This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
I tried to remove Category:Critics of animal rights from this page, but was reverted. I don't know why Plant rights, which is an article about a social position/movement/philosophy, is considered as a critic of animal rights (all the other members of that category are people, whereas this is a philosophy. It's like a book in a basket of apples. It doesn't fit.--KarlB (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my edit summary, the page includes discussion about critics of animal rights. This kind of question comes up rather often in discussions about categories: does the category apply to the title of the page, or to the subject matter included in the page? I would agree that the title, "plants rights", is not itself a critic of animal rights, but the text of the page includes subject matter about satirizing the animal rights movement. I'm not aware of any Wiki-wide consensus on how to resolve these kinds of questions, but my personal preference is to do whatever is most useful for readers, and generally inclusiveness for categories accomplishes that. In this case, someone looking for everything on Wikipedia that might have to do with criticism of animal rights might, perhaps, want to know about this page. At least, that's what I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then the category should be renamed, as Critiques of animal rights or something. As it is, it says critics. Also I didn't see much critique of animal rights; some of it could be read as satire, but satire is not the same thing as people writing books denouncing animal rights.--KarlB (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually went in to look at the sources. They are generally people who are discussing "slippery slope" arguments generating from animal rights groups, and presenting "Plants' Rights" as a ridiculously extreme position.
