Talk:Pet humanization

Animals Low‑importance

Pet humanization is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Veganism and Vegetarianism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This Article reads like ChatGPT wrote it.

Please rewrite the article to sound significantly less artificial, thanks. Devann (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Anthrozoology section

Agree with Devann on the article's artificial tone. I edited the Anthrozoology section down, as it contributed almost no new information and was obviously generated via AI. I'm not sure the section is needed at all, but feel free to give input. Fluxjupyter (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The beginning of the article with the "⁤It is important to note" fired off all alarm bells in my head. Putting the article through GPTZero shows 100% probability of AI generated content, but I'm not sure how reliable that tool is for content on wikipedia due to possible overfitting. Octopirate (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biased to an anthropocentric reading

How much of this is due to generative AI or the intent of the original author I can't determine (the title comes from an consumer discretionary report by the Binghamton Investment Fund rather than an academic source) but the article is structured to reinforce the central claim of these pet owners anthropomorphizing their pets with virtually non-existent connection to the larger study of animal rights and ethics. It expects us to take that core tenet at face value without any criticism, downplays any valid judgement of animal cognition pet owners make without justification, and the further reading section treats the subject like a mental illness. It's my opinion that adding a "criticism" section, merging it with anthropomorphism or deleting it outright should be considered. 94.2.119.223 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SurgeArrest: Was any part of this article written by generative AI? Jarble (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kinfo Pedia edits

@Kinfo Pedia your additions to this article are problematic for various reasons. For example:
1. You claim Most pet owners ensure that their pets will be taken care of and adopted when they can no longer take care of them. You support this with a citation to a story about an eccentric millionaire who left money to his dog. This does not support the statement that "MOST" pet owners do anything.
2. You claim The pet food industry has contributed to pet humanization. and cite it to an article about a History Channel show about the history of pet food. Nothing in that article mentions pet humanization, and in any case the History Channel is an unreliable source (WP:RSPHISTORY).
3. You include several long Bible quotes about animals that have nothing to do with pet humanization or pets at all.

This material clearly does not belong in this article. CodeTalker (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the History Channel? Many things on it have been researched and sourced. So--- we have to find out where THEY got it????

I guess it would count as a secondary source, not a primary one.

See if this sentence is right ----- SO --- I should find out where I remember this? I guess you want me to leave it out.

"One example of pet humanization when people leave their estate to their pets."

Commercial pet food was invented and developed over time, and advertising over time has people changed their attitude (it was mutual). Now people call pets their "babies" so much that the pope called them out for it.

Well - have a great day. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The History Channel is considered an unreliable source; see WP:RSPHISTORY. In general if you have a question about the reliability of sources, you should first check WP:RSP, and if it's not listed there, search the archives at WP:RSN. If you don't find any mention of it, you can open a discussion at WP:RSN, although editors are expected to be able to make some judgements as to the reliability of sources themselves, based on the criteria at WP:RS.

Also note that in general, secondary sources are preferred over primary sources; see WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY. The History Channel is considered unreliable by consensus, not because it is secondary, but because it does not do adequate fact checking, and in fact much of its content is obvious nonsense. CodeTalker (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]