3,209
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Sunday April 28, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory:The Wikipedia Point of View/FT2 (view source)
Revision as of 07:51, 19 September 2008
, 07:51, 19 September 2008→The logorrheic thicket of words
* FT2's habit of making wholesale changes to the work of others
* FT2's habit of making wholesale changes to the work of others
=== From Skopp's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&oldid=92371032 talk page] (Dec 2006) ===
=== From Zoophilia and Health ===
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#Article_criticism_-_suggest_deletion]
=== A very very bad editor ===
=== A very very bad editor ===
=== Request for mediation ===
=== Request for mediation ===
I do not have the time to engage in a long explication of this kerfuffle here, and I see I'm already in danger of being overwhelmed by FT2's verbose style right at the start. I refer the mediator to the actual talk pages where I've made my points. I don't wish or have the time to rewrite them here. Needless to say, I deny all of the points FT2 tries to make above.
The issue I have with FT2 is that '''his/her editing always comes from one biased angle. Absolutely every edit he/she's made on my work serves to minimize and normalize aberrant behaviour that could threaten health'''. Yes, shock, but even in this non-judgemental world, some behaviors are still aberrant from a professional medical POV. I refer you to the various talk pages again. Please note that the quoted "negative" above is not my word. But '''I do have an issue with a disorder (for that is what the psychiatric profession all over the world classifies it as -- a "disorder") being presented as a charming alternate lifestyle''', and with an article in which '''the health/disease section is almost non-existent''', inane and frankly wrong, as it was. '''I tried to beef the health aspects up and FT2 has opposed me tooth and nail''', if you'll excuse the pun. Read the various pages, & the discussions. FT2 has raised trivial objection after trivial objection, edited my work without any attempt at consultation, and he/she clearly has a disturbing sense of ownership of the topic on WP.
I wish to quote someone else's views on the Zoophilia page, and note that the problems highlighted in this quote are what got me started on the zoophilia page in the first place, attempting to insert balance, and even though I now have a separate page for the health issue, the party responsible for the tone of the original page is intent on pursuing me and keeping the tone in lockstep with the master article. Here's the apposite quote: "In my opinion it needs severe editing to the point that it would practically unrecognizeable from its current incarnation. It should also be very considerably shorter than it is, since the bulk of it consists of unnecessary romanticizing of zoophilia. .... '''this current article is still a terrible embarrassment to wikipedia'''. In fact I actually found out about it because someone linked it as an example of '''how wikipedia can get really biased due to POV manipulation by obsessive biased authors with an agenda to wage. In this case, internet bestialists using their group-jargon to butter up the article with heavy romanticizing and POV abuse over a prolonged campaign attempting to 'normalize' an incredibly biased article'''. To me this would be like creationists manipulating the "science" wiki page to include frequent counter-arguments against the scientific method. Or as previously stated, like pedophiles manipulating the wiki pedophilia page to make child molestation seem more normalized. This is wrong, and I hope someone with a strong sense of neutrality puts their foot down to stop it. Additionally, I would like to add that the current wikipedia entry for "homosexuality" is only slightly shorter than this one is - and that one is currently flagged for being too long. Something is terribly, disagreeably wrong here, and it needs to be addressed as soon as possible.".
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Zoophilia]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Zoophilia]
-------------------------------
=== The logorrheic thicket of words ===
=== The logorrheic thicket of words ===
* You state that sex with animals is common in certain cultures, but I've lived half my life in different countries in Africa and I even speak an African language, and I can assure you that such practices are neither common nor tolerated
* You state that sex with animals is common in certain cultures, but I've lived half my life in different countries in Africa and I even speak an African language, and I can assure you that such practices are neither common nor tolerated
* FT2, you really are not well versed in this area and perhaps you should get a medical person or epidemiologist to debate this with me.
* FT2, you really are not well versed in this area and perhaps you should get a medical person or epidemiologist to debate this with me.
* the page is otherwise chock-full of rambling drivel and hot air just begging to be culled
* This misinformation and mealy-mouthed trivialization of peril borders on the criminal
* FT2 professes in his User Page to have a special interest in Science issues!
-----------------------
I reversed the changes made by FT2 on the grounds of "saving space" (very odd, when the page is otherwise chock-full of rambling drivel and hot air just begging to be culled, as numerous others have noted on these discussion pages). I shall continue to do so, and if this gets into a war I shall escalate it as far as I can. I believe the current edit is factual, informative, concise and fair. It took me a long time to put it all together. Looking back, I see that FT2 and this page's other habitual editors have allowed the health section to exist for a long time in an appalling format, and I quote from a few months ago: "Infections due to improper cleaning could be an issue for either party. Most viruses are specific to particular species and cannot be transmitted sexually, so humans and animals cannot catch many viral diseases from zoosexual acts." This misinformation and mealy-mouthed trivialization of peril borders on the criminal, like telling people not to bother wearing a condom when exposing themselves to HIV (a zoonosis itself!). "Improper cleaning" - pshaw! I have to wonder why it was allowed to exist in this blatantly incorrect form by the perennial editors of this page, like FT2 (who professes in his User Page to have a special interest in Science issues!) Skoppensboer 19:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
=== NO peer-reviewed published research in this area ===
There clearly has been little to no attempt to save space in this article in a rigorous way. I'm thinking of calling for some sort of admin oversight to cut some of the fat and bloat from it. I see a lot of baroque flourishes that only people who are themselves involved with this fetish (I see zoophilia as a fetish, although it's a paraphilia in DSM-IV, but either way it's classed as a mental disorder by psychiatrists) would entertain or find relevant. This article seems to have become a place for members of the public with a rich fantasy life in this area to expand upon their obsessive thoughts and encourage each other. That's my honest impression. I'm not "sickened" by this article, as many commentators have stated, but I do find it to have strayed off course, away from encyclopedic towards something else. Definitely. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-----------------------
Last, I come back to the approach. You need to tone down statements that could come over as personal attack or otherwise untoward aggression. For example, threats to escalate rather than collaborate if your view is not agrreable to others in some areas, and bad faith casting such as "allowed to exist" and such with associated finger pointing. As explained above, the rationale for space is a historic one on this article. The fact that your personal pet section is not necessarily able to take all the space it might need is addressed by my earlier comment (which you have agreed) that a separate article on health aspects of zoophilia may be valuable. That would be the appropriate approach. Not hostile editing and threats of edit warring. Not misdescribing edits as some attempt to "nullify". And not from someone who has already stated a preference for hyperbole and using Wikipedia's article to make a point and whose understanding of the subject is limited to lead them to describe the article as "chock-full of rambling drivel and hot air". Thats... not very likely to get anyone much respect. Your good points are respected, but that doesn't mean your edits are unable to be improved and made more neutral. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-----------------------
This is all argumentation and could equally apply to you. After all, who went ahead and completely rewrote the section without seeking any consensus here first, despite being so requested? Is this not the sort of behaviour likely to provoke disharmony? Think. Your sense of ownership of this page is a little inflated. Take a deep breath please. My other issue with the paragraph above is that some editors are so intent on expounding on their subject from a certain angle that for them, making an edit "more neutral" is tantamount to watering it down to suit an agenda of which they themselves may not be fully conscious. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-----------------------
"Kernel of truth" - ha! You are now arguing medicine with me, and I suggest you get 3rd party input here, because you are wrong. Again, I'd welcome expert arbitration on these topics. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope you see the problem, from my point of view. This simply appears like yet more agenda-based editorship, using exaggeration of health issues as the means. I do accept you are adding and substantiating valid information to a section that will benefit from it, and hope you can see in fact your information is being very carefully checked and questioned for precision (not censored), that good information is being retained and poor information filtered out, and that the issues being raised are in fact valid. In other words, please do edit - but edit with care. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Tit for tat. To my reading, which is perhaps wrong, your own editorship absolutely stinks of partiality and POV motivations. You have and continue to try to censor my little contribution, and I shall continue to oppose it and watch it indefinitely. And when I say "war", I mean bringing in the big boys. This article could benefit from a major overhaul anyway. Skoppensboer 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
--------------------------------
I stand by what I said. Your edits all tend to minimise perceived risk and your intention is clearly to give the entire topic a gloss of safety and normality, I presume for personal reasons. '''Let me ask you directly: are you a zoophile? We should be told. It would certainly help to explain your edits made without consensus-seeking'''. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop using pornographic erotica forums for proof of what we should or shouldn't say here. Skoppensboer 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that your repeated attempts to steer this issue towards a debate about my style as an editor, and way from the actual content of the article, are designed to change the goalposts halfway through the game. You persist in accusing me of a variety of editorial sins while yourself indulging in long-winded denunciations of my person in a way that can only escalate hostility. You have yet to address the fact that you significantly re-wrote the Health and Safety section without any attempt to seek consensus, despite my explicit request for such and despite Zetawoof's friendly participation in that consensus, and despite Zetawoof's agreement to the look of the section as it stood. So really, you are the one whose editorial style needs careful examination rather than I. '''I would hope any mediator would be able to see through the logorrheic thicket of words you spin, with your endless invocations of Wikipedia rules and tenets in a manner designed to cloak you in an aura of righteousness'''. I still await comment on the actual text, and hopefully some will be forthcoming. I suspect you know you are on shaky ground with this, for the text stands up well, hence your refocussing of the discussion with interminable ad hominems. As for taking a break, I'll take a permanent break if you agree not to gut the Health and Safety section again. I am also agreeable to spinning it off as a separate page with a {{main| tag linking it to the Zoophilia page H&S section, as I've offered before, and to which you have never agreed, your recent comment about this notwithstanding. Skoppensboer 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&oldid=92371032#Continued_attempts_to_nullify_health_issues]
-----------------------
=== Peer-reviewed published research (June 2007) ===
* Nancy Friday's books are pure pulp fiction
* Nancy Friday's books are pure pulp fiction
* Once again, I invite you to peruse Medline
* Once again, I invite you to peruse Medline
* The fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is utterly irrelevant
* The fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is utterly irrelevant
* The International Society for Anthrozoology is not a recognised journal
* The International Society for Anthrozoology is not a recognised journal [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&oldid=140444558#Peer_Reviewed_studies_in_this_area]
---------------------------
I'm not sure that we should attach a greater expectation to research than those experts actually writing in the field do. Miletski, Beetz, Donfrio, and others, are constantly cited in academia when the topic is written on, and both they and their work is treated invariably as credible, accepted-as-common-knowledge-by-the-consensus, carefully written, and reputable, by others writing in the field. The writings have been published and used by their peers now for a significant number of years. In addition I have found no notable minority of writings from within the field by others denouncing them for bias or poor research - a quite remarkable absence for such a controversial topic and conclusion if the research was even slightly questioned. Instead of doubt, they are treated as foundational and accepted-as-obvious, and cited accordingly. I find it hard to conclude we as reporters of the topic, should do otherwise. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&oldid=139540829#Peer_Reviewed_studies_in_this_area]
FT2, the points you make do not refute the point I made. If you disagree with me, I suggest you ask someone who is a true medical or psychological expert for comment. In the last decade, there has been a big swing towards evidence-based medicine (please read that wikipage). Under the new regime, much of the preceding research is inadequate, and not only in this area -- far from it! The fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is utterly irrelevant. Much higher standards now apply for the publication of research, especially in august and pre-eminent journals. I think your understanding of this point is seriously flawed, especially when you point to journals like the one put out by The International Society for Anthrozoology. This is not a recognised journal. It is not indexed by Medline and is not formally recognized in the fields of medicine or psychology. And lastly, it is not a peer-reviewed journal. From the journal's own website [1] we see they state: "Each issue contains (non-refereed) articles on topics related to the human-animal relationship, interviews with key figures in the field, book announcements, conference news and so forth." Skopp (Talk) 23:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
