Template talk:Animal liberation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Animal rights (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


I've removed the critics section as I've never seen this done on a template before. Templates collect articles that are part of the subject matter of the template. CCF has nothing to do with animal liberation. Also, if a critics section were to be included, it can't be CCF. They have no credibility whatsoever as a source.

I'll look around at other templates in the meantime to see whether this is done on others. Perhaps if the anon has an example, s/he could provide it. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Everything listed in this template is pro-animal liberation. Animal liberation is a philosophy that has vocal supporters and opponents. Whether these supporters or opponents have credibility is not important. Many people feel the CCF is not credible, however many people also feel PETA is not credible. Wikipedia is a group effort. Can you tell me exactly what the problem is with including the major opponents? In my opinion it allows people to quickly get both sides of the story. -- 00:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
One ommission, CCF has a great deal to do with animal liberation, much of what they try to do is paint the animal liberation movement in a bad light. -- 00:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, the category is not about animal liberation. It's about the movement: individuals, groups, and their concerns e.g. the targets of their campaigns. It's not a question of pro and anti on templates, unless you can find me one like that. I've started looking around, but haven't seen one so far.
PETA is about animal liberation. CCF isn't. It criticizes anyone and everyones that opposes its funder e.g. the tobacco, meat, and alcohol industries. They're not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia. If you had individual critics like academics, that might make more sense. But could you first of all find another template that does this? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
You're correct. CCF is anti animal liberation. They are very vocal about this and are well recognized for this behaviour. For this reason they should be included in the template. An important part of the animal liberation movement is it's critics. I'm not using the CCF as a source, nor am I suggesting they should be. Stephen Hawking is a critic, may I include him? Is there a list of this type of template? I do not see whay I must find another example; criticism is part of any movement and should be linked. -- 00:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
CCF is not part of the animal liberation movement, which is what this template is about. Yes, please do find another example. There's no reason this one should stand out as different from all the others. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I am asking you, as a mod, to please answer my question: "there a list of this type of template?"-- 00:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I honestly don't know. If you look around the website, you'll find some. Offhand, I can think of Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar, Template:Judaism, and Template:Islam. You could try adding a critics section to those and see what happens. Let me know if you do, so I know to go make a cup of tea and enjoy the uproar that ensues. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, the first template you provided, Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar, contains the section "Persecution of Jews" which would be those critical of Judaism. Its only sublisting is anti-semitism, which is a view critical of Judaism. Does this suffice as an example of citics in a template? -- 00:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
The persecution of the Jews section is about the persecution, not about the critics of Jews. Please find a template that has a section header called Critics or similar, and then we can discuss whether to add it here. I can't help you to find one because I've never seen one. I think you may have misunderstood the point of templates on articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it may interest to know that there is a precedent for including critics in a template, and that precedent comes to us courtesy of SlimVirgin. It may have slipped her mind. In Template:LaRouche, there is a article, drafted and included in the template by SlimVirgin, called Jeremiah Duggan, about a college student who attended a LaRouche conference in Germany and then committed suicide. Duggan was not a member of the LaRouche movement, but the fact that he attended a conference was used as a pretext to include this article in the LaRouche template (as well as to spin a fabulous conspiracy theory that he killed himself because he was subjected to LaRouche mind control.) Basically, the article is a compilation of various critical theories about LaRouche, and there it is, in the template. --HK 21:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I am against the mistreatment of animals, it is due to my belief that there is a very thin line between mistreatment or experimentations on an animal and a human being. It does bring up several questions also, some which may sound silly but think about it a little while. If the animal is freed in a foriegn environment, you are introducing a foriegn species which is harmful to the natural species and possibly even your environment, so is it wise to free them or put them back where they came from? We have been trained to accept foriegn species with zoos and such. Alot of people have heard the old rhymes, little girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice, little boys are made of lizards and puppy dog tails.. It may sound dumb, but where do cropped puppy dog tails go to? In the USA, we have exotic pets from all over the world, what is the export ratio of our native species as their exotic pets? Are they not exotic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am curiousity2000 (talkcontribs) 18:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent addition[edit]

What about other groups such as Pro-Test? I agree that anti-animal rights organisations should be included on this template, to present a broader set of resources on the topic. --ProTestOxford 19:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Pro-test isn't notable enough for inclusion on a template, either for or against. It's a website run by one teenager, as I understand it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you still feel the same way about including these groups? It seems there are several that could be included:
They could be included, not taking up much more space, and giving the box a larger scope allowing readers to find both sides of the arguments more easily Spaully 17:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Photo[edit]

Am I alone in finding the photo at the top of the template POV? It shows a "sad" monkey in a cage. I think this is POV for three reasons:

  1. Monkeys make up a tiny proportion of the animals subject to vivisection
  2. Vivisection is only one area of animal rights and animal liberation activism
  3. The fact the monkey is behind bars and is not looking terribly happy seems to convey an anti-animal testing POV

What do others think? Batmanand | Talk 14:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is actually a picture of a macaque in a zoo in China, so not anything to to with vivisection, although that was my impression of it before I read the image page. I would make the point however that the template focuses on organisations in the west, predominantly the UK and US, so perhaps this image is not representative of the movement.
I do agree with point 3, perhaps an image of a macaque in the wild would give an impression of what Animal liberation strives for, as opposed to the negative campaigning that it is so stigmatised for. |→ Spaully°τ 15:45, 1 March 2006
Fixed the photograph. --Neutralitytalk 06:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality, you reverted a photograph of a fairly happy looking monkey, and replaced it with the logo of the Great Ape Project, which we can't claim fair use for in a template. Apparently, fair use doesn't apply to templates. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
As I've received no response, I'm going to restore the previous image. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is there a monkey or animal picture at all.. Shouldn't this be the PETA LOGO. I move that the monkey picture is completely irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NathanLee (talkcontribs) 14:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Animal liberation - Human liberation? KellenT 00:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What about http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/index.html, for photographs definitely for a crosslink? Like I said it is my belief that there is a very thin line between experimentation or cruelty to animals and human beings. It's a long story.... With technologies as they are I've given it thought... It's very complex to myself, the sciences are a very upsetting subject matter. They have supercolliders going off and they have proton beam cures, they have these laboratories injecting things into animals and I believe even volunteers and there is a line....... There are other items also...bioethics.gov for one that could be another crosslink possibly....Am curiousity2000 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to reorganize[edit]

I think this template is rather upside-down - issues should be at the top, followed by groups, then activists. Activists come and go, and rise and fall in prominance; but the issues remain the same. And really, what so you want people to be reading about first - a bio, or a discussion of the problem itself? BD2412 T 17:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

'added some' - Experiments section[edit]

Hi Slim,

Your rather innocuous edit summary:

(cur) (last)  00:51, 19 June 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (added some)

To me has introduced quite a subversive aspect to this template, namely the 'Experiments' section. Under this heading the section seems to suggest those examples are the limit of animal experimentation, when it highlights 5 incidents in an industry that is generally well conducted. This is especially the case for "Unnecesary Fuss", the PETA video snippets that has recieved extensive criticism.

In the interest of not misleading readers, and trying to make this inherently biased template less so, I have removed it and would not support its reinsertion in current form. |→ Spaully°τ 10:38, 10 August 2006 (GMT)

That film did not received extensive criticism. It received some but it also led to the university being put on probation, the chief vet sacked, the research closed down, and funding withdrawn. It's your opinion that this is a "well conducted" industry. These cases are central to discussions about animal rights i.e. they are famous cases, which is why they're included in the template. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, your information is not completely true. Head injury research continues to go on in that exact same lab space to this very day (see http://www.med.upenn.edu/cbir/). Granted, they aren't using monkeys any more, and the original PI has been promoted to a better position at another university (http://www.mcw.edu/display/docid1673.htm). Yes, he was promoted after that scenario. The vet wasn't sacked, but rather transferred. Go to that lab space today, you'll find mice, rats, and guinea pigs and a couple of injury devices that are based on the same design as the one used on the monkeys. A cursory Pubmed search will tell you they're even wacking pigs over the head these days. I'd argue there's much head injury research going on there today than there was in the day's of Unnecessary Fuss. So, I'm not really sure the AR activists won that fight. (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Then change the title - it is misleading. To the extent that it suggests this is a fair representation of the industry. Tell me, if these are fair then why are there 6 examples when hundreds of millions of tests are conducted annually; and why are they all experiments on primates? I would suggest a title of 'Incidents' or 'Contentious experiments', but I feel neither of these is perfect. Currently there is no sense of perspective. |→ Spaully°τ 13:46, 10 August 2006 (GMT)
'Infringements' perhaps. All of the other names follow - Animal Rights Activists, Animal Rights Groups etc. Animal Rights Experiments, does not. |→ Spaully°τ 13:48, 10 August 2006 (GMT)
I don't see the issue here. These are famous cases within the animal-rights movement, and this template is about their concerns, interests, campaigns, and members. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed three red names[edit]

We don't need red names and external links in a template.. --A Sunshade Lust 19:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


This picture is stupid. Can we get rid of it? --Liface 19:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not too thrilled with it, but at least it actually has something to do with animal liberation, instead of just a picture of a monkey or ape like we used to have. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 21:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
FK0071a, you can't use a fair-use image on a template. See Wikipedia:Fair use. Also, please don't keep adding names. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
And don't add red links or external links. This is a template listing the best-known people, incidents, campaigns etc related to animal rights on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Animal welfare[edit]

Please do not delete Animal welfare from template, since this article is as related to animal rights as as Animal testing is. Nrets 02:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What on earth does animal welfare have to do with animal rights? Animal rights is about NOT USING ANIMALS and NOT seeing them as property. Animal welfare concentrates on HOW TO USE ANIMALS without being unnecessarily cruel. The two movements are diametrically opposed.
Nrets, it isn't fair of you to be constantly trying to thwart everything I do, while at the same time not knowing anything about animal rights yourself. I'm sorry to speak like this, but this has gone on for too long. If I say black, you say white just for the hell of it. If you think something might be anti-animal rights, you support it, whether it makes sense or not, whether you've understood it or not.
This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, not a battleground. If you're interested in animal rights, and know something about it, or want to learn about it, I welcome your participation, no matter your POV. But if all you want to do is oppose, revert, argue, without any basic background in the subject, then it's pointless and destructive. Please either let's find a way to work together or stay out of each other's way. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nrets. Why delete Animal Welfare? I see your point SlimVirgin, and I happen to agree with it. I think Animal Welfare thwarts the Animal Rights movement. But why delete the entry? Many/Most people feel that AW **IS** an AR topic, and I think it is a related issue. Give people a link to AW and let people make up their own minds Bhuston 14:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you find a reliable source showing that AW is an AR topic? What most people think, by the way, is irrelevant. We go by what the authoritative published sources say. It's probably true that most people in the world think that homosexuality is a sin, but we don't add that to Gay. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
SV, just because I disagree with you does not mean I am "thwarting your every move". I often feel you are doing the same to all my edits. If it was not for the animal rights movement there would be very little in the way of animal welfare, and you very well know this. You really leave no room for gray areas in the way you view the issue, and I feel like you see editors in this issue either for or against you. I have been dealing with animal rights and animal welfarfe issues for a long time and for you to blatantly attack me for not knowing anything about the topic is extremely pedantic and annoying. Nrets 18:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Well then I think we need to find some new way to accommodate one another. It's true that I do find editing the animal rights pages frustrating, because everyone thinks they can have a view without doing any research. I honestly don't get the impression from your editing that you have dealt with animal rights issues and so I wonder whether we're using the term differently. For example, you say "If it was not for the animal rights movement there would be very little in the way of animal welfare ..." But that isn't true, to the best of my knowledge, unless you have some specific campaigners in mind. Perhaps you could say what you mean, and then I'll be able to see where you're coming from. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that there are no incompatibilities between AR and AW positions, but to give an example that you will be familiar with. The case of the Silver Spring monkeys is an example where an incident both led to the creation of PETA and to the Animal Welfare Act of 1985. PETA, which is one of the best known advocates for animal rights, is also an advocate for animal welfare. Whether there are philosophical differences between the 2 positions is irrelevant to the fact that Animal Rights and Welfare are closely related issues. By your logic, Animal testing should also be removed from the template, since it is directly incompatible with animal rights. Finally, to add animal testing but omit animal welfare is a subtle way to introduce POV to the template, which is merely a navigational aid and NOT a place to espouse your POV, a point echoed by Bhouston above. Nrets 00:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
No, PETA is not an advocate of the animal welfare position. PETA is an animal rights group. I think you may have misunderstood what the animal welfare position is. Animal welfare groups believe it is all right to eat animals and to use them in experiments. Their focus is purely on the reduction of cruelty. Animal rights groups believe animals should not be used by human beings. If they work toward reducing cruelty, it is only as a side issue, or stop gap. The animal welfare ideology is directly opposed to the animal rights one. It is true that animal rights campaigns can lead to improvements in animal welfare, because for example in the Silver Spring monkeys case, the public was shocked by the evidence animal rights activists found when they took photographs of the lab. But that is very much a byproduct. AR groups don't want animals simply to be treated better in labs. They want the experimentation to stop. Read the introduction to Animal rights, which explains the difference. Describing the difference between them is not introducing a POV; it is a simple statement of fact. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
As for why animal testing is there, it's because it's one of the two major concerns of the animal rights movement. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Alex Pacheco?[edit]

SV, Why was Alex Pacheco removed from the template? Nrets 00:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The template is getting rather long, so I removed some names that didn't seem quite as well known as the others. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


As the main activity of the Animal liberation is protesting (such as marches and banner holding) would it not be appropriate for an image of such a demonstration to be used? I have hundreds of said images that I have taken so providing one wouldn't be hard. I don't feel a picture of an animal is representative of the animal liberation really.-Localzuk (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject link should go[edit]

The wikiproject link at the bottom should go. We generally do not have self-references to our in-house stuff in our articles. See WP:SELF. Lupo 08:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


It seems to me that four images of primates (and the same/similar species if I am correct) is gratuitous. Why not remove the images of the baboon? VanTucky 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? This is a template with a single image, what do you mean?-Localzuk(talk) 20:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I mean the template as I found it within the Animal Liberation Front article (at the end). May not be the same template, but its talk link redirected to here. VanTucky 22:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you mean Template:Alibend. You may like to move this over there.-Localzuk(talk) 22:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! my mistake. VanTucky 22:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Female activisits / writers ?[edit]

It's been over a decade since I've been active in the movement but, at the time, at least in the U.S., the vast majority of activists were women and eco-feminism was a rising star among the intelligentsia. So, frankly, I'm a wee dismayed to see this template with but one female name (though, admittedly, if you had to chose but one, it should be the indefatigable Ingrid Newkirk). While this is no longer an area in which I have any expertise (or street cred), I'm wondering if there's a way for this template to be more representative of the overwhelmingly female contribution to this movement. (For instance, one name that jumps immediately to mind for me for possible inclusion among writers is Carol J. Adams.) I realize that WP simply attempts to capture facts and it is not WP's place to fight society's perpetuation of male privilege (even in presumably progressive movements); for me, though, honestly, it's somewhat saddening. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs[edit]

QUESTION: Why does this template box appear on the Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs page? The article is about a group of criminals who terrorised a neighbourhood for years and who stole the body of an old lady from a churchyard. By including the template box on this page giving links to pro-animal liberation groups this wikipedia page is no longer neutral but a campaigning article. 19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


I have flagged this to be checked for its neutrality as it appears to be a celebration of animal liberation groups rather than a proper resource about the issues - for example, refusing to include critics of animal liberation groups makes this a resource for people with a specific pov rather than a general resource for peopel researching the issue generally. 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to find a comparable template which contains critics - that is why the other template was created. I am against adding any more to this template, especially as it comes down to 'what counts as a critic?'. Would 'Pro-Test' be a critic? No, they are a pro-testing group and not an anti-animal rights group as such. If you could draw up a list of anti-animal rights groups, that'd help make a better decision.
Also, when adding large banners to templates, please wrap them in <noinclude></noinclude>, else the banner will appear on all articles with the template on, and will look like the article is in need of pov checking.-Localzuk(talk) 07:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


You have removed the request for npov review twice in the past two days. On each occasion you failed to mention here why you had done so. You are not in a position to give this article a NPOV check as you have been intimately involved in its creation. I would have asked you about this on your own talkpage but this is protected and I am unable to do so. This template is biased. It is not an encyclopaedic resource about issues surrounding animal liberation, it is a celebration of the animal liberation movement. That is biased. You asked in an earlier discussion (above) for any example of any other template which shows critics. Well, check out the Template:Animal_testing template which includes groups on both sides of the issue (a template which you will be familiar with through your edits on that page. Wikipedia is intended to be encyclopaedic and non-biased. This template isn't and needs to be reviewed by people who are not so intimately involved in its creation as yourself. 06:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You have not answered my question from above - can you provide a list of items that you would like included please?-Localzuk(talk) 08:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not sufficiently expert in this area to be able to provide such a list - it appears that other editors are and have attempted to include groups only for them to be edited out. But, as I said above, this template as it stands is not encyclopaedic, but a celebration of a campaigning group and therefore not in accordance with WP's npov policy. 08:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
And as has been said, they are not appropriate to the template. This template is about the animal liberation movement. There aren't any 'anti-animal liberation' groups as far as I know. For example, including Pro-Test in the template would be incorrect in my opinion, as they are a pro-testing lobby group, rather than an anti-animal rights group. It would be appropriate in the template you mention above Template:Animal testing, as it directly relates.
So, unless you can provide some actual examples, I don't see how your NPOV problem can be accommodated. -Localzuk(talk) 15:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There are many, many, many, groups which have official policies of opposing the actions of animal liberation groups that would impede or restrict research. Like the American Medical Association, Pro-test, Americans for Medical Progress, FBR, RDS, not to mention all the professional societies, the American National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Medicine, etc. --Animalresearcher 16:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Simply having a policy of opposition doesn't mean a group should be included. A local newspaper can have a policy against hiring somebody before the age of 18, and that doesn't mean they should be included on every page that talks about ageism. Beta M (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed some names[edit]

Since they were unknown names to wikipedia, figured it was just someone adding in random names.. See here NathanLee 16:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

By the looks of the user they were indeed random vandalism. User has many warnings on their page. NathanLee 16:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Limitation of template[edit]

I'm concerned that this template is getting out of control. Firstly its huge, and many articles are dwarfed by it. Secondly, we seem to be in a position where anyone article that has a link to animal liberation is being added. For example, Raccoon dog fur is listed as a notable controversial case, yet there are no third party neutral sources describing the controversy. What we essentially have is a few campaigns protesting an issue. That in itself doesn't create a notable controversy. Secondly, is there any encyclopaedic value in listing bands that have written a song about the AR, lent their name to PETA or donated a track to a AR cause? Templates are not indiscriminate lists, we really need so have some limits to what should be included. I'm not removing anything at the moment, but would like to hear more opinion. Rockpocket 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted some of the more recent edits. I don't know whether it's newbie editing or WP:POINT, but the template is starting to include more than it excludes. We could perhaps add George Bush because he once said chimps shouldn't be experimented on. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I've left a note for the IP who keeps adding links, but it seems to be making no difference. I'm minded to ask for sprotection until we can work out some criteria for what to add. Any objections? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Seriously, this template is way too long. It needs to be cut down. It's simply too out of control and overwhelms pages, and that doesn't make it useful. I don't think having publications and groups, of which there are many, is necessary. --David Shankbone 04:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the key groups and publications should be included. But the anon seems to be adding every AR article he can find. Some of it's useful, so I'm reluctant to revert wholesale, but perhaps we should do that until we can figure out what to keep. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think we should cut it down to the bare basics. It's an info-box about key concepts, not an index. It should be small until it can be decided what is to be included. Info-boxes are becoming more controversial on the project, and this is a good reason why - they start to dominate articles. --David Shankbone 05:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think take out "Activists"; "Groups/campaigns", "Writers/Advocates" "Films" "Books" etc. Anything that takes away from the main animal rights causes. That's really what should be in the info-box. The main things. An alternative that the LGBT project worked out, which maybe the Animals rights project wants to consider, is a bottom-oriented box that doesn't overwhelm a page. See Murray Hill (drag king) for one example. --David Shankbone 05:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Those categories have been there from the beginning. It's important to see who the main activists are, because the activists comprise the movement and most of the issues with AR. We do have a bottom-oriented template too, for when there's no space in the article for this one. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, since we agree that they are "categories", why not replace the lists with a category link (piped or not) to, let's say, Category:Animal rights activists. It will save a lot of space and have the added bonus of populating Category:Activists by issue. The same could be done for Category:Animal rights groups, etc. This would cut the template size in half. FWIW, many sidebars and footers use categories in this way, so this isn't anything out of the ordinary. —Viriditas | Talk 09:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The template still takes up too much real estate on the articles. What's wrong with having a footer-template or creating categories?--David Shankbone 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
We have been around and around on this, and the Animal Rights project is against categories for a reason that those of us who work on categorization do not understand. Every single other activist group is categorized by topic except for this one. If you are interested, you may want to get with User:Lquilter as she has a good grasp on the situation and is willing to work with the project to meet their needs and implement categorization. —Viriditas | Talk 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Animal welfare groups[edit]

Several of the groups listed would not (I suspect) associate themselves with the phrase "animal liberation" which implies to me an approach much close to animal rights than animal welfare. I wonder if the list shoud be slimmed down? MikeHobday (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, I suggest the deletion from the template of ASPCA, Animal Welfare Institute, HSUS, IFAW, WSPA. MikeHobday (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


Bill, just to explain why I removed the name you added -- in order to make sure the template doesn't get too large and unmanageable, we try to stick to the most notable of the activists, meaning the ones who've had the most media coverage, or coverage in books and papers about the movement. The name you added has indeed had some coverage, but I'd say not quite enough to be added here. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Sorry about that - but see my comments in "Google Hits"Billlegend2 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Google hits[edit]

We keep having names of uncertain notability added to the activists, so I thought it might help to list Google hits for each name. It's not a perfect test, especially for older activists who may have had the bulk of their coverage before the Web existed, but it gives an indication. The search terms were "name" and "animal rights."

Google hits vary from day to day, sometimes by a lot, so in the links below, you may not get exactly the same figures. One I searched yesterday had 27,000 hits and today 16,000; another had under 1,000 and today over 5,000. The figures below are therefore just a snapshot of the web from the time of this post.

I think we should leave out names that don't have over 1,000 at least, and preferably closer to 3-5,000. We can make exceptions for activists who had a lot of news coverage before the Web, so long as we know that they did. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Greg Avery 5,260 [1]
  • David Barbarash 5,170 [2]
  • Rod Coronado 9,030 [3]
  • Barry Horne 7,490 [4]
  • Ronnie Lee 5,520 [5]
  • Keith Mann 8,440 [6]
  • Ingrid Newkirk 45,000 [7]
  • Alex Pacheco 7,540 [8]
  • Jill Phipps 3,320 [9]
  • Henry Spira 12,700 [10]
  • Andrew Tyler 5,050 [11]
  • Jerry Vlasak 9,860 [12]
  • Paul Watson 16,200 [13]
  • Robin Webb 6,010 [14]
  • Roger Yates 746 [15]

This is real interesting. We could argue all day about the validity of the method, but I for one am prepared to go with it for a while. What seems to be being underlined here is the precise case put forward by Gary Francione, Yates and other abolitionists about the "Animal Rights Movement". That it doesn't exist, except in name. This "rights" movement does not talk about rights violations!

Sooo.... if we replace the words "animal rights" in the google search,with "rights violations", we get the following

[1] P.Watson, 1,430 hits; [2]I.Newkirk, 345; [3] R.Coronado, 76; [[4] G.Francione, 62;(not in org list)] [5] J.Vlasak, 42; [6] R. Lee, 40; [7] R. Webb, 31; [8] R. Yates, 24; [9] A.Pacheco, 23; [10] B.Horne, 22; [11] K. Mann, 21; [12] H.Spira, 15; [13] D.Barbarash, 13; A.Tyler, 8; J.Phipps, 7. Look then at the results, most 'hits' are about human rights, except in the cases of Francione and Yates, and when animal rights violation are mentioned in relation to the other names, it is most often within the writing of these two. If you put as a search, "name" and "animal rights violations", then Francione's critique of the "Animal Rights Movement" seems substantially supported because hardly anyone apart from Francione and Yates writes about animal rights violations. This supports Francione's controversial position on "new welfarists" in terms of what these notable activists say about animals and animal rights: essentially, they make welfarist cruelty statements or some other non-rights based statements about their positions on animals. I am not saying this calls for a complete shake up on wiki but it does put things in a new light which an encyclopedia would assess. Make sense?Billlegend2 (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's very interesting. Francione is on the template, by the way, but under writers. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Question is, what do the editors of an encyclopedia do with the information that most people it has under the title "animal rights" may not actually be animal rightists in the sense of rights being the basis of their statements about human-animal relationships. This latest 'Google hits search' shows that virtually no-one apart from Francione is making claims about animal rights - Tom Regan does, of course, but none of the animal rights activists. This seems to mean what Francione said it means in Rain Without Thunder, that what you have said they are, and what many of them say of themselves, does not square with their statements. See http://abolitionistanimalrights.blogspot.com/2008/02/animal-rights-has-become-pretty.html I.O.W.S., the "Animal Rights Movement" is a philosophical muddle which the human rights movement isn't!!! Do we/you/Wikipedia ignore that?Billlegend2 (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to remember that we simply reflect what the reliable sources say and represent the majority as the majority and minority as the minority. So, while Francione may have a point, the majority interpretation of "animal rights" isn't quite as distinct as his and instead his position is described as Abolitionism. I would say that Yates is probably a prominent figure in the Abolitionism sub-movement (which could probably be expanded), but I don't see any reason why we should be giving Francione's assessment on animal rights philosophy any more importance that anyone elses.
Consider as a comparison, that the relatively few members of the Continuity Irish Republican Army claim that they are the true Irish Republican Army, while the much larger Provisional Irish Republican Army (and pretty much everyone else) considers themselves to be the IRA. Its not our job to determine which is the "real" IRA (something not lost on the third claimant: the Real Irish Republican Army) just like its not our job to ascertain what it "real" animal rights among the various factions that claim that title. Rockpocket 00:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point. I have a couple of points to make myself. Not sure if the analogy with the various IRAs works because none of them would disagree about the fundamentals. Whatever their differences, I doubt if any group would reject republicanism whereas many 'animal rights' people reject rights-based statements about human-animal relationships. It is fundamental beliefs that are in dispute in the animal movement not just tactics-in fact, tactical differences arise because fundamentals are different. So, to say that there is no reason to give Francione's assessment on animal rights philosophy any particular prominence is saying that the views on animal rights by animal rightists have the same weight as non-rightists and even opponents of rights-based theories. That can't be right-although I can see there would be a major problem in fixing it. It should be noted, by the way, that this is not a case of imposing labels on people. For example, Francione and Regan say they are animal rightists and their work reflects that while Peter Singer says he's a utilitarian and rights are not fundamental to his position.Billlegend2 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I guess the problem is more one of what the secondary or tertiary sources consider to be animal rights. I don't think most commentators outside the movement makes the same distinctions as those within the field. Thus the large number of "new-welfarists" appear to have either captured or been awarded the "animal-rights" mantle by virtue of their success in promoting their version of it.
Perhaps a more germane comparison would be with the term "vivisection". 99% of what anti-vivisectionists call "vivisection" is not vivisection at all. Nevertheless, by persistently using the word in this manner, the term has begun to mean "animal testing" in general. Similarly, what we now generally consider to be "animal rights" may not technically be animal rights, but because enough people describe it in that way, thats what we associate it with.
Incidentally, I was reading some of Francione's interviews in response to your comments and I have to say, that from a personal point of view, I think of all the "AR activists", he and Singer are the only ones that couch their beliefs in sound logic. He makes a lot of sense. Its interesting to note that he seems to echo the criticisms that much of the pro-testing lobby has of the mainstream AR logic, that their actions are little more than PR stunts do not match with their stated aims. For example, that it appears illogical to argue that animals have rights, then to focus disproportionately on primates or even vertebrates, while completely ignoring the billions of other animals because they are less human-like. It always appeared to me that the Great Ape Project is completely at odds with the animal rights concept. Giving one animal human rights simply reinforces the fact that all the others don't have any. There is some irony in the the "real" AR and anti-AR positions dovetail in their criticism of the mainstream AR logic, while coming from entirely different positions. Anyway, this isn't really the place for that discussion, but it did open my eyes somewhat.
I guess more to the point: what in practical terms, and bearing in mind that we have to reflect what the sources tell us, could we do to better make these distinctions. Rockpocket 01:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
When I first started editing in this area, I tried to use the term "animal liberation" to signal that not all liberationists are rights-theorists. For example, I called our animal rights movement category "animal liberation movement." That's why this template is called "animal liberation," and the article on the movement "animal liberation movement." But I was opposed by people who hadn't read the literature, and who assumed the distinction was some kind of political nuance introducing a POV. They kept raising discussions about having the cats/templates/articles moved away from the term liberation to rights, which is why the category is so named now.
In the end, I'm not sure these distinctions matter much. There is very little that Singer, Francione, and (say) PETA would disagree on in a practical sense, because the differences are philosophical (whether you believe in natural rights for humans or non-humans) and tactical (how helpful is illegal direct action and how far should it go?) In terms of how animals ought to be treated, I see no differences: all believe that animals ought not to be used as food, clothing, entertainment, in research, or in any other way by human beings.
RP, the reason primates are focused on is simply that, if it is true that the rigid species line we draw between humans and non-humans is arbitrary, that is most easily shown in the behavior of non-human primates. That is why the animal research lobby often uses images of mice in its literature, in order to emphasize the opposite point. SlimVirgin talk|edits 11:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

SV. Francione would object strongly to the idea that his position means the same for animals as Singer’s.You can tell that from reading Francione’s blog. Catherine Grant in the justice publication New Internationalist [no-nonsense guide to animal rights 2006] says that Singer is not a rightist but his book Animal Liberation inspired an international movement dedicated to ending “animal exploitation”.That statement is more correct related to Ronnie Lee.BUT…it all really depends on what you think ending animal exploitation means. Singer thinks individual animals are replaceable so killing one painlessly and replacing him/her with another is ok. Singer says animals don’t think about the future, so actually killing them is no ethical issue.Francione disagrees with ALL of that. because he’s a rightist, he thinks about individual right holders.He thinks animals do have future thoughts, so painlessly killing an animal is wrong and is a rights violation. Francione complains that Singer’s new book about eating [with jim mason] talks about veganism as the ideal but a bit fanatical.Singer says it is possible to be a ‘conscientious omnivore’-but Francione says veganism is the BASELINE of animal rights and complains that the ‘animal rights movement’ puts both vegetarianism and veganism forward as ethical diets [and puts them forward as a personal choice].Francione thinks veganism and nothing less is the logical consequence of believing that animals have rights.Singer’s position has always sanctioned animal experiments in qualified circumstances but Francione’s position [AND Regan’s] rules them out as RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.This is what i’ve been on about in relation to the frustration for the rightists not being recognised as animal rights advocates.Francione says that the ‘animal rights movement’ have taken the meaning out of the term animal rights and that’s why there is no animal rights movement apart from a movement that uses animal rights like singer-political shorthand, not the fundamental basis of their position.Billlegend2 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Singer is approaching this from a particular philosophical tradition, utilitarianism, which judges the rightness or wrongness of acts by their consequences, and in particular the consequences in terms of preference fulfillment, or the maximization of pleasure. Because he's a philosopher, he goes where the argument leads him, and that often lands him in strange places with unrecognized terrain, at which point people start shouting, "But he's saying we should prefer rats to babies!!"
When he talks about animals not thinking about the future, for example, all he means is that, if faced with a hard choice of who to kill, it is better to kill an animal (human or non-human) who has no concept of its own life and future, than to kill one (human or non-human) who does hold such a concept. So if he had to choose between killing ten normal cows and one normal human being, he has said he would kill the ten cows, because he believes cows have no concept of a future (and I don't know how far he would take this: would he kill 100 cows, one million, all cows that exist?).
What would you do, if faced with such a choice, where you had to kill either one healthy human being or ten healthy cows, and more importantly what would your reason be for choosing one over the other? SlimVirgin talk|edits 14:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What i would do is not relevant. I think it is wrong to say that singer only applies his position on the future thinking of animals in moral dilemma cases - he says in practical ethics i think that painlessly killing meat animals would be ok because of this in theory. I think francione might choose the 10 cows. saving 10 vegans over a probable meat eater-no contest!Billlegend2 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 :-) SlimVirgin talk|edits 15:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Qualification for ‘Animal Rights’[edit]

Hello SlimVirgin, Rockpocket and others:

I’ve read through the above discussions, and I agree with Billlegend2 that what’s represented in this table as ‘Animal Rights’ is in many cases inaccurate.

The goals of some editors are to disseminate ‘popular’ information, as demonstrated by the Google Hits section above. Yet popularity and accuracy aren’t synonyms. And promoting accurate information is closer to the goals of Wikipedia than mirroring what happens to be popular (and perpetuating it; Wikipedia is also a “hit” and in the Internet age it’s often one of the references first used when someone is getting their bearings to write on a topic for the first time).

If one relies on ‘media hits’ to determine appropriate listings in the Animal Rights template, numerous problems can and do arise, and the main casualty is a truly informational treatment of the subject.

One of my key personal and professional interests, animal rights, is riddled with inaccuracies by Wikipedia at the most basic level. Of course a big winner in the Wikipedia popularity stakes would be PETA, a group that has stated for USA TODAY that "[p]robably everything we do is a publicity stunt.” How quickly Wikipedia is reduced to an advertiser when it resorts to the popularity criterion to decide on the individuals, groups, and projects that would be relevant to an online encyclopedia.

I would propose that those represented in the Animal Rights template be actual advocates of animal rights. The public is already confused enough with the subject; why must Wikipedia, a source of facts and knowledge, be any less committed to properly presenting this topic? (Not to be provocative here, but is animal rights not worthy of intellectual pursuit?)

Animal rights is not a mysterious or abstruse ideology. Its guiding principle is “the ideal of non-exploitation” (Donald Watson); contemporary writers present it as opposition to a social reality in which “animals are regarded merely as means to human ends” (as Gary Francione puts it) or, more radically, the “right to be let alone” offered by Lee Hall. In these cases what is clear is the principle is a serious one.

All it takes is a basic understanding of animal rights to determine who consistently strives to represent and develop it – and who takes the term as a popular but meaningless (or downright perverse) label. Some cases are more obvious than others. PETA systematically kills the vast majority of animals over which it exerts control (see http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/12/taking-back-our-movement.html - PETA adopted out 17 of 1,997 animals they took in for 2008. The rest, 1,970 were killed. Previous years are even more dismal.) Imagine this going on in human refugee camps; the matter of whether PETA would be included as a human rights group would be settled instantly.

Animal control and animal rights are strikingly different. Wikipedia should not be assisting opportunistic use of the term rights in any context.

A number of people and groups would be removed from this template if a serious discussion about animal rights were undertaken. This is not to say that they wouldn’t be mentioned with reference to the dynamic of public advocacy, but that could be left up to the main ‘Animal Rights’ page, and their positions and caveats (e.g., why their claim to “animal rights” advocacy is disputed) clearly outlined.

I hope this resonates with other contributors of this template and the Animal Rights section, and progress can be made in creating a fair and accurate process to qualify entries. Please share your thoughts on this. And if there is a better place to engage in a serious discussion of this matter, please let me know. Dave Shishkoff (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the current process is fair and accurate. If your username indicates that you are the Dave Shiskoff employed by Friends of Animals [16] then instead of attacking organizations competing for donations such as PETA, you might recuse youself from editing this topic. If you are indeed employed by Friends of Animals (which is your business), your attempts to add the founder (your boss) and lawyer for that group to this template is certainly a conflict of interest. I removed your addition of Lee Hall from the writers section since she is far less notable than others who are not included (ass I noted in the edit summary). I also question your addition of your employer as a notable group, since I believe that group is most notable for running a sanctuary (Primarily Primates) and a Marine Mammal Rescue, neither of which put it in the same category as SHAC, PETA, ALF or other groups in the list. Bob98133 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bob98133,

I am clearly Dave Shishkoff (please spell my name correctly), my USER page defines this, and yes, I'm employed by FoA, as I make clear. At the very least, Bob98133, my affiliations are transparent. Who knows who you are, or to whom you’re employed? (Would my request be any more or less legitimate were I to choose to sign in anonymously?)

My interest in this isn’t to procure donations, but for clarity, which should have been clear in my appeal.

Rather than attempt to undermine me personally, why not instead engage in the topic at hand?

Is it unreasonable to request that content to the Animal Rights template and page be qualified in a transparent manner, dependent on something other than ‘media hits’?Dave Shishkoff (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dave, Wikpedia's content is guided by reliable sources and what they publish. We rely on outside sources so that Wikipedians don't simply add their own opinions to articles; instead, we rely on the opinions of other published writers. Therefore, in deciding which groups or individuals to add to a template, we look to see which are the most notable in independent publications. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
You wrote above, "I would propose that those represented in the Animal Rights template be actual advocates of animal rights." Which groups or individuals on this template (apart from PETA and Ingrid Newkirk, whom you've already mentioned) would you regard as not being advocates of animal rights? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Dave (and SV). This template obviously covers much more that a strict interpretation of animal rights. Consider the case and issues listed, for example, many of which are obviously welfare issues rather than rights issues. Others are simply tangential to the animals rights/welfare movement. I guess there is two ways of looking at this issue.
  • Firstly, by considering this as a nav-template to cover article on whole range of issues involving animal rights/welfare/usage/experimentation/philosophy/activism. This is how I see it's function. I understand how titling it simply "Animal rights" may imply that certain perspectives count as AR when they are more about welfare. But what would you suggest we title it instead to avoid this? Rightly or wrongly, AR has become a widely used and accepted, over-arching term, I'm not sure what other terms would cover it.
  • The other way of looking at this is by changing the purpose of the box to include only those that promote a strict rights-based, philosophical argument. The problem with this, is that it becomes rather less useful as a nav-box (since it would essentially only have links to a few activists and a few groups) and we then have the problem of defining what is, and what is not AR. Who gets to decide that? We would also then end up with multiple, fragmented boxes for AR, welfare, experimentation etc. We had those in the bad old days, and there were all sorts of arguments about which articles they should and should not be in. This was largely solved by merging them into the current template.
I'm sympathetic to the fact view that the AR mantle has been "hijacked" by welfarists, and if you have some practical solutions to the problems I mention above, then I would be open to different approach. I would say that the popularity vs. accuracy argument is a bit of a red herring, though. The real issue is verifiability vs. accuracy. It may not be strictly "true" that PETA is an AR group by some criteria, but that it is described as an AR group is very verifiable. [17][18] Rockpocket 01:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That the AR mantle has been hijacked by welfarists is a very particular argument put forward by e.g. Gary Francione. The AR movement was started, after all, by a philosopher who doesn't regard himself as a rights theorist, so it's not that something new has happened recently; things have always been this way. The AR movement grew directly out of the welfare movement; see Animal rights for a history. If we were to limit AR articles and templates to the strictly abolitionist kind of AR advocate — the abolitionist kind who is never prepared to compromise on behalf of welfare issues, which is what PETA does and is criticized for, for example — we'd have almost no one left. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have moved my conversation with editor Shishkoff to our talk pages since it is somewhat off topic for this page. Bob98133 (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello again everyone, i'm glad we can discuss this.

To respond to SV's comments, while i realize that outside sources are relied upon, i think there still needs to be more than this to qualify content, otherwise Wikipedia is mirroring the general ignorance that exists. (Which becomes circular, as the general media relies on sources like Wikipedia for information as well.)

I don't think it should be up to me which groups are or aren't included. What i'm proposing is that a system to qualify what is 'animal rights' be developed and utilized. The current method appears chaotic and problematic.

Also, i think it's ironic to cite the AR Wikipedia page as a reference for animal rights history, when this is the very thing i'm criticizing! ;)

Animal rights has existed longer than Singer, and crediting Singer with spawning the animal rights movement is a common fallacy - Singer is clearly a Utilitarian, and doesn't support 'rights' ideology or principles.

Read up on the writings of Donald Watson, founder of the Vegan Society (and who coined the term in 1944) - his message was very much an animal rights message (veganism came about because Watson was essentially fed up with the term 'vegetarian' which had lost most of the meaning), and so began this ethically-based movement (veganism should be described as a philosophy, not a diet), that is explicit in opposing animal exploitation. (Although this is also lost to a great deal, and the Wiki page fails to make a point of this as well.)

My point: while it wasn't called animal rights or anti-speciesism, the same ideas existed - other animals shouldn't be exploited. I agree Singer deserves recognition for boosting animal activism and philosophy, but it seems false to credit him with anything rights related.

Rockpocket - i'm glad you recognize the differences between animal rights and the reform movement, and that an increasing number of activists are trying hard to reclaim the term, and see it used appropriately (very much an uphill battle).

The wording may be tricky to accomplish. If you want to get me off the case, stop calling it 'animal rights'. I don't think it's at all useful or accurate to to label non-rights-oriented activities, persons or groups as 'rights'.

I really don't understand why 'common acceptance' is trumping 'accuracy' on here? Because it will be a bit of work to align it all? I don't believe editing Wikipedia is supposed to be about how convenient it is to organize...?

I would argue that an 'Animal Rights' box that actually offers 'animal rights' would be far more useful and reflective of those who represent this movement. Why should Wikipedia further ignorance, rather than dispel it?

Again, deciding it would be based on what a consensus of editors agree as what qualifies as 'animal rights'. This could be listed, and would function as a simple checklist - review the activities of a group, if they line up, list it under animal rights. If there are clear violations of rights, then list the group under animal husbandry reform. (I shudder at the usage of 'welfare' as well, as it is not truly considering the welfare of a being to exploit and kill them. I think it's animal husbandry, and the reform of their practices.)

There may be multiple boxes or fragmented groups, yes, but that reflects the way animal activism is. (Although i suspect the majority will fit well under reform, and a small number under rights.)

I wonder how one overcomes the 'truth' vs 'verifiable' issue when the topic is already heavily conflated? Yes, it's easy to find any number of sources referring to PETA as 'animal rights', yet clearly PETA justifies the violation of a most basic right of animals nearly on a daily basis with the animals they 'rescue'.

It is also truthful, and verifiable, that PETA fails to conform to a meaningful rights-oriented philosophy. In this instance, do they remain 'rights' because they're called that in the NY Times, or are they excluded because Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service records show how many animals they kill? (For 2006, see: http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2006 )

In my eyes, killing the ones you rescue and advocate disqualifies you from being a meaningful rights-advocate. (This is but one example on the part of PETA where their actions conflict with rights principles, and i apologize for belaboring the point, but it needs to be said and recognized.)

This is not an easy topic to oversee, but i hope that the Wikipedia entry can be more meaningful and useful than it currently is, and more accurately reflect animal rights and what an animal rights message actually is.Dave Shishkoff (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have also responded to Bob98133 on my talk page, where i share my suspicions that this user is PETA employee Bob Chorush.Dave Shishkoff (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave, it seems that a page on Animal Rights Abolitionists would be a better place to pursue this. I would welcome a page like that if there is sufficient info. While you seem to have a very well developed sense of what is or is not animal rights, reading the Animal Rights article gives me the impression that there are many nuances, and probably definitions, for the term. You may disagree with others' definitions, but that doesn't by default make yours correct. I guess if you don't find this article meaningful, and can't see a way to change it that can both achieve concensus and meaning, then you'd be better off writing a more focused specific article on the brand of animal rights that fits your definition. Bob98133 (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dave, the animal rights page does explain some of these issues already. What Wikipedia does is reflect what reliable sources are reporting, even when some Wikipedians feel it's inaccurate. You're right that the AR movement is confused on the issue of rights (rights strictly speaking) when they often mean simply that "animals should be left alone," or "animals' interests should be given weight alongside human interests." But that's just the way it is. We report and reflect that state of affairs; we don't aim to change it.
I have two questions. First, can you say where you're coming from, roughly; are you pursuing the Francione position (which I believe is generally the ALF position)? Secondly, if you were writing this template alone, and if it were called "animal rights," which groups, individuals, and books would yours contain? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello again,

Bob98133 - while rightists are also abolitionists, i don't understand why those honestly and coherently advocating actual rights-based ideologies need to be categorized elsewhere, while those in direct violation of these ideas are listed?

I'm certain PETA would also define themselves as abolitionists, and the press and other 'reliable sources' would begin to refer to them as this as well, were they to start calling themselves this with frequency. So what's to stop this exact problem from continuing on an 'abolitionist' page? The problem is inherent to the editing process of this section, and while it continues to perpetuate the popular viewpoint, it is entirely inaccurate and intellectually dishonest.

I'm not saying 'I'm right'. But i've presented examples to demonstrate that my point has validity (in the case of PETA.) I have not seen any evidence counter to this. For example, that killing those you advocate for is consistent with rights-based ideologies. Other than most people calling PETA 'animal rights', where is the evidence that this is true? You have gone through the Friend of Animals page, demanding citations (evidence) of claims on this page, including that FoA is "associated with the international vegan movement". While this spurious demand for (obvious) evidence is demanded by you of the FoA page, why isn't it demanded of on the AR page? Is this not an inconsistency in policies here? I'm pretty confident that there is no dispute that FoA is accepted as a part of the vegan movement.

SV - as i've already stated, i'm not pursuing or advocating for anything more than an honest representation of AR. (Please consider re-reading what i've written above.) Francione is a part of this, and while i'm not a fan of his personally, i would argue he certainly should be included. I personally find that the ideas of people like Joan Dunayer and Lee Hall resonate most strongly with me, if you must know. (One of the reasons i chose to work for FoA, who support and advocate their ideas.)

I don't want to make the decisions on who is or isn't included. I admit i'm probably more biased than most. HOWEVER - in an effort to be neutral, my original request remains, in my mind, a fair one: that a quantifiable checklist be used to determine who is, and who isn't considered a part of the animal rights movement. And if candidates are unequivocally supporting policies that violate the most basic fundamentals of an inclusive animal rights agenda, then they should not be included. Human rights models can be utilized in forming this structure, as from a moral (natural) rights perspective, the two are greatly aligned and seek similar considerations.

As for the AR page, it becomes erroneous (imo) seven word into the article: "Animal rights, also known as animal liberation". Animal rights, that is, the theory of animal rights, is not called 'animal liberation' by anyone i can think of that properly identifies AR. You could say "Animal rights is a part of the animal liberation movement". Otherwise saying this is like saying "Human rights, also known as human liberation[..]". Human rights is human rights.

I would also like to hear your response to the point i make with Bob98133, that is: i've provided strong evidence that PETA's actions counter rights-based ideologies. Where is the evidence that "killing those you're defending is consistent with rights-based ideologies"? If this doesn't exist, then why is PETA being considered and rights-based organization? (Or do groups get to pick and chose which species get rights when and where, and can omit rights at will?)

PS - a bit off-topic, but i would like to get the FoA pages' 'ducks in order', so to speak. I'll be posting a note in the discussion page for FoA, looking for specific assistance to get it up to snuff, thank you in advance for any help there.Dave Shishkoff (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dave, it sounds like you're calling PETA and other animal rights groups you don't agree with dishonest, inaccurate and incoherent. If that's your opinion, that's fine. But if you are presenting that as a fact then you have to present documented cases of dishonesty, inaccuracies and incoherence, not just that they interpret animal rights differently than you do therefore this is true. That's pretty much WP:OR. Clearly not everyone agrees with that process.
As near as I can tell, the documentation on the PETA page is impeccable - all 183 references - ranging from PETA websites to Center for Consumer Freedom. On the other hand, the FOA page has no documentation. I'm glad you'll be working to improve that. I left a note on that page about the reasons for the fact tags that I inserted. Bob98133 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dave. I'm going to make an analogy (that I already mentioned up there somewhere) from the "other side" to try and explain the problem we have with sticking with your, strict interpretation of animal rights. I notice that there are lots of references on the Friends of Animals site to "vivisection" [19]. Now you say PETA and other groups have hijacked "animal rights" to suit their own purposes, and you have provided evidence that they can't possibly be true animal rights advocates. Well, I would put to you that Friends of Animals (and others) have hijacked "vivisection" and use it when they can't possibly be referring to real vivisection. (The same could be said of "animal testing" to a lesser degree) You see, like "animal rights", "vivisection" and "animal testing" mean different things to different people. And these days the most common and widespread usage of both terms are at odds with their technically correct meaning. So your group is big on using "animal rights" only in a strictly correct manner, but not so keen on doing the same for "vivisection". Why is that, I wonder? ;)
Whenever an animal rights groups uses the term "vivisection", I could come up with all sorts of arguments to why that isn't technically correct (for example, HLS actually does very, very little vivisection in its correct sense, as do most of the people who are routinely labeled "vivisectors"). However, that argument would be dismissed because it is what we call original research and/or synthesis. Ultimately, our job is to recount what reliable sources tell us. If everyone else routinely uses a term to refer to something "incorrectly", then we start doing that too. This is enshrined in one of our key tenets: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." For better or worse, PETA and others have managed to shape "animal rights" in their form (just as they and others have managed to do with "vivisection"). At Wikipedia is not the place to fight that, or set up a committee that decides whether each verfiable use is technically correct or not. We just note the different uses of the terms by different people, and use the terms in the way the sources tell us.
That all said, there may well be an argument for a clearer explanation of the different meanings of "animal rights" on the animal rights page, and I agree that equating it directly with animal liberation may not be the best lead. But that discussion is better had there. Rockpocket 22:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave, you may have missed my second question above: if you were writing this template alone, and if it were called "animal rights," which groups, individuals, and books would yours contain? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey again Rockpocket,

Firstly, i'd say you're right: vivisection may be often misused. I think FoA would be likely to agree with the usage of accurate terminology. What i don't see is where this is evident on the FoA page. In the search page you referenced, the results are predominantly groups with 'vivisection' in their name. Otherwise, the references are to apes rescued from facilities that perform vivisection. (Please send me a specific example of FoA misusing the term, i'm interested to look into this however - also consider the definition, such as from Answers.com: "n. The act or practice of cutting into or otherwise injuring living animals, especially for the purpose of scientific research.")

Further, i don't know if you analogy is quite apt.. Consider: there are specific individuals who are working to advance animal rights theories. Animal rights in many ways parallels a pre-existing model: human rights. Thus, there animal rights parallels existing and clearly defined ideologies.

There really aren't 'anti-vivisection theorists'. So yes, there's less clarity in 'animal testing', but i also don't think there are 'animal testing activists' who would have valid claims that some other types of activists are infringing on their efforts. ;)

But i agree, more clarity is needed across the spectrum.

And once again, i have verified that PETA is performing acts which violate the most basic of rights, why doesn't that verify that they are not, indeed, advocates of animal rights? (If not opponents of AR, since they do not respect the notion of rights?)

SV - I answered your question, but i don't think you like my response! =P

I really don't want this to be Dave-apedia. The groups i want to see listed are the ones who actually advocate for animal rights, and aren't acting counter to this. Who i think this would include is largely irrelevant, and i believe would accurately portray the groups that should be included, were there a system in place to qualify groups based on actual rights ideologies. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Shishkoff (talkcontribs) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's directly relevant. You're complaining about this template, so my question is: how exactly would yours be different? I'd appreciate a detailed response, rather than just a general complaint. Which people and groups would your preferred template include? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

PS - how would one decide which groups get listed as 'human rights'? Would the KKK qualify, although they only advocate for particular white humans? Or would they be disqualified as their version of 'rights' infringes on the rest of humanity? (Not unlike examples i've posted..)

Dave Shishkoff (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Dave - the question you were asked is who would you include in this template. There are some who would include Nazi Germany because of animal laws that they passed. So asking this is just to get an idea of how you define things. It is only clear that you object to PETA being included, but not much mention of the other groups.
I understand your frustration with Wiki's "verifiability" criteria. At the moment, there is a move to change the orca article to "Killer Whale", which seems a backward step to me, but the rationale of other editors is convincing. Similarly, Canadian Goose was added as an acceptible synonym for Canada Goose in that article. The animal's name is Canada Goose; any goose that comes from Canada could be a Canadian goose. Anyhow, those terms are used interchangeably by many people, including media, so by Wiki rules, the Canada Goose is also known as Canadian Goose. Similarly, PETA is considered an animal rights organization, whether we agree about this or not. I have seen many references to the Humane Society of the US being called an animal rights group, although it isn't in this template. You would probably get more agreement to exclude them from this template than PETA, since they are generally considered animal welfare, but if they cross that line in public perception, they may end up here too. Bob98133 (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello again SV, this is getting a bit repetitive and cyclic..

Once more: what i think doesn't really matter. And i'm not interested in deciding who does and who doesn't get to appear. I recognize that the animal right table (and further, the page) are not primarily populated by entities that articulately and consistently advocate for rights-based theories for other animals.

I have qualified this concern, but have yet to see this reciprocated, other than 'this is what people tend to think'. Most people tend to think that George W Bush is an idiot. Yet, this isn't highlighted on his page, nor is he listed as an example on the idiot page. While, yes, common understand might dictate the content of some pages, this policy apparently isn't mandatory.

The Nazi party could also be considered 'human rights', at least for Aryan humans, right? But that's absurd, when one understands the point of 'rights', and it's equally absurd in this context, when one has an understanding of what 'animal rights' actually intends. (Thanks Bob98133 for beating me to the punch with Goodwin's Law. ;)

Rather than list names, i'd be more interested in understanding animal rights, and what qualifies for this. And i think this exercise would be better use of our limited energies, and much more useful for the template and this discussion, as it could very well differ from the list i may provide, which i again believe to be largely irrelevant. I'm not interested in creating a list. I'm interested in how that list is formulated.

Bob98133 - it's unfortunate that those changes are occurring, and i would argue they detract from making Wikipedia anything more than a trumped-up Urban Dictionary. Would you agree? Just because other editors are choosing to edit this way does not mean you need to.

And i would assume there are people on both sides, but 'majority wins' in these disputes, correct? Again: is that the best policy? I know from history it sure ain't. It's funny but also sad: all geese from Canada are Canadian geese...

Dave Shishkoff (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

HSUS and Animal Rights[edit]

I have noticed that the HSUS has been added and removed from this template several times, including once today. Often, the removals state that the organization is "animal welfare", despite that the HSUS article itself notes that the HSUS has become (over time) an animal rights organization. (Read the following sections: Rationale, Recent_history, and Criticism.) When I made the addition to this template, I also added the HSUS to the List of animal rights groups, citing a source. Although the template is named "Template:Animal liberation", and there is a slight distinction between "animal rights" and "animal liberation", the title of the template box reads "Animal Rights." For these reasons, I am reinstating the listing of the HSUS in this template. Please discuss this here before removing it again. –Visionholder (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Visionholder,
HSUS has identified themselves as both, but if one looks at their actions, it's clearly not 'animal rights'. They are strong advocates of animal husbandry reform practices, which flies in the face of any rights-oriented activism, which would be to abolish their exploitation, not change the ways that they are exploited. (Thus reform vs abolition, and 'welfare' vs rights.) Rights reject reform, as reform does not equate, nor necessitate rights or abolition.
Visit their page on farm animals: [20] - the very first thing it says is 'animal welfare'. All the campaigns (cage-free eggs, a different kind of veal, etc) is for reforming the industry. None of it is demanding that animals deserve to be left alone as Hall would put it, or not treated as property a la Francione. These campaigns maintain the property status of animals, which is what rights works to end.
This is further evidenced here: [21] - HSUS is clearly more concerned about 'behavioral needs' than freedom.
What do you think? Also, read the section above, which i think outlines what 'animal rights' is, with more accuracy, rather than the mishmash that appears in much media.. Dave Shishkoff (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Before I state what I think, I want to openly state that I am biased in this arguement. I volunteer at zoos and conservation facilities, and I am a animal trainer. I am a self-professed animal welfare supporter and strongly opposed animal rights... especially since animals rights organizations threaten the existence organizations I volunteer at and hope to work for. However, I am not so biased that I will misrepresent information. In my opinion (and from my experiences), the HSUS does not do the same.
My first reaction to what you wrote is that you are only citing the HSUS. The HSUS can say anything it wants about itself. For example, Al-Qaeda could publish that it's an Islamic-based humanitarian group, but that wouldn't necessarily make it so. For the first link you provided, it focused on cage-free chickens. I lived in California during the vote over Proposition 2, and can tell you that what was printed about it for the public was very misleading. In the voter booklet that was sent out to voters, the HSUS wrote in support of the measure, passing it off as a way to help provide humane conditions for farm chickens. Veterinarian associations wrote in opposition, trying to point out that cage-free chickens harm themselves and are exposed to disease, while also noting that passing the proposition would not result in the conversion to cage-free enclosures, but the slaughter of the chickens. (That *is* a view endorsed by animal rights -- "better dead that in captivity.") If veterinarians are the fundamental animal welfare base, then why do they opposed the HSUS so consistently?
Here's what I have seen and had to face from my background: The HSUS tries to associate itself with animal shelters, both in the pictures it uses in its ads, and most obviously, through it's misleading name. (Talk to anyone on the street, and they'll tell you that the Humane Society of the United States is the parent organization of their local humane society. It's not!) The HSUS became much more visible and active once PETA tarnished its reputation a few years back with their euthanasia cover-up. Since then, the HSUS has used its money to influence to obtain exclusive interviewing rights on CNN (just look at who CNN always turns to on any animal-related story) and other news organizations, as well as lobby local, state, and federal government to support two-faced legislation like Prop 2.
Another great example similar to Prop 2 -- the efforts to require significantly more space for elephants in California. (And it's not just California--they're doing it everywhere. See this.) They make the argument that elephants in the wild roam many, many miles, therefore we need to provide significantly more space in captivity. (They fail to mention that elephants only roam when resources aren't abundant. In zoos, resources are abundant, so excessively large enclosures are not needed.) What's so deceiptful about this is that they push for legislation to mandate enclosure space that is specifically set to be larger than anything zoos can provide--even the San Diego Wild Animal Park! The point is not to give the elephants more space, but to prevent zoos from keeping elephants. And once you set a precedent for one type of animal, you can move on to another... like giraffes, zebras, etc... until zoos have no major attractions have to shut their doors. What happens when the elephant exhibits shut down? They are supposed to be shipped off to sanctuaries... except that many of the sanctuaries are also under attack for being too small, or could not accommodate so many animals. What would happen then? Simple! Euthanize them... which is the whole point. ("Better dead than in captivity.") What's particularly sickening about this is that many zoos have been trying to raise funds to improve and enlarge their exhibits, especially for elephants and other large animals. Each case I've been involved with had to contend with, directly or indirectly, with the HSUS and its attempts to shut the upgrades down. The upgrades were never large enough, so rather than donating millions to help the zoos do the best jobs possible, they spent millions on campaign ads and legal funds to fight the zoos. Still sound like a "animal welfare" group?
The biggest problems here are the two-faced nature of everything they do and how they can effectively control the press about themselves with their massive budget and strong influence. So citing the HSUS web site does not add creditability to the statements on Wiki about the HSUS being a "animal welfare" group. What's particularly sad is the widespread nature of the ignorance of these issues and the HSUS's connection to them. Sadly, I even know zoo keepers who financially support the HSUS because they just look at the pictures and read the headlines. Who wouldn't support better living conditions for animals?? I do! But I won't support the HSUS (or their lies) by allowing them to set precedents through their legal initiatives that ultimately set the legal ground work for a massive animal rights push.
As I said, I'm biased. But this comes from my experiences, and I have some sources. Maybe when I'm done working on the lemur pages I'm trying to completely re-write, then I'll make a move to clean up all the misinformation about animal rights, animal welfare, etc. on Wiki. But until then, I feel my source and the existing cited information on HSUS (Wiki) support my claim sufficiently. –Visionholder (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Visionholder, you would need to cite HSUS calling itself an AR group, or in some other way strongly implying it, or multiple reliable sources doing so. As things stand, you've produced one source, who is an animal researcher, vet, and former dairy farmer. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, as it states on About.com, "HSUS is multi-issue animal protection organization. Wayne Pacelle, CEO of HSUS, specifically avoids the term "animal rights," and prefers the term "animal protection."" So it's not going to be possible for me to quote the HSUS since they are trying to distance them from the term. (And just because they're distancing themselves from it doesn't mean they don't support it. PETA demonstrated that it was all about public appearnace, and when it tarnished its image, the HSUS--staffed by many of PETA's former members--stepped up to fill its role.) Furthermore, there is cited material in numerous places throughout the body of the HSUS article that support this, such as (to name a few):
  1. [[22]]
  2. John McArdle, quoted in Katie McCabe, "Who Will Live, Who Will Die," Washingtonian August 1986, p. 115, as cited in The Humane Society in the US: Its Not about Animal Shelters, Daniel Oliver
  3. John Hoyt, quoted in Katie McCabe, "Katie McCabe Replies," Washingtonian October 1986, pp109-110, as cited in The Humane Society in the US: Its Not about Animal Shelters, Daniel Oliver
Refusing to allow people to cite publications in opposition violates WP:NPOV. –Visionholder (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you please choose one page to hold this discussion on? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Conversation copied to Talk:Humane Society of the United_StatesVisionholder (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to change Kotniski (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Animal liberationtemplate:Animal rights sidebar — A move request for {{alibend}} has just closed as moving that template to {{animal rights}}. The same concern expressed there applies to this one: "Animal liberation" is a nonneutral term that should be avoided as the name of a template. Gavia immer (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose because I can't see the point of these moves. People are used to adding {{Alib}} for the vertical one, and {{Alibend}} for the template that goes at the end of articles. "Animal liberation" is a slightly broader category than "animal rights," which is why it's being used. Animal liberation advocates may not be animal rights advocates strictly speaking (see Peter Singer as an example of that). There's nothing POV about it. It's just a description. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose templates do not belong in article space, and you are requesting to move a template into articlespace. (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks for noticing. Do you have an opinion on the revised target? Gavia immer (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Because the sidebar has too much hyperlinks a template would be more suitable. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.