Talk:Testing cosmetics on animals
|WikiProject Animal rights||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
Fair use rationale for Image:CCIClogo.jpg
Image:CCIClogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
NOT RELATED TO ABOVE COMMENTS: RE: The Body Shop-cruelty free? Er, I might have this in the wrong place, but has it not been proven that The Body Shop were using ingredients tested on animals so that they could say they did not test on animals? Besides, they are now owned by Loreal who are known for not only testing on animals but using animal anatomy (ie fish scales as glitter in lip gloss) so their claim to be cruelty free has been blown out of the water. In reality it is Lush who should be credited with this campaigning, including trying to come up with an alternative to stem cell research to try and appease both sides of the testing debate. --PyroGizPyroGiz (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is it harmful to used/test products and or cosmetics on animals?
this is wrong and should not be thouth of or disscused!!!!!!!!!!! these poor animals dont have a say and so they cant do anything about this. it is killing them and it needs to STOP NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that at this moment, Animal testing is too long to merge this article there. Akhran (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
|Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles.
Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Rename article? Testing cosmetics vs testing cosmetics on animals
There is no article on testing cosmetics, although cosmetic testing redirects here. Since this article also covers non-animal approaches to testing in the "Alternatives" section, would it be sensible to rename the article to Testing cosmetics and slightly reorganise the section to bring more weight to the alternatives? It seems a little odd to me to have an article on "testing cosmetics on animals" but no article on "testing cosmetics". pgr94 (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Animal testing in china
Organising legislation by geographical area
The section on legislation is getting a little scrambled. Should we consider rearranging this as legislation according to geographical areas, e.g. continents.__DrChrissy (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted accidental repeat of above message
- There are few countries or unions in the list of banning animal testing, its not very complicated yet. At the end of the month, we can group all the countries that banned animal cosmetic testing together, including possibly the US and Brazil. Maybe not yet, or we could also organize it as countries that largely banned it, and countries that are considering banning it, and other status. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- It can be organized by status. There is enough to do that. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yep - fine by me. I am trying to sort out the legislation situation in Australasia but having trouble finding sources that are not linked to some (extreme) campaign group. Will cary on looking at it.__DrChrissy (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- OPINION: Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon’s End Cruel Cosmetics Bill 2014 answers the public’s growing opposition to animals testing Couriermail
- Parliament of Australia: End Cruel Cosmetics Bill 2014
- Examiner "Animal testing ban: How to help Congress pass the historic Humane Cosmetics Act" says NY, NJ and California banned testing. Website blacklisted. Use other source, when available, or if still necessary.
Recent edit May 2014
Justthefax41, I agree with the first paragraph of the edit . It needs to be sourced to the link the page is on, not just to the (top level) domain. The proposed information under Alternatives, I believe to be true, but it usually needs to be linked to another type of source (a third party source). Something like http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aysha-akhtar/animal-experiments_b_4209541.html, which can be used for (or is suitable) for other articles too. Its a blog, while it can be accepted, there is no guarantee it will be accepted. - Sidelight12 Talk 16:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)