Talk:Animal rights/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Citations needed"

Three options: (1) I'm going to remove the "citations needed" that are attached to anecdotal phrases, (2) sources can be found for the phrases, or (3) the phrases can be removed altogether. But either way, you're asking for citations on a casually obeservable statement, not one that requires scientific research. Kyle key 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

2 and 3 are acceptable to me, but not 1. If the phrases are there they need citations. If it's a casually observable statement find one person who has said it. When you say The concept is often confused with animal welfare, which is the philosophy that takes cruelty towards animals and (my emphasis) the question is who is it often confused by? For example: I could say, "Many people believe George Bush to be a terrorist", which is true in the sense of drinks around a table, but less true in the sense that he is reported as such in the Western media. (Where people call him a terrorist, if indeed they do, they're likely to be people with an axe to grind and so it is evident they are biased). See WP:WEASEL if you are still unclear on this. In the meantime, please either delete the sentences or leave the citations needed in. Captainj 19:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, I see why you were removing the citations needed. The problem is that I think too many people try to get around the citation rule by "using weasel words", i.e. "some people say", "critics argue" and so on. It just seems to be another way to me for people to slip their opinions in rather than putting in facts. That's why I think either the sentences need citations, or they need to be deleted. Coming to think of it, those citation needed have been up long enough so I'm tempted just to delete the sentences... I'll leave this note on the talk page, and if no-one objects delete them. Captainj 19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem with these sentences. It is certainly not the case that each and every statement on a WP page must be supported by a citation. That many people confuse the concepts of animal rights and animal welfare is a non-controversial fact. What may be controversial is to what extent animal rights and animal welfare should be seen as separate or opposed.

Sure, those many people may not be high-brow intellectuals. Perhaps some are too; but that is irrelevant. That statement about what many people think is not taking a stance, just stating a fact. It is not slipping in an opinion, since what is actually asserted is that those many people are wrong.

David Olivier 22:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe the opinion is asserting these people are wrong. The best way to solve this is to find someone in a decently citable source saying "Most people confuse Animal rights and animal welfare but in fact they are different because...". If that can't be found anyway, then it seems to me that the statement should be deleted. Captainj 15:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence does assert that animal rights and animal welfare are two different things. I don't think it needs any supporting citation. As it stands it is not particularly controversial. What is controversial is to what extent AR and AW are to be contrasted. There are also important differences among flavors of AR, and also among flavors of AW. The whole issue is complex. Giving a citation here would not help at all. It might be one by Tom Regan, or by Gary Francione, or by Peter Singer, or by anti-animal people (e.g. NAIA), and each would define the differences between AR and AW in very different ways. I don't think it is useful to enter into such a debate in that opening paragraph, nor to give one necessarily partisan citation. As I said, since the assertion itself is not controversial, and even just stands for itself given the explanations that are already there about the meanings of the terms, I think there is simply no reason to demand citations, or to delete that sentence. David Olivier 15:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I still disagree with you because I think a citation of commentary from a reputable news outlet should be required here. But, two people disagree with me, and, having left it for a few days, no-one else has chipped in so I'm not going to revert you over something so small. You didn't comment on my proposals to delete part of the introduction, which seemed to have Kyle Key's support. Since no-one objected to that I will do it, please discuss here, or above if it is a problem.

CaptainJ (t | c | e) 17:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Further Reading Section

This section seriously needs cleanup. Apart from being far too long the links and books themselves need prioritising. Only the most important ones should be listed and the others removed. if someone wants to find webpages about a subject they can use google, not wikipedia. michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 09:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing works by Stephen R.L.Clark

A recent revert (see Special page:History) deleting "authorless books" made two deletions of titles listed under the first item by Stephen R.L. Clark. I have two questions:

• Is this possibly a misreading of bibliographic entry style (per CMS) that on a second and any subsequent citations for the same author, replaces the author's name with an extended line (to avoid repetition) preceding the title?
• Are these possibly articles rather than titles of books? (This author has 18 entries in the US Library of Congress but I don't find these titles among them.)

Hoping some knowledgeable person will sort this out and restore/repair as necessary. It would be unfortunate to lose valid reference citations due to their having been written improperly or with insufficient information. Thanks -- Deborahjay 10:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The formatting did not match the rest on the list and a quick search on amazon provided not listings. I assumed, therefore, the books were minor, possibly unpublished entires and so removed them as such. Sorry if this was a mistake and someone feels the need to reenter them. Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, the section itself is far too long. I don't think that this should merely be a list of books as it appears to be know. Perhaps, under an external link section we can put a link to an external webpage which itself has further reading listed with notable authors listed under a see also section. michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 10:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll add a SUGGESTION (caveat: I haven't checked this out with the Wikipedia Manual of Style) that the Further reading list be subsectioned into Books and Articles and the citations alphabetized under those subheadings according to author's name. This might help make the section more user friendly and easier for future editors to maintain and update. -- Deborahjay 11:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I restored the "authorless books" and reverted back to the version of references/further reading before that edit, in case anything else was removed later. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Deborahjay, I also couldn't find those particular titles as books by Clerk, so I replaced them with titles that I know are books. Maybe the others are papers. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Someone deleted large sections of the intro, including properly referenced material, so I've restored it. This intro was worked out over as a compromise between several editors with different views, and I think it works pretty well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And I don't think that it works "pretty well." As a first time reader of the page it was immediately obvious that it's biased. "Radical social movement" is a value judgment, not neutral encyclopedia language. The same goes for the phrase "our own"; it's an attempt at identification with the average reader by saying "hey, you're a human, you're not on THEIR side are you??," reinforcing and pitting the view that they probably already have against the article before they even have a chance to read it. If they're against the topic, the absence of this relatively irrelevant information isn't going to change their mind. And in my version, only one "properly referenced" source was removed. One. And it's the only unnecessary one because the same information is repeated in the Criticisms section. There's really no debate here; it's just you holding onto a clearly POV, overly wordy introduction. Kyle Key 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the POV that the intro expresses? I don't see it myself. It's hardly POV to call the animal rights movement a "radical social movement." In what way might it not be a "radical social movement," and what value judgment do you feel that expresses? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Radical" is relative...its use is 'judging' the phrase "social movement" by placing personal "values" on it; therefore, it shouldn't be in the part of the article that's supposed to be giving people their "introduction" to the topic. It's not up to you or me to tell someone that it's "radical," it's a word that stems from opinion and should left out as to let the reader make up their own mind. Just as political views fall on a continuum, so do social views--what's "radical" or "conservative" or "progressive" to someone could, and most likely IS, the exact opposite to someone else. Regardless, you didn't mention any of my other valid points. "Our own" is clearly misleading; only one unnecessary source was removed; my introduction is concise and accurate with rearrangement of information to more appropriate areas, and removal of the lines that are repeats.Kyle Key 07:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your view that "radical" is a value judgment. It's used descriptively too, and it's being used descriptively here. There are few things more radical than the idea of breaking down the species barriers. I've added an academic reference for it anyway: Harold Guither, professor of agricultural economics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who is known as an expert on the movement. I also disagree that moving the legal stuff out of the intro is appropriate. I feel it's important to note that there are practical as well as theoretical developments as a result of the movement. I still don't understand your objection to "our own." It refers to the interests of human beings i.e. the people writing and reading the article. How is it POV? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I also meant to add that WP:LEAD recommends 3-4 paragraphs for articles over 30,000 characters, and this one is over 40,000, so the current intro is the right length. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're citing policy pages, WP:NBD and WP:AGF. My intro meets the requirements of WP:LEAD.

With respect, it didn't. It was too short. And there is no need to remove information and sources. It's fine as it stands. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to modify my introduction to include more of the present information, but that information still requires rewording. Simply put, it's poorly written.

That's your opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The way that the introduction is set up now, all animal rights critics support animal welfare...or at least, that's what most educated people would infer from reading it. And that's not true.

First, which part of the intro implies that? Secondly, which opponents of animal rights would not support the animal welfare position? We don't include the views of tiny minorities, and in any event this article is about animal rights, not about a thousand other positions. The two positions in the debate over how animals should be treated are animal rights/liberation, and animal welfare. If you know of any others, please tell me what they are, and provide sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

On a separate but related note, adding a source for an opinionated, irrelevant statement is quite possibly the most illogical thing I've yet seen on Wikipedia. I can find thousands of pages that don't refer to it as a "radical" movement, should I cite them too? No, it doesn't make any sense. Your finding of someone else who called it "radical" seems ridiculously childish and makes me question your position as an administrator.

Okay, as you're becoming abusive, I'm going to stop responding. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how someone acting as a representative of Wikipedia has managed to ruin the experience for me in a matter of a few hours. Especially since what I'm saying isn't complex or particularly hard to comprehend, yet you're unable--or unwilling--to consider any of it. The statement works just as well, if not better, in my version. Removing the word in the current version produces an unintelligible sentence because the sentence itself (and the one after it) are so strongly slanted against the topic--without a similar statement defending the article--that the discrepancy requires a rewrite. A consensus in the past isn't forever binding.

What else? Your inability to put aside your position within the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens is evident throughout your previous comment. Scientific classification, like a prior Wikipedia discussion consensus, is subject to change as new information is discovered. Emphasis added

Scientific classification or biological classification is how biologists group and categorize extinct and living species of organisms (as opposed to folk taxonomy). Modern classification has its root in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics. These groupings have been revised since Linnaeus to improve consistency with the Darwinian principle of common descent. Molecular systematics, which uses DNA sequences as data, has driven many recent revisions and is likely to continue to do so. Scientific classification belongs to the science of taxonomy or biological systematics.

So, yes, your statement is pure, unfounded opinion: "There are few things more radical than the idea of breaking down the species barriers." What's even more peculiar is that this is not even an issue within animal rights....I haven't seen or read about anyone saying that we should "break down the species barriers" and include all animals within Homo sapiens, and if sources for that do exist, they are an extreme minority and in no way representative of the movement. My understanding of animals rights is this: "we shouldn't treat like garbage those beings that have a subjective experience of pain and/or undertake actions outside of those related to growth or preservation--that is, consuming nutrients and resting are essential functions that, in and of themselves, don't constitute inclusion in the "rights" category, but performing tasks like playing or helping a fellow creature are representative of a state of being that should most likely be preserved." A far cry from what you're implying.

My final comments will be on these statements: "It refers to the interests of human beings i.e. the people writing and reading the article. How is it POV?" You answered your own question. "['Our own'] refers to the interests of human beings" which is POV in an article on a subject that seeks to have humans look outside of their own consciousness. See the irony? I also stated it plainly the first time: "It's an attempt at identification with the average reader by saying "hey, you're a human, you're not on THEIR side are you??," reinforcing and pitting the view that they probably already have against the article before they even have a chance to read it. If they're against the topic, the absence of this relatively irrelevant information isn't going to change their mind."

In short, it should be obvious to anyone who reads this that I have an abundance of thought placed behind my arguments and an abundance of good intention behind my edits. My opinion is at least equal to yours and further total revertions of my edits will be looked at as either personal attacks or attempts at enforcing an outdated consensus. "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to." Thank you. Kyle Key 14:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to argue that it's not a "radical" idea, perhaps you should look at the wikipedia definition of "radical"; the idea of giving equal rights to untold billions of creatures would have a significant impact on society; even just the changes in diet that animal rights activists desire would be radical. If you can argue that the word "radical" is inaccurate, do so. However, your opinion that the word is negative seems irrelevant. If somebody were saying "fringe", maybe I'd agree.

ThatGuamGuy 15:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)sean (TGG)

Personhood

SV, I made some of the changes to the intro, after posting on talk page which was later archived. Only one person responded, and they agreed changes needed to be maded. So they were. It's not so much the accuracy of the intro as how it first reads to someone perhaps not so familiar with this topic (although even after reading the whole article, I feel that the word "persons" is inaccurate). I think the intro may have been changed further, after my changes, but I would suggest looking at it again. CaptainJ ^{(t | c | e)} 11:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Captain, I'll take a look at the changes you made and I'll post a response later. Bear in mind that we're writing for people not familiar with the topic so that they become familiar with it, and the language used in this article (e.g. discussing the status of animals as "persons") is very much the language used to discuss the topic in general, by those in favor and by those opposed. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, the issues you removed [1] are central to any discussion of animal rights (and, indeed, morality in general), namely the idea of including other species within the moral community, and the idea of extending personhood. Why do you feel they shouldn't be mentioned? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin; I'm on a sort of Wikibreak at the moment so might take a while to respond. I understand the arguments, and I don't dispute their accuracy or importance. My problem is that the way they are worded, means that when I first read those sentences, they seemed to be arguing that animals should be regarded as equal to humans. Later in the article, this is clarified. Bear in mind, that in the UK, the animal rights movement is associated with primarily two things by the public 1) Stopping animal testing and 2) terrorism [2] (this survey also appeared in the Daily Telegraph, which was why I first read this article). An article which seeks to educate people past this has to be a good thing, but I feel it needs to be done more gently. CaptainJ ^{(t | c | e)} 13:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

CaptainJ, there's little point in trying; she's just going to continue asking the same questions over and over again so that the discussion nevers gets anywhere. No matter how many people raise objections to the terrible introduction, she's determined to keep it in there because it represents what she thinks animal rights is. It's ridiculous--most of my arguments weren't even touched upon, because they can't be. Hopefully you'll keep pushing the issue, because it deserves pushing, but I'm just trying to tell you what you may be up against. I don't think that even the most infallible of arguments will matter here. Logic has no place on this wikipedia page.Kyle Key 21:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Captain, there's no rush, so by all means wait until you're back from your break before responding in depth. I think what's confusing me is that I don't see which POV the intro is supposed to represent. Is it pro- or is it anti-AR? As I see it, it is perfectly neutral and descriptive. The first paragraph describes the aims of the movement. The second paragraph gives some practical examples of how those aims are being achieved. The third paragraph gives intelligent criticism of the concept from scholarly sources. I see it as well balanced.

As for the Daily Telegraph survey about animal-rights activists in the UK, first, our article isn't about animal-rights activists; secondly it's not about the UK; and third, if you look at the questions, respondents are being practically led by the nose to call AR activism "terrorism." One question is (I'm paraphrasing): "AR activists have engaged in bombing, vandalism, and digging up bodies from graveyards. Do you regard this as terrorism?" Even then, only 77 per cent said yes!

If you want to add that material to the article about activism, it's at Animal liberation movement. This article here is not about activism but about the concept, the law, the philosophy, the history of the movement, the history of the ideas and the main objections to them. The current intro gives a fairly comprehensive, neutral overview of that. Bear in mind that this is, and always was, an ideas-led movement: a movement created by philosophers, as the article says. That certain activists behave in certain ways means that newspapers refer to animal rights more often than they otherwise would, but the ideas themselves have not changed because of that, and the main proponents within the movement are still saying the same things they were saying 20, 30 years ago.

As for your point about animals' interests being regarded as equal to human interests, that is what the movement seeks, and that's what the intro says. Equal doesn't mean the same, of course. It means that, within the moral community, an individual's interests should not be regarded as more important or less important solely on the grounds of species-membership. The questions for the movement, then, are: which species should be members of the moral community and how is that achieved? But that doesn't mean, as the article also makes clear, that pigs should be taught calculus, or that human beings should learn to appreciate the importance of rolling in mud. The needs and basic interests of species differ, of course. But the value that is placed on them should not differ, according to the movement. That is, the movement believes it is wrong, and indeed irrational, to cause a great furore when human children are not being educated properly, for example, while at the same time no care whatsoever is paid to pigs who spend their entire lives in pens too small for them even to turn around.

What exactly is missing from the intro, in your view, that fails to convey the above? Or have I misunderstood your point? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed "our own" from the intro, as that was one of the things you didn't like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"The claim is that animals should no longer be regarded legally or morally as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as persons."

I actually kind of agree with people, this isn't worded particularly well. It just needs a few words, something like "should instead be regarded on equal level with persons"; I'm unaware of anybody arguing that they should be "regarded as persons". It seems inaccurate; if it's true (maybe it is), it should be cited.

Animal rights critics

I have just taken a look at the list of animal rights critics at the bottom of the article and have found that maybe we need some more which a) aren't from the same site and b) aren't funded by the Centre for Consumer Freedom.

eg:

There are 2 sites which are ran by CfCU There are 2 links to a hunting vs animal rights site (should be one - to the main page only) The link http://www.petalgae.com/ whilst funny is not really a criticism as such. http://www.capitalresearch.org/ap/ap-0797.html doesn't work at all Why is the Animal Rights use terrorism linked to a specific page rather than the main page of the site?

I am pretty sure that there are many criticism sites out there, and I'm sure people could provide some decent ones if they put their minds to it. -Localzuk ^(talk) 09:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have had no response at all, I will go ahead and remove the duplicate links to the hunting vs AR site and the parody site due to my reasons above.-Localzuk ^(talk) 10:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding, LZ. I agree with your view of those links. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Pythagoras et al. in Background section

Just wondering why exactly they are mentioned. If they are mentioned as exceptions to the general idea of "animals are meant for human use" in Western cultures, it's fine. If we are saying that we owe the concept of animal welfare to them, we might also mention that in Dharmic religions, Animal welfare has always been a fundamental part. deeptrivia (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi DT, I've just started that section, so it's incomplete. By all means add something about Dharmic religions if it's relevant to how the concept of animal rights and the moral status of animals began or developed. It would be very interesting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, SlimVirgin. I'll look at it sometime to try to make it more global. BTW, you're doing a great job on it. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, DT. I'd like to try to add more about what the early Greeks thought and also perhaps something about animal rights and Judaism. In the meantime, I've reordered the material a little, and added a section about the history of the modern movement. I think it flows a little better now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Animal Rights Critics Critics?

In the interest of NPOV, I believe the "Dealing with animal rights critics" and its link should go. I feel that the link, especially its placement, marginalizes the "Animal-rights critics" section. It introduces extreme bias by basically saying "ok here's some links to criticism, but they're just here to do lip-service to NPOV, this is what you should really think". As this might be controversial I'm bringing it up here before making the change. Thoughts? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps change the wording of the title and the description, but don't remove the link itself. The Ungovernable Force 00:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I can live with rewording it if everyone else agrees. Does it need it's own section though? Perhaps it could be combined with the "animal rights resources" section? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The Ungovernable Force 01:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it does kind of need rewording. It should be in its own section for two reasons - it doesn't fit into any of the others and others could easily be added when they are found.-Localzuk ^(talk) 11:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Links section

I have been looking at the huge list of links that are on this article and it seems a little bit large to me. I think we should maybe come up with a set of criteria for including external links. As it stands, we have far too many. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. -Localzuk ^(talk) 11:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Argument from marginal cases?

I think this page needs a section on the argument from marginal cases and a seperate section speciesism as these are an integral part of the animal rights argument but are only dealt with in passing. What do you think?

Good idea. Feel free to have a go. If you're a new editor, you should read our content policies first: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, which should keep you honest. :-) The important thing is to cite reliable sources for any arguments you make. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Animals have the right to be TASTY.

Man has the obligation to treat his possessions properly and be a responsible steward of what God has given us. Here is an interesting viewpoint from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (I hope this link works: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P8B.HTM#LZ) and it is the Church's view of our responsibilities:

{begin} Respect for the integrity of creation

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.194 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice, if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. {end}

I am nowhere near as eloquent, but....If we need to fry a few mosquitoes to prevent west nile virus or we need to perform vivisection on some monkey to help cure a disease or we need to ride a horse in a rodeo, then we're doin just fine. Putting the cat in the microwave is not ok. Starving an animal is not ok. Flogging an animal is not ok. In most normal people's view, the only other rights animals have are: 1) to be cute, cuddly and otherwise attractive; 2) to be obidient as beasts of burden; and 3) to mostly be just plain be tasty. I am planning to behave according to this mantra and I truly hope all of the whining, bleeding heart cry-babies out the cringe in horror as they imagine me wearing my fur coat, my leather shoes and my alligator belt as I walk to the restaraunt to eat my milk-fed veal. Grow up people and work on what counts: the real horrors in life can be seen on the news or your street corner every day where we stupid humans can't even be nice to one another. Gotta go - veal time. DocEss 18:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

DocEss, we can't have a section on every group and every religion that doesn't support the idea of animal rights. I also see from the above that your contribution is not made in good faith. Please note that neither the article nor this talk page are here to discuss your personal views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. My contribution was in good faith. Just because your beloved position is so easily stung by a bit of poetic license combined with a small dose of sarcasm does not mean you have the right to act as a bully and stifle criticism. "Animals do not have rights" is a perfectly legitimate and widespread view; the mere existence of this view is DIRECT criticsm to the animal rights view and should therefore be included in the article. DocEss 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

DocEss, please remember that this is an encyclopedia. We do not want 'poetic license' and 'sarcasm ' as it is not encyclopedic. When someone makes comments with headings such as 'Animals have the right to be tasty' on the talk page of a controversial article about that subject matter they should not be surprised when the editors of that page react badly. The thing to learn from this is that you should be careful what you say else you will not be taken seriously with your edits.-Localzuk ^(talk) 20:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok ok. Perhaps I went too far - but I was not at all surpirsed about the reaction. Be real...the belief that 'the only right animals have is to be tasty' is really what most people think! I'm not making it up. I resorted to sarcasm when perhaps it wasn't yet necessary, so I apologize if I offended certain people's obvious (over-) sensitivities.DocEss 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see your talk page for a warning about our 3RR policy. If you violate it, you will be reported and may be blocked from editing, and if you revert once more (in whole or in part), you will have violated it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it to hard to believe that one of the largest religions on earth is "just another group that does not support the idea of animal rights". Despite his cynicism, I think that DocEss's contribution is a valid one, and rather than bullying him out of WP, it might be nice for a change to help a newcomer. Nrets 20:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that from the way he created the title to this section, the way he has put 'go veal' and other such snippets, that his edits are in bad faith. I am all for assuming good faith but this is blatant. Secondly, Christians as you say are 'one of the largest religions' - so why mention them? Why not mention Islam, Budhism, Hindu etc... The information, if written in a non POV, non OR way could be valuable, but I don't think it would fit in this article. Maybe some sort of quick mention of religious views and then a seperate article on the matter would be more beneficial?

Also Nrets, I am sure you have seen the rules on assuming good faith. Stating that editors are trying to bully someone out of WP is not doing this.-Localzuk ^(talk) 11:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Localzuk, Based on the comments left on the editor's Talk page, it is hard to see them as anything but bullying, which, in my view, is why this user is reacting negatively/hostilely. Please see WP:BITE. In any case, I agree that it would be worth expanding on the views of other major religions regarding AR, if they have made some explicit statement about it such as the Catholic church has. I tried to find other positions made by other religious bodies (like judaism), but most of what I found was something about how AR activists have criticized Kosher (and Halal) practices as being unethical. Which we can add to the section if you wish. When I return from vacation I'll write a paragraph and add it to the article. Nrets 12:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Write away. I emplore you: keep up the pressure. I know you'll end up in an edit war with other editors. SlimVirgin (and I bet she ain't either) has an obvious agenda to stifle all criticism of her beloved cause and its agenda. Even worse, her behaviour as a bully is well documented throughout Wikepedia. To get a sense of this, just look at the length of these animal rights articles and their lists of outside resources, websites, star-power-celebrity supporters and edit revision lists. I must say, it’s impressive and comprehensive work but this is not a BLOG or a PETA outlet! Wikipedia must be objective or it is useless. Wikepdia must present counter-points. Just look at one issue here as I quote the article: “PETA's philosophy is ‘animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.’" This belief is not held by billions of people, yet no real criticisms of PETA’s beliefs or reason detre are allowed by her and her cabal in the related articles. But don't despair --- we are lining up troops along the border and I assure that criticism and debate will see the light of day. DocEss 18:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry DocEss, but you cannot say things about other users like you just did (regarding SlimVirgin). Please see WP:NPA on this. I have seen no evidence of bullying, instead I have seen people asking you to read different policies, to not make comments which might upset users (such as the title of this section) and to change what you want to add in order to make it suitable. Also that your addition isn't really suitable for various reasons. -Localzuk ^(talk) 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If she wants to set her self up for derision with such a stupid handle, so be it. And her actions do indeed amount to bullying - go ahead, try to edit her beloved pages to include anything she doesn't like and see what happens. Nevertheless, you said my addition isn't suitable for various reasons; state those reasons, justify those reasons and tell us all what would make it suitable. As for upsetting users, I can't think of anything more upsetting than the strangling --- nay, bludgeoning --- of opposition in the pursuit of knowledge. Now go eat a bratwurst and open your mind.DocEss 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

DocEss, as someone who is personally critical of the notion of animal rights, I must disagree with your assessment of the article. While I dont't think it's perfect (I have a few issues with it that I'll be raising on here) I think it's a gross mischaracterisation to say that it's a puff piece for PETA (gotta love aliteration). Stating what PETA's philosophy is without critiquing it is not POV, provided the statement is credited and not advocated it's the very epitome of NPOV. Note that the exact same format being used for The Foundation for Animal Use and Education's philosophy, which is critical of the notion of animal rights. As to the specific issue of the Catholic Church's attitude to animal rights, as others have stated to mention just the Catholic Church in isolation is to give undue prominence; to mention only one religion is to give the impression that only one religion has an attitude to the subject that is worth mentioning. An "Animal rights and religion" section would have merit in it, and would probably bring an interesting perspective to the issue, my one piece of caution on the issue would be that the issue should be limited to the specifics of animal rights, rather than animal welfare. --Daduzi ^talk 16:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course the PETA view should be stated, described, defined, expounded upon and analysed --- that is the whole point here in Wikipedia. But you forget about the analysed part: there is no criticism listed in the article whereas considerable criticism exists in the world and you well know it. PETA and other silly sibling organisations don't operate on a daily basis with complete impunity and blessings of the world - their mere existence is criticised and questioned - as such, we must describe said opposition because that said opposition is a daily part of PETA et.al.'s existence. Capiche? So don't try to escape that simple fact by resorting to distractions about "can't have only one religion unless we have em all" crappola. Fine - put em all in then. Whatever we do, we need to have CRITISISMS! A PETA article devoid of criticisms is exactly that: nuttin but a puff piece. DocEss 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please click --Daduzi ^talk 17:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Referencing criticsm section

They forgot to mention Voltaire, Bonaparte, and Wagner.

I've just finished referencing as much as I could within the criticism section. I used cite templates since I'm lazy and find it easier to just put them in than try to remember the exact formatting preferred, but if others object to using the templates then feel free to reformat the references.

Like I said I referenced as much as I could, but two quotes beat me. First, I had difficulty tracking down The Foundation for Animal Use and Education. The only non-Wikipedia related mention of them I could find was on the National Animal Interst Alliance's board page which lists Dr. Larry S. Katz as sitting on the board of the FAUE, but his homepage doesn't mention this. I suspect the organisation did exist, but is either now defunct or has changed its name. Searching for the quote yielded only Wikipedia and mirrors. Searching for the Chris DeRosse quote, meanwhile, only pulled up one non-Wikipedia/mirror link [3], but that only reprints the quote and doesn't specify any source. I've put {{fact}} tags next to the relevant quotes, hopefully somebody else can manage to track down the necessary citations. --Daduzi ^talk 20:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the statement "critics of animal rights generally support animal welfare" since it struck me as both weasely and unverifiable. If someone can find a study that supports the assertion then perhaps the format "a study in (year) found that most animal rights critics supported animal welfare" could be used, but I don't think there was much merit to the sentence as it stood. --Daduzi ^talk 07:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Petty nitpicking ahoy

OK, as I mentioned above I have a few issues with the article as things stand (having said that, though, I do think it's a generally solid article). I thought it best to raise them here rather than engaging in full scale editing since doing so might annoy some people and, in any case, some of the issues I'm not in a position to correct. Anyway, here's the list:

• Introduction, paragraph 4 "Critics holding this position argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals for food, as entertainment, and in research, though human beings may nevertheless have an obligation to ensure they do not suffer unnecessarily" This strikes me as problematic for two reasons, it's a bit weasely and pretty much unverifiable, and it gives the (in my opinion) erroneous impression that all animal rights critics accept that humans may have an obligation to animals. Perhaps a better format would be "Some critics holding this position, such as [example]" where [example] is a notable figure with a citable example of them advocating this line.

• History, para. 1 "The 20th century animal rights movement grew out of the animal welfare movement, which can be traced back to the earliest philosophers" I dislike the term "earliest philosophers" since it's sufficiently vague (who were the earliest philosophers? Greeks like Heraclitus? Chinese like Lao Zi? Indians like Kapila? Prophets like Zoroaster?) as to be next to impossible to verify. Personally, I'd much prefer it if a specific example of very early animal welfare philosophy could be pinpointed and an era and region (or eras and regions) given ("Classical Greek philosophy", say).

• Philosophy of the Modern Movement, para. 3 "Few people would deny that non-human great apes are intelligent and aware of their own condition and goals, and may become frustrated when their freedoms are curtailed." "Few people would deny" is a horribly weasley term, I'd suggest changing this to either be a specific mention of a key figure arguing the case or a scientific study corroborating the fact.

• Philosophy of the Modern Movement, para. 5 "In response to such challenges..." What challenges? I'm not saying there aren't any challenges, just that the phrase doesn't make sense in the given context (the previous paragraph merely states that Peter Singer and Tom Regan are the leading exponents of animal rights philosophy, and the one before that discusses problems with drawing distinct lines between different animals). Needs rewording.

• Animal rights in law, para. 1 "Animals are protected under the law, but in general their individual rights have no protection." Where are animals protected under the law? I can state with certainty that they're not protected in China, for instance. I'm also not comfotable with the phrasing "their individual rights", this seems to presume that animals do have rights. Perhaps change to "Animals are protected under the law in numerous countries, including [cited examples], but generally these protections do not extend to the granting of rights" (I'll accept that the term "granting" is perhaps less than ideal). The whole first half of the paragraph has the same problem of talking about what the law allows without specifying which country's (or state's) law is being discussed.

• Animal rights in law, para 3. "The Tierschutzgesetz was passed in Germany in 1933 by the National Socialist government" What was the Tierschutzgesetz and what did it do? Also needs citing.

• Animal rights activism. I'm not going to deal with specific sentences here, but the whole section is full of combinations of references to current time and weasel terms ("There is a growing trend in the American animal-rights movement", "A growing number of animal-rights activists engage in", "There are also a growing number of") and speculation ("perhaps because of the negative publicity that would ensue"). The whole section needs to be sourced and made much more precise. Also, the Darley Oaks farm incident could do with some background (where is it? what does it do? who orchestrated the campaign?).

Like I said, this is nit picking to a certain degree, and these aren't major issues. And like I said, the rest of the article is fine. I do think that the little effort required to fix these issues would help make it a really top quality article, though. Having said that, if anyone feels that any of these aren't really problems feel free to say so. --Daduzi ^talk 17:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Daduzi, I think those are fair points. Feel free to change them if you have the time or energy. (And that's not a sofixit comment, by the way; I just mean — feel free. :-D ) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation templates

Would people please not use citation templates? They makes the inline references very long, and the text hard to edit. It is just as fast, if not faster, to write the ref out without the template and doing so makes it easier to edit around them. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Toronto group

I removed the link to the Toronto group because Wikipedia is not a directory, because its listing does not add value to the article, and because there are already several, much better external links. We already list a ton of organizations, that are *national* or *international* in scope, which are best reference. There is no credible reason to list a very small regional organization like the Toronto one. If we did that, we'd need to list the other regional groups, and there are hundreds and hundreds of them. They would best be listed in an article specifically about animal rights *organizations*, which may even already exist. -MichaelBluejay 10:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

But why remove this specific one? Almost all animal-rights groups are regional to some extent. I agree we shouldn't list the groups with three members who meet in their dad's garage once a month, but the Toronto Animal Rights Society is a well-known group. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason to remove this specific one is that it's super-local in nature: Its scope is a mere city. That's the whole point. The other, better resources we list are national or international in scope. Like I said, I don't know the Toronto group would get special consideration over the hundreds or thousands of other tiny, city-scope groups, and if they didn't get special consideration, then we'd be listing those hundreds of other groups here, which is patently ridiculous. Again, Wikipedia is not a directory, and there is no compelling reason to list such a tiny group with such an extremely limited scope, especially when we already list a ton of broader, better, more authoritative resources. -MichaelBluejay 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I just removed Toronto again, as well as a bunch of other local groups that someone else added. There already exists an article List_of_animal_rights_groups. The article here should not attempt to duplicate the one that already exists. Until someone provides a compelling argument for why we should add dozens or hundreds of local groups to this article, I'll continue to remove them. -MichaelBluejay 00:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael, this is disruptive editing. There are plenty of other local-oriented groups that you've left in the article, and Toronto Animal Rights is a particularly well-known one. Please don't remove it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say that we seem to need to create some form of guidelines for link inclusion across the whole range of animal rights related pages. We are constantly adding and removing links which is causing problems. Maybe we should start some form of wikiproject to cover the animal rights pages and to create guidelines for things such as this, how references should be used, general format etc...? What do other people think? -Localzuk ^(talk) 08:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Do you know how to set one up? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Some details about Wikiprojects here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll draw up a proper proposal then. Hopefully it'll get some support. There seems to be a set of interested users who frequent the articles. I'll post more details when I've created something.-Localzuk ^(talk) 10:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The only danger I foresee is a bunch of users getting involved who are vehemently opposed to animal rights (e.g. the "animals have a right to be tasty" brigade). Not that people have to be pro- to join a Wikiproject, but they should at least be interested, respectful, and preferably knowledgeable, otherwise it would be like having anti-Semites join Wikiproject Judaism. I don't know how the other projects handle that kind of issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we'll just have to deal with that when we reach it :). I have now created the proposal at User:Localzuk/Animal Rights Proposal (I know, an original name). The project is also listed here. If you would like to show support, please add your name to the list on the second link. I am now going to advertise it to those editors who have edited animal rights articles in the last few months.-Localzuk ^(talk) 10:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I bristle at my edits being called disruptive. I have yet to see any compelling argument as to why we should include a lengthy directory in this article given that other articles already exist for that very purpose: List of animal rights groups and List of animal welfare and animal rights groups. It does not improve the quality of this article to list a gazillion different links. Readers are best served by listing the most relevant and most *general* external resources, and in this context that means national and international groups, not groups whose scope is limited to a single city. And again, the local groups can be happily listed in the article(s) that exist to document all groups, not this one. Again, I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why this article should have a super-lengthy directory that includes micro-focused local groups. Even without the local groups, the directory in this article is already way too long. (See Search engine optimization for comparison, and just try to get *any* external reference added to that article without it being removed in 15 minutes.) I would much rather that the list of orgs in this article be much shorter. I believe that my removing only the vegetarian-specific and local-specific groups is a sporting compromise. -MichaelBluejay 13:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the French group is *not* local, and I didn't remove it. I simply alphabetized it. Your revert was unnecessary. -MichaelBluejay 13:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies. But you do seem to have removed one from Denmark, and you've removed Canada's largest. We shouldn't be judging things according to where they're based, but on how well-known they are, or how large. Whether they're based in London, Paris, or New Jersey is irrelevant. Two of the most influential at the moment are based in Oxford and Cambridgeshire in the UK. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want your edits to be regarded as disruptive, then don't edit disruptively! You're removing material that has been there for some time, and there has been an objection to the removal. Therefore, don't revert, revert, revert, but discuss on the talk page instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please stop calling my edits disruptive simply because you disagree with them. Also, please do not give me orders in how to edit. You have no more authority here than I do. It is quite inappropriate for you to claim that I may not make a certain edit simply because you made an objection to it. You do not have that kind of authority. You also know as well as I that the length of time that material has been in an article is wholly irrelevant to whether it should be there. I am not "judging" the worth of organizations beyond noticing that micro-focused groups should not be included in a list that is already way to long, especially when *two* (count 'em) other articles exist solely for the purpose of cataloguing such groups. I have said repeatedly that I will remove micro-focused groups unless I see a compelling argument to the contrary. I still haven't seen one, or even an attempt at one. Just complaints that I'm "disruptive" and orders to not exercise my rights as an editor. -MichaelBluejay 13:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. As for your complaint that "it shouldn't matter where an org. is based", I agree. May I ask you to pay attention to my actual concern, rather than inventing a strawman? My concern is not that an organization is based in some city, because obviously they all are. My concern is with groups whose *scope* does not extend beyond the city they're in. That is why, say, In Defense of Animals is a lot better resource for the reader than, say the Toronto Animal Rights society.

Incidentally, although the New England Anti-Vivisection Society uses a regional area in their name, they are, for all intents and purposes, a national organization. I understand this distinction. The Toronto group, on the other hand, is not nearly so broad. -MichaelBluejay 14:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. SlimVirgin, I see you have reverted my good faith edits again, with the justification that there has been an objection. Very well. I hereby object to your re-including material that doesn't belong in this article. There, I have made an objection, and by your rules you should not add it back. Though somehow I doubt you will agree.

Well no, because you're the one who wants to change it. I don't see the point of your continuing to remove them like this. Please discuss first and gain consensus. For example, in what sense is barryhorne.org local? What are your proposed criteria for inclusion? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you're in a poor position to demand discussion when you yourself refuse to discuss the substance of my arguments. So far, by saying the onus is on me because I want to change something that's already there, your argument has amounted to little more than, "I was here first!" I emphatically disagree that I must gain consensus for obvious and commonsense edits, when only one other editor objects to my edits. As for why I removed barryhorne.org from the list of Animal Rights Organizations, it's quite simple: BarryHorne.org is not an animal rights organization. If that is not as obvious to you as an elephant in a bathroom then our conflict is even greater than I'd imagined. You asked about my criteria for listing groups here. I believe they should be notable (a Wikipedia concept) and national or international in scope. Other AR-related groups should go on List of animal rights groups and List of animal welfare and animal rights groups. I have stated this repeatedly but you have not ever once even acknowledged the existence of those articles. When you refuse to discuss, when you declare me to be disruptive, when you give me orders about how to edit, when you refuse to acknowledge the more appropriate homes for the links I'm removing, and finally, when I believe you are making a very bad judgement about bloating this article, you cannot expect me to believe that I am being the irresponsible party. -MichaelBluejay 08:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You're being very aggressive. You turn up at an article that, so far as I can tell, you haven't edited before and proceed to insist that links of your choosing be removed, without clarifying what your criteria are or why we have to abide by them. But when one of the regular editors on the page objects, they are being disruptive, not you. Please; that's not the way to proceed.

First, why do you feel there is a problem with links on this page? Second, why can't you simply move barryhorne.org to resources or one of the other sections, rather than deleting it? (And anyway, it is an organization, arranging vigils and demos, and it's truly international unlike most of the others you want to retain.) Third, how are we to judge of some of them whether they're national/international? Finally, why should that be the criteria? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to discuss this. Though when you ask, "First, why do you feel there is a problem with links on this page?", I have already answered that, repeatedly. I will ask you to read what I have already written.

As for why national/international should be a criteria, I thought it would be obvious. A good encyclopedia lists the broadest, most general resources for a given topic. As for how we determine their scope, it's pretty easy: Geographically focused groups generally state their geographic focus. Our review may not be 100% perfect, but that's no argument for the alternative of listing a gazillion groups with extremely limited geographic focus, making the article quite amateurish.

I continue to bristle at your effective "I was here first!" argument, which you continue by saying, "You turn up at an article that, so far as I can tell, you haven't edited before..." and "when one of the regular editors on the page objects...". Wikipedia has no "first-edit, first authority" policy. I will ask you to recognize that I have as much right to edit this article as you do.

As for BarryHorne.org being an organization, that is certainly not apparent from the 5500+ words on the home page of BarryHorne.org, which describes an activist's biography, not an organization. Digging into the site, we find a list of actions committed by OTHER GROUPS (such as ALF) in MEMORY of Barry Horne, not actions carried out by a BarryHorne.org organization itself. I see zero credible information or argument that BarryHorne.org is an actual organization. As for why I didn't list it under Resources, I don't consider it to be an important "resource", as the term is generally used, and further, as I have stated repeatedly, this article is simply cheapened by the inclusion of any and every animal rights-related link, turning it into a mess of a kitchen sink. A good article lists only the best groups and links, not every one it can find -- *especially* when there are *two other articles* devoted specifically to listing animal rights organizations -- the existence of which you still have never acknowledged here.

Consider the article Environmentalism. There are local environmentalist groups, but they're not one is listed in the article. Only very general links are listed, and the groups are listed in a separate article, List of environmental organizations. I'm not suggesting we be nearly as restrictive as Enivronmentalism and have fewer than ten external links, but certainly we now have way too many. -MichaelBluejay 10:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

MichaelBluejay, you seem to be missing the point that SlimVirgin has been trying to make regarding unilateral changes. This article is a about a very controversial subject. If a single editor objects to your edits then you must discuss it before trying again. Else we will end up with a completely unmanagable article rife with revert warring. Your arguments may well be sound, but revert warring like you did does not add any weight to your argument and will more likely get your argument ignored simply because you appear to be editing disruptively. Take a look at this and this for this sort of area in our guidelines. Hope this helps ease this rift.-Localzuk ^(talk) 18:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I just noticed that Ed Poor changed the intro to say: "The philosophy of animal rights (also animal liberationor animal personhood) asserts that animals should have the same rights as human beings," which of course it doesn't, so I restored the old intro. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Slaughterhouses

Why not make a list of the main slaughterhouses in each country —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.153.204.25 (talk • contribs).

Feel free. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not on this article though...-Localzuk ^(talk) 18:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)