Talk:Animal rights

Changes to lede - removal of political jargon

I made changes which removed two extremely POV terms from the lede:

Point 1

"..that the most basic interests of non-human animals" is political jargon that asserts that humans are animals and that the colloquial/normative distinction between humans and non-humans (ie. animals) is non-existant. Changed to "interests of animals.."

Point 2

"..that human beings should stop seeing other sentient beings as property" is political jargon which leaps over the normative distinctions between sentience and non-sentience by asserting 'non-human beings' are likewise sentient, or otherwise equivalent. Changed to "seeing animals as..."

Point 3

PS: "...that animals should be viewed as non-human persons and members of the moral community" - "moral community here should be linked, if its an actual concept. Linked moral community.

Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's OR, Steve. I don't think I've seen a modern animal rights advocate, at least not at academic level, spend time arguing that non-human animals are merely sentient; it might be stated in passing, but it's hard to imagine it being argued unless part of some specialized debate. If you want to add that AR advocates do argue this, it will need a good source. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What's "OR," Slim? I've been kind enough to regard the prior errors as "political jargon" and not simply weasel terms, which is really what they are. I don't see how anything you've said above deals with the three changes listed above, which you reverted wholesale. I find your comments a little bit chewbacca actually. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the same OR that was discussed here, Steve, where you were explicitly asked by several editors not to engage in it anymore, and here where were you blocked for it. The language of the lead is the language used by philosophers who write about this. Because this article is about the concept and its development, and because it's a concept largely developed by philosophers and law professors, we've tried to stick to academic sources when discussing how it's currently understood. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I filed an ANI. You need to learn a few things about academic honesty. Like actually reading what someone has written above, and responding directly to it. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't simply go along with this idea that you can revert whatever you like and come to the talk pretending that you have abided by some higher calling. Please address my three points above and then we can get on to discussing yours.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you seem to be providing arguments against animal rights advocates above, rather than arguing over what should properly be in the article. What's being described in the statements you edited are the beliefs of the advocates. If you want to change their stated beliefs, you need to source that. You can't just provide an argument that the statements are fundamentally flawed. You need to show that the statements don't actually represent what the advocates are saying. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can respond to my three specific and particular points about how the lede was written before I edited it, that would be a wonderful place to start. Keep in mind that the term "animal rights advocates" is political jargon in its own right. The term "animal rights" has a certain oxymoronic aspect to it that needs to be discussed here in this article. It can't just be given over to animal rights activists for use as they see fit, which 'seems' to be what SlimVirgin was doing. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure any group can identify themselves however they like. It's really not up to us to correct them; just to report what they say and what they call themselves, according to reliable sources. That's it. If you want to argue with the claims they make and the words they use, you're probably in the wrong place. If you can find sources to back up your criticisms of them, you could probably get that into the article. Not as the lead paragraph, but somewhere. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But the issues I raised did not put such ideas within a context of claims made by "animal rights" advocates. One cannot assume any other context than NPOV, in which I found those three items (top) to be POV language. I am happy with the current state of the article. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me as though the purpose of those statements you pointed out is to describe the beliefs of animal rights activists, and is stated in that context. I don't agree with the current version of the article. Slim's "easter egg" point also has merit, ie. where you link "afforded the same consideration" to "rights". This is unnecessary piping. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This needs a source: "They argue that human beings should regard animals as sentient ..." They do of course say that animals are sentient, but it's not a major argument because it's taken for granted. It's what the sentience implies that is the issue.

And your change to this sentence has left me not knowing what it means (your change in bold): "They argue that human beings should regard animals as sentient, and stop seeing them as property, or even as property to be treated kindly." The current version reads: "They argue that human beings should stop seeing other sentient beings as property, rather than as property to be treated kindly." Sourced to Gary Steiner. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all there is a clear definition of sentience, that does not consider simply that sense = sentience. Yours is an argument that belongs at the sentience article, perhaps. To say that a major fulcrum of an animal rights argument, that sentience equals sense (why not just say "sensing"), and that all sensing creatures are sentient, is "taken for granted" is simply a POV. Animal rights activists have had a difficult time at the sentience article as well, where they argue for a lower consciousness definition of "sentience" that defies all other definitions that go beyond merely sensing. And yes, I understand there are some unusual scientists who argue for animal equality/personhood. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea that most people have of AR is people protesting in streets. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking here about a fairly complex concept, developed mostly by academic philosophers and professors of jurisprudence, and becoming more complex all the time as the debates continue. It's something that requires a fair bit of scholarly reading and the use of high-quality sources when making edits about it, especially edits about the philosophy. That sentience equals sense, for example, is not something I understand. If that's your own idea, it's OR. If it's not your own idea, do you have a source? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't rocket science. There are three points I made (top) regarding what I called "POV jargon" in the lede, which you chose to defend without commenting on any of them directly. Do so, and we can advance to the next level. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Point 1

I know nothing about the subject, but coming from the perspective of the English language, the first sentence is patently ridiculous: "the idea that the most basic interests of non-human animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings". The qualifier "non-human" is superfluous. No sane reader would imaging that the word "animal" could be taken to include human here, and even if they did, the context of the sentence removes any possible ambiguity. The sentence simply does not need the term. The minute I read the sentence, my reaction was "that's odd, why is it there?" and to wonder what type of agenda it betrayed. I removed it, but was reverted on the basis of a talk page agreement - but I see none. With due respect to those on this page, could your specialist knowledge and awareness of sensitivities of the arguments on both sides, be colouring your editing? I strongly suspect that any editor coming to this without preconception would share my sense of bewilderment and suspicion. We write in plain English, plain English does not need, and would not use, a qualifier on the word "animal" and especially when the same sentence makes clear we are using it in contradistinction to human beings.--Scott Mac 12:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that "non-human" should remain in the lede otherwise it is confusing since humans are included in the animal kingdom. Many religious groups argue that this is not the case, that humans are not animals. Saying that animals should have the same rights as humans, means that humans are not included in the group animals which is simply not true. Besides, one of the points that it seems animal rights is trying to get across is that humans are animals, too. Since this is the lede, it is not uncommon to present info as viewed by the subject of the article. If all this doesn't convince you, go the the cited reference [Britannica] which refers to non-human animals. Bob98133 (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How is it confusing? I don't see any way in which anyone could be confused by that sentence. Grammatically, it is completely clear. We shouldn't bring in the POV of religious groups, or what is "true". We simply communicate the facts as unambiguously as possible. When you set up a sentence that contrasts "animals" with "human beings" - it is totally unnecessary to say "non-human" - it interjects a perspective that's grammatically unnecessary.--Scott Mac 14:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Animals include humans, according to our own article about them. Therefore, comparing "animals" to "humans" is ambiguous, like comparing "people" to "teachers". This is the terminology used by Encyclopedia Britannica in this context, and high quality tertiary sources are the best for terminology issues. Crum375 (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Linguistically, the term "animal" can mean either including or excluding humans. It is, in fact, commonly used in the exclusive sense - to denote "the animal kingdom" in contradistinction to humanity. Indeed, that is the sense in which it is being used here. It is comparing "animals" to "human beings". Since the sentence makes that clear, there is no need for the redundant qualifier. Frankly, you argument looks ideologically motivated. In common English animal means non-human, and the sentence certainly is referring to non-humans - so no need for more. However, I have this sinking feeling that I'm going to lose this because the usual ideological tag-team is determined to have its own way. Fine - but your article is not neutral.--Scott Mac 15:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"...to denote 'the animal kingdom' in contradistinction to humanity": Can you point to a reliable source which says the "animal kingdom" excludes humans? Crum375 (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake, are you unaware that when people use the term "animal" they often mean "as opposed to human"? Are you seriously arguing that? If you need a source to say that this is a common usage of the term "animal", can I suggest you simply grab the nearest dictionary?--Scott Mac 16:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My nearest dictionary has as its first definition: "an-i-mal: any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli..." The second meaning is to exclude humans, and the third is mammal, to exclude fish or fowl, etc.. The key here is context. In this case, where we are comparing intrinsic philosophical and legal rights in a scholarly context, we assume the scholarly (and first) meaning, hence we compare "non-human animals" to "humans". Why do you think Encyclopedia Britannica, one of the most respected tertiary sources, uses that terminology? Crum375 (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never disputed that first meaning. However, when the sentence is comparing "animals" to "humans", there's not much chance anyone will read it as "animals (including humans)" vs "humans" thus there is no need to say anything. The sentence makes quite clear we are using the second common meaning. It is obvious to the reader that the context demands that animals here is used in the human excluding sense. There is no possibility of the sentence being confused. Your demand we put "non-human animals" here, is simply an attempt to force the "first" inclusive meaning of animal, only in order to (ironically) exclude humans from the group in question. It makes zero linguistic sense. The sentence manages to clearly imply the group we are speaking of, without the grammatical contortion. Hence, I suspect the insertion is for other than grammatical purposes. Leave the "non-human" out, and we communicate perfectly clearly what we want to convey.--Scott Mac 16:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Scott, the first sentence defines what the idea is, and it has been defined by the academics who write about it. "Animal rights, also referred to as animal liberation, is the idea that the most basic interests of non-human animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings." This is a description of the idea at its most basic. If you look at the source, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, you'll see they also talk about non-human animals. To discuss animals on the one hand, and human beings on the other (as though we are not animals), is imprecise language, and odd-looking in an article about an idea in philosophy and law. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone methodically through all of the recent edits, the new talk above, and even the ANI thread. Honestly, I have to disagree with Steve and Scott, and agree with Slim and Crum (as much as it might surprise them!). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A herd of deeply grateful non-human pigs has just flown past my window. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh-oh! Sounds like genetic modification to me. :-D --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see discussion is continuing on the points I addressed. I still can't understand what SlimVirgin means when she says the article "has been defined by the academics who write about it." It doesn't mean much, when the academics she's referring to are pro-animal personhood. Can you cite more than one source, slim?

The argument Slim and others put forth is that we use a non-standard, supposedly "scientific" definition of "animal." Essentially they are saying that everything in all existence must be either animal, vegetable, or mineral. Humans therefore, in their view, must be animals. In general speech however, the term "animal" is used to indicate something "non-human [biological organism]" and apologies if I'm leaving out any extraterrestrials. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought we used common English not pro-animal accadmiceese. However, Steve, give it up. It isn't worth it, and from experience you know this one is lost. I'm unwatching. I've no desire to slug it out, against the usual agenda pushing.--Scott Mac 21:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That kind of comment isn't appreciated, Scott. It's perfectly standard in articles to use the vocabulary that academics use, so long as it's not jargon that no one can understand (and even that's sometimes unavoidable). But the language of non-human animals and non-human primates (NHPs) is quite standard across a range of disciplines, including the natural sciences. I have several books on my shelves here by researchers who use it, including scientists opposed to AR. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not shy about slugging things out, but it seems to me to be fine to distinguish between humans and non-humans in this particular context. It's not POV-pushing. It's just clarity. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually am going to take Scott's advice. I understand why some here need to defend their pet concepts. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Companion animal concepts, if you don't mind! :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is laughing. As usual, you're stuck on using POV terminology to the extent of starting an edit war. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC) PS: Don't you mean "companion non-human animal concepts?" -Stevertigo (w | t | e)

Lighten up. SV made a funny and witty joke about pets. We need more humour around here and less battleground mentality. Viriditas (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate that. PS: But the issue here is that the article still remains in a POV state, as per the wishes of a POV editor. Certainly I am free to change the article, but then I would also be unjustly castigated as being provocative. I dislike such unnecessary predicaments. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are worried about POV, how about taking a moment to review all of the current and past discussions to see if previous issues have been addressed? If you find they have not, make a list using small bullet points. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't rocket science. There are three points I made (top) regarding what I called "POV jargon" in the lede, which you choose to defend by not commenting on any of them directly. Do so, and we can advance to the next level.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve? I have not chosen to defend anything. I'm not even involved in this discussion. My point, in case you missed it, is that you haven't made a case for POV, but you might find some ideas in the archives. If you're just going to throw around silly accusations, then you aren't going to get very far. If you are having trouble convincing others of your position, consider that the problem resides with your presentation. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Viriditas just said here. Steve, I've been involved in those past discussions, and I have the scars to prove it. There's a reason that SV expressed surprise that I agreed with her. If there's any editor around here who is receptive to correcting pro-AR POVs to be NPOV, it's me. If anyone raises issues where the page adopts the POV of its subject, I'll be happy to help argue the case. I did read each of the three points you raised here, and in all three cases, I can understand how the language can play into an AR POV, but in each case I think that it is clear that the language is referring to the positions of AR proponents, and therefore is describing them accurately. It seems to me to be a matter of clarity and precision of language, not of POV-pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The first of three issues I raised is, repeated (as my above comment was a repeat): "..that the most basic interests of non-human animals" is political jargon that asserts that humans are animals and that the colloquial/normative distinction between humans and non-humans (ie. animals) is non-existant. Changed to "interests of animals.."

I do not begrudge anyone here for being sincere in their views that pet = person. The issue here is the unusual warping of the term "animal" to include human beings, rather than distinguish from them, in such a way as to draw further equalities such as "sentience" and "rights." You will note that Scott took sincere concern with this issue as well.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Break

Understood. The word "animal" can be used to refer to all the various species that are not humans, as in "humans and animals". In my case this has nothing to do with assigning personhood to pets. As a professional biological scientist, I understand that humans are living organisms, that we are not plants, that we are not protists, that we are animals. Animals of the species described by the Linnaean binomial Homo sapiens. So, the word "animal" can refer to all animal species, And I say that without any kind of prejudice that would pre-suppose including humans, and it can also, in another usage, refer to non-human animals. The language on the page is clear and precise, in that it clarifies the ambiguity that would otherwise exist between those two meanings of the word. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood. In a classical classification, all things not vegetable or mineral are animal. In common usage, as well as in scientific usage, the term's human and animal are used in large part to distinguish from each other in a qualitatively important way. This is done so that a myocardial infarction in a human is not considered or treated the same way as a myocardial infarction in a head of cattle.

We do use English here on English Wikipedia, such that for specialized usage of common terms, the term should be specifically re-defined upfront, without "taking for granted" (after SVirgin) any anomalous, precocious, or specious usage such as the kind found in this article. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We do use English here, and the very first meaning of the word "animal" in the dictionary includes humans, as does our Animal article. The use of the word animal to exclude humans is colloquial and not used in academic circles. This article is about law and philosophy, and as such uses academic terminology. Not to mention that Encyclopedia Britannica uses the the same "non-human" terminology for this entry as we do. Crum375 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not correct. Only in the context of scientific articles does the concept of "human" belong in the classification animalia. The topic and hence context of this article is not science nor "scientific" - its about the suffrage of Mr. Ed. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Modern philosophy of animal rights theory is rooted in good science, so you may want to reconsider your argument. I suppose it is the difference between soft and hard philosophy, but there is a range of scientific datasets, hypotheses, theories, and observations that lend weight to the idea of animal rights and/or discredit it. The current trend is to move the softer social sciences into the domain of harder sciences through interdisciplinary study rooted in evolutionary biology. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Modern philosophy of animal rights theory is rooted in good science.." - Please explain. It is my understanding that there is little in the way of "animal rights" which has substance, scientific or otherwise.

"I suppose it is the difference between soft and hard philosophy, but there is a range of scientific datasets, hypotheses, theories, and observations that lend weight to the idea of animal rights and/or discredit it." - Please explain. How is such scientific data said to influence an argument in legal contexts in favor of animal sufferage? Keep in mind that the word "rights" here could be a misnomer. Also, while eliminating animal suffering may be quite reasonable, such is quite different than giving your pet goldfish the vote.

"The current trend is to move the softer social sciences into the domain of harder sciences through interdisciplinary study rooted in evolutionary biology." - Please substantiate with examples. It is my understanding that evolutionary biology does not support claims of animal language, let along animal intelligence, let alone animal sufferage. Heinlein said it well: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you seem to be hung up on the concept of animal suffrage. Are you aware of any reliable source that proposes giving non-human animals the right to vote? If not, some people here, perhaps with less WP:AGF than myself, could consider this to be a straw man argument. Crum375 (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not hung up on anything. I'm just using the term "suffrage" because its synonymous with "rights" and "enfranchisement." Probe things unto their logical conclusions and we can have a sensible discussion. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is Wikipedia, where we base everything on reliable sources. Do you have a reliable source supporting your view that "suffrage is synonymous with 'rights'" in the context of animal rights? Crum375 (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that by "rights," "animal rights" does not mean that animals have a right to education or a right to vote, but that they should be protected from cruelty and forces which destroy them wantonly. I'm using the word "rights" in its normal meaing as a natural, social, or legal construction of principle.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you might want to read the article or some of its main sources to become more familiar with the concepts. No, animal rights (AR) advocates do not focus on the the issue of animal cruelty; that's the animal welfare advocates, which are a separate movement, sometimes at odds with AR. The main meaning of "rights" that AR advocates use is the right for non-human animals to live their lives without being harassed, killed or otherwise abused or treated as property by humans — essentially the right to liberty. There are no AR advocates that I am aware of who propose any more rights than these, but you can read the article and sources, and form your own conclusions. Crum375 (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Great. Now how does any of that justify using the problematic wording "non-human animals" here in a way that would be improper for any other article to do? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The wording is justified on any article where it makes sense, such as comparing humans to the rest of the animal kingdom in an academic discussion. In this particular one, Encyclopedia Britannica uses the same terminology, the scholarly reliable sources use it, and the first meaning of "animal" in the dictionary includes humans, so the distinction needs to be made. And I didn't raise the "rights" issue: it was you who said it equates to voting rights. Crum375 (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the wording, so we're in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Previous concerns have been raised about the weight given to certain subtopics, and I've tried to point Steve in that direction. I think we're done with this particular point and I recommend closure of this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm just repeating myself here. I'll leave things be for a while. Naturally its not a plain and sensible argument that I'm trying to counter here. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm also far from convinced that it is either plain or sensible to argue that "Modern philosophy of animal rights theory is rooted in good science", I do not see the scientific usage of the word "animal" to include humans as some sort of specialized or obscure meaning of the word, nor do I see its use to mean "animals in contrast to humans" to be an obvious or default meaning. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's rooted in bioethics. While it is true that great effort has been made to paint animal rights proponents and activists as antiscience, the wonderful, sweet irony is that the anti-rights stance is actually a religious, pre-scientific position based on Creationism which asserts that humans and non-human animals are greatly different, and its a position that ignores all of the scientific evidence pointing to our shared heritage and behavior. Viriditas (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point, admittedly. I suppose that one can still debate what bioethics traces back to, but that's an argument for another page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Next time you talk about "animal rights," be sure to disambiguate "non-human animals" from the other kind. PS: And of course we who deal with human rights concepts are going to have to be less ambiguous as well. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit that it's not always easy to tell non-human from human animals, when all you see are key strokes. I believe there is a theory that Shakespeare's works were created by a thousand monkeys punching away at keyboards day and night.:) Crum375 (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My theory is that's how Wikipedia was created. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Its actually pretty easy. The smartest animals can't construct an expression with more than two or at most three words. And there's no way to ape construct sentence intelligible randomness as you suggest. So that's two ways by which I can tell that each of you are human, and not just biased. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So if a non-human animal edited WP, would you consider it biased? Crum375 (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a non-human companion animal that's passing the Turing test. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Cookies and web browsing history will sometimes indicate species. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Math question for animists

Homo sapiens < Animalia ~ human rights < animal rights ? :-P -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 14:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

When you use math, you need to define your terms carefully. Most errors will pop out at that point. Crum375 (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Please explain which terms I'm using that you think lack careful definitions, and what errors "pop out," from your perspective. Ignore my taking liberty with using the "less than" symbols (<) ambiguously as "is a subset of" symbols —a little ambiguity doesn't actually destroy the intended meaning. Naturally this isn't really a "math" question either. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

One problem in your above "equation" is that the word "animal" in "animal rights" seems to imply that it includes humans, while the term "animal rights" (as defined in this article) refers to the rights of non-human animals and therefore excludes humans. This leads to a basic "bug" in your equation. Crum375 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but wrong. The context there in that side of the 'equation' is "rights," just as the context on the first side of the 'equation' (correlation) is "scientific classification." In the context of "rights" there are ways to divide up how to apply rights in accordance with legal scope, relevance, jurisdiction etc., but not by species. If animals got legal "rights" then distinctions between how a goat can file a suit and how a human can file a suit become matters of process, in the context of the same "right" that they both would have. Your idea of "error" is actually correct, but the error is in the premise of simply transplanting a human concept called "rights" and applying it to the beasts. Beasts have protections, but those are rooted in human principle, not in animal "rights." Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you seem to be engaged in original research. Unless you can provide reliable sources making your above analysis, it is of no use to us on this site. Crum375 (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. Do you not also despise it, "Crum375", when people who support losing arguments throw "WP:OR" out as an accusation? If you are not interested in the discussion, don't join it. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: The error of using scientific classification ("homo") as an argument for transplanting a human legal concept ("rights") to the beasts is notable. In logical notation, this error might be written:

Argument A: Homo sapiens ⊂ homo ⊂ Animalia. Argument B: human rights ≈ animal rights. A !≈ B = "Rights" !→ animalia.

PPS: There is also a linguistics error with directly associating "animalia" with the beasts, but that is contained by or mirrors the larger error of naively transplanting a scientific classification concept into a legal concept. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you ask "Do you not also despise it, 'Crum375', when people who support losing arguments throw 'WP:OR' out as an accusation?" Actually, it rarely happens to me, because I try to support everything I say here by providing reliable sources. If you provide such sources for your above statements, nobody would accuse you of original research. And that's the key here: we don't present our personal views or analysis, but provide reliable sources to help improve the article. Our own personal views are irrelevant here. Please read WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOTSOAP carefully. Crum375 (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

At some point, if it is relevant to improving the article, could you folks translate into English whatever it is you're talking about? If this is not relevant to improving the article and is merely discussion, would you please take the discussion to your private talk pages? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair request, Bob98133. The explanation for my actions here is that in the context of improving the article by removing weasel terminology from its lede section, I was reverted and waylaid and countered (see above sections) by people putting forth an argument that remains devoid of logic. Weasel terms tend to do that. By introducing logic here, I deal away with illogical arguments, and thus make a solid case for dispensing with all of the weasel terminology in the article that, of its own POV suggests its considerations are philosophically well-founded, and get on with the business of describing what "animal rights" is —namely crude shorthand for "animal protections" rooted in human (not animal) moral principles and compassions.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well and good, Stevertigo. However, by using a method not familiar to most editors you are reducing your chances of getting consensus for your changes. Perhaps instead of stating what you fault in the logic in an equation, you could put it in English words? That way other editors might understand and agree with you. I don't know what you're talking about, so I'm not likely to agree with your conclusions, and I suspect the same may be true for other editors. Furthermore, I do not believe that human actions, or Wiki pages, are governed by logic. While it may be a useful tool, people are far too inconsistent for their actions to be considered logical. Bob98133 (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an animist, so I hope that it's OK for me to reply to this talk section. I am reasonably comfortable with set theory, so now that Steve has clarified a few things, I'm pretty sure that I understand what he is asking. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Steve is drawing attention to the facts that: (1) humans can be considered to be (a subset of) animals, and (2) if one does consider humans to be animals, then human rights would be a subset of animal rights. Thus, if animals in fact have rights, then humans, as animals, would also have those rights. And, therein lies a bit of irony: editors have been arguing for the language in the lead that specifies the idea of rights extended to "non-human animals", while at the same time the page is titled "animal rights". Here's my opinion on the matter. Just as some animals (and indeed some people!) tend to be a bit fuzzy, the sets we are discussing here are fuzzy sets, which please briefly see. Animal rights proponents (not to be confused with Wikipedia editors) argue that they are extending certain human rights, certain rights that have historically been claimed by humans for humans, to animals other than humans. So, in coining the phrase "animal rights", they (not to be confused with Wikipedia editors) are, indeed, treating humans as a subset of animals. But some Wikipedia editors (not to be confused with animal rights proponents) feel that it is clearer to our readers to state that this extension of rights is proposed to be extended to those animals that are other than humans. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"A little bit fuzzy" is fine with me - I can go along with suggesting that the terminology applying "rights" to the beasts/animals is a bit colloquial. (The term "animists" likewise was my own "fuzzy" colloquialism, but I found the strange parallels just too funny to ignore). I also appreciate your clear understanding that "rights" is word for encapsulating all rights, each of which must then be defined in accord with logical subsets such that they can be applied to particular cases and particular... rights-holders. (The trend among us human beings has been to suggest that all humans have all equal rights). Instead of mincing up your conclusions (what animal has ever "claimed" a "right?") I want to express my gratitude for your actually understanding my point (about how not to mix colloquial terminology with scientific classification with high philosophical, moral, and legal concept), and to suggest that we can work on animal protections as a neutral alternative to "animal rights," which seems to have been overrun by animists. You wrote "..some Wikipedia editors feel that it is clearer to our readers to state that this extension of rights is proposed to be extended to those animals that are other than humans." Well its fairly easy to see that that angle of approach of explaining this concept runs afowl of a couple logical linguistic paradoxes, which cannot in good faith be left as is, per more than one of our encyclopedic values. Besides, "rights" cannot simply be "extended" - they quite often have to be "demanded." :-P -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I get it. So you think the title of this article should be changed to Non-Human Animal rights to satisfy fuzzy logic. Great. So let's change Cruelty to animals to Cruelty to non-human animals since that article really doesn't address human-to-human cruelty. Let's change Animal husbandry to non-human animal husbandry since that article doesn't address how to raise and slaughter humans. I think that "animal rights" is a concept that has been defined. It is not the sum of the two words. It is not necessary to break this down into human and/or non-human animal rights any more than it is useful to breakdown Military Intelligence into its components. This entire argument, although it may be logical, is specious. If you get around to suggesting how this discussion might benefit the article, I'll rejoin. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What you might be getting is that "non-human animals," regardless of where you use it - youve come up with some interesting examples - is just a really poor way to use language. Beyond that of course it runs into problems with our encyclopedic principles. Your examples have gotten me to think about the ways by which we use NPOV to settle arguments about terminology: We use the common term, but we don't let a particular POV, agenda, partisan, lobbyist, etc. claim ownership of the term, or ownership over an unusual (weasel) way of using language such as to promote their views. Note that "military intelligence" actually has two meanings - its military one and its humorous one.Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I'm glad that I was able to understand as well as amuse. Before you go too far down the animal protection road, you might want to compare and contrast animal welfare. What I think at this point is that Steve has clearly won a debating point: yes, there are all kinds of logical inconsistencies in the world of animism. But what I'm interested in is writing clearly for our readers, and I sincerely think that the wording on the page is better for its precision, however much it draws attention to the all-too-human error of this species tending to think fuzzily. Fuzzy readers, bless them, are helped by precise language that leaves less to interpretation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Didn't know about the animal welfare article. And redirecting animal protection to this article is probably only proper if this article takes a "protection" angle and not just a "rights" angle. What I suggest, since we've come to an agreement that the noted ways of using language - while honorable for possibly trying to resolve a controversy - are creating other intellectual difficulties, and thus are not actually resolving anything. I understand quite well what fuzzy logic is and while the current language might be "fuzzy" I can't go along with the suggestion that, by synecdoche, they were also being "logical." Besides, fuzzy logic is actually quite precise to what's required for a given input (and primarily just allows for smooth gradients to be part of a system of logic that would typically have only notched values), and its usage as a metaphor here was as innacurate as it was conciliatory: The "non-human animals" people were trying to hard code much of "animal rights'" debated aspects into a new term, thus concealing those debates. Well that's over, and we can now move on. I'll start animal protections as a disambiguation. It might help, actually, to add a third leg to the table. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Template

Interesting, there is animal rights topic template, but its code name is {{animal liberation}}, and its main feature is its people and organizations —not its animals, er, ideas. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the template that is alongside the lead of the page, right? I would tend to agree that we should look at what it contains. It was added fairly recently. Before, we just had the image. I'm not convinced that the additional template text is really that useful to readers, as it may be selective in what it highlights, as you say, and it does not provide much navigational help. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's an issues box located at this article only. The one I'm talking about is {{animal liberation}} which strangely isnt at this article. I've just hacked it. Should be moved to {{animal rights}}, that is unless this article should be moved to "animal liberation", such as to contain it as fringe. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Notes

(Saved for later)

Animal rights is a philosophical argument for the elevation in society and law of certain higher non-human creatures from a status of non-sentient organisms to that of sentient creatures or beings (depending on how "sentience" is defined). Hence to animals of a certain minimum intelligence would be extended "rights," protections (perhaps privileges), similar or equivalent to the fundamental rights humans beings claim. The term "animal rights" in fact represents a collection of philosophical arguments which in turn are designed to have influence in social and legal contexts —all of which essentially range from a moral argument for compassion toward other creatures, and through appeals to emotion, anthropomorphism, and other arguments, suggest that those creatures have "rights," either constructed or natural.

As a philosophical argument exceeds the bounds of a simple legal argument in which animals are simply extended protections, the range as based on moral concepts which are considered intrinsically human, but which extend to creatures whom cannot themselves ask, certain value such as to grant them status.

The term "rights" comes in large part due to the relevance of international law —current legal concepts of protection are typically limited to smaller national jurisdiction, while the major topics in "animal rights," particularly wildlife protection, have reached international crisis proportions. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to note that the edits to the lead are going to need to be discussed, but I'm also going to stand back and watch the feathers fly see what other editors say. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I do my best to be abstract and fair to all parties involved. As far as edit conflicts go, it of course would be nice if criticisms of my rewrites were based in substance. I've been finding over the years that I've been dealing more with numbers rather than intelligent arguments. The issue sometimes is simply being clear about your intentions to be fair - in this case, I indicated my understanding of human compassion as perhaps the most essential argument, and that seems to have been evidence enough that I wasn't just some baby elephant killer. Which reminds, me - protection of wildlife has to be referenced here too. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a few problems with this wording, I'm afraid. The first is that Animal rights, in the manner in which it is generally used (both within and without philosophy) doesn't necessarily entail "rights". Thus Singer, who is generally regarded as significant figure and is discussed in the article, is by no means a believer in rights, and, indeed, as a utilitarian would be philosophically opposed to them. Second, "elevation" seems inaccurate, as it might be better said to be "recognition" - the arguments don't say that something about animals has changed causing their elevation, so much that people have failed to acknowledge something about the nature of animals such that we have not necessarily recognised their status. The wording isn't bad on this - I just don't think it really captures what is meant. And the third is with the statement "all of which essentially range from a moral argument for compassion toward other creatures, and through appeals to emotion, anthropomorphism, and other arguments, suggest that those creatures have "rights," either constructed or natural". This would seem to be inaccurate. First, grammatically it says they "range from" which normally entails a "range to". Second, most of the philosophical arguments are not based appeals to emotion or compassion: Singer's is a necessarily logical expansion of the utilitarian view, and I'm inclined to suggest that utilitarian sums are pretty much divorced from emotion anyway; while Regan is looking for key aspects that confer moral value, and identified one such - while that key aspect, the "subject of a life", entails elements for which we might feel compassion, the point is largely one of logical consistency in ethics. Indeed, generally the philosophical stance is based on logic: if we feel that X has moral value because of the possession of P, then logically all things possessing P should have moral value (given questions about sufficiency and equivalence, of course). - Bilby (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(Tweaks in progress) Well to start off with, "animal rights" is the common term we are working under. It, as we have discussed, has notable colloquial properties which make it difficult to directly state that animals have or should have "rights." The intermediate concept there really deals with status or intrinsic value. In legal terms the link resides in concepts like "protection," up to a kind of "basic entitlement." Those are the options, and though "civil rights" are not what most chimpanzees (or their doting protector-activists) are thinking about, they tend to object to the idea that what they argue for can be contained by the legal concepts of "protection," and thus suggest that animals themselves be regarded of higher life value. "Status" is perhaps the only word for it, and "rights" (here) is really just a way of containing a large range of ideas ranging from the practical to the excessively improbable. In normal human context, rights ostensibly means something more defined, but that's that first conceptual paradox again here. Thus the issue with "elevation" and "recognition" seems best to be confined to the term "status" (legal, societal, social, human), which involves more than law and protections, but the common general "life value" of organisms that aren't human. There is a scale there - people may have no problems with stepping on an ant, but have likewise an internal sense of deep wrong at the though of killing someone's pet dolphin. "Status" of the social and legal kind have a parallel in the context of human "status," and so that's why I think that word works. So while many animal activists may claim that animals have an intrinsic value that they alone know of and that their activism is in getting other (humans) to "recognize" this intrinsic value of animals, an objective look at their activism in legal and societal contexts might say that they argue only "recognition" where it might work, and and "elevation" of status where that might work. There is a "natural [God-given] right" argument and a "current legal status" argument - both of which are relevant. I agree that it needs to be covered, but not that it should replace elevation (enfranchisement). We cant even agree at the rights article if "rights" are really a legal construction or a natural and divine concept, so I think using "recognize" has to come in the context of "status" (legal, societal, social, human) in which it needs mentioning in the article the actual polling numbers: what animal rights argue for is largely unsupported by society or law. We see terms like "personhood" also. Strange, outlandish claims that may be the tip of the sword, and thus notable, but are not really the blade of the argument as a whole.

Bilby wrote: "Indeed, generally the philosophical stance is based on logic: if we feel that X has moral value because of the possession of P, then logically all things possessing P should have moral value (given questions about sufficiency and equivalence, of course)." True, there is logic in the logical part of what overall is an illogical function or transaction. The word "anthropomorphism" I think is fair to both sides in that it contains much information about the relations people have with animals and why in fact certain animals (higher mammals) evoke a human-animal correspondence. These correspondences are largely emotional and at the level of a mammalian compassion that tends to extend itself into colloquial theorising about deeper or meaningful similarities. The faces of tigers for example have certain correspondences which are anthropomorphic. Now it is sometimes argued that its not human on animal projection of similar being or consciousness that is the actual substance of this "anthropomorphism," but rather the similarity itself - a face of a another creature (or "being") with corresponding features that inspire certain theorizing about the mind behind the face. Thats interesting, but still anthropomorphic - which may lead to more sympatheic projections, but its still a projection. The tiger will still probably eat you. Sorry if this seems rushed. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty is that Animal Rights is a generic term for a area of ethics which may not have anything to do with rights, even in terms of the recognition that you point to. The mistake, I think, is when people break it down - it isn't Animals + Rights = Animal Rights, so much as a single phrase, "Animal Rights", which encompasses a broader range of views than the terms describe. This is messy, and part of the mistake is Singer's - as I recall he has acknowledged such, having failed to make the distinction clear in some of his work. I don't have a hassle with raising rights in the lede, but I guess I'd rather different wording which didn't claim that the process necessarily extends to giving rights, even in the sort of sense to which you refer.

In the second issue, I'm still inclined to disagree with your interpretation. From my perspective animal rights doesn't require anthropomorphism or compassion, per se. I'm not a big fan of Singer, but his argument is simple: utilitarian arguments say that we need to make decisions based on weighing up the outcomes of actions. To do so, we need to examine the extent to which preferences are satisfied. In doing so, to say that only human preferences should be counted is a mistake - the theory being expounded doesn't say that they have to be human to enter the equation, and he can see no particular reason, from a utilitarian perspective, why humans should be treated differently to any other animals. Thus, in making the decision about the morality of the act we need to take into account the preferences of all that will be affected. This isn't an argument from compassion, nor an argument stemming from anthropomorphism, but a logical extension of preference utilitarianism. - Bilby (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Bilby wrote: "The difficulty is that Animal Rights is a generic term for a area of ethics which may not have anything to do with rights, even in terms of the recognition that you point to." - Exactly. It's a lot like a catch-all term.
2. Bilby wrote: "The mistake, I think, is when people break it down - it isn't Animals + Rights = Animal Rights, so much as a single phrase, "Animal Rights", which encompasses a broader range of views than the terms describe. This is messy, and part of the mistake is Singer's - as I recall he has acknowledged such, having failed to make the distinction clear in some of his work." - Be careful not to regard what common sense guides in terms of explicating a concept like "animal [plus] rights" as a "mistake." Language is flexible and people are intelligent enough to use it to nail things down, just as they can be in using it to create distortions or whimsical expressions. Likewise imparting a great deal of sway over what are typically common sense topics to particular people should be regarded as a WP:BSM violation.
3. Bilby wrote: "I don't have a hassle with raising rights in the lede, but I guess I'd rather different wording which didn't claim that the process necessarily extends to giving rights, even in the sort of sense to which you refer." - An article about a concept with two terms in them with one of them being "rights" needs to get down to the business of defining what "rights" means in that context, particularly if the topic involves giving what mankind has fought for millennia over to someone's pet manatee. If the term "animal rights" has any validity at all it is in the concept of getting people to "elevate" or "recognise" (your term) some intrinsic value given to or within animals.
4. Bilby wrote: "In the second issue, I'm still inclined to disagree with your interpretation. From my perspective animal rights doesn't require anthropomorphism or compassion, per se." - I'm sure you know better than I what a broad spectrum of arguments there are out there. But those two aspects appear to me to be an essential part of many if not most (if not all) "animal rights" activist arguments. It is typical of me to do my best but fail at achieving perfection, such that one or even two interesting but not entirely essential components are missing. More below.
5. Bilby wrote: "I'm not a big fan of Singer, but his argument is simple: utilitarian arguments say that we need to make decisions based on weighing up the outcomes of actions." See also value of life and my comment on the talk page. It's possible that the economists and utilitarian arguments have certain self-contained logic in them, yet still remain disconnected from the reality of human being. The degree to which utilitarian arguments positively shape the world is doubtful. They do however seem to have functional value within greater debates and can give us certain detached perspective.
6. Bilby wrote: "Thus, in making the decision about the morality of the act we need to take into account the preferences of all that will be affected. This isn't an argument from compassion, nor an argument stemming from anthropomorphism, but a logical extension of preference utilitarianism." I agree then that it should be noted as one of the types of arguments in addition to compassion and anthropomorphism, but I don't know how it can be summed up as succinctly: the word "utilitarian" doesn't itself convey a similarly significant argument to my mind, and defining it too much would be out of the scope of the lede. Note, there are a thousand ways to counter the "humans actually don't have any worth either" argument. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 07:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverts and issues related to lack of participation in article discussion

Stevertigo, please don't add OR to articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I'm not going to tolerate your antagonistic hit-and-run reverts again. I don't know what you think gives you the right to run over what other people are constructively building through discussion and clear explicative writing, and labelling any such collaboration OR, but it is for such reasons that I can regard you as neither an ethical journalist nor editor. To the "animal liberation" editor, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you're removing a lead that's sourced to academics, and replacing it with your own opinion. This is exactly what you were asked not to do a few months ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo, and where several editors seemed to want to community-ban you for it. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Calm down. You've been away for over a week, and have no business coming here pretending to know what's what. Talk with us civilly and we can address your concerns. Don't work with your bad habits and don't bring up old news you don't know anything about and we can discuss this like adults. Humans even. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 08:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Concern #1: You write, "Animal rights advocates use anthropomorphism to argue that animals ought to be viewed as persons, not property." This statement is sourced to Gary Francione, however, Francione does not use the term "anthropomorphism". In fact, Francione writes, "This is not a matter of anthropomorphism".[1] Viriditas (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I answered this on my talk page. You did not format the statement as a quote, from Francione or anyone else, hence that it was a quote was not at all apparent. The error and fault and the unmitigated gall (for making the accusation) are yours. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 09:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve? I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you mistaking me for someone else? Slow down, formulate your thoughts, and try to reply directly to what I wrote above. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. If you are capable of intelligent conversation, of backing up your opinions with sources, and of backing up your usage of those sources in accord with a neutral point of view, we can talk tomorrow. Yay for the tag-team duo. You win! -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 09:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve, there's nothing for me to "win" here. Can you at least explain why you added "anthropomorphism" to this statement? Be brief, please, as my time on this topic is limited. I would love to see you work on the lead (I know you enjoy improving leads) but please take into consideration the comments of other editors. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Goodnight. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggested three things which I will now restate and elaborate on:

1. If you are capable of intelligent conversation: Neither of you have taken part in the open and earnest discussions above. This disqualifies you from asserting revert privileges.
2. If you back up your opinions with sources: You are both more than capable of citing Gary Francione, and perhaps other particularly notable and respected philosophers in the area of animal rights. I admit I have read very little of that author, but what little I have read tells me that while he may be an regarded as an intellectual giant among animal rights activists, his arguments are not based in sound science, nor are they based in sound philosophy. And even though he may be regarded as an authority in the context of animal rights arguments, he is not an unbiased source, and SlimVirgin and Viriditas' reference to a most biased source as an authority is at best a violation of WP:WEIGHT.
3. Viriditas took issue with my insertion of the "anthropomorphism" concept into what she first claimed was a quote, and afterwards claimed was incorrect due to what her favourite author says, simply: "It is not a matter of anthropomorphism." So the prophet says. There are no doubt some critics among the 58,000 hits for "animal rights + anthropomorphism"[2]. My impression is that the actual depth of the above mentioned author's refutation "its not a matter of anthropomorphism" does not go much deeper. Like many pop-psychology writers, he seems to simply slide from conjecture to conjecture without actually stopping long enough to give his conjectures any substance. In any case, even quoting the most revered philosophers is not a proper way to start an article, unless they have said in a cogent way what the subject is, and even then in moderation.
4. Animal rights activists do not own this article - In a properly written lede, in vogue writers such as Francione do not have ownership of the concept of animal rights, even though they may be regarded highly. (Read WP:BSM) There have been a great many people making various animal rights arguments, and frankly the weaker arguments do weigh down the concept in the overall balance. A general lead for a topical article does not clean up a topic just to make it look better, and ethical writers do not conjure up POV terms like "non-human animals" and "other sentient beings" and call them neutral ways to solve editorial disputes and topical ambiguities.
5. Back up your usage of those sources in accord with a neutral point of view. This seems to be a difficult part for you ladies. You can claim that your favourite pet sources are authoritative, and yet fail to see how those sources may be biased activists whom cannot be relied upon to give a neutral overview of the subject. Their pedigrees alone do not suffice, they actually have to be good making sense. WP:WEIGHT is argument alone against using such writers such as the one's you suggest as absolute authorities, as they are indisputably motivated by activist concerns. I'll give Francione the last word (emphasis mine): "Nonhumans [..] certainly do have cognitive states which are equivalent to human beliefs, desires, etc." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Brevity is important

Tl;dr. Steve, please answer the simple question about only one of many of your edits: Why did you add "anthropomorphism" to this article? I've never claimed it was a quote, so please stop claiming that I did. If you can't understand what I am saying, then ask questions, and I'll explain it another way. Please also don't point to 58,000 hits on Google. Please actually cite a reliable source in the field. After you answer that question, we will move on to the rest of your edits. Please also remember to refrain from attacking other editors and to keep your comments short and to the point. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Without actually addressing any of the above points, Viriditas claims that I inserted the word "anthropomorphism" into the "article," and wants to know why. I added it twice in fact: 1) along with "compassion," to generalistically list two main pro-animal rights arguments, and 2) to the photo caption on the right. I noted that item she was referring to was not a quote, but a caption. She says now that she "never claimed" that the statement was an actual quote, and that I modified it:

"In one of many examples, you write, "= Animal rights advocates use anthropomorphism to argue that animals ought to be viewed as persons, not property." This statement is sourced to Gary Francione, however, Francione does not use the term "anthropomorphism", but you do, and you attribute this term to Francione."

Referring to the image caption ("animal rights advocates use..."), which was not properly quoted and thus was not apparent as a quote, Viriditas accused me of modifying a quote by Francione statement sourced to Francione. Viriditas does not come clean with what would appear to be mistake, and, along with her boilerplate response to my initial earnest communiqué to her, her labelling my actions as "edit warring," her total disregard for answering any of my plain points and questions above ("TLDR"), her modality of editing should be regarded nothing but unprofessional antagonizing. I stop short of calling it "unethical" because her accusal of improper quotation modification, though no doubt rushed by POV concerns (more on that later), appears to have been a completely honest mistake. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction. She used the world "sourced" not "quoted." Apologies, the source was not easily apparent in the caption, and typically such general statements found in captions are not sourced with exclusivistic proportions. Again, I appear to be in error on that point. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This all misses the point, Steve. To borrow something posted by WhatamIdoing, below is the one and only point. :)

I challenge because...	Your response is...
I think it's factually wrong	Provide an inline source
I think it's unsourceable	Provide an inline source
I'm disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point	Provide an inline source
I'm wikilawyering against a POV I hate	Provide an inline source
My teacher won't let me cite Wikipedia directly	Provide an inline source
I'm feeling grumpy	Provide an inline source
I don't understand the content policies	Provide an inline source
The moon is full	Provide an inline source
The sky is blue	Provide an inline source
I'm a jerk	Provide an inline source

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than simply cite regulations all day like some kind of tin cop, discuss the points and share with us what you know. I will deal with Viriditas' issue specifically of "anthropomorphism," and that seems to be a good place to start, for one because I appear to have made an important error in that regard, and two, because I can personally demonstrate how apologies can lead to more constructive dialogue. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve, in order to have a productive dialogue on the subject, you're going to have do some research on the topic. You seem to be using common words quite differently than both the way they are normally used and the way the sources use them. This is why we need to stick closely to the sources. Viriditas (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please give examples of where either I or sources are misusing common words. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 10:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources in the lead

The article, including the lead, has to be sourced. We can't just add our own opinions of what AR is, and the sources have to be reliable, preferably academic as this is an academic subject. The current sources in the lead are a fair mix of different opinion; even where they are AR advocates, they come from different perspectives within AR. Stevertigo, if you want to add to the lead, you need to find comparably good sources.

AR advocates

• Wise, Steven M. (law professor). "Animal Rights", Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007.
• Taylor, Angus (philosophy professor). Animals & Ethics. Broadview Press, 2003, p. 15 ff, and in particular p. 16.
• Steiner, Gary (philosophy professor). In Gary Francione (ed.). Animals as Persons. Columbia University Press, 2008, p. ix ff.
• Garner, Robert (philosophy professor). Animals, politics and morality. Manchester University Press, 2004, p. 4 ff.
• Animal Legal Defense Fund (group advocating inter alia that AR law be taught). "Animal law courses", used only to show the number of U.S. law schools that teach animal law.

Mostly neutral, but with an opinion about the legal issue (in favour, in Dershowitz's case)

• Dershowitz, Alan (law professor). Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights, 2004, pp. 198–199; "Darwin, Meet Dershowitz," The Animals' Advocate, Winter 2002, volume 21
• Dube, Rebecca. The new legal hot topic: animal law, The Globe and Mail, July 15, 2008, citing Clayton Ruby, well-known Canadian lawyer, not an AR advocate so far as I know.

Opposed

• Scruton, Roger (philosophy professor). "Animal Rights", City Journal, summer 2000.
• Frey, R.G. (philosophy professor). Interests and Rights: The Case against Animals. Clarendon Press, 1980
• Association of Medical Colleges. "'Personhood' Redefined: Animal Rights Strategy Gets at the Essence of Being Human", accessed May 17, 2010.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you read all of these? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo - I'm just catching up on this discussion, but it seems to me that the issue is not whether another editor has read sources, but whether you have sources of equal or greater reliability. If you do, can you please clearly cite them on this page so that other editors can review them? If not, can you move on to something more productive for improving the article? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Among a field of apples how does one suggest finding the pear? In other words, there is an implicit assumption among others here that "animal rights" is a science, and that there are unambiguous "experts" in it, whereby articles need not be written by Wikipedians, rather they can be automatically cobbled together simply by elevating the most interesting of a smattering of quotations. How then are objective ledes written, when all of the parties are partisans? 1) We discuss the concept professionally, 2) we describe the context and the concept in the most abstract and objective terms, and 3) we list the general points made by the various POV activists. There is an assumption that among a smattering of POV activists, any of them can be regarded as "reliable," and that some among them can be more "great[ly]" so. For example, the issue of "anthropomorphism" ('my puppy just smiled at me') though the "field's" most "reliable sources" say its unrelated, hence the above editors say it does not belong, is a common criticism of animal rights activism. Are the critics less "experts in the field?" I will agree to work more on direct-sourcing and quotations, if others here will agree to debate their concerns here with more sincerity and academic integrity.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you fill this talk page with words, but what we need are sources. Unless you can produce reliable sources to back them up, your words are of little use on this site. Crum375 (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Crum. Sources please. Bob98133 (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I came here simply because the lede of the article used, and was based around, egregiously POV/WEASEL terminology ("non-human animals," "other sentient beings," and "members of the moral community"). It's that simple. Where there are weasel terms there are POV activists promoting them. My editing issues here deal entirely with the removal of these weasel terms. The opposition defends these weasel terms by claiming WP:RS. WP:RS does not defend weasel terms. Also, high placement of POV activists violates WP:WEIGHT. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Weasel terms" are only of relevance if not used by the sources. And none of the terms you mention are on WP:WEASEL, so you might want to try to add them first to that list. But again it all boils down to one thing: sources. Either produce them and show how they support your words, or find something more productive to do. Crum375 (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The community definition of "weasel terms" is admittedly more confined, and I used it here a bit liberally (I should have said "where there are POV terms, there are weasel activists promoting them"). Though you choose not to notice, I did state above that these are "POV terms" —you do yourself the benefit of skipping over the essential point. Do you disagree that they are "POV terms?" -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The way to gauge "POV" is to show that views in the article are not correctly weighted by their prevalence among the reliable sources. To do that, you need sources, not empty words. If you can't point to reliable sources which support what you are saying, your words are useless. Crum375 (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To "show that the views in the article are not correctly weighted by their prevalence among the reliable sources" I would first have to assume as you do that there is a proper way to determine weight (or "precendence") among pseudoscientists. For example the girls above want to give Gary Francione serious weight, and promote him as an authority. Admittedly I understand that even touching this article means dealing with fringe people, but I and others (see discussions above) are editors of good faith who can approach a subject like this neutrally and generally. No fringe conjectures about 'puppy sentience' belong in the lede. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin above provided you with a list of sources used, some pro AR, some anti, some neutral. The way to get things done is to add to that list, or try to show that sources already on that list are improperly interpreted. To just wave your arms wildly and yell "POV", won't get you any traction here. Crum375 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll dig around a bit, and maybe that way get some "traction" in this specialistic and scientific field of "animal rights." Its perhaps unfortunate that its not quite as clear to some that these are POV terms. Others are not as intelligent. For example, someone else above noted that "non-human animal" was "superfluous" at best. I see it plainly as POV language. Again its unfortunate that you can't. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC) PS: Srsly. They stand out like safety orange red-links to me.

I will be more than happy to accept anything you say, as long as it's backed up by reliable sources. Anything else is just empty words. Crum375 (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you choose not to participate in WP:CONSENSUS to find an WP:NPOV balance, and do so keeping in mind WP:CIVIL and a little WP:AGF, means your concept of "empty words" is itself to some large degree just "empty words." Thanks. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As I noted just above, if you provide sources, I'd be more than happy to evaluate them. There is no way to "build consensus" if there are no specific sources on the table to discuss. In such cases, everybody's words are empty. Crum375 (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

PS:AGF Interesting reading:

“ It's an insult to chimpanzee intelligence to consider [signage] their means of communication. It's rather as if humans were taught to mimic some aspects of the waggle dance of bees and researchers were to say, "Wow, we've taught humans to communicate." ”

“ It's about as likely that an ape will prove to have a language ability as there is an island somewhere with a species of flightless birds waiting for humans to teach them to fly. ”

Both Chomsky (2007). (The latter re-quoted). Can an "authority" in the field of animal intelligence think they don't have any? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding what you wrote about "sentience" above, are you aware that you are using this term (and others) differently than the way they are used in regards to this topic by relevant sources? If you aren't willing and able to use the jargon as it is defined and applied by the subject, then your time will be limited here. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no pseudoscience or pseudoculture articles on Wikipedia which are free to use their own "jargon." I am neither required to write it nor speak it (nor buy it). NPOV is the first principle, not the eleventy-first. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 10:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Academic communities define terms in a certain way to make discussion precise and efficient. Learning about a set of ideas involves learning the vocabulary of the people who discuss those ideas. "Moral community," for example, is a standard term in moral philosophy. It has nothing to do with POV pushing.

You seem to be arguing that everything can be worked out from first principles—that no reading is necessary. But human beings would not advance if no one read and learned from others. So what we need here are for you to read about AR and produce some reliable sources. Otherwise progress is impossible. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(cut in) Slim wrote: 1) "Academic communities": First of all, this is a pseudoscience marketed to a fringe culture. It's an act of charity just to say its "philosophical," let alone a part of scientific "academia." By "communities" do you mean academic subgroups within a field or just any old "group of interacting organisms sharing an environment?" 2) "[some groups] define terms in a certain way." Yes they do, and we often have to untangle and decipher what it is they are saying into plain English just to satisfy NPOV, only the highest principle here. It is not the fault of the plain reader or the plain editor who writes for that reader that pseudoscientific arguments like these unravel easier when any "jargon" is removed. 3) "precise and efficient" - While I agree that we need to use certain terms to reference the general arguments, in fact we can work on a list ("sentience," "compassion," "anthropomorphism," "animal cognition"), that does not change the fact that it is people who must condense the concept down into something descriptive and dense. There is no "precis[ion]" or "efficiency" gained by using "jargon" in the lede for a general (though nevertheless sentient) readership not initiated into such jargon. "Sentience" for example has a common general meaning (although its article doesn't yet show it): In this context the word refers to an argument for sentience, not a proven property of animals. Its usage in the lede is misleading, and your defence of its usage that way appears POV motivated.

4) Slim wrote: "You seem to be arguing that everything can be worked out from first principles—that no reading is necessary." - Those are two arguments, the last of which I do not make. The first is essential, it doesn't require any reading at all just to know that certain "jargon" is actually some shorthand for a particular POV argument. "But human beings would not advance if no one read and learned from others." - True, but if you can't separate your own activism "jargon" from your editing, how can we even "advance" to discussing actual sources and their arguments? "So what we need here are for you to read about AR and produce some reliable sources. Otherwise progress is impossible." - I will do some reading over the next few days. What I need you to do is do the same: [NPOV]] and its journalism ancestor/equivalent, OBJ. I appreciate the civil tone and depth of your responses, Slim. (w | t | e) 16:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, what I'm about to say is not particularly insightful. I've been reading all this talk, and finding it as much fun as a barrel of non-human animals. At the level of off-Wiki cocktail party conversation, Steve has been making some good points. But at the level of correct editing of an encyclopedia, I have to say that SV, Crum, Viriditas, and Bob have been entirely in the right. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What "good points?" My points here are largely confined to POV terminology. RS does not support using POV terms unless they are direct quotations -- "non-human animals" for us to use, would have to be a quotation. This is basic neutral editing. And what makes people "entirely in the right" so utterly in contempt of "good points?" -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Imagine the following situation: you arrive home and find your house burning. There are two occupants alive inside the burning structure, your child and your dog. [..] Which do you chose? The answer is simple. You save your child."[3] - Actually he's wrong: "the answer" is not "simple," and such situations do not present any issue of "choice." An actual parent would not for a moment consider even the "choice" itself —as some kind of optional route —between saving their child from a burning death or letting that child die to save their pet.. goldfish. Whatever. Same kind of fringe-mentality psychobabble. When thought out correctly, the mortal danger scenario just clarifies the distinction we make between human and animal life value as near-absolute. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And a non-human animal would save its own offspring from a fire before it saves a human. So what? Selfishness is part of Nature. And how does this relate to improving the article? Do you have some new sources? Crum375 (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, "selfishness" is not "part of nature." In the human world, its called "love" --love is what makes parents (usually mothers) kill themselves to save their children. The animals call it something different. But whatever they call it, a true animal rights activist would not debase an animal parent's (mothers usually) affection for their offspring by calling it "selfishness." What kind of animal rights activist are you? The quote relates because it was just dumb. But Francione wrote it, and he apparently based an entire book around this clever idea of "a choice."[4] Reliable sources. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Love" is just a fancy word to describe the natural urge we all feel to promote our selfish genes. Everybody has it, even bacteria. And again, how does this help improve the article? Crum375 (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "selfish gene" is a pun and title of a book, not an actual theory. The "gene-centered view" is simply observational: Things compete. Fine. Move on. To say that love is "just a fancy word [for an] urge" is like a red flag for saying you don't have any in your life. Its just not true, and yes, that's usually when people find Jesus. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC) PS: Did you say "bacteria love?" -SV

Sure, in their own little way.:) Crum375 (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally we work with a minimum requirement that you need one of these to have one of these to experience any of these. But what bacteria do is close enough I guess. :) -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This page is here to discuss the article, Steve, not the issues. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your condescensions are misplaced. Note that Crum and I were exchanging humor, not "issues."-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Slimvirgin. Please take your humor and your issues to your personal talk page. Bob98133 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that you can't involve yourself literately enough to know that little bits of humor have uplifted what was a tediously partisan debate — Slim herself has made a couple jokes above ("companion"), and they are appreciated. But misplaced condescension, hers or yours, is unwelcome. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Break: inline cites

Today Steve put some citation needed tags in the opening of the lead, and Crum reverted them. Although I am pretty sure that the sources already cited support what the page says, I think it would actually be quite appropriate to add inline cites to support the wording in at least some of the places Steve tagged. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not a bad place to start the discussion. Here are the two sentences in the lead where Steve is requesting more sourcing:

• Animal rights, also referred to as animal liberation (Guither 1998:14;Nilbert 2002:xv)
• They argue that human beings should stop seeing other sentient beings as property—not even as property to be treated kindly. (Francione 2003:They argue that human beings should stop seeing other sentient beings as property—not even as property to be treated kindly.108-142)
• Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions, but agree that animals should be viewed as non-human persons and members of the moral community (Regan, Vesilind & Gunn, LaFollette, etc.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In the first of those, the specific issue is for the use of the phrase "animal liberation" as a synonym. In the second, it is for "seeing" animals as "sentient". In addition, there was a tag for the phrase "moral community". I think that in all three cases it would be appropriate to add inline cites documenting these usages. Maybe there should even be a second cite for some of them, citing an opposing position. Finally, there was a tag for good old "non-human animals". I think we've flogged that one (the wording, not the animals) to death, but I wonder if a footnote to a source that contests the wording might put this debate to rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Added. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are the objections that Steve has to the above? They seem to be declarations of the most basic assumptions about animal rights theory and their advocates. How is Steve challenging this? Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Tryptofish really nailed it, so regard this as a bit more explanatory, to deal with Viriditas' questions in a bit more detail. On the first point, the suggestion is that because "animal rights" and "animal liberation" are referenced in the same source, they can be regarded as equivalent, or "synonym[s]" as Trypto put it, here. There are substantial differences between the word "rights" and the word "liberation" —these differences suggest that "animal rights," like "rights" itself, is a concept of enfranchisement, whereas "animal liberation" is a radical activist political agenda. The motivations may have similar grounding, but regarding the two as equivalent seems to be an error. || Its not a particularly essential point, but the terms are different enough such that would suggest the scope of this article extends to other conceptualizations as well, notably Francione, often referenced here, uses the concept of "[animal] personhood." More substantively, there is a concept of "animal sentience," which I'll get to more in the next paragraph, which is really at the core of the topic (exempting perhaps the 'utilitarian' angle discussed above by Bilby). By the same syllogism, it can be argued that "personhood" and "sentience" are equivalent "synonyms" for "animal rights." If we are to include regard "liberation" as synonymous with "rights," we should include Francione's term "personhood."
2. The second point deals with the distinction between what animal rights activists claim, what they argue, and what they want. To say what they want is not as relevant as saying what they argue. Hence its not relevant that they use language like "see other sentient beings as [whatever]." In fact it says "stop seeing," —ie. telling people to stop doing something they already [naturally] do —an even more irrelevant argument. And again, in what I called "weasel terms," the "other sentient beings" term breezes past the fact that "animal sentience" is in fact what their argument is. Its arguable that people who read only animal rights books take as a foregone fact that "sentience" just means "feelings" and that animals are sentient. But I think that's a severe misuse of "sentience," coming in part through a certain ambiguous definition, along with tautology for that definition, and I'm working on those issues a bit at the sentience article. So you can't just breeze over the interesting fact that what animal rights activists are arguing for is for recognition of animal sentinence, even if to them its already plain. So, no more breezing over important distinctions, and I would suggest abstracting the concept to deal with just animal sentience as a claim, an argument, a fact, whatever.
3. On the issue of the moral community phrase, Trypto again hit it on the head. According to Viriditas, Regan, Vesilind & Gunn, LaFollette, etc., all substantiate the usage of the term "moral community," and I'm sure that is the case. But the real concept they get at here is "personhood," which is a prerequisite to any concept of "community," except strictly biological ones, and "community" appears as if its a superfluous add-on, or an irrelevant conjecture. For starters, "moral community" to some extent means participating in moral debates —something no lower animals are going to do. The term means too much, both in its human meaning and in the way they use it, for us to reference it in such a superfluous way. || Re-reading the current text, regardless of who wrote it, makes me want to take a wider argument against keeping it, on simply editorial grounds. The text reads: "Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions, but agree that animals should be viewed as non-human persons and members of the moral community." Its not interesting that there are "different philosophical positions," or that they all agree on a certain fringe conclusion we can call "animal personhood." What is interesting is what these "different philosophical positions" actually are, even if we can only touch on them in the lede with terms like "compassion," "animal sentience," "[what critics call] anthropomorphism." Etc. And what are "philosophical positions" anyway, or to argue "from" one? The word, again, is "arguments." In any case, such tautological ways of using sources should be deprecated. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please actually read what the sources say before criticizing them. At this point, I can only conclude you are trolling. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The criticism is not of the sources, but how they are used here. Its not clear if they support particular terminology, and if they actually do, it would be useful to know how they support that terminology. Tryptofish, at least, appears to agree above that the noted particular terms could use some specific sources, with quotations of how those sources use those particular terms. Are you telling him 'read all these books' too? The relevant terms are too particular to leave alone without specific cited quotations from sources. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you can't criticize how the sources are used unless you read and understand what they actually say. Please take one point at a time, and address the sources, beginning with the first one regarding synonymous uses of animal liberation and animal rights. Do you currently disagree with how this is used in the text? If so, why, and please remember to couch your answer based on the sources or any sources regarding the topic. Please also be brief and try to refrain from posting long screeds. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what happened at Talk:Holocaust denial, where Steve arrived to rewrite the lead without having read anything, then tried to argue everything from first principles. I believe it started here if anyone cares to read it, and it led to him being blocked for two weeks.

We could all turn up at Special relativity or Neuropharmacology or Reception history of Jane Austen, and start questioning every point without having read the literature, but what would it achieve? Talk pages are intended for informed debate about source material. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the point of bringing up ancient history, Slim, let alone mischaracterising it, except to duck the actual substance of the points I've made and be derogatory in a way that only lowers yourself further.

Viriditas, the passages in the lede use specialized terminology that itself isn't cited, and needs to be. Slim likes to cite "reliable sources" and "reading the literature" all the time, why don't you cite the given sources to a certain minimum proficiency? For example the passage "They argue that human beings should stop seeing other sentient beings as property—not even as property to be treated kindly" is sourced to Francione, but without the specific page, or any pulled quotation. Please cite the actual page in which he makes this argument, and specifically the page on which he uses the term "other sentient beings." I found that he does use the term, but in a different context. Others use the term "other sentient beings" but apparently only in contexts within actual philosophy and not in "animal rights philosophy." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That mention of Neuropharmacology appears to have been a gratuitous dig at me, so I'm going to speak for myself here. I'm pretty much neutral on the arguments-at-length that Steve is making here. What I actually said was that it makes sense to me to have inline cites to support the language used, and I don't think it would be that difficult to do so. I'm not endorsing arguing here about whether the cited sources are right or wrong. I'm merely endorsing the suggestion of citing them. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you saw a dig, T, and there are inline cites already for everything, so far as I can tell.

Stevertigo, it's not ancient history. You were blocked for two weeks just months ago for engaging in exactly this kind of editing, which several people saw as disruptive. My memory of the discussion is that some people wanted you to be indefblocked because you've been doing it for years. Others (me included) said all you had to do is learn to add sources. Yet here we are again, tens of thousands of words of discussion based on your personal opnions.

As for the sentence: "They argue that human beings should stop seeing other sentient beings as property—not even as property to be treated kindly," the original formulation was: "They argue that human beings should stop seeing other sentient beings as property, rather than as property to be treated kindly." There are thousands of sources for this, obviously, as this is the difference between AR and AW. The source added here is "For example, Steiner, Gary. In Gary Francione (ed.). Animals as persons: essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. Columbia University Press, 2008, p. ix ff." What is the problem with that reference, in your view? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's Steve's issue, not mine, so I'm no longer going to bother trying to make it for him. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pet abuse database

Wavelength - no problem with this link being added to Cruelty to animals page, but I think it is a bit off topic here. I've left it in, but if you or other editors concur, it should probably be removed. Bob98133 (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking myself that it ought to be removed. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 13:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I also think so, and have deleted it here and at the PETA vs. Doughney page, but left it at Cruelty to animals. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ancient World

If the Bible says Jesus is like a Lamb, the Holy Spirit is like a dove, an Ox must be allowed to feed during its work, and even St Paul interprets this as mercy to animals and as part of his letter on rights of an Apostles http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%209&version=NIV, there it's good enough to be included.Gabr-el 20:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)