Talk:Animal rights/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Simple additionals to links

For example for the abolitionist view, Leadlerless resistance in animal rights would be a very relevant link. The similarities between abolitionists, direct actionists and animal liberationists are parallel.

Secondly, List of animal rights groups should be a link in there somewhere, even if it's just See also, as the groups listed are the main ones known without every single so called AR group!

Untileveryoneisfree (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Should not be linked to deep ecology

There is a link at the bottom of the page placing the animal rights page in the category “deep ecology”. I deleted that, because there is no clear relation between animal rights and deep ecology.

The link has been put back by Crum375, stating “AFAICT Deep ecology is a superset of Animal Rights, so the cat makes sense”.

I think that it is clear instead that deep ecology is not a superset of animal rights, nor a subset. One can be in favour of both, or of neither, or of deep ecology but not animal rights, or of animal rights but not deep ecology. The person often cited as the founder of deep ecology, Arne Næss, was (I have read) a hunter.

There are de facto links between deep ecology and animal rights, by the fact that there are people who believe in both. A discussion of those links can be appropriate for the article — actually, in its present state, the article doesn't even mention the expression “deep ecology” at all, except in that link! But I certainly don't think its appropriate to include the page itself in the deep ecology category, as if animal rights was a form of deep ecology.

David Olivier (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no objection, I will now delete the link to deep ecology. David Olivier (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added DE as a 'See also', as it is clearly relevant. I can accept the cat as being debatable, and believe cats should only be used when undisputed. Crum375 (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

'Clearly relevant'? Evidently it is not clearly relevant from the preceding paragraph from David Olivier. There is no more obviously a link here than there is in any other 'rights' article. Either justify relevance, or delete. 82.18.30.66 (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer info

Polentario - the info you added about Schopenhauer and anti-semitism seems out of place in this article. Many of the philosophers referenced in the article may have influenced other philosophers, world leaders or political movements, but this article doesn't seem to be the place to go into all of those.Bob98133 (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not: Schopenhauers quote is a very early one about animal rights in itself and it is directlty connected with his antisemitism and the later by the animal protection movement and the Nazis. I brought some additional sources.--Polentario (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC).

Hi again Polentario, I've removed the material for now because it would need to be written and sourced differently, and we'd have to see what the secondary sources say before adding it. Lots of the people mentioned on this page, both pro and anti-animal advocacy, have expressed antisemitic views; Kant, for example, was antisemitic and racist. It would only be appropriate to mention Schopenhauer's antisemitism if secondary sources argue that it segued into the Nazi position. If sources do say that, I think we should include it.

For example, can you find a secondary source that discusses this passage:

"The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity and the very basic source of this lays in jewdom. ^[1]

SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Compare with the quote as given by English-language secondary sources:

The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."

SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, can you give us the original German to compare? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm ... I've just found this quote in a secondary source and it doesn't say the above. Can you say where you found it? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I took the original and as well a secondary German source. Google is obviously full of shortened versions of the quote by animal rights activists - thats the reason why I included the quote. In fat, what is left out in most animal right websites quotations - aAND PROBABLY AS WELL IN SOME OF YOUR SECONDARY SOURCES (we have been arguing about losses in translation) is to be found in the ORIGINAL (Schopenhauers, Preissschrift über die Grundlage der Moral, nicht gekörnt von der Königlich Dänischen Sozietät der Wissenschaften, Werke IV, S. 238, 1839):

Die vermeintliche Rechtlosigkeit der Tiere, der Wahn , daß unser Handeln gegen sie ohne moralische Bedeutung sei, daß es wie es in der Sprache dieser Moral heißt, daß es gegen die Tiere keine Pflichten gäbe, ist geradezu eine empörende Roheit und Barbarei des Occidents, deren Quelle im Judentum liegt. (...)

Erst wenn jene einfache und über alle Zweifel erhabene Wahrheit, daß die Tiere in der Hauptsache und im wesentlichen ganz dasselbe sind wie wir, ins Volk gedrungen sein wird, werden die Tiere nicht mehr als rechtlose Wesen dastehen. Es ist an der Zeit, daß das ewige Wesen, welches in uns, auch in allen Tieren lebt, als solches erkannt, geschont und geachtet wird.

(Only when this simple truth will have penetrated the people, that animals basically and in a very substantial point are similar to us, the animals will not longer be rightless beings. Its high time to protects and accept this eternal being that lives in us and as well an all animals.) (...) So einem occidentalischen, judisierten Thierverächter und vernunftideolater, muß man in Erinnerung bringen, daß wie er von seiner Mutter, so auch der Hund von der seinigen gesäugt wurde. ... The latter sentence is as well let out by non nazi animal right activists. "It has to be brouzght to memory, to any of those occidential, jewryished animal hater and reason ideologist that not only he but as well the dog was fed brest by his mother."

English sources about Schopenhauers antisemism as an important influence ion the ones of Wagner. Paul Lawrence Rose, Revolutionary Antisemitism in Germany from Kant to Wagner, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 372-373).

Its not the question wether Kant had some antisemitic aspects. The one of Schopenhauer is important for the animal welfare / rights movement since it clearly connects antijewish / anti christianity (and pro eastern / aryan / indian) views with the relationship to animals. Source e.g. Hanna Rheinz, „Kabbala der Tiere, Tierrechte im Judentum, And Eugen Drewermann Rechtlosigkeit der Kreatur im christlichen Abendland in "Tierrechte, eine interdiszinplinäre Herausforderung“, Hrsg. IATE, Heidelberg 2007, S. 234-252</ref> --Polentario (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Polentario, please do not keep adding that. This article is in the process of being improved, and I have asked a number of scholars to look at it and tell me whether anything is wrong or missing. I don't want them to think that this latest addition is part of it. It is written in a way that would need to be cleaned up; it's not clear that that quote even exists; and we need secondary sources to explain the relevance even if it does, and how influential that position ended up being. We can't write these articles just by sticking in a few quotes that we've found somewhere and edit warring to keep them in, especially where there's doubt about the accuracy.

This is the quote as I'm finding it on the books I have on my shelves:

The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."

So, clearly we have some research to do before deciding which version is accurate. We then need to find secondary sources who discuss the relevance of it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please say where you got the quote in English, because this is not your English. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thnx mighty teacher. I have the original german before me. I googled a first version and found an endless amount of the english quote, however with out the original ending. Any problems? Why do you keep edit warring? I have provided other edits , which are based on different sources, you just keep being destructive.

To make it very clear, the English quote is sort of nowadays rationale of Schopenhauers philosphophy in general - pity (respectively compassion) as being the central motivation put against the categorial imperative of Kant. (Personal POV.: But it leaves out the clear antijudaistic stance and as well the dangers of compassion - to take over and end the life of others out of pity has happened and is one of the central motives of the likes of Ingrid Newkirk.)--Polentario (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC) --Polentario (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I looked in part IV of On the Basis of Morality (on wikisource), where Polentario says the passage is, and I can't find anything. In Part III, chap 8, there is a passage that looks like it. It says:

It is asserted that beasts have no rights; the illusion is harboured that our conduct, so far as they are concerned, has no moral significance, or, as it is put in the language of these codes, that "there are no duties to be fulfilled towards animals." Such a view is one of revolting coarseness, a barbarism of the West, whose source is Judaism. In philosophy, however, it rests on the assumption, despite all evidence to the contrary, of the radical difference between man and beast, a doctrine which, as is well known, was proclaimed with more trenchant emphasis by Descartes than by any one else : it was indeed the necessary consequence of his mistakes.

That isn't much to hang the Nazi attitude on, unless there are other passages that I'm missing. We would definitely need a secondary source who discusses this. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Such a view is one of revolting coarseness, a barbarism of the West, whose source is Judaism". I have volume IV of the original works. This is as said, a clear connection between animal love and hatred of Jews, left out by the veggie/animal movement. There is a clear connection between western animal love and the embrace of Tibetian, Indian Buddhism provided by Schopenhauer. It has been a similar story in 19th century Germany, but quite on the right. Secondary source in german was provided. OK, if its about animal welfare, you dont accept a smoking gun, do you? At least the quote is confirmed.

Polentario (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But we have clear connections between the opposite view of animals and antisemitism; in Kant, for example. This is why we require secondary sources for material like this. We need to see what scholarly and other reliable sources have said about this connection, if anything, rather than doing our own research with primary sources. See Wikipedia:No original research. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me sound bloody arrogant, but you seem not to undrestand the basic differences between Schopenhauer and Kants position towards jews and jewdom. For Dummies: Kant sees jewish law as being outdated. Schopenhauer, jewish law was vivid, aggressive and encoind modern life and with regards to animals being so cruel (Scvhechita and so on ), while those loveable peaceful (aryan) animal lovers in India were so much nicer. Schopenhauer and his specific antisemitism has been more important for Wagner and Hitler and the animal rights movement than Kants. --Polentario (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're an academic philosopher, please let us know, so that we can look to see what your speciality is. If you're not, please supply published secondary sources for what you're saying, even here on talk. Where does Kant say that Jewish law was "outdated," and what does it even mean to say that, and what's the relevance?

We want to know iwhat reliable sources say about Kant and Schopenhauer, and about the context within which they were writing, and about the influence of their views. We don't want to know what SlimVirgin or Polentario say about those things. That is why we always need secondary sources for any analysis that is complex or contentious. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep cool, I just had the impression that youre completely ignorant about the two and that I could be of help with a short explanaition. --Polentario (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to the current wording. The fact that Schopenhauer was an antisemite, and linked cruelty against animals with the Jews — antisemites often link everything bad in the world to the Jews — doesn't justify trying to tie together animal rights and Hitler. It seems to be no more than the usual anti-animal slandering. David Olivier (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is appropriate if it can be shown that Schopenhauer's influence on the development of animal rights was affected by his views on Semites. Polentario appears to be trying to make that case, and SlimVirgin is trying to ensure that it is a well accepted position and that it is expressed well. JD Lambert^(T|C) 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version can't stay as it is, and I have asked Polentario to revert himself (partly because it's inaccurate as it stands, and partly because he's violated 3RR). He has restored the quote without a secondary source showing the relevance, and in addition has mixed up two passages from different parts of Schopenhauer's work, using only an ellipsis to separate them, and giving a citation only for the last part.

This is the kind of material that requires a lot of research before it's added, to make sure we've got the historical context right. It's a good example of why relying on primary sources for interpretations is not allowed. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's totally irrelevant for this article that Schopenhauer was antisemitic. The quote is clearly just put in to try to promote someone's agenda by pushing the old "Hitler was a vegetarian" smear. Most antisemites were meat-eaters - does that mean that meat-eating is linked to fascism and racism? Should I add a big quote on the "Meat" article about how much Stalin loved eating meat? It's a ludicrous point. Lurch23 (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of the Bias of SlimVirgin. Secondary sources are in german, primary sources have not been accepted by her and then she tries to construct a 3RR or inaccurate quotes. PLain POV by a veggie admin. --Polentario (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been adding this kind of material to multiple articles, and almost all your edits have been reverted — by veggie admins and by non-veggie non-admins — because you're either using no sources, or relying on primary ones, or poor secondary ones, then in addition you're adding your own twist, or using it out of context, and then writing it in a way that's often hard to understand. That is why you're being reverted by multiple editors; it has nothing to do with POV. (Note, please, that I was the one who added the Tierschutzgesetz section to this page; my concern is not that it be omitted, but that it be written carefully and very accurately because it is so contenious.) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What you mean with conteniuos? You had been in state of complete state of denial accepting the Schopenhauer quote, you reverted till you found it confirmed. --Polentario (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the content, not on the contributor. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Both sides tend to make Reductio ad Hitlerum errors - i would like to find a suitable wording. The Kaplan / Singer KZ comparisions DO annoy the jewish community in Germany (at least thats the one I know) extremely. But animal rights and Hitler can be connected - at least by similar legal projects and even a common philospophy (based on Schopenhauer).My personal source for that is the legal commentary of Albert Lortz to the German Animnal protection law. Its about pity and compassion (for animals), and it was like that 1933 already. This doesnt mean animal rights do not have a certain point. hitlers animal rights and regulations are basically still in use in germany, and with satisfactory results:) --Polentario (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources

There is something here that we can use. [1] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, at least you keep on looking. I assume that the usability of Schopenhauer for Hitler AND the animal welfare movement lays in antijudaistic aspect, his love of asia and his compassion concept. My secondary sources tell this very clearly - Hanna Rheinz is a jewish german animal welfare contender and Eugen Drewermann an allegedely leftist church critic, pro animal cleric, friend of the Dalai Lhama (and critized by Klaus Berger to be a state of 1941 theologician with a heavy antisemitic approach). --Polentario (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Polentario - I notice you have added the same or similar material to the Animal Rights, Animal welfare‎, Henryk Broder, Richard Wagner‎,Animal welfare in Nazi Germany‎ and possbily other articles. Can you explain your reasoning for this? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats first a plain lie - my edits in Broder do not have anything to do with the one sentence introduced in Wagner. Animal welfare in Nazi Germany‎ is a rather new here, the topic is if relevance as well for other lemmas. I have updated some the artcles so in the german wikipedia as well, without the bullshit and the controversial attacks which happened to me here. --Polentario (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I've been asking polite questions and trying to sort through your edits and reverts despite objections. I do not appreciate being called a liar or you refering to this as "bullshit and the controversial attacks". Please see WP:CIV Sorry about Broder, but you don't answer about your other edits. Perhaps you should stick to editing the German Wiki - maybe your attitude is better appreciated there. Bob98133 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont accept your apology. The question was biased and tendecial. - my edits in Broder / or animal welfare / or e.g. sternenfels do not have anything to do with the one sentence introduced in Wagner. Animal welfare in Nazi Germany‎ is a rather new here, the topic is if relevance as well for other lemmas. I have updated some the articles so in the german wikipedia as well, without the bullshit and the controversial attacks which happened to me here.

--Polentario (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Polentario, your attitude is very confrontational and as such this will weaken any argument you have. Please refrain from incivility, and assume good faith. By calling the questioning and requests for reliable secondary sources 'bullshit and controver[sy]' you are in fact attacking the editors above. This is not an acceptable attitude on wikipedia and can and does lead to editors being blocked.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LocalZuk about your attitude, Polentario. It distracts us all from the goal of improving this article. This is not a stub article where changes will be accepted without careful consideration. It is a well-developed article on a controversial subject, and it has many editors trying to ensure that changes are worthwhile, accurate, well-documented, and well-expressed. I think you'll find that any edits you make that meet those criteria will be welcomed here. Hostile rants won't compensate for failing to meet those criteria. JD Lambert^(T|C) 16:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As said, I was starting with good faith and a willingnness to contribute with original sources in germany. I am just pissed off by the povian attitude a deeply biased administrator as Slimvirgin has shown. --Polentario (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits from 82.18.30.66

I note that the entirety of my edits have been removed because 'some are not accurate, and others do not accurately reflect Scruton's position'. I request an explanation from 'SlimVirgin': the deleter, of where my edits were not accurate, and how adding 'according to Scruton' to otherwise POV heavy sentences renders them no longer reflective of Scruton's position.

The original quoted texts, followed by my edits:
(1) Original:

Several senior Nazis, including Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler, adopted some form of vegetarianism, though by most accounts not strictly...

My edit:

Several senior Nazis, including Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler, adopted some form of vegetarianism (although not necessarily for ethical reasons), though by most accounts not strictly...

PS. This is sourced to QI: The book of general ignorance from Faber and Faber. Available here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/QI-General-Ignorance-Stephen-Fry/dp/0571233686/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207789835&sr=8-3

The Book of General Ignorance doesn't sound like much of a source for Nazi ideology, and Stephen Fry is a comedian.
What does "not necessarily for ethical reasons" refer to? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Not necessarily for ethical reasons" refers to the fact that Hitler was not occasionally vegetarian because he thought eating animals was wrong, but because he thought it would be healthier for him to be so. And the QI book was compiled by the shows researchers, not by Stephen Fry himself (I'm unaware of whether or not you're aware what QI is, but just in case: it's a light hearted television quiz show in which common-misconceptions are exposed by asking the contestents questions that have a commonly accepted answer, which is actually mistaken. Have a look at the Wikipedia page for it: QI )82.18.30.66 (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll need a better source. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? 82.18.30.66 (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

2 Original:

A consequentialist might argue, for example, that lying is wrong if the lie will make someone unhappy. A deontologist would argue that lying is simply wrong.

My edit:

A consequentialist might argue, for example, that telling a lie is wrong if the lie will make someone unhappy. A deontologist would argue that telling a lie betrays one's duty to be truthful, and therefore is simply wrong in principle.

The additional of those words is pointless — tautological. A lie betrays your duty to be truthful = lying is wrong. We can say "wrong in principle" instead of "simply wrong," if you prefer, but it really makes no difference. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"A lie betrays your duty to be truthful" and "lying is wrong" are not tautological. In the former case, the lie is wrong because it betrays your duty to be truthful, in the latter it could be wrong for a number of reasons (for example, if lying always correlated with someone being hit on the head, then it could be wrong because doing so always causes pain). Deontology is defined by the fact that it is an ethical system based on principles to be followed out of duty, which is to say that one must follow a principle ONLY out of a duty to do so (and not for some other hypothetical reason: hence categorical imperative). A rule consequentialist could hold "lying is wrong" and therefore the point must be clarified to make it exclusive to deontology.82.18.30.66 (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, by all means find a source. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A source for what? That this is the position of Deontology? Take a look at the Wikipedia page for Deontology - quote from the summary there: "It is sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation" based ethics, because deontologists believe that ethical rules "bind you to your duty"." 82.18.30.66 (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3 Original:

Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal case humans (such as infants) and at least some non-humans must have the status of "moral patients."

My edit:

Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal case humans (such as infants and the severely mentally ill) and at least some non-humans must have the status of "moral patients."

Why do you need two examples rather than one? And I'm not sure he uses the mentally ill as an example anyway. Do you have a source? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The mentally ill is the more commonly used examples due to the fact that 'infants' can be included by the 'social contract' move (when adequately adjusted), whereas 'the severely mentally ill' cannot. If you insist on only using a single example, it would be preferable to replace the 'infants' one with the 'severely mentally ill' one - however I fail to see the problem with using two very brief examples. 82.18.30.66 (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does Singer use the mentally ill as an example? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

'Animal Liberation', as I recall.82.18.30.66 (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

4 Original:

It is in this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies. The world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when in fact they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape.

My edit:

According to Scruton, the appeal of the animal rights movement rests in fantasy. He holds that the world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when in fact they care only about themselves. Scruton claims that animal rights supporters revel in a romanticised and anthropomorphised world of the animals, which, he suggests, is a fantasy, a world of escape.

The writing in the first version is better than the writing in the second, and the second slightly distorts what Scruton said, as I recall. The world of animals painted by AR is the world of escape, not the AR movement. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

While the writing in the first version is more captivating and poetic, that is not the intention of a supposedly objective encyclopaedia entry. I have modified my edit (above) to better encompass what you say Scruton's position is. If this is acceptable, please reapply my initial modifications in the article.82.18.30.66 (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"It is via these means that the appeal of the animal rights movement originates" is odd writing, and there is no need to replace a the sentence. In addition, your highlighting confirms that Scruton says it's the movement's romanticized world of animals that is the fantasy, not the AR movement, obviously. So it's accurate as it stands. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason why my highlighting emphasises that Scruton says it's the romanticised view, rather than the AR movement, that is the fantasy is because I wrote it (note the highlighting is in my edit, not the original quote). The reason I highlighted it was to draw your attention to the area I had edited, to comply with your request. You'll note that the original text makes no reference to the position being Scrutons (as opposed to unquestioned fact). You're right that my rewording sounds a little awkward, so I have edited it again (and again highlighted my changes). However, surely you can admit that the original wording: "It is in this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies" is entirely POV. All I wish to do in this particular edit is alter the wording to make it as objective as the pro-animal rights sections of the article.82.18.30.66 (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't keep on restoring your version without sources, as requested above. Also, I don't know what you mean by saying "It is in this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies" is POV. It is Scruton's view, so yes, it is POV, but so are all the other views we report. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked you to clarify why you need further sources: in the first case because you simply announce the first isn't enough, without justification, and in the second case because your request for a source leaves it highly ambiguous what you apparently need sourcing - I assumed it was the Deontological position and as such I provided you a source for this (namely, the Wikipedia article for 'Deontology'). In the case of the POV Roger Scruton section, it is written without enough clarity about what is fact and what is Roger Scruton's position surrounding the facts. To clarify, consider the following sentences:

"John believes that reports of a hundred year rainstorm outside are mistaken. This falsehood has led many people to needlessly stay indoors. The weather is sunny, and rain has not occurred for more than a week. The rainstorm, John argues, is a fantasy: an excuse not to venture out"

Does this sentence really make clear that the rainstorm could be genuine, and that the falsehood of the rainstorm is merely claimed by John, and not an undisputed fact that John is just commenting on? Consider the 'Scruton' statements you've re-edited into the article (I've coloured the corresponding parts of both sentences):

"[Scruton] accuses animal rights advocates of "pre-scientific," anthropomorphism, attributing traits to animals that are, he says, Beatrix Potter-like, where "only man is vile." It is in this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies. The world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when in fact they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape"

To clarify further, I assume that you're quite devoted to the Scruton position yourself, so perhaps it will be better to put the same words in another context - in reference to someone that you probably oppose:

I'm not even slightly devoted to the Scruton position; if you think I am, it's a measure of how neutrally I described it, because I positively dislike it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 09:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"[Hitler] accuses Jewish rights advocates of "pre-scientific," germanomorphism, attributing traits to Jews that are, he says, Beatrix Potter-like, where "only Germans are vile." It is in this fiction that the appeal of Jewish rights lies. The world of the Jews is money-hungry, filled with bankers who act sycophantically almost no matter what we do; in order to gain our money , and Jews who pretend to be patriotic when in fact they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape"
(NB. I don't claim this to be Hitler's actual position: just replacing Nazi stereotypes where appropriate)

And, just for your information, this is the first time I have reinstated the edits; and I did so because you had not responded to what I had written here for an extended period (and you still haven't to some of them), so I assumed that you no longer had a problem with them. Evidently you own this article, and due to your superior status here, you've afforded yourself the right to decide what goes in it without the need to justify yourself. I will not reedit the article again, you've made quite clear that Wikipedia is dictated by its moderators.82.18.30.66 (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm losing track of your points here. You need to supply citations to reliable sources: for example, for the claim that the Nazis were veggies for non-ethical reasons, and the claim that Singer included the mentally ill in his marginal cases. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 09:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've provided sources for both (you still haven't replied to either) - and I never said the Nazis were vegetarian for non-ethical reasons; just Hitler. Presumably you've given up your case regarding the other edits since you've given no response to my comments there. But don't worry about it - its your article and you can claim what you (and thereby: Scruton) want in it.82.18.30.66 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If no response is delivered, I would request that my edits be reinstated. I hope that this reversal was in good faith, and not simply due to being partisan. If the pro-animal rights sections of the article must comply with non-POV, then so must the anti-animal rights sections.82.18.30.66 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I see, those were in effect good edits. I don't know about Scruton, but if that does not reflect his positions, perhaps it is the wording of the positions, rather than the attribution, that should be changed? David Olivier (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, David Olivier. If no response is issued from the editor by the 15th, I will re-edit the article as above.82.18.30.66 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Responses above. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Responses above. 82.18.30.66 (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer again

I've extended this section a little to include Schopenhauer's antisemitism and to mention his possible influence over the Nazis. [2] I hope to write more in future, but having read around the subject a little, it's not clear-cut, and I'm going to have to do more reading of the philosophical positions at the time to make sure we're not misrepresenting him. For example, some non-philosophical sources now say he blamed Judaism entirely for the German attitude toward animals, but in fact he seems to have blamed Christianity at least as much. It's also not clear how much he influenced the Nazis, if at all. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

This section seems short. Are there really only three notable critics of Animal Rights? Bugguyak (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree: there is much criticism of animal rights; it is actually what I was looking for when I came across the article. This section should definitely be expanded.130.209.6.41 (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, most of the criticisms are refuted by saying that special cases of humans, such as children or the handicapped, are not capable of reciprocating rights but still have them. Who is going around saying that children have rights? In practice, these individuals are essentially the property of their parents/guardians. They don't really get prosecuted if they violate another's rights. As they become older and can reciprocate, they gain more rights, exactly how the social contract model is supposed to work. I guess my point is that the criticism section is lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.153.223.52 (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So now I see that the section on Animal Rights Criticism has completely been eliminated? Lets just be completely biased while we are at it why don't we? - Bugguyak

I have added a proper critism section to the bottom of the article, and put the information that was removed back into it. This text should never have been removed, as it was relevant and cited sources. If anything, as stated here, the criticism section should be expanded. Reidlophile (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if those are the best arguments against animal rights out there, I don't really feel they are worth citing! Or perhaps they are, just to show how poor those arguments are. In any case, no, I don't think the section should be expanded, unless someone finds something a bit better. David Olivier (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to me that Roger Scruton is mentioned in the lead, in the overview section and has his own section in the criticism section - most of which all say kind of the same thing. This is a long article already - repeating this seems like overkill. Bob98133 (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Image caption of lead photograph

"The (animal welfare advocate) would argue that it is wrong because it appears to involve unnecessary cruelty"

What kind of unnecessary cruelty does the picture illustrate? Did the man cut off the limb to solicit sympathy. Is the restraint too tight, causing the animal duress? Is it because it is a primate? But that would fall under animal rights. Doesn't really make sense to me. --Dodo bird (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably it is 'unnecessary cruelty' in that it is forcing the monkey to perform in such a way that differs from his natural behaviour, and thereby causes stress. But I agree - like a fair amount in this article, this is somewhat ambiguous.

Additionally, it is not an accurate representation of the animal welfare position, which is not to end unnecessary cruelty, but only to lower the level of suffering to some degree in all current human/non-human practices. If animal welfare was the position that all unnecessary cruelty caused to animals must end, then they would insist on an end to farming animals for food, which causes unnecessary suffering in that producing animal meat is not a necessity (due to vegetarianism being a possibility). The call to end unnecessary cruelty is in fact the animal rights position.82.18.30.66 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

82, could you please supply a reference for your last statement. It does not agree at all with my understanding of animal rights. The lead paragraph of this article also seems at odds with what you say. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

82, when they say "unnecessary" suffering, the word is used deliberately to convey the idea that the suffering must be no more than is needed to do the job. This allows the support of practices that animal rights theorists find unacceptable. That is one of the gulfs between the animal welfare and animal rights positions.

Dodobird, what I suggest is that you ask a friend to tie you to the end of a rope, and take you out on the streets, where he will use you to beg for money whenever it suits him. Ask him not to let you go no matter how you kick and scream. Ask your local police station to ignore that you're being dragged around as though you were a thing, rather than a living being — tell them it's research for Wikipedia. Ask your friend to be sure not to feed you well, to stick you in a small cage when he's not using you, and not to let you have contact with the outside world except via him. Try to imagine that the situation will last until you die. Then pop back here and let us know whether it makes sense to cite that image as unnecessary cruelty. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you forgot to tell me to ask my friend to cut off my arm. Does the image show the animal kicking and screaming? Dragged around like a thing? Starving? In a cage? Think not! --Dodo bird (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dodobird - you're just wrong on this. After all this is an article about Animal Rights, a philosophy which claims that animals "should be afforded the same consideration as the basic interests of human beings." Slimvirgin has pointed out that almost no consideration is being paid to the interests of the monkey in the picture, therefore, it is a reasonable depiction for this article. Just because some animal abuse is less egregious or visible than others, doesn't make it any less abusive. If the only abuse you acknowledge is abuse for which you have visible signs (kicking, screaming, starving), then you are simply denying other possible abuses of the animal's interests such as social isolation, lack of space, lack of stimulation, etc. Bob98133 (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that my objection is to the portion of the caption I quoted, not the image itself. You cannot reasonable interpret a picture of a man with a monkey on a leash to mean that the man is being cruel to the animal. Look at the caption of the pic on the right. Now tell me what is the difference between this pic and the one in the article. --Dodo bird (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please show me a reference that states that animal welfare philosophy is opposed to keeping a dog on a leash?Bob98133 (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point for me. They are not, and the caption doesn't claim that. But apparently animal welfare advocates would oppose the "unnecessary cruelty" reflected in the pic. "What cruelty?" you ask? Can't you see from the pic that the poor ~~monkey~~dog is starving? Can't you see that the ~~monkey~~dog is being dragged around? Can't you see that when not on a leash, the poor ~~monkey~~dog gets cooped in a cage all day long. No? I ask again, what is the difference between this pic and the one in the article? Claiming "unnecessary cruelty" is taking or has taken place is WP:OR not backed by WP:RS and probably violate WP:BLP.--Dodo bird (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

References, please. Where are you getting your information about what animal welfare advocates think?Bob98133 (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A man holds a monkey with a limb missing by a rope around her neck, a scene epitomizing the idea of animal ownership. Animal welfare and animal rights advocates would both oppose this, but for different reasons. The former would argue that it is wrong because it appears to involve unnecessary cruelty, the latter because the man is exercising property rights over another living being.^[2]

Please reread the discussion. What animal welfare proponents believe has nothing to do with the issue here, which is that it is OR to claim the image shows "unnecessary cruelty". What is the difference between the dog image and monkey image? Would you object if I replace the lead image with the dog image?--Dodo bird (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the dog image doesn't appear to show anything to do with unnecessary cruelty - only ownership. The monkey pic could be argued to show unnecessary cruelty, as a monkey is not a typical 'pet type animal'. However, I would suggest that the information regarding animal welfare be removed from the summary, as it just seems to be a little too much like OR for my liking. The information about it epitomizing the idea of animal ownership should stay though.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Bob asked a legitimate question. Where are you getting your information about what animal advocates think? Do they think simple animal ownership to be unnecessary cruelty? Why do some consider it OK to own a dog, but not an monkey? The fundamental question here in my opinion is that the seemingly uncomfortable and unhappy monkey is an iconic species that animal advocates believe are equal to humans, where as other animals such as the seemingly comfortable and happy dog is not as iconic.Bugguyak (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I have not made any claims regarding what animal welfare advocates believe so I can't see how the question is relevant. If you ask me, a leashed dog would be a more suitable example of animal ownership which the animal rights position reject. Using the picture of a monkey muddles the line as it introduces the issues of domestic vs non-domestic animal ownership(not really a rights vs welfare issue) and that of primates deserving some rights. It may be useful for pointing out that even people who don't hold the animal rights position may accept that some animals due to some reasons deserve some rights, but for an example of animal ownership that the majority of people can identify with, is there a better example than that of a dog? --Dodo bird (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Did you not write: "The (animal welfare advocate) would argue that it is wrong because it appears to involve unnecessary cruelty" at the beginning of this discussion? This article is Animal rights. While there is some overlap, and a lot contention, between the two POV's, it does not make any sense to bring that disucssion into a photo caption. It is and can be discussed in the article if it lends a better understanding of the topic- which is animal rights. If you are unclear about the differences between animal rights and animal welfare, read up on the two. It's like your'e discussing Oranges in the Apples article. To say an apple is not an orange, while true, tells you very little about apples.Bob98133 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dodo bird is correct. Though the monkey in the picture very likely is suffering (both at the point of being photographed, and at other times), this is not clear in the image. This image could just as easily be an animal rights liberator looking after the monkey (aside from the painful lead). A better image would be of an animal in a slaughter house, which better defines the divergence between animal welfare and rights: welfare calling only for kinder treatment within economic boundaries; rights calling for an end to the practice on the principle that it defies certain ethical laws (note, not the animal's rights necessarily - see Peter Singer).82.18.30.66 (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob, that was me quoting the original caption as written by Slimvirgin. Please direct your objections to her if you like. --Dodo bird (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It disgusts me that teh ALF "activists" are not described as the violent terrorists that they are. No-one would call Bin Larden an "activist" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.236.211 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Licensing the trademarks of which the goods & services are derived from animal material....

If the animal materials for human use are unable to be forbidden, then licensing it in the same way as government licensing the alcohol consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.191.80.9 (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph

The following paragraph is of concern:

"The tactics of some of the more determined ALF activists are anathema to many animal rights advocates, such as Singer, who regard the animal rights movement as something that should occupy the moral high ground, an impossible claim to sustain when others are bombing buildings and risking lives in the name of the same idea."[3]

Should an encyclopedia make the assertion that an argument is "an impossible claim to sustain"? Gary P88 (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If we can source this then yes, if not then no. See WP:OR for our policies re original research. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If necessary, we could find thousands of sources who criticize the AR movement for trying to claim the moral high ground while reportedly risking life during attacks (though the other side of the argument is that they say they do everything possible not to risk it, and that they have never killed anyone). We don't need to find sources for every obviously true bit of writing. Note that the sentence is it's an impossible claim to sustain, not to make. They make it, and they may make it correctly, but they can't sustain it because too many people won't swallow it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Secularize the Lemma

I strongly recommend to extract the content concerning animal rights in modern philosophy (i.e. "17th century: Animals as automata" up to and including "Late 1890s: Opposition to anthropomorphism") into a seperate article to make this one more comprehensible. At least this is how we solved it in es:WP--85.180.178.106 (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article is too long and the content suffers for it Reidlophile (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Article size

As per guidelines at WP:Article size, this article is quite large. It has at least 44kb of readable prose, whereas the recommended is about 32kb. In addition, there seems to be disproportionate coverage of the historical issues relating to Animal rights. I would suggest creating an article History of animal rights and moving most of the historical content to this article per WP:Summary style. In that way could apply due emphasis to the contemporary debates on Animal rights. Eazyskankin (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi EZ, 44 kb of readable prose is quite normal for articles nowadays; if anything, it's on the short side for a subject like this. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The main problem I have with the article is that only from this section onwards Animal_rights#Main_philosophical_approaches, is the article concerned with the contemporary issues in Animal rights. I think the article is heavily weighted to the history and development of animal rights. For example, the total article size is 91kb. Of this amount, 63kb is dedicated to the period from ancient world up to 1976, the formation of the animal liberation front. More than two thirds of the article is history. The result is that the most important issues in animal rights today, have been de-emphasized or omitted from the article. There is scant mention of animals as food, factory farming, veganism, hunting, animal testing, zoos and pets. In my opinion, these are the issues that confront ordinary people, because they have to make food choices, use pharmaceuticals, own a pet or go to the zoo. The ordinary person going to McDonald's, would not be to be too concerned about the the philosophies of Kant and Descartes, though they have had a tremendous influence on western society. I still recommend having a separate article that deals with the historical development. This article should focus on the contemporary issues. Eazyskankin (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eazyskankin. Just read the article for the first time. I get the impression that it simply attempts to academically legitimatize the AR movement. I might even argue that that the material borders on original research. Is there a secondary source that considers this particular series of historical and people the canonical philosophical lineage of the establishment of the AR movement? 68.46.99.241 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The development of the ideas isn't quite the same thing as the history of animal rights, so it would be problematic to split the article up with "History of animal rights" as a title. The article shows how the idea of animal developed out of the concept of animal welfare and philosophical ideas about cognition and consciousness. It shows how various thinkers tried to steer the debate to rights, not welfare, and were largely beaten back. It will soon include a section on how, after the rights/welfare split was solidified in the 20th century, it began to break down again in the 21st.

With a topic like this, you can't easily separate the history from the philosophy, or past philosophical positions from current ones. There's also no need to, because the length is well within what's regarded as acceptable; the 32 kb thing harks back to the days when Internet Explorer had trouble with anything over that length, but it's no longer applicable. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't address your point about contemporary issues. I think we could quite easily introduce a section explaining what the main issues are for animal rights activists, though bear in mind that this is about the concept, not about activism. We have an article on Animal liberation movement where we could talk about activist issues. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that all the information currently contained is important, however I think that two thirds of the article dedicated to history is undue weight WP:UNDUE. The guidelines on article size are not strict rules, however they are recommendations.WP:SIZE says "One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed." Currently the article stands at 27 pages. Should we further introduce a section on issues facing the activists, which I think should form the core of the article, then the page size will increase significantly, making its management more complicated.Eazyskankin (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What kind of material did you have in mind for a section about activists? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Since this is an article about animals, I think it would be a good idea to have more pictures of animals than humans. Currently, there are more pictures of humans than animals. Eazyskankin (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

too philosophical

The content seems to focus on the philosophical debates of a limited number of scholars. We know that in the US, humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But what rights do animals have. Unfortunately, I don't see any details. I would therefore suggest some breakdown of animal rights per region or country. Also religious views on animal rights. Another important issue missing is the justification of humans to eat other animals.Eazyskankin (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

maple leaf

im just 11 so grammar ect. not the best

    i am a vegetarian and i just hate  that they kill all animals!!!but with the maple lef meats kiling all the animal and then just throwing it way....there isnt much tothis litt"article" but i just needed to type it!!

70.70.19.187 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)kailie

References to encyclopedia articles.

I see this article has several references that link to articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica. As britannica is a 'tertiary source' (just like Wikipedia) - we should really try to avoid doing that. SteveBaker (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Animal rights and politics

Is there any chance someone could start a knowledgeable section on the role of politics in spreading or curtailing animal rights? For example, Sarah Palin, Mc Cain's running mate, is an avid hunter and there are photos of her with a huge bear skin and giant crab in her office. I shudder to think of the fate of animal rights if McCain is elected and she is but a heartbeat away from the presidency. Would it not be good to draw people's attention on here to the politicians who are helping with animal rights and those who are not? (Truthbody (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

I think Wiki is meant to be an encyclopedia, rather than a soapbox for your activism.68.46.99.241 (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult, given how many politicians either don't care or don't know about AR, or actively oppose it. We could perhaps start a section about notable supporters, but I'm not sure it would have much encyclopedic value. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It might make more sense to add relevant, referenced material to each politician's wiki page if he/she is known to have expressed a POV about animal rights issues. Their HSUS rating on animal issues could be included. It might also make sense in this article to have a section about animal rights and politics. I know that at one time the Labor Party in England had a campaign to "put animals in politics" and Humane USA and League of Humane Voters in the US have a similar agenda; without mentioning specific politicians or their POV. Bob98133 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it would be to actively abuse this site to use it to"draw people's attention on here to the politicians who are helping with animal rights and those who are not". Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy; go use your own blog for that. GRBerry 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits can abuse this site, but intentions cannot. If the edits that "draw people's attention on here to the politicians who are helping with animal rights and those who are not" are in keeping with the WP guidelines, I don't see what objections there can be to them.

It seems to me that listing the politicians' positions on AR both on the AR page and on their own pages would be quite appropriate. If an issue exists and concerns a lot of people — which is the case of AR — it is relevant to the issue to know which politicians support it. The positions of the politicians on the issue is also relevant to the articles about the politicians themselves. I don't see how someone might want to deny that.

David Olivier (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the point would be to draw negative or positive attention to the politician, but as part of their known platform. It might just be in a table or lumped in a Platforms section, so it would also include referenced positions on other controversial issues besides AR. It's nothing I want to do - it was just a suggestion to the editor who asked the original question. Bob98133 (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Count me in! Obama and McCain both have pages on Facebook. So it is not inconceivable that they, or their handlers might be eyeballing wiki too. And i think if we can start a ground swell like Truthbody suggests, "section on the role of politics in spreading or curtailing animal rights?" raina_noor (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)raina_noorraina_noor (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We should bear two things in mind; first, Wikipedia is not to be used as a political platform for individual politicians (or for anybody else), and secondly, it's a global project, so there shouldn't be an undue focus on American politicians. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.87.65 (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about removal of Schopenhauer material

Could the anon (71.197.xxx) say why he removed these passages? [4] Are they inaccurate quotations? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the changes. I presume that the anonymous deleter saw some expressions of antisemitism while failing to recognize that they were in a quote. Steinberger (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Steinberger. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Section: German position, I can't rewrite it as I don't know enough but definitely reads a little strange and short

Please, is this statement: "The Nazis' position was the first attempt by a government to reject the concept of speciesism, at that point still unnamed, but it produced the worst of all possible outcomes. Rather than elevating the status of non-humans, the Nazis traduced the status of human beings they regarded as enemies."... is it just bland and blunt or is it sort of nonsensical? In our society, where words do not blur but rather they change meaning, rejecting the "concept" of speciesism is difficult because the person would argue that it is the "concept" of speciesism they wish people to grasp. Traduced? Isn't that Abracadabra or Doo Wah Diddy?... Concept? Is that a bit light on description? "at that point still unnamed" aren't these sentences a minor heading in the chapter entitled under the Nazi name for the whole thing? Seems that the "unnamed" part could be replaced by "The Germans didn't speak English" without loss of meaning. Not giving out stink but rather hoping for more information if anyone knowledgeable sees it. It's a lesser known aspect of the Nazi regime making it all the more interesting. ~ R.T.G 13:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it and restored some material from an earlier version that said more or less the same thing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I also meant to say thanks for pointing out that the sentence was a bit weird, which it was, especially the part about rejecting the concept of speciesism. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a concept but rather it is a natural phenomenon born out of instinct. Rejecting it is the concept. Small wording. We are not led to beleive that the Third Reich was a champion of kindness but it is interesting that even Hitlers mind may have been aimed at preventing cruelty and ignorance or at least insisted on appearing that way. It is difficult to fit such beautiful ideals to their actions. I myself think that a world growing in peace would eventually go against killing animals and other cruel treatments because it seems to fit the psychology but who knows. ~ R.T.G 06:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Material from sentience

It seems to me that this material belongs here, rather than in sentience. Look it over and see if you can use it. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In the 17th century Thomas Tryon, a self-proclaimed Pythagorean, raised the issue of non-human suffering. Soon thereafter, many philosophers used the anatomical discoveries of the Enlightenment as a reason to include animals in what philosophers call "sympatheia," the principle of who or what deserves sympathy. Benjamin Franklin's autobiography identifies Tryon's writings as an influence in his decision to try vegetarianism; later in the book, he reverts to eating meat while still following Tryon's basic philosophy.^[3] Joseph Ritson coupled Tryon's work with Rousseau's for "Essay on Abstinence from Animal Food" as many Rousseauists became vegetarian. Voltaire compared the Hindu treatment of animals to how Europe's emperors & Popes treated even their fellow men, praising the former and heaping shame upon the latter; in the 17th century, Descartes, Pierre Gassendi, and Francis Bacon also advocated vegetarianism.^[4]

Some of this probably belongs here as well ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In the 20th century, Princeton University professor Peter Singer argued that Bentham's conclusion is often dismissed by an appeal to a distinction that condemns human suffering but allows non-human suffering, typically "appeals" that are logical fallacies. Because many of the suggested distinguishing features of humanity—extreme intelligence; highly complex language; etc.—are not present in marginal cases such as young or mentally disabled humans, it appears that the only distinction is a prejudice based on species alone, which non-human animal rights supporters call speciesism—that is, differentiating humans from other animals purely on the grounds that they are human.
Gary Francione also bases his abolitionist theory of animal rights, which differs significantly from Singer's, on sentience. He asserts that "all sentient beings, humans or nonhuman, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others."^[5]
Andrew Linzey, founder of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics in England, is known as a foremost international advocate for recognizing animals as sentient beings in Biblically-based faith traditions. The Interfaith Association of Animal Chaplains encourages animal ministry groups to adopt a policy of recognizing and valuing sentient beings.

Personal pronoun in lead picture caption

I note this recent edit, about whether the monkey in the lead photo should properly be referred to by "its" or by "her." That strikes me as a significant question, and I'm really not sure what the correct answer is. Of course, many advocates of animal rights would argue for the personal pronoun, but it's not clear to me that logically this encyclopedia should do the same. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the confusion. I think that a traditional encyclopedia would stick with "its" as grammatically correct. My thought in reverting the edit was that it did not appear that any consideration was given to the context. Using the personal pronoun for animals is part of the animal rights context, like guardian instead of pet. There was a similar discussion on the Ingrid Newkirk, PETA president page, about whether a dog pictured with her should be identified by name, by breed, or not at all. I just looked and the current version does cite his/her/its name. In the context of this article, I think that rigid encyclopedic tendencies could yield to the article's context and the personal pronoun could be used. That sort of thing is what makes Wiki more contemporary and edgy. Most media now use personal pronouns for animals identified by name, as do wildlife celebrities like Jack Hanna who will say things like "He's getting mad..." without any name attributed to the animal. That's just my opinion, so if there is a rule or majority to revert to its, so be it. Thanks for discussing instead of reverting, Trypto. Bob98133 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we all agree about the confusion! Yes, I do see this as a case where discussion before possible reversion is the best approach. I've looked at WP:MOS, and it doesn't really provide an answer. I've looked around at a variety of animal-related pages, and it seems pretty clear that personal pronouns are used for specific, named, animals (real or fictional), but there is a tendency to avoid pronouns when discussing unnamed animals. For what it's worth, the page on monkey seems to avoid pronouns in general, but uses a personal pronoun for a particular monkey-like deity. In my opinion, your argument in favor of being "contemporary and edgy" seems like a weak one, not really consistent with what most pages here aspire to. I also think the argument of yielding to the article's context is a slippery slope, given article subjects where that would clearly be improper, and the importance of NPOV. Where that leaves me is leaning towards "its" for the image caption here. But I'm going to wait a bit and see if there are better arguments for "her" before making an edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your points, but waiting for more input is a good idea. Bob98133 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as an issue of context, except that there are probably more editors of this page than of the average WP page who wish to use personal pronouns for non-human animals; which means that we have more of a chance here than on most pages to impose the use of personal pronouns.

I don't see how references to grammaticality can resolve the issue. If a prejudice is so ingrained in culture that it is even reflected in the languages grammar, does that make it NPOV to accept its rule in this encyclopedia? If grammar said that women were to be called “it”, would that justify doing so?

I think animals should be called “it” nowhere. If there are some articles where the consensus is for personal pronouns, and others where it is for “it”, then let's at least keep what we have. Sorry if that sounds un-Wikipedian, it's just that I'm being frank.

David Olivier (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How do we verify the monkey is female? "It" avoids that issue. Rockpocket 00:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Rocketpocket, take a look. The monkey's naked!

Agreed that "it" avoids the issue, but we're not trying to avoid it. I don't think we should be trying to impose an improper use, if using a personal pronoun is improper. If this were a picture of a human whose sex could not be determined, we would not use "it" to describe him or her, so I'm not sure that that rationale is sufficient. Bob98133 (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I did take a look. From the resolution of the photo, and speaking as someone who castrates animals regularly, I deduced could be a female or a castrated male (which one would likely do to a monkey kept in those conditions, unless you wanted to be bitten regularly). Rockpocket 01:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My goodness Rockpocket, regularly castrates animals? —Sandahl (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say its the most enjoyable procedure (for the record, it is always done under anaesthesia and they don't seem too bothered about it when they come around.) Rockpocket 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Animals never seem to be bothered much by anything, I think we call it unconditional love.—Sandahl (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's fairly unusual for display monkies to be castrated since it reduces their value for breeding. I believe that they frequently have their teeth pulled to reduce danger of bites. But the photo is low resolution and somewhat ambiguous. Bob98133 (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess my point was that one of the reasons people often refer to animals as "it" because their sex is unclear. The use of "he or she" seems rather OTT, when "it" does the job just fine. Rockpocket 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the animal rights point is that not using personal pronouns diminishes the value of the animal in that the animal doesn't enjoy the same status as humans who are rarely refered to as "it.". "It" only does the job if one is willing to accept that basic difference. I think that this topic is contentious because it may be in the process of changing. Maybe the solution to this is to include a section in the article like "animal rights language" or "terminology" or something, mentioning changes that the animal rights movement wants to make - guardian, personal pronouns, others, if there are any. That way, "it" could be used in the caption as currently correct usage, but the animal rights stance about the language could be explained and referenced in the article. Bob98133 (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be somewhat odd to use "it" in a photograph of an animal illustrating the main animal rights article, and we have no reason to believe this is a castrated monkey, so "she" seems fine. Tryptofish, I keep seeing your name these days. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and I keep seeing yours too!

That's easily solved. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the questions of gender assignment and castration have really been distractions from the issue at hand, and it is entirely reasonable to conclude that this particular monkey is female. I have some of the same reaction as Rockpocket, that use of the personal form sounds OTT, but at the same time I fully realize that that's a sort of cultural prejudice of my own, and potentially not valid. However, applying that same kind of attempt at critical thinking to David's statement that "I think animals should be called “it” nowhere...Sorry if that sounds un-Wikipedian," as well as the comments by, now, a number of editors that the fact that this page is about animal rights should affect how the page is written, are cultural POV's too. That doesn't illuminate which cultural perceptions might be "right" or "wrong," but it would be un-WP for us to misuse this or any page to assert the supposed "rightness" of a currently-favored opinion. (In other words, it would be odd to say "its" in a publication reflecting a pro-animal rights view, but WP should report on the subject, while being neither pro nor anti.) What makes the comparison to calling women "it" invalid here, is that, for editors and readers in the English WP universe, the correct way to refer to women is a settled issue, whereas the correct way to refer to animals is a matter that is in the process of possible change (no one, I think, would claim that animal rights are now generally accepted and uncontroversial in Western society). So, where that finally leaves me is thinking that Bob's suggestion is a very smart one: use the current-but-maybe-not-for-long "its" in the figure legend, but put it in context with a very appropriate addition to the page about the issues surrounding that terminology. Good idea! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And, after all that, which was an interesting conversation anyway, the new edit by Hq is a very good solution that makes this issue, for now, moot. Why didn't I think of that? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And just to make my position clear, I would supporting referring to an animal as "he" or "she" if we knew its sex. If I didn't know its sex, I would support using "it" (or "the monkey"). Rockpocket 18:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree - the new edit really does bypass the issue and should be acceptible to all. It might be an idea to add a section about animal rights and language changes that they want at some point assuming there are references. Bob98133 (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The writing was awful. This is a very silly debate. The monkey appears to be female, and females are "she." And it makes no difference whether it's a he or a she so to say we can't be sure of the sex misses the point. "It" is simply offensive, and highly POV in a cutline discussing what epitomizes animal ownership. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There definitely is a content change. She/he is equally POV as It in the article describing a controversial subject of animal rights. My edit avoided the contentious issue, if you did not like the style -- there are a million other ways to rewrite the headline without a need for a pronoun: Pick one, or write your own:

A man holds a monkey by a rope, epitomizing the idea of animal ownership.
The rope around the monkey's neck, epitomizes the idea of animal ownership.
A man holds a monkey by a rope around the neck, a scene epitomizing the idea of animal ownership.
Holding a monkey by a rope epitomizes the idea of animal ownership.--Hq3473 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I started this thing by changing its to her realizing that the usage is cententious. I just checked a few online grammar references. The first couple said that "it" is the pronoun to use for animals. The 3rd said [5],[6], [7] "However, he or she may also be used to refer to an animal, if the gender of the animal is known to the speaker or writer."

This usage appears to be changing. I get back to an earlier argument that Wiki should reflect current and ongoing changes, or at least mention them. I would prefer "her" be used for the monkey in the image caption, but I recognize that this change in thinking is certainly not universal, so my 2nd option was to mention the changing usage in the article. A lot of language is inherently POV, such as denying the use of personal pronouns to animals, however I've had to yield in the past to well-referenced sources with which I did not agree (for example calling dog fighting a sport), which is how I felt about this. If the language can be worked out, I think that Hq3's idea works but that mention of the changing language should definitely be included in the article. Not using "its" by rewriting seems like a reasonable way to avoid the issue, but I don't think it should be buried. Bob98133 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree very much with what both Hq and Bob have said. As to the comment that this talk is "silly," what is actually silly is taking an attitude that insists on either "her" or "its," and that resists the perfectly reasonable edit made by Hq as being badly written, when in fact it was not badly written.

I am insisting only on (a) no it, and (b) good writing. The suggestion: "A man holds a monkey. A rope around the monkey's neck epitomizes the idea of animal ownership" fulfilled (a) but not (b). What brought you to edit in this area, Tryptofish? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bob makes a very valid point that a discussion in the page about language would serve to not bury a relevant aspect of the subject. I think it's clear that there is not presently a settled answer, grammatical or ethical, to the choice between "its" and "her," and use of either can reasonably be expected to be objectionable to someone. Therefore, the approach that Hq thought of (and I wish I had thought of!) should be objectionable only to those who are POV-pushing. Of the several versions that Hq suggests above, all are workable, but the third represents the least change from what the page says now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is POV pushing exactly? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should have a section(based on reliable sources) discussing the use of pronouns in relation to animals, however a lead picture is not the place to start such a discussion.--Hq3473 (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be somewhat odd to use "it" in a photograph of an animal illustrating the main animal rights article, and we have no reason to believe this is a castrated monkey, so "she" seems fine. Tryptofish, I keep seeing your name these days. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and I keep seeing yours too! Anyway, I think the questions of gender assignment and castration have really been distractions from the issue at hand, and it is entirely reasonable to conclude that this particular monkey is female. I have some of the same reaction as Rockpocket, that use of the personal form sounds OTT, but at the same time I fully realize that that's a sort of cultural prejudice of my own, and potentially not valid. However, applying that same kind of attempt at critical thinking to David's statement that "I think animals should be called “it” nowhere...Sorry if that sounds un-Wikipedian," as well as the comments by, now, a number of editors that the fact that this page is about animal rights should affect how the page is written, are cultural POV's too. That doesn't illuminate which cultural perceptions might be "right" or "wrong," but it would be un-WP for us to misuse this or any page to assert the supposed "rightness" of a currently-favored opinion. (In other words, it would be odd to say "its" in a publication reflecting a pro-animal rights view, but WP should report on the subject, while being neither pro nor anti.) What makes the comparison to calling women "it" invalid here, is that, for editors and readers in the English WP universe, the correct way to refer to women is a settled issue, whereas the correct way to refer to animals is a matter that is in the process of possible change (no one, I think, would claim that animal rights are now generally accepted and uncontroversial in Western society). So, where that finally leaves me is thinking that Bob's suggestion is a very smart one: use the current-but-maybe-not-for-long "its" in the figure legend, but put it in context with a very appropriate addition to the page about the issues surrounding that terminology. Good idea! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And, after all that, which was an interesting conversation anyway, the new edit by Hq is a very good solution that makes this issue, for now, moot. Why didn't I think of that? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And just to make my position clear, I would supporting referring to an animal as "he" or "she" if we knew its sex. If I didn't know its sex, I would support using "it" (or "the monkey"). Rockpocket 18:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree - the new edit really does bypass the issue and should be acceptible to all. It might be an idea to add a section about animal rights and language changes that they want at some point assuming there are references. Bob98133 (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The writing was awful. This is a very silly debate. The monkey appears to be female, and females are "she." And it makes no difference whether it's a he or a she so to say we can't be sure of the sex misses the point. "It" is simply offensive, and highly POV in a cutline discussing what epitomizes animal ownership. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There definitely is a content change. She/he is equally POV as It in the article describing a controversial subject of animal rights. My edit avoided the contentious issue, if you did not like the style -- there are a million other ways to rewrite the headline without a need for a pronoun: Pick one, or write your own:

A man holds a monkey by a rope, epitomizing the idea of animal ownership.
The rope around the monkey's neck, epitomizes the idea of animal ownership.
A man holds a monkey by a rope around the neck, a scene epitomizing the idea of animal ownership.
Holding a monkey by a rope epitomizes the idea of animal ownership.--Hq3473 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I started this thing by changing its to her realizing that the usage is cententious. I just checked a few online grammar references. The first couple said that "it" is the pronoun to use for animals. The 3rd said [8],[9], [10] "However, he or she may also be used to refer to an animal, if the gender of the animal is known to the speaker or writer."

This usage appears to be changing. I get back to an earlier argument that Wiki should reflect current and ongoing changes, or at least mention them. I would prefer "her" be used for the monkey in the image caption, but I recognize that this change in thinking is certainly not universal, so my 2nd option was to mention the changing usage in the article. A lot of language is inherently POV, such as denying the use of personal pronouns to animals, however I've had to yield in the past to well-referenced sources with which I did not agree (for example calling dog fighting a sport), which is how I felt about this. If the language can be worked out, I think that Hq3's idea works but that mention of the changing language should definitely be included in the article. Not using "its" by rewriting seems like a reasonable way to avoid the issue, but I don't think it should be buried. Bob98133 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree very much with what both Hq and Bob have said. As to the comment that this talk is "silly," what is actually silly is taking an attitude that insists on either "her" or "its," and that resists the perfectly reasonable edit made by Hq as being badly written, when in fact it was not badly written. Bob makes a very valid point that a discussion in the page about language would serve to not bury a relevant aspect of the subject. I think it's clear that there is not presently a settled answer, grammatical or ethical, to the choice between "its" and "her," and use of either can reasonably be expected to be objectionable to someone. Therefore, the approach that Hq thought of (and I wish I had thought of!) should be objectionable only to those who are POV-pushing. Of the several versions that Hq suggests above, all are workable, but the third represents the least change from what the page says now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should have a section(based on reliable sources) discussing the use of pronouns in relation to animals, however a lead picture is not the place to start such a discussion.--Hq3473 (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the following comments, without altering them, from where they had been inserted in the interior of my own comments above. The first is in response to the comment that the editor reports seeing my edits frequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's easily solved. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am insisting only on (a) no it, and (b) good writing. The suggestion: "A man holds a monkey. A rope around the monkey's neck epitomizes the idea of animal ownership" fulfilled (a) but not (b). What brought you to edit in this area, Tryptofish? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is POV pushing exactly? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to see these comments directed at me, as well as this, at my talk page. I think it is absolutely clear that my comments here have been appropriate, and I suggest that this would be a good time to take a deep breath and calm down. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down. The amount of emotion being directed at me here is out of proportion to the importance of the page edits in question. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is POV pushing, Tryptofish? Please answer explicitly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If no one is objecting to the current NPOV image caption, then no one. Please calm down. I feel sorry for other editors trying to navigate this talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you feel sorry for people trying to navigate this page, you shouldn't have started refactoring it, which is why I reverted you.

You said someone was POV pushing. Please say who and how. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down. I am not making personal accusations, and I am not inserting material into other editors' comments. There is no need for this to be a fight, and I am not interested in escalating it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You came here for a fight, and you got it, just as you've tried it elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't. Please calm down. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on, guys. This is clearly no longer about this article. If it must continue (and, to be honest, I'm not seeing a route to a constructive outcome) could you please move this section to one of your talk pages?

Can we also draw a line around the pronoun issue? I think avoiding it in the lead caption is a good compromise, so long as we have a grammatically correct way of doing so. But would anyone like to draft a short section addressing the issue? Rockpocket 18:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. You are right. And I think we really do have consensus for the image caption as it is now. I, for one, want to leave it at that, and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a good source to start with: page 389 3rd pargarph.--Hq3473 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a very helpful source! (I'm a little turned off, and probably not going to write it, though.) --Tryptofish (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Epitome

To refer to the monkey picture as the "epitome" of animal ownership is POV. I can argue that it's not the epitome. Either assertion is irrelevant. We are here to document, not interpret. --Elliskev 18:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Elliskev, although it's a complicated issue. I do think that the reader needs us to explain why the image is there, and so some caption content about the idea of animal ownership does help relate the image to the article. I think that wikilinking epitome is silly, in that we can expect readers to know what the word means. Beyond that, I think that Elliskev is right that there is some POV inherent in calling it an epitome. But it's a complex issue: how much should animal rights-related pages show images of mistreated animals, how much should the abortion page show images of fetuses -- these are laden issues, where people who have strong opinions will understandably see POV in any choice made. Here, I see some value in calling it something along the lines of example or illustration (maybe there's a better word), and letting readers draw their own conclusions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A few more points. First, imagine a photo of a young child with a dog, and the dog licks the child's face while the child laughs gleefully, and label that as "a scene epitomizing the idea of animal ownership." I think that epitomizes what Elliskev meant. Of course the point here is that the monkey scene epitomizes what animal rights advocates consider to be the idea of animal ownership. When we say that, however, it is as if we are adopting the animal rights POV. A possible solution is to change the caption to say something like "epitomizes what animal rights advocates consider to be the idea of animal ownership," but that, then, leads to either the need for sourcing or the problem of OR or synth. So one way around that would be to find a source, and replace the second part of the caption with a referenced quotation about such scenes: "A man holds a monkey by a rope around the neck. "Quotation." (ref)." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That perfectly explains my concern. Thank you. --Elliskev 20:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made an edit consistent with the points above. It's probably not the best possible quote, so please feel free to replace it with a better one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I note with sadness that another editor seems intent on restoring "epitome." I think I've made it clear what I believe is wrong with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As a possible solution, I tried changing "a scene epitomizing the idea of animal ownership" to "a scene epitomizing the animal rights view of animal ownership." In what has become a dismaying pattern, another editor reverted it (mislabeling it as a minor edit) with the edit summary "not really, no." If it is not the animal rights view, then whose view is it? Wikipedia's? All right-thinking people? There seems to me to be no reasonable justification for this. As the page reads now, it is implicitly saying that the scene epitomizes Wikipedia's view. This page is about animal rights, so why not indicate that the image reflects the animal rights view? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Absent any reasonable explanation of the revert, I attempted to restore the edit, but was again reverted by the same editor, with no edit summary, and again mislabeled as a minor edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What you're adding is just wrong: it's not only an AR view of ownership. It's the law's idea of it too, for example. For the sake of background, this was the original cutline — and it was my preference, because it neatly explained the difference between animal rights and animal welfare, something that confuses a lot of people — but there was consensus for the cutline you're objecting to, so it was changed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. However, I don't think that the proposed edit implies that it is only the animal rights view and no one else's view. I think you make a very useful point, and a helpful one to me in understanding where you are coming from, in what you say about "the law's idea." At first, I was about to object and say that the law doesn't make that illegal, but then I realized that you meant that the law (currently) sees that kind of scene as acceptable, whereas animal rights sees it as unacceptable, but both see it as a consequence of animal ownership. I think most readers viewing this page do realize that the image is a disturbing one, and so perceive (as I did) the image as something that is "viewed" negatively. The problem with what the page says now, as explained above, is that the caption appears to suggest that Wikipedia is taking the position that the scene is wrong. In fact, I suspect that both the law and many people who support the idea of animal ownership do not consider that image to epitomize the idea of animal ownership, but rather to be an example of a less-savory and atypical form of it. ...

It is entirely typical. Many billions of animals are held captive and slaughtered every year for the meat industry. Hugging a dog is the thing that's the atypical activity, sadly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Some might consider the image just above in this talk to come closer to an "epitome." And it isn't just me who is concerned about it; another editor started this talk section, and it has been clear from recent talk that this image caption no longer has a high level of consensus among editors. Earlier diff, I suggested avoiding this problem by using a quote from an animal rights authority. I'm not at all set on the quotes that I found, and I would gladly agree to a better one. At the time, you objected, I think because you felt that it would be problematic to select whom to quote, but I think this issue should be an easy enough one to overcome. Perhaps that solution should get a second look. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, thank you for getting back to me (although I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't insert your comments within mine). The point you make, about what is typical, is clearly one with which quite a few thoughtful people would agree. However, there are also thoughtful people who would disagree, and others who would say that the image should, then, be one from inside a slaughterhouse, not one on a street in Shanghai. And therefore, the problem is that the current caption is POV. Would a sourced quote from an animal rights authority, making a point similar to the one you just made, be a way of making the caption work? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to follow Slimvirgin's reasoning. Image of a monkey and its owner is typical of animal ownership because there are more food animals than pets? I agree that the "AR view of ownership" language is problematic since I don't think AR and non-AR views disagree with the definition of animal ownership. The disagreement is over whether ownership is acceptable. But it's not true that the "epitome" caption had consensus. I contested the part of the caption regarding "cruelty" at Talk:Animal_rights#Image_caption_of_lead_photograph, and there was consensus to remove that part. I also suggested using a picture of a dog as "using the picture of a monkey muddles the line as it introduces the issues of domestic vs non-domestic animal ownership(not really a rights vs welfare issue) and that of primates deserving some rights." I'm going to add the dog pic with a new caption and see if it sticks.--Dodo bird (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Dodo's new pciture and caption. It should be in a pet article. The mention of animal welfare prior to animal rights in the caption is confusing since this is the animal rights article.I am reverting this until the discussion has reached concensus.Bob98133 (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting. I agree with Bob, and there was a reason that I introduced the dog image in this talk, and not on the page itself. Putting that image on the page is just as inappropriately POV as the issues in the caption to which I and some other editors have been objecting. Is there anything constructive that we can take from this? Clearly, the Shanghai monkey image is appropriate to the subject of this page, regardless of one's personal opinion of animal rights. The issue is how to frame it. Can anyone seriously argue that all of the editors in this talk have agreed that the monkey image is the "epitome" of animal ownership? Obviously, there are some editors in this talk, and some people in the larger world, who disagree. Therefore, labeling it as the "epitome" is POV. But fortunately, this doesn't have to be so polarized, because WP isn't here to adjudicate the issue, but to explain it. Therefore, I think it best to quote an animal rights authority, as I have repeatedly suggested before. Here, I suggested a Francione quote about ownership/property (over a Newkirk quote about pet keeping/companionship), but I would have no objection if someone has an even better quote. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there any objections to restoring the Gary Francione quote to the caption? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

After asking the question above and letting a day pass, I restored the quote, only to, yet again, have it reverted by the same editor, with the edit summary "see talk" (where? not here!), and again mislabeled as a minor edit. Absent a reasonable explanation, I have again restored it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Claiming in the edit summary that the quote is "contentious," the same editor has again reverted it. Because, up to this point in time, all editors in this talk except that one editor seem to agree that the "epitome" language is unacceptable, I have again restored the apparent-consensus language. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit at a loss about this epitome thing. There seems to be a battle going on, and one of you is certainly wrong, and the other of course right, but it beats me which. Is it about the meaning of an epitome? Is an epitome something you eat (that may or may not be vegan), a game, a philosophy (perhaps having to do with welfarism vs. rights?), an operating system (Linux / Windows / Mac), a song? Could someone explain? David Olivier (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect your comments are facetious, but in case they are not, please read this section of the talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't have 100 percent support here as you claimed in your edit summary. Please stop playing games -- you came here only to annoy me, and it's irrationally disruptive. (You're also confirming who you are; this is how you used to behave under your other account and IP addresses.) As a compromise, I've restored the long-standing cutline but have also retained the quote you want, though I think the latter is unnecessary and a bit odd-looking, given it doesn't really say anything. Now please stop reverting to have things 100 percent your way. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying here. However, I disagree with what you say. Specifically:

"You don't have 100 percent support here as you claimed in your edit summary." My edit summary said: "Restore caption, which has 100% consensus of editors at Talk#Epitome, except for the one editor who reverts." Obviously, that one editor is you. Now, please take a look at this talk section, from the "Epitome" section heading on down. There are six commenting editors, including you and me. You have objected to changing the "epitome" wording. No one else has, and there are multiple editors, not just me, who have given good reasons for changing from the "epitome" wording, and multiple editors, not just me, who have refuted the comments that you have made. It is not me who is trying to have things "100% my way."
You describe your most recent edit as a "compromise." That is not true, in that it really pleases no one. It retains the "epitome" language, which the quote is intended to replace.
I am going to restore what certainly seems to be the consensus caption. If you are so convinced that other interested editors agree with you, why not see if any of them reverts it? No one has, so far.
What is disruptive here is your continuing practice of personal attacks on me. I am very sorry that you have apparently had bad experiences in the past. However, I have already made it perfectly clear that your belief that I am someone else is completely false. Despite what you seem to think, nothing in my editing is about you. Please understand that I will not be bullied into refraining from reasonable and constructive edits, and that your attacks on me are untrue and inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like you to stop warring (both of you), or at least, if you must go on (it can happen...), I'd like to understand what it's about, so I can take sides, or sit on the fence while knowing why. I have the impression that others too are a bit baffled. The discussion is incomprehensible, unless one makes constant references to the state of the page at the moment of each comment, which would be very tedious. The only thing that keeps cropping up is the word “epitomy”, it looks like a kind of joke. Could you (both of you) make a short statement to explain what it's about? (In the meanwhile, don't count me among the 100% of anything, please...) David Olivier (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two separable issues, David. First, Tryptofish is an old account returned with a new name. S/he used to spend a great deal of time pursuing me around, but stopped for a while and has now started again, first on other articles, now here. My view is that s/he is here to troll me, and for no other reason, and that, once one issue is settled, s/he will raise another one here or elsewhere, and so on.

That apart, the content issue is what the cutline/caption should be for the main image. The longstanding cutline was that the image epitomizes the idea of animal ownership (meaning it "sums it up," or "illustrates it well") and animal ownership is the key issue in animal rights. Tryptofish objects, and wants instead a cutline with a quote from an animal rights advocate about animal ownership. I have agreed to compromise and have both. Tryptofish doesn't want the compromise. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, SlimVirgin. Now, Tryptofish, do you agree with that way of summing up the dispute? (I mean, apart from SV's first paragraph.) David Olivier (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's compromise is reasonable and I support it. -->David Shankbone 00:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to both Davids for coming here in what I perceive to be a spirit of peacemaking. I appreciate that very much.

Let me start with David S's comment. Given that you have (for the first time for any editor other than SlimVirgin in this talk section) expressed support for SlimVirgin's current version of the caption, I can certainly conclude that there is no consensus for me to revert it, and I agree to let it stand for now, pending further (hopefully polite) discussion. I suppose a case can be made that having the quote from Francione following the disputed "epitome" reference does some good in indicating that Francione, among other verifiable sources from within the animal rights community, is explaining how that community views the scene in the photo. That is, perhaps, better than simply stating that the scene "epitomizes the idea of animal ownership," as though Wikipedia believes it to epitomize that (which violates NPOV, as discussed above). On the other hand, I remain somewhat uncomfortable with this so-called "compromise" in that it really does not address the point raised by Elliskev (not me!) in the first comment of this talk section. Therefore, it is really not for me to, unilaterally, agree or disagree with it. Elliskev and Dodo bird have both objected to this wording, and of course I cannot presume to speak for them. Please note that, despite SlimVirgin's framing of the issue, it is not just me who is concerned about this point, and it wasn't even me who first raised it. (And, as I've already said, I'm not attached to that particular quote, if someone has a more relevant one.)
To David O., I need to say, first, that what SlimVirgin says in her first paragraph is completely false. I have already refuted it, and she has already been warned (on my talk page) by a more senior steward to desist from making these accusations.

Sorry, no, that's not accurate, and I must correct it. I was "warned" by Lar, a user who has been in a personal dispute with me for a long time, and who posts insults about me, on and offwiki, wherever he gets the chance. That is not something any admin would count as a "warning." You may want to bear in mind that you edited logged out a couple of times, perhaps in error, I don't know. Those edits, together with your old account's edits, make clear that the pattern of old edits is very similar to your current pattern. In addition, this behavior - of following me around and endlessly reverting over one tiny point until you get your way - is highly indicative too. My hope is that, now you've drawn such attention to yourself here, at ALF, and at PETA, you will not be able to follow me elsewhere without it becoming even more obvious. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That is utterly untrue about me, and really reprehensible. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to edit reasonably and constructively here, but I fear that much of what makes it difficult for you to follow this talk arises from the ongoing inappropriate personal attacks on me, which distract from the actual content of the page and confuse the issue. So, what is the issue, you ask? For simplicity, let's set aside the multiple intermediate edits, which were my attempts to compromise, and which were rebuffed. Basically, we are comparing two options: (1) the caption without the quote, but with the second half of the first sentence, or (2) the caption with the quote, following the first sentence shortened to just: "A man holds a monkey by a rope around the neck." Why, then, consider substituting the quote for the language about "a scene epitomizing the idea of animal rights?" Multiple editors including me are concerned that the claim that this scene epitomizes that idea, stated without attribution, is POV (which is not to say that that POV is wrong, just un-WP). If you go back to Elliskev's first comment at the top of this talk section, and read from there with that in mind, I think you will clearly understand why some editors consider it to be POV, and why having an authority like Francione say it instead gets around the concern of Wikipedia seeming to say it. I hope that helps; please ask me if it doesn't. (By the way, I know from previous talk with you that you, personally, disagree with the NPOV policy. In that spirit, let me suggest that you consider whether you think that the proposed quote is fair as a way to write the caption.)

Finally, I note that SlimVirgin mentions "illustrates it well" as a sort of synonym for "epitomizes." I had earlier suggested "illustrates" as a more neutral word, and we might, perhaps, want to revisit that option. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Break

A man holds a monkey by a rope around the neck, a scene illustrating the issue of animal ownership. "If we took animals seriously, we would stop treating them as our resources, as our property." -Gary L. Francione^[6]

Some days have passed quietly, and I hope that I can now raise again some reasonable points, without eliciting any unreasonable reactions. At the very end of my last comment before the break, I pointed out that a possible constructive solution would be to substitute the more neutral word "illustrating" for the POV word "epitomizing." I still haven't changed anything on the page, but I show at right what this change would look like. Specifically, I would like to suggest changing "epitomizing the idea" to "a scene illustrating the issue." The most important aspect of this change would be the change from epitome to illustration. Please note that in the talk directly above this break, multiple editors have pointed out, in detailed and substantive examination of content, how "epitome" violates NPOV, whereas there has never been a comparable response explaining how it might not violate it. In addition, it recently occurred to me that changing "idea" to "issue" helps convey the fact that this is, indeed, an issue surrounded by discussion. With these changes, I believe that the Francione quote would no longer be necessary, although retaining it would do no harm. Beyond that, my suggestion seeks to correct some errors that were introduced in the edit, made perhaps in haste, that established the version now on the page. The word "monkey" was de-linked, which probably does not matter, but the word "epitomizing" was again linked, which it had not been for some time. That link looks silly, as if readers need to have a definition in order to know what the word means, and also looks a bit like a tacit admission that the word is problematic, as though it cannot stand on its own without qualifying it, or distracting from it. Also, the long-standing words "a scene" were deleted, which is just bad writing, because it makes the caption read, clumsily, as though the man is doing the epitomizing. If any editors can explain thoughtfully why the proposed changes would not improve the page, I would be interested to hear it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There should not have to be a need for me to ask this, but. Is it correct for me to conclude from the absence of a response that there is no disagreement with what I said? I mean it. I'm really asking. Would there be any objection if I were to make the indicated change? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with that, Trypto. Bob98133 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Vegananarchism

Hi Thompsonfest, the various sections in here are meant to represent significant milestones. I'm not sure coining the term vegananarchism would really count as that, especially not regarding the development of the concept of animal rights. Within anarchism, perhaps. [11] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this. I removed section for same reasons stated above. Bob98133 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, hadn't realised that they were the main few events of the century. How about it going at the bottom of main philosophical approaches instead? I would obviously edit the text to come from a POV of the philosophy. I'm also going to get round to expanding in more thorough detail on the veganarchism page itself, so can work on a small section here also if agreed.

There are lots of links to the main philosophical approaches from other pages, so I think it would be relevant to mention the political philsophy thats an extention from animal liberation. I understand its not yet a landmark philosophy for animal liberation (being only a decade old), but I think as it is still established (and I'll be working on establishing it more on the page itself), that it should go in the philosophical approaches section. As its a relevant philosophy. ThompsonFest 20:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be interesting to tie it into efforts to establish what the modern animal rights movement is, and indeed, whether it is a cohesive whole. There are anarchist trends; there are forces who are trying to make it more mainstream/conservative (I'm thinking of Robert Garner's work, for example); there are people pulling toward a purist animal rights philosophy (Francione); other forces pulling in the direction of radical animal welfare (Newkirk). It would make an interesting section. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Julian Franklin

A couple of questions about the Franklin material:

1. We say that Franklin says, "... Kant would argue that only rational (and not all sentient) beings have inherent value. It follows that, according to Regan’s approach, there is no reason why inanimate objects should not also be given rights since the logic can be extended to include all things including those which are not sentient."

This is a very bad argument. Are we sure that Franklin actually argued this?

2. Regarding Singer, we have Franklin arguing that Singer requires a calculation of the aggregate well-being of a group, rather than the individual, and that this would permit the infanticide of one sickly child permitting he was replaced by a healthy one. I'm not sure Singer ever argued this. Does Franklin actually say Singer argued it, and did Singer argue it, in fact?

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object if I remove this until it's checked? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll make it invisible until it's checked out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the material, I'm minded to remove this section entirely. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. I've sent off for Franklin's book, and I'll write a new paragraph or two about his arguments, then add them to another section, probably as a critic of Singer and Regan, though not as a critic of AR in general, because he supports it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Animals vs. Fetuses

As part of the debate on abortion, I noticed that some pro-life campaigners were deploring that animal rights often were given the priority over so-called fetal rights, the right for fetuses to be born. There was a controversy over this in Spain, where the government announced that it was giving more rights to certain animals, while at the same time it said it would be alllowing for easier access to abortions, something which deeply upset the Catholic bishops of that country. [12] ADM (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A core tenant of the animal rights movement is that animals are more important than human beings, even unborn ones. St. Francis is turning over in his grave. Bugguyak (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this to a discussion of improving this article, not to spreading unreferenced disinformation about the topic. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How much rent does that animals are more important than human beings, even unborn ones, pay, as a core tenant, to the animal rights movement? David Olivier (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

...often referred to as... liberation

It is probably true that animal rights are often in the same book as animal liberation. Maybe animal rights could be viewed as a part of liberation but the two are not possible to mean the same thing are they? 86.46.64.230 (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ungrammatical quote of Bentham

The section on Bentham's position on animal rights contains the sentence:

It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate?

This is not a question but it ends with a question mark. Is this correct? If so, it should be followed by "[sic]. -Pgan002 (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a question mark there. Thanks for pointing it out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a question but it ends with a question mark? There shouldn't be a question mark there? In the Oxford University Press edition the sentence does end with a question mark. Scales (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the original says, but I don't think I've seen it written with a question mark. Here's a Google Books search. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Biocentric vs. Anthropocentric approaches are relevant and notable

SlimVirgin suggests that the biocentric-anthropocentric divide within the animal rights debate is neither relevant nor notable. The radical nature of the biocentric perspective does not preclude its relevance, just as its position outside of the mainstream does not limit its notability. Excluding this perspective is merely another way to ignore and marginalize a set of philosophical stances that challenge the core tenants of liberalism and humanism so many of us have been indoctrinated into. What is there to be afraid of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinus jeffreyi (talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry not to respond sooner, PJ, but I just saw this. I removed the material because it had been added to the section about Singer and Regan. The perspective you describe may very well be notable enough for inclusion, but you'd have to produce some sources to that effect i.e. sources showing not only the proposal of the ideas, but their general acceptance and/or discussion about them within the academic or animal-rights communities. If you can produce those secondary sources as well as the primary ones, or if the primary sources are so notable that no secondary source would be needed, we can certainly take another look. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revision

I wanted to Be Bold with a new version of the article, but first I will submit it for discussion: Talk:Animal rights/Animal rites. --You.tilitarian (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks?

I'm new here and not quite sure what I should and shouldn't say.I'm involved in animal rights as a pet owner but lately I've been getting attacked for no reason at online hobby sites. My hobby is tropical fish. I guess I'm looking for an answer for the attacks I've been getting and how to accept,challenge,or otherwise deal with them without getting banned,disrespecting, or showing a form of abuse in statements I make in common conversation topics, on these Tropical Fish Forum sites. I can explain if someone were to read my post and show an interest,but it doesn't seem like that will happen here? If my conversation in an online forum about tropical fish shows an inhumane treatment of animals namely FISH,then I should be banned, but when a animal activist,starts preaching that some treatment in the process of marketing them is inhumane its not my fault if I'm the purchaser and not the marketer thats performing the inhumanity, right? So to make a long story short they accused me of disrespect to this person that was talking off topic in the forum just to be heard.They banned my account.My rights have been abused! New Tropical Fish forum and new account and the same thing almost happened. The details are recorded and can be re-created if I need to read them again,hopefully I replied to the new accusation without disrespecting the accuser and humbling myself as I believe I am a fair person and treat animals like I need to be treated,with fairness.But for all I know, this person insinuating my morals are pretty poor and that I should look for another Tropical Fish Forum could be just waiting to unfold another biased opinion of me, and I may just be better off not trying to find other tropical fish hobbiest like myself at all,the way my morals are being judged. The name of the sites are: www.fishlore.com and www.Badmanstropicalfish.com There should be stricter rules for activists that think they can assume that they are superior to someone else's comments based on heresay. And a nice fat fine should be imposed!Orangeademan (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Walter Horne June 08,2009 10:02 [e.s.t.]Orangeademan (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, but I'm afraid that this is the wrong site for the questions that you have asked. This talk page is only about ideas for improving the accompanying encyclopedia article, and not for discussing other web forums. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Main cutline

A man holds a monkey by a rope around the neck, a scene illustrating the issue of animal ownership.

Animal welfare and rights advocates would oppose this scene for different reasons: the former because it appears to involve unnecessary cruelty, the latter because the man is exercising property rights over another living being.^[7]

I would like to change the main cutline back to what it was originally e.g. see here. The current cutline (see left) is meaningless.

The point of using this image was to illustrate the key difference between animal rights and animal welfare, as mentioned in the lead's final paragraph. It's a distinction people often don't get, and it's the key to understanding what animal rights is about, so I felt it was worth illustrating. I would therefore like to change it to the cutline on the right. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As the editor who did a lot of the pushing for the version just before the current one, and as someone who never saw the older version you propose here, I enthusiastically agree with your proposal! I agree with you completely that the version you propose is much more informative. If I had known about it during the past discussion, we could have reached consensus on it quite easily, instead of discussing epitomes, I suspect. Thanks for asking in this talk before making the edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

See previous discussion at Talk:Animal_rights#Image_caption_of_lead_photograph. --Dodo bird (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Dodo bird for pointing that out. I see the point you made, and I think it can be addressed in a way that will hopefully work for us all. As I understand that talk thread, the issue is that the caption assumes the truth of the statement that the scene shows "unnecessary cruelty," whereas some people (such as the man in the photo) would not accept that as being true. Setting aside the question of which editors here accept or reject that view (which is absolutely irrelevant to how the page should be edited!), let's recognize that the view is that of animal welfare people, not of Wikipedia. So, a small tweak of the wording would correct that. I think we should change "it appears" to "they consider it." Thus: "the former because they consider it to involve unnecessary cruelty." Does that work for everyone? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion, I would support SV's version with Tryptofish's modification. Rockpocket 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it a little more, perhaps "...over another living being" should be changed to "...an animal." Two reasons for this, firstly we are are taking about animal rights, specifically. Secondly, what is a "living being"? Plants and prokaryotes are "living" (and I don't know what a "being" is) and there are some people out that that advocate for their rights [13] Rockpocket 19:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with all this tweaking is that the writing's suffering again. First, "appears to involve" is fine; "consider it to involve" is very awkward phrasing, and any AR or AW person looking at that would agree that it "appears" to involve unnecessary cruelty. The point that another living being might be a plant is taking things too far, almost a reductio. Again, most reasonable people don't see plants as "beings." We cater only to majorities and significant minorities. As people agree with the principle of the cutline, I'm going to insert it as it was written, because there's no point in inserting another badly written one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider these changes to be poor grammar at all, and elegant writing should not trump NPOV or factual accuracy. I would, as previously mentioned, support this with those changes. I don't see any consensus for the alternative. Rockpocket 22:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if good "writing" is your primary concern, you should probably revisit "rights advocates would oppose this scene for different reasons". Advocates do not oppose a "scene" - they oppose what the scene illustrates. Rockpocket 22:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Where are NPOV and factual accuracy issues? NPOV == maj and sig min, not everyone. Accuracy = who believes plants are "beings"? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently "we" do: Living being. Rockpocket 01:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No progress is going to be possible on this article if every single thing, every single phrase, is contested and made to be written badly. This is what happened with the cutline before. It was fine, then it got tweaked and tweaked and tweaked until it said nothing. Each tweak causes the next, because there's a steady deterioration in the writing, so from the point of view of each tweaker, the changes make sense, because they're trying to improve a cutline that has been edited badly. There's no point in having this happen again. It's the lead cutline. It needs to be written properly.

To be fiddling with the writing because plants might be beings, and because one strongly AR editor argues that not everyone would see that scene as unnecessarily cruel (when we don't say everyone would, but in any event, everyone would) is the worst of Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, fiddling with the writing is called reaching consensus. But anyway, I agree fully with SlimVirgin that it is absolutely obvious (from looking at the photo) that "living being" is clearly understood to be an animal. I see no need to change that. On the other hand, I agree with Rockpocket about what is or isn't good writing. Complaining about changing appears/consider as being bad writing lacks credibility, and sounds more like resistance to any change. ("...but in any event, everyone would": Does that "everyone" include the man in the photo, or does he not qualify as a human being?)

Now, that said, I still agree strongly with SlimVirgin that her proposed change represents a meaningful improvement over what we have now. A "third way" occurs to me, that might relieve some of the freight we might be trying to place on the image. As much as I like the teaching value of using the image to explain the difference between AR and AW, maybe we should just drop the AW part, because this is a page on AR. Doing that takes away a fairly large part of the stuff about which editors have disagreed, without losing the main point. Thus: "Animal rights advocates oppose this scene because the man is exercising property rights over another living being." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "living beings" issue, I was not being facetious. You have to appreciate that someone who spends their life working with the biology of living things, as I do, precise terminology is extremely important. If you told me AR people advoacated rights over living things, then you would be claiming that bateria and plants have rights. They are living things. Instead you saying they advocate rights for "living beings". Well, I don't know what a living being (compared to a human being?) is, so I asked Wikipedia and it told me that it is an "organism" (which, in turn, is any living thing such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism).

So, what do we actually mean? If we mean animals, which I presume we do, then why not say animals. AR advocates seem to have some intuitive feeling for what is and is not included in their rights agenda (apparently based on a "cuteness" factor), but for the rest of us it is entirely arbitrary and largely illogical. Its not unreasonable to expect an encyclopaedia to be explicit about what is being advocated, rather than use fuzzy terminology. Living things are very well classified for a reason (and "living beings" is not among them), so I firmly believe we should use correct classifications so everyone knows what we are talking about.

That all said, I appreciate lay-people don't always use terminology corrrectly in the technical sense (per "vivisection") and there comes some point where common usage superscedes technical usage. If "living beings" make sense to everyone else, then perhaps I just need to get out more. Rockpocket

You're describing tiny-minority opinion. Most people do not call plants or bacteria "beings." We don't do tiny-minority opinions, except in articles devoted to them. See NPOV. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I care. I'm happy with "animal" so long as the flow is okay. But I find this focus on tiny points to argue over really quite depressing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem outraged that I would even consider a plant to be "living being", yet the article redirected from living being says exactly that and has done so for over 4 years without one person objecting or changing it. You keep telling me this is a "tiny minority opinion", but you can't - or won't - define what the majority opinion actually is. But thats not surprising, considering all the sources I find appear to support this so-called "tiny minority opinion". Finally, I question something that appears to be ambiguous at best and factually incorrect at worst, and its dismissed as a "depressing" example of arguing over a "tiny" point? Really, SV. I'm all for good writing, but this isn't a creative writing project. The writing should flow around the facts, not the other way around. Rockpocket 02:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

RP, I do realize that you were serious, and I'm sure you get out and around just fine (smile), but I sincerely believe that anyone seeing a photo of a monkey on a page titled "animal rights" will realize that we are talking, here, about an animal. Would "Animal rights advocates oppose this scene because the man is exercising property rights over another living being" work? Or, "Animal rights advocates oppose this scene because the man is exercising property rights over an animal"? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As an animal rights activist I know “living being” in an animal rights context refers to conscious life - and nothing to do with cuteness. I don't know if that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.159.217 (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Spain

In looking at these recent edits, I notice a contradiction that may have sneaked in, regarding AR legislation in Spain. At the moment, the page says at one point that the legislation has been adopted, but at another point that it is only under consideration. Perhaps someone who is more familiar than I am with what is happening in Spain could check, and reconcile the difference. (Also, a grammatical error will need to be corrected in the lower part.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to reconcile the discrepancies. According to Reuters:

The new resolutions have cross-party or majority support and are expected to become law and the government is now committed to update the statute book within a year to outlaw harmful experiments on apes in Spain.[14]

Given the time frame, "within a year" should be about now. Reuters makes it sound as if final ratification by the government is a mere formality. I have not seen any new report about the current status. Crum375 (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the information from Reuters was misinterpreted. Actually, the Parliament voted not a legislative act, but a non-legislative proposal, a kind of recommendation for the Government to follow the principles, declared by GAP project. The original text can be found here. In the following 6 month the Govenment did nothing, so the Deputy Herrera Torres, Joan initiated written request to the government which was presented 14 Jan 2009. As far as I'm aware, there was no responce yet. Thus, it is important to reflect in the article, that Spanish Parliament did not vote any legislation, protecting Great Apes, neither did Spanish Government proceed with any move to follow the proposal. No legislation is expected to come into force. 77.241.46.57 (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That is potentially very important. I have deleted the section for the moment. Nothing permanent about that deletion! However, until this gets sorted out, I think it would be very misleading to our readers to say that rights have been granted if, in fact, it is only a proposal that has not been adopted. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit, to conform even closer to the sources. Crum375 (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to explain: I changed the heading from "votes to extend" to "supports extending" because the other wording can be misunderstood to mean "votes in a way that has had the result of extending." --Tryptofish (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The committee held a vote, and approved the proposed legislation. The full parliament now has to approve it to become law. I think we have to stay close to the sourced facts. Crum375 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(I hope you weren't implying that I do not think we have to stay close to the sourced facts.) Anyway, the sourced facts do not indicate that the rights have been extended. Although I realize that the intended meaning of "votes to extend" is equivalent to "votes in favor of extending," my point was that it can be misunderstood to mean "votes with the result of extending." --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to insist, but they did not voted for legislation. It was non-legislative proposal to guide the work of the government. And more: in the test of the proppsal there in nothing about "animal rights". Literally it said (sorry for poore translation):

"...The international nongovernmental program for the extension of the equality, named Proyecto Gran Simio (PGS), tries to preserve and to protect of mistreat and death these genetic companions of the humanity, who are Grandes Simios (Orangután, Chimpanzee, Bonobo and Gorila). The PGS is an original idea of a group of scientists and thinkers as Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri and counts on an enormous support of the international scientific community. To extend the limits of our moral community is one of the basic objectives of the ecological ethics. The PGS supposes one of the most important advances in this extension of the borders of the equality. We must avoid the disappearance, mistreat and slavery of these beings so next to our species and so cruel treated.

Based on that the following Proposal not of Law appears

the Congress of the Deputies does insist that the Government have to:

1. To declare, in the maximum term of 4 months, its adhesion to the Project Great Simio, as well as its impulse in the rest of countries of the European Union.

2. To carry out, in a the maximum term of a month from the adhesion to the Project Great Simio, the necessary proceedings for the adjustment of the Spanish legislation to the principles of the Project Great Simio.

3. To impel and to undertake the necessary actions in the forums and international organisms that come for the protection of the great simios from I mistreat, the slavery, the torture, the death and extinction."

This text was adopted byt the whole chamber, but no further move on the side of the Government did follow. Hope it helps. 77.241.46.57 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, thank you for providing this important clarification of the source material. I'm trying to walk a balance between your comments, and the edits made by the other editor. I have tried to correct the section, by removing the inferences that the committee's action was legislation, and I have added a source that you provided. At the same time, even though your translation does not explicitly use the word "rights," I think that the sources that were already cited, and a plain English understanding of the language, do support the idea that what the committee voted would be what we would consider to fall within the category of "animal rights." Therefore, I have not, for now, removed references to the word "rights." Do you feel that what it says now is accurate to the original Spanish? Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) On WP we follow reliable sources. The NYT is a reliable source, and it says: "If the bill passes — the news agency Reuters predicts it will — it would become illegal in Spain to kill apes except in self-defense." (emphasis added) This means that the committee vote was for a bill, which if approved by the full parliament would become law, not a "recommendation". Crum375 (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm trying to walk a fine line here, between what you are saying and what the other (IP) editor is saying, which also appears to be reliably sourced (coming, as it does, from the Spanish government). Let's look carefully at what the Times and Reuters actually say. The Times says, first, "the vote of the environment committee of the Spanish Parliament last month to grant limited rights to our closest biological relatives, the great apes" (emphasis mine). That does support the use of the word "rights" on the page, but suggests that it would be best to qualify it as "limited rights" (so, despite what the IP editor said, I do think it reasonable to refer to rights). Then, as noted above, the Times describes the committee action as a "bill" and as making ape-killing "illegal," which appear to imply legislation. It also refers to a prediction by Reuters, which really falls under WP:CRYSTAL (but by the Times rather than by us). There seems to be no disagreement that the "legislation" has never actually been passed into law, so Reuters' prediction turned out to be inaccurate. Now, let's look at what Reuters actually said: "Parliament's environmental committee approved resolutions urging Spain to comply with the Great Apes Project" (emphasis mine). That is entirely consistent with what the IP editor says the documents from the Spanish government say, and it is clear that this is a resolution urging policy, rather than pending legislation to create criminal law. Reuters goes on to say: "The new resolutions have cross-party or majority support and are expected to become law," which appears to be the basis of what the Times said, and appears to be a prediction that did not come true. Taking all that together, I think that it was a mistake to do this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The NYT clearly says that if this legislation is enacted, it will become illegal to kill apes, i.e. against the law. As far as Reuters "prediction", Reuters said the bill is "expected to become law and the government is now committed to update the statute book within a year." The bill may become law in a year from now, for example, and there would be no major contradiction (governments are notoriously slow, even when they make commitments.) As far as the "limited rights", that clearly refers to the fact that the proposed law does not give apes the same rights as humans, and we don't say or imply that it does. Crum375 (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we may be making good progress here. The current version on the page does quote the NYT by name, and present what they said. I agree with you that the current wording does not mislead about the kind of "rights." As for whether we at Wikipedia think the "bill may become law in a year from now," please see WP:CRYSTAL. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL tells editors not to make predictions in article space, and we are not. Quoting reliable sources like the NYT or Reuters making predictions would be OK in any case. In my saying here that the bill may become law in a year, I was only responding to your above statement that "Reuters' prediction was inaccurate." For it to be inaccurate, we'd have to be well into the future, and we're not. Crum375 (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood you. In any case, the best approach to take on the page is to stick to describing the situation as it is now, without discussing what may or may not happen in the future, and I think the page does that now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel like providing another reference might help. It should be considered as reliable source, because it is the newsmaker - the Parliamentary Association in Defense of the Rights of Animals (APDDA). They are the authors of the proposal under discussion. On January 14, 2009 they published the following press-release:

"Deputy Joan Herrera, the Parliamentary Association APDDA complains that the deadline has expired for the government to accede to the Great Ape Project and introduces a Question

Deputy Joan Herrera, member of the Parliamentary Association in Defense of the Rights of Animals (APDDA), asked today whether the Government has acceded to the Great Ape Project, as the period of 4 months to do so, approved by the Environment Commission of the Congress on June 25, 2008, was exceeded for more than two months. Last May, the deputy presented in the Congress - in a second attempt - the non-legislative proposal for accession to the Great Ape Project.

According to Herrera, there is no evidence that the Government has declared its accession to PGS, as called for in paragraph 1 of the non-legislative proposal within a maximum of 4 months, so we have to record this question to find what is happening. "

"We are concerned that this initiative will again suffer the same fate as in the previous legislature," said the deputy, as this proposition was first registered by the Socialist Group in April 2006, but was abandoned until its expiration, upon completion of the legislature. In two years, it was not included by the Socialists in the agenda of any Committee on the Environment. "We suspect that, at that time, the Government was not brave enough to face the criticism that the initiative was the result of a misunderstanding of what really is the Great Ape Project, and we hope that the current silence is not a repeat the situation," he says. ...

The large presence of the Great Ape Project in the media in recent years may have confused the public into believing that Spain already protects the great apes (emphasis mine 77.241.46.57 (talk)). Therefore, it is important for Herrera to make citizens know that the Great Ape Project will not materialize until the government declares its commitment and, most importantly, bring legislation to the principles of Spanish PGS. Well, until this is not done, "is not as if nothing had happened in the Environment Committee last June," he complaint."

I think it is very clear and straightforward message. The text of the question to the Government can be obtained from here. It is the latest official information we have on this case. Probably, it's worth mentioning. 77.241.46.57 (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have some high caliber notable mainstream sources discussing this issue, like Reuters and New York Times, then I would agree. Otherwise, this would be internal politics, as reported by advocacy groups. For contentious issues like Animal Rights we need the best possible secondary sources. Crum375 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What about Spanish WP? http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proyecto_Gran_Simio

I just noted that there is also a sentence about Spain achievements in the second para of the article (in the summary). It should be also corrected in accordace with the main text. 77.241.46.57 (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit, to conform to the body version. Crum375 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still misleading, because there is no "animal rights legislation" in Spain. It was my case: I read the article and tried to find what was promised. I lost a couple of days (learned a lot) to find the truth: no law on apes, even no draft law. Here we are in a trap, because no high caliber notable mainstream sources will disscuss the absence of the law. It does not make news. 77.241.46.57 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice you ask about WP as a source. WP is one source we are not allowed to use, because it would then lead to circular referencing, and there is no real editorial oversight, as we expect in reliable sources. Also, what you link to may change by the minute (or second). Crum375 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. What about Spanish parliament official site? This link will not disappear (doc #184/049594). 77.241.46.57 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It won't disappear, but in this context it's considered a primary source. You'd need a good secondary source (like a newspaper or magazine) which refers to this information and analyzes it. Ideally, esp. in contentious issues like AR, it should be a large mainstream publication. Also, since this article is about AR, not about Spanish politics, we need just the tip of the iceberg here, and this is why we need someone far from the event (i.e. secondary source) presenting it with a broad perspective. Crum375 (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Here is the editorial in NYT of July 14, 2008 which says: "Spain’s parliament recently passed a resolution granting legal rights to apes. ... A nonbinding resolution in Spain, which the Parliament now has to flesh out with more specific laws..." My point is that we need to bring the wording in the second paragraph, which now says "In June 2008, Spain became the first country to introduce animal rights legislation", in consistence with the reliable source cited. "Introducing legislation" might be understood as "bringing draft act for deliberation" or even "adoption of a piece of legilation". NYT clearly stressed that there was no law under consideration. Thus, suggesting that there was some law would be against WP:NOR as explainred here: WP:NOREX. Probably, it would better to put it like that: "In June 2008, Spain became the first country to welcome animal rights on official level, when Spanish parliament voted a resolution to bring national legislation in accordance with..." This will be neatly reflecting the source and real life. 77.241.46.57 (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hello all. I've read carefully what both of you said, and here is my opinion about these sourcing issues. I agree with Crum that we cannot use other wikis as reliable sources, and I also agree that it's at least dicey to use a primary source from the advocacy group, although I also think that it's informative that they apparently verify the claims that the "legislation" that they would like to see enacted has not been enacted, so it appears very likely that no such legislation is law in Spain. (And I think that if we were to follow a strict policy of never using primary sources from advocacy groups, this page and a lot of other AR pages would look very different!) On the other hand, it is entirely appropriate to use primary sources from the Spanish government to document what the Spanish government does; clearly, these are reliable. Not all primary sources are useless. I found the editorial observer column by Adam Cohen from the NYT very entertaining reading, and, although I do not see much need to add it to the page in addition to the NYT news piece (from about the same time) already cited, I think that it is appropriate for us to read both NYT pieces together in order to assess what best to report from the one that we do cite. Together, they reveal some imprecision in wording in the NYT news piece which, although it does not make it invalid to cite, does point to where we need to be careful about taking individual quotes from it, quoting them verbatim, making inferences (SYNTH) from those quotes, and ending up with claims in the page here that are not supported by the sources. Taking the sources together, it is clearly not legislation, nor legislation under consideration. It is a nonbinding resolution from a committee, noteworthy nonetheless, but not more than what it is. It does not grant rights to life, liberty (the pursuit of happiness, suffrage, paid health care, registered accounts at WP), but condemns using primates for research and circuses, though not zoos. I think 77.241 has done the page a great service in making that clear. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the wording is now accurate. Thank you for understanding and prompt replies. 77.241.46.57 (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Eastern religions and philosophies

In particular, "1.1 Moral status of animals in the ancient world" has nothing on Buddhism, etc. I am probably not qualified to add it, but maybe someone else can. 69.229.10.205 (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Eastern religions either, but you make a very good point. The page is Eurocentric. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

New article: Mercy_for_Animals

I just added this article, about this organization which released a video which shows workers throwing male chics being dropped alive into a grinding machine.

Please watch the article. Ikip (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Notable writer, Coetzee

I think JM Coetzee should be included as a notable writer on the issue of animal rights, although the more general category animal-human relations is probably more accurate. Nonetheless the issue features more or less prominently in nearly all of his works - indeed it features vividly in his first novel 'Dusklands', and is unarguably the subject of 'The Lives of Animals', which is also included entirely in his subsequent novel 'Elizabeth Costello'. He also gave an interview about this after his Nobel Prize award (and interviews with Coetzee are far rarer than Nobel Prizes.) In 2007 he also wrote a speech for the 'Voiceless' organisation about the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.86.112 (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Spain again

Just in case anyone has questions about the recent edits to the section about Spain, please see here for an explanation. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Writing

T, please stop trying to fix my writing. This is the subjunctive. If you don't like it, fine, but it wasn't an error. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in fixing "your" writing. I'm here to help write an encyclopedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Then help it by sticking to what you know, which is what I try to do. You won't often see me trying to edit articles about the brain. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) About this, it's actually kind of sad, as is the comment immediately above. It looks like the edit was made in anger and haste. I say that because it re-creates a punctuation error, in which a quotation mark comes before a period, instead of after per WP:MOS. What that has to do with a POV tag is unclear to me. ~~(But if the editor would like any help about correct punctuation, as well as correct use of the subjunctive, just let me know.)~~ Anyway, I don't have strong feelings about the POV tag for this page at this time. But it was hardly a "drive-by" (whatever that means) when I tried to restore it. It was my strong conviction that such a tag should not have been removed (now twice) in an edit marked as a minor edit, without prior discussion in talk here (example). (See also: this.) With respect to such discussion, I don't feel strongly that the tag is needed, if other editors also do not, but let's just see what consensus is, before making such "minor" edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the POV tag being removed. I don't think it's a big deal if it's marked as a minor edit, since the editor who did so has worked extensively on this article to add references and balance any POV. It's not as if the tag were removed by a brand new editor or an editor using an IP address who has never edited the article and marked as minor. I don't think that referencing a year-old arbitration involving this editor serves any purpose but to prolong your ongoing squabble. Get over it, Trypto. Bob98133 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Bob, you are out of line. I am not the one who is prolonging a squabble (nor did I start this talk section), and my comments have been civil and well-founded, particularly in light of the massive incivility directed at me. I'm not the one telling editors what kinds of pages they should or should not edit. I'm not the one you should be lecturing about personal attacks, for goodness sake! According to Help:Minor edit, the minor edit box is only checked when the edit "could never be the subject of a dispute." It specifically says that adding or removing templates are never minor edits. That's policy, as opposed to your opinion as to who may or may not delete a POV tag without discussion. We can disagree about who is balancing "any POV" (and we do disagree!), but the attitude that an editor can get away with stuff because of seniority is a part of the problem here. And I am not aware that arbitration decisions have expiration dates. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Trypto - I've commented on your page. Again my apologies for lack of tact. I was unaware that removing a template was never a minor edit. Thanks for finding that reference. I've done far less editing than either you or SlimVirgin, so I'll leave it at: I have no objection to the POV template being removed. Bob98133 (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(Funny: this was an edit conflict!) I just want to note that I feel now that all is cleared up between Bob and me, per each of our talk pages. Water under the bridge. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a new page should be made with the name History of animal ethics that shows the older views on animals such as Descartes' that clearly are speciesist. Steamsauna (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam.

Why is Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam.. in this article it has no direct information about recent animal cruelty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.65.187 (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Kathleen Kete of Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut

Is it really relevant where her offices are located? Would "Kathleen Kete, an animal welfare historian" or some such description serve better here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nully (talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1824: Early examples of direct action

This section is seriously flawed. Molland (who gives no sources!) does not write that the Band of Mercy was established in 1824 -- which is the date the RSPCA was founded. The temperance movement, after which it is said to have been modled, only reached Britain in the 1830s, so 1824 is almost certainly too early. The name was "Band of Mercy", not "Bands of Mercy", as Molland writes. On the whole, Moland seems to be a questionable source at best.

I have information -- which I still need to verify -- that the Band of Mercy was set up in 1875 and was only integrated into the RSPCA in 1883. These dates are given by Fred Milton on [15].

The first paragraph should be amended with the correct dates; the second paragraph is more about the Animal Liberation Front than the Band of Mercy and should be deleted. Jopetz (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jopetz, thanks for this. I'll check the sources later and amend accordingly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

On reading up on the "Band of Mercy" I would now suggest removing the whole section. It certainly makes no sense under the present heading, since the Band of Mercy was not 'created' until 1876.

According to Edward Fairholme and Wellesley Pain, A Century of Work for Animals, The History of the R.S.P.C.A., 1824–1924 (London: John Murray, 1924), ch. 10, "The Children's Branches of the Society", those 'children's branches' developed out of classes for children first offered by Mrs Suckling in 1874 (p. 166). The title "Band of Mercy" was first used by Mrs Smithies in 1876, to organize a humane society for youths and children outside the RSPCA; in 1879 they started a magazine, the Band of Mercy Advocate (p. 167). In 1883, Smithies's son (due to ill-health) offered the copyright of the then Band of Mercy to the RSPCA and at a conference on 31 January 1883 the delegates voted that a union of Band of Mercy branches should be formed and that the RSPCA should be "placed at the head of such a union" (p. 168). Jopetz (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

i beleive that there shoul be a section of this page all about animals testing the rights against that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.68.63 (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

^ Arthur Schopenhauer, Preisschrift über die Grundlage der Moral, nicht gekrönt von der Königlich Dänischen Sozietät der Wissenschaften, Werke IV, Seite 238
^ See, for example, Francione, Gary. Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. Temple University Press, 1996, pp. 1-31 for an explanation of the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Also see Francione's Animals, Property, and the Law. Temple University Press, 1995, chapter 1.
^ Ben Franklin, autobiography
^ Guardian (UK) newspaper, review of Bloodless Revolution, published by Harper-Collins
^ Francione, Gary. Official blog
^ Animal Rights and Domesticated Nonhumans. October 1, 2007.
^ See, for example, Francione, Gary. Animals as persons. Columbia University Press, 2008, p. 1.

[1] Arthur Schopenhauer, Preisschrift über die Grundlage der Moral, nicht gekrönt von der Königlich Dänischen Sozietät der Wissenschaften, Werke IV, Seite 238

[2] See, for example, Francione, Gary. Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. Temple University Press, 1996, pp. 1-31 for an explanation of the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Also see Francione's Animals, Property, and the Law. Temple University Press, 1995, chapter 1.

[3] Ben Franklin, autobiography

[4] Guardian (UK) newspaper, review of Bloodless Revolution, published by Harper-Collins

[5] Francione, Gary. Official blog

[6] Animal Rights and Domesticated Nonhumans. October 1, 2007.

[7] See, for example, Francione, Gary. Animals as persons. Columbia University Press, 2008, p. 1.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

Simple additionals to links

Should not be linked to deep ecology

Schopenhauer info

Secondary sources

Edits from 82.18.30.66

Schopenhauer again

Criticism

Image caption of lead photograph

Further reading

Licensing the trademarks of which the goods & services are derived from animal material....

Problematic paragraph

Secularize the Lemma

Article size

Pictures

too philosophical

maple leaf

References to encyclopedia articles.

Animal rights and politics

Question about removal of Schopenhauer material

Section: German position, I can't rewrite it as I don't know enough but definitely reads a little strange and short

Material from sentience

Personal pronoun in lead picture caption

Epitome

Break

Vegananarchism

Julian Franklin

Animals vs. Fetuses

...often referred to as... liberation

Ungrammatical quote of Bentham

Biocentric vs. Anthropocentric approaches are relevant and notable

Proposed revision

Personal attacks?

Main cutline

Spain

Lack of Eastern religions and philosophies

New article: Mercy_for_Animals

Notable writer, Coetzee

Spain again

Writing

Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam.

Kathleen Kete of Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut

1824: Early examples of direct action