Changes

=== From Skopp's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&oldid=92371032 talk page] (Dec 2006) ===

=== From Skopp's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&oldid=92371032 talk page] (Dec 2006) ===

Is this article a covert attempt to proselytize against the practice of human-animal sex? No. Knowledge and information empowers people. I think you are reading too much into it. the information here is sobering, granted, but it is not conjured up from nowhere. And there are many editors who argue that the main page on Zoophilia is doing exactly the opposite, so there you go.  Skopp  23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia_and_health&oldid=192786456

Is this article a covert attempt to proselytize against the practice of human-animal sex? No. Knowledge and information empowers people. I think you are reading too much into it. the information here is sobering, granted, but it is not conjured up from nowhere. And there are many editors who argue that the main page on Zoophilia is doing exactly the opposite, so there you go.  Skopp  23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia_and_health&oldid=192786456]

Back on topic, and resisting responding to the inevitable personal jibes, this conversation is about whether or not readers need to know that the expert opinions frequently referenced on the zoophilia page (and related pages) are not published in peer-reviewed journals. I say they do need to know. The paucity of good, evidence-based research is a fact, not OP or crystal ball gazing. There are peer reviewed studies out here, even recent ones, such as this one (quoted below), but nobody seems to want to include these studies here. I wonder why? A few scientifically-oriented editors are required to work on this page, updating it with recent research, no matter whether their personal views are contradicted or not. Skopp (Talk) 04:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)  

Back on topic, and resisting responding to the inevitable personal jibes, this conversation is about whether or not readers need to know that the expert opinions frequently referenced on the zoophilia page (and related pages) are not published in peer-reviewed journals. I say they do need to know. The paucity of good, evidence-based research is a fact, not OP or crystal ball gazing. There are peer reviewed studies out here, even recent ones, such as this one (quoted below), but nobody seems to want to include these studies here. I wonder why? A few scientifically-oriented editors are required to work on this page, updating it with recent research, no matter whether their personal views are contradicted or not. Skopp (Talk) 04:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)  

And BTW yes, this IS pertinent to zoophilia, for just as "bestiality" redirects to this page, so do these acts fall under the "zoophilia" rubric. To deny this shows that you have a political agenda on this page and you should therefore resile from further editorship for the sake of Wikipedia. <span style="font-family: sans"> [[User:Skoppensboer|<font color="#226699">'''Skopp'''</font>]] [[User talk:Skoppensboer|<font color="#cccccc">(<small>Talk</small>)</font>]]</span> 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)  

And BTW yes, this IS pertinent to zoophilia, for just as "bestiality" redirects to this page, so do these acts fall under the "zoophilia" rubric. To deny this shows that you have a political agenda on this page and you should therefore resile from further editorship for the sake of Wikipedia. <span style="font-family: sans"> [[User:Skoppensboer|<font color="#226699">'''Skopp'''</font>]] [[User talk:Skoppensboer|<font color="#cccccc">(<small>Talk</small>)</font>]]</span> 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=139589703]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=139589703

 

=== A very very bad editor ===  

=== A very very bad editor ===