Talk:Commodity status of animals

Free-roaming animals

Just noting that the current second sentence awaits a better source. The issue of free-roaming animals is complicated and varies depending on the country. There are wild animals who are traded as exotic pets, sold to zoos, and shot by hunters who pay for the privilege. I've left the sentence semi-sourced until I have more time. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Article development

Leaving a note here with some ideas for article development. We could have sections on:

• cattle markets
• exotic pet trade, including the black-market trade in endangered species (interesting article in Scientific American [1])
• the trade in pedigree animals
• the trade in entertainment, sporting and working animals
• ethical arguments: e.g. whether commodification necessarily leads to exploitation; development of the idea of "living property."

SarahSV ^(talk) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

commodity or property

On the Talk:Veganism there was been some discussion on the different between commodification and property status. The article starts The commodity status of animals refers to the legal status as property - could be seen as ambiguous.Jonpatterns (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jon, it says: "The commodity status of animals refers to the legal status as property of most non-human animals ... and their use as objects of trade." SarahSV ^(talk) 16:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Companion animals

Just noting that I've removed this for now, as it was causing confusion elsewhere (are all pets commodities, etc). When there's time, we can perhaps develop a section about it, as it's quite a complex area. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

The AfD has come down firmly on the side of keeping the article but that does not mean that it does not have to be neutral.

The term 'commodity status of animals' is found almost exclusively in extreme animal rights literature and therefore needs to be identified as such in this article.

A quick look at mainstream animal rights organisations web sites, such as the RSPCA, Compassion in World Farming, and the ASPCA shows no sign of the terminology 'commodity status'. Instead the RSPCA, for example, use the more descriptive wording,'Puppies are being traded like scrap with no regard for their welfare'. Googling ' "commodity status" animals' get mainly excerpts from the WP Veganism page together with animal right liteature. I can see no evidence of widespread use of this term in the media or in general literature.

At best this terminology is wp:jargon although, in my opinion, it is in fact animal rights/vegan rhetoric. Whether it is jargon or rhetoric, we do need to make clear that 'commodity status of animals' is language used by a specific minority.

Please note that this does not meant that I want to dispute the meaning of the term as used in animal right literature. I am perfectly happy to leave that to those with knowledge and an interest in such matters. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please, I made a bold edit to show what I would like to say here; that is not 'bludgeoning this issue'.

It is perfectly clear that 'commodity status of animals' is language used almost exclusively in certain animal rights and vegan literature. There is absolutely no sign that it is commonly used in the media, general veternary and animal publications, or even mainstream animal protection organisations.

What evidence do you have that this term is in general use? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You have never provided sources to support your wrong ideas. This article cites many authors who are not apparently "radical vegans" in any sense, and your contention that this phrase is "rhetoric" has been extensively discussed elsewhere for the past six months. I'm going to insist you provide high-quality sources for this, and I'm not going to participate in another meandering rope-a-dope conversation on this page until you do.

Also, just because you say you want to be civil, doesn't mean you are being civil. This is particularly true when, as here, you are being deliberately disruptive. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You really must stop your personal attacks against me and concentrate on discussing the content of the article. I am following the WP:BRD principle. I have made a bold change, you have reverted it, now we must discuss it.

My sources are the the ones already given in the article. My text said, 'Within the animal right and ethics community the term commodity status of animals is used ...'. That is in complete agreement with all the cited sources, which are from the animal right and ethics community.

It is perfectly normal to describe the normal scope of a specialist term in Wikipedia, for example we have, 'In thermodynamics, entropy (usual symbol S) is a measure of the number of specific realizations..'. We say that because 'entropy' is a term specific to thermodynamics; it is very rarely used outside that field of study.

You are the one who needs to provide sources if you want to demonstrate that term 'commodity status of animals' is commonly used outside the animal rights sources that you have cited. It is not even used by mainstream animal protection organisations or major vegan organisations. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That last observation should be strong indication to you that it is not rhetoric, as you claim. This article is well-referenced, and you are claiming, dubiously, that the multiple academic sources are all written by scholars with "extreme" views. The onus is now on you to support this assertion.

It is not a personal attack to say your behavior is disruptive when it plainly is. Your repeated implications that you have not been treated civilly during the extraordinarily long discussion on this question may likewise be read as disparaging. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It is a personal atack to call me disruptive. Please stop. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: According to WP:WIAPA, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" constitute personal attacks. Some evidence of your long-term disruptive behavior has been collected at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278#Martin Hogbin. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Sammjy, can we please just stick to discussing article content. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that WP:OR is the problem: analysis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. None of the sources state where the term is used; Martin's own analysis of the situation, based on a subset of the sources currently in the article, is not WP:Verifiable and may be false (cf the UN etc.). FourViolas (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

FV, there are unlikely to be sources that say that the term 'commodity status of animals' is used mainly in the animal right and ethics community just as there are no sources that say that enthalpy is mainly used in the thermodynamics community but these fact clearly are true. All the sources cited that use 'commodity status of animals' are on the subject of animal right and ethics.

Just look for yourself, the term is almost completely absent from mainstream animal protection organisations or major vegan organisations. I see no sight of its being used in more general literature or media It is quite obviously specific to a particular area of study. It is not a crtiticism of a term to give its normal context, you will find it done throughout WP. It not OR either to state the blatantly obvious. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

MOS:BEGIN says of the first paragraph [my bold], ' It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. What is the reason for wanting to ignore this policy? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's an accurate characterization of the contexts in which animals are discussed as commodities; the market-related sources suggest otherwise. When an editor is uncertain about whether a statement is true, it should not be added unless supported by a reliable source. The MOS, a style guideline, doed not override the verifiability policy. FourViolas (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to be pedantic, it is verifiably true that the phrase 'commodity status of animals' is used in animal ethics sources; you and others have given me plenty of animal ethics sources which use the term; I did not say only animal ethics sources. I am not fussy about the term 'animal ethics', I chose it because it sounds relatively broad in scope and not too radical, like 'animal rights', 'animal activism', or 'extreme veganism' would. If you would like to propose a more appropriate term please feel free to do so. There is no reason not to follow MOS:BEGIN; we have plenty of sources confirming what I want to say.

I am genuinely puzzled by your objection and desire to avoid saying what is obviously true. The term 'commodity status of animals', with the meaning given by Sammy, is only used in animal ethics literature. It is not found in the media or anywhere else (to any significant degree) even in places where you might expect it. I have looked a mainstream vegan organisation sources, veternary sources, and farming sources and seen no sign of this terminology. Do you really want to try and (incorrectly as it happens) use the technicalities of WP policy to withold relevant information from our readers? If needed we can have anothe RfC, although I would prefer civil discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Series

According to Wikipedia (and many other dictionaries), Discrimination is "the act of making distinctions between human beings".

This article is, as of now, part of a series on discrimination. I believe it would fit better in Animal Rights. Not only does "discrimination" denote exclusivity from animals by definition, but its association to this law-based article can be viewed as biased and extreme. This is clearly an animal rights (and ethics) matter, and should be categorized as such. GyozaDumpling (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

non-human animals

What is a "non-human animal"? There is no such thing as human animal. It should be corrected to "non-human being". Miroslav Ďurian 21:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)