Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/FT2

FT2 is one of the most important people in the hierarchy of Wikipedia

Versions of the Zoophilia talk page

• Archive1 27 Jun 2003 - Oct 21, 2004
• Archive2 28 Oct 2004 - 29 Oct 2004
• Archive3 29 Oct 2004 - 1 Nov 2004
• Archive4 1 Nov 2004 - 2 Nov 2004
• [1] Dec 17, 2004 - Dec 29, 2004
• [2] 6 Jan 2005 - August 28, 2005

Ciz (arbitration dispute December 2005)

Ciz contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ciz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz/Evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz

Headley Down

• JP Logan 17 September 2005 to 12 April 2006
• J Hartley 30 June 2006 - 8 July 2006
• F Fodor 8 July 2006 - 11 July 2006
• Maypole 29 April 2007 (68 contributions)

FFodor

Hello all. Most of this article reads well, it is largely balanced and encyclopedic in style but there are a few areas that do read like advocacy. The "Health and Safety" section is quite inconsisent with the balance of the article. What authority contends that humans and animals are anatomically compatible for coitus? Also the sub-section on mis-citation of research is little more than a pre-emptive dimissal of any critical research findings. It too is unsubstantied. I have some references and a brief synpses drawn from the criminology and abnormal psychology literature:

• Duffield G, Hassiotis, Vizard E. Zoophilia in young sexual abusers. Journal Forensic Psychiatry 1998;9;294-304

Finds an assocoaition between zoophilia and mental retardation.

• Williams CJ, Weinberg MS. Zoophilia in men: a study of sexual interest in animals. Arch Sex Behav 2003;32(6):523-35

Finds that exclusively heterosexual men are underrepresented amongst zoophilic men.

• Earls CM, Lalumiere ML. A case study of preferential bestiality (zoophilia) Sex Abuse 2002;14(1):83-8

Reports a case of a zoophilic man that inserted his arm into the vagina of a mare causes her vaginal rupture and subsequent death in response to her interest in a stallion that he had a competitve interst in.

• Ressler RK, Burgess AW, Douglas JE. Sexual homicide: patters & motives. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988.

Reports that sadistic serial killers have a preference for paraphillic pornography including that depicting zoophilia.

• Prins Herschel, Offenders, Deviants or Patients?, 3rd ed. London, Routledge, 2005 p.233

"Duffield et al. (1998) describe and discuss the cases of seven young patients referred to an adolescent psychiatric service dealing with sex abusers. On the basis of their own study and the work of others, they concluded that bestiality was frequently accompanied by other paraphilias (disorders of sexual preference). In summary, the behaviour is most likely to occur mainly in males who may be mentally disturbed or impaired, be socially isolated, have difficulties in making relationships and showing other forms of sexually deviant behaviour."

As far as I know the resarch based on deviant populations does not specify a causal connection between zoophilia and these populations neurological, endocrinological and psychological deficits. Insead they find an association between zoophilia and these deficits. This is worthy of mention. Also, the ethical dimension of zoophilia isn't given the treatment it deserves. Instead the reader is treated to numerous NAMBLA-esque apologies. The ethical concern is a large one. Singer isn't the only bioethicist with an opinion on zoophilia. There is also a body of research on serial murderers that documents their paraphilias (not all sadistic) and zoophilia is included. -FFodor 12:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose one expects meatpuppet recruitment next. This being the sort of thing HeadleyDown's do. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please. Will the accusation of impersonation and recruitment become your standard response to any editorial contribution that is inconsisntent with your worldview? I can't prove that I'm not someone or that I'm not associated with someone. That is impossible to do. The onus is on you -- the accuser -- to demonstrate that I am part of some mythical cabal or that I am someone you have had previous encounters with. My contributions should be assessed on their own merits just as you expect your own to be. By posting to the discussion first I am trying to be courteous and cooperative. I will proceed with the edits I deem appropriate to balance the article unless you can offer good reasons otherwise. -FFodor 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pack it in, Headley/Hartley/whatever name you use next. You are not permitted to edit on this site, under any name, or with any sock, as you well know. Thank you. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [3]

Skoppensbauer (December 2006)

Key points:

• FT2 misunderstands the concept of peer review (see also Flavius' page).
• FT2 has a political agenda
• virtually every edit you make has the effect of minimizing, trivializing, supporting and even encouraging that lifestyle and zoosexual activities
• ridiculously bloated and elaborate articles like the one at zoophilia, obsessively and ornately decorated with minutiae of interest to paraphilics only
• FT2's habit of making wholesale changes to the work of others

From Skopp's 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) [4]

It is still true. Please note: in academic circles, "peer review" is not the same as simply publishing a book and getting comments on it. Neither is having a doctoral dissertation approved. It is a formal and rigorous process that scientific research has to withstand before it gets published in a reputable journal. The more reputable the journal, the more rigorous the peer review and the more believable the study. Many (most?) studies fail this process. If you want to know if the study was published in a journal, look it up on Medline (Pubmed). Skopp (Talk) 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Oft-quoted" on the WP pages concerning zoosexuality and zoophilia. Nancy Friday's books are pure pulp fiction, with most of those "fantasies" so similar in style and diction that she probably authored the majority herself. And of course her work of fiction, like the books put out by the other "researchers" mentioned on these pages, does not rise to the level of an academic paper that has had peer review (note: this is a very specific process, look it up) and subsequent publication in a journal of psychology or medicine. Skopp (Talk) 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. It's a simple conclusion based on the facts at hand. Once again, I invite you to peruse Medline. There are some peer reviewed, published studies on this topic in the literature, as you'll see there, but they seemingly do not warrant inclusion on the Zoophila and Zoosexuality pages on WP, the reasons for which I'll allow you to conclude. Unfortunately, quite a few areas in psychology and medicine are plagued by this lack of quality research. This fact should not be hidden; if the research is missing, let us not laud the opinions and writings that stand in its place. Skopp (Talk) 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC) [...] 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)

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. Skopp (Talk) 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC) [5]

A very very bad editor

---

I'm still significantly less than happy about the approach and style exhibited on these articles, in some ways and areas. I see that this is likely to become a source of abrasion, and I would like to avoid that before it does so more than it already is.

Now that the health article has been moved out to its own separate article, and is looking stable, I would like to ask again for mediation, specifically on the issue of editorial approach, and policy compliance. My concerns over your editorship on these articles can briefly be summarised as follows:

Editing to make a point Selectively choosing sources and content according to whether it fits your stated agenda or not. For example, refusal to include information on safe issues, and exaggeration of unsafe ones, in order to influence the decision of readers in terms of your views on the subject (WP:NPOV) Aggressive accusations and allegations of bad faith rather than collaborative discussion Lack of civility and rapid recourse to personal attack This in a subject where you have a lack of knowledge and a viewpoint that is verging on low grade POV agenda/warfare. More than one editor on more than one other article has indicated (sometimes strongly) that in their view you have generated these sort of concerns elsewhere too. So it is unlikely to be a temporary phenomenon or limited just to this article, or to myself. I know you have concerns too. I therefore wish, before things go further, that we obtain a member of the mediation committee to assist us to see eye to eye what is in fact neutral and appropriate in approach, because right now much of your approach seems to be leading towards serious issues.

I should like in this case a clear yes or no on it. In this respect, content is not at issue; editorial approach is. I just think it's better sorted out formally, as I don't see any chance of it being sorted out without input from an independent and mutually respected mediator.

Last, please note that this request isn't really intended as a place to debate whether such perspectives are justified or otherwise. It is my perception that there are concerns and that mediation is needed. That is my perception and I have felt it for some time now. I feel it to be a current problem affecting things at this time that is interfering with neutrality and editorial collaboration on more than one article. I would hope that by thus discussing the editorial approaches we have with a third party, we can come to see more eye to eye and with more certainty what is within policy and what is out of order, and hope that you will agree to the same, rather than decline it, so that we can proceed to discuss such concerns in a constructive and collaborative manner. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

---

You have no real idea of my POV. I've tried hard to credit you with good faith editing, but increasingly your edits look to me like the activity of a person who has a less than dispassionate interest in the topic of zoophilia, since virtually every edit you make has the effect of minimizing, trivializing, supporting and even encouraging that lifestyle and zoosexual activities. I think it is very dangerous for topics of psychological, sexual and medical information to be edited by people who suffer from the disorders under discussion (in this case the disorder zoophilia, listed as a paraphilia by DSM-IV). What we end up with are ridiculously bloated and elaborate articles like the one at zoophilia, obsessively and ornately decorated with minutiae of interest to paraphilics only. And many people have commented its absurd length, convolutedness and distastefully proselytizing tone. I agree with that view, so clearly we cannot work together, but I'm far less convinced that your appeal to your network of friends and contacts at WP to intervene will help matters. Do I have a choice in who mediates? If so, I'll consider it. I also think your irritating habit of making wholesale changes to the work of others, simply to suit your tastes, and often simultaneously ignoring the clear requests for discussion and consensus, makes you an example of a very, very bad editor for WP indeed. Skoppensboer 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Again, that's bad faith, immediately responding to a suggestion that we seek mediation by characterizing the request, the mediation process, the mediators, and the mediation committee in terms of "I'm far less convinced that your appeal to your network of friends and contacts at WP to intervene will help matters". Of course there is choice who mediates. It surely wouldn't be acceptable to parties in any dispute if they didn't both trust the mediator and the mediation process. Whilst no one party gets to "choose" the mediator, both can express dissatisfaction of any suggested mediator, or express a preference between those who do offer themselves, for example. Read the page on Wikipedia:Mediation and if you then feel able to accept mediation please say so. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Then yes, let's do it. I hope it's not a long process, for I'm a busy man. Skoppensboer 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My my. This page seems to be busy today. Skoppenhowser. It may not have been your intention, but in your statement above you seem to have just accused FT2 of participating in zoophilia. I could have used a cruder description, but that wouldnt be in the spirit of this.

Regarding your comments on User talk:Skoppensboer: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Caper13 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC) [6]

Request for mediation

[7]