Talk:Animal welfare/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Argument about RfC

The issue is on deciding what is the definition of animal welfare and how it should be written into the article. ZooPro 12:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, in fact, that is not the issue at all. There is no widely accepted definition of animal welfare and no one definition is required. This so-called RfC is a distraction from the underlying issue which is discussed above, namely, an unsupported revert and rewrite. Viriditas (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To be blatently honest stop being a wanker, it is the the issue plain and simple and is stated in the lead of the original argument. we are here to decide consensus. You are pushing for your view so hard it is clouding judgment this is why RfC exists. Let the process run its course. ZooPro 13:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is no single definition in use and every source makes this clear. I haven't pushed for any single view on the subject, because there isn't one. I don't even have an opinion on this topic, so my judgment cannot be clouded. All I know is that I have about 24 reliable sources in front of me, and not one supports any of the edits you or your "team" have implemented in the last few weeks. Viriditas (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What "Team"???? I have never actually edited this article in relation to the argument. ZooPro 13:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This team:[1], [2], [3]. Viriditas (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again you seem to fail to see that i have never edited this article in regards to those changes or this argument. You seem to have the opinion that some sort of conspiracy is occuring.ZooPro 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Yaris678 proposes opening an RfC at 12:31 5 November; User:ZooPro steps in at 12:52 and adds the RfC; I step in and revert the article at 13:00; and User:Dodo bird shows up after not being online all day and reverts me at 13:19. This is highly coordinated, tag team behavior. Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of a watchlist??, coincidental, i do think RfC is a good idea. If you were so careful in looking up your conspiracy you would find no contact between myself or any of the other parties. So this "Tag Team" behavior you suggested just does not exist. ZooPro 13:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be not replying for around 24 hours, i believe you are an excellent editor and i feel i may have made a personal attack towards you. for that i am sorry. It is a difficult subject and yes it is difficult to define. This is why i agreed with a RfC, i am not part of a tag team and i am sorry if it seems that way to you. ZooPro 13:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just observing that User:Robert Daoust started this proposal at 18:15, 29 October. Yaris678 shows up out of the blue at 19:43, 29 October to agree, followed by your "metoo" at 23:44, 29 October and User:Dodo bird at 00:52, 30 October. After a week, these four "random" users are still at it. That's all I'm saying. Frankly, I don't care what the article says as long as it is accurate. From what I can tell, it is not. Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please argue points on their merits. I don't see any benefit to descending into yet another discussion of your perceptions of a conspiracy. BTW, I agree that this edit is pushing a POV (welfare tied to sentient) and not an appropriate article lead.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, this is your final warning. Do not hound me from article to article. I understand you are upset regarding the evidence I provided against you regarding the Eastern European mailing list arbcom case you are presently involved in, but you need to be able to separate your conflicts from users. You did not just happen to find this RfC. You are purposefully harassing me and taking positions opposite to my own to annoy me. Now, go away. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The sentience wording was already present in the previous version. It was not introduced by me. Not that I disagree. --Dodo bird (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Dodo bird, I would like to point you to this section which requires your prompt attention. You've added material to this article that does not appear to be supported or accurate. You've also reverted me three times in the last 24 hours, and I've placed a warning on your user page. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to a request for a third opinion by Robert Daoust[4], which has been stated a few times before. I don't know where ZooPro or Dodo bird came from but I'm guessing from what Zoo Pro says that he/she had it on a watchlist and was annoyed with the bizarre definition being used and was pleased when a decent suggestion was made. Obviously, it can be annoying when lots of people are arguing against you, but one explanation could be that you are in the wrong. Yaris678 (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But, nobody is arguing against me. The argument is regarding the edits that have been made to this article by you, Robert Daoust, and Dodo bird, supported by ZooPro. The previous version of this article needed work, but was accurate. The current version is inaccurate and amounts to original research. That has nothing to do with me. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am prob breaching WP:NPA but you really are a wanker (granted there is plenty to support that), stop warning people and threatining people. If you had any proof of your claims of conspiricy i suggest you present them now. I AM arguing against you and your POV. Your userpage claims u believe in WP:1RR yet you do not follow this claims. Your continued disruption of due process is starting to annoy the hell out of me. I did not want to get into an edit war yet you started one with pretty much everyone. You have not contributed anything to the discussion you have merely attacked editors. whilst the rest of us are tryin to find a solution you are still blabbering on about crap and past edits and reverts and plain rubbish. If you do not have a sensable view or solution i suggest you go away.ZooPro 03:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI... I've already responded to your spam/attack here. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC for a consensual view on animal welfare

One issue is on deciding what is the definition of animal welfare and how it should be written into the article. A second issue concerns whether a definition is needed in the lead or if a single definition is possible. ZooPro 14:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, some succinct statement is necessary. That current introductions rambles on forever; and contentions that welfare is based on the notion of sentience is, I'm sorry, poppycock—an animal feels pain from mistreatment, "sentient" or not. To cut down on the chatter, I did a survey of scholarly articles available via JSTOR.ORG and came up with this introduction. Personally I would much prefer to go with only the first paragraph as it is simple and direct, but I expect editors would want some characterization of conflicts of interests and opinions.

Animal welfare pertains to the rights of animals to humane treatment and living conditions in the care of individuals and in their breeding, husbandry and use in—and as objects of—commerce.

This is an area of conflict owing to a debate over human entitlement to keep animals as companions, to industrialize the production and use of animals as foodstuff, and to breed or use animals in commercial enterprise in any manner seen as detrimental to the health and well-being of the animal. Debate also centers on the commercial harvesting of wildlife, minimally from advocating for humane methods of trapping, hunting, and killing to outright banning of hunting of particular species of animal.

My wife has had some involvement in this area including working with various groups advocating for uniform legislative protections, so I have some familiarity with the topic. Hope this suggestion helps.

I would suggest that much of the (contentious) discussion in the sections above be formulated into a section called "Scholarship on animal welfare" which would likely be divided, broadly speaking, into "Ethics" (the philosophical part) and "Assessments" (quantify and qualify).  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I came here in response to the RfC. I hadn't watchlisted this page before, but I've been long-involved in similar arguments on animal rights-related pages (as well as on how to define atheism in its lead). I've read the talk above, and I urge some of the editors to focus on what the page should say, and not on what other editors are or are not doing, as frustrating as that may be. As I see it, the version of the lead on the page now is reasonably good, but it could be improved in two principle ways. First, the first paragraph focuses on welfare as being the condition of the animals, whereas it is clearly also human concern for that condition. Second, taking note of the talk above about whether or not to define animal welfare in terms of animal rights, I agree with the argument that it should not be defined in terms of animal rights, just as one would not define animal rights in terms of some philosophy that disagrees with it. At the same time, it is entirely appropriate to make clearer than the lead currently does that animal welfare and animal rights are often (not always, but often) treated as contrasting views. (For that reason, I would oppose the version suggested in the comment just above, which equates rights and welfare.) So, here is what I would suggest:

• First, I would extend the end of the first sentence " ... and social environment, and the concern of humans for that state."Here, I'm instead endorsing a slight variant on the very good suggestion by Yaris in a section below. replace the first sentence with: "Animal welfare is the physical and psychological state of non-human animals.[same cite as now at end of first sentence] The term animal welfare can also mean human concern for animal welfare or a position in a debate on animal ethics and animal rights.[5]"
• Second, I would add some context to the fourth paragraph of the lead:

• In the second sentence of that paragraph: "One view, dating back centuries, asserts animals... "
• Then, after the next sentence (the one starting, "The other view... ") and before the sentence starting, "Accordingly, some... ", I would add a new sentence to the effect of "Some authorities thus treat animal welfare and animal rights as two opposing positions.and an appropriate reference should be easy enough to find.[6]"

It seems to me that these suggestions will go a long way towards addressing concerns raised by editors in the talk above, without getting bogged down in arguments over which sources to use. I appreciate that this is an area where editors may feel strongly, and I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the RfC

(I have put a section break here. The following comment came directly after my comment above, and is reacting to it. I put this break here because RfCs work best when editors responding to the RfC, who have not previously been involved in the discussion, can present their comments without editors who were previously involved coming in to argue the same points they were making before the RfC started. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Point taken on "At the same time, it is entirely appropriate to make clearer than the lead currently does that animal welfare and animal rights are often (not always, but often) treated as contrasting views." Treatment and the right to certain treatment are different items, though a separation of the two is ultimately didactic. Treating animals humanely, our impetus to do so (or not), and the notion that we have an obligation to do so (or not) (per the animal's right, or not, to such treatment) are all linked. Absent of the human factor, "animal welfare" means nothing.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Absent the human factor, animal welfare means the state of an animal. Or is this a If a tree falls in a forest thing? --Dodo bird (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If animal welfare means both the condition of an animal and the concern for that condition, then what does concern for animal welfare means? No doubt some texts use them interchangeable, but is there a need for us to introduce this ambiguity into the article? If there is, as long as the basic definition is established first, I don't really mind. --Dodo bird (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to jump in here, i would first and foremost think of this article being in relation to the human factor, having put your question in the way it is said maybe we need a different article covering both topics. Animal Welfare via human aspect and Animal Welfare in the animal aspect, just a suggestion. ZooPro 01:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As a second step after my request for third opinion (see above #For_a_consensual_view_on_animal_welfare), this request for comment comes in the course of a dispute about what is the topic of this article. So, the 'definition of animal welfare' that is in question in the statement of this RfC is not the definition of animal welfare, as far as I am concerned, but a definition for this article, a description or a statement, if you prefer, of what is the "animal welfare" that the present topic is about. As for now, there are four editors of the article who hold that animal welfare is the welfare of animals, and there are two who hold that it is something (a notion?) that "refers to" something, essentially to "the view that it is morally acceptable ... to use ... animals so long as unnecessary suffering is avoided". That is an important view, no doubt, but in this article I think that it should be dealt with as a secondary topic, not as the first one. For me, I repeat, the dispute is not so much what is 'the' definition of animal welfare, but what is the topic of the article Animal welfare. --Robert Daoust (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think I understood the question that way. I think it best to focus on what the wording of the lead should be, which is what I tried to do in my comment, and not to get into philosophical discussions in this talk. Tautologies notwithstanding, I agree with you that, for the purpose of what the topic of the article is, it is the welfare of the animals—but I would add that it is also the concern of humans for that welfare. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is excellent, and mine was not addressed to it but to the RfC statement as such... As to the concern of humans for animal welfare, it certainly belongs to the topic of this article, but as a secondary aspect: like their health, the welfare of animals is a state that they have, basically, without regards to "the concern of humans for that state". --Robert Daoust (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I disagree that it's a secondary concept. Given that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I think the body of the text makes it clear that this isn't simply an article about veterinary diagnoses. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I found this reference: [7] (go to the "Introduction" on page 1), which provides some useful academic discussion of the concept of "animal welfare" as a way of humans being concerned about animals, and of how it differs from "animal rights". It may be helpful for this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I would like us all to be very clear on one point. What I suggest, for the sake of unambiguity, is that the expression 'animal welfare' in the context of this article should mean the welfare of animals. Now, if that expression is also used with other meanings in other contexts, such as "animal welfare is the concern for the welfare of animals", or "animal welfare refers to the view that it is morally acceptable to use animals so long as unnecessary suffering is avoided", then I would suggest either that other articles be created with other names, for instance "Animal welfare (ethics)", or, more appropriately I think, that those other meanings be conveyed within the present article by other expressions, for instances "welfarism" or "the concern for welfare" or "ethical view of welfare". It is only in that sense that I say that the concern for animal welfare is a secondary (subsidiary) aspect (concept), not the first (primary) one. --Robert Daoust (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do the latter, splitting is a very bad idea.--Dodo bird (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do nothing of the kind. The information and links on User:Robert Daoust make it clear that there is a serious COI at work here. Daoust appears to be pushing his own research into this article. Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, and SlimVirgin, please use the appropriate official recourses to accuse me or cease your personal attacks, otherwise I will take recourses against you for harassment. --Robert Daoust (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have some comments I want to address to everyone in general and no one in particular, and I just happen to be putting it here, somewhat arbitrarily. First, I strongly urge all editors to just let go of making comments about one another, and to focus only on what the page should or should not say, please. Second, my reading of sources, without taking any "sides", is that there is clearly-sourced authority for treating "animal welfare" as being the welfare of the animals in and of itself (independently of human political/philosophical movements), and there is also clearly-sourced authority for treating it as being human concern for that welfare (and not just as another way of saying "veterinary diagnosis"). It would be incorrect to treat it only as one, or only as the other. Now that said, let me suggest a possible approach that may work for those of you who disagree. (I base this somewhat on a long-negotiated solution to writing the first two sentences of the lead at atheism.) The definition of animal welfare that is independent of human concern is a sort of "general case", whereas the human concern for animal welfare is a sort of "specific case". Thus, let me suggest starting this page with something like "Animal welfare in the broadest sense is the state of an animal with regard to its experiences, needs, feelings, and ability to cope with its physical and social environment. It also refers more specifically to human concern for that welfare." --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Naturalness

diff Naturalness is one of the methods used by Phillips to define welfare. It relies on whether animals are living in a natural environment and whether they have the ability to perform natural behaviour. Phillips state that the naturalness definition is closest to the one used by members of the public. I left it out temporarily because I couldn't find a way to work it into the sentence. But the new source I cite presents it pretty nicely. "Animal welfare is the state of an animal's body and mind, and the extent to which its nature is satisfied.". I think "body and mind" covers all the other definitions.

I had intended to expand the individual definitions in the body. That was before Viriditas chose to dump the old animal ethics definition into the section. Last time I checked, two of the first three refs(can't remember which two) don't actually back up the block of text. --Dodo bird (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Every tertiary source on the subject (i.e. encyclopedias) use the "old animal ethics definition", and most secondary sources discuss it in detail. You are engaging in original research, picking and choosing what you like from some sources, and discarding what you don't. Even Phillips discusses them and makes careful mention that there are multiple definitions used depending on their context. You and Robert seem to be arguing for the primacy of a veterinary definition, or rather, a farm animal management definition, that ignores all the other definitions. As I stated above, animal scientists Michael C. Appleby, Peter Sandøe, David Fraser, and Ian J.H. Duncan all say that "a brief definition of animal welfare is not possible". Furthermore, Daoust is using these sources to push his own concept of algonomy and algoscience, ideas not found in the original sources, but belonging to Daoust alone. Is Daoust using this article to push his POV? Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, and SlimVirgin, please use the appropriate official recourses to accuse me or cease your personal attacks, otherwise I will take recourses against you for harassment. --Robert Daoust (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert, can you provide at least two different sources that support your arguments? From what I can tell, you are crafting an original definition of animal welfare from multiple sources, and you are doing this to support your personal philosophy. Am I wrong on this? If so, then provide at least two different sources that directly and unambiguously support your claims in full (not cobbled together) and I will go away. Deal? This is one of the easiest ways to solve a dispute on Wikipedia. If at least two different reliable sources directly support a contention, then it is likely that the point in question is a valid POV. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are wrong on what I am doing and my motivation. I pretend that for the general public, for the average reader of Wikipedia, animal welfare is by far, first and foremost, the welfare of animals. Likewise, I pretend that when editors make a wikilink to animal welfare, and this has happened already in some 500 articles, they are linking normally to an article whose topic is, as such, the welfare of animal. Now, it is clear that in the literature, as many authors mention, the expression 'animal welfare' is used with various meanings. So, there is a problem of 'disambiguation'. I suggested that to avoid ambiguity we should use in this article the expression 'animal welfare' with one meaning, and convey other meanings with some other variously modified distinguished expressions. You ask, very aptly, that I provide two sources for justifying the use of 'animal welfare' in the sense of the welfare of animals. This has been done already, but here again are two different sources.

1) Corrado Carenzi, Marina Verga Animal welfare: review of the scientific concept and definition, Ital.J.Anim.Sci. vol. 8 (Suppl. 1), 21-30, 2009:

In conclusion, the broadest definition of animal welfare should include the comprehensive state of the organism, considering body and mind together along with everything that links them.

2) The definition of animal welfare adopted in May 2008 at the 76th General Session of the World Organization for Animal Health, as taken from The United States Comments on the Definition of Animal Welfare:

Animal Welfare: means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behavior, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and veterinary treatment, appropriate shelter, management, nutrition, humane handling and humane slaughter/killing. “Animal welfare” refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal receives is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment.

--Robert Daoust (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert, you are cherry picking again. The very first sentence of Carenzi et al. says:

Animal welfare is a multi-faceted issue which implies important scientific, ethical, economic, and political dimensions...

My gosh, it's like they took the words right out of my comments on this page! The paper does not begin with a definition, but with an introduction that I have been promoting on this very talk page. The link to aphis.usda.gov is down, so I can't check it, but keep in mind, the Carenzi paper focuses on animal welfare science, only one aspect of this topic. Robert, I'm surprised you are still pursuing this angle when the very paper you offer as evidence for your position agrees with what I have been saying. Please try to see the topic as a unified whole and try not to focus only one aspect and discipline within it. Wikipedia articles offer, by their very nature, broad coverage of a subject. Within the body of the articles here, we narrow our focus using subtopics. You're still focusing on a subtopic rather than the topic. The lead section needs to summarize the topic, not merely one definition cobbled together from one discipline. Most importantly, Carenzi admits that "the term 'welfare' is not uniformly defined and used in the literature" and sets out the goal of defining the term for scientific purposes. Robert, this paper is no different from any of the other sources we have already discussed and does not change anything, but rather supports what I have been saying. I mean, have you actually counted the number of different definitions offered by Carenzi? I can't believe we are still talking about this. There is no accepted definition of animal welfare, and the authors argue for a broad, inclusive definition. And as if that wasn't enough, the paper also argues against your idea to split ethics and science apart:

The scientific approach to animal welfare may be connected, although not necessarily, to the ethical viewpoints in an increasing convergence of science and philosophy...Scientists studying animal welfare and philosophers writing about animal ethics have basically two distinct cultures, although both work to understand and articulate man's proper relationship to animals of other species....in order to address ethical concerns about the treatment of animals, the scientists need ethical reflection to complement their empirical information; and the ethicists need to base their arguments in sound knowledge about animals and animal use practices...

So, let's get back on track writing an article about the topic, not definitions. The definitions will emerge from proper coverage of the topic. But it's clear, from multiple authors on the subject, that animal welfare cannot be narrowly defined. Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas,

• Carenzi et al do not begin with a definition of animal welfare but they are not trying to write an encyclopedia article.
• There are many terms not uniformly defined in the literature that still have some kind of definition in Wikipedia. Tryptofish gave the example of atheism.
• In their discussion of a definition, the two things they talk about are the physical and the mental state of the animal, these are the two things that we are currently discussing putting in the definition in our article.
• Again you are stating that you think the definition needs to emerge from the text, and yet, last time I checked, you were still supporting SlimVirgin's text, which is mainly based on Welfare=Welfarism.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• They begin with an introduction summarizing the broad nature of the topic, in the same way that we use a lead section here on Wikipedia.
• Atheism does not spend 68 words on a definition in the lead. It uses around 33 words to explain what the idea refers to in the broadest sense. That is precisely what we need and what we presently lack.
• What animal welfare refers to in its broadest sense, must emerge not from a particular definiton, but from the overall topic. I'm getting sick of repeating myself on this point.
• SlimVirgin's text is supported by 90% of the tertiary sources on the subject I looked at and mentioned in previous discussions. However, these sources were philosophical and did not cover an animal welfare science approach. I am not supporting one view or the other, but you are clearly trying to eliminate one by arguing for a POV fork, and that is exactly what Carenzi and many other authors I have brought to the table say should not and cannot be done. Viriditas (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

So you aren't defending SlimVirgin's text? I agree that the current definition is too long (from Dodo bird). Yaris678 (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I see some value in using fewer words for the "definition" in the lead. Let me suggest: "Animal welfare is the state of an animal with regard to its experiences, needs, feelings, and ability to cope with its physical and social environment." That's less wordy, and it seems to me that it doesn't lose anything essential. (As a secondary point, let me draw attention to the fact that WP:LEAD says that the lead should not really be as concerned with giving a definition, as with introducing the major themes that are in the main text.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The "mind" aspect would be lost, and we would still be missing the "naturalness" aspect. What's wrong with this defintion? The mind, body, nature definition is consistent with this article("affective state", "biological functioning" and "natural living"). --Dodo bird (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If the page does not already cite that reference, it would be entirely appropriate to do so. Actually, "needs" and "ability to cope with its physical and social environment" do include the issues you raise, I think, but just without spelling them out explicitly. There is, after all, a limit to how much one can cram into the first sentence. And there's no limit to the space where these aspects can be brought out in the rest of the page. My approach in this talk, since coming to the RfA, has been to try to convince everyone who has been in the dispute to meet those who differ with them part way, ie to accept that they will not get 100% of what they want, and I think that's both necessary and reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I am afraid you are being too conciliatory!

By the way, I do not find that your example with atheism is very good. First, the article begins with "refers to": whatever your views on the matter Viriditas, this is unadvisable according to Wikipedia:GOODDEF#Fixing_bad_articles.2Fstubs. Second, I would suggest to place a disambiguation banner at the top saying something like: This article is about the absence of belief in... For the position against theism, see Antitheism or Nontheism.

I must thank you for bringing our attention to WP:LEAD. I cannot see where it says that the lead should not really be as concerned with giving definition, as with introducing the major themes that are in the main text. On the contrary, I read: "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.", and "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.", and "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific." To be sure, that useful page says also: "If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." Subjects that are not amenable to definition, with regards to what precedes those words, are for instance "List of ...": this understanding is reinforced, I think, by Wikipedia:GOODDEF#Good_definitions. Here is the whole section:

Good definitions

Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions: First, those who collaborate on this opus must oblige themselves to define everything, without exception — Diderot, <ref#ref> Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few synonymous or otherwise highly related terms), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns. A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term (a word or a phrase) by giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept, entity, or kind of entity, denoted by that term. — Definition A good definition is not circular, a one-word synonym or a near synonym, over broad or over narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure. See also Fallacies of definition.

Please note the italics in "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic". A Wikipedia article must have only one topic. Animal welfare cannot be defined or described as the state of an animal AND as an ethical position. I like what says Welfare (disambiguation): "Welfare may also refer to: Animal welfare, the quality of life of animals, and concerns thereabout".

So, my point in this whole dispute is that the topic of this article is the welfare of animals, and that all the rest, which is of course more than welcome in its due place, is subordinated to this topic, or then it has to be treated in another article of its own. Since nobody is arguing for a new article, I suggest that we follow the former option, that we avoid having more than one topic in one article, and that ethical positions on animal welfare be a subtopic of the article Animal welfare. --Robert Daoust (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert, you ask me to be less concilliatory; be careful what you wish for. It is unfortunate that almost all of your lengthy comment above is an argument about side issues, unrelated to the content of this page. Please let me point out that, although one does find (cherry pick?) the word "definition" in WP:LEAD, the bottom line for our purposes is that "The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"". And your lengthy quotation comes from a section of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I agree with Robert about the structure of the article. How about the following initial sentences? I think they address the issue of "mind" raised by Dodo bird, and are more concise than previous suggestion. They also introduce the aspects of the topic which will be addressed later.

Animal welfare is the physical and psychological state of non-human animals. The term animal welfare can also be used to mean human concern for animal welfare or a position in a debate on animal ethics.

Not sure about the link to animal ethics since it is mostly a disambiguation page. But it does give a definition and provide some context for this article.

Yaris678 (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a very good idea. I think that's the best iteration that I've seen so far, better than the versions I have suggested. As for your point about the animal ethics disambiguation page, one approach would be "... in a debate on animal ethics and animal rights." As far as I can recollect, the context of the debate is almost always in terms of contrasting animal welfare (as an ethical position) against animal rights. I'd still keep the animal ethics page link for broader context, but that would get us away from just a dab page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe also prune the second sentence to: "The term animal welfare can also be used to mean..."? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I accept the pruning suggested by Tryptofish. I notice no one else has commented. Does this mean we have reached a form of words we can all accept, if not necesarily, whole-heartedly agree with? Yaris678 (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically, that is one small step towards a compromise, namely an outcome that nobody likes. But this is only the beginning. As I have said, the lead needs to be written as a summary of the article. Viriditas (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can name at least two people who like it. I also think it summarises the article quite well for two short sentences. Obviously, it isn't the entire lead. Can you make a suggestion for how you would improve it? Yaris678 (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

First implement the pruning. The article is only 17,324 bytes. The best way to improve the lead is to expand the article. Viriditas (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Done.Yaris678 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I really think we have made some good progress. As for Viriditas' concern, one small step in that direction might, perhaps, be some additions to the last paragraph of the lead that I suggested earlier. I'll make them now, nothing etched in stone, so please see what you think of them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that the article topic is going away from the pre-October version: “Animal welfare refers to the viewpoint that it is morally acceptable etc.” Much remains to be done, however, as was said.

If we look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Animal_welfare, Category:Animal_welfare, Google Search, or Google News, we see that the term animal welfare is used commonly for referring to the state of animals in science (veterinary, ethology), industry (agriculture, laboratories), advocacy (organisations, individuals), law (welfare acts), ethics (utilitarianism). Less commonly, the term is used as a shorter expression for referring either to the concern for the welfare of animals, or to the animal welfarist position in the debate that goes on in animal ethics and animal rights. Hopefully, the article will cover the topic in proportion to those more or less common uses.

An interesting question is how much the history of human concern for animals, as sketched in Animal_rights#Development_of_the_idea, belongs also to Animal welfare, especially if it is acknowledged that the terms animal rights and animal welfare were not in use before the 20th century...

As to the lead sentence, there is a problem for the ‘naive’ reader, methinks: “Animal welfare is the physical and psychological state of non-human animals.” How lucky they are! Perhaps we could reintroduce the sentence “Welfare may be good or poor: the concept generically applies to the state of an animal and should not be equated only with positive well-being.. --Robert Daoust (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's very fair. I would have no objection to reintroducing that sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on what Robert says above, I must disagree with reintroducing this sentence, and I look forward to the day when Robert will expand the body of the article to include the content he is trying to force into the lead section. I also disagree with Robert's assessment of how the term animal welfare is used, and I've previously discussed this with no response from him, so I would be willing to address it again. The tertiary literature primarily refers to it in term of ethics, the secondary literature is mixed depending on what you are looking for, and the primary literature could go either way depending on your search terms. In other words, there is no unambiguous use of the term, however, it is my opinion that the term is primarily used in terms of philosophy, secondary in terms of application, and tertiary in terms of history. I also maintain that Robert is continuing to push his narrow view not based on the evidence, but supported by his personal POV which seeks to promote a unique view of suffering that is not found in reliable sources; In other words, original research. I have an open mind, and I am willing to listen to Robert's arguments, but I suggest that he actually takes some time to review the literature. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That being the case, I want to amend my earlier comment, and ask whether it might be better to put the proposed sentence into the Definitions section, rather than into the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the definitions section is a better place to put, in a rephrased form. Some people probably do mean good welfare when they say welfare but we can say that it can be something that can be good or bad. Such a discussion on different meanings will go better in the definitions section. Yaris678 (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have had a hard time figuring out what to do next here! Meanwhile, I have enjoyed Yaris’ and Tryptofish’s contributions. I must apologize to Trypto and acknowledge that the lead at Atheism is a good example. Like atheism, animal welfare must be treated as a broad topic rather than a definite thing. If I may still express my opinion on one point, I am pretty sure that animal welfare, in the broadest sense of the term, refers to the well-being of animals, and that it is with certain scientists that it has come to mean more neutrally or generically the state of animals, while for certain activists it has been a questionable euphemism for ‘freedom from unnecessary suffering’, which prompted certain ethicists to put the term in the category of doubtful positions. In any case, when the article will include the main facts and major points of view, and that day will surely come, then our little dispute will be far behind. I am sorry that for the time being I cannot contribute substantially to this article, but only as an occasional critic. I cannot either be kept busy in this discussion by pointless accusations and irreconcilable opinions. I just wanted to make sure, against repeated reverts of my little edit by SlimVirgin, that the lead would not remain blatantly wrong and misleading. --Robert Daoust (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all, no apology needed, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing is bloody depressing. A sentence that is barely two lines long is too long? Are we running out of bandwidth? The fucking troll that said we spend "68 words on a definition in the lead", you need to learn the definition of "definition" or learn how to count. Yeah, I know, DFTT.

This talk section was supposed to be about naturalness, yet barely anyone commented on that and we went from a "too long" definition to one that does not include one of the three key things that define welfare.

The only thing too long is this talk page.--Dodo bird (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of things could go into the definition. That is why we now have a "definitions" section. I suggest you add anything in there that you think is missing. Yaris678 (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-visiting previous arguments

I am prob breaching WP:NPA but you really are a wanker Viriditas (granted there is plenty to support that), stop warning people and threatining people. If you had any proof of your claims of conspiricy i suggest you present them now. I AM arguing against you and your POV. Your userpage claims u believe in WP:1RR yet you do not follow this claims. Your continued disruption of due process is starting to annoy the hell out of me. I did not want to get into an edit war yet you started one with pretty much everyone. You have not contributed anything to the discussion you have merely attacked editors. whilst the rest of us are tryin to find a solution you are still blabbering on about crap and past edits and reverts and plain rubbish. If you do not have a sensable view or solution i suggest you go away. ZooPro 03:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop spamming this talk page with identical responses in multiple threads. My user page says I prefer discussing on the talk page rather than engaging in edit wars, which is exactly what I have been doing for the last week here while Yaris and Dodo bird take turns reverting. The points I have raised have not been addressed during this time, and my request to stick to the sources, attribute proponents and their beliefs, and follow the foundation set in place by us by other tertiary sources, goes ignored. Instead, we have calls by you and others to fork the article into two, where the scope of this one would reflect the unique, novel interpretation synthesized from cherry picked sources to create an original take on the subject, while the established, standard description of the subject, one in which the foundation is clearly expressed in relation to its advocates and detractors, in a balanced, neutral assessment, is relegated to a new article, purposefully separated from itself, so that a group of editors can develop a new perspective on the subject. This began with one user pushing a unique POV, and ends with other users joining him to promote this new view. This is a problem. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Veriditas, please stop going on about cherry-picking. I have pointed out multiple times that your POV is not supported by the sources you cite. Yes, I know you disagree with me on that and I know you think you aren’t pushing any POV, but let’s just see where the RfC goes rather than continue arguments that are clearly going nowhere. Yaris678 (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yaris, you seem to have lost the plot. Let me help you out: 1) You have been here for a week, pushing Robert Daoust's unique POV, along with ZooPro and DodoBird. Anyone can check the edit history and see that Robert Daoust has been involved in this little "campaign" since October 1.[8][9][10][11][12][13], and you, Yaris, have been helping him.[14] 2) I came here to see what was going on, and found numerous false and misleading statements made by you about the sources SlimVirgin was using. 3) I spent a week explaining why your statements are problematic, and why your defense of Daoust's POV is not supported. 4) In the process, I have verified SlimVirgin's version of the article using the secondary and tertiary literature including the Encyclopedia of Bioethics, the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Broom 2008, Garner 2005, Taylor 2003, Fraser 2008, and many additional sources I have listed in the above discussion. Now, pay very close attention to the next part, Yaris. 5) My participation in this discussion amounts to checking up on both sides. Part of the problem with Daoust's edits is that he hasn't been consistent. First he starts off by sourcing his claims made on a political campaign website run by the World Society for the Protection of Animals.[15] This is not a reliable source, which is why SlimVirgin properly argued against Daoust's version. Until a week ago, this was the best Daoust could do, which is a bit strange considering he's been here since 2006 and knows how reliable sources work. In any case more recent edits have attempted to meet the criteria for RS, but face serious OR and synthesis issues. 6) The problem here, is not that that Daoust is wrong or that his POV cannot be included, but that he is unable to properly address the topic according to best practices. Animal welfare campaign websites are not acceptable sources. And picking and choosing words out of multiple sources for support is not how we use sources. This is basic stuff, Yaris. And it doesn't mean SlimVirgin is right, but it does mean that the way she goes about sourcing her statements and citing her sources is acceptable. The way Daoust is doing it, is not. That's the problem at hand here, and I hope you will directly address it. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Animal Welfarism

Tryptofish, I notice you put a "clarification needed" tag on "Animal welfarism is the moral orthodoxy in animal ethics." This terminology is taken from the source given. I have rephrased it to something that I think is clearer. I hope this is acceptable. I considered linking to the article on orthodoxy, but I thinks that article may be confusing since it talks a lot about religion. I'm sure Garner means meaning 2 from the Wiktionary article on orthodox: "Adhering to whatever is traditional, customary or generally accepted." Yaris678 (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The rephrased version referred to above is [16]. Yaris678 (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yaris678, I'm really confused by your recent edits. SlimVirgin and I have previously corrected your misunderstanding of the term orthodoxy in the context of animal welfare, and yet you continue to promote this idea. Can you please explain why you are doing this? I've removed the entire section from the article because you are still misreading it. Please try to focus on using secondary or tertiary sources if it helps you understand it better. "Animal welfarism" is simply a term describing the position of people who promote animal welfare as opposed to animal rights. As Garner says, "the vast majority of moral and political philosophers want to deny that animals are anything close to being our moral equals". (16) When Garner speaks of this position, he portrays it as the conventional, animal welfare position. In other words "moral orthodoxy" is animal welfarism. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. If you want to read more about Garner's position, see this and this. "Moral orthodoxy" is simply Garner's way of talking about animal welfarism. I can understand how the term can be confusing, but Garner is using it to refer to the conventional, status quo of the animal welfare position This is probably what is tripping you up. Perhaps you are not used to the term "orthodoxy" being used to mean "a belief or orientation agreeing with conventional standards". I know that I'm not, so I can understand your confusion. If you stick to attributing these ideas to their authors, you shouldn't run into any more problems. Also keep in mind that Garner is considered both a proponent and a critic of the animal welfare POV, and is in turn criticized by Francione, a proponent of animal rights. Viriditas (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Veriditas, Are you objecting to there being a section on welfarism or just to it being described as the orthodox position? I know what orthodox means, as you will see by looking at my post at 10:19, above. Is your objection is that not everyone sees welfarism as orthodoxy? I think this deserves a mention because it is a position that is widly held, even if everyone wouldn't describe it as orthodox. I have made achange that hopefully makes the section acceptable to you. By putting "moral orthodoxy" in quotes, it also makes it clear that this is Garners term, which maybe addresses, Tryptofishes point. Tryptofish? Yaris678 (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your new revision is certainly an improvement, but I would prefer if you would follow the WP:BRD model instead of immediately returning the edits to the page. If you are reverted after making a bold edit, use the discussion page to come to an agreement. Now, since "animal welfarism" is simply the position of those who advocate animal welfare (both old and new welfarism), I'm not at all clear why you have created a separate section for it. There are several ways to address it, but it is best discussed in terms of animal advocacy and protection. This would be appropriately covered in the "History, principles, practice" section, but the article is so poorly written, the entire thing needs to be revised. Viriditas (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, both yourself and SlimVirgin have argued for sections describing the different facets of Animal Welfare. Welfarism is one such facet so adding a section on it seems logical. Yaris678 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back. My objection was to the earlier, undefined, use of the term, and I think the current version is a significant improvement. My reading of the literature is in agreement with how Viriditas reads the meaning of welfarism. I would actually make the case that it is useful, given the recent talk about the lead, and how the opening of the lead has become a more general use of the term welfare, to have this section within the main text, in order to bring out the more specific meaning, in the context of animal rights. I'm not convinced that having the quote about orthodoxy sheds much light, since it is to some degree coming from a critic of animal welfare (likewise about the display quote). My other concern is with the language about "is given some consideration." I don't think it's accurate. There are plenty of RSs that put it in terms of minimizing pain and suffering, and so forth. So I'd like to see that changed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I can kinda see what you are saying Tryptofish but...

• Minimising pain and suffering is part of welfarism, but it could also includes the idea that animals should have enough space, food etc. It might even include allowing animals to enjoy themselves. i.e. it is both the physical and psychological aspects of animal welfare that should be considered. Perhaps we should say something like "...the position that it is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals, provided that animal welfare is given some consideration. For example a welfarist may believe that it is acceptable to keep and slaughter animals for meat, provided that their pain and suffering are minimised."
• Orthodoxy. Here I am basically trying to establish that it is a widely held belief, even by those who haven't really thought about it. I think that is important in establishing its notability. If you can think of a better way putting that sort of thing that is fine.
• The quote from Nozik. I guess he is a critic of welfarism. If you look up the section of his book from which I took the quote you will see that he concludes "But isn't utilitarianism at least adequate for animals? I think not." However:
  • We can’t just describe welfarism as its proponents would describe it.
  • You might find it quite hard to find someone who describes themselves as a welfarist – they would probably say they are just "sensible" or "using common sense".
  • I think the quote is actually quite a fair assessment. But maybe I only think that because I am a utilitarian!

Yaris678 (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• About pain and suffering, I guess I was unclear. I was just using pain and suffering as an example, and I agree with you about that. What I have an issue with is "provided that animal welfare is given some consideration" (emphasis mine). It's like saying that proponents of position X believe simply that position X should be given some consideration; logically, they would actually believe that it is the correct position, not one that should be an afterthought. What I was trying to say with my pain and suffering example is that these things would be minimized, not just decreased a bit.
• About orthodoxy, is there some kind of polling evidence that could be cited? (One could make a case that the Descartes or Biblical dominion views were orthodox prior to welfarism, and that welfarism was the orthodoxy prior to animal rights, I suppose.) Or, is there a quote saying, in a less jargony way, what you just said, "that it is a widely held belief, even by those who haven't really thought about it"?
• The principle that others have (at times annoyingly) cited to me at animal rights pages is that we should, first, describe the views of the subject of a page as the subject would describe them, not as critics would. It's true that the animal rights academic literature is more robust than the self-identified animal welfare literature, but I would think there are RS quotes from animal welfare organizations, and from, for example, government agencies regulating laboratory animal research, that state animal welfare principles from an animal welfare POV. The Nozik quote is OK as a balancing POV to follow that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree on all points. I think the text as you left it (with the minor grammatical change I made) is fine as a temporary situation. I agree that some kind of polling evidence (or something like that) would be good as would a description of the welfarist position from a welfarist.Yaris678 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. The correction you made is a good improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just found a very good example of Welfarist thought. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's meat manifesto[17]. It even talks about the enjoyment you get out of the meat being important, which relates to the utilitarianism Nozik talks about. Unfortunately, he doesn't actually define welfarism. Yaris678 (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that improved it, thanks. (And I can't resist this pathetic excuse for a joke: "Meat manifesto? I prefer marinara.") --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like it. Not sure I like the joke.  :-) I think it works well as an example and balances the Nozik quote. However, I do have two concerns:

• HFW has not, to my knowledge, described himself as a welfarist. Does this clash with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? I think we are OK because we describe the writing as welfarist, rather than the person. If it is a problem then it is going to be a very big problem for this subsection of the article because I don't think anyone describes themselves as a welfarist, its more of a term that is applied from the outside. A label, if you will.
• To get the full effect of the Meat Manifesto, you really have to read the whole thing. It talks about reducing the amount of meat you eat, eating different cuts, not wasting meat, enjoying meat. All good utilitarian stuff that fits well with Nozik's quote. But putting the full manifesto would be too large for a single quote, I think.

Yaris678 (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Triodos bank website is not a reliable source for our purposes, and unless you have a good source discussing animal welfare in terms of the example you chose from Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, we probably can't use it. I've added a fact tag requesting a source for your claim. I understand that you think it is an example of animal welfare, but that's simply not how we write articles. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please drop the lecturing tone. I am well aware that the situation is not perfect as you will see from my comments above (of the 19th of November). As a point of fact, the Tridos Bank is not used as a reference in the article. Yaris678 (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. I said it was used, and I was referring to your use of it on the talk page. Understand, that one can make an argument for inclusion using sources on the talk page, not just in the article. Viriditas (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nozik Quote

Veriditas, Thanks for pointing out that I was using a non-standard quotation template. I have now put the quote in the "quote" template, as recommended in WP:MOS#Quotations. The examples given all provide the author and document name, as I have done.

Not sure about the linking, the MOS says

Unless there is an overriding reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.

I guess it depends what it means by an "overriding reason". The reason I put the links in there originally was that it struck me that many people may be interested in animal welfare, but not be aware of what utilitarianism or Kantianism are. I don't think any of the reasons given apply in this case:

• Clutter the quotation - doesn't apply since we are only linking two words of many.
• Violate the principle of leaving the quotation unchanges - I don't think we have to worry about this. We can be pretty sure that Nozik meant what is being linked to here since he was a philosophy professor and knew well what those words meant.
• Mislead or confuse the reader - The opposite will be the case. Yaris678 (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the non-standard formatting and needless repetition of author's names for the second time. Blockquotes are the preferred format for this purpose and there's no reason to duplicate the author's names and book titles. For further information, see MOS:QUOTE#Quotations: "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Block quotations are not enclosed in quotation marks (especially including decorative ones such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, used only for pull quotes)." As for the links, utilitarianism is already linked in the series template below this section. I hardly think there is a pressing need to link to Kant. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no non-standard formatting in my previous version. I was using the formatting given in the MOS. I don’t know why you had to quote the MOS and embolden the bit that refers to quotation marks, given that quotation marks were not used since the version of 16th of November.

Giving the source of the quote may not be necessary in this but I think it makes it more obvious that it is a direct quote. There is nothing in the MOS that says you should only do this if strictly necessary.

Since you bring up the series box, I am not entirely sure why it is here. As far as I can tell the nearest thing to a firm connection between animal welfare and the utilitarianism is the Nozik quote.

On Kantianism, why is there no need to link? This is a term that Nozik has used in a book where most of his readers will know what it means. Most readers of Wikipedia will only know if we give a link. The deontological philosophy of Kant gives meaning to what Nozik is saying.

Yaris678 (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The blockquote is the favored format for this purpose, not the decorative pull quote. If you must link to Kantianism, describe it in the introduction to the quote with a link, not in the quote itself. That is acceptable. The point is to leave the quotes alone and not try to emphasize words that do not have emphasis in the original text. The series template appears in the article because "animal welfare" is linked in the template as part of the series. Viriditas (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, the decorative quote has not been used since the version of the 16th of November.

In terms of links, perhaps the best thing would be to have a "see also" at the bottom of the section. I think it should link to utilitarianism as well as Kantianism. The other link to utilitarianism is in another section.

I have left a message on template talk:Utilitarianism but received no response so far.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3