Talk:Animal rights

Talk:Animal rights/archive1

"Citations needed"

Three options: (1) I'm going to remove the "citations needed" that are attached to anecdotal phrases, (2) sources can be found for the phrases, or (3) the phrases can be removed altogether. But either way, you're asking for citations on a casually obeservable statement, not one that requires scientific research. Kyle key 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

2 and 3 are acceptable to me, but not 1. If the phrases are there they need citations. If it's a casually observable statement find one person who has said it. When you say The concept is often confused with animal welfare, which is the philosophy that takes cruelty towards animals and (my emphasis) the question is who is it often confused by? For example: I could say, "Many people believe George Bush to be a terrorist", which is true in the sense of drinks around a table, but less true in the sense that he is reported as such in the Western media. (Where people call him a terrorist, if indeed they do, they're likely to be people with an axe to grind and so it is evident they are biased). See WP:WEASEL if you are still unclear on this. In the meantime, please either delete the sentences or leave the citations needed in. Captainj 19:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, I see why you were removing the citations needed. The problem is that I think too many people try to get around the citation rule by "using weasel words", i.e. "some people say", "critics argue" and so on. It just seems to be another way to me for people to slip their opinions in rather than putting in facts. That's why I think either the sentences need citations, or they need to be deleted. Coming to think of it, those citation needed have been up long enough so I'm tempted just to delete the sentences... I'll leave this note on the talk page, and if no-one objects delete them. Captainj 19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem with these sentences. It is certainly not the case that each and every statement on a WP page must be supported by a citation. That many people confuse the concepts of animal rights and animal welfare is a non-controversial fact. What may be controversial is to what extent animal rights and animal welfare should be seen as separate or opposed.

Sure, those many people may not be high-brow intellectuals. Perhaps some are too; but that is irrelevant. That statement about what many people think is not taking a stance, just stating a fact. It is not slipping in an opinion, since what is actually asserted is that those many people are wrong.

David Olivier 22:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe the opinion is asserting these people are wrong. The best way to solve this is to find someone in a decently citable source saying "Most people confuse Animal rights and animal welfare but in fact they are different because...". If that can't be found anyway, then it seems to me that the statement should be deleted. Captainj 15:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence does assert that animal rights and animal welfare are two different things. I don't think it needs any supporting citation. As it stands it is not particularly controversial. What is controversial is to what extent AR and AW are to be contrasted. There are also important differences among flavors of AR, and also among flavors of AW. The whole issue is complex. Giving a citation here would not help at all. It might be one by Tom Regan, or by Gary Francione, or by Peter Singer, or by anti-animal people (e.g. NAIA), and each would define the differences between AR and AW in very different ways. I don't think it is useful to enter into such a debate in that opening paragraph, nor to give one necessarily partisan citation. As I said, since the assertion itself is not controversial, and even just stands for itself given the explanations that are already there about the meanings of the terms, I think there is simply no reason to demand citations, or to delete that sentence. David Olivier 15:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I still disagree with you because I think a citation of commentary from a reputable news outlet should be required here. But, two people disagree with me, and, having left it for a few days, no-one else has chipped in so I'm not going to revert you over something so small. You didn't comment on my proposals to delete part of the introduction, which seemed to have Kyle Key's support. Since no-one objected to that I will do it, please discuss here, or above if it is a problem.

CaptainJ (t | c | e) 17:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Further Reading Section

This section seriously needs cleanup. Apart from being far too long the links and books themselves need prioritising. Only the most important ones should be listed and the others removed. if someone wants to find webpages about a subject they can use google, not wikipedia. michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 09:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing works by Stephen R.L.Clark

A recent revert (see Special page:History) deleting "authorless books" made two deletions of titles listed under the first item by Stephen R.L. Clark. I have two questions:

• Is this possibly a misreading of bibliographic entry style (per CMS) that on a second and any subsequent citations for the same author, replaces the author's name with an extended line (to avoid repetition) preceding the title?
• Are these possibly articles rather than titles of books? (This author has 18 entries in the US Library of Congress but I don't find these titles among them.)

Hoping some knowledgeable person will sort this out and restore/repair as necessary. It would be unfortunate to lose valid reference citations due to their having been written improperly or with insufficient information. Thanks -- Deborahjay 10:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The formatting did not match the rest on the list and a quick search on amazon provided not listings. I assumed, therefore, the books were minor, possibly unpublished entires and so removed them as such. Sorry if this was a mistake and someone feels the need to reenter them. Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, the section itself is far too long. I don't think that this should merely be a list of books as it appears to be know. Perhaps, under an external link section we can put a link to an external webpage which itself has further reading listed with notable authors listed under a see also section. michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 10:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll add a SUGGESTION (caveat: I haven't checked this out with the Wikipedia Manual of Style) that the Further reading list be subsectioned into Books and Articles and the citations alphabetized under those subheadings according to author's name. This might help make the section more user friendly and easier for future editors to maintain and update. -- Deborahjay 11:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I restored the "authorless books" and reverted back to the version of references/further reading before that edit, in case anything else was removed later. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Deborahjay, I also couldn't find those particular titles as books by Clerk, so I replaced them with titles that I know are books. Maybe the others are papers. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Someone deleted large sections of the intro, including properly referenced material, so I've restored it. This intro was worked out over as a compromise between several editors with different views, and I think it works pretty well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And I don't think that it works "pretty well." As a first time reader of the page it was immediately obvious that it's biased. "Radical social movement" is a value judgment, not neutral encyclopedia language. The same goes for the phrase "our own"; it's an attempt at identification with the average reader by saying "hey, you're a human, you're not on THEIR side are you??," reinforcing and pitting the view that they probably already have against the article before they even have a chance to read it. If they're against the topic, the absence of this relatively irrelevant information isn't going to change their mind. And in my version, only one "properly referenced" source was removed. One. And it's the only unnecessary one because the same information is repeated in the Criticisms section. There's really no debate here; it's just you holding onto a clearly POV, overly wordy introduction. Kyle Key 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the POV that the intro expresses? I don't see it myself. It's hardly POV to call the animal rights movement a "radical social movement." In what way might it not be a "radical social movement," and what value judgment do you feel that expresses? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Radical" is relative...its use is 'judging' the phrase "social movement" by placing personal "values" on it; therefore, it shouldn't be in the part of the article that's supposed to be giving people their "introduction" to the topic. It's not up to you or me to tell someone that it's "radical," it's a word that stems from opinion and should left out as to let the reader make up their own mind. Just as political views fall on a continuum, so do social views--what's "radical" or "conservative" or "progressive" to someone could, and most likely IS, the exact opposite to someone else. Regardless, you didn't mention any of my other valid points. "Our own" is clearly misleading; only one unnecessary source was removed; my introduction is concise and accurate with rearrangement of information to more appropriate areas, and removal of the lines that are repeats.Kyle Key 07:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your view that "radical" is a value judgment. It's used descriptively too, and it's being used descriptively here. There are few things more radical than the idea of breaking down the species barriers. I've added an academic reference for it anyway: Harold Guither, professor of agricultural economics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who is known as an expert on the movement. I also disagree that moving the legal stuff out of the intro is appropriate. I feel it's important to note that there are practical as well as theoretical developments as a result of the movement. I still don't understand your objection to "our own." It refers to the interests of human beings i.e. the people writing and reading the article. How is it POV? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I also meant to add that WP:LEAD recommends 3-4 paragraphs for articles over 30,000 characters, and this one is over 40,000, so the current intro is the right length. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're citing policy pages, WP:NBD and WP:AGF. My intro meets the requirements of WP:LEAD. I am willing to modify my introduction to include more of the present information, but that information still requires rewording. Simply put, it's poorly written. The way that the introduction is set up now, all animal rights critics support animal welfare...or at least, that's what most educated people would infer from reading it. And that's not true.

On a separate but related note, adding a source for an opinionated, irrelevant statement is quite possibly the most illogical thing I've yet seen on Wikipedia. I can find thousands of pages that don't refer to it as a "radical" movement, should I cite them too? No, it doesn't make any sense. Your finding of someone else who called it "radical" seems ridiculously childish and makes me question your position as an administrator. It's amazing how someone acting as a representative of Wikipedia has managed to ruin the experience for me in a matter of a few hours. Especially since what I'm saying isn't complex or particularly hard to comprehend, yet you're unable--or unwilling--to consider any of it. The statement works just as well, if not better, in my version. Removing the word in the current version produces an unintelligible sentence because the sentence itself (and the one after it) are so strongly slanted against the topic--without a similar statement defending the article--that the discrepancy requires a rewrite. A consensus in the past isn't forever binding.

What else? Your inability to put aside your position within the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens is evident throughout your previous comment. Scientific classification, like a prior Wikipedia discussion consensus, is subject to change as new information is discovered. Emphasis added

Scientific classification or biological classification is how biologists group and categorize extinct and living species of organisms (as opposed to folk taxonomy). Modern classification has its root in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics. These groupings have been revised since Linnaeus to improve consistency with the Darwinian principle of common descent. Molecular systematics, which uses DNA sequences as data, has driven many recent revisions and is likely to continue to do so. Scientific classification belongs to the science of taxonomy or biological systematics.

So, yes, your statement is pure, unfounded opinion: "There are few things more radical than the idea of breaking down the species barriers." What's even more peculiar is that this is not even an issue within animal rights....I haven't seen or read about anyone saying that we should "break down the species barriers" and include all animals within Homo sapiens, and if sources for that do exist, they are an extreme minority and in no way representative of the movement. My understanding of animals rights is this: "we shouldn't treat like garbage those beings that have a subjective experience of pain and/or undertake actions outside of those related to growth or preservation--that is, consuming nutrients and resting are essential functions that, in and of themselves, don't constitute inclusion in the "rights" category, but performing tasks like playing or helping a fellow creature are representative of a state of being that should most likely be preserved." A far cry from what you're implying.

My final comments will be on these statements: "It refers to the interests of human beings i.e. the people writing and reading the article. How is it POV?" You answered your own question. "['Our own'] refers to the interests of human beings" which is POV in an article on a subject that seeks to have humans look outside of their own consciousness. See the irony? I also stated it plainly the first time: "It's an attempt at identification with the average reader by saying "hey, you're a human, you're not on THEIR side are you??," reinforcing and pitting the view that they probably already have against the article before they even have a chance to read it. If they're against the topic, the absence of this relatively irrelevant information isn't going to change their mind."

In short, it should be obvious to anyone who reads this that I have an abundance of thought placed behind my arguments and an abundance of good intention behind my edits. My opinion is at least equal to yours and further total revertions of my edits will be looked at as either personal attacks or attempts at enforcing an outdated consensus. "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to." Thank you. Kyle Key 14:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

SV, I made some of the changes to the intro, after posting on talk page which was later archived. Only one person responded, and they agreed changes needed to be maded. So they were. It's not so much the accuracy of the intro as how it first reads to someone perhaps not so familiar with this topic (although even after reading the whole article, I feel that the word "persons" is inaccurate). I think the intro may have been changed further, after my changes, but I would suggest looking at it again. CaptainJ ^{(t | c | e)} 11:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Animal rights critics

I have just taken a look at the list of animal rights critics at the bottom of the article and have found that maybe we need some more which a) aren't from the same site and b) aren't funded by the Centre for Consumer Freedom.

eg:

There are 2 sites which are ran by CfCU There are 2 links to a hunting vs animal rights site (should be one - to the main page only) The link http://www.petalgae.com/ whilst funny is not really a criticism as such. http://www.capitalresearch.org/ap/ap-0797.html doesn't work at all Why is the Animal Rights use terrorism linked to a specific page rather than the main page of the site?

I am pretty sure that there are many criticism sites out there, and I'm sure people could provide some decent ones if they put their minds to it. -Localzuk ^(talk) 09:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)