Changes

::::It is a Swedish news organization reporting on a British study. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::It is a Swedish news organization reporting on a British study. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Yes, a British study of what? Bestiality in Sweden, the UK, American Samoa? Your source doesn't say. Who conducted the study? What was the methodology? So I guess you consider some random Swedish news site, quoting an unnamed study, as a reliable source. If that's an acceptable sourcing standard for CP, I can think of a ton of improvements I can make around here. ;-) --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Yes, a British study of what? Bestiality in Sweden, the UK, American Samoa? Your source doesn't say. Who conducted the study? What was the methodology? So I guess you consider some random Swedish news site, quoting an unnamed study, as a reliable source. If that's an acceptable sourcing standard for CP, I can think of a ton of improvements I can make around here. ;-) --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The UK has an incredibly high dog ownership per capita compared to the rest of the world and dog ownership is also a big deal online for UK people too (I think only the USA has a higher percentage of dog ownership).[http://www.dogwalkersmelbourne.com.au/articles-dog-walking-pet-sitting/54-global-real-world-dog-ownership-versus-online-dog-searches-4.html][http://petshops.about.com/od/PetStoreOperations/a/World-Pet-Market-Trends.htm] Why would a British vet study incur the added expense of studying dogs/cats outside their country when they probably have the second highest dog/cat ownership in the world? Please show me a bunch of British dog/cat vet studies where they did the studies outside their country rather than the UK and then please compare the amount of studies with the overall amount of British studies done inside their country for dogs/cats. I don't think you are using common sense which is a common atheist trait seeing as you deny the existence of God despite the [[Christian apologetics|huge amount of evidence for his existence.]] (which is why Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate William Lane Craig) (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]).  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

:::The UK has an incredibly high dog ownership per capita compared to the rest of the world and dog ownership is also a big deal online for UK people too (I think only the USA has a higher percentage of dog ownership).[http://www.dogwalkersmelbourne.com.au/articles-dog-walking-pet-sitting/54-global-real-world-dog-ownership-versus-online-dog-searches-4.html][http://petshops.about.com/od/PetStoreOperations/a/World-Pet-Market-Trends.htm] Why would a British vet study incur the added expense of studying dogs/cats outside their country when they probably have the second highest dog/cat ownership in the world? Please show me a bunch of British dog/cat vet studies where they did the studies outside their country rather than the UK and then please compare the amount of studies with the overall amount of British studies done inside their country for dogs/cats. I don't think you are using common sense which is a common atheist trait seeing as you deny the existence of God despite the [[Christian apologetics|huge amount of evidence for his existence.]] (which is why Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate William Lane Craig) (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). Plus, the author of the article is using the British study to determine the amount of bestiality of Sweden. Why wouldn't the author mention that the British vet study was done outside of Britain in terms of dogs/cats? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== some suggested improvements ==

== some suggested improvements ==