Jump to content

Talk:Animal rights/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

The lead overstating what animal rights or their activists claim?

"all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives and that their most basic interests—such as the need to avoid suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings.[1]"

I looked into animals; just from the lead there: it includes earthworms, jellyfish, corals, and sponges.

Do they, and all animals (see e.g. below), have a "need" to avoid suffering? I mean a) is it contended that all animals need that and b) is it actually known to be true (e.g. when not having a brain)? If a) is wrong then the lead is wrong; if only b) is wrong then well, it describes the idea of animal rights (according to some).

Flatworm: "Over half of all known flatworm species are parasitic, and some do enormous harm to humans and their livestock."

Xenacoelomorpha: "Their nervous system is basiepidermal, i.e., located right under the epidermis and do not have a brain."


Of interest: List of animals with fraudulent diplomas.

"In addition to their critical ecological roles, choanoflagellates are of particular interest to evolutionary biologists studying the origins of multicellularity in animals. As the closest living relatives of animals, choanoflagellates serve as a useful model for reconstructions of the last unicellular ancestor of animals. comp.arch (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that there are several viewpoints within animal rights. I think almost all proponents would be against animals experiencing human generated pain, but you are probably correct that sponges do not feel pain and you are therefore free to cut these up for no reason. However, other proponents believe that animal rights means the animals are free from human use and abuse. In this case, you are not allowed to cut the sponge up. Perhaps the opening sentence needs to explain these different viewpoints rather than a coverall, although I have seen "Animal rights are benefits which humans give to non-human animals" - which I rather like. DrChrissy (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
"Animal rights are benefits which humans give".. is sensible, similar to "human rights are benefits which humans give to human animals". People like to believe that human rights are inherent, while the concept has both developed throughout recent ages (and of course humans have developed through millennia from non-humans), with it first not accepted widely, and ultimately always depends on people believing in them (and enforcing). If inalienable rights are not (for neither), then needs to be defined, for either. I was curious how far the extremism goes (do not have the book/source to look up). comp.arch (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Animal rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Animal rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV requirement is unrealistic

I submit that it is almost certainly impossible for any contributor, regardless of their position, to have a NPOV on this topic. If we were to be required to strictly adhere to this policy, absolutely nobody would be able to contribute. I have yet to meet a single person on this planet that isn't either against animal exploitation or involved in it. I submit that this requirement be removed, not because it isn't important, it certainly is, but rather because it is utterly unrealistic in any practical sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanisLupisArctus (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Quote boxes

What the hell is it with all these quote boxes? It makes this look less like an encyclopedia article and more like a proselytizing pamphlet with celebrity endorsements. --Calton | Talk 19:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.22.98 (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

More examples of Animal Rights.

Animals should be able to live and be able too do anything they want without someone demanding multiple things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.138.241 (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Police dogs

Here's a link from a political philosopher connecting police dogs to animal suffrage. They mention that some police dogs even have pensions. Can we use this in the article? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319243179_Social_Membership_Animal_Law_Beyond_the_PropertyPersonhood_Impasse As it stands, the article reads as a list of some rights that certain animals currently have, so I'm not sure how to fit it into the theme. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt

Someone with better editing skills than I should mention the role animals played in Ancient Egypt. Such as the 42 Ideals of Ma at

13.I HONOR ANIMALS WITH REVERENCE

And the 42 Laws Of Ma At. The very last one

42. I WILL NOT HURT ANIMALS

these laws and ideals were repeated daily and the ten commandments comes from the Laws of Ma At. Allanana79 (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you do that Doug Weller?? Allanana79 (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Marineland in Morecambe

The article on Morecambe makes no mention of a Marineland there, and the cited link here is dead. Varlaam (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Animal Liberation Front. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Animal Liberation Front. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Jagdgesetz

"the Reichsjagdgesetz, prohibiting hunting": I don`t have access to the cited source (Sax: Animals in the third Reich...) but this law did definitely not prohibit hunting altogether. Is was in most parts identical to the 1929 hunting law of the Weimarer Republik and regulated hunting seasons, huntable animal species and things like that. Somebody who has Sax`s book should check what this source really says about this law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirk Netzer (talk • contribs) 08:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Which animals are said to have rights?

A major issue here is to identify which animals are claimed to have which rights. What frequently happens is that certain factions protest for rights to be given for primates. Then next in the pecking order seems to be dogs and cats (at least in the USA). Then animals raised for meat. I have not read any protesters demanding rights for rats and mice. What about cockroaches, spiders, termites? Bacteria that get boiled to make coffee? Bacteria that are weakened to make vaccines? My point is that the article needs to acknowledge that despite the title, rights are not being claimed for all animals. Pete unseth (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Bacteria are not animals. Dimadick (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Can they protect vermin & predators? --99.199.42.245 (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Again I raise the question of which species of animals are considered to have "rights"? This is a fundamental question that goes to the heart of the topic. Some complain of "speciesism" , when humans distinguish themselves from non-humans. But even these people do not stand for equal treatment of all species. Tapeworms? Rats? Mosquitos? Invasive species? So, I ask that some editor(s) address the basic question of which animals are said to have rights. Pete unseth (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Pete unseth: That is outside the scope of this article. I direct your attention instead to → Animal rights by country or territory. Normal Op (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Resolved
I'm putatively 'happy' that the topic's issue was resolved (to whom or what can the term 'rights' be applied?), but the discussion is perennial in ecophilosophy AND in animal rights proper. Further, some animal advocacy has been called speciesist when one species is preferred over others - sometimes to the detriment of other species (e.g. companion animal stewardship might directly harm farm more OTHER animals than the animals who are benefited by food, although not for veterinary research; advocating for primates (Singer/Cavilleri/Wise, et al.) may be seen as 'speciesist' because it 'prefers animals based upon their characteristics; etc.). Francione's book on Animals as Persons [Amazon.com: Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation (9780231139519)] may dig deeper into this topic. OTOH, some aspects of the questions (scope of 'personhood' and 'sentience' and 'animal' designation) seem to be within the scope of the article, as they are often treated. MaynardClark (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Nota bene* @MaynardClark: I will direct you to the first line of this Talk page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Animal rights article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.". Specifically, I direct you to read (or re-read) WP:NOTFORUM. Normal Op (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Huge article, bloated, needs trimming and/or splitting

This article is way beyond the recommended size limits of a Wikipedia article (see WP:SIZERULE). More than half of the vertical length of this article is history! Is there any reason we shouldn't WP:SPLIT this article to put the history in another article and summarize the history here? Any ordinary reader wishing to learn something about "animal rights" is pushed immediately into a history tome... and probably scared right off the page. I'm willing to do the split and summarize the history, if no one objects. Of course, you can always edit the summary afterwards. Normal Op (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I read that the CONTENT of the article 'History of Animal Rights' was merged into this article in 2012. MaynardClark (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
In 2008, someone independently made a WP:CONTENTFORK by copying the history/background content from Animal rights and made a separate article titled History of animal rights, without removing the copied content from Animal rights. Over the next four years, both articles were edited independently, and thus diverged. In June/July 2012, a discussion started about what to do about the duplicate/now-not-so-duplicate content. See Talk:Animal rights/Archive 6#duplication for that discussion. The consensus, which wasn't about a debate over split-or-don't, was to put anything of value from History of animal rights into Animal rights to remerge the two "sets of content". Someone then used a "tool" to three-way-merge the articles and some editors expressed dislike of the results. Lots of manual checking and by-hand edits followed. So the debate over whether the history/background should or shouldn't be in a separate article was never resolved. The 2012 activity was simply to bring two versions (see WP:CONTENTFORK) back together so they could be edited in one place and the choice of target (Animal rights) was chosen because it was a central location and likely had had more edits since the FORK. (It's easier to move less edits, than to more more edits.) — Normal Op (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It is per Wikipedia guidelines to not have such huge articles. See Wikipedia:Splitting. Sizewise, this article is 50% over the size recommended for splitting. I did a cut-paste-and-count of the history section (down through In religion and up to the start of Philosophical) and the history/background is a full 57% of the article! Wowza!

There have been other discussions/pleas on the Talk page about the flow of the article, some suggesting that the history go below the theory on the page. So no, a split-or-don't debate was never discussed (unless that happened pre-2008 when the FORK happened). I'll bet that anyone involved in the 2012 task of re-merging the two FORKs did not ever want to relive the experience, and avoided all discussion on the matter after that.

Note that there has been a hatnote at the top of the article since April 2017 suggesting splitting it or condensing it. That's going on two years now. Not only has the article not shrunk, it has expanded another 10% since then.

For a reader encountering this article and wanting to know something "about" animal rights, all they get is the lead. Then they are thrown into the deep end of a history lesson... a very, very long history lesson. For those who just wanted to know "what is it", you should be able to cover "the history" in a few paragraphs covering the milestones or in broad brush strokes and direct readers who are interested to read the full history... elsewhere. For someone wanting a full understanding of the subject, such detail is great, but NOT for the average reader. They won't even get to the "philosophy" and "types of animal rights" until they have slogged through miles of boggy history lessons.

Worse still, the lead reads like an academic treatise, full of esoteric terms not defined on the page, nor in Wikipedia (*cough* species barrier *cough* moral rights) and numerous citations. In fact, if I count the combination citations, there are no less than EIGHTEEN CITATIONS IN THE LEAD! This is beyond unacceptable... and unreadable. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

— Normal Op (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is a conceptual mess. It can't decide whether to be (A) a history of the so-called "animal rights" movement (also known as animal liberation or animal protection), or to be (B) about the field of animal ethics, or to be (C) about the philosophy of animal rights, narrowly speaking, which is just one (important) branch of animal ethics. Certainly (A) should be split off in its own article from (B) and (C). There is already a short "History" section in the "Animal rights movement" article but the history of the movement should probably have its own article. Scales (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The perpetual question about which animals are given what rights

The article begins with a broad statement about all animals. But in practice, everybody objects to rats, termites, flies, etc. and we happily take deadly steps against them. Making an overly-strong statement will cause many readers to not take the cause or this article seriously. Pete unseth (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 November 2017 and 14 December 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mikimotole12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 5 November 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Moore4jp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 10 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeanne1525.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding lead image on Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy

I have begun a discussion on the talk page of Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy regarding the lead images used in that article. Please see the images for yourself, and I would appreciate any input from the editors of this page. See Talk:Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy#Lead image used in article for further discussion. Thank you. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Under "Utilitarianism" is the sentence, "The ability of animals to suffer, even it may vary in severity...." Does this mean, "even if it may be less than the ability of humans to suffer," or does it mean, "even if it may vary among animal species"?Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Taylor (2009), pp. 8, 19–20; Rowlands (1998), p. 31ff.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_rights/Archive_7&oldid=1177563857"