1067:
standards for ancient art, sexuality, myth or religion; it would be challenged and almost certainly rejected in any article on the ancient world. Besides, Pan is not a human. He's a deity with goat features. I asked above whether there was a legitimate way to approach theriomorphism and sexuality as a "goat" trope, but the insistence has been that the scope of this article is "humans have sex with goats", har har, which necessarily excludes fictional or symbolic treatments such as Albee's in which "human-goat intercourse" is a literary device (as the subtitle "Who Is Sylvia?" indicates: anyone who'd ever seen an Albee play would know the play isn't "about" having sex with a goat). "Not censored" doesn't mean that if it's about sex it doesn't need to meet usual standards of notability and verification.
987:, written by a well-informed amateur), which refers to this same study. It also mentions two ancient sources: one mention in Herodotus of a single instance of human-goat intercourse in Mendes, and a passage in Pindar that suggests Mendes had a reputation among the Greeks for such activity. But that website also mentions the suggestion, from a 1949 book on sex and religion, that the "goat" involved in these incidents may have been a man dressed as a goat. So the notion that "As a ritual of worship, the male priests would use female goats for sex, and the female priests would do likewise with male goats" is dubious, to say the least. Unless some other source is out there, it's a serious exaggeration of vague statements in Greek sources.
983:. Cirt put a note about this discussion at the ancient Egypt project talk page, presumably because of this passage in the article: "In Ancient Egypt, at the temple in Mendes, the goat was viewed as the incarnation of the god of procreation. As a ritual of worship, the male priests would use female goats for sex, and the female priests would do likewise with male goats." Regardless of whether the article is deleted, I'm concerned about this statement. The source is a sexological study (not a historical one) that deals with ancient zoophilia only as background, and its source for this claim is unclear. A web search turns up only one remotely credible source (
1049:- fails WP:NOTABILITY. There is no way it fulfills GNG. Scattered old artworks depicting the act and a few modern news stories do not constitute significant coverage of it as a concept, any more than 'falling down stairs' or 'crossing a fence' are notable because they are occasionally portrayed in art and reported in historical sources. The only cited study of it, as a concept, is as part of a larger survey of bestiality or even of sexuality in general, and not as a stand-alone topic of analysis. The entire article synthesizes scattered references to sex with goats and is not based on a secondary analysis of the subject.
576:- There is no reason to arbitrarily lump together all the articles you possibly can under an umbrella where they will then be said not to "fit". The topic is notable, though as has been pointed out some of the sources may not have been up to par. What remains is sufficient. You might make a better argument for merging "Sudanese goat marriage incident" into this article (as was proposed in the talk) because there will be room for the content, and nobody actually looks up "Sudanese goat marriage incident".
966:. I took a look here after I saw the discusion on AN/I and on Jimbo's page. It seems to me that you do have notable incidents where people have sexual intercourse with goats. Not all of these incidents can be classified as cases of zoophilia. The impression I get from reading this article is that the typical cases involve lone farmers who just use goats as a masturbating devices.
884:
understand how it works in countries that do it. If someone at the CDC is looking at a new STD they just isolated yesterday and puzzling out how it might have jumped into humans, they should be able to brainstorm on
Knowledge (XXG) for ideas and have our best effort waiting here in response! He shouldn't be left scratching his head for three days saying
402:
goats), but about the contiguities of human-animal sexuality, or sexuality as part of our animal nature. It's why satyrs have goat features. So while there is certainly a legitimate theme of "goats as tropes in the representation of human sexuality" (note "representation"; not sex acts per se, which goes to
401:
Might there be a better topic buried here? Notice that in the infamous sculpture of Pan doing the goat, Pan himself is portrayed with distinctly goaty features. (Pan isn't a human.) The theme in classical mythology isn't about "zoophilia" as such (that is, it isn't about an actual desire to mate with
201:
There has recently been edit-warring over this article, with attempts to blank it and turn it into a redirect without any consensus or discussion. I have no particular views on the matter myself, but purely as a procedural matter I have brought it to to AfD for discussion. I expect the parties to put
829:
and improve. The reasons given for deletion seem to be insufficient; any article can indeed be seen as a sub-article of something. A Google search reveals several incidents along the same lines in Malawi in recent years, well-documented in the local press and court proceedings (the
Sudanese solution
874:
is a huge article and it doesn't have room for this kind of blow-by-blow analysis of one kind of zoophilia in one country; nonetheless, it is only by collecting and viewing the actual data that we learn that most of the time the people prosecuted are having sex with others' goats while they're tied
60:
territory that ignores the sourcing conserns explained by DC and some of the later rationales (I discounted the last delete as a IDONTLIKEIT). Considering the sourcing issues and a prime target for BLP violations, I'm deleting this article and redirecting, but if someone gives me a plausible reason
1066:
per
Agricolae. Insufficient sources to establish notability. Those arguing "keep" aren't producing good sources, and those arguing "delete" are able to show why the sources are insufficient and misrepresented. For instance, the source used for the reference to Pan and the goat doesn't meet RS
883:
but silly doesn't matter! For example, if you're going to make decisions about whether your state should actually pass a real law that will really allocate money that amounts to the entire livelihoods of multiple taxpayers to put a few silly people in jail, you should know all the details,
650:
are sourced to a document on a zoophile website which purports to be a report of some kind from a sexology conference (although one might question whether it is an accurate copy of the source). Upon reading this source, one discovers that these figures come from a single, small study. The
757:
WP:GNG is not a valid argument for keeping a sub-page of another article. You have to explain how this subject is independently notable of the main subject of bestiality/zoophilia. If you can't then the appropriate response would be a merge or redirect to the main
708:
Doesn't seem to be seriously discussed as a subject unto itself. Most mentions cover instances of this occurring or being depicted so any article would effectively become The Men Who Have Sex with Goats, rather than an actual encyclopedic work on this form of
170:
1030:- what do you think is being censored here? Is this a conspiracy to hide the the fact that some people have sexually abused specific types of animals by pointing readers to the article which discusses the general subject in depth?
916:
I would say that removing data from an article while you're trying to get it deleted is an abuse of process, except from what I've seen of these things the past year I'm feeling like as a matter of procedural policy it is an
648:"Of male zoophiles, 28% admitted sexual attraction to goats, ranking fourth. In female zoophiles, sexual attraction to goats is very rare or non-existent. Actual levels of sexual use of goats were lower than this however"
729:
778:
791:
article is a sub-article of something else (or multiple other things). So either WP:GNG actually describes what we have an article about, or else the only guideline is "whatever I feel like deleting is toast".
359:
468:
737:. The article explains why it fits general notability guidelines and it seems to be backed up by reliable sources. If you want to delete it you need to come up with better reasons in my opinion.
656:"The act is usually performed by a male human upon a goat of either sex; male goats do not commonly take the initiative to copulate with a human female, although some cases have been reported"
164:
534:
848:
No one has disputed that some humans have had sex with goats. What we are discussing here is whether this is sufficiently different from the general sexual abuse of animals covered in
446:
96:
91:
100:
202:
forward arguments themselves on why it should be kept, deleted or redirected. Please note that the article must not be blanked or redirected while this discussion is underway.
123:
815:
801:
424:
130:
83:
888:
out of somebody's sense of propriety. There is simply no topic too ridiculous that we shouldn't allow ourselves to look into it dispassionately and pull out the data.
512:
490:
902:
Wnt, I've removed that section. If you think it's a good idea to list individual cases of people arrested for having sex with goats, you are crazier than I thought.
772:
723:
617:
article. As it stands now, however, it is nothing more or less than a collection of trivial mentions of human-goat sex and not an encyclopedia topic.
185:
152:
87:
875:
to trees and are caught because of the unusual bleating. These details belong in an article specifically about the phenomenon of goat sex. I
339:
You should be trout-slapped for that one. However, I'm too lazy to actually go through with it. Consider yourself trout-slapped in spirit.
1093:
1076:
1058:
1039:
1021:
996:
975:
948:
934:
911:
897:
861:
839:
748:
696:
675:
626:
605:
585:
568:
548:
526:
504:
482:
460:
438:
415:
393:
371:
348:
331:
310:
288:
267:
246:
211:
65:
939:
Whether the article is up for deletion, under construction, or appearing on the front page, I'm going to remove blatant BLP violations.
146:
79:
71:
17:
142:
921:
of the process - I wonder how things would get deleted without it. I do, however, note that covering reports of crime is within
767:
718:
559:- Nothing in the sources indicates a special or heightened notability for specific species. It can be covered in zoophilia.
192:
382:, well-referenced and wide-ranging article demonstrating significant coverage in secondary sources over a period of time. —
1035:
944:
907:
857:
671:
622:
1112:
40:
687:
with that sort of attitude? It has some footnotes and a picture, it must be an encyclopedic topic, yes? < /s : -->
759:
710:
158:
1084:. The article is indiscriminate and its sources are poor. "Human–goat sex" just isn't an encyclopaedic subject.
868:
Well, I've taken the liberty of collecting some of these citations - by no means do I believe I have them all.
1031:
940:
903:
853:
667:
618:
1005:
57:
743:
811:
806:
The association of goats with Satan and Pan puts it on a somewhat more notable level than other critters.
327:
922:
56:, it is perfectly covered in other articles and doesn't deserve a split on its own. Many of the keeps is
1108:
971:
36:
662:, written in the 1930s. It appears to be a misstatement of Ellis' summary of a comment by Herodotus.
1054:
992:
207:
178:
1072:
738:
634:- Expanding on a comment I made elsewhere, here are some specific problems with the current lede:
411:
236:
Comment was intended procedurally, does not reflect my position on the worthiness of the article.
984:
807:
692:
367:
323:
306:
284:
263:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1107:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
222:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1017:
967:
1009:
53:
1089:
835:
602:
1050:
988:
659:
564:
544:
522:
500:
478:
456:
434:
406:), I have no idea what such an article would be called, or how to establish its scope.
389:
344:
242:
230:
203:
322:. I expected it to be baaad, but it is surprisingly well-referenced and wide ranging.
254:
There's no reason that this article should be kept instead of being redirected to the
52:. The policy based consensus is clear here as the topic, while it "might" barely meet
1068:
930:
893:
797:
581:
407:
651:
generalizations are inappropriate even if the numbers are accurate within the study.
688:
363:
302:
280:
259:
117:
1013:
62:
1085:
831:
598:
641:"Human–goat sexual intercourse is one of the more common types of bestiality"
1027:
871:
849:
614:
594:
560:
539:
517:
495:
473:
451:
429:
403:
384:
340:
276:
255:
238:
226:
1026:
You offered the same reason for reverting my redirection of the article to
926:
889:
793:
577:
613:- This is a valid search term and should redirect readers to the main
666:
Any suggestion that this article is well-referenced is nonsense.
1101:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
279:. Not an encyclopedic topic, this is a smorgasbord of trivia.
830:
of marriage to the goat not being considered, apparently).
360:
list of
Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions
469:
list of
Behavioural science-related deletion discussions
869:
113:
109:
105:
177:
593:. I don't see why this topic should be elevated from
258:
article, with any of its content being merged there.
535:
list of
Popular culture-related deletion discussions
447:
list of Social science-related deletion discussions
191:
61:why to keep the content on a subpage, let me know.
225:until consensus is reached on article talk page.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1115:). No further edits should be made to this page.
425:list of Organisms-related deletion discussions
8:
533:Note: This debate has been included in the
513:list of History-related deletion discussions
511:Note: This debate has been included in the
491:list of Science-related deletion discussions
489:Note: This debate has been included in the
467:Note: This debate has been included in the
445:Note: This debate has been included in the
423:Note: This debate has been included in the
358:Note: This debate has been included in the
532:
510:
488:
466:
444:
422:
357:
886:"I wonder if anybody really does that?"
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
301:trivia...., per Delicious C. below.
24:
985:this website about ancient Egypt
1:
80:Human–goat sexual intercourse
72:Human–goat sexual intercourse
233:) 16:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
1132:
1094:01:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
1077:19:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
1059:04:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
1040:18:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
1022:04:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
997:19:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
976:18:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
949:03:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
935:23:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
912:22:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
898:16:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
862:15:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
852:to merit its own article.
840:11:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
816:08:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
802:04:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
779:04:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
749:02:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
730:00:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
697:22:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
676:21:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
658:is sourced to an essay by
627:21:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
606:19:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
586:18:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
569:16:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
549:15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
527:15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
505:15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
483:15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
461:15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
439:15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
416:16:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
394:15:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
372:02:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
349:02:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
332:02:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
311:22:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
289:02:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
268:17:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
247:20:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
212:11:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
66:04:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
1104:Please do not modify it.
643:is completely unsourced.
32:Please do not modify it.
1012:without any question.
685:hilarious naughtiness
762:The Devil's Advocate
713:The Devil's Advocate
297:......... Make that
1032:Delicious carbuncle
941:Delicious carbuncle
904:Delicious carbuncle
854:Delicious carbuncle
668:Delicious carbuncle
619:Delicious carbuncle
50:delete and redirect
683:Awww, where's the
48:The result was
551:
529:
507:
485:
463:
441:
374:
1123:
1106:
775:
770:
764:
746:
741:
726:
721:
715:
196:
195:
181:
133:
121:
103:
34:
1131:
1130:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1113:deletion review
1102:
777:
773:
768:
760:
744:
739:
728:
724:
719:
711:
646:The statements
591:Delete/Redirect
234:
223:full protection
138:
129:
94:
78:
75:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1129:
1127:
1118:
1117:
1097:
1096:
1079:
1061:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1006:WP:NOTCENSORED
999:
978:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
865:
864:
843:
842:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
804:
782:
781:
766:
752:
751:
732:
717:
702:
701:
700:
699:
664:
663:
660:Havelock Ellis
654:The statement
652:
644:
639:The statement
636:
635:
629:
608:
588:
571:
553:
552:
530:
508:
486:
464:
442:
419:
418:
396:
376:
375:
354:
353:
352:
351:
316:
315:
314:
313:
299:poorly sourced
292:
291:
270:
249:
217:
199:
198:
135:
74:
69:
58:WP:INTERESTING
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1128:
1116:
1114:
1110:
1105:
1099:
1098:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1000:
998:
994:
990:
986:
982:
979:
977:
973:
969:
965:
962:
961:
950:
946:
942:
938:
937:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
919:integral part
915:
914:
913:
909:
905:
901:
900:
899:
895:
891:
887:
882:
878:
873:
870:
867:
866:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
846:
845:
844:
841:
837:
833:
828:
825:
824:
817:
813:
809:
805:
803:
799:
795:
790:
786:
785:
784:
783:
780:
776:
771:
765:
763:
756:
755:
754:
753:
750:
747:
742:
740:Pass a Method
736:
733:
731:
727:
722:
716:
714:
709:bestiality.--
707:
704:
703:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
673:
669:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
642:
638:
637:
633:
630:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
609:
607:
604:
600:
596:
592:
589:
587:
583:
579:
575:
572:
570:
566:
562:
558:
555:
554:
550:
546:
542:
541:
536:
531:
528:
524:
520:
519:
514:
509:
506:
502:
498:
497:
492:
487:
484:
480:
476:
475:
470:
465:
462:
458:
454:
453:
448:
443:
440:
436:
432:
431:
426:
421:
420:
417:
413:
409:
405:
400:
397:
395:
391:
387:
386:
381:
378:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
356:
355:
350:
346:
342:
338:
335:
334:
333:
329:
325:
321:
318:
317:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
295:
294:
293:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
271:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
250:
248:
244:
240:
237:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:
214:
213:
209:
205:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:Find sources:
136:
132:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
64:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1103:
1100:
1081:
1063:
1046:
1001:
980:
963:
923:WP:WELLKNOWN
918:
885:
880:
876:
826:
808:Clarityfiend
788:
761:
734:
712:
705:
684:
665:
655:
647:
640:
631:
610:
590:
573:
556:
538:
516:
494:
472:
450:
428:
398:
383:
379:
336:
324:Clarityfiend
319:
298:
272:
251:
235:
218:
200:
188:
182:
174:
167:
161:
155:
149:
139:
126:
49:
47:
31:
28:
968:Count Iblis
787:Nonsense.
165:free images
879:it sounds
758:article.--
1109:talk page
1051:Agricolae
1028:Zoophilia
1008:. Meets
989:A. Parrot
872:Zoophilia
850:Zoophilia
615:Zoophilia
595:Zoophilia
404:zoophilia
399:Question.
364:• Gene93k
277:zoophilia
256:Zoophilia
204:Prioryman
37:talk page
1111:or in a
1069:Cynwolfe
706:Redirect
611:Redirect
408:Cynwolfe
337:Comment:
273:Redirect
124:View log
39:or in a
981:Comment
689:Carrite
632:Comment
303:Carrite
281:Carrite
260:Flyer22
252:Delete.
171:WP refs
159:scholar
97:protect
92:history
1082:Delete
1064:Delete
1047:Delete
1014:Qworty
1010:WP:GNG
774:cntrb.
725:cntrb.
557:Delete
143:Google
101:delete
63:Secret
54:WP:GNG
1086:Srnec
881:silly
832:Oculi
789:Every
599:Conti
221:with
186:JSTOR
147:books
131:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
1090:talk
1073:talk
1055:talk
1036:talk
1018:talk
1004:per
1002:Keep
993:talk
972:talk
964:Keep
945:talk
931:talk
908:talk
894:talk
877:know
858:talk
836:talk
827:Keep
812:talk
798:talk
769:tlk.
745:talk
735:Keep
720:tlk.
693:talk
672:talk
623:talk
597:. --
582:talk
574:Keep
565:talk
561:Tarc
545:talk
540:Cirt
537:. —
523:talk
518:Cirt
515:. —
501:talk
496:Cirt
493:. —
479:talk
474:Cirt
471:. —
457:talk
452:Cirt
449:. —
435:talk
430:Cirt
427:. —
412:talk
390:talk
385:Cirt
380:Keep
368:talk
345:talk
341:Zoke
328:talk
320:Keep
307:talk
285:talk
264:talk
243:talk
239:Zoke
231:talk
227:Zoke
219:Keep
208:talk
179:FENS
153:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
927:Wnt
890:Wnt
794:Wnt
578:Wnt
275:to
193:TWL
122:– (
1092:)
1075:)
1057:)
1038:)
1020:)
995:)
974:)
947:)
933:)
925:.
910:)
896:)
860:)
838:)
814:)
800:)
695:)
674:)
625:)
584:)
567:)
547:)
525:)
503:)
481:)
459:)
437:)
414:)
392:)
370:)
362:.
347:)
330:)
309:)
287:)
266:)
245:)
210:)
173:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
1088:(
1071:(
1053:(
1034:(
1016:(
991:(
970:(
943:(
929:(
906:(
892:(
856:(
834:(
810:(
796:(
691:(
670:(
621:(
603:✉
601:|
580:(
563:(
543:(
521:(
499:(
477:(
455:(
433:(
410:(
388:(
366:(
343:(
326:(
305:(
283:(
262:(
241:(
229:(
206:(
197:)
189:·
183:·
175:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
145:(
137:(
134:)
127:·
120:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.