Talk:Animal rights

Talk:Animal rights/archive1

Rights versus liberation

Scales, thanks for your e-mail. I'll talk to you about this later on Thursday on this page, if that's okay with you. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:43, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

I'm pasting the alternative introductions onto this page so we can take a look at them. Yours is:

• Version 1

Animal rights is the viewpoint that (non-human) animals have moral rights that prohibit humans from violating their basic interests, and that they ought to have legal rights to protect those interests.

The term "animal rights" is commonly used as a synonym for "animal liberation". However, not all those who favour liberating animals from human domination (e.g. some utilitarians and feminists) believe that the concept of moral rights is the best ethical approach to take.

---

Mine is:

• Version 2

The philosophy of animal rights refers to the view that non-human animals ought to have certain basic rights enshrined in law to ensure the protection of their most important interests.

Switzerland passed legislation in 1992 recognizing animals as beings, not things, and in 2002, rights for non-human animals were enshrined in the German constitution when its upper house of parliament voted to add the words "and animals" to the clause in the constitution obliging the state to respect and protect the dignity of human beings. [1] The Seattle-based Great Ape Project, founded by Australian philosopher Peter Singer, is campaigning for a United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Great Ape. [2]

Some animal-rights theorists argue that animals, like humans, have moral rights, while others take a utilitarian approach. The term "animal rights" is therefore more commonly taken to refer to animal liberation, and need not imply that its supporters advocate a rights-based moral philosophy.

Most, if not all, animal-rights theorists agree that to regard non-human animals as different in kind from humans, and undeserving of legal rights for that reason, is to be guilty of speciesism, a form of prejudice that, they argue, has no philosophical or biological justification. [3] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:22, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Legal versus moral rights

(Copied with permission from Scales' e-mail to SlimVirgin):

I respectfully take issue with your emphasis on legal rights when you say: "The philosophy of animal rights refers to the view that non-human animals ought to have certain basis [sic] rights enshrined in law to ensure the protection of their most important interests." The PHILOSOPHY of animal rights is essentially just that: philosophy, and in particular, a branch of MORAL philosophy: hence, it is primarily about MORAL, not legal, rights -- or, in the broader sense of animal liberation, about the equal consideration of interests. It is perfectly okay to refer to the struggle for legal rights for animals in the article, but that should not be the way the article begins. The movement to give animals legal rights grows out of the philosophy of animal liberation, including the important branch of it that ascribes moral rights to animals. First comes moral philosophy, then law. (Actually, first comes compassion, then moral philosophy, then law.)

You say: "Some animal-rights theorists argue that animals, like humans, have moral rights, while others take a utilitarian approach. The term "animal rights" is therefore more commonly taken to refer to animal liberation, and need not imply that its supporters advocate a rights-based moral philosophy." I find this way of putting things confusing. In terms of moral philosophy, NO animal-rights theorists take a utilitarian approach. Some animal-liberation theorists take a utilitarian approach; others take a rights approach; others take a feminist approach; etc. I also find it vague or confusing to say that "'animal rights' is...taken to refer to animal liberation"; rather, the term "animal rights" is commonly confused with the broader notion of "animal liberation". Scales

Scales, I think there are merits in both versions, so it's just a question of weighing them up here, and perhaps asking for the views of other editors. I did find yours a little brief, but I take your point that mine focuses on legal as opposed to moral rights. But to focus on the issue of moral rights is to beg the question, perhaps, in terms of the aim of the animal-rights movement. Animal-rights activists don't want animals to have moral rights: they want humans to stop abusing them, and that means they need legal rights. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:27, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

About legal rights: as you know, legal rights are assigned to corporations, and my understanding is that they could be assigned in principle to anything society might decide it useful to give them to: old-growth forests, old-master paintings, ticket stubs from Celine Dion concerts, etc. Animal liberation/animal rights is about more than legal standing for animals; it's about our moral obligations to animals as sentient individuals who have experiences and lives that matter to them -- something that is not true in the case of ticket stubs or old-growth forests or corporations per se. So it seems to me that the heart of animal liberation/animal rights is morality, not legality. As I suggested in my e-mail, the push for laws protecting animals (which, I agree, is very important) grows out of the moral stance (the claim that animals should be included in the moral community). Scales

I suppose the problem I have is that your version relies heavily on drawing a distinction between animal rights and animal liberation, and while I accept there is an academic distinction (the former to do with moral philosophy, the latter the name of an activist movement or its ideology), I don't know to what extent that distinction is adhered to outside academia. I see you've written a separate article for Animal liberation where it used to be a redirect to this one. This might be a good time to debate the general direction of these pages, and whether they ought to be separate; and if so, what material belongs on each page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:45, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate section to pose this, but its the closest in the talk page. While both Animal rights and Animal welfare mention briefly the distinction I'm surprised that neither pages present the other's criticisms of their ideas. I find that this is lacking in both articles, but I'm afraid I lack really the education in the topics to write a paragraph on them (I actually came here looking for more on this). I was wondering if anybody would be willing to start some paragraph or something about the difference in arguing for good treatment of animals from the standpoint of human moral obligation than from defense of animals as moral agents. I really feel that the criticisms of animal rights from the arguments from sympathy and humane treatment need to be included. Kablamo2007 6 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

Suggestion for new intro

SlimVirgin, you say "The philosophy of animal rights refers to the view that non-human animals ought to have certain basic rights enshrined in law to ensure the protection of their most important interests." If by "rights" is meant legal rights, then adding "enshrined in law" is redundant. On the other hand, if the idea here is that animals have moral rights that ought to be enshrined in law, the sentence needs to be rephrased, doesn't it? And doesn't the first sentence in Version 1, above, cover the bases in this regard?

By "rights enshrined in law," I meant "legal rights," so there's no redundancy. But I'd be quite happy to return to something like your first sentence: "Animal rights is the viewpoint that (non-human) animals have moral rights that prohibit humans from violating their basic interests, and that they ought to have legal rights to protect those interests." Except that animal rights is not a viewpoint, so we'd have to play it with it a bit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right that the distinction between "animal liberation" and "animal rights" is more an academic than an everyday one. That's what the second sentence in Version 1, above, is meant to point out. Isn't a Wikipedia article just the place to point out this distinction to readers? Given that so many leading writers in the debate, including many on the pro-animal side (notably Peter Singer and some feminists) reject, or at least shy away from, ascribing moral rights to animals, "animal liberation" is a more exact term for the whole movement than is "animal rights". Still, we have to recognize that most people will look up the subject under "Animal Rights".

We could call this Animal liberation and do a redirect from Animal rights, which means that anyone looking up Animal rights would be taken to Animal liberation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

What if we said something like this: Animal rights (or animal liberation) is the movement to protect (non-human) animals from being exploited by humans. It is a radical movement, insofar as it aims not merely to attain more humane treatment for animals, but to include many animals within the moral community — that is, all those whose basic interests (for example, in not being made to suffer unnecessarily) ought to be given the same consideration as our own similar interests. The claim, in other words, is that these animals must no longer be regarded legally or morally as property, or treated merely as resources for human purposes. To this end the movement advocates that many animals be given legal rights to protect their basic interests.

Yes, that is very good. I'd like to add the notion of personhood somewhere. For example: "The claim, in other words, is that these animals must no longer be regarded legally or morally as property, or treated merely as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as persons." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

The above paragraph is a slightly modified version of the first paragraph in the "Animal Liberation" entry. If the essence of the second paragraph from that entry (outlining the disinction between "animal rights" and "animal liberation") were added to the "Animal Rights" entry, we could then delete the "Animal Liberation" entry and simply have a link from "Animal Liberation" to "Animal Rights". What do you think? Scales

Yes, I agree. Good ideas, excellent writing — thank you. Do you want to make the edits, or shall I? Also, in case you don't know this, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end, like this ~~~~. This will automatically add your user name (if you've signed in), the time, and the date. That helps other editors who read the talk pages to keep track of who said what and when. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've put in the new intro, which is much better, so thank you for writing it. I've added the idea of personhood, and I've retained the material from the old intro about Switzerland, Germany, and the Great Ape Project. Let me know if you disagree with that. I've also redirected Animal liberation.

I have a question about one of your sentences: "It is a radical movement, insofar as it aims ... to include many animals within the moral community — that is, all those whose basic interests (for example, in not being made to suffer unnecessarily) ought to be given the same consideration as our own similar interests."

So you're saying that not all animals are to be included, which begs the question as to which ones ought to be, and you go on to answer that by saying: "all those whose basic interests ought to be given the same consideration as our own similar interests." But there's a sense in which this reduces to tautology — the animals that ought to be included are the animals whose interests ought to be given consideration i.e. the animals that ought to be included. Alternatively, if what you're saying is that only those animals capable of sharing similar interests to human beings ought to be included, that is a substantive point that perhaps needs some clarification.

I must thank you again for your very positive input and high-quality editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we're in basic agreement. I don't think the sentence you refer to is tautologous. The words "all those whose basic interests...ought to be given the same consideration as our own similar interests" is a definition of the moral community. The sentence simply says that many animals ought to have their basic interests given the same consideration as our similar interests. There may be other, slightly different, ways of defining the moral community. However, I don't know of any writer or activist who claims that all animals ought to be admitted to the moral community (i.e., "liberated" or given legal rights). Insects? Amoebas? Singer proposes one criterion (sentience) for who gets in; Regan proposes a slightly different one (being the "subject-of-a-life"). It's questionable whether insects or amoebas have any interests, in the sense in which interests require having desires or subjective preferences. At one point Singer suggested drawing the line for who gets in "somewhere between a shrimp and an oyster". The issue is partly an empirical one, dependent on what science tells us about the inner lives of different creatures.

This brings up the issue of personhood. One way of defining personhood could be in terms of anyone who qualifies for inclusion in the moral community (i.e., anyone who meets the criterion we select: sentience, or subject-of-a-life, or whatever). However, personhood can also be reserved for, say, those who are rational or who have a sense of self. This would mean that some who are legitimately members of the moral community, like very young children or sparrows, might not qualify as persons. Scales 23:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We touch on these issues in our article on Person. My own criterion for which animals should be included in the moral community is — anything with a face. ;-)

I'm going to create a category for animal rights today, if I can work out how to do it, and if there isn't one already, and start making a list of all our animal-rights related topics, and perhaps even create a template to put on each page linking to the others. Then I'm going to start trying to improve the pages (long-term task). Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:11, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Superfluous paragraph deleted

Weeks ago I suggested that the paragraph in the "Criticism of Animal Rights" section about "one marxian or historicist perspective" was not representative of any substantial, actually-existing Marxist facet of the animal-rights debate, but was essentially someone's idea of "here's how someone might critique animal rights"; also, the paragraph gave the misleading impression that most of those currently writing on the subject from a Marxist perspective are opposed to animal rights/liberation, when in fact the opposite is the case. Since there has been no response from whoever posted the paragraph, since the Animal Rights article is now at or beyond its Wikipedia-recommended limit, and since the sensible part of the paragraph in question is mentioned earlier in the section on "Criticism of Animal Rights" ("Unless one is a moral agent, the argument goes, one cannot claim rights for oneself or be held accountable for respecting the rights of others"), I have deleted the paragraph. Scales 02:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move

I might be wrong, but it seems like this page should be called Animal liberation, because that's the more general of the two terms (AR and AL), since some animal liberationists don't believe in animal rights. (And hence it is technically out of place for them to be on a page with the current title.)

If the page was called "Animal liberation", it could talk about animal lib generally for most of the article, and then have a section on how some (most?) animal liberationists think animals should have specific rights analogous to human rights. It probably wouldn't involve much editing of the content itself, just moving a few things around. Then Animal rights could be a redirect to Animal liberation.

I hope I'm not rehashing something you all talked about above; I skimmed the previous talk but I didn't see anything about the idea of moving the page. Zach (t) 22:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zach, there were two separate articles until three weeks ago or so, but it was felt that animal rights was the phrase people were mostly likely to look up, so animal liberation was directed here. I think the argument is that all animal liberationists want animals to be given legal rights, even if they don't adhere to a rights-based moral philosophy, and that activists are generally called animal-rights activists and the movement, the animal-rights movement. I'm easy between the two titles myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Huh, I had never thought about it in those terms -- but it makes sense, that AL-not-AR people would still want legal rights. I'm fine with leaving it if everyone else is. Zach (t) 14:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

da Vinci Quote

I have removed the following quote attributed to Leonardo da Vinci:

"I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men"

Da Vinci, never said this. This is, instead, from an early 20th century novel about the great artist and inventor's life, Romance of Leonardo da Vinci. This particular fake quote was the result of an accidental transposition of two quotes in Jon Wynne-Tyson's book The Extended Circle: A Commonplace Book of Animal Rights.

I removed these quotes from the article:

• "I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men." — Leonardo da Vinci
• "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." — Albert Einstein

Please don't replace them unless you can provide a specific citation. Thanks. Rhobite 19:11, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

The following page seems credible on the subject of Einstein and vegetarianism: http://www.ivu.org/history/northam20a/einstein.html . It indicates that he not only approved of vegetarianism, but adopted a vegetarian diet near the end of his life, citing a letter dated March 30, 1954. It also gives a possible source for another oft-quoted remark of his. Scales 04:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't find a source for that Einstein quote, though it is well known, but Wikiquote [4] gives a citation for this one:

It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind.

Letter to Vegetarian Watch-Tower (27 December 1930)
--Dforest 04:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Tag

Hi Crumb, you put the NPOV tag on a few days ago. For this to be used correctly, you need to make actionable suggestions for improvement, and these have to be consistent with our policies, so please let us know what you'd like to see changed. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:18, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I neglectably haven't given much thought while adding the NPOV tag into this article. Reading it a little more throughly, I think it does have meritable neutrality, and no big violations against it. This is a very sensative moral issue and I should be more sensative about this. But personally I can't get over the people that are fighting (no figurative mention intended) for animal rights, such as the ALF and PETA. Bombing medical labs does nothing but hurt your philisophical ideas. I agree that, horrid as it sometimes is, animals do get harmed in testing and do suffer. But (pardon the cliche) it is for the greater good. --crumb 03:12, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the tag, Crumb. I appreciate it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:12, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Cohen's argument

This quote from the article: Cohen’s position implies that while a human being with the mental capacity of a mouse has full moral standing, a mutant chimpanzee with an I.Q. of 150, who regularly contributed articles on philosophy to Wikipedia, would have no rights whatever. seems a little POV for me. While it could be argued that the above is true, I don't think the article should simply state it as fact. It could equally well be argued to be false (eg, a mutant chimpanzee would be a different kind to normal chimpanzees and so could have rights, and a non-mutant chimpanzee would not have the linguistic abilities to contribute to wikipedia or the moral concepts to be a moral being, however intelligent). Perhaps it should say that that is an objection to his view, rather than an actual problem with it. I don't like to edit articles myself, I am an anonymous newbie. 212.9.22.222 14:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. I don't think the article states the above as a fact, but as an argument, and the argument is simply that if a chimp were born who could do these things, it would have no legal rights qua individual chimp in any country in the world (that I know of), whereas a human being, once expelled from the uterus, has legal rights in most countries (perhaps all), no matter the intellectual capacity. And the point here is that, according to animal-rights theorists, this is an absurdity. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've just tweaked the Cohen bit. Anonymous newbie does have a point, precisely because what constitutes a "kind" is unclear. But this doesn't necessarily work to Cohen's advantage. I've put in a link to an article that addresses this problem; and the site I link to has a link to another article. I hope my tweaking is to everyone's satisfaction. Scales 16:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Anesthesia's Wonderland

I was curious as to why the link as the main website ( http://anesthesiaswonderland.bravehost.com/index.html ) is a Animal Rights resource and the online community ( http://p2.forumforfree.com/anesthesiaswond.html) is also related to animal rights. may I ask exactly what is the problem with the website?

Not sure what your question means. You think it should, or shouldn't, be there? And please sign your posts. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

well i've been visiting Anesthesia's Wonderland for about a month now and the community and the site itself that sprung up is pro-animal rights just like its forums, but allows for both sides to express its views. KerryJones

I went to the link provided but I couldn't see anything. Do you have a link to any animal-rights material there, and is it someone's blog, do you know? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh weird, I can see it now. The link that was put on the page didn't say anything about animal rights that I could see but the images were floating around the browser window so I couldn't see clearly. It may be a Mac issue. I'll put it back. Thanks, Kerry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Michael E. Berumen and David Pearce's ideas

I have removed two paragraphs from the philosophy section on Michael E. Berumen and David Pearce's ideas, as, unlike all the other philosophers mentioned, there was no explanation of why these people were famous or notable or already known for their thoughts on this subject. If such an explanation(including references), citing other known famous authors or stats showing wide distribution of their ideas, can be found, feel free to re-add the paragraphs. Thanks for everyone working on improving the encyclopedia! JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Rights IS NOT liberation

This article is not neutral.

Idea that animals have rights does not imply that they should not be used humanely, or must be "liberated" from "human domination". Radical extremiss, like Animal Liberation Front are not typical for animal rights.

Article does not properly distinguish different animal welfare concepts. Eg. most people agree that animals raised for food should be killed humanely, but far fewer agree that animals cannot be rased for food.

Indeed, this article plays to propaganda that acknowledging some animal rights (which most people do) is equal to agreeing to "animal liberation" whatever it means (few people agree) or accepting animal rights-motivated violence towards humans (even fewer people agree).

Artifically lumping these topics is damaging to opinion of less extreme animal right groups.

It is also very unlikely that animals feel or can understand being "dominated" by human e.g. farmer on a farm (it requires far greater mental skills than suffering from eg. cramped conditions or feeling pain). It is also likely that "freeing" animals can result in their extinction (How many pigs live in countries where people don't eat pork?). Unsigned by User:141.14.19.45

The idea that animals should be awarded rights is not consistent with many of the points you raise. Which less extreme animal-rights groups may have been damaged by this "artificial lumping" of topics? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Few organisations wish to be put in line with "animal-terrorists", particulary after recent grave-digging excesses of ALF. And hardly any supporter of animal rights, at least outside UK, would support ALF. And please, introduce clear note that animal rights are not welfare (it is on animal welfare page, but not at animal rights) and are not liberation. Unsigned by User:141.14.19.45

Would you sign your posts, please? You get a signature by adding four tildes. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages.

Can you say which animal-rights groups you have in mind when you say this article is damaging to them? I'd say it's made fairly clear in this article what animal rights are, and the terms animal rights and animal liberation, though they refer to slightly different ideas, are used more or less synonymously. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

With your speedy responses, please put information that "animal welfare" is different from "animal rights" for clear information for wiki users. Please also expand "criticism" section. Current article is not neutral but heavily tends towards propaganda. Wikipedia is meant to provide neutral info, not advocate goals, even worthy ones. Common sense says that any organisation, especially ones which hope for public support, are damaged by lumping with law-breaking and violent extremist branch. It is true even if I am not aware that any particular organisation specificaly protested against it. plumber

Lack of good faith

Idleguy, I don't regard you as editing in good faith here. While legitimate, well-sourced criticism of the concept of animal rights is welcome, personal essays are not. You can't suddenly stick into the middle of an article on AR that there are people in Africa starving. This was what my mother used to say to get me to eat, ironically given the context, meat. It's a silly argument: just because there are human-rights abuses doesn't mean there aren't other kinds of injustices in the world. But regardless, arguments need to be relevant and referenced, otherwise they're original research. See Wikipedia:No original research. And for the record, I'm noting here that you've nominated several animal-rights related images for deletion even though they were correctly tagged and sourced. Your lack of good faith is sadly apparent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the paragraphs you added because the sources didn't seem to say what you were claiming. I couldn't see anything in Stephen Hawking's quote about Africa or poverty. I only scanned the second article, but I didn't see anything about donations paying only for salaries etc. Sorry if it's there and I missed it. I put Hawking back in, sticking closely to what he did say. The second article could also be put to use, but we have to stick to what the sources say and not attribute our own views to them. See Wikipedia:No original research. Deleted paragraphs below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Some others argue that the issue of animal rights is given excessive importance especially when even the basic human rights and human welfare is often ignored. They cite Africa and many other parts of the world where poverty and other problems are rampant. These critics sometimes rebuke animal rights activists to improve the conditions for fellow humans many of whom live in conditions that are comparable to, if not worse than animals, before taking on the rights of animals. Stephen Hawking and other renowned scientists have condemned animal rights extremists stating that they have no real worthwhile causes to pursue. [5]

Further some criticize the excessive publicity created by animal rights have not always resulted in significant improvement of animal conditions. Donations are believed to largely pay the salaries of professional organizers, subsidize more fund-raising, and fuel sensationalist campaigns against animal-use industries. [6]

The Hawking quote is perfectly fair and I'd actually suggest leaving in the first comment on medical research--he's outspoken on this subject generally (stem cell debate, for instance, as I recall). Regarding Africa, specific issues could be noted. Bushmeat, for example--bad idea but people eat what's available. There's also Shooting, shoveling, and shutting up to illustrate the feeling amongst rural folk that animal rights laws are out of touch with their reality. I actually think the criticism section could say more with less space and should be gone over. Marskell 16:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason I removed the medical research part of Hawking's quote is that this is a section about criticism of the animal rights movement (or concept). But Hawking's quote about research versus meat isn't a criticsm of animal rights, because all animal rights people would agree with him: it is inconsistent to object to animals in research and not object to eating them: though I suppose an argument could be made out that the first is worse than the second, but broadly most would agree with Hawking, so that part of what he said looked out of place and a bit gratuitous. However, you're welcome to re-insert it if you want to: my main objection was he was being used to prop up material about Africa, which he didn't even mention. I agree that the criticism section needs an overhaul, but it has to be written with good sources and not just people inserting their own opinions, and then we have to stick to what the sources actually said.

I'd also suggest that Idleguy look for better sources than Hawking. Physicists don't know anything about animal research, and it's not as if there's a shortage of critics out there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you interpret everything in a limited quotation. If I didn't edit articles in good faith here I wouldn't have stayed this long in Wikipedia, producing some oft ignored articles from a subcontinent perspective. The issue of images was truly one that involved massive amounts of copyvios (your kangaroo court decisions might suggest otherwise as you voted yourself to keep them. And a total lack of integrity when you refused till the end to mention the other "editor" who was helping you with the image tag issue) You also have a strictly western tilt to articles you edit assuming that the rest of the world is only an afterthought. Or maybe just a case of systemic bias.

The Stephen Hawking quote mentions "more worthwhile causes" giving nuclear disarmament as an example, NOT the only worthwhile cause. I merely used that as a base to expand on the other worthwhile causes like Poverty in africa etc. If you need the exact word to word quotations for each and every single idea, then Wikipedia would become wikiquotes. If we can't use common knowledge and build upon an opinion then I'm afraid one of us is more interested in portraying fiction and inferring with a narrow mind. It is also sad that you haven't even fully read the second source where it states that a majority of the donations of animal rights groups go to non-animal related activity. This and the fact that your talk on Veganism article where you really didn't seem to have a clue on the reality of animal products being used shows that you don't do your homework before jumping into conclusions. Asking for a source on catgut and gelatin made me laugh. (obviously you didn't even take the time to see the internal links) I only wish that you'd read sources thoroughly before sounding like a know-all.

As it stands you just want to keep readers in the dark just because you don't like criticism all the while abusing some well meaning "fair use" tags because they to further your personal agenda. And just because you chose to label me as one editing in bad faith, doesn't mean I'm going to question yours. Idleguy 19:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Idleguy, my overriding POV on Wikipedia is to see no original research creeping into articles, as anyone who knows my editing well will confirm. What you say above about Hawking is a classic example of it: that because he mentioned other worthwhile causes like nuclear disarmament, he probably meant to say Africa too. That's your opinion, but what you regard as "common knowledge," others might regard as quite false, which is why we have the NOR policy. If you stick closely to it, you'll hear no complaints from me, no matter how much criticism you insert into this article.

Regarding the images, that was no kangaroo court: Quadell is one of our most knowledgeable editors when it comes to images, and he disagreed with you. The reason I question your good faith is that I don't see you doing this with other people's images, but perhaps you do and I just haven't noticed, in which case I apologize. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you still haven't readded (atleast) the part where I've sourced the "donations going to pay salaries" line. If you've read the source, can we please have it back?

Quadell was the only other editor who had voted (and I believe he didn't go through your entire collection of images to arrive at what I see as one too many images on the same subject). And I normally go for a user's images since someone who's uploaded more than one copyvio image is likely to have done more such images. It so happenned that you'd uploaded a lot. Remember, not all your images were tagged until I did it. And I think you should consider the flip side of the coin as well and that not all offensive sounding editors are doing it with bad intent. Fair use is applicable only in the US so the images you use are limited only to the internet version and if you upload free images then they would also come in any format (CD, print etc.) and fit for use in the international market. Idleguy 20:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Quadell is an expert on images in Wikipedia and their legal status, so he's a good person to take advice from. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Idleguy's paragraphs

I have re-added the para claiming donations go mainly to professional organizers, etc, as a direct quote from the source Idleguy provided.

As of now, only the following points from eis original paragraphs are not present: critics say that basic human rights and human welfare are more important than animal rights and are being ignored by animal rights activists, such critics use Africa as an example of an area lacking these basic rights and welfare, such critics ask animal rights activist to improve all human conditions to the level of animal conditions before trying to improve animal conditions.

While Idleguy may consider these points obvious, it is a basic tenent of Wikipedia that any fact can be questioned and a source required. IMO, the final goal for Wikipedia is to have each and every claim made in the 'pedia have multiple reliable sources. Also, these seem like claims for which sources should be available; if critics have said this, we ought to be able to quote them directly. Thanks again to everyone for working to improve the 'pedia! JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

animal welfare in intro

It seems a bit odd that the intro contains two large paragraphs about animal rights followed by one small paragraph on animal welfare, followed by a paragraph of animal rights criticism of animal welfare. I see two large "animal rights" paragraph and one small "animal welfare" paragraph to already be skewed in the favor of animal rights, and tacking on the "animal rights" criticism of "animal welfare" seems to be over the top favoritism. I think it is already clear that animal rights advocates think that anything less than animal rights is morally unacceptable, and I don't see a reason to include it as a pot-shot against animal welfare. The PETA quote of "something is better than nothing" seems grasping. Animal rights say they are against cruelty and exploitation. The animal welfare POV says their POV is not exploitive or cruel. That should be the end of it. FuelWagon 16:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the National Beef association as a source and replaced it with the Foundation for Animal Use Education as a source. Their website has a lot more information, links, and quotes. FuelWagon 23:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Animal Rights and POV pushing

SlimVirgin: you did a blind revert of quite a bit of work I had done. Your edit summary said it was "minor", and you made no mention of why you did the revert on the talk page. I find it interesting since you were the one who was complaining about the National Cattleman quotation as being "inappropriate", so I went and found a more "appropriate" source. I replaced the criticism paragraph quoting the Cattlemen organization with sourced quotes from notable experts and a URL to back up each and every one of them. Yet you reverted it, completely, wholly, and without a single word of explanation, marking your revert as "minor". Given the emphasis by wikipedia on the importance of source quotes from notable experts with URL's to back them up, perhaps you could give some sort of a legitimate explanation for your massive revert of all these sourced quotes from notable experts with URL's to back them up. Without any such explanation, I'm left to assume this was simply the product of POV pushing on your part. FuelWagon 15:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, the problem here is that you are loading up the intro with multiple paragraphs of disjointed quotes, evidence, and critiques of the animal rights perspective. This isn't appropriate in the intro, especially as the first two paragraphs of the introduction do not provide any support for the animal rights perspective, they simply characterize it. Two descriptive paragraphs followed by a lengthy polemic against animal rights is hardly an NPOV lead. The debate can be presented in the body of the article. Let's just leave the lead as it is, without presenting supporting information for either the pros or antis. Or perhaps add a brief third paragraph characterizing the animal welfare perspective, or acknowledging that the animal rights movement has critics who come from a range of perspectives. But the polemics really need to stay out. Babajobu 10:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we are editing different articles. The one I'm editing opens with the following sentence:

Animal rights, or animal liberation, is the movement to protect non-human animals from being exploited by humans.

So, while I agree that were an intro to strictly talk about what something is in an undisputed, neutral, unbiased, non-favored way, I find it laughable that anyone can suggest that accusations of explotation in the first sentence in any way qualifies as simply defining what "animal rights" as a topic is. Far from it. This intro starts out immediately and in the first sentence as condemning the non-animal-rights view as exploitive of animals. Sorry, but this doesn't pass even the sloppiest application of "neutral" unless neutral is defined by PeTA advocates, whom, I would not be surprised, would include some of the editors involved here. This is not "simply characterizing" animal rights, this intro is clearly advocating for animal rights and advocating against anything less than full personhood as exploitation. This intro is anything but neutral and in condemning anything less than full-animal-rights, the intro needs to present the point of view of those it condemns in the opening sentence as exploiters. FuelWagon 04:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

felonious monk

re: this complete deletion: the introduction must at least mention the other major points of view around the topic or it fails NPOV. there is a major POV that opposes "animal rights" and it goes by the name "animal welfare". First SlimVirgin deleted the paragraph I added because she said it was "too long". Then she deleted it saying "don't just list quotes". So I did a complete rewrite, and now you delete it because it is "redundant"? Nice. The intro contains a short sample of the animal welfare POV. It is not redundant with the main text because the main text contains the full background of that POV. Quotes are given more context, etc. Any major point made in the intro should be covered again in the body of the article, or it wasn't worth introducing. It isn't "redundant", it's good editing: introduce the topic in the intro, then go into full detail in the body of the article. FuelWagon 16:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

trying to "understand" the "neutral" introduction

Since SlimVirgin is claiming I don't understand NPOV policy, I thought I'd review the introduction that she is claiming to be "neutral" and break it down word-by-word, phrase-by-phrase. Here are a few intersting little tidbits I found in the current introduction that someone who has more "understanding" of NPOV than I, can perhaps explain to me: (FuelWagon 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC))

protect non-human animals from being exploited by humans.

Funny, this would seem to imply that to not support animal rights is to allow exploitation of humans. Can someone tell me how exploitation is neutral? Because it would seem to me that there are "animal welfare" advocates who vehemently oppose "animal rights" who would deny that they actually support "exploitation". Now, my "understanding" of NPOV is that if one source makes a claim that is "disputed" by another main source, then you should present both sources. But apparently, people who better "understand" NPOV can somehow interpret it to mean that "animal rights" sources can make whatever accusations they wish, and even if those accusations are in dispute, other points of view are not needed because the article is just "characterizing" animal rights, and so other points of view, even about hotly disputed and emotional terms as "exploitation", aren't needed in the intro. So, someone will have to explain this to me, because to me it just looks like we are letting the pro-animal-rights sources "advocate" their "point of view", and are forbidding other points of view regarding disputed topics. But that's just little ol' me. FuelWagon 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

not merely to attain more humane treatment for animals

Again, I just have a funny interpretation of this piece. See, it seems to me that it implies that to not support animal rights is to not support humane treatment of animals. And I happen to have a notable source or two with verbatim quotes that dispute that claim directly. But for some reason, we only "characterize" the topic of "animal rights" from the "point of view" of animal rights "advocates", apparently. For some reason the ponit of view of "animal welfare" folks with regard to the idea of whether or not they treat animals "humanely" isn't important. See, that's just more of my not "understanding" NPOV. Because if one source says they want humane treatment by granting personhood and another source says they want humane treatment by guaranteeing "animal welfare", well, to me, that says both points of view must be reported. But apparently, again, we only report the POV of the "advocates" here, because we are just "characterizing" what animal rights "is". And apparently, "characterizing" what something is, is done by reporting the point of views of the advocates, and excluding any other countering point of view. I apparently missed that in the NPOV tutorial. FuelWagon 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

include many animals within the moral community

And of course, terms like "moral" are completely neutral, non-emotional, non-hot-button, not loaded, and most importantly, not disputed by any other notable source. Yeah, right. FuelWagon 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

not being made to suffer unnecessarily

Again, I believe the definitino of "animal welfare" directly countered the idea that only "animal rights" will make sure that animals won't suffer unnecessarily. It would seem to me, and I realize that it is probably because I don't "understand" NPOV, but it would seem to me that something directly contradicted by a notable source should be reported alongside the implication that only full animal rights will make sure that animals do not suffer unnecessarily. FuelWagon 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

non-human animals must no longer be regarded legally or morally as property, or treated merely as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as persons

"must no longer be regarded legally or morally" Wow. Someone who has more "understanding" of NPOV, please tell me how a "moral imperitive" is neutral, even when that imperitive is disputed by a notable source such as the "animal welfare" groups? Because to poor, little, no-understanding me, it looks like a moral imperitive comes with a moral condemnation of anything less than full animal rights, and since I have a notable source that directly disputes that moral imperitive and moral condemnation, it would seem to me that the POV should be reported. FuelWagon 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

the movement advocates that many animals be given legal rights to protect their basic interests.

Again, I have an "animal welfare" source that disputes this claim. And someone who "understands" NPOV will have to explain why we only report the pro-animal-rights point of view here, rather than both points of view around the topic. FuelWagon 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

article RfC

I've tried to summarize what I see as biased, disputed, and emotionally loaded language in the introduction here. The relevant history up to this point is as follows:

05:27, 5 November 2005 My first edit to this article was to present the "animal welfare" point of view, which is a notable source that disputes some of the more emotionally loaded claims listed above.

01:00, 21 November 2005 SlimVirgin rewrote my paragraph to weaken it, with the edit summary "tidied rights/welfare paragraph". She added criticism of the animal welfare view, saying animal welfare folks "tend not to make any deeper philosophical claims" and that "the distinction is not clear-cut". From what sources she got these views, I am not sure. And she added criticism from Francione and from PeTA.

16:13, 21 November 2005 I reinsert the verbatim quote from the National Cattleman's Beef Association. I leave part of SlimVirgin's added criticism from Francione and PETA.

16:43, 21 November 2005 I remove Francione's criticism since it is already established in teh first two paragraphs. It is added after the "animal welfare" pov simply to weaken the animal welfare pov.

23:09, 21 November 2005 SlimVirgin does a complete revert, edit summary says that the National Cattleman's Beef Association quote about animal welfare and animal rights was not "appropriate".

04:26, 22 November 2005 I reinsert the NCBA quotes. Edit summary says that the NCBA URL provided includes the quotes "ranchers have long been concerned with the welfare of livestock" and "NCBA monitors the animal rights issue", therefore the NCBA qualifies as an "appropriate" counterview, despite SlimVirgin's claim to the contrary.

23:31, 22 November 2005 I replace the NCBA quote views from the "Foundation for Animal Use Education". This source contains views that directly contradict the views being given in the first two paragraphs of the introduction (the pro-animal-rights part of the intro).

23:44, 22 November 2005 I make a number of edits to my piece of the intro to improve it, tighten it, add URL's, etc.

01:45, 23 November 2005 SlimVirgin performs a "minor" edit doing a complete reversion to her version of introduction. No explanation on talk page. edit summary simply says revert.

15:16, 23 November 2005 I reinsert verbatim quotes from notable experts/sources with URLs to verify, and shorten it a bit from previous version, in case "length" was an issue.

15:25, 23 November 2005 SlimVirgin reverts to her version. Edit summary: "take the list out of the intro; it's bad writing to just list who says what, makes the intro too long."

21:22, 23 November 2005 I perform a number of edits. I reinsert the animal welfare point of view, and condense it down into a single paragraph in the introduction. The argument that it is "too long" no longer applies. I also improve the "criticism" section in the main article with URL's, quotes, etc,

01:47, 24 November 2005 FeloniousMonk removes all criticism from the introduction and moves it to the body of the article towards the end. The introduction now contains only the pro-animal-rights point of view, even on topics and concepts that are directly disputed by "animal welfare" sources.

16:39, 24 November 2005 I revert. edit summary "intro must include at least the main opposing views of the topic or it fails to satisfy NPOV"

08:41, 25 November 2005 SlimVirgin reverts to version by FeloniousMonk. Edit summary: "FuelWagon has misunderstood NPOV again, and anyway this addition is not good writing and not appropriate for the intro". Apparently, even a single paragraph in the introduction is too long. And apparently, I do not "understand" her interpretation of NPOV policy that allows the introduction to a topic report nothing but the point of view of sources advocating in favor of a particular view.

Essentially, what we are talking about is an introduction that would look like this. The third paragraph in the intro of that version is apparently "too long", and apparently a result of my not "understanding" NPOV. It contains the views of notable sources, verbatim quotes attributed to their sources who said them, with URL's to verify their accuracy. But apparently, that isn't NPOV policy. What it appears to me to be happening is that SlimVirgin is a pro-animal-rights editor who is letting her personal views affect what she will allow to be reported in the article, whether or not it has anything to do with NPOV policy or not. The first two paragraphs of the introduction contain numerous disputed claims, a number of emotionally laden views, and is clearly biased as being "pro-animal-rights". by the simple fact that some of the claims are disputed, that should be enough to require the reporting of other sources that dispute those views. That the first two paragraphs contain emotionally laden language almost requires that the opposing view also be reported as well. The final argument from some of the pro-animal-rights editors appears to be "put the criticism in the article, not the intro". Which simply does not fly in my book. You can't report one side's emotionally laden point of view, which contains implied accusations of wrong doing on the part of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their point of view, without actually giving the other points fo view at least some chance to report their side of the story. Two paragraphs in the intro are clearly pro-animal-rights. The third paragraph I am trying to insert reports verbatim quotes from notable sources from the "animal welfare" poitn of view and contains numerous URL's for anyone to verify their accuracy. I see no legitimate reason for this paragraph to be deleted, other than to have the "animal rights" article actually advocate for animal rights, rather than report the various poitns of view around the topic. FuelWagon 05:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You're being disruptive once again, provocatively editing a page I've been editing for a while but you only recently arrived on, reverting against consensus, and making edits that clearly show you don't know the subject. Please stop it. The addition you've made to the intro is badly written. It's just a collection of quotes, taken from one website, and attributed to unnamed "critics" in some cases, or activists in others. An intro should be authoritative and well written, and should be an overview of the subject. If anyone has to be quoted, it should be an academic, because this is not about animal-rights activism, or not only that, but about the philosophical position. The animal rights v animal welfare/protection line you're drawing is simplistic and slightly old hat (all the big rights groups are into welfare, and then there are groups that aren't but also aren't animal rights, but animal liberation, so "critics opposed to animal rights generally support animal welfare" could mean anything. The intro as it stood was NPOV, because it was just a description. Didn't support and didn't criticize animal rights. Please abide by the consensus and stop reverting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you are being a biased editor once again. You were a blatantly pro-israel and pro-jewish editor on several articles about Israel and now you're being a blatant pro-animal-rights editor on this article and the veganism article. I find your accusations of "disruption" to be rather stale, given how blatantly biased your articles tend to be. I haven't made the intro "badly written", you've made the intro a complete animal-rights propaganda piece, deleting any significant view that is critical of the animal rights movement. That isn't NPOV. And there was no "consensus" other than you and a couple editors. Find me a consensus of animal-welfare editors who support your intro, with all the criticism deleted, and then you might have something. But right now, a "consensus" of a couple of rabid pro-animal-rights editors is not a consensus of anything. And besides, once again, you have forgotten one very important wikipedia rule: Consensus does not override NPOV policy. I know this is upsetting to someone like you with your roving gang of revert buddies who show up at every article you edit to revert to your version, but that's the way it works. No matter how many meat puppets you scrounge up, you cannot suppress significant critical views of animal rights from the intro without violating NPOV policy. You'll have to do your animal-rights propaganda piece somewhere else. Wikipedia is about reporting all points of view. FuelWagon 14:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, if you think the present intro is biased, that can be addressed. Slim already changed the word "exploited" because you made a legitimate point about the assumptions that underlie that word. But the answer is not to put a sloppy jambalaya of critical quotes at the end of the lead. There is room in the article for lots of quotes and citations, but not in the introduction. That's not how introductions are written. What we need to do is identify and address your specific complaints with the lead as it exists now, rather than dump all this inappropriate material on top of it. Babajobu 07:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The topic is "animal rights". The intro written by SlimVirgin reports only the pro-animal rights point of view. There are other points of view about the topic of animal rights that SlimVirgin, you, and others are deleting. The introduction is not a "pro-animal-rights" area only. The intro is a place to report the various points of view about a topic that cover the main views of the topic. And one "main view" of animal rights is that it puts animals before people, that it makes humans second class citizens, and that animal rights advocates have been quoted to say they'd let a baby die before a dog, or that they'd refuse to let one rat die in medical experiments even if it would save millions of human lives. That's a significant point of view about what "animal rights" is, and it is being suppressed by PETA advocates like SlimVirgin because of her personal beliefs, not because it gives a complete view of animal rights. SlimVirgin is deleting anythign from the introduction that makes animal rights "look bad", and that is in complete violation of NPOV policy. FuelWagon 14:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)