Talk:Zoophilia/Neutrality

This page summarizes the articles position in relation to core Wikipedia policies such as Neutral Point of View. The subject, unfamiliar and emotional to many people, comes under quite legitimate question every few months by people new to it, as to whether it is indeed neutral and policy compliant.

It is hoped by adding the following information (copied from the talk pages), such readers can find a discussion of the issue, and if they have any further queries will understand what Wikipedia attempts to do on controversial articles and how its Neutral Point of View policy has operated in this article to date.

It is hoped that other common questions which may come up, will be answered here, or at least the need for repetitive discussion of basics will be reduced.

If you have a query which is not covered here, please add it to the talk page for discussion, and do not post it here, since this page is for information only and questions posted here may not be read by all editors.

Neutrality

In summary -- this article has been reviewed by non-contributors to a high standard, including a 2006 Featured Article review which examines all aspects of the article in depth.

Valid and policy-based concerns, such as specific errors and omissions, tend to get dealt with carefully by editors. For example, research that is misrepresented, or notable information omitted. That said, many readers have little experience of key policies such as neutrality, at the start, and therefore find it hard to understand that some views which seem "obviously right" to them are in fact merely their own opinion and not the balance appropriate to a neutral article of high quality.

In this context it's maybe reassuring to hear that we often get pro-zoophile edits and comments that are biased too. They are also dealt with equally carefully and based upon policy, including deletion of pro zoophile material that is sub-standard, unsourced, personal opinion or not of sufficient importance to merit a place. An example of this can be found in Archive 16). We're demanding in quality of information, on both sides, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia reporting what researchers say, not a collection of personal opinion.

This section contains copies of several responses made to such queries in the past, on the basis that similar queries will continue to arise in future too. Please read and digest if this is an area of perceived concern for you.

Comment 1 (November 2006)

The newcomer's question "I just read this and it sounds biased" has come up before. Whilst understandable, the problem is that Wikipedia has to represent what's actually researched and known, not just echo popular beliefs. In this article, where a view is required, the majority view is clearly stated or indicated to be the majority view, and the minority view is clearly stated to be the view of a specific (relevant) minority. Where actual factual information on zoophilia is required, such as how zoophiles feel, what kinds of people zoophiles are, how arguments are perceived, and how peer reviewed researchers view the subject, this is sourced from research, and presents the majority view (from credible peer reviewed research by acknowledged respected specialists in the field) as the majority view, and presents the views of specific (relevant) minorities as minority views. It is understandable that newcomers may not be familiar with the Wikipedia approach and expectation of neutrality. Such readers may be reassured by the fact that this article has already been through a full 3rd party (non-article-editor) review process and critique on the Featured Article page. In this process, editors who have no connection with the article or subject critically review it and look for flaws, for whether it meets the highest level of Wikipedia policies (including neutral presentation and citing of credible and bona fide source material), and whether it meets the highest standards on these counts. The article has not significantly changed in approach or balance between then and now. The criticisms on that review are given in the section below, and are all to do with layout issues, including presentation and use of lists, summarisation and moving of some topics to their own articles, and the like. Neutrality questions were not rated as an issue of any real significance by the time a consensus formed on the article. The highly experienced Wikipedia editor Raul654 (who has acted on Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee and is also in charge of maintenance and selection of Featured Articles, themselves Wikipedia's top accolade for editorial quality) was actively involved in the above process personally. Had there been any serious question by any third party editor in that review as to neutrality or quality, or by Raul himself, he would have certaintly made clear that Neutrality and Sources were an issue. He didn't. His comment was that "I've made a number of fixes to this article and I think it is looking good now." At the end of the review process, he had only three remaining issues (listed below) -- none of which were to do with neutrality or sources. Hopefully this helps. If readers want to address specific concerns in more detail, or discuss the article and where they feel it's not representing the facts appropriately, then of course the talk page is the page to do it, and editors (on all sides) will listen and try to help.

Comment 2 (October 2006)

This question comes up regularly. The answer has been discussed quite often in the past. The difficulty is that we (all editors on Wikipedia) are here discussing what is verifiable and known, and the facts about the opinions held under each significant view. It is undeniable that the main lines of debate are roughly as stated, but there is no one "editor". Its a communally created article, worked over by dozens of people for and against, over a period of some 3 years, and it is unfortunately the case that while it discusses popular stereotypes, it also covers in much more depth the actual known information in the field. This is presumably what some readers may find troublesome. Perhaps reading up the research pointed to will help (that's true of any subject). In the meantime if there are specific edits or points that seem needed or comments in the article which seem incorrect or poorly representing either side, or one wishes to bring to discussion, that's probably best.

Comment 3 (August 2006)

The article's been round in this form for the best part of 1.5 years now, a long time of near total stability for a controversial topic. The issue of balance has come up before. There's roughly as many that view it as neutral and informative, as view it as biased, and inappropriate or unhelpful pro-zoophilia edits get removed often, as do against-zoophilia edits, if the edit history is checked. Part of these issues probably comes down to this: Popular impression differs strongly from such research as has been done. Most of this article has been gone over with a fine toothcomb at some time or other, and most editors have carefully avoided bias towards any given view. We have to be careful to report the public perception, which is done in many places (it's very very clearly stated that it is condemned very strongly). But we also must accept that pretty much all those who have actually and seriously researched zoophilia in general separate from a criminal justice system prior context (and there are a fair number of serious peer-reviewed studies now) report that certain popular perceptions are not in accordance with reality. This is in part why the notes are long -- exactly recognizing it's not what one would intuitively expect from stereotypes. For example, the serious psychological profiling of zoophiles in the psychological community says that zoophiles are on the whole, more empathic, less pathological, and less interested in power and control than the average citizen (discussed on this talk page some long time ago). To say "Research says that zoophiles are generally more empathic and less manipulative than the average person" might well sound "alarmingly pro-zoophile" to the average lay-person, but it's nothing more nor less than the current scientific findings. That's in part why the subject is controversial. That's the function of science, to test and form views on matters of popular belief and interest.

Precision of statistics

Comment 1 (August 2006)

There are indeed a large number of "some people". That's because we know from research that such views exist and are notable. But research has been qualitative not quantitative (as stated) so we do not know exact numbers. So "some" is often the best we can do. So we know tendencies more often than exact percentages for many features of the topic. That's inherent in the subject (as with other sexual topics) and discussed carefully under "extent" so that the reader understands the issue.

Article length

Compared to other articles (April 2006)

In its way, zoophilia/zoosexuality is a huge subject. Partly why the article can seem overly long is that it is covering the view of experts as opposed to only lay people or media beliefs, and expert information is a view with some 50 - 100 years of research behind it. One can see that from the biliography.

Most other similar articles are shorter only because they are split into many sub articles. For example, homosexuality has hundreds of sub-articles each covering specific aspects of the field:

homosexuality and religion, choice and sexual orientation, gay culture, societal attitudes towards homosexuality, gay rights, homophobia, LGBT history, ex-gay, homosexuality and christianity, homosexuality and psychology, homosexuality in China, anti-gay, LGBT media, timeline of LGBT history, gay news, gay agenda, gay friendly, gay pornographic magazines, homosexuality in ancient Greece, homosexuality laws of the world, homosexuality and medical science, gay stereotyping, anthropological classification of homosexuality, ... covering several hundred articles and dozens of subcategories.

and BDSM has nearly 200 sub-articles:

BDSM, dominant (BDSM), slave (BDSM), consent (BDSM), play (BDSM), list of BDSM terms, domination and submission (BDSM), list of BDSM organizations, power exchange (BDSM), subspace, list of BDSM equipment, BDSM activists, BDSM film-makers, fantasy, pornography, BDSM contract, A Defence of Masochism, edgeplay, erotic sexual denial, fear play, female dominance, foot worship, Greenery Press, handkerchief code, gorean BDSM, ... covering 187 articles and 12 subcategories.

There is a lot more to incorporate on a field like this than meets the eye, and a lot more than people would think to the issues surrounding it, which the article touches on. If there is notable material or research which is not represented, or areas needing expanding into their own articles, then that's worth adding... which is of course how this and most articles mature.

Number of characters, or Kilobyte size (August 2006)

The article was checked for size against Wikipedia policy (WP:SIZE) in August 2006. This is covered in Archive 18, and the key points were as follows:

The article body itself is well within bounds because its very specific that it's the main body of text, and readibility concerns that are at stake. According to WP:SIZE the long article warning is not for technical purposes, but for stylistic (readability) reasons. Stylistically it's the main text (excluding reference information and lists) that is relevant to length, per WP:SIZE.

With these excluded an article should be around 6 - 10k words (roughly 30 - 50 KB) before being considered "long". This article was 7.6k words long at that time.

Other queries

Other queries (such as the view of Islam, the furry/zoo overlap, why specific pro-zoophile links have been deleted, and the like) may well be covered in the Archives. There is a list of archive contents at the top of the talk page, please check there if your concern has been addressed or discussed, and to check the basis of any discussion which may have shaped the article in the past.

If there is still a question or concern not addressed already to your satisfaction, please do take it to the talk page.