Talk:Zoophilia

Unable to get rid of "cite error" message

I have tried and tried to get rid of a "cite error" message, but every time I try to fix the reference a "spam filter notice" message appears and because of this I cannot get rid of the "cite error" message. Does anybody know how to fix this problem? Perhaps there is someone who has the ability to override the "spam filter notice" in this case since the problem is clearly caused by a bug and not by a spam-related link.Plateau99 (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a "cite error" message in the article page anywhere. Where does it appear for you? Depending on the spam-filter involved, there is likely no way to override it. However, there may be a way to find an alternate or comparable site that is not a problem. And if the filter really is mis-behaving, having a specific example of the problem would help the filter-maintainers diagnose and hopefully fix it. DMacks (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahah, was fixed a half hour ago:) You can see in that edit what was done...it was a true syntax error in the ref-tag. DMacks (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.237.179.132, 2 May 2011

usually non-abusive - this is incorrect! Since an animal cannot speak how can it defend itself fro such an ACT? This is not what wikipedia wants to turn into to, this editor did not provide an objective assesment of the definition - but instead found some dorky and i might add gross article praising animal abusers.

98.237.179.132 (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: articles are built based on verifiable and reliable sources to ensure a neutral point of view. Personal opinion is not a reason to change the article. Thank you for understanding! — Bility (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Bestiality Restaurant is an Urban Myth

The japanese bestiality restaurant referred to in this article is an urban myth.

See: http://aki-akiaki.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-beastiality-restaurant-was-made.html

For details. Someone should remove that reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.123.99.48 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see that myth referred to in this article? I can't find it. I've definitely heard that myth before, and the page you linked does raise considerable doubt (to a story that was already sounding pretty dubious), and I'd be glad to remove it if you can point it out. :) Zetawoof (ζ) 02:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Belgium

Bestiality is illegal in Belgium since 2007. See http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo%C3%B6filie#Belgi.C3.AB (Dutch site). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbuvens (talk • contribs) 10:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Uncredible article

This article is full of non-truths, as an academic professor in sexology I was very well surprised and shocked at how much this article had warped figures largely, and how many users who "made" the article are actually zoophiles, perhaps even zoosadists themselves. Dr Miletski for one person is not a reliable person, considering their many fake aliases such as Dr Smith and association with the zoophile/pornographic industry. Indeed it could be argued that the article can be respected as neutral - but about 8 in 10 of the article is cramped with bias that is enough to confuse any student that I or anyone else is teaching. Please can some neutral review these errors since it is unhealthy considering how many curious teenagers and adults have access to this content, with the affirmation of non-truths promoting that there is nothing to worry about in the sexual activity with animals. Another note is that zoophilia has never been used in the higher studies to refer to bestiality. The article speaks of bestiality, and while in translation, the term is somewhat in correct usage, it is not English. I am pleased "coming soon" was kept from the article, it is a mockumentary and not to be referenced as it is not a genuine documentary, despite some "twisted facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelForsyth (talk • contribs) 22:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure that Hani Miletski has used aliases? She's got a pretty well-documented academic background (see her wiki article, linked previously) for details. I'm aware of one individual online that's identified himself as a sexologist by the name of "J. D. Smith", among various other names. He may have also fraudulently identified himself as Dr. Miletski, but as far as I'm aware there's nothing to suggest that there's any actual relation. Zetawoof (ζ) 04:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't "biased" -- just because multiple points-of-view are presented in an article doesn't mean it is biased. Many of the things you say are assumptions and personal opinions; for example, your use of the word "unhealthy" is a subjective opinion. Also, your use of the term "non-truth" is subjective and inaccurate. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored, and there may be ideas or beliefs presented which conflict with your own. Plateau99 (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mental disorder — "established view"?

The Psychological, psychiatric, and research perspectives section states "The established view in the field of psychology is that zoophilia is a mental disorder." and then goes on to claim that the DSM-IV-TR does not consider zoophilia a mental disorder unless "it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual". No references are provided to support the claim that most specialists consider zoophilia (as defined by the article — "the practice of sex between humans and non-human animals (bestiality), or a preference or fixation on such practice" — i.e. not necessarily causing distress/impairment) a mental disorder per se and it is contradicted by the DSM. Should we remove the "established view" statement? Valaggar (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You might want to dig back in the article history (possibly even sample revisions over a few years of the article history) to find where this phrasing came from. There may be something in the history to explain how sentences that appear to contradict each other landed right next to each other in the article. But as it stands, it doesn't sound like there is a cited source for the "established view ... mental disorder" claim; and the DSM, which is pretty much the "established" source, appears to contradict. --FOo (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please take a look several statement under Religious perspectives for Buddhism:

Buddhism addresses sexual conduct primarily in terms of what brings harm to oneself or to others, and the admonition against sexual misconduct is generally interpreted in modern times to prohibit zoosexual acts, as well as pederasty, adultery, rape, or prostitution. However, according to the Buddhist philosophy of the Eightfold path, sexual activity with animals can be accepted so long as it is not cruel, has good intentions, and involves compassion. Any kind of sexual activity, including those with animals, are expressly forbidden for Buddhist monks and nuns, who are expected to be celibate.

Maya was the mother of Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism. According to legend, Maya had sex with a white elephant and was impregnated by it.

The first incorrect statement:

However, according to the Buddhist philosophy of the Eightfold path, sexual activity with animals can be accepted so long as it is not cruel, has good intentions, and involves compassion.

Because:

That is clear a personal opinion, no mention under above link, wrong interpretation and totally mislead since Buddhism has strong point to include bestiality under immorality act:

"When immorality prevails, human lifespan decreases till it reaches a minimum of 10 years at the base of human bestiality.".

The second incorrect statement:

Maya was the mother of Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism. According to legend, Maya had sex with a white elephant and was impregnated by it.

Because:

That is clear a personal opinion because those link above Never mention that queen Maya had a sex with it:

"One full moon night, sleeping in the palace, the queen had a vivid dream. She felt herself being carried away by four devas (spirits) to Lake Anotatta in the Himalayas. After bathing her in the lake, the devas clothed her in heavenly cloths, anointed her with perfumes, and bedecked her with divine flowers. Soon after a white elephant, holding a white lotus flower in its trunk, appeared and went round her three times, entering her womb through her right side. Finally the elephant disappeared and the queen awoke, knowing she had been delivered an important message, as the elephant is a symbol of greatness in Nepal."

and

"According to Buddhist legend, Maha Maya dreamed that a white elephant with six tusks entered her right side, which was interpreted to mean that she had conceived a child who would become either a world ruler or a buddha."

Secondly,

Her Husband also married to her sister, Mahaprajapati Gotami, which has son, named Prince Nanda and born only 3-4 days after Sidhartha Gotama birth and . Maha Gotami did not had a dream like her sister's but both pregnant by Sudhodana King on almost the same days and Prince Nanda was also become an Arahant.

So, the statement "Maya had sex with a white elephant [..]" was only a personal opinion, wrong interpretation and totally mislead.

Suggestion:

Please correct those statement or back to statement:

Buddhism addresses sexual conduct primarily in terms of what brings harm to oneself or to others, and the admonition against sexual misconduct is generally interpreted in modern times to prohibit zoosexual acts, as well as pederasty, adultery, rape, or prostitution. Any kind of sexual activity, including those with animals, are expressly forbidden for Buddhist monks and nuns, who are expected to be celibate.

Best regards,

--May20112011 (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: If you read books by Buddhist scholars, you will see that the information regarding Maya is in fact correct. The Buddhist doctrine can be interpreted in multiple ways -- either against or for zoophilia. Keep in mind that Buddhist views of bestiality are not always condemnatory. Because both interpretations are represented in the article, it wouldn't make sense to remove one and not the other. Your proposed change would only represent the anti-zoophilia view, which is why it isn't being done.Plateau99 (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Plateau99,

which of those books that you had mentioned that have a correct information? none.

Per Maha-Parinibbanna sutta, on section The Four Great References 8-11, Buddha's view is always base on Suttas and vinayas [Dhamma and the Discipline] and not base an interpretation that interpreted from an certain article. So, can you mention just only one of the suttas that give permission to bestiality? there is none, my friend.

Beside that, fact per Cakkavati Sihananda-Sutta had clearly stated that human bestiality as an immorality act that make human lifespan decrease.

Secondly,

Regarding to Maya, All of the reference never mention that Maya have a sex with an elephant and both Maya and Gotami pregnancy were only 3-5 days different and by the same husband.

This is my final argument.

Tks.

--May20112011 (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 09:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

ARTICLE REWRITE

This article is way past due for a major revision or re-write. This is one of the worst articles I've seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brechbill123 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)