication at all? And the "sciences studying" section, which lists some 4 sciences and their interest, and then discusses other areas, what exactly would be gained in clarity terms in another format? Last, can you explain what is the "poor taste" with a trivia section? It seems to me that's not an unreasonable title or section for a subject. How exactly is that "poor form"? As you see, I am somewhat unsure what exactly is "degenerate" in this. Similar to tables, sometimes prose paragraphs are not the best form for some forms of information. I am unaware that the editors on this article are "incapable of forming sentences and stringing them together" either. Can you point me to the page of the style guide where I can read more on where lists are, and are not, best used? Thanks. FT2 (Talk) 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't take my lists are comment personally - it wasn't directed at the authors of this article in particular. I was simply attempting to explain why lists are so very bad. Long story short - lists are sloppy presentation in that they do not allow for a proper sequential line of thought, or allow items of that list to be given a proper relationship to one-another. (Which is what I meant by degenerate: "Having fallen to an inferior or undesirable state").
As far as the trivia section - trivia sections are evil because they are a common violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If some factoid is so important (non-trivial) as to merit a mention, say it in the article. If it's so minor that the only place it deserves to me mentioned is a trivia section, it's probably not important enough to merit a mention. Raul654 05:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I disagree. The presence of a list should not, in and of itself, be grounds to reject a FA candidate. Sometimes lists are the best way to present information. Exploding Boy 17:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right that occassionaly a list is not the best way of conveying information. However, in this case, it's not the presence of *a* list - it's the presence of a dozen or more of them Raul654 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made a number of fixes to this article and I think it is looking good now. I have unresolved three issues with this article though:

  • Historical and cultural perspectives section: This is an empty section pointing to the article on Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia. It should have at least a couple of sentencing summarizing that article
  • Other popular references section - this section (entirely an evil list) is redundant with the "Media discussion" section and should be merged into it (in prose form)
  • "Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations" section should be converted into prose

Beyond that, I think think it's a pretty good article. Raul654 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment As well as being worried about lists, I'd like to reiterate that I'm worried about the lack of inline citations - for example, I'm curious about the claim that bestiality is not explicitly outlawed in the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay. Andjam 00:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The legal section's now been split out and summarized, and there's now a footnote and cite someone kindly added on this. See Zoosexuality and the law. FT2 (Talk) 11:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose There isn't enough inline citations. In addition, the article is much too long and could be confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.243.98 (talk • contribs)
  • Support - Interesting Read, well referenced. Jordy 21:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I resent the zoophilia (or rather zoosexuality) category for being a subcategory category:Sexual orientation and identity, seems unfounded/inappropriate. GilliamJF 07:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Note for other readers - You raised this on Category_talk:Zoosexuality (March 2006), and it was discussed there. WP:FAC isn't a place to bring personal opinions or conspiracy theories really. The purpose of this page is to discuss quality for FAC. Your comment was that it had been put there by "some American members of the far-right us[ing] the topic of zoophilia in their uphill battle to justify limiting the rights of same-sex couples to marry", and was therefore "a maneuver to justify LGBT rights opposition." Information was given to confirm this wasn't the case. FT2 (Talk) 10:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Surprise! 84.171.91.118 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Article will be edited to address above suggestions. MArked as FAC-failed by Bunchofgrapes May 21 2006 for the time being. FT2 (Talk) 10:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)