Talk:Cruelty to animals

Lead images for articles on animal cruelty/abuse

I recently changed the lead image in this article. I did this for several reasons. First, the previous image of a horse being beaten is not (in my humble opinion) a particularly clear example of the subject matter. The horse being beaten occupies only 1/3 perhaps 1/4 of the image. It is a lovely piece of fine art, but the eye (at least mine) is not immediately attracted to the horse. The other reasons for my edit relate to the image I chose (a man beating a dog). There are many articles on animal abuse or animal welfare where it is difficult to find a lead image that is not too shocking, but which conveys the message of what the article subject matter is. The image I chose is actually a stamp, so presumably will not cause offense. It is also clear and immediately conveys the message of what the article is about. I had hoped to use this image as a generic image for related/similar articles. I have the greatest of respect for the editor who changed the position of the image I included and I will not be reverting this. However, I would like to open up discussion about lead images for similar articles.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm that editor in whom you've badly misplaced your respect, and, as I tried to indicate in my edit summary, I recognize that this is very subjective. So, my subjective opinion is that the horse image benefits from being antique, on a page where we could easily have some very emotional photographs instead. One's attention is brought to the horse and its significance by the title of the artwork, which comes right at the beginning of the image caption. On the other hand, the postage stamp strikes me as a rather crude and cartoon-like image, with primary colors and almost-stick figures. In any case, they are both lead images, and the question is which one to have first and which second. I don't really think that there is a right or wrong answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the reply and I'm fine with the current positioning. I guess I was drawn to the postage stamp because of its primary colours, simplicity and cartoon-like nature. This allows it to show something which I suspect would cause offense if it was depicted as a photo of a real event.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay to use the image of a stamp anywhere in the lead section? and also, who would chain a German Shepherd and beat it, it is not cruelty it is madness! I suggest removing or at least moving it to another section.Kiatdd (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have absolutely no doubt that at sometime within human society a German Shepherd has been beaten whilst chained. Whether this is "madness" I will leave to those who are medically qualified to make such a diagnosis. I would point out that the other lead image shows a horse tethered to a cart being beaten - is this also "madness"? I believe the stamp accurately depicts "Animal cruelty" in a way that is less likely to cause offense than a photo as per WP:LEADIMAGE.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it dangerous? beating a German shepherd of that size, perhaps the perpetrator is zoosadistic. Can we move the image to section psychological disorders? Kiatdd (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the perpetrator in the image is zoosadistic? I don't know, but I could certainly not verify this if I was to move the image to that section. Please give your reasons for suggesting to move the image.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the first image on the page, the monkey in a vice image, because (a) the subject wasn't mentioned in the article, (b) animal testing or experimentation wasn't mentioned, and (c) it was just too shocking. Normal Op (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

OR in "No pet policies and abandonment" section

The section "No pet policies and abandonment" is mostly original research. Neither the citations nor the breakout article, Abandoned pets/Pet abandonment, covers this information. Needs rewriting. Normal Op (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Conceptual approaches to animal cruelty?

The phrase "conceptual approach to animal cruelty" is too 'academic' for a Wikipedia article on the subject of cruelty to animals, and is not defined... at least not clearly. It is mentioned in the lead, but is not clear whether the explanation is left out or whether the following information are examples of such "conceptual approaches". The phrase is also mentioned in the section "Unnecessary scientific experiments or demonstrations" where it says there are three. Someone please, if you can even understand this... please rewrite it so that it is clear and makes sense. Normal Op (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

Should we add a section listing incidents/scandals and companies that committed animal cruelty? If so, here are a few. Note the fact that they are not in order, so maybe someone can organize it later.

List of Animal Cruelty Incidents

1. The Peluchin Entertainment Controversy was about a 16 year old Gaming YouTuber who killed his pet cat for attention
2. A YouTuber named Ssoyoung ate animals alive for attention
3. PETA has done so much animal cruelty, that it needs a section of its own.
4. A Twitch livestreamer threw her cat off a balcony
5. A YouTuber named Shuno Yo has killed hundreds of dogs and animals due to child trauma

2600:1700:2F00:3830:6DFE:4890:4F3:F259 (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Response

1. Ew! (disgust reaction) I surely wouldn't want to read any of those articles.
2. You are recommending a "list" of actual cases. Wikipedia has much written about the creation of "lists" in articles (or even as standalone list-articles). A good place to start might be reading Wikipedia:Victim lists (just substitute the idea of human with animal) for an understanding of why this sort of list will probably not be acceptable within Wikipedia. If these sorts of cases already were notable enough to have their own articles, then a "list of" such cases/articles would probably be acceptable.
3. There is already an article for PETA; you can edit there. (You might need to sign up for a username account in order to edit that article.)

— Normal Op (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Response

What I'm about to suggest isn't entirely relevant to the suggestion I'm replying to, but I think bringing it up here seems fitting as it also pertains to animal cruelty in social media. I'm talking about fake animal rescue videos where the video makers put animals in harmful situations and then pretend to "rescue" them. These videos are on the rampant (there are thousands of them online and numerable new pages/channels and videos popping up every day), and the social media platforms do next to nothing to remove them. YouTube say they have "banned" this practice, but they seem to do very little to actually remove this content.
Gullible viewers actually think these outrageous videos are for real, even if the abusers are really bad actors, and even if they "rescue" the same animal over and over again, "find" animals the same place over and over again and so on. For sadistic viewers I'd say these videos are like inspiration, propaganda and/or instructions and new pages/channels like that pop up all the time.
This is notable enough that it should have its own Wiki page, but I guess for starters it could get a section here. The problem (for me) is that I'm not an academic, and I simply am not able to write such an article or even a section myself, so all I can do here is gather info and links and implore someone who knows how to write properly to do that. Anyone? About this issue in the news: Mon Eddie (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes

NonhumanAnimalAutonomy I have reveted your edits again. I'll try to explain some of the problems with them.

• First, your additions are unsourced. You have included a link to an advocacy website, but that is not a reliable source according to our guidelines.
• Second, you make numerous subjective assertions in Wikipedia's voice, which is entirely unacceptable. This ultimately applies equally and without exception to all persons, whether human or non-human. is an opinion, not a statement of fact - that would need to be attributed. This has obvious and profound implications regarding the concept of 'Pet Ownership'. - according to whom? Is this your own reasoning? One may adopt a non-human person as they would a human child, however adoption does not confir ownership. - which legal jurisdiction does this statement apply to? Etc.

Simply put, Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. If reliable sources discuss these concepts, they could potentially be included in the article, but they would need to be attributed to the people who hold these positions, and would need to be reliably sourced. If you reinstate those changes again, I will ask another administrator to block your account for edit warring. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 12:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

As you wish Girth Summit. Have it your way. Keep the miserably written, and misleading article as it is, cited sources and all. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

NonhumanAnimalAutonomy, I haven't read the article - I have no view on the quality of the writing, or the reliability of its current sourcing. The stuff you were adding, however, seemed to be entirely your own opinions, or those of the organisation whose website you linked to. That is not what Wikipedia is for. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Which countries (if any) have laws conferring personhood on non-human animals? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

None. This is the ongoing mission, to achieve non-human personhood and autonomy as legal precedents. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Well you may wish to fix your research as many non-human animals have indeed been conferred personhood by various countries, mainly great apes. Canterbury Tail talk 14:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with research, sovereign states, or their local laws. Nothing has been accomplished until All non-human animal species are universally accepted as autonomous persons, which, in reality, they have always been. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That's your opinion. In any case, crusaders such as yourself seldom last very long on Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Which he didn't. Indef'd a few hours after the above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)