Legality of bestiality by country or territory

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another problematic article on zoophilia/animal rape. At a glance this appears to be well cited and researched, but a deeper look reveals serious issues. The main concern here is that an awful lot of this article is actually original research, in that its author's seem to have looked into the laws themselves and arrived at their own conclusions on the legality of raping animals in each jurisdiction, instead of relying on third-party reliable sources that have written about those laws and what they mean. This has resulted in a situation where the article is probably accurate about where animal rape is explicitly against the law, but every entry marked as "legal" or "unknown" is due to a lack of reliably sourced information found during the course of the original research, as opposed to a reflection of the actual situation in these jurisdictions. In some cases the repeal of sodomy laws has the unintended side effect of technically removing explicit laws on raping animals, but this cannot reasonably be taken as an explicit endorsement of the legality of animal raping.

In short, I don't think it is consistent with Wikipedia's goals and standards to have a half-baked road map of the world to help people figure out where it is possibly legal to rape animals. Conversely, suggesting that it is legal in certain jurisdictions could lead to actual harm for people who are actually interested in raping animals and think they should legally be allowed to do so, and so might go, for example, to West Virginia so they can have horse sex, only to find that it is not in fact perfectly legal to do so there, which could have very serious negative consequences for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Beeblebrox. The sourcing of this article is utterly abysmal. For example, it uses, as the only source for bestiality supposedly being legal in four African countries (Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, Mozambique), an article on "Animal welfare in OIE member countries & territories in the SADC region" [1] in which neither the word 'Bestiality' nor 'zoophilia' can be found at all. An article which appears not to even discuss the subject. Instead, whoever cited this source seems to think that because said countries do not (or did not, according to the cited source) have specific animal welfare legislation, bestiality must be legal. This dubious bit of WP:OR clearly doesn't stand a moments thought, given the history of laws against such sexual acts in many cultures, which have frequently been motivated by concerns over human morality, and on outlawing 'unnatural' sexuality (as defined by the relevant cultural norms) rather than over any concern for the animal concerned. Absence of specific animal welfare legislation simply cannot be taken to be evidence for the legality of anything. To assert otherwise is just plain idiotic.

This is only one example. From a brief further inspection, I can't see citations for any of the few countries the article claims that bestiality is legal which stand much scrutiny as valid sources for such an unequivocal assertion. And most of the sources cited thus are simply crap, unworthy of serious discussion. So I won't bother, unless someone actually wants to try to argue otherwise. The idea that something as complex as worldwide legislation regarding such a topic can meaningfully be reduced to a tick or cross in a table is simply untenable, and such content has no place in anything purporting to be a serious encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and Andy, plus the following:

According to XTools [2] this article was primarily authored by AHC300 (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet of Latitude0116 (talk · contribs), who is a pro-zoophilia user: see the SPI.
Another important contributor, Gygas318 (talk · contribs) has added 14k of content to this article but has only 4 contributions to the project.
A longstanding controversy about the situation in Germany has been involving KuchenHunde (talk · contribs) [3][4], who has made no contribution outside of this topic area and has admitted to being a zoophile living in Germany [5].

All of this gives credence to the idea that this a sexual tourism guidebook. JBchrch talk 23:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]