Talk:Animal rights movement/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 →


"Support and Criticisms" section(s) maybe? Marskell 16:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm working on it. —Viriditas | Talk 22:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


I've restored that the UK is seen as the "Afghanistan" of the animal rights movement, because this is a widely held belief (all the animal rights books acknowledge it, most of the leading activists are there, and the ALF was founded there, as well as groups like BUAV), and I've supplied a reference to a BBC interview. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Morals vs Ethics

Just a quick note as to the loaded term 'Moral'. Moral implies the politics of god, whereas ethics are logic based. Most AR activists I’d say are asking animals be brought into ethical consideration.Xanax 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but i have to respectfully disagree. Morals have nothing to do with god, but it does include the premise of wrong and right. The words moral and ethic are synonimous. UrbanDisciple 00:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sinonimous. Ethics are, widely speaking, the study and analysis of moral decisions and questions. Ethics are a branch of the philosophic thought; moral is the good and wrong "thing" itself. --Ninito159 (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Once again just some thoughts to provoke some productive discussion. Violence seems to be a recurring theme in all the AR pages, and yet I can think of only less than 10 physically violent attacks on people, albiet all very recently. Where as AR activists claim to have members killed There are however huge ammounts of threats made by ARM or ALF, but very few seem to be actually followed up, and when they are its usually with what the eupthamistically call 'economic sabotage'. Arguable of course propety damage is a form of emotional abuse towards the victims. I think we have to be very careful to establish a NPOV on this one as we have people screaming terrorists on one side and people screaming murderer scum on the other! (:Xanax 04:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

-What about Animal Right's violence against......animals? On several occasions protesters have 'liberated' animals subsequently mistreating them Most of the beagles had to be put down -There's also a case in the UK at the moment about a group of ALF memembers who have stolen someone's mother's corpse or something like that, violence against zombies.

Beagles "put down". Where is the evidence for that? The Telegraph piece does not mention it - sure to be in the headline if that were the case. Just made it up did you?Billlegend2 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


This article needs to be renamed to Animal rights movement (which is now a redirect) in order to apply with Wikipedia NPOV standards. "Liberation" in the title is suggestive at best. Wikipedia does not concern itself with the question if "liberation" is a suitable ethics to follow or not. Intangible 04:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- Kjkolb 09:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Animal liberation movementAnimal rights movementRationale: →NPOV title. Intangible 15:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support. Intangible 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The movement mostly calls itself the animal liberation movement. Some people within it support the concept of animal rights, and some do not. The term "animal liberation" is no more POV than the term "animal rights." SlimVirgin (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support "Rghts" wins common name battle by an order of magnitude, and is more inclusive. ~ trialsanderrors 08:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How exactly is "rights" more inclusive? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. "Animal rights" is more often used in the news to refer to the movement. Dr Zak 14:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose: animals do not have rights. The movement seeks to free them, not to give them the rights people have. Thumbelina 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


The claim that "animal rights" is less POV than "animal liberation" is in my mind ridiculous. Suggesting that animals have rights is about as POV as suggesting animals should be liberated. Regardless, a cursory glance across Google and some encyclopedias (for example Columbia) seems to suggest that "animal rights" is more common than "animal liberation". —Gabbe 12:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course an article animal welfare movement can be started as well, for those concerned with animal welfare on basis of morality, instead of ethics (rights). Intangible 20:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand that the idea of "animal rights" is framed around the same premises as "human rights", namely that animals are endowed with an inherent dignity that must not be violated. The term "animal liberation" was coined by the ethicist Peter Singer, whose ideas I'm familiar with through second-hand accounts only. As far as I know – SV, please correct me here – his work is built around the theme of social interaction and self-awareness, that is the idea of "animal personhood" adequately expressed by "animal rights". Dr Zak 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Another note on usage: the OED says about animal liberation: "animal liberation, the act or process of freeing animals from exploitation (e.g. in laboratory experiments) by man; applied chiefly attrib. to groups dedicated to this, as Animal Liberation Front; hence animal liberationist" Dr Zak 16:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Singer is a utilitarian, meanly broadly that he believes a good act is one that leads to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. This means he is a consequentialist, arguing that the value of an act lies in its consequences (although it's more complicated than that), and that acts do not have a value in and of themselves, which is called the teleological view. He therefore supports animal liberation, not from a rights perspective, but on the basis of the amount of pain that is caused, arguing that the most important interests of millions of animals are routinely sacrificed to protect the most trivial interests of our own; for example, cramming chickens into spaces so small they have no room to move, in order to make Chicken McNuggets as cheaply as possible; herding buffalo into small spaces so that rich tourists can shoot and pretend to have hunted them. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That was me aiming beside the point then (discussing the issue instead of the movement). The BBC still calls the movement (consisting of people opposed to animal experimentation for whatever reason) "animal rights movement". [1] [2] [3] "Animal liberation movement" is mostly used when members of the movement are talking about themselves. [4] Dr Zak 17:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
We're not here to parrot the BBC. The AL movement is how they refer to themselves and largely how academics refer to them. It's also the more inclusive term, because, as I said, not everyone in the AL movement supports animal rights. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"Animal rights movement" is the commonly encountered term, even if it mischaracterizes the motivations of its members. WP:NAME states "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". A discussion of the naming issue could go into the introductory paragraph. Dr Zak 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No, we use the names used by the groups/movements themselves, unless they're misleading or offensive in some way. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The article itself states that the AL/AR movement is not an unified movement with a common philosophy but rather a disparate group of individuals and groups opposed to the use of animals. Saying that "the movement" calls itself anything would be a bit presumptuous, considering how diverse it is. As far as the academic use of AL vs AR goes, Nature, the prime source for academic news and policy in Europe, has 61 occurrences of "animal rights" and 7 occurrences of "animal liberation", all referring to groups opposing animal experimentation. The Citation Index has 4 hits for "animal liberation movement" from 1984 till now and 72 hits for "animal rights movement"; the keyword "animal rights" often occurs together with "vivisection", indicating that "animal rights movement" is used to refer to groups opposed to animal experimentation. Dr Zak 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "animals do not have rights. The movement seeks to free them, not to give them the rights people have." I am not really sure what is said here. Maybe User:Thumbelina can enlighten me. Intangible 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Nrets, if you want to add material, please read the section first and try to add it in a way that preserves at least a minimum of narrative flow. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


AR, BUAV opposes violence explictly and never excuses it. [5] They allowed an ALF activist to use an office in their building 20 years ago or so. Don't give that undue weight or turn it into a declaration of support. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's already in the article, where we say "There is evidence of prior cooperation the BUAV and the ALF: for example, BUAV used to donate office space for the use of ALF in Britain" with a ref. There's no need to add it twice. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

These are two different examples of the way in which BUAV helps ALF. The first is a donation of office space, the second is helping in recruitment of personnel. --Animalresearcher 10:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
How did they help to recruit personnel? The two sections I referred to are about the same thing. No recruitment of anyone. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
AR, there's no page number so I can't see which part of the book you're referring to. Can you give me a page number so I can look it up? You're almost certainly thinking of Ronnie Lee using some office space in the 70s or so. But there's nothing in that section of the book (or anywhere else that I know of) about BUAV being involved in any recruitment. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This is "Valerie's Story", the story by which Valerie found Ronnie Lee (of ALF) through Kim Stallwood (of BUAV), who then directed Valerie to an ALF activism camp. Described in detail, already, with references, on the Ronnie Lee page. --Animalresearcher 12:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but Valerie was not recruited by the BUAV, nor did they assist with any recruitment. She told them she was doing research; I think she may have said she was a journalist and wanted to interview Ronnie Lee. That's why they put her in touch with him. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
And indeed, that's what it says in the Ronnie Lee article. It even says there that Stallwood made it clear he did not agree with Lee about direct action. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is the text you last reverted. "BUAV executives have connected prospective ALF activists with Ronnie Lee who connected them to activist cells." Since you've just agreed that it is factually accurate and verifiable may I un-revert it? --Animalresearcher 13:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
AR, that's POV editing at its worst, and you know it. The BUAV guy did not know he was introducing her as an activist. The BUAV is implaccably opposed to violence or direct action. If you don't know that, then with respect, you don't know much about them, so please do some reading before jumping to conclusions. They're one of the oldest and most respected animal protection organizations in the world. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
If they were implaccably opposed to violence or direct action they would not have donated office space to ALF, or acted as a conduit for people to communicate with ALF.--Animalresearcher 15:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Your argument holds no ground AR. Firstly, the contact was made as they thought it was for research, which I think you will agree is not the same as supporting direct action. Secondly, the office space was donated a long time ago and is a minor example - and putting emphasis on it gives it undue weight.-Localzuk(talk) 16:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This is no different that the way in which Covance, Silver Spring, Britches, and other "animal_testing: controversy" sections are representative of animal research. If there is some other evidence that may be cited and supports the issue that BUAV does not provide material aid to people who engage in direct action please include it.--Animalresearcher 17:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
But that is not how this site works. We report on things in a neutral manner, with citations. I do not have to disprove an inferred claim - you have to prove it. The claim infers that BUAV help the ALF regularly and you give 2 examples, both of which are not evidence enough of this.-Localzuk(talk) 01:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
As I see it, the sentence you are proposing, AR, implies that BUAV knew she was an activist trying to meet Lee. Whilst it is factually true, what the sentence says, it reads in an entirely POV manner.-Localzuk(talk) 15:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the relevance of the latest version: "... and a BUAV executive introduced someone posing as a writer, but was actually an aspiring ALF activist, to Ronnie Lee who directed them to an ALF training camp in northern England." So what? BUAV didn't know who she was or what she wanted.
I'm disappointed in this, AR. You say you're a research scientist, but that means you're used to interpreting data and texts and understand the importance of being very accurate. We need the same commitment to accuracy on Wikipedia. You're editing the animal rights articles with the sole aim of attacking ideas and people you don't like. That's not what Wikipedia's about. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Please, assume good faith! Nrets 01:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There's no point in continuing to assume good faith when sources are being used to say the exact opposite of what they actually said. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean "be deaf, dumb, and blind." SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Introducing someone to a covert operative is still a form of support/cooperation. I suggest if you have a hard time with BUAV's public image being consistent with their referenced former actions, you introduce new cited verifiable material that they no longer support the ALF in such a way. Such evidence is reported to be present in Steve Best's book. --Animalresearcher 21:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) It is your opinion that putting a researcher in touch with someone is support - I think it is simply putting them in touch with someone. To state otherwise is opinion. According to Ronnie Lee, Lee and Stallwood did not agree on the merits of direct action.-Localzuk(talk) 21:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Saying Lee and Stallwood did not agree on the merits of direct action is different from saying X helped Lee and his colleagues at various points. Here is an example to demonstrate the value of that communication. How much money do you think the British police would need to have paid X to find the ALF training camp? If the answer is zero, then the communication is worthless. I think that even if millions of pounds were offered, X would not help the police. The US branch of ALF founded by Valerie has done over a hundred million dollars of damage according to Animal People. --Animalresearcher 21:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
You're skating on very thin ice. Please review WP:BLP and do not make any further negative comments about living persons unless you can support what you're saying with a reliable source, and clearly support it, with no distortion. What makes you think anyone from BUAV knows where an ALF training camp is? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
You are over-reacting. I posed a clearly hypothetical scenario set at a time (check the verb tense if you didn't edit it when you were putting words in my mouth) in which BUAV was providing the ALF with office space and helping potential journalists find Lee who could direct them to ALF training camps (according to Newkirk). I in no way intended to insinuate (nor did I insinuate) that ANY current member of BUAV could help the police find ANY active ALF training camp. The point had been put forth that helping a potential journalist find Lee did not constitute help or cooperation. I think it clearly does. But if you find Newkirk not to be reliable on the matter, we can omit all the things referenced in her book from that page and other pages (including Ronnie Lee). There has been more than one suggestion that that particular segment of her book is fictional or was at least staged (ie: Valerie could have been a PETA employee at the time and afterwards and the entire training camp segment was pre-arranged - this is speculative). And in the future I would appreciate that if you insist on putting words in my mouth, you take credit for it. --Animalresearcher 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What does this have to do with Newkirk? You are misusing sources; it's your fault, not the fault of the source. Editors on both sides have lost trust in you over the last few days; you might want to reconsider your approach if you want to continue editing. If you post anything that is potentially libelous in the slightest, you'll be reported and may be blocked from editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoring and disclosure

I added some deleted material which was moved out of the Animal rights article with the understanding that it would remain on this one. Just to be clear, I recieved the following email:

From: Roncey Valley -
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
Date: November 11, 2006 10:09:53 PM EST
To: xxxxxxxx
SlimVirgin has removed all the information on the Nazis and anti-Semitism from the Animal liberation movement page where it was moved several months ago.
I can't get involved publicly (so please do not respond on my talk page) but could you look at the page and see about either restoring the stuff she removed or moving it to another article like Animal welfare?

The name(s) do not correspond to an actual WP user, so I suspect some inside argument is being played out here, and I don't care to be particularily involved. I've received emails from this account inthe past. Whatever the case, I think the material removed does have a place, so please don't revert it based on your personal arguments with other WP users, whatever they may be. Nrets 01:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That material was added by the sockpuppet (User:Farnsworth J and User:Farnsworth J.) of an editor recently banned for exhausting the community's patience. That e-mail was almost certainly from him. He added the material only to be provocative, and he's e-mailing you because he thinks you'll agree with his provocation and will continue to cause trouble by proxy.
As for the edits, first of all understand that there was no animal liberation movement during the Third Reich. Kathleen Kete mistakes anti-vivisectionists for animal rights activists, when in fact many people oppose vivisection on animal welfare grounds alone. However, as Kete does make the mistake and counts as a reliable source, we have to repeat the mistake when we cite her. But we can't repeat it without citing her or citing someone else who says the same thing. Therefore, my question is: what do the following two paragraphs have to do with animal rights according to the sources?

Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax argue that Nazi animal protection measures "may have been a legal veil to level an attack on the Jews.'" (Arluke, Arnold & Sax, Boria. "Understanding Nazi Animal Protection and the Holocaust", Anthrozoos 5(1):6-31; 1992) cited in , Counterpunch, August 18, 2005)</blockquote

According to , composer Richard Wagner associated Jews with vivisection "presumably because of kosher killing methods" and encouraged physical attacks on vivisectionists. (, "A Short, Meat-Oriented History of the World. From Eden to the Mattole", New Left Review I/215, January-February 1996)

That is, what do the sources say exactly about the relationship between Nazi animal protection measures, Jews, Richard Wagner and the animal rights movement, which is the subject of this article? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
As you have mentioned before, SV, the animal liberation movement has its origins in the animal welfare movement, so yes the anti-vivisectionist movemnt (be it on rights or welfare grounds) is related to the animal rights movement. Finally, opposition to Kosher slaughter paractices can not be considered anti-vivisectionist, therefore it is also about animal welfare, and not just opposition to vivisection as you claim it is. Nrets 03:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
All of this information is available in the Animal rights and antisemitism article - as created by Farnsworth J. We don't need duplication here as well. Also, this ties in with the Animal rights and the Holocaust article. Should all these bits be merged under a single article?-Localzuk(talk) 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The Farnsworth sockpuppets kept trying to add the same material to New antisemitism, Animal rights, Animal rights and the Holocaust, and eventually created Animal rights and antisemitism especially for it. I would say the best place for it is Animal rights and the Holocaust, so long the sources talk explicitly about animal rights and not about animal welfare/anti-vivisectionism in general. The Nazis had exactly the same anti-vivisection laws that Britain had incidentally. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You keep on saying that anything related to animal welfare does not belong on this article, but that's the argument for moving things out of the AR article saying that they reallly were related to the animal liberation movement. Now you say these thing don't even belong here. What gives? Now as far as the British and Nazi anti-vivisection laws go, the laws may be the same but the underlying ideology can vary greatly, so that's a completely irrelevant point. Nrets 03:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The crucial point is that you can't call any attempt to change conditions for animals "animal rights" or say that it came from the "animal rights movement." There are plenty of anti-vivisectionist groups who aren't AR, and that was particularly the case in Nazi Germany. There's no indication whatsoever that Germany had any AR legislation or planned to. That's why I made the point that Britain's anti-vivisection legislation was the same as Germany's. Both acted out of animal welfare concerns, and whether anyone agrees with them or not, there's no evidence at all that it had anything to do with AR. Indeed the animal rights movement didn't even exist then. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to confirm that is the editor Homey who was banned indefinitely. I've also received e-mails from in which he tried to draw my attention to material supposedly about my personal life that was being published on an attack site. There's no question that the person who sent those e-mails was Homey. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Who is Homey? Nrets 03:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You can see his sockpuppets and the discussions about him here. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Localzuk, I looked again at the Animal rights and the Holocaust page, and it wouldn't be appropriate there because that's about the use of the comparison. Maybe we should just merge the Kete material in here as it is now, and anything else that's mergeable, and delete AR and AS. We could ask an uninvolved editor to supervise the merge to make sure it's done neutrally if that would help. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the AR and the Holocaust article is not really the appropriate place. I like the merge idea, and I still think the Arluke and Sax, as well as the article probably have material which can be incorporated here. I think getting a truly neutral editor to supervise the merge is an excellent idea. Nrets 03:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll look for a good editor who hasn't been involved in AR issues before. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Overlooking yet another ridiculous "omg SV is evil pov warrior" screed-rant at the AN, I was flipping through the whole animal rights/welfare/liberation series of articles. I noticed that there is no section on criticisms of the animal liberation movement. Any particular reason why not? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Elaragirl, it depends which articles you've looked at. Most of the AR articles I've worked on have criticism woven throughout the text, where the context is explained, rather than having a POV magnet section called "criticism"; see, for example, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, giving you the last version I can vouch for. Or an article about an activist: Barry Horne.
It's especially important with animal rights topics to allow the facts to speak for themselves, and not label things "criticism," because something that one person regards as criticism, an AR activist might regard as neutral or even praise. For example, PETA is often "accused" of supporting the ALF. But in fact it does so openly and proudly, and its members have written about that support themselves. So to put that in a criticism section would be to buy into the POV that support for the ALF is something PETA should be criticized for.
If you were looking specifically at the Animal liberation movement article, it's a mess and needs a lot of work, as does Animal rights, which is very poor. The material in the former is text that was siphoned off the latter for length purposes, and it was never written up properly. It's on my very long to-do list. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


What is the issue in the lead that you want a ref for? [6] It seems self-explanatory. Re: that most animal rights advocates are vegetarian/vegan, that's a strange thing to ask for a source for. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Slim. Please assume good faith before accusing me of WP:POINT in the edit summary. It's one thing to say that about an editor who does it as a habit, but I don't, nor do I have any record of doing so in the past. To address your questions, what you find "self-explanatory" may indicate your emotional investment in the article, rather than a NPOV. You admit in a previous comment above that the article needs work, yet you defend that version from improvement. I added the cite tag to the lead, as there is no source given for using the fringe term "Animal Liberation Movement" over the common, and widely used term Animal Rights movement. The lead also neglects to mention the common term, animal rights activists, even though you have forced that term to redirect here. Neutral sources are required for those two items. I've been working on countercultural social movements for some time, and have written about them for years. My research indicates that the article should be named Animal rights movement, with a separate article on "Animal rights activism", and either a list or a category containing Animal rights activists. This standard apparoach holds true for most articles on movements, activism, and activists. As for Singer's opinion about diet and activism, I would like to see the data, and I would question how stats from 1975 apply today, and whether the movement includes a significant number of meat-eaters, and conclude that the broad movement is dominated by meat eaters. You are probably aware that some of Singer's ideas have been proven incorrect since 1975, such as his assumption that mollusks can't feel pain or pleasure (see the Octopus). Again, please do not continue to remove cite requests. It is perfectly reasonble for you to ask why, but skeptical, critical thinkers will see many problems with this topic, so please, take a step back, and read the article with fresh eyes. I know you run the Animal rights WikiProject, and it may benefit you to make that project a direct descendent of the Philosophy project, to enable neutral editors to have more oversight on this matter. In the short term, you can also create workgroups that interface with other projects to allow for constructive criticism. —Viriditas | Talk 04:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think that animal liberation movement is a "fringe" term? It gets 38,000 Google hits. Why should the lead include the phrase "animal rights activists? It says "activists," and this is an article about the animal rights movement, so it's probably not referring to anti-abortion activists. I have no idea what you mean by your research showing etc. It sounds like your OR. We don't need a separate list of activists, for reasons that have been explained several times by several people, people on both sides of the pro- and anti-AR divide. Please provide a source for your "standard approach," because I genuinely don't know what you mean. I didn't give you information from 1975; as the citation makes clear, there was an edition in 1990. Do you have a source showing there's a significant number of meat-eaters in the AR movement? That would be astonishing. I don't run the wikiproject, and why would it have to be a descendent of any other project? We have neutral editors; we have pro editors; we have anti editors. Honestly, V, I don't know what you're trying to achieve, but I can't keep responding to these comments. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I think you are aware that the google test is relatively unimportant, especially when activist groups use google bombs to manipulate search results. For what it's worth, have you checked how many hits ARM receives? Neutral, reliable, published sources use "Animal rights movement" to describe this topic. The term, "animal rights activists" is a common term used to describe some members; the activists aren't called "animal liberation activists". I can't respond to the OR claim, since it seems your refusal to cite a source for the lead is just that. I made a perfectly reasonable request. Regarding the 1990 edition, do you know if that is updated info from 1975, and if so, what study is Singer using? The standard approach for categorization is well founded, and the Animal rights WikiProject does not control articles related to politics and sociology, nor has any reasonable justification been supplied for removing, redirecting, and deleting such lists and categories that help users find information. You created the WikiProject, and when I tried to communicate with other members, you took control of the discussions. You don't need to reply to my comments, but you must stop engaging in WP:OWN. —Viriditas | Talk 05:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have the 1990 edition. It has been updated; that's probably why it was published. I have no idea what studies he used, if any. What do you think the difference is between the terms "animal rights movement" and "animal liberation movement"? And no one took "control of the discussions." People with very different views disagreed with you. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The claim in question, "The vast majority of animal rights advocates adopt vegetarian or vegan diets" should be supported by additional, neutral sources. If you have Singer's book, you could provide the context of the claim, and find any supporting footnotes. As for the difference between the two terms, that's a question you should answer. Singer used the term in the title of his book and other activists have discussed evolving animal rights into animal liberation, so the question really is, what do activists mean by it, not what I think it means. You took control of the discussion when you moved it from the neutral category talk page to WikiProject Animal rights. When replies were made under headings to particular users, you replied instead. I don't see any disagreement, only a refusal to allow activists to be categorized or put into a list, with no actual reason cited. I also see an attempt at intimidation on your part. It doesn't matter, because you don't control political and sociological categorizations, and discussion will be requested from others who have neutral views on categorization. I'm not here to discuss that subject. I'm here to improve this article. Please walk away from this subject for a while and work on other things. Like you said above, this is low on your list of priorities. If you want to engage me, leave a message here. I may not respond quickly enough (something you referred to as ignoring people, merely because I'm not online as much as you are). Just let me edit this article without having to deal with your repeated edit warring. —Viriditas | Talk 06:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how you can improve the article without knowledge of the subject matter. You seem to be making a deal out of the difference between "animal liberation movement" and "animal rights movement," so please tell me what you see the difference as. What does "evolving animal rights into animal liberation" mean? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to ignore your intimidation tactics, which only serve to change the subject. I've already explained my knowledge of the subject previously. The onus is on you to source the lead and demonstrate Singer's sweeping claim. The requested move citations and discusssion above show there is no basis for calling ARM the ALM. And, for more information on evolving the animal rights movement, read George Cave. It is not knowledge that improves an article, but the right application of knowledge, and more importantly, a neutral, historical perspective. I hope your next act is to source the lead and to find a neutral source for Singer's claim, otherwise I will tag this article again. —Viriditas | Talk 01:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. What intimidation tactics. What sweeping claim? You put a fact template after the sentence:
"The animal liberation movement or animal rights movement, also sometimes called the animal personhood movement, is the worldwide movement of activists, academics, lawyers, campaigns, and organized groups who oppose or engage in direct action against the use of non-human animals in research, as food, as clothing, or as entertainment."
But you didn't say which part you wanted a source for, and the sentence as a whole is so obviously true, that requesting a citation looks like WP:POINT or something. In fact, I'm going to use it the next time we have policy discussions about people misusing WP:V. You did the same after the sentence:
"The vast majority of animal rights advocates adopt vegetarian or vegan diets ..."
Asking for a citation for this is almost as bad. I gave you Singer, a professor of philosophy who has written extensively about the animal rights movement, but now you say you want a "neutral" source. Neutral sources are not required under WP:V, only reliable ones, and academics in relevant fields are regarded as reliable. I'm also not sure there's any such thing as a neutral source in the area of animal rights.
You've also tried to make a distinction between the expressions "animal rights movement" and "animal liberation movement," but you won't say what the distinction is, in your view. Read what George Cave? Your half-responses aren't helping me to work out what your concerns are, and yet you regard attempts to clarify as "intimidation." I am therefore mystifed by what you're seeking to achieve. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You have repeatedly established that whatever you personally believe is "self-explanatory" or "so obviously true" does not require sourcing. It is not WP:POINT to gently remind you that it does, and for the reasons I have given you. And, if these things are so obvious, then it should only take you a minute to find a neutral source and cite it. Instead, you engage in intimidation, attempting to discourage me from pursuing neutral sourcing in the face of your alleged superiour wisdom. And, when you denied it, you proceeded to do it again, this time threatening to make an example of me in a policy discussion. This approach isn't conducive to WP:CIV nor WP:AGF, and you do it to intimidate and distract away from the topic. To summarize, I have requested sources for the lead section and the statement about diet. I will be requesting more. The animal rights movement is broad, and in order to define its members we must understand its boundaries. As for the sweeping claim about diet, I am again asking for the context of Singer's observation, and would like to know what study this was based upon. Of course, this claim should be attributed and put into chronological context. These are reasonable requests, all of which lead to improving the article. Your response is not one I would expect from someone interested in working cooperatively to make this article more accurate. The title is not supported, nor is the lead. There are questions about neutrality. This is not rocket science, and should be easy to solve with the addition of balanced sources. —Viriditas | Talk 04:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Whenever I ask you a question, you say I'm trying to intimidate, which is hardly conducive to collaboration either. At the risk of intimidating still further, I have to ask you what you mean by "the title is not supported," and what "chronological context" means in the context of animal rights advocates being vegetarian/vegan. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I have made it quite clear that your tactics of intimidation had nothing to do with any questions you asked. The title of the article is not supported, hence my request for sourcing in the lead. If we assume Singer's claim is true, we can also assume it was added in the 1990 ed, and that prior to the 90s, ARA's did not embrace veg diets in large numbers. One critical source for this claim is Carl Cohen's 1986 article in The New England Journal of Medicine. Comparative chronology can set the tone, structure, and focus of an article, and help resolve contradictions. —Viriditas | Talk 05:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't look for sources if I don't understand you. Please say what you mean by "the title is not supported." Supported in what sense? How can a title be supported or unsupported? And what does Carl Cohen's article say? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"The title is not supported" is about as clear as possible, so I don't understand your difficulty. Naming conventions require the most common, accurate, and appropriate title, and this varies by topic. The lead claims that ALM is the primary term, when it is not. —Viriditas | Talk 06:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Writers use animal rights and animal liberation movement interchangeably. If anything, the latter is more inclusive, because although not all liberationist are rightists, all rightists are liberationists. What is the primary term and what is your evidence? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I found the Cohen article. It doesn't seem to say anything about most members of the animal liberation movement being, or not being, vegetarian. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I remember his comment appearing at the end of the article. I'm not at home, but from memory I think I can recall his main point. Cohen argued that the tenets of the mid-1980s animal rights movement necessitated vegetarianism, and he criticized the movement for not following through, observing that only a tiny minority of the movement adhered to such a diet. His standard of evidence is on par with Singer's, so if we assume both claims are true, the ARM did not embrace a veg diet/lifestyle until the late 1980s, early 90s. It is incorrect to state that the members of the animal rights movement have always been vegetarian. Another reason I asked for a neutral source for your definition of the ARM is due to its broad scope, which may include groups who are not dedicated to vegetarianism. —Viriditas | Talk 06:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't see anything like that in the Cohen article. Anyway, our article says "The vast majority of animal rights advocates adopt vegetarian or vegan diets ..."; it doesn't say anything about "always."
How could a group not dedicated to vegetarianism be a member of the animal rights movement? Do you have any examples? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you please answer the question? Which groups that support animal rights do not support vegetarianism? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Cohen was pointing out what he saw as the reductio ad absurdum in the animal rights argument: "One cannot coherently object to the killing of animals in biomedical investigations while continuing to eat them...wearing hides...employment in any industrial enterprise that uses animal parts...any commercial development that will cause death or distress to animals....Scrupulous the only fully coherent position the critic may adopt...the lives of fish and crustaceons must also be protected...very few consistent critics adopt this position." In 1989, Laurence Pringle wrote, "...some vegetarians support the use of animals in medical research. Within the animal rights movement there are many who still eat meat. Their goal is a better life for the animals they consume." Pringle goes on to cite Noel Perrin and James Cargile. He also claims that many members of the animal rights movement do not support all of Singer's or Regan's ideas, both of whom demand mandatory vegetarianism. So it appears that you are arguing for only one view of the animal rights movement, hence the need for the NPOV tag. —Viriditas | Talk 11:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
But who is Laurence Pringle? We have to use sources who know something about the movement. Of course not all members of the movement support Singer or Regan's ideas; why would they? Cohen's argument is a good one, but the words "very few consistent critics adopt this position" are not in the article, so far as I can see. Which paragraph are they in? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Pringle is a wildlife biologist, former editor, and writer. I only offered Pringle and Cohen for discussion; I don't intend on adding them to the article. You can find a copy of Cohen's article here: [7]. Due to his writing style, it's somewhat ambiguous if he was referring to vegetarians in particular (or just commenting about fish) so I may have been reading too much into it. —Viriditas | Talk 12:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Cohen wasn't being serious with the last point about fish. It was (in his view, but not really) a reductio ad absurdum of the animal rights position. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, although there is also some truth to it. It's a minor point, but his opinion of animal testing is far more relevant. I took a look at the print version of the Encyclopædia Britannica today, and although it is slightly biased in favor of the AR position, it is a good example of the direction this article should be moving towards. The article should be changed to Animal rights movement, as that is the most common term. This particular article seems to focus on the modern, post-1975 ARM, and an effort needs to be made to integrate this distinction into Animal rights or to distinguish between ARM and ALM. I am still awaiting good, neutral sources for using ALM to describe the ARM, which is inaccurate from an historical perspective. —Viriditas | Talk 02:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I wish you'd explain the distinction you're making between ARM and ALM, because I genuinely don't get it. Also, the modern animal rights movement is all there is. It started in the UK in the 70s. There are earlier animal welfare, animal protection, animal advocacy groups, but not animal rights/liberation, and not global i.e. not a movement as such. Not a coherent philosophy. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is this article named Animal liberation movement? I'll address your other comments later. —Viriditas | Talk 10:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think SlimVirgin adequately covered that earlier when she said Writers use animal rights and animal liberation movement interchangeably. If anything, the latter is more inclusive, because although not all liberationists are rightists, all rightists are liberationists. It allows the article to cover those people who support the concept of animal rights and are part of the animal liberation movement and it also allows the article to support those who are liberationists but don't support the concept of animal rights. As we both have said, your persistence on trying to remove this term simply shows that you do not know much about the movement in general. Please realise that the 2 terms are relatively interchangeable but have slight differences (as described above).-Localzuk(talk) 10:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understand NPOV nor article naming conventions. You are also confusing an article about animal liberation philsophy with an article concerning the animal rights social movement. This is not a unique instance of this type of problem, which is solved by choosing the most common name (Animal rights movement) and linking to separate articles within it. In some cases, there may not even appear to be a "main" or "top" article, if the concepts involved reciprocally link to each other in both horizontal and vertical directions. Take a minute to make a diagram of concepts this article covers, and you will see the relationships emerge as subarticles, lists, and categories, with links to related concepts branching off in more directions. Animal liberation is contained by philosophy, while animal rights movement is a form of social movement. Animal rights activism links to the activism category that in turn contains animal rights activists. Subarticles may be contained by subcats appearing within each domain and in the parent. This system works in order to help readers, not editors. —Viriditas | Talk 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
To give one example from the sources: Angus Taylor, who lectures on ethics at the University of Victoria, talks about the animal liberation movement, and splits it into (a) rights liberationists, who believe that animals ought to have legal rights extended to them, and who may also believe animals have inherent moral rights, and (b) utilitarian liberationists, such as Peter Singer, who argue for animal liberation only on the basis of the greatest happiness of the greatest number, or some version thereof; that is on the basis of consequences, not rights. (Taylor, Animals and Ethics, p. 153 ff.) From this it can be seen that the animal rights movement is a subclass of the animal liberation movement. All who believe in rights are liberationists, but not all liberationists are rights theorists. That is why the article is called the animal liberation movement. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand this POV and would like to see it represented. However, we have naming conventions for a reason, and Taylor's opinion, while important to the philosophical discussion of animal rights, is given undue weight in the naming of an article that covers a social movement. This is not a unique situation and is a common problem faced by most editors. It is always solved by using the most common name, but giving fair treatment to related concepts. You have provided a valid reason for creating a new Animal liberation (philosophy) article, but Taylor's POV does not alter or change our approach to naming conventions. —Viriditas | Talk 23:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget ASPCA!

The pages on animal rights, or animal liberation (who really cares...) has no mention of ASPCA!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pittlers (talkcontribs).

The ASPCA is an animal welfare organisation, not an animal rights organisation.-Localzuk(talk) 09:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Article is weighted

I agree that this article isn't NPOV. It seems to favor eco-terrorists...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittlers (talkcontribs)

Please could you say how? A vague comment such as this does not help improve the article as those who edit it regularly may overlook things. If you can provide specifics this will be helpful. Also, you may want to read WP:NPOV to make sure you understand our policy correctly. Whilst the article may have more 'pro' animal rights information in it than 'anti' this does not necessarily make it POV.-Localzuk(talk) 09:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

occupation of supporters

can i ask what the ocupation of the supporters has to to with the article and in particular the specific occupations stated. i feel that by listing lawyers and academics but not taxi drivers and primary school teachers it sounds like the movement is the preserve of intelectuals. which i feel is false. Grinchsmate (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. The reason I described the movement that way is that it basically has three component parts — the academics who are developing the philosophical ideas behind it; the lawyers and legal scholars who are studying how current laws apply to animals, and how they might be used to develop judicial challenges on behalf of animals in the future; and the activists who are on the front line, lobbying and engaged in direct action. I wanted to emphasize those three arms of the movement, as opposed to giving a more inclusive list or leaving out a description entirely. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

if that is what it meant the last version was terrible. i feel this is a little less ambiguos although i recognise it is not very well written. Grinchsmate (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Shouldn't there be a "Criticism" section? This article is a bit promotional (not that I disagree with it, just that an encyclopedia should be neutral). Noloop (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. David Olivier (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talkcontribs) 21:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the impression that the article is "promotional". There are parts of it that I find definitely biased against the movement; for instance, the mention of animal liberation "terrorism" (what kind of terrorism is this, that has killed exactly zero people?). But whatever faults there are in the article should be addressed in place, not by creating an artificial "criticism" section. Also, what criticism is there really, apart from people just repeating the traditional point of view that says that "humans come first", etc.? What's the use in stating all that? Everyone knows that the AL movement is not unanimously followed. David Olivier (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Criticism sections are very standard and useful. Since there is a lot of criticism of the AL movement, it is natural to inform the reader of it. This is an article on a controversial topic that mentions little of the controversy. As for terrorism that doesn't kill people, well, how about the terorism that blows up, burns down, things? Noloop (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at the Terrorism section. You're right: that's a bad section. Not because the topic is bad, but because that particular writing is obviously pushing a POV and the refs are bad. A fair and balanced criticism section that merely aimed to inform, rather than persuade, would still be a good idea. Noloop (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you be more specific what is POV about this section? Regarding the source, they do support the claims made. (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Why are you following me around from article to article? Noloop (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Note to other editors, see this ANI discussion about Noloop and his "track record of removing large sourced chunks of articles". I merely followed the links provided by the admin Black Kite. (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. Then note that what was referred to as a "large sourced chunk" here is three sentences. And in the anti-Americanism article it is two sentences. Oh, and you didn't merely follow the links, you reverted my edit. Noloop (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
You removed a whole section from this article and a whole paragraph from the other article, despite the section having sources. And that seems to be a pattern according to the ANI thread. (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a "whole section" consisting of three sentences. The text doesn't in fact have sources, if by "sources" you mean refs that actually support what is said in the text. This isn't the place to discuss the other issues; I left a message for Black Kite, feel free to take your stalking there. Noloop (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Given that at Anti-Americanism you have already been caught red-handed lying about the content of sources, your claims about sources not supporting the statement in the article is not really believable. It seems to be more a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And by the way, I am not stalking you, I followed links on ANI and corrected the problem. If I would stalk I would show up at more than just two article where you deleted content. So stop your accussation, and also the lying. (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


Regarding these three sentences (the whole section):

Animal rights terrorism is closely linked to eco-terrorism and the two ideologies share support systems.[31]

1. It's not a factual claim that "ideologies share support systems"...that's an interpretation which can't be stated as fact by an encylopedia. 2. It's not a factual claim that two movements are "closely linked." That's also an interpretation. 3. The source doesn't say anything about close linking or sharing support systems. Nor does it say anything about terrorism. It is, itself, one support system for "people imprisoned for actions in defence of the earth and its inhabitants."

The U.S. Justice Department labels underground groups the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front as terrorist organizations. [32] [33]

The first source is a dead link. The second, an opinion piece in the Christian Science Monitor, doesn't say that Justice Dept. "labels" any group as a terrorist organization.

A wide variety of arson, property destruction and vandalism, and even attempts at assassination have been linked to various animal rights groups[34][35]

The first source is an opinion piece by... "The National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) is an educational organization that was founded in 1991 to support and promote responsible animal ownership and use, and to oppose animal rights extremism." Not a neutral source, and doubly not a source of fact (it's an opinion piece).

The second source refers to the comments of one person not acting as a spokesperson for any organization. And, it is only a comment that he believes violence would be justified, not a linking to actual violence. In other words, it doesn't support the text.

Some of this stuff could be used in a neutral presentation of criticism, but this section, as it stands, is just a hatchet job. Noloop (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

1. The FBI webpage can easily be found via the webarchive.
2. Its not an opinion, it is a long list of incidents. If you can find factual inconsistencies in this list, let us know. (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Please edit articles because they interest you, not because you've decided to have a personal vendetta against someone. Regarding (1), I don't get your point. Regarding (2), I don't know what you're referring to. It doesn't seem to refer to my (2) above. Noloop (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Tribe citation

The source cited in reference to Tribe does not meet Wikipedia reliability guidelines. This is not the biggest problem though - it is also completely unverifiable. The source does not itself cite a source for its statement that Tribe has ever said anything about animals. I attempted to verify the claim and was unable. DaveinMPLS (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Animal liberation movementAnimal rights movement – Per WP:COMMONNAME; 4650 gnews hits for animal liberation movement vs 1190 gnews hits for "animal liberation movement". In addition, we have the category Category:Animal rights and Category:Animal rights movement, the latter of which this article is technically the head article. A previous discussion renamed the category in 2006; the article should have been renamed at the same time: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_9#Category:Animal_liberation_movement. Animal liberation is also sometimes tied to Animal Liberation Front, which is a more radical strain that engages in (sometimes illegal) direction action; not all those who believe in animal rights also believe in the goals or methods of Animal Liberation Front --KarlB (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  • comment Note: previous rename discussion here, closed as no consensus in July 2006. Talk:Animal_liberation_movement#Requested_move --KarlB (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Are these not separate concepts? I think of animal liberation, I think of groups breaking animals out of circuses and labs. I think of animal rights, I think of philosophical discussions about extending to (non-human) animals legal and social rights accorded to humans. Ascribing rights to animals might, in many cases, result in their liberation, but it still seems like two articles might be the way to go. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • For now, they are all in the same article; and Animal rights movement links to that. I think Animal Liberation Front is what you're talking about, animal liberation is more of a philosophical twist; there are many different competing philosophies, but since sources use them somewhat interchangably, I think a single article for now makes sense, with separate sections outlining different aspects of the movement. --KarlB (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – Agreeing with the nominator, my impression is that "animal rights", rather than "animal liberation" is the more common name for what is being described in the article. Changing the name to "Animal rights movement" would also improve consistency with the article at "Animal rights". As far as I can tell, the primary difference between what is in the "Animal rights" article and what is in the "Animal liberation movement" article is that the latter one is about political activity and the former is about the concept that motivates the political activity. There does not seem to be a difference between the underlying concepts described in the two articles, and both of them start with a sentence that says " '... rights ...', also known as '... liberation ...' ". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, per nom & BarrelProof. ENeville (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I could go either way on this. In the previous discussion, it was pointed out that some people in this movement disagree with the animal rights philosophy, which would be a pretty good argument against the move. On the other hand, the contents of the page are pretty much animal rights, as opposed to animal welfare, for example. I also tend to agree that the association of "liberation" with the ALF tends to be confusing for our readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article moved to Animal-rights movement (with hyphen)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
moved back to Animal rights movement by Kwamikagami. --KarlB (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Punctuated per MOS, as there was no discussion that this article should be an exception. — kwami (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This change was (a) never discussed (b) not supported by any sources provided (c) already reverted once by another admin. This is clearly a controversial move. Please undo it and open up an RM here if you have sources or policy-based arguments to back you up. --KarlB (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with KarlB. In fact, I don't even think the hyphen is consistent with MOS. Animal rights is not hyphenated. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course animal rights is not hyphenated, but that is irrelevant to animal-rights movement being hyphenated. Strong arm is not, but strong-arm tactics is. Animal rights movement would be an animal movement for somebody's rights, but that's not what this is, it's a human movement for animal rights. You don't need the hyphen if you cap, because that's enough to show the phrase is a unit. — kwami (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to ask you one more time. Please revert the move (which has already been reverted once by an admin), and then open up an RM and let consensus decide the merit of your arguments. Using your admin power to enact a unilateral move in the absence of consensus (especially when the article, the category, and all of the sources do not have the hyphen) is an abuse of the mop. Otherwise I will refer this onwards.--KarlB (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

  • I'm not a sysop, just a curious bystander. Grammatically and orthographically speaking, "animal-rights movement" is correct: you have multiple nouns ("animal" and "rights") used as a compound modifier applied to another noun ("movement"), and in such cases, the compound modifier is hyphenated. This makes it clear that one is talking about an [animal rights] [movement] and not an [animal] [rights movement].
Is there any particular argument against using hyphens? The closest rationale I could identify above is based on a confusion regarding use cases, and does not actually address the issue with regard to compound modifiers. If it's an issue of usability and making sure that users can find the page, a redirect should suffice. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 17:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a very good explanation by SlimVirgin at Kwamikagami's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There's an explanation, but I don't think it's necessarily a good one, as it boils down to a matter of opinion about how well-known a phrase is. (No offense meant to SlimVirgin.) The phrase "animal rights" might be very familiar to the people editing the article (and, frankly, I'd rather hope so), but we must remember that at least some of our readership is not familiar with the subject matter, and for them, this might be an unfamiliar phrase. Hyphenated compound modifiers are immediately identifiable, and require less backtracking and double-parsing on the part of the reader in order to tease out exactly what is modifying what. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 23:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I reverted my move because the reason was intelligent and therefore worthy of discussion, not because I necessarily agree with it. No-hyphen is more common than a hyphen, but then people tend to be sloppy with hyphens, something to be avoided in an encyclopedia. Perhaps more common yet is capitalization, which obviates the need for a hyphen. We do not follow that convention, however, which suggests that we are not following common usage. (Not that common usage applies to formatting anyway—that's what the MOS is for.) We also generally do not assume that our readers are familiar with the topic at hand. The format of the title of the article (where we can expect readers to be familiar with it) will be used as an argument for formatting that way in other articles (where we cannot make that assumption). — kwami (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
And I thank Kwami for that. I admit that there are clearly two sides to this discussion, but I hope that readers are unlikely to think that animals have organized into a movement about rights. And I hope that the issue has been settled for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Public Support

I'm not 100% sure that a single article, that can not be viewed in the link referenced, from a publication of a, no offence, minor publication with a clear bias is sufficient for a whole section claiming that it is "issues are increasing in popularity with the public.". In addition, these numbers are pretty far out of date. For these reasons I am removing it. If you want to replace it, please provide a working link..The Australian Red Man (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)