Talk:Animal welfare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 124.170.221.69 (talk) at 01:57, 4 January 2014 (add link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Circus Animals

No mention of circuses at all? I'm not an 'animal libber', but treatment of animals, especially 'exotics' (big cats, elephants etc.), in circuses is a big issue, at times, in Australia. For completeness this should be covered. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rejigging some words

Would anyone object if I removed the following from the section on Animal Welfarism?

Garner also states that the welfarist position is that animals have an interest in not suffering, but that this can be overridden for the good of human beings.

It doesn’t really add anything not covered by the Nozik quote.

I also think that subjective welfare should be mentioned after the reference to animal rights since the book by Taylor indicates that both welfare and liberation can be based on subjective welfare.

Yaris678 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal welfare is the physical and psychological well-being of non-human animals

Of course, Tryptofish! Why didn't we say it just like that before?!!! :-) --Robert Daoust (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy (and a bit relieved!) that you are pleased with it! I guess it's a re-affirmation of how the Wiki system of editing works—slow as it may sometimes be. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., I also agree with Yaris' linking to physiology. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is to not merge the two articles AIRcorn (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cruelty to Animals and Animal Welfare seem to be covering the same topics. AIRcorn (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined at first sight to agree for a merge, but would like to see more opinions first. --Robert Daoust (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a certain amount of overlap. Animal welfare goes much wider than preventing cruelty, but arguably cruelty could just be a subsection of welfare. That said, I am sure that an animal rights campainer would say that the real issue with animal cruelty is that animals are being denied there rights, rather than their welfare.
To my mind, a much bigger issue with the article on cruelty to animals is that it needs a big dose of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. For example:
Really not important to the topic.
Yaris678 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand your remark, Yaris, Animal cruelty should be kept as a separate article because it could be a subsection of both Animal rights and Animal welfare articles. That raises an interesting question of content organization. --Robert Daoust (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too bothered either way, but I guess that is the implication of the first half of my above post. Yaris678 (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cruelty to animals is the main article of the important category named Animal cruelty. For that reason, and because it is relevant to both articles Animal welfare and Animal rights, I oppose the merge. In order to add a bit of clarity to content organization, I added Cruelty to animals under the See also section here, and Animal welfare under the See also section of the Animal rights article. --Robert Daoust (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible to me. Yaris678 (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. I think it's useful to recognize that Animal welfare and Animal rights each represent different lines of thought about opposition to cruelty and similar things. The proposed merge would end up blurring that distinction. Furthermore, animal welfare is concerned with attention to things other than outright cruelty. On the other hand, I don't see a problem with keeping the pages as we have them now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The arguements against make sense to me. Should we remove the tags or let it run a little longer? AIRcorn (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you as the proposer, but for what it's worth, I have no objection to letting it go a bit longer. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is Animal Welfare rated as "mid-importance"?

Why is this article rated as "mid-importance" within the scope of WikiProject Animals, instead of high-importance or top-importance? Is animal welfare considered a relatively important topic within this WikiProject, or is it considered relatively unimportant? Jarble (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jarble that this article should be rated as higher importance, but I am afraid I have no idea how or who determines these ratings.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Assessment. Really, though, it's no big deal. It isn't a statement about the overall societal importance of the subject. It's just a prioritizing in terms of editorial effort by a WikiProject. Just think of how many articles there are about animals, and how many/few editors there are. If it really bugs you, just edit the template and change "mid" to "high". But a better approach, if it's important to you, is to devote your editing effort to working on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: no way "top importance"! That would be animals and very few other pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation - very useful.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentences

I'm a little worried that the opening sentences in this article do not give the full spectrum of interpretations of animal welfare. Some scientists working in animal welfare would not discuss animal welfare in terms of physical injury, but only the conscious experience. For example, a dog might have it's leg deliberately broken under anaesthesia by a vet. We would normally think that a dog with a broken leg has poor welfare, but the animal is in fact not conscious of this, therefore there is no welfare concern. Similarly, a dog might have a malignant cancer which will become terminal, but before the dog becomes aware of the cancer, is there really a welfare concern? (this, to my mind, is the difference between "welfare" and "well-being". I'm also concerned about the statement that animal welfare can be 'measured'. If it can, what are the units? Also, using longevity as an indicator of welfare is highly problematic. An animal might survive for a long time but under horrendous conditions - is longevity a good indicator under such circumstances?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I would be inclined to shorten or remove the second sentence of the lead and stick most of that information in the definitions section. i.e. add it to the definition from Donald Broom, since it is basically part of his definition.
Do you have any sources related to the alternative definition you talk about? If so we can mention it in the definitions section and possibly allude to it in the lead.
Yaris678 (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The major proponents of the "feelings" based approach to animal welfare are Marian Dawkins and Ian Duncan. I will dig out some suitable sources and edit them in.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Yaris678 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a few places where the text there makes evaluative statements ("one problem", "particularly useful", etc.) in Wikipedia's voice. I'd suggest attributing those evaluations to a source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada

You may wish to participate in the discussion. IQ125 (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welfare is attitude

DrChrissy suggested that welfare is not attitude in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=576638939&oldid=576523804

I disagree

  • There are two definitions of welfare according to the article, welfare position (animal ethics) of public is obviously attitude.
  • To the second definition in animal welfare science (longevity, disease, etc), in essence, it is 'scientist attitudes to animal welfare'. There are studies show scientists and the public have disagreements with what is a good welfare.

Both definitions are attitudes. The first definition (public attitudes) logically includes the second (scientist attitudes), because scientists are members of public.

In conclusion welfare is attitude. I think definition one, the public opinion is more important than definition two, the scientist opinions. Because I take democracy seriously. 124.170.224.154 (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence on attitudes gives only 1 reference. I confess I have not read this book, but I note the title indicates it is about animal RIGHTS, not animal welfare. The two are not the same, and I can understand completely how animal rights are equated to attitudes. Neither is there a definition of animal welfare in respect to attitudes - please provide this. I will not edit this again just yet as I do not want to enter into an edit-war, although I think you should have also pointed out that I made a subsequent edit further to the one you mention above. However, I will be removing the link you make to the index - wikipedia articles should not link to themselves.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just looked at the web-page on these indices of attitudes[1]. It states "JM Welfare Index and JM Rights Index were created by Earth April scientist Dr Jenia Meng in 2008, utilising the information in the dataset of 'Global Attitude to Animals Survey 2007/08'. The indices can be used to calculate people's (in particular a group of people's) attitudes to animal welfare and animal rights. They range from 0 (do not support at all) to 100 (are extremely supportive). The higher the indices, the more endorsement or support people have for animal welfare or animal rights. Simply rate your opinions on the 13 questions below and your indices will be calculated." These only discuss ATTITUDES to animal welfare, not animal welfare itself. This should be clarified in the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy, there are many false information in your response.

  • 'it is about animal RIGHTS'. Untrue, where did you get that? The title does not indicates that at all. Animal welfare and many other attitudes are subsets of the book. You should know this, even if you only read the title.
  • 'wikipedia articles should not link to themselves'. Untrue, the article currently have a link like this. See first sentence in the 'definition' section.
  • The idea that 'Welfare can be attitude' (an ethical position) has been with this article for as long as I remember. It is not a new idea introduced by my edits. Please ask those who introduced this idea if you want more references.
  • You still do not get my point about 'welfare is attitudes'. What you consider is animal welfare is in fact 'scientist attitudes to animal welfare'. You assumed animal welfare scientists know animal welfare better than the public. Philosophically speaking, this is not necessary the case.
  • If I write this article, I would put 'animal welfare science' as an subset of 'animal welfarism'. but I am okay with the arrangement of the current article.124.168.24.5 (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful about suggesting other editors are including "false information".
  • The reference of the book being used as the source for this "attitudes" approach is "Francione, Gary Lawrence (1996). Rain without thunder: the ideology of the animal RIGHTS movement." (my capitalisation) I freely admitted I have not read the book, but I have assumed the title is an accurate description of the information the book contains or the arguements it develops.
  • Just because other editors might have made mistakes in their edits does not mean these should be repeated. Please see WP:links.
  • Just because content has been in an article for a long time does not make it correct or appropriate to include. Articles on Wikipedia evolve. Some aspects of an article may be considered appropriate until an editor/s discuss this and concensus is reached that it is not.
  • If I have an attitude about something, it does not mean I am measuring it or even understanding it. If I was to show people a picture of a chimpanzee "smiling", what does their attitude to that image tell you about the chimp's welfare? Some might say that a smiling chimpanzee is a happy chimpanzee - the attitude approach. However, biologists know that chimpanzees "smile" when they are in fear - the animal welfare approach.
  • This article already has a section on definitions. Please add a definition of this attitudes approach to animal welfare.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude is the overall definition

DrChrissy

  • I was talking about a different reference to attitudes (Origins of Attitudes towards Animals) from the article. It was cited by my link. But you removed it unfortunately. In 'Rain without thunder', welfare and rights are both described as attitude. Francione’s main point was those SO-CALLED RIGHTS movements are actually welfare movements. We have at least two references to the definition of welfarism.
  • You are hijacking WP:links, it clear shows section links are legitimate. It has an example for it: 'To link to a section of the same article ... write:...' . See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Link#Section_linking_.28anchors.29
  • Your example of public opinions to smiling chimpanzee is not supported by scientific evidence (surveys) as far as I am aware. Though, it is a good attempt to make public look ignorant. If you have reference, please provide it. Scientific evidence (JM Welfare Index) demonstrated public opinion of good welfare is nothing like a smiling chimpanzee. People care if nonhuman animals are kept as pet (good welfare), if they get rest, if they endure pain during slaughtering and so on so forth. Humans are animals. We can empathize with animals naturally; the public have a sensible idea of good welfare.
  • ’ Please add a definition of this attitudes approach to animal welfare’ I think other editors will be in a better position of adding it. Because I do not think it is an alternative definition. I already expressed my view. I think attitudes approach is the ONLY approach. Welfare science is a scientific discipline within the framework of welfare attitude.

124.149.65.96 (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Talk section is entitled "Attitude is the overall definition". If this is the case, a definition MUST be stated so that other editors and myself can discuss this and reach consensus on what is appropriate for the article and what is not.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The definition

My basic idea of the unified definition:

Animal welfare is the perceived well being of nonhuman animals under the management of humans. It is defined numerically by JM Welfare Index. Examples of good welfare include (in decreased order of relevance), pet keeping, allowing rest, avoiding pain during slaughtering, having access to food and water, not being slaughtered at young age. Animal welfare science is a scientific discipline of animal welfare. Active areas of research are the relationship between animal welfare and longevity, disease, immunosuppression, behavior, physiology, reproduction. 124.168.45.245 (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have several questions about this definition. First, it excludes wild animals. Does this mean that wild animals do not experience good or poor welfare? Second, I know of plenty of examples where pets are kept in conditions that are cruel, so how can "pet-keeping" necessarily be good welfare. Third, why is welfare improved by slaughtering at an old age? An animal may have a terrible life and slaughter at an early age may be seen as the most ethically justifiable action.
Please remember that if this definition is to remain in the article, it must be sourced. It can not be simply your "basic idea". A quotation would be the best.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew people may have concern about 'under management of human'. This part is for distinguishing welfare attitudes from rights. Welfare of wildlife is actually under the assumption that humans have control over wildlife. In animal rights perspective, human should respect the autonomy of wildlife, let the animals live or die without interference. The part can be rephrased to 'animal welfare assumes human's stewardship/domination of animals'.
  • Of course it is sourced. All from current article's references. Primarily from the two sources of attitude approach.
  • The examples are GENERAL ideas of the public gathered by JM Welfare Index. You can check the equation of the index, the examples are all major predictors of the equations. There are always exceptions for any issue. Just like the case in the animal rights debates about animal experimentation, zoo etc. A meat animal can have totally happy life and die from natural death. We have to do some generalization here. Otherwise it's too complicate to talk about any issues. The point is, public think its generally okay in terms of welfare to kill animals for humans (such as for meat) when the animals are older, but not okay when they are young (for example veal).

124.168.45.245 (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I really do not follow the logic of this arguement. Animal welfare is about what the animal is experiencing. We may have attitudes about the animal's welfare state, but this is not a measure of welfare per se, it is a measure of our attitude, which may or may not be correct depending on our understanding. For example, how many people know that meat chickens are slaughtered at approx 6 weeks of age. I would imagine more than 90% of the public do NOT know this, but their attitude is to accept slaughter of chickens but reject slaughter of veal calves.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you did not fully understand different uses of JM Welfare index. The index have at least two very different functions.

  • Usage 1, define animal welfare by reading the co-efficiencies and factors of the formula.
  • Usage 2, measure individual attitude, a user input and calculation are required for this use.

Right now the article features primarily usage 2, the measurement you are talking about. The definition I suggested is based on usage 1, nothing to do with measurement. No user input and calculation is required.

The index is self-explanatory about animal welfare.

It is not possible to go through all the mathematical detail of the reference here. But I will try to make things easier. Usage 1 of JM Welfare index summarized the collective knowledge of welfare of the public (not limited to a few scientist). According to the mathematical models generated by algorithms, pet keeping was number one factor of welfare. The results is intuitive: the first picture of this article, selected by a human editor of Wikipedia, is a young (correspondents to the age factor in the index) puppy (correspondents to the pet keeping factor in the index) eats (correspondents to the food and water factor in the index) .

Imagine this: the public (as one collective person) is asked this question: what come up to you mind when you are asked about 'what is animal welfare'. First answer the public provide is 'keeping pets'. The next answer is 'allowing rest' ... those answers give a definition of welfare. This is essentially what the index demonstrated.

  • 'but their attitude is to accept slaughter of chickens but reject slaughter of veal'

1)You need provide reference (survey results) to support this assumption, it may not be the case.

2)Public accept some issue (such as slaughter of chicken) because they do not have access to the information is not really 'accept'. Not being informed makes people not liable for many legal issues. This kinds of 'accept' also can be easily changed by publicity campaign.

3)The age factor IS less relevant to welfare compare with pet keeping, allowing rest etc., the co-efficiency of the age factor is the smallest. Therefore it was listed at the last.

4)I already said, it is a generalization. Please read the methodology of the study. When people were surveyed, they were not asked specifically about an animal species, the opinions gathered were not limited to a specific species.

5)the reference book (OAA) did conclude that genetic similarity to humans are a major factor of human attitudes to animals (welfare). In general we like mammal (cow) more than birds (chicken), it could explain your assumption.

6)Some part of the index may not make sense to some people, that is normal. We call it probability. The point is, the index make sense to most people at most of the time. Because it is based on the 'average opinions' of the public. The very different research methods ensure the reliability of the definition. 124.149.119.26 (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disorganized structure not represent main stream view

The logic/structure of the article is a mess. Headings do not exclusively describe the content. Sections overlap. For example

  • two definitions are tangled together and popup randomly
  • The heading 'principles, practice' are not ideal. Many other parts of the article are about 'principles' and 'practice'.
  • Five freedoms are used as definitions of animal welfare by many organizations and animal welfare scientists (search keywords 'five freedoms animal welfare' in Google). It should be described in 'definition'.

Here is a better structure http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=577153188&oldid=577113869 But DrChrissy reverted it completely without full explain (please read WP:OWN). The reason given was minority view.

The structure is NOT a minority view. In contrast, it is a main stream view. Five freedoms are used as definitions of animal welfare by many animal welfare scientists. It overlaps the definition of JM Welfare Index on many aspects. In fact, JM Welfare index is a scientific advancement of five freedoms. This kind of approach is popular. But the article fails to present it.

Problem of claiming psychological well-being

In the first sentence 'psychological well-being of' is mentioned. This violates NPOV. Some people unsure about the existence of animal consciousness and mind. 124.168.46.184 (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Real majority view is public opinion

The logic of DrChrissy is self-contradicting. If she really take majority view seriously, the article should primarily based on the public opinions (like the results of Dr Meng's international survey).

Most recent efforts of DrChrissy on the article (see editing history), however, are downplaying/removing public views. Animal welfare scientists (include those mentioned on this article) are the real minority. They are heavily out numbered by the public. 124.170.216.233 (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion used to be that the earth was flat.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument does not say anything. Scientists used to think the earth was flat TOO. Scientists also thought animals cannot feel pain (see pain in animals). Some scientists still denies animal can think and feel today. Animal can feel pain is a common sense for people who have normal intelligence and emotion (exclude psychopathic individuals who cannot empathize with other creatures). Scientists always make mistakes. In fact the history of science is the history of correcting the mistakes of scientists.
  • DrChrissy is dragging down the scientific quality of Wikipedia for her inadequate ability of math. Cutting edge science in many disciplines have entered the age of large amount of data and collective wisdom. Human Genome Project and Wikipedia are both good examples. DrChrissy rejects this kind of edits. The research methods she likes rely on the (qualitative) opinions of individual scholars. They are dated, and have poor scientific value.

124.149.163.237 (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are now becoming personal and offensive. I will consider what further action to take. Just to put the record straight. First, I am male - public opinion and scientists would agree on that so your opinion is a minority opinion and is incorrect. Second, I am not sure why you believe I have "inadequate ability of math". I have not made any comment on the mathematics of the indices because you have stated it is too detailed to place on this page. I have been teaching statistics at University level for 25 years. I think when you talk about "large amount of data..." you are referring to methods such as meta-analysis, logistic regression, factor analysis, etc. I have taught these statistical methods for years and have used them in many international peer-reviewed papers. Where have I rejected such edits?
Why do you use multiple IP addresses and not sign-in as a registered user with a Talk page? __DrChrissy (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits reported

To the editor/s involved in the disruptive editing above, including personal attacks upon myself and on the Animal welfare article: Please be advised this matter has been reported to the administrators notceboard and incidents page. I would have contacted you directly on your Talk page, but all I can see are IP addresses.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy's ownership of the article and disruptive/deceptive edits

  • Comments of DrChrissy were offensive from the start. He lied about the facts to new editor and even hijacked Wikipedia policy (see welfare is attitude section). Those response he received are not personal attack. They are factual descriptions about his misconduct. The description is supported by editing history.
  • I'd like to draw attention to the WP:OWN and disruptive editing of DrChrissy. He repeatedly remove sourced inputs from other editors while injected original research, or minority views into the article. Detail can be found in the recent editing history of the article.
  • DrChrissy is discriminatory to the public, he demonstrated this kind of attitudes in multiple place. What is the public? The public is consisted of mathematicians, physicists, geologists, computer scientists, medical doctors, lawyers ...and behavioural scientists.
  • No, I did not mean those methods DrChrissy mentioned; those look basic for me.
  • I am not really concerned with the self-reported bio of DrChrissy. He made many edits in deception in animals. He must know a lot about the topic. His overall editing history on Wikipedia demonstrates his ability/understanding in math/science.

Welfare is attitude, more references

  • New references were added to the first paragraph, they further support that the view of DrChrissy is truly minority. Both references from many important animal welfare scientists show animal welfare is generally used to describe an attitude.

Both sources disagree to the opinion of DrChrissy. His view is minority. And his statements are short of reference as usual.

Animal Welfarism

I'm not convinced that the "definition" of animal welfarism is correct. It strikes me as being more a definition of utilitarianism. I would have thought that animal welfarism was showing concern for animal welfare. This would be influenced by people's attitudes toward the various issues. Some may show welfarism with regard only to slaughter methods, others may show welfarism to the entire process of farm animal production. So, I think this definition needs tweaking. Any comments?_DrChrissy (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy removed multiple leading sources without explain. The excuse she gave here , "I'm not convinced", is lame.
It is not a role of Wikipedia editors to question the established reliable sources, see WP:OR,WP:OWN,WP:CI. She can disagree with the content. But reference must be provide to support her argument.124.170.221.179 (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy reverted an edit which both added and removed sources. His questioning of the reliability appropriate use of sources is well within policy, which means at this point it's time to stop the tendentious editing and discuss both the sources and phrasing. Discussion of DrChrissy's editing are to be done elsewhere. This is where we discuss how to improve the article. Woodroar (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many things you said were UNTRUE.
  • 1)DrChrissy's edit was not a revert.
  • 2)'both added and removed sources' What sources were removed by other editors? Can you provide evidence? The only person I knew who is removing sources recently is DrChrissy
  • 3)she was not questioning the reliability of the source, she was questioning the content of the source. You policy of reliability is irrelevant.
  • 4)'to be done elsewhere'. Where?
  • 5)She owns the article, and she has been insert original research into the article multiple times. Correct her mistakes and report her misconducts (such as monopoly) is the first step towards improvement.

124.170.221.179 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I was hasty in my view of this partial revert of a number of edits and believed he was both deleting sourced content and adding other sourced content back. I also let my fingers do the thinking when linking to WP:RS and typed "reliability of sources" when I should have written "overall use of reliable sources", for example, his comments on academic consensus and sources which may be more appropriate for other sources. (I have stricken and clarified my comments above.) Sourced content can absolutely be removed if it's not appropriate for this article or if the source is unreliable, although it appears that he is trying to incorporate the material.
Again, as for DrChrissy's editing, we have a variety of Wikipedia:Noticeboards to get outside opinions and/or develop consensus if you feel it's necessary. First and foremost, you'll want to discuss it with him first, either on his or your User Talk page. To that end, you'll probably find it easier to communicate with others (and let others communicate with you) if you create an account. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Sourced content can absolutely be removed if it's not appropriate for this article or if the source is unreliable', have you researched into what source she removed? Can you provide specific reason to justify her removal of international leading sources?
  • 'it appears that he is trying to incorporate the material' Can you provide evidence? I cannot see it.

124.170.221.179 (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally haven't read any of the references and have no opinion on the reputation or reliability of the sources. But I know about our policies and I can recognize a content dispute, and one that will end very poorly. DrChrissy has reverted some of your edits, true, but there are other edits he hasn't reverted and has instead worked into the article. Everyone's time would be better served if you could suggest sources and/or phrasing to include in the article, and work to gain consensus for those edits.
I should also mention that DrChrissy has self-identified as male on this very Talk page, which makes it appear that you are deliberately ignoring others' comments. I'm trying to AGF here, so please take a step back, reread what others have read, and try to build consensus. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the response.
  • I use SHE mainly because Chrissy appears to be a female name, SHE was used from the beginning. I don't want to confuse newly arrived editors, it's better to keep the consistency for others convenience. Many people don't read everything.
  • All I tried to do is recover the international leading sources I added, now you ask me suggest sources. Did you deliberately ignore what I said?
  • There are more problem of this article. The structure and overall definitions are both problematic.
  • Anyone can easily verify the reputation and reliability of my sources, just Google it, I thought it is a basic research skill. It is not constructive if someone does not try to verify my sources and the same time rejects them. If anyone is not good at doing research. I can provide more straight forward links or more sources. But I feel there is no point to do it, since my old sources was not looked into yet.
  • I can appreciate your AGF and attempts of mediating.

58.6.46.251 (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight of definitions, unexplained removals of DrChrissy

  • Approaches and definitions has undue weight. Any one with proper science/math knowledge should know quantitative methods, for example Yew-Kwang Ng's definition (simple math) and the JM Welfare Index (more complicated math), should be given more weight.
  • Yew-Kwang Ng's definition does not belong to feeling, apparently, grouping him with Ian Duncan and Marian Dawkins is a mistake. His method is similar to Broom. They both mention the interaction with the environment.
  • DrChrissy removed the quantitative definition of animal rights without explain
  • DrChrissy removed criticism to Donald Broom from John Webster without explain
  • DrChrissy also added a section 'new welfarism' without any citation.

124.170.221.179 (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether some definitions have been given appropriate weightings is a matter of opinion. I have edited with my own opinion knowing the subject area of animal welfare. The article is, of course, open to other editors to change based on their own opinion. I have asked you previously to discuss the mathematics involved in the JM indices and you declined to answer the question saying that my understanding of statistical analysis was "basic".
Yew-Kwang Ng's definition is (appropriately) a complex one. It could actually be placed in one of several approaches/definitions. I felt it was best placed where it is, but it could easily be placed in others if other editors see this as appropriate.
I removed the definition of animal rights because this article is on animal welfare, not animal rights.
I removed the criticism of Broom because this distracted from the article. All these approaches/definitions have been criticised and it was my editorial opinion that this criticism was simply not required. Other editors might feel differently.
I added the section on New Welfarism originally with a citation, however, Wikipedia blacklisted the source and would not allow it. I felt the information was useful enough to retain, so it was me that added [citation needed] to remind me or other aditors that an appropriate citation is needed. I (or others) will provide this in time.
_DrChrissy (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many things DrChrissy said are UNTRUE as usual.
  • 'I have asked you previously to discuss the mathematics involved in the JM indices and you declined to answer the question saying... '
This is not what happened. DrChrissy is manipulating the facts,
She did not asked to discuss and I did not decline. Can she provide evidence from editing history to support her false claim?
The reference book of JM Welfare Index is about 400 pages (lots of information), it can be accessed free from many universities. Anyone who is interested can go to read the original work. I have access to the book. I do not mind to answer some questions of the book, if I have time.
  • 'this article is on animal welfare, not animal rights'. If this is the real reason, you have a constructive option of move the content to other relevant pages. Simply delete and remove is WP:OWN.
  • 'the article is, of course, open to other editors to change'. It is not 'open', it is semi-protected. Only certain people can edit it.
  • DrChrissy claims her source was blacklisted. Can DrChrissy tell us what source she intended to cite for new welfarism? Maybe I can help with it. For example asking the ban to be lifted or finding alternatives.
  • Including criticism in the article is essential for NPOV. If there is criticism for others definitions, it should be added too.
  • 124.170.212.79 (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does DrChrissy own the article? She added Duncan's old opinion but remove his new opinion

  • DrChrissy added a definition from Duncan(1996) earlier, this was her edit.
  • She introduced original research in the edit above by claiming Ian Duncan and Marian Dawkins are 'perhaps most notable'. I do aware of the work of Ian Duncan, but no source provided to establish 'most notable'. I searched Marian Dawkins's book in in Google book: https://www.google.com/search?q=animal+welfare&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 it ranks about 74 for keywords animal welfare. Many authors rank before her, many were not even mentioned in the article. The highlight is disproportional to the academic contribution. But at least this edit show DrChrissy think Duncan is a good source.
  • Now DrChrissy removed Duncan's recent definition from a top ranking book without any explain. The reason is obvious, Duncan's new definition agrees to my position, that animal welfare in general is attitudes. DrChrissy does not concern about NPOV, she just wants to WP:OWN the article.124.170.212.79 (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new welfarism OR

this edit use unreliable source and original research. The added text is not the source's opinion.124.170.210.201 (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest expansion of scientific content

I cannot edit the article, so I put my suggestion below. A more comprehensive source using scientific methods.

The term, new welfarism, was coined and described by Gary L. Francione in 1996. Dr Jenia Meng validated the prevalence of the attitude and provided quantitative definition in 2009, based on the factor analysis of an 4500 questionnaires from 12 nations.
She found New welfarism explains 28% overall variation of human attitudes to animals. The quantitative definition shows new welfarist movement is characterized by large scales of anti-vivisection, anti-hunting, anti-fur and anti-cruelty campaigns of the self-labeled animal rights organizations. The movement do not pursuit the abolishing of the property status of animals (such as pet keeping) of animals.

The reference is the book already cited in the article:

Meng, Jenia (2009). Origins of Attitudes Towards Animals'. page 122-123 Ultravisum, Brisbane. 124.170.194.168 (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are so many recent edits from multiple IPs in this article so insistent on including the work (one piece I believe) of Jenia Meng. Is this a case of WP:SELFPUB?__DrChrissy (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it is an important piece of work
  • No, if you read ORIGINS OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS ANIMALS, you will see it was a Phd thesis, PhD thesis is peer reviewed. Many contributors of the book are international leading experts on animal welfare (the names can be found in page 16). Very positive reviews of the book from peers can be found here. Reviewers include Marc Bekoff Chief editor of encyclopedia of animal welfare and animal rights , Andrew N Rowan CEO of Humane society international. 124.168.55.44 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is this--a compilation of emailed blurbs? And how did you get this? Don't you think it's time for a bit of disclosure? Drmies (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, a PhD Thesis is not peer reviewed, at least not in the sense of scientific peer reviewing. A PhD Thesis is in fact a WP:SPS source and thus either unsuitable for its use as a source or to be used very carefully. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. You are hijaking wikipedia policy. see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources text from the policy:
'Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan or from Proquest. ' 124.149.49.107 (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dissertations or theses may be cited. They don't have to be. In practice, they rarely are, unless the work has been cited by multiple independent experts in high-quality peer reviewed journals or university-level textbooks from a publisher with a reputation for quality. The way this place works is with persuasion. If you want to cite a source, you need to convince others here that it is worthy of mention. Our only means of determining that is by looking at its impact on other published work.
We don't take well to people who push a work of one scholar into numerous Wikipedia articles. At all. Especially when you haven't provided any links to high quality chapters or journal articles that cite it. (Please create an account - it takes 2 minutes and is a courtesy to others, who can then contact you on your stable "user talk page".) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll it to the bottom. There are list of journal articles. How many time I have to say that? Do you deliberately ignore evidence that supports my position?124.149.122.14 (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I do get the impression that the IP(s) is (are) pushing Meng's work--and unfortunately they're doing it in really poorly written edits. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIAS

You can only find that kind of quantitative information/results from Meng's study. Nobody else did it better. If I find source with better scientific value, I will push it too. In fact, I already suggested multiple good sources from different authors, they are already included in the articles.
Wikipedia suffers from WP:BIAS because of the average demographic of the editors. It's unfortunate that some editors care more about superficial formalities, such as how comment is written on the TP, than the scientific quality of the sources and content.

124.149.49.107 (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Careful: you are guilty of ageism (or maybe classism, if "demographic" is used metaphorically). This dense language of yours with its many ungrammatical infelicities makes it difficult to decide whether you're calling editors here too young or too old, but if you can't make your argument without insulting anyone, I will block you and as many IPs as you want to use, and I will semi-protect this talk page. If you wish to salvage anything here, you will need to cite reviews and studies published in properly peer-reviewed academic journals that lend (any kind of) credibility to Meng. So far all we have is your word and a bunch of emailed blurbs. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what said above is largely UNTRUE.
  • Don't put things in the mouths of other editors. Don't be self conscious. As demonstrated in the Wikipedia Polly, demographics include many factors, such as, religion, nationality, ethnicity etc.
  • I already provided reviews (includes journal articles) from peers. I copy it to here again since you can't read. 'Very positive reviews of the book from peers can be found here. Reviewers include Marc Bekoff Chief editor of encyclopedia of animal welfare and animal rights , Andrew N Rowan CEO of Humane society international. ' There are many articles including several journal/book articles that reviewed and cited the work. Go to the bottom of the page.
  • even DrChrissy, who I have disagreement with, lent credibility to Meng when he talked to you on ANI. BTW reading you discussion (about your plot and how you play politics) is very amusing, I enjoy it.
  • I told other editor long time ago, I don't really care how you want to control the article. Please semi-protect this talk page too, I am happy about that. Because this desperate action advertise the lack of demography and neutrality of this article. This is one of my major message on this talk page
124.149.122.14 (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on references

these edits contain vandalism. At lest in two references (of John webster and Jenia Meng) nonsense like XXXX were inserted. 124.170.194.168 (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC) 124.170.194.168 (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent a considerable amount of time and effort trying to standardise and make accurate the references in this article to raise its overall standard. Sometimes, previous editors have not provided required information such as the publisher of a book. Where possible, I have researched the information required and included this in the reference. Sometimes I have not been able to do this whilst logged in, so I have placed XXXX as a reminder to myself and other editors that this information should be included if possible. I don't believe I have used XXXX to replace other information, but only missing information. I therefore do not consider it to be vandalism, rather, "work in progress".
I have been extremely tolerant of the recent personal attacks and uncivil edits from this and other IP's (which appear to be the same editor). These should stop now! I am formally requesting an apology from this editor and an undertaking that future edits will be civil and non-disruptive.
__DrChrissy (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no vandalism in adding XXXX to unknown info from a source. In any case the publisher field could just be removed from the reference. I suggest the IP editor puts an end to its WP:PAs or a block will certainly be the outcome of such behaviour. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No edit proposed to article. Take your concerns to AN/I if you wish.

Request apology

If it is work in progress. It should be tagged, there is Wikipedia tag for it. XXXX is not acceptable. The level of scrutiny DrChrissy received is nothing, Compare with how he has been treating valid contribution of other editor. As documented in this page, people have been extremely tolerant of DrChrissy. he has been

  • constant lying
  • removing valid contributions of others without explains
  • inserting original research advertising minority views
  • reporting other editors to admin first though he is the person at fault.

He should provide an apology formally for all the behaviors. ...what goes around comes around... 124.168.55.44 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What a ridiculous charge, that this is vandalism. XXXX as a placeholder isn't great, but sheesh, DrChrissy spent a lot of time templating the references and making, as far as I can tell, good-faith edits to the content. Gaba_p, above, is correct. Having said that, DrChrissy would do well to de-escalate; requests for an apology are no more useful here than they are in the real world--I refer the Dr and the peanut gallery to Paradise Lost III.102-106. Now, I'm about to plow through the rest of this delicious talk page and the history of the article to see what else is going on. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request for de-escalation is noted. Thanks. I retract my request for an apology.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you--with due deference to Milton, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the IP editor: I left you a note at User talk:124.168.55.44. Please take it seriously. Log in, start signing your messages, stop making silly claims of vandalism. If you want to be treated as a participant in the discussion, at least provide a means to communicate with you. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meng's thesis = hundreds papers

Drmies complained the Jenia Meng's work appears on many wikipedia articles. She accuse those are spams. No they all added important information to the articles. The diversity of the articles demonstrate Dr Meng's wild spread contributions (covers many disciplines) to science. It just proved the importance of Meng's work. She established nine math indexes and discovered hundreds correlations. Many journal papers can only report one correlation they discovered. Which means Meng's thesis is equivalent to hundreds journal papers. Because of the large volume of findings, people will see it adds value to many Wikipedia articles124.149.122.14 (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meng's work has been described by IPs as "data mining". (In my experience of science, this is a rather derogatory label so Dr Meng herself might take issue with this.) Using this approach it is not surprising in the least that it calculated hundreds of correlations. However, a first year student of any subject involving statistics knows that correlations are a notoriously weak statistical method for interpretation and do NOT show causality - as discussed on Correlation does not imply causation.
I do not know of any journal that would restrict publication to only one correlation. This is unless the journal is reviewing an article and decides that only one of the correlations is sufficiently relevant, correctly calculated, has sufficient statistical power, etc. If a journal allows only one correlation to be published, I would have doubts about the robustness of the remaining non-published statistical analysis from the data-set.
__DrChrissy (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You comments are irrelevant

  • data mining — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.31.89 (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say correlation imply causality
  • I didn't say journal limits it to one correlation. I said people often publish paper based on one correlation.
  • this section is just partial indications of the volume of the findings. 124.168.31.89 (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University ranking

The relevant subject ranking of the university is SEVEN (Agriculture & Forestry) internationally: http://www.topuniversities.com/node/4576/ranking-details/university-subject-rankings/2013

124.149.122.14 (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation of Meng's thesis in independent reliable sources

Above, you pointed me to a list of sources at the bottom of a linked page. If you mean

I note Phillips is based at Meng's university. I, personally, don't think this indicates sufficient independent recognition of the thesis in reliable sources. I'll wait for other opinions. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The connection is even closer than that. On p.14 of the on-line version of the thesis [2] Meng states that Prof. Clive Phillips was her advisor (supervisor).__DrChrissy (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, but why you didn't mention, near your information, the book show many international leading animal welfare scientists are contributor/collaborators of Meng's study.124.149.122.14 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mention other names because these disruptive IP edits are, in my opinion, getting dangerously close to linking by association, people for whom I have the greatest respect as scientists (some I consider to be friends) and I have known and worked with for over 20 years. I would not want to be responsible in any way for continuing the IP dragging their names into this sorry episode of disruptive editing and misrepresentation of people's work. I now believe these IP edits are damaging the perceived reputation of Dr Meng and should stop immediately.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should stop your discrimination and ownership first. Those are the cause of the problem. Treat other editors with respect. Research into the sources. (Only) concern scientific merit of studies. Don't play politics. Then everything will be fine. 124.168.31.89 (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination

Marc bekoff(US) and Andrew Rowan (UK) are sufficient independent source. I already provide you their review. How high you want to push the bar? I call what you are doing discrimination124.149.122.14 (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't discriminating against a person, if that's what you mean. All over this encyclopedia, ideally, people discriminate between sources, rejecting those that haven't received significant independent recognition by peers. Can you please link to the Rowan article? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you can't deny you are discriminatory, wikipedia is biased (WP:BIAS). Everything you said was documented. You should spend more time checking those news sources on wikipedia, they are not peer reviewed at all. I linked Rowan's page earlier, it's in the same page, right above the journal articles you find.
IP I warned you about your baseless accusation thrown at other editors above. Please stick to commenting on content not editors or you'll find yourself at AN/I and possibly blocked from editing. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the message above just further proved my point of this section WP:BIAS, thanks for your cooperation Gaba_p .124.149.122.14 (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So the Rowan reference is to a personal communication. What I'm looking for is reviews or citations of the thesis in published sources - in particular, scholarly journals or university-level textbooks. I'll add the Psychology Today article to the above list. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Psychology Today article is a blog, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says "...books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs,(my emphasis) personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." The blog is written by a well respected scientist and I am not questioning anything about his science or statements, I am simply reminding readers that WP policy is that blogs are not usually acceptable sources.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a blog. It is a column of qualified expert 58.6.46.185 (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similar disruption to other articles

From my watchlist, I have noted that similar IP disruptive edits (reversion of an editor deleting on the basis of an edit being spam) are ocurring on Five freedoms and Suffering. I apreciate this page should be about what is written on the Animal welfare page, so where should these new disruptions be reported - I don't want to start getting into this again by raising it on multiple other talk pages!__DrChrissy (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look at my recent edits to see the list of articles where this was inserted--often inappropriately, poorly worded. And note the plethora of IPs used. If this were anywhere above board, the editor would get an account. Interestingly, I did find an old account that inserted the information, and I'm getting ready to take this to a different forum, in a separate thread, to see what is to be done. Thank you Dr. Chrissy, Drmies (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

too many subsections for definitions

I disagree to this revert The definitions in the subsections are essentially 'conditions'. No need of so many subsections — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.164.72 (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the "Approaches and definitions" as being different. "Conditions" refers to the conditions provided by humans and applies mainly to animals under human control. "Environment" expands this to include the welfare of wild or feral animals. "Feelings" refers to the mental state and processes of the animal. "Animal production" refers to the rather simplistic arguement that if an animal is producing well, welfare must be good - it applies primarily to farm animals. "Veterinary profession" refers to the attitudes of a profession that many look to as leaders in standards of animal welfare. These are all essentially different and deserve their own sub-section.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to your logic, every definition deserves a section. 124.149.121.204 (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy's defamation

DrChrissy's editing summary is a defamation against me. By the time of her edit(00:07, 27 December 2013), I already engaged in discussion, she is the one did not. 124.149.121.204 (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR of DrChrissy

this edit is WP:OR124.149.121.204 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT original research - it is a summary of other material presented in the article, as is required for WP articles.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UNTRUE. For example, geographic and educational differences are not in the article. Citation needed.124.149.121.204 (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article discusses animal welfare and/or legislation in the US, UK, Europe, Canada and India - please expand to other countries if you wish. The attitudes and thoughts of several philosophers are discussed - philosophers are generally thought to be well educated people with views that advance our culture and beliefs.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have many WP:OR in above statement. Put it simple, Your 'summary' is not the view expressed by the article and the sources. I can help your find sources, but the only sources I am aware that actually supports your summary, JM's studies, are filtered by Wikipedia (your fault), at least you get the conclusions of her findings: Dr JM "concluded that though many factors are associated with the attitudes towards animals, memes (tradition, religion, political ideology, education, etc.) and genes (empathy, position in social hierarchy, genetic similarity to the animals, etc.) are two fundamental origins of attitudes towards animals, and the two can be further unified by the information they carry. "124.149.121.204 (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, I thought I recognised this approach and style of writing - only the IP changes!
anyone can point out if someone violates Wikipedia policy, NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH 124.149.121.204 (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CI (Conflict of Interests) Records of DrChrissy

please visit the talk page of Marian Stamp Dawkins for the list of records 124.168.52.248 (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: DrChrissy OWN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN

"While it may be easy to identify ownership issues, it is far more difficult to resolve the conflict to the satisfaction of the editors involved. It is always helpful to remember to stay calm, assume good faith, and remain civil. Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect. Often, editors accused of ownership may not even realize it, so it is important to assume good faith. Some editors may think they are protecting the article from vandalism, and may respond to any changes with hostility. Others may try to promote their own point of view, failing to recognize the importance of the neutrality policy."

This is not a personal attack. It is simply an observation that DrChrissy may be showing signs of page ownership. Discuss. --AslanEntropy (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too, observe the OWN problem of DrChrissy.124.170.240.130 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*AGREEHow do we report this problem appropriately?--AslanEntropy (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC) I am consulting the Teahouse for possible resolution ideas. --AslanEntropy (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be reported, it happened in the past. I have a COI case of DrChrissy open right now, I just added her OWN case into it. Your opinion is welcome. 124.170.240.130 (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know if there is an issue. I think a more experienced editor should decide. Since you reported it, there will ultimately be a decision and the issue can be put to rest. Then we can get back to editing the article.--AslanEntropy (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


You better report it separately. Because my main case is COI, OWN is mentioned as an evidence of COI, they may not respond to or process the OWN case. I saw the user who has connection with DrChrissy, Epipelagic, was defaming you in the teahouse His action does not improve the article. 124.170.240.130 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing at Wikipedia appears so simple—just click edit and away you go! But take a moment to reflect on reality. In real life people often have a great variety of opinions, and often argue endlessly, with very little progress. How do you think Wikipedia would look if it were run by the US Congress? The reason there are a lot of useful pages at Wikipedia is that working here involves more than clicking edit—yes, anyone can edit, but anyone can remove that edit, so something else must be going on. There is a lot of tolerance for misunderstandings, particularly from new users, but one thing that will have to be noted in the future is that article talk pages are not places to bash other editors. Ask at WP:HELPDESK or the teahouse for alternative forms of dispute resolution, but posting sections on this talk page that highlight a particular editor must stop. A suitable topic for discussion here would be a particular proposal to add or remove certain text, and the normal policies regarding that proposal (WP:V, WP:DUE, and more). Further extraneous discussion should not occur, and should be removed if it does occur. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the article history. Please stop referring to other editors in edit summaries—all that will do is cause experienced editors to regard the contributor as misguided, and here on a mission to right great wrongs. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, pointing out who is owning the article is an necessary part of improving NPOV. Your view does not represent the view of experienced editors.124.170.240.130 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:After looking through the recent edits in this article and the incivility of IP124…, the main issue is the IP's WP:COMPETENCE to edit articles related to animal welfare. I am One of Many (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am One of Many has pretended he knows about animal welfare in the past, I pointed our his major mistake He don't even understand the correct relationship between animal welfare and animal behaviour.124.170.240.130 (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can not see how the hot-link in the above posting is related to a (lack) of understanding of animal behaviour and welfare. Perhaps the IP hopper can educate us all by writing a brief summary of the relation and then we can upload this to the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is already in my link above.124.170.240.130 (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't feed her. She's just what she is. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Epipelagic. I see where you are coming from. I guess I just get really pissed off that my name is being associated very boldly in headings with the words "lies", "ownership", "COI" and others. I put a lot of time on here and I just hate that someone can be so disruptive with no way to stop them.__DrChrissy (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a serious weakness in the governance of Wikipedia. It's horrifying that you have been subjected to such uncomprehending crassness and grandstanding. Administrators seem to prefer leaving content builders floundering around in muck like that when it occurs, rather than get involved themselves. By hey... it's out there and sometimes we can't avoid it, and the Wikipedia governance seems beyond remedy. We can only develop a sense of humour around it. It's real only if we take it seriously. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What did the elephant say to the naked man? ...How do you eat with that! Humour persists! __DrChrissy (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tyrants and their associates won't like Wikipedia much, that is for sure. I am sorry you cannot totally censor speeches here124.168.3.6 (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about we make a deal. I will remove any further off-topic commentary on other editors from article talk pages. If anyone resists that, I will escalate the matter to WP:ANI where administrators will review the situation and take steps to prevent abuse of such pages. In a situation like this, it is likely that the IP would be blocked, and if IP hopping were used to circumvent that, the page would be semiprotected to prevent its misuse. A moments thought will show that Wikipedia must have mechanisms for dealing with talk page bickering—if pages like this were really a free-for-all where the most persistent wins, all talk pages would be shouting matches. There are a lot of disputes, and it can take serious effort and time to deal with them, so please just accept the advice given earlier—the help desk, the tea house, and any experienced editor will confirm that article talk pages must not be used to needle other editors. Use a noticeboard for that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are late, we have been to teahouse and DrChrissy's misconducts are already on two noticeboards. but I will take your advice bringing this matter to more places124.149.60.136 (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To Johnuniq: Thank you - sound advice.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq, that is sound advice. These accusations have been going on for a while and it's starting to sound a bit shrill. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies noticed the ownership problem of DrChrissy in the past. She said "There was little explanation for the revert, and if no reason or suspicion is given, then one might claim some OWNership here" This is the edit Drmies was talking about, it was a past ownship case of DrChrissy124.170.221.69 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy is the cause of the dispute

If DrChrissy really don't know why all this happen. Here is the answers

  • DrChrissy has not been fair and honest to others (academics/editors/nonhuman animals). Justice need to be restored.
  • Johnuniq wanted a deal. That does not make much sense. The deal has to come from DrChrissy, because she is the cause of all troubles.
  • When people are nice, don't assume they are weak. Very likely it is because they have good morals. I don't usually take a confrontational approach on issues. People are usually nice and honest (Wikipedia community is different though). I always be nice to people first.
  • If someone love privilege and hierarchy, Wikipedia may not be an ideal place. Hierarchy is a repulsive concept to me in many situations. I like 'equality' in a general sense. 124.170.221.69 (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_welfare&oldid=589071192"