Wikipedia

Talk:Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals/Archive 2

< Talk:Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals
Latest comment: 12 years ago by DrChrissy in topic Bile bears
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Possible alternative title: Body parts removal procedures of nonhuman animals

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
  • I think the current title is ok, and the information is useful.
  • If people can not agree with each other. We can try: "Body parts removal procedures of nonhuman animals"
  • ChicagoDilettante is right, humans are animals. If an article's title is about animal. It should permit/include human information. This is for those take science and academic standard seriously.SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
In my view, "body parts removal procedures" will not work because it would include numerous traditional surgeries done to promote an animal's health or even save its life, like amputation of a cancerous leg, or kidney removal in the case of diabetes. This article has never included these types of procedures, and doing so would make it a much different, and longer, article. As I mentioned above, the core purpose of this article seems to be to list procedures in which flesh or other living tissue (teeth, beaks, etc.) is cut into, and potentially there is some pain imposed, for dubious purposes. While these dubious purposes are usually related to human convenience or aesthetic preferences (declawing, ear-cropping), the exception seems to be procedures done to protect the animal or its neigboring animals from aggressive behavior (beak-trimming, tail-docking). Unless I'm mistaken, most of us agree that this is the core purpose of the article. It's just a matter of finding a title that's as POV-neutral as possible and we all agree upon. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
As for qualifying the title with "non-human," I previously made the argument that the logically rigorous position is that humans are just another species of animal, specifically a great ape whose closest relatives are the two species of chimpanzee. I still believe this, and this would suggest that "non-human" should be included in the title if we're not going to cover humans here. However, other editors have stated that it is Wikipedia consensus that the word "animal" means "non-human animal." If this, indeed, is Wikipedia consensus, then I think we should follow this consensus, which means there is no need to qualify the title with "non-human." ChicagoDilettante (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no much problem with the title indeed. Many wikipedia titles imply some positions. Such as animal rights. People who have problem with the position can add criticism into the article. This is a better option. We cannot just kill an article because it has an opinion, where is the freedom of speech? SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia can hardly has such a specific consensus of animal's definitions. If there is one that excludes humans, it is not ideal, I would like to see it to be changed. Scientific and dictionary definitions of animals both include humans. SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, besides being horribly clunky, not all these procedures involve removal of parts, some are the cutting or marking of parts, but they stay on... Montanabw(talk) 17:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I am going to oppose the removal of mutilation in title for the sake of the readers.

Many visits of the article are from the search engines. Keywords in the titles are very important for search rankings. How many people search common keywords such as "mutilations"? How many people would search those unusual alternatives, such as nontherapeutic, appearance-changing etc. ? If a suitable term has not been mentioned by the editors by now, it must be very unusually. How likely the readers would search the very unusually term?

  • Searching new terms looks like a dead end. Mutilation/mutilatory should be in the title so the article can be found easily. Placing criticism/dispute in the article is a productive solution.
  • The title can be shortened to "animal mutilations" however =) SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
At the moment Animal mutilations redirects to Cattle mutilations which is an article far removed in subject matter than the article we are looking at here. DrChrissy (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Like ChicagoDilettante, Montanabw, and DrChrissy, I don't think that any of these suggestions would be an improvement. However, I'll also note that the presence now of a new editor who opposes removing "mutilation"-related terms from the title ought to be taken into consideration with respect to the question of whether or not we can agree on a title amongst ourselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Animal mutilations can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation to include both definitions. Creating unusually new terms by editors looks like a violation of NOR SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Shark Finning--Should it be included?

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I noticed that shark-finning has been added. I had not previously heard of this practice and looked it up. I must say that, personally, I am sickened that someome would cut the fins off a shark and return it, still alive, into the ocean to die from suffocation or predation. However, notwithstanding my own views on this--which are obviously POV--I must ask whether this procedure should be included in this article. It's actually not even a "procedure" like the other prcoedures discussed herein; it seems as if it's actually the killing of a shark, albeit somewhat slowly. If we include shark-finning, shouldn't all types of hunting be included? Moreover, there are other times when hunters do similar things--like "catch and release," which is a common way of sport fishing, at least in the U.S. There is also trapping, which mutilates the animal and leaves it to die slowly, similar to shark-finning.

Bottom line: My tentative view, pending what other editors think about this, is that the article should be limited to procedures performed on DOMESTIC animals, not procedures that cause deaths or injuries of WILD animals incidental to hunting. Otherwise, we'd be opening up a can of worms. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I did think of this before adding Shark finning, but perhaps not carefully enough. In the end, I added it because there are reports that some sharks amazingly survive the procedure, and this is often used as an arguement for why it is practiced. This in effect makes it a mutilation rather than killing. I really don't feel strongly on this one, and I agree it is rather likely to be opening a can of worms. Perhaps best left to a gory page on 'harvesting animal parts' such as rhino horns and elephant tusks and tiger penises! DrChrissy (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm kind of neutral about whether to include it or not, but the discussion does make it occur to me that, as we think about page titles, it may be useful to use the phrase "domestic animals" instead of simply "animals", if we decide to limit the content in that way. If we decide to leave out all those "gory" things, we can always add them to the "See also" section, instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd say no, not here. I agree we probably need to keep the scope on domesticated animals. IS there an article of "dumbass cruel things people do to wild animals for pure profit?" That's where this other stuff should go! (And do tigers survive the loss of their penises? I suspect not...!) Montanabw(talk) 21:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, if they do survive, I suspect they are in a bad mood. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Shark finning is a specific form of fishing that kills the animal. It's not a procedure on a domesticated or tame animal. Steven Walling • talk 05:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Lost thread

Latest comment: 12 years ago47 comments5 people in discussion

Ok, it's getting complicated up there. Let's do this: List the proposals for words to go into a new title below, and let's look at issues word by word, I've put my thoughts with the initial proposals (and see how we can thread this stuff without losing the numbering). Someone get out their thesaurus and a medical/veterinary dictionary! Montanabw(talk) 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • General reaction: I'm happy to go along with this discussion a bit longer, in the hopes that it will break the circle of circular discussion, and actually move us closer to consensus. But if I don't see such movement pretty soon, I'm opening an RfC, because we cannot stall on this issue forever. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, we can keep this going on forever, haven't you been following the debate on whether we spell that famous band "The Beatles" or "the Beatles" ? LOL! (Also why I dread an RfC). Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I know: Mutilatory procedures on Montanabw! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. Mutilatory: Original title
    • Seems to be mostly a concern that the word is too inflammatory or POV, but we have yet to cook up something better; the word is a term of art in some places (UK anyway) with a specific meaning that is separate from its more inflammatory connotations in popular culture. I personally can live without changing the title, but if we don't, I suspect this issue will come around about every six months or so into infinity, so I guess it's best we DO come up with a well thought-out consensus and make it a permanent archive while we are all friendly people working together in good faith and not edit-warring or something equally destructive. Montanabw(talk) 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • We need to change it. We aren't writing for readers who are familiar with terms of art. Too many people are going to see "mutilation" and jump directly to "animal cruelty". The issue will continue to come up into infinity, and probably not as far apart as six months, and could well include WP:AFD. This is no longer a viable option. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • If it were up to me, I'd get rid of "mutilatory" in favor of another word like "invasive" or "surgical or quasi-surgical." This is for POV reasons. However, I don't view this as a significant enough issue that I'd push for an RfC. Rather, if we couldn't agree on another word, my preference would be to leave "mutilatory" in the title and explain in the lead section that it's not meant as a loaded term. That being said, I realize that we're probably headed toward an RfC given the views of other editors.ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I am in favour of keeping the word mutilatory in the title. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch clearly states "...there are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia" and in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored it is stated "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content."...I am assuming this applies to the title as well as the article content. I would argue, and I have provided multiple sources, that 'mutilatory' is a common term, and is therefore acceptable according to Wikipedia:Article titles#Non-neutral but common names. Tryptofish has raised the issue of WP:AFD. I think this is extremely heavy-handed. We are discussing the title, not the content of the article. DrChrissy (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • [next person's thoughts]
  2. Elective/Discretionary: Part of proposed new titles
    • Personally, if we do change the title, I like the idea of finding some word that does indicate that we are talking about stuff people do mostly for their convenience. But "discretionary" to whom? Clearly not the animal... Montanabw(talk) 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I oppose "elective", because it really does sound like elective to the animal. But I strongly support "discretionary", because it doesn't, to anywhere near the same degree. In my opinion, no valid objections to the word "discretionary" have been raised, although plenty of flawed objections are being raised. We could still consider "non-vital". Or "non-therapeutic". I am willing to consider other alternatives to "invasive discretionary" or "discretionary invasive", but I think we have probably plumbed the bottom of the well already. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • For the same reasons stated by Tryptofish, I agree that "discretionary" works but "elective" does not. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I oppose both 'elective' and 'discretionary'. First, I agree with Montanabw that 'discretionary' does not apply to the animal. Second, perhaps more importantly, discretionary can hardly be called a common word in this context. Can anyone provide evidence for 'discretionary' being used in association with any of these procedures, as I have done repeatedly for the word 'mutilation'? It is hardly a common term and I believe will be extremely misleading to readers. DrChrissy (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • [next person's thoughts]
  3. Overview: Do we keep this word?
    • Well, we could also say "list" or something; probably the least of our worries. Montanabw(talk) 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I oppose changing it to "list". Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists: it generally does not include material presented in tables. "Overview" is OK with me. We could, however, actually consider eventually expanding the page so that a table is not needed. Instead, there could be regular text in WP:Summary style. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't see why either "overview" or "list" is necessary. Unless anyone can articulate a good reason for leaving these words in, I'd be in favor of scrapping them and just leaving the key words in the title (like, in the case of the present title, "Mutilatory procedures on animals." However, this isn't a major issue to me. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • This is also not a major issue for me. The article started as a 'list' because I wanted to avoid POV and the best way to do this was simply describe the procedures neutrally, with no discussion. The title was changed to 'overview' at a later stage when more information was placed into the article. I think this is the least of our worries.DrChrissy (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • [next person's thoughts]
  4. Invasive
  5. Surgical/quasi surgical
    • Nah, though I agree we probably need some word indicating we are talking about stuff involving cutting or piercing or removing and it should probably be done with at least a local, though... Montanabw(talk) 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I guess it's an alternative to "invasive". But I'm not pushing for it. I don't think we should use both of them, separated by "or", because that gets too wordy. If "surgical" by itself is acceptable, I'd support it as an alternative to invasive. I suspect that "quasi-surgical" will be too difficult to define. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC) revised after reading CD's comment immediately below. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I have a mild preference for "surgical or quasi-surgical" in lieu of "invasive" because it's less abstract and easier to understand by a lay person. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • 'Surgical' I believe is completely misleading. Are branding, dubbing (usually done with rusty scissors!), ear-tagging, nose-ringing, de-snooding (often done with the thumb-nail!), blinders, tooth grinding and tattooing 'surgical' procedures? I think not. Quasi-surgical is not a term I have read before. Whilst I understand it's meaning, are we not in danger of creating a word for this title. How many readers would think to search 'quasi-surgical'?DrChrissy (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • [next person's thoughts]
  6. Animals/Non-human animals
  7. Domestic/domesticated
  8. Appearance-changing
    • This is another phrase that's been floating around for potential inclusion in the title. It seems that so far, we have only included appearance-changing procedures, while discretionary invasive non-appearance changing procedures, like micro-chipping, spaying, and vasectomies (if vasectomies are even done on animals) have been excluded. My only concern about including "appearance-changing" is that it might make the title too long. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Against...As I indicated in a list above, 'appearance-changing' means we shoould include dog-dyeing and hoof polishing.DrChrissy (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to it, if we also include "invasive" or something similar, so as to exclude Clairol for Fido. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • [next person's thoughts]
  9. Husbandry:Is this a good word to put into the title?
  10. [More words to discuss?]
  • "List of elective animal management (or husbandry) surgical procedures" (Overview sounds like an essay). Mutilatory has definite negative connotations and implies that the purpose of these procedures is to disfigure the animal for no real reason. Shark finning is not a management procedure (it kills the animal). Non-therapeutic would not be NPOV because an argument can be made that in certain situations, environments and housing structures, some of these practices can be therapeutic (castrating a dog with prostatic hyperplasia or a perineal hernia) or preventative (sheep actually die of fly strike or cutaneous myiasis in some areas if mulesing is not performed). Froggerlaura ribbit 04:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus?

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I hope I am not jumping the gun here, but maybe we can reach consensus. The majority of people accept 'Invasive' apart from myself, but I am willing to drop these concerns. People seem ambivalent about 'list' or 'overview' so I propose we drop these to keep the title short. People seem to want to restrict the article to domestic animals. We can do this by the term 'husbandry'. We do not usually talk about 'husbandry' for cats and dogs, but I think that is something we can cope with. 'Husbandry' also indicates it is non-human animals so we can lose another word from the title. Therefore, I propose the folowing title - Invasive husbandry procedures DrChrissy (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yikes!!! I did jump the gun! Invasive husbandry procedures is out of the question as it woould include standard veterinary procedures such as routine injections, spaying, micro-chipping, perhaps even rectal examination of cattle. Please ignore my suggestion above and further comments should be posted to the previous section.DrChrissy (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I also dislike anything with "husbandry" in it for another reason. Namely, I am more focused on these issues as they relate to non-livestock domesticated animals (i.e. "pets," which I realize is also a controversial word), and when I think "husbandry," I think "livestock." It seems confusing to use this word to refer to animals that are pets. I could probably deal with "husbandry" in the title as a last resort if we can't agree on anything else, but it's not my preference.ChicagoDilettante (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
For a bit of levity, see also: Talk:Animal rights/new. It was an April 1 prank, by someone editing under a false account, who definitely was not me. Anyway, I think it's an excellent explanation of husbandry. Or not.   --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hee hee...can't wait till next April 1st! DrChrissy (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't laugh, check out the talk page of stallion and I think, gelding; we had one of these sorts show up over there as an anon IP that gave us hell for about a month ... we discovered his web site and were all seriously squicked out, even absent photos ... =:-O Montanabw(talk) 18:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that IP sets some kind of record for verbosity! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Often an inverse correlation between sanity and verbosity on WP, I've noticed... you should have seen the guys web site before we called him for citing to it, =[-O Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Just checked out Talk:Animal rights/new. Definitely had a good laugh! ChicagoDilettante (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Concept consensus?

Latest comment: 12 years ago67 comments6 people in discussion

Good work, all. Let me see if we DO have a consensus on the coverage of the article. We are, I think, basically looking at the stuff that may, in some cases, draw the attention of MAINSTREAM animal welfare groups, and things that are some sort of permanent physiologically body-altering procedure. Yes? how about the rest? Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  1. We are not discussing procedures done on animals truly living in the wild -- shark finning, ear tagging wild animals, etc. -- we only cover tame or domesticated animals
  2. We are not discussing procedures (dog-dying, horseshoeing) that do not cut, pierce, slide, burn or otherwise are not generally considered veterinary procedures, and generally are not viewed as actually harmful to the animal, save under particularly careless circumstances.
  3. We are not discussing slaughter or euthanasia (no one raised this, but just throwing out a softball)
  4. The article is about procedures that may inflict some pain on the animal and for that reason there is a good argument that if performed at all (and that is where there exists a debate) should probably be done by a veterinarian and under at least a local anesthetic because the procedure DOES cause some pain to the animal if you don't. (The exception on the list is hot branding, which is usually not done by vets nor under a local, but clearly it does cause pain)
  5. These procedures are often done either for the convenience of humans (docking lambs' tails) who have to manage animals in domestic conditions, or to alter the animal's physiology for a mostly cosmetic or convenience benefit in the eye of (some) humans (dog ear-cropping or debarking).
  6. Most procedures will be - arguably - of dubious, though maybe occasional, therapeutic value.

Am I missing anything? Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's accurate. I actually think we have been in agreement all along as to what the content of the page ought to be. It's just a matter of what to call it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
That's basically accurate. The one thing I'd note is in item (4), in regard to inflicting pain; the bigger issue is sometimes inflicting loss of function on the animal. I follow the Onychectomy page, and the argument that really seems to animate opponents of declawing is not so much pain but alleged loss of function from declawing cats (e.g. alleged inability to climb or fight as well). This, however, is a quibble. I think this summary of concept consensus is, in general, accurate. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
As I read the comments so far, an observation occurs to me. It seems like, even amongst editors who disagree with removing "mutilatory" from the title, there is some consensus that we have to include both of these two concepts in the title: (1) something like "invasive", and (2) something that conveys the concept that appearance is changed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Tryptofish here regarding the two concepts that need to be encapsulated in the title. Although pain is clearly an issue for all of the procedures, I have always avoided including this in the article as it is likely to attract a huge amount of attention and divided debate. Some people believe that non-human animals do not experience pain. Sheep, for example, are extremely stoical and hardly respond to stimuli humans would find very painful, but that does not mean sheep do not feel pain.
In the concept consensus list above by Montanabw, I would suggest that (4) is impractical. It would be impractical to expect vets to perform beak-trimming of 80 million hens here in the UK, the millions of pigs that are tail docked, the millions of lambs that are castrated, etc. Furthermore, giving a local anaesthetic (injection) may be just as traumatic as the procedure, e.g. ear-tagging, tattooing, teeth grinding, ear notching, toe amputation, blinders. Just thoughts. -- DrChrissy (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed Montanabw. Thanks for the summary. Steven Walling • talk 18:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
True, also note that some things like debarking don't necessarily change outward appearance. Montanabw(talk) 18:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In a sense, it looks like DrChrissy is the participant here with the greatest concerns about changing the page name, so I'm looking especially at what options might be acceptable to her him. Based on what we discuss in this section, it sounds to me like we might want to take a second look at Overview of invasive appearance-changing procedures in animals. DrChrissy first suggested wording similar to that, at #Pre-RfC section break above. On the positive side, this title seems to me to encapsulate what we agree are the most important things to include in a title, and it seems consistent with the general direction of the most recent discussions. I'm aware of two negatives. One is what Montanabw just said, about some procedures not being outwardly visible. The other is what ChicagoDilettante said at the time, that there are life-saving procedures that also change outward appearance. I wonder, though, whether we can live with that. Myself, that title would be fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and comment DrChrissy for being a good faith editor and clearly articulating her concerns and views (oh, how I wish all such discussions n WP would proceed the way this one has so far...) I think, though, that something we are up against is a UK/US English issue that is also a cultural barrier. There simply is not a US English equivalent word with the same precise meaning and nuance, and "mutiliatory" has such a different connotation in the USA. It puts me in mind of a huge spat over User:Malleus Fatuorum calling a (presumably male) admin a "cunt." UK users shook their heads in bewilderment about what the fuss was about, while US users were screaming "off with his head!" I think it was Mark Twain who said we are a people separated by a common language. But the UK has a very different cultural and statutory approach to animal welfare, banning both fox hunting and rodeo, while the USA as a whole, outside of some animal welfare groups, considers both to be relatively harmless and we can't even effectively get charreada banned. Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue? Montanabw(talk) 00:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Montanabw in lamenting the sorry state of animal welfare consciousness on this side of the pond. I'm far from being an extreme animal rights advocate, but I find it depressing that even the most abusive factory farming practices are not banned or even regulated, hunting is a part of political elections, and views favoring even the most minimal protections of animals can't get airtime on mainstream media. The UK is way ahead of the U.S. in this regard. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
In all honesty, I prefer the existing title to Overview of invasive appearance-changing procedures in animals, and I suspect that if the title is changed to Overview of invasive appearance-changing procedures in animals, we will run into problems in the future with editors asking why the article doesn't include things like amputation of a gangrenous leg, skin cancer removal, etc. At least with the existing title, "mutilatory" connotes inclusion only of procedures that somehow make the animal imperfect. With the proposed title, the article completely loses any such flavor and could just as easily cover an amputation to prevent the animal's imminent death from gangrene as it could cover declawing. I recognize the POV problem with "mutilatory," but I would rather suffer the POV problem (which after all is just a connotation issue) than make the title completely innacurate. I would be comfortable with something like "discretionary," "non-therapeutic," or "non-vital" (along with "invasive") in place of "mutilatory" to make clear that the article only covers procedures done for dubious reasons, but each of these qualifiers has been nixed for various reasons. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I too still prefer the existing title. However, I could live with Overview of invasive appearance-changing procedures in animals (although I would also like to lose 'An overview of' to perhaps allow expansion of the text in the future). My main reason for the preference is that I honestly believe here in the UK, 'invasive' is just as POV as 'mutilatory', so we will not avoid the attention the article might get, but the comments will have a different accent.
A couple of asides.
I am actually male - someone entered my name as a joke and I never got around to changing it.
I always thought that Winston Churchill was attributed with the 'common language' quote, but a quick search revealed
England and America are two countries separated by a common language. George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language. Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
__DrChrissy (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm being obstinate about this, but I really think it would be a mistake to change to the title to Overview of invasive appearance-changing procedures in animals, with or without the "overview" part of the title, because the article would not then distinguish certain life-saving, medically necessary procedures from the more dubious or discretionary procedures that it currently includes. Thus, the article would lose its main purpose, which I think we all agree is to document these more dubious or discretionary procedures.
In the spirit of trying to work toward a consensus, let me pose the following question: if the title is changed to Overview of invasive appearance-changing procedures in animals, and some other editor comes in and adds "skin cancer tumor removal" or "gangrenous limb amputation" or even "life-saving surgery that leaves a scar" to the article, how will we respond? Perhaps there is a cogent response. For example, one possibility is simply allowing these types of life-saving procedures to be added to the article. Another possibility is to add a catch-all category for "life-saving invasive procedures." If we can reach a reasonable consensus in advance on how to respond to these types of requests, then I think we'd be in a better position to change to the proposed title (even though I still think it would be a worse title than the existing one).
Finally, one other question. Is there any absolute opposition to replacing "appearance-changing" with something like "discretionary," perhaps with a word order change, so the new title would be Overview of discretionary invasive procedures in animals? I believe that some editors expressed opposition to "discretionary," but I think that would be preferable to the proposed title, especially since "appearance-changing" has other problems, like excluding debarking. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I share ChicagoDilettante's concerns, but was/am willing to live with (Overview of) Invasive appearance-changing procedures in animals on the basis of the strength of others' opposition to 'mutilatory' and the potential for my not understanding the US cultural concerns with this term. How strict should we be on 'appearance-changing'? I would imagine devoicing leaves scars visible to the trained eye but not obvious or visible to external appearance. Claw removal only changes the appearance of the cat during those periods when it would extend its claws. Tendonectomy would leave tiny scars. Tongue amputation, teeth grinding/cutting/removal do not change the outward appearance of the animal, unless the mouth is opened. If we wish to be really strict, we could delete all these from the table, or make a qualification in the text.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
First, about "overview". I don't feel strongly about it, but I think a case could be made that, if we remove it from the title, we need to convert the table into regular paragraph text. As to the question of, if we go with "appearance-changing", how we would then deal with things like tumor or gangrene removal, I think we can add something to the text about how the procedures covered here are intended to alter appearance (or sound), as opposed to incidentally altering appearance in the course of doing something medically necessary.
Here's where I think we are probably at. The alternative titles that seem to have the most traction appear to be Overview of invasive appearance-changing procedures in animals and Overview of discretionary invasive procedures in animals. Personally, I would be entirely willing to go along with either of those, and I don't even have a preference between them. I take the point that "invasive" might still send up flags in the UK, but I honestly think that, overall, things will be more peaceful on this page with "invasive" than with "mutilatory". Ideally, what I'd like to see now is for us to settle on one of those two choices, and avoid an RfC. Is that possible? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Between these two options, I strongly prefer Overview of discretionary invasive procedures in animals and would support it wholeheartedly. In fact, I prefer it somewhat to the existing title because, at least from my American-English perspective, it reduces or eliminates the POV problem. As I noted above, I am not in favor of the other option, Overview of invasive appearance-changing procedures in animals, because it is inaccurate--it does not properly descibe the set of procedures that we want to include in the article--which in my view is a substantially worse problem than a POV problem, which is all we have with the existing title.
Tryptofish, with all due respect, I don't understand the relevance of your distinction regarding procedures intended to alter appearance versus those that alter appearance incidentally, because very few of the procedures listed in this article are intended to alter appearance. Declawing is intended to stop cats from tearing up furniture; castration is intended to stop animals from behaving violently; devoicing to stop loud annoying barks; etc. Similarly, tumor or gangrene removal are not intended to alter appearance (they are intended to save an animal's life). A very few procedures in this article, like ear-cropping of shows dogs, are intended to alter appearance. In any event, I still haven't heard a coherent argument we can use to keep out life-saving procedures, like tumor removal, if the title is changed to Overview of invasive appearance-changing procedures in animals. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I understand, I was just trying to suggest a possible solution. At this point, I want to wait and see what other editors have to say about Overview of invasive appearance-changing procedures in animals and Overview of discretionary invasive procedures in animals. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

My vote: Preference #1: Leave title as is, but add caveats in lede about UK English and terms of art, with lots of good references. Prefernce #2: If consensus is that we must change title (and there are some good arguments for doing so, I even made a few of them), then I propose Discretionary invasive procedures in animals, with or without "Overview". Montanabw(talk) 17:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

My vote: Preference #1: Leave title as is, but add caveats in lead about UK English and terms of art, with lots of good references. Preference #2: If consensus is that we must change title I would prefer Overview of invasive appearance-changing procedures in animals with or without "Overview".__DrChrissy (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
My vote: Preference #1: Discretionary invasive procedures in animals, preferably without "overview of" but that's a very minor issue to me. Preference #2: As a close second choice, leave title as is, but add caveats in lead about UK English and terms of art, with lots of good references. Preference #3: As a distant third choice, Overview of invasive appearance-changing procedures in animals with or without "Overview," but in this case, I think we need to include life-saving procedures that change an animal's appearance, otherwise the title will be inaccurate and misleading. As for the commentary below about using the word "elective," I am mildly against this because I think it will draw constant criticism from the animal rights movement (whether or not it should), but on balance I could live with "elective" if that's the way people want to go. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
One other thought: Overview of invasive animal management procedures? ChicagoDilettante (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Drawing the wrath of the animal rights movement isn't a problem if you can back up the title choice with policy. What do the reliable sources call these procedures, broadly? The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in 1986 used "mutilations" to cover everything from spaying/vasectomy to branding and ear cropping--and discussed the term as problematic. ASPCA has used the term elective for many of these procedures[1] as has the AVMA[2]. "Elective [name of procedure]" is commonly used in the medical literature.[3][4]. If If the purpose of the article is to give a NPOV overview of a topic, worrying about the response from a particular vocal, but fringe, population is counter-productive. The issue is completely overcome if there are a multitude of sources to back up the title choice. The article body can discuss how various groups describe these procedures, but the title should be based on the available reliable sources and as simple and neutral as possible. — Scientizzle 18:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure that I consider the entire animal rights movement "fringe," and all else being equal, I'd prefer a title that doesn't draw a lot of criticism from this passionate and vocal movement, if it's at all possible to do so, in order that we don't spend an inordinate amount of time defending the title. Therefore, I stand by the comment I made above about "elective." That being said, as I also noted above, I'm not totally opposed to "elective," and if people want to go with it, that's fine with me. It actually seems pretty close in meaning to "discretionary" but, I think, might result in some unnecessary drama. Either way, though, and in any event, I think there are one or two other unresolved issues. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't intend to call the entire animal rights movement "fringe," merely those that would be "wrathful" for using a term like elective over the emotive one they would clearly favor for partisan reasons...
The problem I have with "discretionary" is that it's WP:OR. Are there any sources that use the term "Discretionary invasive procedures"? It actually get zero Google hits. We shouldn't be making up terminology, we should be following the sources. — Scientizzle 21:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to read most of the discussion here, but I'm clearly late to the show...I note that "elective" has been discussed as an option but its general dismissal has been on the basis of "because the animals don't get to do the 'electing'". I find this faulty reasoning againstwhat is, in my opinion, the best possible word. An elective medical procedure is one that is, by definition, done for non-emergency purposes and may or may not be therapeutic. This covers everything from least- to most-objectionable (generally speaking) procedures on the present list. "Elective" is a term used in reliable sources to refer to the types of procedures performed in this article[5], including declawing[6], tail-docking[7] and ear-cropping[8]. Whether or not animals "elect" to have these procedures is a red herring for two reasons:

  1. The idea that any or all of the animals considered here have the appropriate agency to understand any choices involved and/or allow for consideration of consent is an area of argument only in the extremes of the animal rights movement. That is, for the vast majority of readers--and humans throughout history--whether or not Fluffy "wants" to get neutered wouldn't matter because Fluffy doesn't (for better or worse) have that perceived choice.
  2. Elective procedures are performed all the time on individuals that cannot consent. Elective abortion, circumcision of infants, & harvesting of transplantable organs from brain-dead patients are three examples off the top of my head. These procedures, like the ones described in this article, are "elective" because they are non-emergency procedures approved by the person(s) with the legal authority to do so.

Elective procedures on animals is neutral title that can encompass everything from the generally-regarded-as-medically-useful (e.g., spaying) to the more widely objectionable practices. It can utilize lists like those found in this cited source to help organize procedures that might be considered by WP:RSes as therapeutic, economic, cosmetic, and/or practical, as well as touching on their legality. — Scientizzle 18:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I just looked up the page Elective surgery and the definition is "Elective surgery or elective procedure (from the Latin eligere, meaning to choose[1]) is surgery that is scheduled in advance because it does not involve a medical emergency." Several of the procedures in the list would be carried out as medical emergencies, e.g. tail docking (dogs), tail amputation (pigs), beak-trimming, teeth cutting, tusk trimming, de-horning(sheep) and mulesing. Part of the problem here is that the definition involves the word 'medical' whereas the 'mutilatory' list includes procedures that are both theraputic and non-theraputic.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
"Elective" merely differentiates a procedure from urgent/emergency procedures. Since there are many procedures that could be carried out in an emergency but are normally non-emergencies, these are not mutually exclusive arenas. Most canine tail docking, for example, is done in the absence of any medical necessity, but one could imagine an amputation-type situation in which a tail docking is medically necessary and perhaps urgent.
Elective surgeries are, of course, "medical". Veterinary surgery#Elective procedures covers some of the topics on this page. There isn't a perfect word to use for this broad array of things done to animals by humans; each has a mix of therapeutic/convenience/cosmetic/economic value and that perceived value will differ drastically between the pro & con sides. What both sides can agree on, though, is that non-emergency applications of any of these techniques is a choice made by the humans that have the legal power to do so. — Scientizzle 19:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
If "Elective" merely differentiates a procedure from urgent/emergency procedures rather than who 'elects' for the surgery, then is this not a Term of art - precisely one of the criticisms levelled at "mutilatory"?__DrChrissy (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. the main criticism of "mutilatory" -- in the words of the RCVS -- is that the term is an "emotive one, carrying with it, in common usage, implications of maiming and disfigurement". The gamut of procedures described on this page, and by the RCVS as "mutilations", run from those that I imagine possibly a majority of readers might find distasteful (branding, tail docking) to those that actually have rather wide acceptance (spaying/neutering of companion animals). You can avoid the emotive term problem by using another term that covers the same ground without the emotional baggage. The RCVS used the term to mean:

[Mutilation] should be understood as covering all procedures, carried out with or without instruments which involve interference with the sensitive tissues or the bone structure of an animal, and are carried out for non - therapeutic reasons.

(This is a bit confusing, of course, because the RCVS goes on to list a number of "acceptable" practices that have some therapeutic value.) The key point, though, is that some of these practices have no established or likely therapeutic value and therefore lack any medical necessity; others are commonly done when there is no present medical necessity but for convenience/cosmetic/economic reasons. That's the rub, right? Even hardcore AR supporters, broadly speaking, are willing to consider that a procedure with therapeutic benefits might be worth doing.
This is where the term "elective" comes in. It describes procedures done for any multitude of reasons, excluding those done for urgent/emergency health reasons. It's a term widely used in relevant sources and the medical field in general. I brought up the agency/consent counterargument specifically because "elective" was dismissed in conversations above "because the animals don't get to do the 'electing'". This is faulty logic, dismissing a rational, non-emotive, policy-appropriate substitute for the problematic term "mutilatory". I'll concede that my initial post did not not clearly state my case for using the term "elective", focusing too much on the problems with the argument against using elective. — Scientizzle 21:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary convenience break

I see that we are !voting (click that link please, if you aren't familiar with the idea), so I'll say that my own #1 first choice is very near to anything other than the current title. I'm willing to work with pretty much any of the alternatives, and with any of the ideas about adding explanatory material to the text. And I still intend to open an RfC if we keep going around in circles about it. If everyone keeps !voting for their first choice, even though I think we all already know what each of us thinks, the likelihood of an RfC will increase.

I appreciate the new ideas that Scientizzle is bringing to the discussion, and I want to make it clear that I don't give an, um, animal's body part about what the animal rights activists think (just look into my editing history if you don't believe that!), but I do care, a lot, about not confusing good-faith readers of Wikipedia, which is what I don't like about the current title.

About "elective", I do think that it sounds funny to use it in regard to animals, but I'm open to taking another look at similar language getting at the same idea. We're considering "discretionary". Let me also suggest "non-urgent", as in Overview of non-urgent invasive procedures in animals. I've thought hard about DrChrissy's list of " tail docking (dogs), tail amputation (pigs), beak-trimming, teeth cutting, tusk trimming, de-horning(sheep) and mulesing". I guess I can envision some urgent dental procedures, but otherwise, I honestly don't see how any of those could really be considered emergencies, except in unusual cases (and unusual exceptions can be explained in the text). They can certainly be considered medically important and beneficial, and somewhat time-delimited, but emergency tail docking of a dog (for the typical reasons, not because of a tumor on the tail)? Am I missing something? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we reached consensus that this article is mainly about 3 concepts, i.e. 'invasiveness','appearance changing' and 'of dubious value'. To my mind, using the word 'elective' in terms of whether the procedure is planned or not is a fourth concept, which if introduced into the title will likely make it clunky, unless we drop one of the other three concepts.
Regarding urgency of procedures. Some farmers do not routinely tooth-clip their piglets at birth. But, when the piglets start slashing at the sow's teats and at each other, the farmer clips the teeth as a matter of urgency. Tail docking (several spp.) can be done if an injury occurs (this is obviously 100% therapeutic in contrast to docking for breed description purposes). Tail amputation (pigs) is again not always done routinely, but only as an emergency procedure if there is an outbreak of tail-biting. The same is true of beak-trimming of hens and outbreaks of feather-pecking. Tusks are only trimmed if they become too large (perhaps not an emergency, but perhaps not exactly planned). Horns of sheep in extensive areas (I am thinking of Australia) may be seen only once a year. If the horns are growing incorrectly, they are removed or trimmed as an emergency measure. Mulesing is often used as an emergency procedure when a sheep has become fly-struck.
For the record, I have already stated I can live with the word 'Invasive' instead of 'mutilatory', but we are struggling to agree on how to encapsulate the other concepts.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
To me, most of those examples are either atypical applications (tail docking a dog because of tail injury instead of breed standard), or equating "emergency" with "not planned". I'm glad that we have at least some agreement about using the word "invasive", but we really are going to have to find something to go along with it, and I still think that "non-urgent" is going to be less of a problem than the alternatives. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Tryptofish, thanks for pointing us/me to the policy on voting. I was unaware of this.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I view “elective” as effectively capturing two of the three above-mentioned concepts: (a) invasive; and (b) dubious. It captures invasiveness because it’s a term of art used to refer to surgical or quasi-surgical procedures, and no one would ever call a haircut or nail-trim an “elective” procedure. It also sufficiently captures the concept of “dubious” because the types of life-saving procedures that we want to exclude, like tumor or gangrene removal, are clearly not “elective.” I realized that “elective” doesn’t perfectly capture these two concepts, but in my book it comes close enough that, with sufficient explanation in the text, we can make it fit. I realize I was lukewarm on “elective” previously but, upon further reflection, am perfectly willing to go with it. I don’t have a strong feeling either way about the “appearance-changing” concept, especially since it doesn’t fit everything (e.g. devoicing).
Bottom line: In addition to all the other titles (including the existing one) that I’ve said I can live with, I can also live with Scientizzle’s suggestion of elective procedures on animals.
I also proposed something a bit different yesterday, invasive animal management procedures. I’m not particularly invested in this idea but, not having gotten any feedback, thought I’d at least keep it on the table in case everything else falls through. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
But wouldn't elective procedures on animals include every reason for visiting the vet?
I think invasive animal management procedures has merit. I suggested something similar with the word 'husbandry' but that was thought problematic. I don't believe all the procedures we list are strictly 'management' (e.g. ear cropping) and other procedures might be included (e.g. spaying), but I could live with invasive animal management procedures as the title__DrChrissy (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC).
@DrChrissy, of the concepts of 'invasiveness','appearance changing' and 'of dubious value', the second one seems least relevant to the article structure. Only a subset of the the discussed procedures have some sort of appearance alteration as a goal rather than as a by-product (e.g., spaying & vasectomy are wholly internal procedures that might leave a scar but otherwise you wouldn't know they occurred). I agree with ChicagoDilettante that "elective" is a pretty solid (if imperfect) choice to encompass the 'invasiveness' and 'of dubious value' aspects (with the caveat that what's 'dubious' in one situation may be advisable in others, as you've pointed out very well). The text can differentiate how certain treatments have perceived or established therapeutic value in certain situations, how others have no known medical value, and how various regulatory bodies and opinion groups view the practices. 'Appearance changing' or cosmetic-only procedures is an important subset that should be discussed in the article body, but it seems unnecessarily restrictive for an overview-type article. If this page is fleshed out to enough detail, cosmetic procedures performed on animals or something similar could be spun out as a sub-article. I think from an informational, organizational perspective, having an article like this that focuses on broad categories of non-emergency physical alterations humans perform on animals can serve as an effective hub to more specific articles.
I don't feel I can overstate the distinct advantage of having multiple reliable sources use the term elective, but if there are sources using terms that approximate invasive animal management procedures (can't look now), I would consider it...however, I htink it might take a step backwards in terms of covering the 'dubious' side of things as it sounds like it should include all invasive medical procedures. — Scientizzle 17:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
@Scientizzle, you seem to have a different perspective of what this article intends to achieve. Please note, this is an observation, certainly not a criticism. The intention of the page I thought was to simply list these procedures with brief, NPOV explanatory sentences for the less well-known procedures. It was never intended to be a full-blown article with lengthy discussions of the ethical merits, non/therapeutic, non/cosmetic value etc of the procedures. I personally believe this would turn the talk pages of this article into one enormous fight and edit war after edit war. Most of the procedures have their own WP page and I believe discussion of the procedures themselves belongs on those pages.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this page supposed to be?
I envisioned a hub article with spokes to the multitudinous individual articles on animal medical procedures. This hub would focus on non-emergency procedures (i.e., procedures done mostly in non-urgent settings, including preventative treatments) done to animals that may or may not have therapeutic purposes. This organization would be inclusive of everything presently on the page and would open it up to things like microchipping & feline vaccination. The page could briefly discuss how non-emergency procedures may be done for therapeutic, cosmetic, convenience and/or economic reasons. These can then be organized by species and each procedure can have a brief blurb in the species subsection stating that "Procedure X, which alters body part A, is done for Y and Z reasons. It is legally restricted in Countries Q & W." Ideally, each specific article can then elaborate on the procedure, medical validity & legal status.
I'm getting the growing impression that some view this page as more of a 'list of all the horrible things people do to animals'. I'm not trying to be flippant, but there's actually a need for a broader overview article. I'm surprised livestock management and animal management are actually redlinks! That signals to me a need for a superstructure to organize these type of articles. My suggestions have been for a broader, more-inclusive list. For an idea of what's been appearing in my addled mind, I've made a re-organized version of the current article here. It's a clearly incomplete draft of the type of changes I was suggesting, but the lede and first couple of sections approximate what I'm thinking. (I'll link this below, too, so it doesn't get lost in the deeper discussion.) How does this approach your vision, DrChrissy? How about everyone else? — Scientizzle 17:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
So, the so-called "concept consensus" is that we're looking for a combination of "invasive" with something that bridges "appearance-changing" (or not) and "dubious". And it appears that we don't want to put "dubious" itself into the title! (Should an AfD ever come to pass, I'm pretty sure that the nominator is going to seize on that fact.) It seems to me that we can combine "invasive" with "non-urgent" and get most of the way there. It's less clear to me whether we can get there without an RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems that Elective invasive procedures on animals comes close to satisfying everyone's concerns, with the downside of sounding clunky. Perhaps we should just live with the clunkiness. It would be nice to finally pick something even if it's nobody's first choice. The one thing about Elective invasive procedures on animals is that it wouldn't pick up the "appearance-changing" concept. Maybe that's okay and we should just bite the bullet and include procedures that don't alter the appearance, like spaying and microchipping. I doubt that many of these procedures will come up anyway. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd be content with Overview of elective invasive procedures on animals, or Overview of non-urgent invasive procedures on animals, or even Overview of appearance-changing invasive procedures on animals or Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals. And I really hope that we can just settle on one, any one, of these. We need to come to a conclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I am very much against Elective invasive procedures on animals as this misses out on the (most?) important appearance-changing aspect (as indicated by ChicagoDilettante) but moreover, would encompass every non-emergency surgical procedure performed by vets; this is already covered by 'elective surgery' in Veterinary surgery. Of the 4 options suggested by Tryptofish, I believe Overview of appearance-changing invasive procedures on animals is the most accurate and informative of the content of the page.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
As I have stated, I am very much against Overview of appearance-changing invasive procedures on animals and have difficulty seeing how anyone could consider it remotely accurate. It goes against the core of what this article is about, because it certainly includes life-saving procedures that change the appearance (e.g. external tumor and gangrene removal) and arguably includes virtually all surgical procedures that leaves a scar. With this title, we would be solving a mild POV problem in exchange for getting an inaccurate title that is misleading and does not accurately describe the article's content (unless life-saving surgeries are included, in which case the article will deviate from its overall purpose which, I thought, is to document dubious or discretionary invasive procedures).
Moreover, on a couple of occasions above, I posed the following question: If the title is changed to Overview of appearance-changing invasive procedures on animals, and some future editor attempts to add life-saving procedures (e.g. amputation of a gangrenous limb), what the response will be? No one has yet come up with a logical response. I doubt that such a response is possible, other than to add such life-saving procedures to the article which, again, I think would destroy the article's intended purpose.
At this point, since I am strongly opposed to Overview of appearance-changing invasive procedures on animals, DrChrissy is strongly opposed to Overview of elective invasive procedures on animals, and Tryptofish is strongly opposed to the existing title (which, as I've noted, I would be willing to live with), unless someone has any other ideas (e.g. invasive animal management procedures which I've proposed?), I suggest that Tryptofish go ahead with the RfC if Tryptofish wishes to do so. I'm not trying to be non-collegial and I do respect all of the editors herein and appreciate that everyone is operating in good faith, but with all due respect it seems to me that we're at an impasse. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
So, "elective" is unacceptable to DrChrissy, for whom "appearance-changing" would be a preferred choice. And "appearance-changing" is unacceptable to ChicagoDilettante, with whom I'm inclined to agree that we are at an impasse and might as well go to an RfC. But first, I'm going to give us one last chance, and I really mean last chance, to try to resolve this amongst ourselves instead. If we eliminate those two "unacceptable" versions for now (and keep in mind that, should there be an RfC, we may wind up with one of them!), there are still two other possibilities that I listed, that didn't get a response of "unacceptable" just now: Overview of non-urgent invasive procedures on animals and Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals. Is there one of those that we can live with, not as a perfect choice, but as a practical compromise? If not, I'm starting an RfC in a day or so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I would be willing to go with either of these new suggestions made by Tryptofish. Please note that I don't think that "non-urgent" is an ideal word because there are non-urgent procedures that are life-saving, like removal of a pre-cancerous mole that might become cancerous in a few years so should be removed within the next year to save the animal's life. However, this is a relatively minor issue and I'm not too worried about it. Bottom line: I am willing to live with either Overview of non-urgent invasive procedures on animals or Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, they're not new. Too long/didn't read, perhaps, but not new. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I actually knew that they weren't literally new; I just meant they were new to this part of the discussion and the ideas we've been considering recently. However, I certainly don't fault you for thinking I believed they were literally "new" ideas because I actually used the word "new," which was just me being unclear and not expressing myself properly. In fact, one of these titles, Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals, is something we were considering very seriously a couple of days ago, and as I recall, it fell through because of certain concerns that various editors had. However, we'll see what everyone has to say. And again, thanks for the clarification. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I have not yet been involved in an RfC on WP but from others' comments, it sounds like it is a particularly unpleasant elective procedure and could be quite invasive! I can imagine that such a procedure might end up with a title which none of us are happy with. This would be a huge shame considering the effort that we have put into such a civil, educated and enlightening debate. Although I still have strong concerns about the word 'Discretionary', I would be willing to accept Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, and thank you for being so cooperative. It sounds as if we're very near consensus on Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals. I am 100% willing to accept this title. However, let me ask one final question. Isn't this very close in meaning to Overview of elective invasive procedures on animals? DrChrissy, would you be also willing to reconsider "elective"? If not, it's no big deal and let's go with Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals (assuming all of the other involved editors are willing to live with it). However, the reason I would have a very slight preference in favor of "elective" rather than "discretionary" is that anyone who does a Google search for these types of procedures will almost certainly search on "elective" and is unlikely to think of searching on "discretionary," so the article might not be as accessible as it could be. Please understand, however, that I am perfectly happy to go with Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals if DrChrissy would prefer it to the similar title with "elective." I just thought I'd ask the question. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe "Elective" is not suitable for two reasons. First, if we use Overview of elective invasive procedures on animals I do not see why this should not then include many other standard surgical procedures such as planned spaying, planned removal of tumours, planned microchipping and all forms of non-urgent injection, planned ceasarian sections (particularly double-muscled cattle), etc, etc. Second, I believe 'Elective' will be confusing/distracting to the average reader as in common useage the term implies the animal has elected to have the surgery. I believe this would generate massive -ve attention. I accept totally the arguement that in the medical field there is no problem here and that it refers to the planning of a procedure, but we are not dealing with a readership of people all with a medical background. Incidentally, I think that both 'elective' and 'discretionary' are likely to be rather unhelpful in searches - I was surprised to see how often the page with the title 'mutilatory' has already been linked to (and with very little -ve attention). Just to re-iterate, happy to go with Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals__DrChrissy (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, and to reiterate, I'm also happy to go with Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I linked this in a comment above, but I'd like to make sure it doesn't get lost: at User:Scientizzle/Invasive animal management procedures I made a rough draft of what I was imagining this page could be (it's incomplete, but the lede and first two sections approximate what I'm thinking). There appears a need for a broad overview article--livestock management and animal management are actually redlinks--that signals to me a need for a superstructure to organize these type of articles. To this end, I'd support a previous suggestion of Invasive animal management procedures. This side-steps the "elective"/"discretionary" quandary & still excludes non-invasive procedures like grooming or sheering or emergency-only procedures (they wouldn't be "management"). It would, however, be more inclusive of things like vaccination and not just the more readily objectionable like ear cropping. Each entry could have a very short blurb explaining its use and acceptance. — Scientizzle 17:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

My vision of this article is precisely as it is currently titled. I wrote a simple list of all the routine mutilatory procedures we perform on domestic animals like the List of duck breeds. I then realised many of these are not self-explanatory and were specific to some animals so I converted to a table and wrote NPOV sentences about these. It was then suggested it should be an overview like List of turkey breeds, which we agreed on. I agree with you that the list started (and remains?) as a "list of nasty things we do to animals" but the descriptions are NPOV. I never intended to expand upon the other issues as it is obvious that mention of morality, ethics, therpeutic value, etc. will be highly contentious, require input from several sources and likely require great debate before consensus is reached. I felt there was a need for a simple NPOV list describing these mutilatory procedures whilst avoiding arguement and debate amongst editors. Whilst I accept that there might be a need for superstructure and articles on livestock management and animal management I feel that inclusion of vaccinations, etc. in the current list is not, in my humble opinion, the original vision of this article. I note that there has been very little previous discussion of the contents of the article, it is choosing an appropriate title that has been the problem.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
A lack of discussion regarding the content of the article can be, at least in part, attributed to the title discussion, the title being the simplest inclusion criteria for anything on the list. The best insulation against contentious editing, particularly in a stand-alone list like this ,would be to have relatively straightforward inclusion criteria. It's pretty simple to determine whether a procedure is invasive or not, so that makes a good criterion. Limiting inclusion to domesticated animals similarly works, as does limiting it to those procedures that are generally (though not necessarily exclusively) non-emergency in nature. Invasive, non-emergency procedures performed on domesticated animals is a straightforward (if large) list that would include the most beneficial and benign to the most unpalatable. I think you run into trouble, though, if you make "somewhat dubious" (or some similar idea) an inclusion criteria as that is surely subjective and will vary wildly. This is why I suggest the broader list, wherein the hashing out of the pros/cons of a procedure is to be fleshed out in full detail only on the procedure's article rather than whether or not it's included on this list. Whether or not this list contains small explanatory blurbs about each procedure or simply the wikilink can be a topic of future discussion. — Scientizzle 19:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not totally opposed to expanding the article to include all invasive, non-emergency procedures on domesticated animals. However, it's not my first choice. My first choice is to leave the content of the article as it is. My reason is the following: who really cares about a list of all invasive, non-emergency procedures? I say this with all due respect, but so what if a cat is vaccinated for rabies, or a dog gives birth by caesarian section? What is interesting about the content of the current article is that it includes procedures in which flesh is cut for dubious reasons. Most farmers don't care about this. Most animal rights advocates think it's terribly abusive. Others, myself included, fall somewhere in between these two extremes. Regardless, it's an interesting topic. That's why I (and I assume others) find the article interesting.
An overview of all invasive veterinary procedures--everything from routine vaccinations to c-sections--would be less interesting, at least in my view, and probably in the view of others in the Wikipedia community. In sum, I think the proposed expansion would water down the article's core purpose.
To Scientizzle's point that the current inclusion criteria are subjective, I recognize that this is somewhat of a problem. Frankly, I think what we're talking about, to a greater degree of precision, are invasive procedures on animals in which flesh or other living tissue is cut in a way that alters the animal permanently and that are not required to save the animal's life or otherwise protect it from a serious disease or medical condition. Obviously, this is too long a concept to encapsulate in the title, butperhaps we can expalin it in the text. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see other editor's comments on this, but of course it is a foundation stone of WP that anyone is free to write their own more expansive list/textual article on invasive veterinary procedures, but as indicated by ChicagoDilettante, this list as it stands encompasses, I believe, procedures which deserve attention as a seperate list.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

  Done Whew! I've moved the page, and rewritten the opening paragraph (including a non-displaying message about talk page consensus about the scope of the page). It would be very helpful if other editors could help out by looking at the "what links here" link, and fixing any double-redirects to this page (in other words, where another page links to here, update the link with the new page name), although hopefully a bot will catch most of them.

DrChrissy said that RfCs can themselves be invasive procedures. In my experience, not really, but I figured a WP:BOLD rename of the page now would be better than going through all of that. One thing that I did in revising the opening paragraph is to attribute the grouping of procedures used on this page to a cited source (rather than to WP:OR), which, if there ever were to be an AfD, would have been the point of vulnerability, so I recommend keeping in mind through future discussions that, however the page is organized, there needs to be a source that says this stuff can be organized that way.

I think that Scientizzle's ideas are worth looking at seriously, but that can be done subsequent to this page renaming, and perhaps also by creation of one or more additional pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Rename and lede edit work for me. Good work, all! To me, an RfC is more of an 8th amendment violation, but still to be avoided! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 23:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
It all works for me too. Well done everyone, and thanks for your patience and civility.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm happy that everyone else appears to be happy! One more suggestion occurs to me. Since we've discussed in this talk more references that use the term "mutilatory" and that group the procedures in this manner, it would be a good idea to add them to the page itself. (I don't mean writing much about them, more like just adding inline citations to them along with the existing citation.) That way, we insulate the page against the criticism that the inclusion/exclusion of material was based only on a single source. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that is a very good idea. One link that probably should be added as it was written by academics well respected in animal pain research and is therefore NPOV is [9] and another from a government organisation [10]. There is a third that we could add [11] but this rather confusingly seems to include many procedures we would not have on the list, e.g. ovum collection.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Go for it!. (I'm neutral on including the third one.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that, after bringing up the topic again and then being lazy about commenting, that you're all a class act. If only every discussion about NPOV and article titles was this civil. Steven Walling • talk 07:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoa! I just briefly checked out our page this morning and read your comment, Steven Walling, and by coincidence at the same time I heard you interviewed on NPR Morning Edition, which for those of you who don't know is a national radio program in the U.S., and there you were, Steven Walling, interviewed about how to edit Wikipedia articles! Good job, Steven. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I just added the other sources of 'mutilatory' to the article but for some reason the second reference keeps coming up with an error message which I simply can't rectify. Can someone help please?__DrChrissy (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks ChicagoDilettante! Steven Walling • talk 20:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Charreada

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for the heads up on this. I have seen it before on TV, but did not know it's name. Is there scope for a WP article here along the lines of Harming of animals in modern entertainment. Just off the top of my head this could include Charreada, bullfighting, horse racing, cockfighting, hunting, dancing bears etc. Might need to reach consensus on a title BEFORE creating the page though ;-)__DrChrissy (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there are analogous articles out there and I fear it would mostly just be a honeypot for the more fringe elements on wikipedia. You know, just add castration to the mix or something (OK, so that's not entertainment, but ...) You'll also stir up an enormous shitstorm to include horse racing as "harming" horses, on either side of the pond. There are abuses in the industry, but that's a totally different set of problems than, say, dogfighting, where animals are injured almost every outing-- at least one of them. Hunting is also controversial (I live in Montana, which has the greatest percentage of people with hunting licenses in the USA, it's a complex issue and out here many people still feed their families by hunting -- If I came back as an animal, I'd rather be an elk shot by a hunter than a beef steer in a modern feedlot, frankly) And someone would probably want to add fishing! Montanabw(talk) 22:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
As for charreada, which is about 50% rodeo and 50% more problematic stuff, all tied up with Mexican cultural traditions, a caution: I have a really delicate but stable balance going at the Charreada article with some of the Texas Charros who targeted it a while back and were really getting hysterical and posting some harsh stuff on their off-wiki web sites. I tamed them down to self-reporting their own statistics, and they (mostly) leave my reports of abuse controversies alone. I'd hate to draw much attention to it by either side, as people can get really insane. I personally have serious concerns about horse-tripping, but the anti-charreada side in the USA relies on hysteria instead of documentation, so they don't help their own cause. I have enough trouble keeping NPOV with the rodeo articles, even though rodeo has some excellent and consistent statistics on animal injury rates, but are widely ignored by the PETA crowd anyway, who continue to scream that bulls have their testicles crushed and other such nonsense ... so I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie. Montanabw(talk) 22:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Oooooops. I have just contributed almost exactly what you talked about to the Blood sport:talk page. Just raising the question why is Chilean rodeo included and then others not. I have no intention of starting a shit storm, it just struck me that Chilean rodeo does not involve blood release whereas fishing does and horse racing and rodeo seem to be the same as Chilean rodeo. Seems a very inconsistent definition on that page.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Didn't even know that one existed. I think I'll just pretend it's not there for now! Eep! Montanabw(talk) 17:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
CHICKEN!!!  ;-) __DrChrissy (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

New procedure to add to list

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was watching the the CBS news last night (is this a verifiable source?) and I saw the most extreme of mutilatory procedures that should be added to our list. Fifi, a miniature poodle, was taken to an establishment advertised as a 5-star canine relaxation hotel. As soon as Fifi had been lulled into a false sense of security, the pamper-queens dived in. Fifi was hugged to the procedure table under threats of being given more chocolate if she did not shut up, whereupon (DO NOT CONTINUE READNG IF YOU ARE EASILY SHOCKED...) ...they PAINTED HER NAILS!!!! I have rarely been so horrified at the resulting mutilation...fancy that poor black poodle having to walk down the streets of New York with bright pink nails. I can hardly imagine her feelings of shame and mis-trust in her owners. Almost unbelievable.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You never know, she might have stolen her people's credit card for a weekend at the spa! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 23:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I guess that would have made it an 'elective procedure'! ;-) __DrChrissy (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Elephant goad, bullhook, ankus

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@ ChicagoDilettante, you asked the question of whether the ankus should be included in the list, but then undid your message. I'm not sure that was an intentional deletion but you raise an interesting question. I was recently involved in a research project looking at the welfare of elephants in UK zoos. There were clearly permanent scars on several of the elephants which had been caused by mahouts using the ankus excessively when the elephants had previously been in logging camps. I would be inclined not to have the ankus on the list though. All the current procedures on the list have the intention of changing the appearance of the animal, or it would be reasonable to expect a change in appearance as a consequence of the procedure. 'Correct' use of the ankus would not scar the elephant (please note, I am not defending use of the ankus, only noting it is not the intention to change the appearance of the elephant). If we do decide to include it we would probably have to consider other 'procedures' such as bits, poorly fitting harnesses for working equids, perhaps even shearing of sheep (if memory serves me correctly, on average a sheep is nicked or cut 70 times during shearing - some of these leave scars.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed my own question because I did some further research into bullhooka and realized that they are arguably not the type of procedure that has been included in this article, because many of the people who use bullhooks, like in circuses, claim that it shouldn't pierce the skin if used properly. Instead, some bullhook advoctes claim that it should only be used on, or within, the epidermal layer. Given this, and the fact that in other ways, it's unlike the other procedures we have been discussing, I decided that I had jumped the gun in asking about it and deleted my own question. However, if you feel differently and that it should be put in, feel free to add it as I don't have a strong feeling about bullhook inclusion either way.

Bile bears

Latest comment: 12 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion
On the other hand, I ran across an article on the BBC's website this morning about bear bile extraction, something I hadn't previously heard about, and looked into it further. This does seem like it should be included because--at least with the drip extraction method, which is supposedly more "humane" than catheterization--a permanent hole is made in the bear's abodmen and the bile is extracted over a several-year period. This certainly seemes discretionary and invasive, and is also appearance-changing, so I think we should add it. Does anyone have any comments or objections? ChicagoDilettante (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Except that it's more like shark-finning; bears aren't domesticated, though some may be "tame." It is more analogous to zoo animals. I think Zoo animal stuff exceeds the scope, though I also see a place for a new, parallel article that does cover these thingsMontanabw(talk) 04:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Montanabw, you raise a good point. I think that the scope of the article should include both domesticated and captive wild animals. I mentioned this a while ago in the shark finning discussion. The key issue to me is whether the animals are controlled and managed by humans. Wild animals and hunting should be out of scope, but not farmed animals--whether domesticated, tame, or captive wild. The reason for this is that the core purpose of the article--the component of the article that, I believe, makes it interesting to readers--is that it documents certain things that people do to animals that are under their control. I don't see why it matters whether the animals have been under the control of humans for enough generations that they are considered "domesticated." The same interests, and in particular the same ethical and public policy questions, arise with domesticated, tame, and captive wild animals being raised under the control of humans.
In the case of bile bears, they are being raised on "farms" (which is the word used in the relevant literature) and, I'm pretty sure, are bred on these farms, just like any other livestock. Also, they're not like zoo animals; they are farm animals. For this reason, I think that they should be included. I do realize this means that the lede will have to be revised to include "domesticated" and "captive wild" animals. (Incdentally, I don't think such an expansion will result in any zoo animals being included, because as far as I'm aware, legitimate zoos don't perform any of the types of procedures covered in this article.) ChicagoDilettante (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a very good point. I do not believe bile bears should be included in the current list (but I agree another list is needed to include this practise). I believe this because the original concept of the article was 'mutilatory'. The tissue damage caused by the catheterisation of the bile bears would eventually heal, leaving a small scar (if the bears were allowed to survive), making this more of a surgical procedure. Now that the term 'mutilatory' has been dropped, this potentially allows other procedures to be included on the list, although I'm not sure this was the intention. For example, urine is collected from pregnant mares to make oestrogen. The mares are catheterised for this urine collection (if I have my details correct) making this almost exactly the same as bile bears. In research, animals are sometimes fistulated; a rumen fistula is a direct and permanent opening directly into the rumen so that rumen fluids can be collected. Animals are sometimes implanted with various sensors leading to outside cables for recording. A vet may deliberately leave a wound slightly open, or place a temporary catheter to allow fluids to drain from the wound.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not talking about catheterization, which I agree is not mutilatory. The most common method of bile extraction on farms, as noted in the bile bear article and the other articles in its footnotes, is to cut a hole in the bear's abdomen, stick a tube in, and "milk" the bile twice a day over a period of years. Unlike fistulation, which you mention, the hole is never allowed to close or heal. I think this does meet the definition of "mutilatory." I'm open to further discussion, though. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course, if we bring in product extraction from "farmed" animals, tame or domesticated, then we are approaching the realm of sheep shearing, milk cows, PMU mares, etc... Again, I think the scope of this article is more to the procedures that do not produce a product but rather are performed for human convenience, vanity, or to cruelly counteract things related to streeeful confinement (i.e. debeaking). I'm open to further discussion, though. Montanabw(talk) 16:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that we are approaching sheep shearing and milk cows, because those procedures are not invasive, whereas bile bear extraction is. (Incidentally, I've never heard of PMU mares and don't know what they are so can't comment on them.) Besides, in my view, the issue is not whether the procedures are used to directly extract product. In a sense, all procedures performed on farm animals are ultimately done to facilitate product extraction. Poultry debeaking, for example, is done to increase egg output through not having injured birds. Certainly, abdominal extraction of bile from bears is a discretionary invasive appearance-changing procedure that more directly results in product extraction, but it seems to me that it's within the spirit and core purpose of the procedures we've been discussing (unlike shark-finning, which is incidental to hunting). In sum, bear bile extraction is mutilatory, within the definition of that term as set forth by the Royal Veterinary Society.
Moreover, I see little downside to including bear bile extraction, especially if we want to make this article a hub for discretionary invasive procedures performed on animals under human control. I'm also open to further discussion, though. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I have just placed this discussion under a separate heading to help navigation. I hope this is not breaking any WP protocol - if it is, please let me know and I will fix it.
My reason for being against including bile bears in this list is that there are so many procedures which could then also be included it would dilute the essence of the original list. For example, sheep shearing IS invasive in that sheep invariably experience nicks and cuts whilst being shorn. Having said that, it is difficult to argue against exclusion of bile bears in terms of the current definition. I think there is scope for a separate article on WP for something like Invasive animal-product collection - a project which I would be very willing to contribute to.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The distinction I see, and I'm not all that bound to the issue one way or the other (though DrChrissy's suggestion is one I could support) is that what makes bear bile extraction from everything else on the list is that this particular injury is for the express purpose of obtaining a commercial product. All the other stuff is not directly so; about 2/3 of the list are "vanity" procedures like tail docking and ear-cropping, and the rest are stuff we do to livestock, either as a convenience to humans or as a result of the farm conditions in which they are kept. Montanabw(talk) 21:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear that bear bile extraction is a "discretionary invasive procedure" and, also, that it's mutilatory. Thus, as a technicality, it should be included based on how the article is currently written. That doesn't necessarily end the analysis, though, because the deeper question is whether inclusion of these types of procedures (i.e. discretionary invasive procedures for product extraction) will enhance, or alternatively detract from, the article's readability and core purpose. I tend to think that their inclusion would enhance the article and make it a more useful resource for the public. However, I can't say that I'm certain about this, and since I'm not getting any support for this view, I will tentatively go along with what appears to be the consensus against including these types of procedures. If any other editors want to weigh on this, I'd appreciate hearing their views. (On a related note, I still think that the lede needs to be revised to define the scope of the article as including not only "domesticated" but also tame or captive wild animals om farms. I will do this in the near future unless anyone has objections.) ChicagoDilettante (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I hesitate to do that, also, as I don't think we have any examples of this yet, and I think the point of this piece is to look hard at what we do to our pets and everyday domestic livestock, the animals we supposedly care about so much; wild animal issues are a little different, though I can't quite articulate my reasoning on this as well as I'd like ... but I'll try again: the bear bile issue raises issues of "farming" wild animals (domestication results in genetic and phenotypic changes; however many generations in captivity they may be tame "wild" animals aren't there yet), whether it be furbearing foxes, or people who keep fenced in Elk herds for private hunting, Emu farming, etc... I see how you have an interest in adding the procedure, but I think we have a bigger, and different issue to look at here, which is the farming and marketing of wild animals, with the bear bile issue perhaps being one of the more troublesome. I guess I am looking at a legal definition of "livestock" that varies, but generally excludes zoo-kept and other animals that are supposed to be wild. Montanabw(talk) 22:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I too am struggling to articulate my resistance to including bile bears, so just a couple of thoughts. First, if we start to use terms like 'domesticated', 'tame' and perhaps even 'farmed' I think this will generate considerable debate detracting from the issues. There are incidences of many, many animals being tamed (e.g. for the film industry) and being 'domesticated' means "the process whereby a population of animals or plants is changed at the genetic level through a process of selection, in order to accentuate traits that benefit humans"...this means many, many animals could be considered tame or domesticated although others would argue against this. Second is a concern I raised before. If we add bile bears to this list there are many other procedures that can be listed which ultimately will dilute the core essence of this article. I am thinking of e.g. permanent fistulation (where the hole is NOT allowed to heal), permanent in-dwelling cannulae (research and companion animals), rearing animals for xenotransplantation, declawing of crabs. __DrChrissy (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I think DrC is right about the genetic changes, and that is part of where I'm going too. With domestication, there is a philosophical issue here in that we humans, in theory, make a "bargain" with animals we domesticate:"you, animal, give up some of your wild traits so you can serve us, and in turn we will replace those traits by protecting and caring for you responsibly (and if you are a meat animal, a better life while it lasts with a quick and humane death that is better than being eaten by a pack of wolves or something)." This article focuses on a selected group of ways (mutilatory or invasive procedures) that "violate the deal." We don't make this "deal" with wild animals, if we capture, tame, then torture them, it's a different variety of being a sick f--k, maybe not better or worse on a moral scale, but different. I'm not explaining this particularly well, but it's part of what the distinction is. Sort of the distinction between torturing an enemy prisoner and torturing your own helpless civilians, so to speak...am I making any kind of sense here?? Montanabw(talk) 22:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Just as a side issue, I was reading in a newspaper yesterday that a pride of captive lions from the managerie of Haile Selassie of Ethiopia is now genetically distinct from other African lions. They have been bred for darker manes and to be smaller and squatter. These changes are presumably "...in order to accentuate traits that benefit humans" (aesthetics). So, these are presumably 'Domestic lions'!
By the way, please call me Chris. I have the degrees to be referred to as 'Dr', but I would not wish to appear to be showing this off or using it as any sort of position taking...I really should have changed my user name months ago.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. Color changes and genetic shift has also been seen in some breeds of foxes bred in captivity for fur. Of course, isn't there some evidence of genetic changes in the human genome correlating to the neolithic revolution as well? Have we humans "domesticated" ourselves? Hmmm... Montanabw(talk) 22:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Self-domestication...an interesting concept. Is it possible that other animals have done this? Dogs, for example, hanging around human camps may have had a tendency to mate with other dogs hanging around human camps. There would have eventually been a genetic shift for the tendency to hang around human camps. The dogs might have domesticated themselves... Just a thought __DrChrissy (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Well yes, one theory regarding cats is that they self-domesticated. This is discussed in the cats article under Taxonomy and Evolution: "The alternative idea is that cats were simply tolerated by people and gradually diverged from their wild relatives through natural selection, as they adapted to hunting the vermin found around humans in towns and villages." ChicagoDilettante (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Have either of you ever read The Family Tree by Sheri Tepper? Interesting side story there about choices made by raccoons... LOL! Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Have not read it, but the on-line reviews make it sound like an interesting read! __DrChrissy (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Overview_of_discretionary_invasive_procedures_on_animals/Archive_2&oldid=1146627183"