Talk:List of animal rights groups

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Animal rights (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


This page is intended to replace the animal rights list of List of animal welfare and animal rights groups. There seems to be a consensus on the talk page of that article that merging the two pages was a mistake, and I agree. The two kinds of groups are different, disagree (often publicly) on major issues of animal protection, and for the most part are easily classified. So, I will try to do this classification.

On another note, I would argue that classifying these groups by whether or not they support or use violence against people is rather shamelessly POV, especially given the fact that of the groups listed as such on the other page, only two could reasonably be argued to even condone violence against humans (SHAC and JD, although SHAC is quite a stretch and the JD has probably ceased to exist), while the others (ALF, BoM, HSA, and PETA) are officially and unequivocally against violence. To say otherwise is, in my humble opinion, ludicrous. Therefore, I intend not to employ the classification on this page. I welcome discussion, though.

A more reasonable classification in my mind is "Above ground" and "Below ground", since it not really open to interpretation (except for SHAC, which I'm sure we can all agree is hard to classify in many ways), and is actually a useful, informative distinction, rather than one made solely to discredit the groups listed in the mind of the reader.

---SpaceMoose 11:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's correct to classify SHAC, SPEAK, and the HSA as leaderless resistance movements. They very clearly have a centralised structure: addresses, phone numbers, spokespersons, newsletters, etc. It's true that sometimes people will independently do things towards the same goal as their campaigns, but this could be true of any organisation. Maybe you could say, for example, the overall campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences follows a leaderless resistance model, but not SHAC itself. Arfan2006 17:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Shac is leaderless, as it doesn't have a leader or membership. There is a campaign office with a selection of volunteers who help to keep the site running, be a press office and relay information from meetings of people who decide what to do under the 'shac' banner. This is the same for the other 2 also. Take a look at their articles and you will see a better explanation I believe.-Localzuk (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
HSA is leaderless, in that it is a network of autonomous local groups. The central functions of press officer, merchandise, tactics, groups liaison etc are guided by the individual groups and members at annual meetings. Applicants for membership are pointed in the direction of their local groups. SPEAK and SHAC may be different, in that there are people that could be identified as working 'full on' (all-be-it as unpaid volunteers) for the camapigns, However as they are not 'employed' or even elected, 'leaders' might not be an appropriate term, especially as there are plenty of other active supporters ready to pick up the baton whenever these guiding hands are 'detained' elsewhere. Paddedrock 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to help with this list, but please advise:

  • Is it mainly intended as a listing of groups included on Wikipedia, or as a listing of 'all' groups - in which case the list would be huge (for example the World Animal Net Directory claims to list 17,000 organizations with 10,000 links to web sites and the Animal Contacts Directory lists over 500 'national' groups in the UK alone).
  • I agree that the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights is reasonably clear, or at least debatable on a case by case basis, but how would you define groups as suitable (ie notable enough) for inclusion?
  • The internal & external links are mixed together - this could be due to many people adding individual groups, which may be a good thing. The List_of_animal_welfare_groups seems more clearly defined, with separate sections for internal & external links.

Paddedrock 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


I think the most recent changes in this by TomLovesCake are well-intentioned but just make the listings wordier without improving them. Wiki definition of movement indicates something larger than a campaign. Certainly repeating movement/campaign in the sub-heads then again in the sub-sub-heads is redundant. I would vote for reverting these changes. Bob98133 (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, pending a good explanation by Tom. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Call for animal rights groups to do more on food labelling.....[edit]

This is a best contribution for ethical treating animal, the similar reason as GM food labelling for ethical treating human health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC) By doing so, people can monitor their diet on the quantity of the animal material they consumed for good ethical practices.

What about IFAW?[edit]

International Fund for Animal Welfare? They have or had a campaign to paint baby seals with a dye just before the start of the annual seal hunt to make their pelts worthless to would-be seal poachers.

HSUS is Animal Rights[edit]

I had added the HSUS to the this list, but it was reverted. I am strongly contesting this revert, and will re-instate, this time citations. First of all, on the HSUS page itself, it states (with multiple citations): "In 1986, the HSUS director of laboratory welfare, John McArdle, opined that "HSUS is definitely shifting in the direction of animal rights faster than anyone would realize from our literature". The HSUS fired McArdle shortly thereafter, as he alleged, for being an "animal rights activist." At about the same time, HSUS president John Hoyt stated that "This new philosophy [animal rights] has served as a catalyst in the shaping of out own philosophies, policies and goals."" It is also peppered with cited statements such as, "In early 2008, The HSUS re-organized its direct veterinary care work and its veterinary advocacy under a new entity, the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, formed through an alliance with the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR), a group of veterinarians that support the animal rights movement."

Furthermore, as a person who volunteers at and has been trained to work at zoos, I can tell you from personal experience that the HSUS is one of the Animal Rights groups we have to continually protect ourselves against (legally). Sadly, most people, including other zoo keepers, support the HSUS because they believe that it is the parent organization for their local animal shelters, which they are not. Wiedspread ignorance of that aside, consider that veterinary boards opposed Prop 2 in California (2008 election), while the HSUS was the leader in campaigning for it. For those of you who aren't familiar with the terms, veterinarians are almost always consider themselves animal welfare, not animal rights. If this was an animal welfare issue, then why oppose Prop 2? Lastly, I have sources that I plan to cite that note the close relationships between top HSUS officials (including Wayne Pacelle) and top members of PETA, as well as information about numerous former PETA employees that have been hired by the HSUS.

I don't want to start an edit war, but the HSUS makes sure that it's name is tied with local animal shelters (which they are not) and that they are distanced from not-so-popular groups such as PETA (with which they share close ties). The HSUS is essentially the right arm of PETA, and I would not be surprised if their employees and/or supporters troll Wiki to keep their name clean. When it comes to animal rights and animal welfare there is a lot of misinformation and NPOV issues on Wiki. Personally, I'm busy re-writing and promoting numerous lemur pages. Maybe when I'm done, I'll have time to help with this problem... although it will likely result in me getting labeled as someone who starts edit wars. Just remember NPOV and that Wiki is not the tool of one side or another. –Visionholder (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vision, you're right that Wiki needs to protect itself against one side or the other, and what you're doing here is promoting one side, even though I can see you're doing it in good faith, and sincerely believe your POV is correct. That's why we stick to reliable sources. The source you used is an animal researcher, vet, and dairy farmer, who obviously has his own views. We need multiple sources who have no dog in the fight, and who are preferably academics who have studied this area specifically, or a self-description from HSUS itself. As things stand, no reliable source that I have found calls them an AR group, the AR movement does not regard them as AR, they don't see themselves as AR, and none of the work they do or the language they use is that of AR. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)