Talk:Animal rights/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

I edited the page.

On controversy for Animal Rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.69.101 (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Misleading

As a newcomer to this article, I have to say the whole thing has a very misleading tone to it. Essentially, it paints a picture of Animal Rights being far more common and accepted a view by the mainstream than they in fact are. Assigning moral rights (as opposed to mere welfare) to animals is an extreme position, advocated by a tiny proportion of philosophers and indeed the public in general. Someone reading this article from a position of naivity would be persuaded that animals have rights, and that the consensus is that medical animal testing is akin to the holocaust. The whole article needs a rewrite, and in particular, how the paragraph on the holocaust got past the more senior edittors is beyond me 86.3.34.97 10:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I heartily agree. The article is deceptive from the outset; the very first sentence (which quotes the second source) is just plain wrong when compared to the cited source; saying that all members of the animal rights movement feel that animals should have the same rights as humans is not the same as saying that animals should have some basic rights. Additionally, the third source in the article equates "Animal rights advocates" (as the article refers to them) with official PETA statements (check the source; the source refers to PETA, not animal rights advocates in general); PETA is a relatively extreme arm of the animal rights movement (both in policies and in tactics) and to equate PETA with the animal rights movement as a whole is grossly inaccurate. Needs work.

I also agree70.74.162.9 (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kudos It is deplorable to bring animals into the sphere of humans in philosophical terms. They have noble uses: as companions, food sources, ecological food web links. The thought of attributing my dog a soul or purchasing auto insurance policies to further enslave me economically is where I get off the PETA crazy train. I have a neighbor who had a funeral for his cat. $3,000 bucks! What an idiot. Bobosthecatlover (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please leave opinions at home, Wikipedia is not a forum. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 07:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Unclear paragraph

It's not clear below who is saying what. The first sentence says that Kathleen Kete argued something, but then we cite Arluke and Sax. Which part exactly is being attributed to Kete, and which to the others?

Also "Composer Richard Wagner urges attacks on laboratories and physical assault on vivisectionists, whom he associated with Jews — presumably because of kosher killing methods.

Who is the source of "presumably," and do they use that word? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Nazis, argues Kete, brought in the most comprehensive animal protection laws in Europe, including the banning of kosher slaughter. Vivisecton was chacterized as "Jewish" and banned. Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax argue that Nazi animal protection measures "may have been a legal veil to level an attack on the Jews. In making this attack, the Nazis allied themselves with animals since both were portrayed as victims of 'oppressors' such as Jews.'" Composer Richard Wagner urged attacks on laboratories and physical assault on vivisectionists, whom he associated with Jews — presumably because of kosher killing methods.

Notes

Alexander Cockburn uses the word in this article published in New Left Review[1].Farnsworth J 00:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, JF. The sentence in our article is identical to the sentence in the source. It should be rewritten so as not to constitute plagiarism, and making it clear who said it because otherwise it's not clear whether Wikipedia is saying it, or Cockburn, or Arluke and Sax. Same with the Kathleen Kete reference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't just keep on restoring the shechita section. What does it have to do with animal rights? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

See [2]

Anti-Shechita Campaigns

In recent years, the Jewish practice of shechita, or ritual animal slaughter to obtain kosher meat, has met fierce opposition and has even been banned in a handful of European countries. These debates often have anti-Semitic undertones. Some attacks come from animal rights activists who accuse Jews of cruelty because animals are not stunned before being slaughtered. Anti-Shechita critiques also tie into older stereotypes of the bloodthirsty Jew (deicide, profanation of the Host, Lex Talionis, blood libel) and to contemporary vilifying of Israeli leaders as butchers.

If animal rights activists are known to campaign against the practise then it has everything to do with animal rights. Farnsworth J 02:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you've lifted this section from another article, and so it wasn't written with this article in mind. Are you also going to write a section on every single other thing animal rights activists campaign against? If so, it's going to become a very long page. It's better just to provide a link somewhere to the article on shechita. There's no issue involving shechita in particular that AR activists focus on; it's the meat industry in general that is criticized. And anyway this isn't an article about animal rights activism. See Animal liberation movement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Then rewrite it but please don't remove it since it's clear that animal rights activists have protested against shechita in Europe and America. Here is another source "Observant Jews should only eat meat or poultry that has been killed in the approved way, called shechita. This method of killing is often attacked by animal rights activists as barbaric blood-thirsty ritual slaughter."[3]

"The Farm Animal Welfare Council in England is scheduled to present a report in June to the British government recommending that all animals be stunned before being slaughtered. Jewish authorities unanimously stated that this is unacceptable. In fact a group of Jewish leaders walked out of a meeting with the FAWC in March when discussions broke down."[4]

"German animal rights groups, the German Animal Protection League and the Union Against Abuse of Animals, maligned the ruling permitting halal slaughter and said that they would continue their quest for a European ban on all forms of ritual slaughter which they consider cruel to animals. They vowed to take their campaign across Europe and to the European Union."[5]Farnsworth J 02:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you reverted me since I did what you asked, I rewrote the "plagiarized" sentence on Richard Wagner and I've given you citations to show that schechita is something animal rights activists talk about. Can you please write something about schehita based on the above sources? Farnsworth J 02:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please answer:

1) Could you please say (third time of asking) what ritual slaughter has to do with the concept of animals rights, as opposed to (some) animal rights activists?

2) What does the banning of ritual slaughter by some govts have to do with the concept of animal rights (or even animal rights activists)?

3) Are you going to write a section about everything animal rights activists campaign against, and if not, why single out that one? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask animal rights groups and activists why they campaign against ritual slaughter? Why do you think the German Animal Protection League and the Union Against Abuse of Animals are campaigning to ban all ritual slaughter in Europe? Xenophobia? A belief that foreigners and their practices are barbaric? A belief that the religious practices of others can easily be "updated"? A belief that animal rights trump those of ethnic minorities? Or that banning some forms of slaughter can help move society, step by step, to an ultimate total ban? Or just that ritual slaughter is cruel and even if we cannot ban slaughter altogether we can at least make it more humane?

It is quite clear that animal rights activists have much to do with the banning of ritual slaughter in several countries since they urged such a ban and the section on animal rights and anti-semitism says some interesting theoretical points about the intersection of animal rights and racism so it has everything to do with animal rights activists and, historically, with at least one school of animal rights thought, the far right nazi school.

As for your third question there is, I believe, some link between far-right anti-immigrant activism and some militant animal rights activists, those in the "deep ecology" and human population reduction movements. I could write something about that if you like. I don't think there is enough on wikipedia (hardly anything, really) about animal rights and fascist/far right thought - instead there's an emphasis on the animal rights movement as warm and fuzzy idealists. That element of fascist thought that is anti-modernist, anti-industrialist and harkens back to a medeaval pastoralism is a major influence in the animal rights movement and animal rights thought and was, some would say, the dominant strain until just a few decades ago. Farnsworth J 04:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This support for animal rights is also found in today's fascists. German neo-Nazis have used the slogan "Stop animal experiments - use Turks instead" (1).

In the UK, the animal rights policies of fascist groups have been documented by the internationally-respected anti-fascist journal Searchlight (2).

A leading Green Party member was sufficiently to concerned to say that "Eco-fascism is on the march" and noted that "Despite their hatred of other races the far right have become animal lovers" (3)

A group of UK fascists aligned with Italy's neo-fascists established an AR organisation called Greenwave. Its aims include:

"Total ban on all animal experiments

Total ban on the use of animals in ANY form of entertainment

Total ban on ALL hunting or shooting of animals"

In its 4th issue, the UK AR magazine Arkangel published no less than 5 letters from members of this group and other fascists, defending the rights of fascists to take part in AR groups and spelling out their AR credentials(4).

None of this is intended to imply that *all* AR supporters are card-carrying fascists. However, it does make it clear that support for AR is certainly not 'progressive' and in fact is confined to the political fringes. No major political party of the left or right supports the AR agenda.

1) Searchlight (1988) no.161:19.

2)'The Greening of the Brownshirts' Searchlight(1989) no.165

3)' The Green Shirt Effect' Searchlight(1989) no.168:4-5

4)'They're no Arkangels' Searchlight (1991) no.189:12

Why is there no information on fascist theories of animal rights in the article?

There is quite a lot of literature on fascist theory and animal rights. See for instance

Although this widespread overlap between animal liberation politics and the xenophobic and authoritarian right may seem incongruous, it has played a prominent role in the history of fascism since the early twentieth century. Many fascist theoreticians prided themselves on their movement’s steadfast rejection of anthropocentrism, and the German variant of fascism in particular frequently tended toward an animal rights position. Nazi biology textbooks insisted that “there exist no physical or psychological characteristics which would justify a differentiation of mankind from the animal world.”18 Hitler himself was zealously committed to animal welfare causes, and was a vegetarian and opponent of vivisection. His lieutenant Goebbels declared: “The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any serious basis. They are totally unanswerable.”19 Other leading Nazis, like Rudolf Hess, were even stricter in their vegetarianism, and the party promoted raw fruits and nuts as the ideal diet, much like the most scrupulous vegans today. Himmler excoriated hunting and required the top ranks of the SS to follow a vegetarian regimen, while Goering banned animal experimentation.Ambiguities of Animal Rights.

This is an important area that our articles completely ignore. Instead of being hostile I would hope that you would welcome the addition of aspects of the topic that have been completely absent up until now.Farnsworth J 05:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. If you want to write a section or article on animal rights and fascism, do so if your sources are good. But you still have not explained what European countries banning ritual slaughter has to do with the concept of animal rights. Please answer that question (fourth time I've asked) or leave the section out.

The more succinct your response, the more likely it is that people will read it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your full question was "2) What does the banning of ritual slaughter by some govts have to do with the concept of animal rights (or even animal rights activists)?" I've already answered it several times, numerous animal rights activists and groups have advocated the banning of ritual slaughter thus animal rights activists have everything to do with the ban. If you want to know what the ban has to do with animal rights you'd be best to ask the groups what their motivations were. I've provided some ideas on that question already. Farnsworth J 05:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fifth time

Okay, I'm going to ask the question for a fifth time. This time I will split it into two parts so you can address both:

1) What does the banning of ritual slaughter by some European govts have to do with the concept of animal rights, which is the subject matter of this article?

2) Why do you believe that animal rights activists had anything to do with the European bans, given that European govts routinely and steadfastly ignore the animal rights movement? Please provide a source showing the connection between the movement and the bans.

And the other question again (third time I've asked this one):

3) Are you going to write a section on everything the animal rights movement campaigns against? If not, why not? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've answered your questions though I notice you are altering them every so slightly each time you ask them - the tactic of repeating the same questions ad nauseum is a clever tactic aimed at grinding someone down but it's not a very collegial one. I notice you've answered none of my questions. Farnsworth J 16:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

1) If the banning of ritual slaughter has nothing to do with the "concept of animal rights" why do various animal rights groups campaign against it[6]? I've asked you this several times, you've yet to provide an answer. It's quite obvious that some of them are campaigning on this question because they are trying to reduce the perceived harm to animals. However, given the aformentioned evidence of fascists in the animal rights movement there may be some ulterior motives.

2) "Switzerland's government recently abandoned a proposed law that would have legalized ritual animal sacrifice.

"Ritual animal slaughter has been illegal in Switzerland since 1893. The change in the law was supported by Jewish and Muslim leaders who expressed disappointment at the abandonment of the law.

"The government's about face came after animal rights activists began campaigning against the law earlier this year". "Bill legalising ritual animal sacrifice." Luke Coppen, The Times (London), March 16, 2002.

3) I don't know yet, is this a requirement? Farnsworth J 17:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And if you actually read the passage you're autonomically reverting you'll see that some time ago I added a reference and citation for animal rights groups being involved in the bans in response to your objection. Farnsworth J 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, do you intend to add anything about the history of fascism and animal rights in the 'History of the concept' section of the article? If not, why not?Farnsworth J 17:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to calm down a bit here. Slim's questions are valid and serve a purpose.

I think maybe all we need in this article is a small mention of ritual slaughter being opposed by animal rights groups and maybe a link to another article on the matter. As Slim says, if we include a detailed look at this area of protesting, why not include one on the hundreds of other areas of similar scale - this would lead to a huge article. Instead the article should cover the concept of animal rights and have links to other areas.-Localzuk ^(talk) 18:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That's different from what SlimVirgin has been doing which is removing all references to the modern movement against ritual slaughter in the mistaken belief that opposition to it has nothing to do with animal rights. There is a small mention of it, it links to a more substantial reference to it in New anti-Semitism but SlimVirgin has been removing it. Farnsworth J 18:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Slim's questions are valid and serve a purpose." Repeating the same questions over and over again after they've been answered seves no purpose. The first line of the article makes it clear that it is about the animal rights movement as well as theory but SlimVirgin is overlooking that so she can dismiss all references to animal rights groups campaigning against ritual slaughter. She's playing a game and it's gotten tiresome. Farnsworth J 18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not been forthcoming with acceptable answers (until now when you have provided a good response to question 1 and 2). However your response to 3 is still not acceptable in my view. Instead you have decided to continue arguing instead of giving a reason why this piece of information should be included over the many other areas of animal rights protest.-Localzuk ^(talk) 19:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm obtuse but I didn't see the point of the third question. It was not my intention to introduce a laundry list of everything the animal rights movement opposes, instead, I'm interested in aspects of the animal rights movement which have or had not been touched upon such as the links between fascist or right wing anti-modernist thought and the animal rights movement. Thus, the animal rights movement's role in opposing ritual slaughter is interesting. I also think that the Eurocentrism and xenophobia of aspects of the AR movement have not been considered in this article and it would be valuable to look at the AR and its relationship to indigenous peoples and practices so perhaps a look at the anti-fur and anti-sealing campaigns would be interesting. In short, I'm not interested in writing a section on everything the AR movement opposes but simply in examaming two or three things they oppose and how this relates to fascsism, xenophobia, Europcentrism and/or cultural intolerance. Farnsworth J 21:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to remind people again that this article is note solely on the "concept of animal rights" but on the animal rights movement. The first sentence of the article reads "Animal rights, animal liberation, or animal personhood, is the movement to protect animals from being used or regarded as property by human beings." Therefore discussion the relationship between the movement and anti-Semitism, xenophobia, fascism etc is within the purview of the article as long as the information is sourced. Since this information is sourced there is no acceptable reason to conintually remove it from the article and I ask that this behaviour cease. That the animal rights movement, or parts of it, campaigned against ritual slaughter has been demonstrated quite clearly so it should not be removed even if there is a personal POV that the ritual slaughter question is outside of AR.Farnsworth J 21:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

On this note, I would like to suggest that maybe the article be split into 2. One being a discussion of animal rights philosophy/concept and the other being the movement. As it is 58k in size at present adding anything else to it will make it obscenly oversized IMO. What do people think about this? (I understand it could be a difficult task to undertake at first, but once it is done it should make the information easier to maintain.)-Localzuk ^(talk) 21:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I could go along with that. We do already have an article at Animal liberation movement, so we could perhaps move material into that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples

Absent from this article is any discussion of the conflict between the animal rights movement and the rights of indigenous peoples to continue traditional hunting and trapping practises. This dovetails into the perceived intolerance of animal rights theory for the rights of religious and ethnic minorities ie the cultural eurocentrism of AR. Farnsworth J 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but why not be bold and add something about it then. Ensuring to include reliable, verifiable, sources. -Localzuk ^(talk) 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would if I could be assured it wouldn't be removed as the part of ritual slaughter was. Farnsworth J 18:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If you keep it on-topic and stick closely to what the sources are saying (but don't copy them), it should be fine. The problem with your ritual slaughter section is that you copied it out of another article, so it wasn't really suitable here, and animal rights activists don't only campaign against ritual slaughter. It might be better in Animal liberation movement; only put it here if it's about the concept of animal rights.

Please see the first line of the article, it's explicitly about the animal rights movement and obviously the idea of fascist and xenophobic influences on animal rights practices is germane to the concept of animal rights. It may not be your POV of animal rights but it is part of the intellectual tradition of the concept nevertheless and remains present today in some circles. Farnsworth J 04:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I shortened the lead section a little as it was getting a bit top heavy (my fault). I'll find somewhere else in the article to put the material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited in the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights, and was (rightfully) reverted by SlimVirgin. However, I do think that the distinction needs to made fairly early on and I would do it myself but it would seem that Slim is currently working on that. Just in case SlimVirgin finished editing the intro, I still think it's a little top heavy, in case not: Sorry, just pointin' out the obvious.Angrynight 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears we're in agreement, then. Angrynight 01:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, AN. With hindsight, you were right to introduce that distinction right at the beginning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Campaigns

Farnsworth, are you going to create a separate section on each thing the AR movement campaigns for? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, see my earlier comments above. Farnsworth J 05:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer that question. If you're not going to write about their other campaigns, why not? Ritual slaughter is just one of the many issues they campaign against. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you are finally admitting that the animal rights movement does campaign against ritual slaughter, as to the rest of your question please see my earlier comments [7]. Farnsworth J 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read your comments. The part I removed had nothing whatsoever to do with fascism or xenophobia within the AR movement. But this article is anyway not about the AR movement. It is about the concept of animal rights, and about the movement only insofar as they express different ideas about concept. It is not about activism or specific campaigns. The page is already too long. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because it is your personal opinion that the opposition to ritual slaughter has nothing to do with the concept of animal rights doesn't mean that's the case. Obviously, those in the animal rights movement who oppose ritual slaughter think it has a lot to do with the concept. As for having nothing to do with fascism or xenophobia, that's your opinion. Like it or not those views are held by some animal rights activists, particularly in Europe and I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the historical relationship between fascism, xenophobia and the animal rights movement has no influence on the modern movement or do you view Briget Bardot and David Icke as aberrations? Please read this article.Farnsworth J 06:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Farnsworth, but you added a huge chunk of text that is plain not relevant to the article. I have removed it. The reason it is not relevant is that it does not cover an animal rights issue, instead it covers an animal welfare issue - which is not the same. I am still not entirely happy with that is left but I have to go to work now so will have a look later.-Localzuk ^(talk) 06:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving a chunk of activism material to Animal liberation movement to cut down on length here. I'm going to put it in there more or less as it is, but it's badly written and trite, so I'll edit it when I have time. I would have removed the rest of Farnsworth's stuff about various countries banning ritual slaughter, but I'd removed it three times already and so had to leave it in to avoid 3RR, but I moved it to the activism section in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to LZ's wholesale removal of Farnsworth's well-sourced and highly relevant text. I agree that it could be shortened, but not totally removed. It clearly is relevant to the animal liberation movement, and this is clearly well supported by the sources put forth by Farnsworth. Why don't we discuss how we caqn shorten and summarize the section rather than entering into yet another revert war??? Nrets 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nrets, the material is regarding animal welfare. Could you explain how + In the 1930s and 40s, the anti-vivisectionist movement saw vivisection as "the extreme expression of European rationalism," says Kete. "It represented the evils of modernity. In some circles in Switzerland and Germany, an earlier representation of modernity and its dangers — the Jew — merged with the image of the scientist. 'Jewish science' was targeted by anti-vivisectionists and 'Jewish' treatment of animals — evidenced in kosher butchering, and countered by vegetarianism — was deplored." is relevant to animal rights? There is a large chunk of text there which is only interested in the belief that 'anti-vivisectionists' were 'anti-jew' during hitler's reign. Surely this should be at Vivisection rather than here.

I still think that 90% of this section should be removed as it is just plain not relevant, as animal rights itself is only mentioned, directly, once. We seriously need to trim it down. Also, do not simply think I am the only one objecting to it - there has been at least one other editor who also removed it (in fact they removed all of it).-Localzuk ^(talk) 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the History section, there are passages there that describe how some of the early animal rights movement stems from the animal welfare movemnt and is related to opposition to vivisection. While yes, this passage does seem more realted to animal welfare (as defined by SV), it does deal with some of the historical roots of the animal rights movement, thus it is very relevant. One thing which I've done, is to move this to the history section, where it fits better and has a little more context. Nrets 17:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't work out what Nrets and the anon had done between them, so I restored my version. Nrets, if you feel the material is relevant to animal rights activism (rather than the concept), please move it to Animal liberation movement. There are lots of different issues being mixed up here, and the whole thing is confused further by the fact that Farnsworth originally copied this section from an article on anti-Semitism.

If the issue of animal rights and fascism really is a burning issue that we should cover, there will be more than one source out there, so could someone please produce one other authoritative source who explicitly links animal rights or animal liberation with fascism/xenophobia? If there aren't any other sources, that should tell us something. See WP:NPOV about tiny-minority views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The anon did a small edit and then reverted it, so I've restored my version. Slim, if you had taken a closer look at my edits you would have seen that most of this was moved to the History section, which links historically animal welfare and animal rights. As far as the bit about recent campaigns against Kosher practices, that I agree that it can go, since it isn't too relevant to the modern AR movement. Nrets 14:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've trimmed the section further, and restored the history section. I'll work on trimming that throughout the day, so please don't revert. Nrets 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please move it to the article on activism, as it's about whether the movement is progressive or not, which is not about the concept. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you playing at SV. I spent time trying to make these edits fit and you just simply revert them. These edits are about the history of animal rights, not animal rights activism as you claim, by your logic we should move most of the history section out of the article. If you revert my edits once more I will remove the rest of the history section too. Please provide a better reason for removing my edits, I object to what you are doing, and I am not the only editor who things this section is relevant to the article. Nrets 01:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The only editor you are agreeing with is J Farnsworth, which appears to be an alternate account. If you look back into the archives, edits along these lines have been opposed by several editors, and in addition, it strikes me that you're not sure of what you're adding. For example, you reverted my edits, using the EB as a source. Can you tell me what the EB says? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to Animal liberation movement. Please keep anything about activism on that page, and leave this page for the concept and philosophy. Otherwise it will get far too long. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I've moved the following to Animal liberation as well, since it really does deal with activism:

By the late 20th century, animal welfare societies and laws against cruelty to animals existed in almost every country in the world. Specialized animal advocacy groups also proliferated, including those dedicated to the preservation of endangered species and others, like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), that protested against painful or brutal methods of hunting animals, the mistreatment of animals raised for human food in factory farms, and the use of animals in experiments and entertainment.

01:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're editing disruptively again. If you're interested in animal welfare, why not edit in that area, instead of here, when you seem to have no knowledge? Animal welfare could use some work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, Farnsworth is not me, and you know better than to accuse me of using sockpuppets. Finally, you have not answered my question as to why this is not relevant to the history of AR? Nrets 01:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you were Farnsworth, but how would I "know better" than to accuse you of using sockpuppets? As I recall, you've edited from quite a few names/IP addresses. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The recent addition about ritual slaughter is far too specific for a general article, especially one that's already way too long, and especially because that particular campaign is not nearly the most important AR campaign of all the ones that could be included, not by a longshot. I suggest that that material be moved to another, separate article. -MichaelBluejay 07:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The issue of "links" between animal rights and racism should be a small and should be written in an NPOV way as part of a "criticism of animal rights" section. MikeHobday 09:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, and I'd also like to point out that it makes little sense to include the section under animal rights, as (to my understanding) proponents of animal rights would oppose animal slaughter in whatever form. As such it makes as little sense to note the opposition to kosher/halal methods of slaughter in an article on animal rights as it would to mention opposition to the gas chamber in an article on opponents of the death penalty. Animal welfare would be a far more suitable location (as it would be possible for an animal welfare advocate to accept certain forms of animal slaughter while opposing kosher or halal means in a way it really isn't for animal rights advocates) but even then it's really a side issue, and would only warrant perhaps a sentence or two. The articles on the relevant food laws would seem to be a much more sensible location for a more detailed analysis. --Daduzi ^talk 10:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

However I think there are two issues here. One involves the current campaign against Kosher practices and the second, the historical use of AR arguments by the Nazis to further their antisemitic agendas. The first, I agreed that is limited in scope and does not refelct the current movement. While the later, does fit well in context in the history section of the animal rights movement and does not belong in the activism article as SV suggests. Nrets 18:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely the issue of the adoption of AR arguments by the Nazis would be more at home in the National Socialist German Workers Party article than in the animal rights article. It seems to me that one can comfortably have a full understanding of animal rights, both in terms of concept and movement, without necessarily knowing all of the parties and or movements that have adopted the ideas, though if the concept of animal rights was a core ideology of the National-Socialist movement then mentioning the fact in the relevant article would help to develop a fuller understanding of the movement. If you look at the issue of Darwinism, for instance (surely a more central belief to the Nazis than AR), the influence of Darwin's thought on Nazi ideology is dealt with in depth on various pages related to Nazism, but merits only a sentence on Charles Darwin, and it's hard to argue that adding more would help those interested in learning about Darwin and Darwinism.--Daduzi ^talk 22:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There are several sources linking fascism and the animal rights movement, not just one as SV claimed.

Arluke, Arnold & Sax, Boria. "Understanding Nazi Animal Protection and the Holocaust", Anthrozoos 5(1):6-31; 1992)

Cockburn, Alexander "A Short, Meat-Oriented History of the World from Eden to the Mattole", New Left Review, Jan-Feb 1996

Searchlight (1988) no.161:19.

'The Greening of the Brownshirts' Searchlight(1989) no.165

' The Green Shirt Effect' Searchlight(1989) no.168:4-5

'They're no Arkangels' Searchlight (1991) no.189:12

Also, look at Ecofascism and its sources. Farnsworth J 16:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it is the POV of some contributors here that bans on ritual slaughter refer to "animal welfare" rather than "animal rights" the sources provided in the section refer to "animal rights". Farnsworth J 16:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that my argument now is that the text is not relevant to this article but is more relevant to the Animal liberation movement article as this page is supposed to discuss the concept rather than campaigning in detail - that article is more to discuss campaigns.-Localzuk ^(talk) 16:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Local, but as I've pointed out before (an both you and Slim have yet to make a decent argument to refute this), the history section does not just describe the "history of the concept" but also to some degree how it links to AR activism, thus, within this context, the historical links to Nazism is well placed. While the section about current campaings is fine in Animal Liberation. THus I propose that we restore to the history section the paragraphs that were moved. Nrets 17:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree (also my username is localzuk), this article has too much information regarding activism in it as it stands and it needs reducing as we currently have an article that is too large. The information that I have moved discusses the way animal rights activists helped to get something banned which is not the topic of this article as this one is supposed to be about conceptual ideas such as the philosophy, history of the concept etc... I have requested page protection on this article until we can come to some form of agreement on this, as we seem to be getting no-where fast.-Localzuk ^(talk) 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Localzuk, I agree that the article is too large, but as I said for the hundredth time, the history of the concept is also linked to Nazism, thus the section you reverted today is not the section I am talking about, I am talking the passage from Kete and others which HISTORICALLY link AR to Nazism that I say should be restored to the HISTORY section and does not belong in the activism article. More specifically I suggest this paragraphy be reintroduced to the end of the HISTORY section:

Kathleen Kete, associate professor of history at Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut, argues that, although the animal liberation movement is regarded as progressive, in fact the history of animal rights belongs neither to the right nor to the left. In the 1930s and 40s, the anti-vivisectionist movement saw vivisection as "the extreme expression of European rationalism," says Kete. "It represented the evils of modernity. In some circles in Switzerland and Germany, an earlier representation of modernity and its dangers — the Jew — merged with the image of the scientist. 'Jewish science' was targeted by anti-vivisectionists and 'Jewish' treatment of animals — evidenced in kosher butchering, and countered by vegetarianism — was deplored."

The Nazis, argues Kete, brought in the most comprehensive animal protection laws in Europe, including the banning of kosher slaughter. Vivisecton was chacterized as "Jewish" and banned. Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax argue that Nazi animal protection measures "may have been a legal veil to level an attack on the Jews.'" According to Alexander Cockburn, composer Richard Wagner associated Jews with vivisection "presumably because of kosher killing methods" and encouraged physical attacks on vivisectionists.

Alternatively we can start a new history of animal rights activism section in the other article, and move sections of the current history section there, which deal with activism. You are not making a consistent argument here, and requesting page protection is not a civil way to solve this. Nrets 17:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Requesting page protection is the normal thing to do when there are at least 4 editors all reverting each other over an issue. See the policies on page protection regarding this...

Anyway, that section does not cover a historic part of the concept of animal rights more a different form of activisim - using the laws in nazi germany. It goes on to discuss a composer who called for attacks on vivisectionists - which is an (imo) extreme form of activism. There is no conceptual discussion going on regarding the rights of animals. I think that anything to do with activism should be shifted over to that article.

Please assume good faith rather than stating that using the policies we have to prevent edit warring is uncivil - it is not.-Localzuk ^(talk) 18:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a "History of Animal Rights" article would make sense. Is anyone willing to do more research on the fascsist angle? I listed a few sources above but there are more, particularly if one looks at articles on Ecofascism. However, there is also a contemporary link (see Searchlight) which needs to be developed in the main Animal rights article. Incidentally, IronDuke's reversion of a reference to David Duke because of Poisoning the well is erroneous since poisoning the well refers to pre-emptively biasing an audience by saying something negative in order to negatively predispose an audience to what someone is going to say. Farnsworth J 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

David Duke's relationship to the AR movement is not a notable part of the past or present of that movement. The grafs in question do not have to appear at the beginning of the article to constitute well-poisoning; the "pre-emption" consists of introducing a reader who may not be familiar with AR to tangential facts which can only serve to prejudice the reader against AR. However, we can call it argumentum ad hominem, guilt by association, or even, my personal fave, argumentum ad nazium, if you prefer. IronDuke 01:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Iron duke, you obviously misapplied the "poisoning the well" label because you either didn't understand the concept or didn't bother to read up on what it means. You are now trying to bend the facts to fit the label rather than just admit you made a mistake.

Certainly there should be a section under "Philosophy" on the fascist school of thought in animal rights theory given the amount of evidence that exists on this. That animal rights advocates have removed any reference to the far-right from the article is unfortunate and needs to be corrected if the article is to be NPOV. You seem to now be arguing that we can never mention fascism or nazism in an article no matter how well the citation is sourced. Certainly we should not be disproportionate but neither should we whitewash the article to purge the topic of any embarassing references or topics. Farnsworth J 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[Removed copyright material] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

From Ambiguities of Animal Rights by Peter Staudenmaier Farnsworth J 02:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't post whole screeds from copyrighted works. The author you cite is anyway not regarded as a reliable source for WP. See here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Staudenmaier is in some sort of dispute with supporters of Peter Steiner and Waldorf education. I'm not sure if that in and of itself disqualifies him as a reliable source even if the pro-Steiner people think it should. Nevertheless, he is only one of the people I have cited. There is also Kete, the New Left Review article, Searchlight (which has been used as a source on fascism elsewhere) and Arluke and Sax as well as lots of material on eco-fascism. Are you asserting that there is no fascist school of animal rights? If not then the regulars on this page should try to "write for the enemy" and contribute something even if it goes against the political goal of promoting animal rights as a progressive theory. Farnsworth J 21:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

JF, Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I see that you have renewed your attack on my ratiocinative capabilities without actually countering the arguments I bring up. That you are wrong about what poisoning the well means in this context (deliberately, I hope), is not the issue. Rather, the focus is on your attempts to insert material linking the Animal Rights movement with Nazism. It is reminiscent of the tactics J. Edgar Hoover employed when reminding America that communists, too, supported civil rights. While he was technically correct, the participation of communists in that struggle is not notable enough to be part of the main article (though there may be excellent citations for it). IronDuke 02:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be legitimate to mention in the civil rights article that Communists were involved in the movement. NPOV would mean, however, that this fact not be given disproportionate weight and that the article not imply that all civil rights activists were Communists or that the Communists enjoyed a level of control over the movement that they, in fact, did not have but were simply one element among many in the movement. In the same vein it is not legitimate to censor the role of fascism in the animal rights movement in the 1930s or today though mentions of such should not distort the role.

As for poisoning the well, please consider the definition of the concept as "adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say", the operative word remains "pre-emptively". Farnsworth J 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"It would be legitimate to mention in the civil rights article that Communists were involved in the movement" Why? --Daduzi ^talk 13:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Views of Sikhism and other religions and cultures?

I believe that the views of other cultures have been totally ignored in this article and this may be because users do not want to accept views of others outside their culture and religion and would like to remain in their predetermined states. I have added the views of Sikhism to the article and these have been reverted without discussion, which I feel is probably due to a prejudice against views of other cultures on this matter. I have posted detailed questions to the user who reverted these views without any details discussion and I awaits answers to the queries listed below. I would ask other users to consider the points list below and give their views as may be I am missing something here. Your help would be most appreciated.

To User:xxx "You have reverted my contribution to the above article without any discussion. So I have to assume that there was something grossly wrong with my entry. Naturally, as a long term (over 2.5 years) and avid contributor (Sikhi section) of this site, I would appreciate more details of why you have reverted my contributions to the above article, especially without any discussion. A bland pointer to various tags is of little help. It would help if you give a little more details and examples so that changes can be made. A frank and open approach would be appreciated. I don't have any emotional axe to grind but I feel that this point is a valid one to make. What do religions have to say about this right? I have made contributions to many other rights – like women rights, rights of other to worship, right to wear turban, etc. Aren't the view of others important to this site? or do you wish to just promote "your" perceived view only. I believe that by adding my contribution, we achieve a better global view of what various cultures have to say about this issue and do not restrict it to a "western" view only – I could say that you have made the article biased to a POV.

OR: I do not believe that this is Original research as various quotations from a text almost 500 years old are given to support the views. All these facts can be found on the internet. What is original in this section – please elaborate so that I can show you that it has existed for 100's of years. It may be "new" to you but its not new to the world and so it is not OR.

NPOV: The article is factual and is not a personal POV. You can only violate this rule if you state a personal POV. What I have stated, I believe are the facts in a religious documents many 100's of years old – I am only highlighting a POV of this existing text – I have not added my POV. So where does the POV issue come in. Please enlighten.

NOT: How is anything here a violation of these rules. Which section has been violated? Please give details.

I believe that you have been very unfair and are taking a very "narrow" view of the issues and are "stuck" in your predetermined attitudes to this subject matter. I would appreciate a honest and detailed discussion of the reason for your action.

Further, aren't the views of Sikhism (fifth biggest organised religion) important to articles on this site. Or are you only interested in the narrow view of the west and a view-point that suits you in the west? I hope this action is not based on a prejudice against other cultures and their views? If it is not, then I expect a detailed reply to my query.

I have been contributing to various wikis for several years (and am an administrator at one) and have authored 1000's of articles - the first on Wikipedia on 11 March 2004, a little longer than you have and I have OR and NPOV marked as links on my user page as I thought I would study them regularly. You help and explanation would be much appreciated. Many thanks." Many thanks for your help. --Hari Singh 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harisingh, what you're adding is not connected, so far as I can see, to the modern concept of animal rights, which is what this article is about. If you can find someone who writes about Sikhism in terms of that concept, by all means add something, sticking very closely to what the sources say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How do consider this a modern issue? - Various cultures have given animal certain rights for a very long time. Nowhere does it say in the title of the article or in the article introduction that the article only deals with animal rights in the modern age only. If what you say is correct then should the article not be named something like "animal rights in the modern age". Calling it "animal rights" point to the generality of the coverage in respect of time and scope.

In fact the historical section reads: "….In the 6th century BCE, Pythagoras, a philosopher and mathematician, urged respect for animals because he believed in the transmigration of souls, while Aristotle, writing in the 4th century BCE, argued that animals ranked far below humans in the Great Chain of Being, or scala naturae, because of their alleged irrationality, and that as a result animals had no interests of their own, and existed only for human benefit." This covers the period from the 6th century BC.

Other Research:

If you look at this site on Animal Rights History you will see that history stretched back as far as at least 492BC if not even eariler:

1. King Asoka said 274-232 BCE India | "No living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice" (The Fourteen Rock Edicts, 1) professes Asoka, as emperor of India who "became a Buddhist and a vegetarian and, in accordance with the doctrine of 'ahimsa' (nonviolence), supressed the royal hunts and ordered the curtailment of the slaugher of animals throughout his empire"

2. Empedocles (of Acagras in Sicily, c. 492-432 BC) is alleged to have said: "Slaughter and meat-eating are the most terrible of sins, indeed for him animal slaughter is murder and meat-eating is cannibalism, as shown by fr. 137" 1 thus giving animals certain rights.

3. In 1711, Joseph Addison said "from the Consideration of such Animals as lie within the Compass of our Knowledge, we might easily form a Conclusion of the rest, that the same Variety of Wisdom and Goodness runs through the whole Creation. " (Joseph Addison, The Spectator No 121) 2

This is a topic that has been dealt with for a very long time in history. Further, for example, I believe that the Hindu religion gave certain rights to all animals and special rights to cows, etc. And Hinduism is 1000's for years old; Christianity as far as I read does not believe that animals have souls and so probably few rights?

• So how do you say this is a "modern concept"? Please clarify.

• Are the views of other cultures and periods not important to this article? --Hari Singh 03:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that in Sikh culture, animals are regarded as having rights as individuals, which they believe should be enforceable in law)? If so, what are the rights exactly and can you provide a source? Do they have any actual legal rights in areas where the Sikh community forms the majority e.g. Punjab? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the definition of the modern concept of animal rights, which is the subject of this article: " It is a radical social movement insofar as it aims not only to attain more humane treatment for animals, but also to include species other than human beings within the moral community by giving their basic interests — for example, the interest in avoiding suffering — the same consideration as those of human beings. The claim is that animals should no longer be regarded legally or morally as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as persons.

Does Sikhism support the points I have highlighted in bold? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to user:Slimvirgin

I don't believe that anyone person has a monopoly on the content of this article or any other article. The article is simply entitled "animal rights" and anything relevant to do with this subject matter can be added to the article as long as it conforms to the rules of Wikipedia. The header states that "This article is about the concept or philosophy of animal rights" and not as you state to do with animals as "having rights as individuals" and having the "same consideration as those of human beings". Which countries provide these rights and how is this reflected in the title?

In many eastern cultures, animals are given certain rights. Whether these are individual or group rights is something that can be narrated in the article. Sikhism is a religion not a state or nation – It provides individuals with spiritual and moral guidance and does not set legal laws or enforces them. It is like saying that Christianity can set laws and prosecute them as well. I think you fail to grasp the difference between a religion and a state and the fact that this has no relevance to the issue of rights. In other issues of rights, for example, Guru Nanak was a proponent of Women's rights and this fact features on this subject and is an important fact that needs to promoted and should feature on all modern encyclopaedias.

There is a section on "Abolitionist view" - does this culture give a "rights as individuals, which they believe should be enforceable in law" to animal? – If they don't then why, in your opinion is this section in this article. Do all the other sections conform to your strict requirements outline above? If not, then they need to be removed.

Further, I made several small changes to the top of the article which I believe that you have unfairly removed. I list these below. Could you please give reasons why these have been removed as well:

The history of animal rights is said to stretch back to before 450BC and the time of Empedocles of Acagras in Sicily, c. (492-432 BC) who was a philosopher and poet.

The rights of animals have been given consideration by various cultures and religion over many centuries. Various ancient rulers have also stipulated certain rights for animals. Emperor Ashoka (304 BC–232 BC) who was ruler of India proclaimed these regarding animals in his various edicts that "no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice" and in Edict 11 that ".. kindness to living beings should be made strong and the truth should be spoken" and finally "The Dhamma regulations I have given are that various animals must be protected."

I believe that this matter is not being dealt with fairly and that a narrow restricted POV is being propagated. I will gather more research before I return to deal with this matter. In the meantime I ask for your reply to the question posed here. Many thanks --Hari Singh 05:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Hari, by all means start an article on Sikhism and and its view of non-human animals, but this is an article about the modern concept of animal rights, which is well-defined by the scholars who write about it. That is the definition we are working within: animal rights as defined by Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Gary Francione, and all the animal rights legal scholars, the animal rights law courses, and the animal rights groups. See WP:V and WP:NOR. We publish what the sources say, not our personal views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to stress that I'm not trying to obstruct a section on Sikhism. I'm just trying to make sure it's relevant. If you can find sources to support what you're saying — sources who explicitly talk about it in terms of animal rights, or in terms of some degree of moral equality between human and non-human animals — that would be fine, but the sources would have to be authoritative, and it would need its own section; or if it's just an historical view you're taking, then it should go in the history section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi, I am sorry but I either do not agree with your stand or may be I do not understand your exact reasons for the stand that you have taken. I can't understand how an article with a generalised name like "animal rights" ("AR") can have restriction imposed on what can be entered into that article – All views which have something important to do with AR and obeying the normal WP rules must be allowed to appear. If for example in 350BC King Ashoka said something like "No one in my kingdom is allowed to kill animals or be cruel to them" then I think this is relevant here and some aspect of this has to appear in the article. I think the world would be interested to know that as long ago as that - someone had recognised that animals had some rights and that they needed to be treated in a certain way. To restrict the subject material because XYZ has defined a general term of this nature cannot apply here – not to an article with title of this nature.

What I understand is that you do not wish old Indian or recent Sikh views included here because XYZ western authors "have defined this term". (" we are working within: animal rights as defined by Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Gary Francione,") I do not think this is acceptable to WP. You cannot restrict content based on "perceived" guideline by a small group of authors. AR has been dealt with at some level for 1000's of years. They may not have called it AR but they were dealing with the rights of animals. How can you justify leaving all this out? If you take this argument to the n'th degree, it boils down to a violation of NPOV as you are using clever mechanism to restrict the views of others on this subject and preferring the views of XYZ only; ignoring various valid and confirmed historically facts; disregarding widely available data on the net and historical records – and only allowing a narrow restricted view-point - this I think is unacceptable.

You say: "If you can find sources to support what you're saying — sources who explicitly talk about it in terms of animal rights, or in terms of some degree of moral equality between human and non-human animals…" Sources have been included for all the statements that were made. In fact everything I said was based on sources. Why should the sources specifically mention "animal rights"? What if they only mention "creatures" or "living beings" or just animals? Why does this preclude them? Why should they have "…some degree of moral equality between human and non-human animals". Why should they compare animals with humans? If the statement just say something like: "Do not harm animals or kill them else you will suffer in hell. Treat them just like your own…" – Why and how can you exclude this from the article if this statement was made by a prominent person like an emperor or prophet of the time and had an impact on the region and the history of the area.

you also say: "….but the sources would have to be authoritative, and it would need its own section; or if it's just an historical view you're taking, then it should go in the history section." The sources were the Sikh holy book and confirmed and widely available documents about King Ashoka. I also have further quotes from Bhagavad Gita, which is the Hindu scriptures from 2500BC and respected by over 800 million followers. Most of this information was in a sub-section on "Eastern Views" with small modification to the introduction as this intro is clearly not correct – It is just a "western" view of this subject matter not a global view.

I think I have dealt with all your queries in great detail and I would request that you kindly re-evaluate this article bearing in mind the points that I have made. May be we should have a generalised article on AR with all the views included and a narrow one with a title like "AR in the modern context" or "AR in the west" (of course, this is a fork and not allowed under the rules). If you give an article a general name like AR, then any important fact related to this topic needs to be included to make the article NPOV – It is imperative that all relevant views are included here and not just a restricted "western" view only. Please look at this site which is only one of many sites which has huge amount of material that is lacking on WP. How can this situation be justified? WP should be a summary and true reflection of all the facts available in the world on any given subject.

I have asked for mediation on this issue. I hope that will help us resolve this matter. Due to heavy real-life commitment, I may not be able to deal with this matter on a prompt timetable. Please excuse any delays on my part for the next few days and please don't lose any sleep over it as I am sure this will get resolved eventually and hopefully to the satisfaction of both of us. Many thanks and have a great time surfing and in real-life. --Hari Singh 00:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Hari, you're engaged in original research. Please review Wikipedia:No original research. You're trying to compile an animal rights argument (your own argument) based on ancient primary sources such as the Sikh holy book and the Bhagavad Gita. That would be like an editor using the Torah to show that Judaism does or doesn't support animal rights, or the New Testament to show the same about Christianity. We should base articles as far as possible on secondary sources. The concept of animal rights is a new one, a modern one. It's not about not being cruel to animals, or about looking after them. It's not about animal welfare. It's about awarding animals legal rights, the right not to be used by human beings and not to be regarded as property.

You could certainly start an article on how the philosophy of Sikhism paved the way for modern attitudes about animal rights, if you can find the sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Further Replies 1 to user:Slimvirgin

The issues outlined are not original research as all the facts that have been mentioned are recorded and these are confirmed historical facts. OR is when new material is introduced for the first time. The facts quoted are not "new material". Whether a holy book supports or opposes a view is rigidly set and is a fact – It is not original research.

If you look at my userpage you will notice that I have WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V hyperlinked – so I am very familiar with these pages – I do not need to review them. The rules say: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources". I have cited many sources which you can easily check on the net as they are very widely mentioned and verifiable. Could you please give me examples of OR in the section that I wrote?

Also the rules say: "All articles in Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." The information given by me is a secondary source as it is presented in a coherent and independent form. The quote make the point without any input from me. A primary source would be a photo or a field observation and I would have to explain what this primary source proved, etc. A secondary source does not require input from the writer. Please explain how you refer to my work based on these historical facts as OR? Please give quotes from the rules to support your assertions.

The concept of AR is not new. The rights of animals have been referred to for thousands of years – They did not have a label for them and these rights were simply referred in the ancient texts without a particular label – we have now invented a label for this right – that does not mean that this right was not recognised and practiced by our ancestors. Eg: King Ashoka ("KA") declared in about 250BC that: ""No living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice" (The Fourteen Rock Edicts, 1) That gives all animals a right to live; also "….(KA has ) , made provision for two types of medical treatment: medical treatment for humans and medical treatment for animals." Gives animals the right to medical treatment when ill. How can you say that AR is a new thing when these rights were given to animals by a very powerful Buddhist ruler over 200 years before Christ? And they are widely documented!!

I am not referring to animal welfare and how to look after animals – I am referring to the rights, liberties and the sort of treatments that was approved for the animals. If the state says that "Prisoners cannot be tortured" – that gives a right to the prisoners of non-torture. The rights of animals can be stated in various ways and it does not have to be a legal way only.

"The fundamental principle of the AR is that nonhuman animals deserve to live according to their own natures, free from harm, abuse, and exploitation." – So any text legal, religious or otherwise that has a bearing on the points mentioned here gives rise to the creation of a right or to an abolition of a right.

You have failed to address the various points outlined before – I will be much obliged if you could properly address all the queries that I have put forward now and before. Your detailed reply would be most appreciated even if it takes more time. I hope you have noticed that I have dealt with each point that you have made in great depth while most of your replies are just a short paragraph. I would appreciate if you could address the points I make with care and due consideration which I hope you will agree they deserve in light of the amount of time and energy that I have expended. Many thanks. --Hari Singh 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OR is not only when new facts are introduced. It is when any fact, opinion, argument, analysis, or synthesis is introduced that is not supported by reliable published sources and which serves to advance a position. Primary sources may not be used to make interpretive claims. You must find reliable secondary sources who say what you are saying. Then I'm happy for you to add this to the history section. Please review the NOR policy carefully. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Further discussion 1

Hari, I'm not sure Slim would agree with me, but my take on the article is that it's primarily about the modern animal rights movement, and the history section provides a background for the modern, western movement. I don't believe that Sikhism influenced anyone in the modern movement, or any of the philosophers who influenced the modern movement. (I might be wrong about that -- please show me if I am.) This is not to say that the information you're supplying isn't valuable: I believe there must be a place for it somewhere, perhaps a religious views of animals article, or some such.

We just can't put in every statement made about anything that could be construed as relating to the rights of animals throughout history into this article: it would be way too long if we did. We just had this discussion recently with someone who wanted to put in some Catholic stuff about animals. It was interesting, but not germane. It really feels to me like an article on religion and animals might be the way to go (if it's not been done already). IronDuke 15:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Animals in religion or something like that would be very interesting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Or we could rename this article Modern animal rights movement, that way it becomes less ambiguous what should or shouldn't be included. Nrets 15:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats a possibility, but then what would this page become? I'd rather see other articles created first then make decisions about renaming this page.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:50, 21 September 2006

I prefer User:Nrets view as it addresses several issues – firstly, it is more logical as everything to do with the rights of animals could go here on this page as one would expect and secondly, the material within the two articles will more closely follow the title of the page. This page would remain for all general views relating to AR, which is the way things should be. AR should have all the differing views of all the different groups who have said something important on this aspect of life. --Hari Singh 23:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with Nrets' version is that there is no such thing as Ancient animal rights movement (or any variation thereof) against which to contrast a modern movement. What we do have is a lot of religions with various opinions on the matter, and they could all be grouped in an appropriate article. I think by and large that writings on the religious aspects of animal welfare is not so voluminous that they would require separate articles for each religion, but articles could be spun off if necessary. IronDuke 23:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well no, I wasn't suggesting an Ancient animal rights movement article. Maybe the main article could provide a general overview of the history, philosophy, activism, etc. of the animal rights movement, including the modern view, but then spin off larger articles to the different aspects: history, AR and religion, modern movement, activism, welfare, etc. If you look at the archive of this talk page, several other valid views have been excluded based on the fact that they do not represent the modern movement, but clearly several people think they should fit within the scope. Nrets 00:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we need an "Ancient animal rights movement" article as well. AR should cover the broad aspect of the rights of animals and include all the views about this from the year dot. Within this article would be short sections on many things relating to AR and then there would be links to things like Modern understanding of animal rights, "History of rights of animals", "Religious views of animal rights" and so on as the article grew and as the need to keep the article manageable became important. As it is stand at present, AR does not mean rights of animals but means "Modern view of animal rights" – I don't believe this is desirable or the correct way to arrange an encyclopaedia. If you look at Britannica's coverage of this subject, you will see that it covers many aspects of AR and is not restricted like WP. Surely that's the way to go. --Hari Singh 00:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I may not have been as clear as I wanted to be. I'm not suggesting we have an Ancient animal rights movement article: I was pointing to the impossibility of such an article. AR is a modern phenomenon. Think of reproductive rights, pehaps, as an analogy. It is true that in many societies in the past women were afforded varying levels of protection with regard to reproductive rights. But the nomenclature/concept as such did not exist then. It is modern, just as AR is used here as a modern term. Is that clear, or am I making things muddier?

And call me cheeky, but that Britannica article was far less impressive than what we already have. I would not use it as any kind of a template. IronDuke 01:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

>>>>No need to apologise, IronDuke. We have discussions to sort out our ideas/views and try to understand each others POV – so no problem.
I don't think it is right to say that the "rights of animals" have never before been recognised. That is not correct as I pointed out here and said: " The history of animal rights is said to stretch back to before 450BC and the time of Empedocles of Acagras in Sicily, c. (492-432 BC) who was a philosopher and poet." I agree with you that the term is new but the concept has existed for a very long time. If you look at this article on AR history, I hope you will agree with me that AR as a concept is not new at all and that many humans cultures have recognised the need to provide some rights to animals rather than treat them as just a resource or commodity. Their "special-ness" has been recognised for a very long time.
Again with reproductive rights, I would say that the concept and practice were probably there but the term was not. We, these days have coined many new terms. This is a on-going exercise which adds a few new terms probably everyday to the English language but in many cases these terms are just referring to something which may be very old in practice.
The reason to include the Britannica article was
a). because it is well-known and
b). to just show the global coverage of the article.
I am not suggesting that we use it as a template but as a comparison of the "coverage", "scope" and the "angle" taken by the article. It is an article which covers a wide variety of very different issues in brief and then points to more detailed pages for specialist treatment.
Incidentally, the book version of Britannica (1990 edition) that I have does not even have an entry for AR. Just goes to show how the language is changing all the time.
I don't know if this gives you a better idea of what I am saying or perhaps I am not making any sense??? --Hari Singh 00:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion, but I want to say I think the idea of a 'religious views on animals' article is an awesome idea. Not that I'm offering to write it. :-) Anchoress 19:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

This article needs a criticism section, because criticism of animal rights is very common and relevant. Can somebody add this please? --216.164.193.1 18:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death throught the animal rights articles. A 'criticism section' is a bad idea as it is inherently POV (we don't have a promotion section). It leads to POV fork articles which are also bad. It leads to POV trolling and unsourced additions. The policies and guidelines ask for such criticisms to be weaved in with the rest of the article instead, where poinient. Also, all such comments must be verifiable and from reliable sources.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP could post a bullet list of what s/he want to add, or the actual text, here for analysis and comment. Anchoress 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be POV to basically say "I endorse the following criticism of the Animal Rights movement," or to present the cirticisms as simple facts, but it in encyclopedic and NPOV to provide verifiable sources to show that there are those (some scientific and medical researchers, some religions who wish to sacrifice animals, some in the agricultural field) who have criticisms of, say, the tactics of PETA, or of some of the demands of animal rights advocates. Many Wikipedia articles have such a criticism section, and are better for it. To forbid its inclusion, period, is inherently POV. It is improper to demand the criticism be proved true in debate here before they are included in the article; it is sufficient to show they are being made, by reference to reputable and verifiable sources which quote them, as outlined in my first sentence. It may not seem so the the proponents of animal rights, but in general the entire article is a "promotion section."Edison 20:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at our policies and guidelines on this issue - [[8]], WP:NPOV and also this essay [[9]]. I disagree with the inclusion of a criticism on any article, as do many other editors.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please not ehte common presence of Criticism sections, despite what some some few editors may have placed in a "Policies" page. The article Animal testing has a 1580 word "Controversy" section, then a 695 word "Arguments in brief" section with arguments pro and con. Many articles about controversial subjects have a "Criticism" section and are better for it. Otherwise, it tends to look like a webpage advocating only one side of an issue.The essay you cited says "This is an essay expressing the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians. While it can help explain and understand existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this is not an actual policy or guideline" Edison 20:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know what that page says and I also said that it was an essay... Please give me some reasons why a criticisms section is good. Another reason why it is bad is that it is a bad article structure. Someone looking at a fact in an article with such a section has to look in 2 places in order to get the full picture. In one without the section but with the criticism applied where it is relevant a reader gets the entire point in one go.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

But it makes it much harder to actually find the information. I find it much more convenient to see arguments pro and con separately, since often they don't necessarily overlap, thus it becomes difficult to intersperse them among the text. Nrets 01:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism sections are POV magnets, and unfairly present criticism out of context. As Jimbo said, "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nrets, how is splitting a piece of information in 2 easier to read? So instead of reading a paragraph about a single fact, which covers all the details, pro and con, we have a set of factoids in 2 seperate sections. Then we start building up lists of criticisms and no responses to them etc... I can guarentee you that every single criticism that has been made of animal rights has been countered.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Localzuk, For example look at the animal testing article. Not all the arguments in the pro and con sections directly address each other. Some are even just a matter of opinion (eg. "no degree of animal suffering is worth any possible benefit to humans"). Thus, if I want to know what the anti-animal research lobby has to say I can simply look up that section. I agree with SV about the sections being troll magnets, but as far as organization goes, I do think it makes more sense. Nrets 17:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"no degree of animal suffering is worth any possible benefit to humans" can be countered easily by various items. And as such would be worth its own paragraph within the main article itself. There is no need for a 'controversy' section - it should be weaved in. -Localzuk^(talk) 18:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone has added that Julian H. Franklin's book is "ground-breaking." It's a Kantian analysis of animal rights and as such I'm sure will be interesting, but does it suggest positions that could be regarded as "ground-breaking"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I want a criticism section too. I think it's pretty obvious to have a criticism section in this (extremely controversial, in my POV) subject. Frigo 13:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the section 'Rights require obligations' really a criticism section? The Criticism section and 'Rights require obligations' should be merged.70.226.169.147 22:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, if this were an article about a philosophical position, or a political stance, it would have a criticism section. The article on determinism has arguments against, for example. The article on communism has a criticism section. I was surprised to see that this article does not have one, because this article IS about an ideology, and it's standard on wikipedia to present a summary of the opposing view when detailing an ideology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.183.63 (talk • contribs) January 17, 2008 20:48 (UTC)

The article is about a concept, that animals have rights, and each section, sometimes each paragraph, addresses that concept from both sides. To do as you say, to dedicate a section to "criticism", would require an equivalent section for "praise", neither one with any rebuttals. That would be very awkward to follow and comprehend. A much better approach is to introduce the concept, present the views of both sides in the lead, and then per topic in each section and paragraph. This way the reader gets to see all sides of the debate at each level. Crum375 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, but I don't think there's a strong dividing line between concept and ideology. Isn't an ideology just a collection of strongly held ideas? The idea that the means of production should be held by the state is just a concept, but it's also a central principle of an ideology. The animal rights movement affects legislation and motivates activists in exactly the same way any other ideology does. The whole animal rights article in itself is in the "political movements" catagory, along with the "right to life" and "socialism" articles, both of which have sections for criticism. I don't see why a criticism section also necessitates a praise section if it's in an article which is about a movement -- the article itself is outlining the movement, the criticism section outlines opposition to that movement. For example, the beginning of this article:

"Animal rights, also known as animal liberation, is the idea that the basic interests of non-human animals — for example, the interest in avoiding suffering — should be afforded the same consideration as the basic interests of human beings.[2] Animal rights advocates argue that animals should no longer be regarded as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as legal persons[3] and members of the moral community.[4]"

How exactly would a "praise" section differ from the existing tone of the article? I don't think it would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.218.206 (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

2 columns

I have added a 2 column format for our incredibly long references, notes and external links sections. What do people think? It makes the page a little less long.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

It's fine by me, LZ — my browser won't render columns, so I still see them as one column anyway — but if you want to remove links entirely, please go ahead. Another editor mentioned we had too many, and you said something about it on the wikiproject page, so if the consensus on the issue is that there are too many links, I'm happy to abide by it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what browser do you use? That tag should work with all mozilla/firefox ones and Internet explorer.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Firefox for Mac. I used to see columns, but haven't now for a few weeks, though I've changed nothing my end. I'm surmising that something about the way columns are written on Wikipedia has changed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I am using the same thing (although it is the G5 optimised version) so I'm baffled about that...-Localzuk^(talk) 21:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm using that too. What happened was that I saw columns fine until a few weeks ago, when suddenly I started seeing footnotes that had been listed in columns as all over the place in terms of numbering. The first footnote would be 99, the second 100, the third 2, the fourth 3, the fifth 101, and so on, and when I looked in the notes section, most of the footnotes had doubled i.e. were listed twice (although strangely not all of them). That continued for a few days, and then it went back to normal, except that I couldn't see columns anymore. I didn't change anything on my computer that I'm aware of while this was going on. It doesn't really bother me. I've been using Macs for a long time, so I've gotten used to the various quirks, although that may be unfair. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I can't see the columns either with a Mac running Safari, but can with Firefox. Nrets 00:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see why now. It is part of the proposed spec for CSS3 and only Firefox 1.5 and above have implemented it natively. -Localzuk^(talk) 13:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I updated my Firefox and now I can see the columns, by the way. They're very nice. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

POV concern

It seems to be the most biased article on English Wikipedia. Almost no criticism (see previous section) about very controversial topic. POVish Image on intro. Dozens of external links to "animal rights supporters groups". --Haham hanuka 12:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, you're not disputing the neutrality of any part of the article so why did you add the tag? Also, what do you mean by "POVish Image on intro"? I'm not very familiar with the broader concept of AR, but it seem to me that the Great Ape Project is as good representation of it as any. Do you have a problem with images representing their topic? Jean-Philippe 13:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. This is a complex article and just wandering in and saying 'it is POV' without providing decent reasoning is as bad as not providing a reason at all.

Note, the article is about the concept of animal rights and not animal rights activism so there will be less criticism of the concept than the activism. I do agree, however, that we need to look at the external links section as many are not relevant to the concept but are to activism.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I gave 2 main reasons. --Haham hanuka 14:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You gave a reason 'it has no criticism' and said the image in the into is 'povish'. You have not provided any reasoning why you think this. And as such, no discussion the matter can be made because we simply cannot see what you mean.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

POV tags have to be accompanied by specific suggestions for change that are actionable within the policies, not just vague hand-waving. Also, the image is there to represent one idea regarding the concept of animal rights. How could the article be illustrated if you're going to argue that any illustration of its central concept is by definition POV? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Similar attributions of POVity have recently started sprouting up on several AR-related article talk pages, such as Talk:Ethics of eating meat. I suppose it just means that some people don't like any pro-animal voices to be publicly heard.

There are countless articles on WP that are uniformly POV against animal rights. For example, all the articles about how to chop up this and that variety of animal corpses, such as Chicken (food); which speak about animals as if they were pure commodities, with no mention of the fact that many people think otherwise. Amidst all this anti-animal POV, it is only fair that a page about animal rights should simply explain what AR is, and what our arguments are.

David Olivier 12:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In support of the OP, the external links section is AR biased. There are links to a site set up in memory of a convicted arsonist, paramilitary organisations and myriad anti-vivisection groups, however few anti AR sites are listed (eg. the research defence society's page is not listed - soon to be rectified) As the purpose of the external links section is to provide further information, not to further an argument, I propose that more of the websites of the opposition are included, and that vandalism of that section, as seems rife (the centre for consumer freedom link has had an anti-CfCF link added - please keep your AR links out of that section) is prevented as much as possible. The above poster misunderstands what wikipedia is about. It is not a forum for argument, nor a recruiting tool for individual causes. You have the right to amend any of the "against animal rights" articles you like to show that there is opposition to those practices. You do not have a right to monopolise a Wikipedia page for your own ends. I will not post on this page again, as non AR views are clearly not welcome. 88.105.181.28 15:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Help

Please can you tell me how I can make one of these:

WikiProject on Animal rights

This user participates in
WikiProject Animal rights.

For my project here: Germanic Mysticism, Revivalism and Nazism (but you will need to put {{}} on either side of it to view it)

Thanks, FK0071a 08:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL

This article seems to have many more links that would be necessary. Considering that Wikipedia is not a directory, do you think it would be a good idea to pare these down a touch?

I agree, especially since this article is supposed to be about animal rights philosophy. If it were up to me, I would remove all the links to AR organizations, perhaps moving the major organizations to the animal liberation movement page. Rosemary Amey 03:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I would agree that a slight cull is necessary and online the philosophy related organisations left. However, we will still end up with quite a list over at animal liberation movement.-Localzuk^(talk) 08:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with a cull. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Kay. As per this discussion, I'm going to cut down on the number of links. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 04:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I left 2 links in the external links section and I cut the "Further Reading" books. Here's the diff in case there was something I cut that you think should go back in. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 05:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Brad, I reverted, because that was way too much, and there was no need to cut the invisible list of books. We should get rid of any that look less prominent, but keep the more academic or well-known ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You even cut the further reading books completely. Please don't do that. This is a very good resource for students. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you merged the external links with the further reading section, misleading readers. Please keep them both separated, otherwise spammers will take the hint and begin using the further reading section to add their links. A link to a specific page in a site can be considered "further reading", a link to a homepage, not. -- ReyBrujo 13:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE recommends one section called Further reading or External links. See WP:CITE#Further_reading.2FExternal_links. There's not much point having both, because some of the external links are further reading material, and are there as such, so it would be confusing to have links in both sections, but only one of them called External links. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that we've got more than enough Rights Organizations to move them into a List of animal rights organizations page, add a See also link to it and have done? Anyone see a problem with this approach? -- Mwanner | Talk 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Perhaps we could use List of animal rights groups. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be fine if such organizations had a wikilink, if you create a list with external links, such list would be deleted per Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, point 1. -- ReyBrujo 13:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Still, we could move them all to a List page without external links-- throw brackets around the names, and let the red ones wait for articles. They've basically got to go from this page, at least all of the ones lacking substantial, non-duplicative content relevant to the subject. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, although I am guessing people would prefer having an external link than an article. I suggest removing all unnecessary external links and linking to the Open Directory, as dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Animal_Welfare/Animal_Rights/ seems a good alternative. -- ReyBrujo 02:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like there's again a need for a reduction in External Links/Further Reading. Wikipedia is Not A Directory, nor is an encyclopedia article the place for a general reading list, and even if it were the list would need to be balanced (WP:NPOV) with links and book references on both sides. Better to follow External Link guidelines/consensus and cut them back. Note that the argument "it's ok to have biased links because other articles have links with an opposite bias" is not an winning argument for bias; that's a slippery slope that leads to a collection of fiefdoms all totally biased and edit-wars. — jesup 14:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with consistency in the disclaimer at the top that this is about concepts and philosophy, and including criticisms on methods such as the PETA-holocaust controversy, and the sentence from Tony Blair on the silent majority, belong on Animal Liberation Movement or PETA or both but not here. Philosophy is rife with debate on philosophical points, there is plenty of that to go around while staying within appropriate parameters for content. --Animalresearcher 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Lengthy digression about Sztybel's criticisms

It seems to me that the lengthy bit about David Sztybel's criticisms of utilitarianism and the rights based approach should be in its own subsection, rather than as part of the "Rights-based approach" subsection, if it is to be included at all. Since Sztybel is not a big-name animal ethicist in the league of Singer and Regan, should he even be included in this article? After all, there are many other less-well-known animal ethicists who are not mentioned in this article. What do others think? Rosemary Amey 17:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It also seems like these edits were made by Sztybel himself. Nrets 22:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Either that or someone using his name (which would be against policy). I would suggest that a brief version be made and the main body of the text moved to David Sztybel. -Localzuk^(talk) 17:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I question why Sztybel should be included here when other more prominent animal ethicists such as Gary Francione, Steven Best, Carol Adams, etc. etc. are not included. Rosemary Amey 03:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it, because it was giving undue prominence to him. He can perhaps he added to the article on Animal rights and the Holocaust as he seems to have written about that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Indeed. I think we need to do basic outlines of some of the most prominent animal ethicists arguments but not go into high levels of detail on their individual views, that should be summarised on their own pages. What do other people think about this? Also, we currently discuss a range of ethicists in the article, including Regan, Francione, Singer etc...-Localzuk^(talk) 08:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pets and companion animals

The article doesn't talk anywhere about the issue of pets anywhere. That alone might warrant a small paragraph. Idleguy 06:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree70.74.162.9 (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect formatting of footnotes

As per Wikipedia guidelines, footnotes should be placed immediately after punctuation, without a space. Could someone please reformat how this article's many footnotes are formatted? Patiwat 08:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Posner edit

AR, can you say what "moral intuition is superior, and that it can be dissuaded with facts" means? Do you mean dissuaded by? Superior to what? Also, what are "considerational differences," and does Posner use that term? And what does Posner mean by "soft utilitarianism." What you wrote is not soft utilitarianism, or indeed any other kind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

These are all referred to in the debate pages. Sorry if the key points I tried to include from Posner's side are not adequately clear, I'll make an effort to make them more lucid. --Animalresearcher 18:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still not clear. What does this mean, for example: "Posner calls his approach soft utilitarian in contrast to Singer's hard utilitarian, in which the terms hard and soft refer to the adherence to the ethical logic embodied." I can't think what "adherence to the ethical logic embodied" means. It would be better to paraphrase carefully what he himself has written. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Posner section seems too drawn out. Mention of the existence of the debate with a link would suffice. Rbogle 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But, I do hope that many people take the time to read it. Singer's brilliant. Rbogle 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My sig

LOL!! Thanks, LZ. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert of added link by Defyn

Regarding this link:

• "Philosophy Talk" episode

Why was this deleted? It looked good to be. --Bhuston 21:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have replied to this on my user talk page, see: User talk:Wangi#Revert of added link by Defyn. Thanks/wangi 21:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Biased

The article is totally eurocentric. Animal rights have been accepted and recognised in east far more than west in past and present. From the discussion, I can see there was an attempt to remove this bias, but was summarily dismissed presumably by a bunch of arrogant westerners. If you want an article on 'Modern western version of animal rights' create a separate article. I am going ahead and expanding this one. Stanu 15:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you are indeed right that this article is western biased. Feel free to add information, but keep in mind that the article's focus is on the concept and philosophy of animal rights (I am sure this won't be a problem, as the 'activist' side of things is a lot different in non-western countries). Also remember to keep things neutral, verifiable and sourced. Good luck! -Localzuk^(talk) 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind that it's about animal RIGHTS, not how other countries deal with animal welfare issues, which, in my experience, tends to be a lot worse than in many Western countries. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Section on Opinions on Animal behavior

Does anybody know what these people think on the fact that animals are perfectly content with their normal lives killing and eating other animals in the wild with no human rights? Or what about the fact that animals have never spoken for themselves on the issue? No really, if animals are indeed, people, shouldn't they be able to speak their opinion? Maybe a section on "Contradictions to the Natural World" or something like that.--DeadGuy 05:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is not for debate about the subject of the article, it's for discusions about how to improve the article. But to address your concern, "if animals are indeed, people" -- nobody is making that claim. If that's your belief, I think you need to read the article again. -MichaelBluejay 07:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a good subject for additions to the article, as it has been a substantial topic of ethical argument in research by top ethicists. But Michaelbluejay is right, this page is about discussion of additions/deletions/edits to the article of material already created and relevant to philosophy of animal rights. So if you are concerned, find articles and arguments by prominent ethicists, and add cited verifiable references and arguments from those articles to the main WIKI page. --Animalresearcher 10:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

MichaelBlueJay, I would like to point out that the Animal Rights movement revolves around getting animals equal rights as people, which would imply that they are people enough to have rights. So while nobody says this directly, it is what is implied. Animalresearcher, I agree. I shall try and find sources, although given the state of the internet these days I probably won't find them.--DeadGuy 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your supposition is true. Most animal rights seems to attempt to argue that humans should be morally above the status of being a predator/user of other animals (although I agree the variety of arguments DEFINITELY confuses the layman). The fact that many of their arguments logically lead to necessity to protect natural prey from natural predators is a related point of debate, although I do not think you will find proponents of animal rights who agree, just as you will not find opponents of animal rights who agree that rights for marginal humans but not animals necessarily implies illogical discrimination comparable to racism or sexism. --Animalresearcher 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course. However, I was referring to the specific Animal Rights Group that is often heard about in popular culture, although you are right.--DeadGuy 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Charles Patterson was a Geo Bush Speechwriter?

I have removed the unsourced statement claiming that Charles Patterson was "George W. Bush's speech writer". Is the author confusing Patterson w/Matthew Scully? --Bill Huston ^(talk) 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

template for deletion

Editors may be interested in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 8#Template:Pet Species. Please keep the discussion to the encyclopedic merits of the template, not ideology. — coelacan talk — 15:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

history of the concept

This section has POV problems. Much of the history deals with the history of human empathy toward animals and the history of human observation of animals' behavior. It does not apply to the narrow concept of animal rights and reads like a persuesive argument. I suggest that this be corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trilobitealive (talk • contribs) 01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC). Trilobitealive 02:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's about the development of the concept of animal rights, which is of course a human concept. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many human concepts but I'm sure you agree we need to discuss them in their appropriate articles. The animal rights movement is a political movement which may gather its material from many sources, but it is POV to include those sources in a manner designed to influence the reader to draw conclusions about them. I don't see any great effort here to include other historical concepts which might show a different POV, such as the Buddhist debate regarding plant sentience and the need for human compassion toward plants.

Discussing this further, in the paragraph starting with The 20th century debate we see an opinion which is defended with a possibly recursive reference to another encyclopedia discussion. To keep this paragraph you'll need to show a valid primary source for the described events but more importantly you'll need to show a source which supports the assertion that the argument was about animal rights per se and not what it might appear to be to persons with other POV, such as a religious warning by Pythagoras.

The next paragraph, starting with In the 17th century is referenced to a Wikipedia article which does not support its assertions. There are quotes which are not found in the reference. Further, there is seen a POV leap of faith where the article writer apparantly patches together a snippet from discourse. Well, Rousseau clearly demonstrates in the preface of that article that he is using observations of equality between animals in nature to make conjectures about equality in human relationships. It is easy to perceive that it is in these successive changes in the constitution of man that we must look for the origin of those differences which now distinguish men, who, it is allowed, are as equal among themselves as were the animals of every kind, before physical causes had introduced those varieties which are now observable among some of them.

The next paragraph makes more unsubstantiated assertions which are very clear. Et cetera.

Out of courtesy to the people who have worked so hard on this article I'm not going to delete all the paragraphs which need changing, however I am respectfully re-flagging this section with the POV flag as well as adding a flag regarding relevence. Trilobitealive 18:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Trilobitealive 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Material deleted per un-addressed concerns above.Trilobitealive 00:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it because there's no reason to remove it. For example, you wrote: "in the paragraph starting with The 20th century debate we see an opinion which is defended with a possibly recursive reference to another encyclopedia discussion," and you say we need a primary source. But in fact, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources for the most part (see WP:NOR), and the EB counts as a reliable source for WP. I'm not sure why you would call it "recursive." Anything with a fact tag can be removed, of course. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK one more time. If this were a subject which is concrete then possibly factual references back and forth between encyclopedias might be appropriate. But if a subject is predominantly a secondary abstraction then recursive references take on a quality of overabstraction. (Basically it doesn't work to support an assertion of opinion by citing another encyclopedist's editorial opinion.) It is purely POV until proven otherwise. The other paragraph cites a Wikipedia article which does not substantiate the assertion. Neither does the original Rousseau source does not substantiate your assertion.

One can read a lot into things if they have a strong POV but we're editing an encyclopedia article here and not trying to construct a history which doesn't exist.Trilobitealive 00:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Trilobite, can you refer me to the section of V or NOR that advises against using the EB or other reliable encyclopedia as a source for "opinion," and why do you think this is opinion? The modern AR movement has very clear origins, which I don't believe are disputed; or can you provide a source who disputes the EB account of its history? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about the history of the concept please and not the discussion about the modern movement. My purpose in doing the edit was to give this a clearer and less equivocable starting place.

Looking at this article as an outsider with no major opinion one way or another the first thing which strikes me is that the section we are discussing is not a history but an opinion which reads as a modern speculation (POV if you will) about past events and writings which do not objectively support it. For instance Rousseau was clearly discussing a need to shape human interactions in a manner similar to the way he conjectured animals in a state of nature interacted without laws nor rules.

Looking at the article as a whole it seems that it is a well written and well managed exposition of a belief system, nothing more. As such, even a superficial deconstruction leads one to the realization that many of its assertions have interlocking internal rhetorical support but are not supported by any consensual language to the point where a nonbeliever can see objectivity.

If we can come to an understanding I believe I can help make this an article which is more neutral but I fear that without input from persons such as me it will not achieve its possibilites.

Trilobitealive 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't agree this is a well-written article, whether you call it the exposition of a belief system or anything else. Apart from the lead, which I like, I see it as poorly written and poorly researched; I've been wanting to clean it up for almost two years, but can't face the reading I'd have to do. You're therefore more than welcome to try your hand at improving it as far as I'm concerned. My only beef is that it should be done within the content policies. If the EB says that the concept of animal rights can be traced back to the earliest philosophers, then that counts as reliable material for Wikipedia, and it shouldn't be removed over another editor's objections. I see you've not been editing for too long, so perhaps a review of the three core content policies would be helpful. They are WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Good luck! ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is well written as an apology (in the classical sense) for the viewpoint of the writers but not as an encyclopedia article. Like you I don't have the time nor energy to wade through such a low signal to noise ratio in all the material written on the subject in the past 10 years. So I'm going to leave your last edit alone for the time being and add the appropriate dispute flag. I would hope you to be so as to understand that a dispute remains.Trilobitealive 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Back to the specific disputed content, I need to point out that EB references were not all the ones questioned. Even if their validity is conceded the other material is still disputed. (I don't concede that point as the EB is not original source material nor is it verifiable that it quotes the original works in context.) Rousseau's discussion about animals, in addition to being merely illustration for his discussion of human rights, was actually a dissent against Aquinas, apoint which is not mentioned.

I agree the need for reading .V.'s essay on NPOV would be a good starting point for more than one of the editors of this particular article. RegardsTrilobitealive 01:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a misuse of the tag, Tribobite. You have to work to improve it within the content policies, or leave the tag off. Anything that's in the EB article should stay, and any writer discussed by them may also stay. User:.V.'s "essay" on NPOV will not be helpful, I can assure you. The only NPOV page we edit in accordance with is WP:NPOV. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No it is not misuse of the tag. Disputes are what dispute tags are for. I have made my concerns known. I do not arbitrarily delete material. You cannot deny that I posted concerns which were not answered for ten days before I took action to move the material to where it could be worked on. I will rest for a time while deciding whether I want to ask for arbitration.Trilobitealive 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom doesn't hear content disputes, and the attempt to threaten isn't helpful. You're misusing the tag if your intention is to leave it on and disappear without helping to sort out the issues, and if you do that, the tag will be removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My original intention was to work on the article as I stated above, however I require time to think about what is needed and request the respect that would honor the fact that I dispute content and POV. I agree that attempts to threaten aren't helpful.Trilobitealive 02:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that I used the word arbitration when I meant mediation, but that does not negate the validity of my concerns.Trilobitealive 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to work with you to clear some of that up, Tribobite, or do it myself but that might not address the concern. I've also noticed some rather serious issues with content in this article which discusses philisophical positions of various people and was planning on cleaning it up.--C.lettinga 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I started out merely seeing that this section is historically inaccurate but now I see that the ideology itself apparantly does not allow for dissent, even to the point of voicing the fact that dissent exists. I don't see any way of progressing when is presumed that opinion adequately supports opinion and meaning is retroactively decided.Trilobitealive 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, perhaps it would help if I broke this down into parts. If you want I can continue to explain a little bit along over time until my points become clearer or I can take it in whatever order you like. Here is one support for my apprehensions regarding use of Encyclopedia Brittanica: It is a quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources Tertiary—Summarized material drawn from secondary sources, as in general encyclopedias. These sources generally lack adequate coverage of the topic to be considered comprehensive where arguments are subtle and nuanced. They generally do not discuss and evaluate alternative interpretations.Trilobitealive 02:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Trilobite, Wikipedia:Reliable sources is just a guideline, not policy, and it's a guideline that many editors don't rely on as a guideline; in fact, there have been several recent attempts to have its status removed because of the kind of editing that has gone on there. So it has no authority. The policy is WP:V, and I don't think it says anything about encyclopedias. Also, it obviously depends which encyclopedia we're talking about; the EB is regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia. What is your objection to the idea that the concept of animal rights goes back to the earliest philosophers? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Answering your question first, I don't see the section contributing any empirical support for the idea. Using another encyclopedia for illustration purposes I'd invite you to read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Pythagoras.[10] In it you will find a more detalied discussion on the basis of Pythagoras' concern for animals: through transmutation of soul he considered individual animals to be a developmental stage of individual human beings...it says nothing about animal rights nor even their welfare, just mentions his concern about them as being reincarnated friends and family. The article also states that he wrote nothing, nor was any of his work recorded by contemporaries and that material attributed to him was often forged.Trilobitealive 02:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave consideration to your conception that the EB is sufficient source for such a contested article. Even though the person who cited it did not leave an online link I was able to find an article which contained some of the material in the first paragraph. [11] After reading it I concluded that the Wikepedia paragraph is very close to plagiarism, but is possibly not because its key assertions were entirely unsupported by the EB article. Perhaps you'd like to read the EB article to determine in your own mind 1)whether plagiarism exists, 2)whether you can find any actual support for the Wikipedia section's opening statement 3) whether by comparison you can see the relatively strong POV shown by the Wikipedia article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trilobitealive (talk • contribs) 02:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

(forgot to sign and the bot got me!)Trilobitealive 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You're engaged in original research. WP is a tertiary source. We repeat what reliable published sources have said. If the EB says we can trace AR back to the earliest philosophers, and you think that's wrong, you should write to the EB and ask them to correct it. Or you should look for a source that categorically says AR cannot be traced to the earliest philosophers and we can include that opinion too. What you can't do is look around for other material to reinforce your own opinion and use that to exclude what a reliable source has said. Please read the content policies, particularly WP:NOR. As for the plagiarism thing, I don't know what you mean, so please clarify. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism? I don't know but the section in dispute has only a few words changed from the 2006 EB article. Neither the 2006 nor the 2007 article support the thesis that Pythagoras was an animal rightist. They describe animal welfarism.

Original research? Not hardly. But the section in dispute which asserts Pythagoras an animal rightist in dispute with a man who was born a century after he died is original research. 65.81.82.154 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I can't see any plagiarism, and who was Pythagorus meant to be in dispute with? You're going to have to stop talking in riddles because you're wasting our time. If you think there is plagiarism, quote the plagiarized passage, and quote and give a link to the text it is taken from. If you have a question about two people in dispute, name them and be clear and straightforward. If you think the text can be improved, improve it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You have read the Animal rights article haven't you? And the EB article? I was aking your opinions about them.Trilobitealive 00:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Better but not right

• That was a good series of edits by SlimVirgin, for the most part. I took the liberty of demonstrating one way of creating a more NPOV for the first two paragraphs. Also, with online references it is easier for the reader to verify assertions.Trilobitealive 04:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have noticed a lack of ISBNs on some of the references. While this may be permissable it is not optimal.Trilobitealive 04:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• The dispute flag appears to have been prematurely deleted so I will re-instate it. It was my understanding that if there is an editing dispute the one who has the dispute should delete such flags. One should not be too hasty in deleting other editors' work. A dispute flag is helpful for reviewers and others who wish to contribute. The reader can review the substance of my dispute above. While the last series of edits has helped there is still work to be done.Trilobitealive 04:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop implying that you're the only person who understands NPOV and how to edit. The material is sourced and accurate, so stop removing it and stop using the tag as way of enforcing your POV. Also, do not use the Bible as a primary source. Please READ our content policies before continuing: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. You write: "One should not be too hasty in deleting other editors' work," yet that is most of what you've been doing here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry, you win. Have a good day.Trilobitealive 02:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The section needs NPOV please

While I agree the quality of references is improved the POV dispute remains. Please don't delete my flag without cause. You will also see I added some information from the mainstream human rights organization Southern Poverty Law Center to the introduction. I would hope this doesn't disappear into a footnote as some of the mitigating info regarding Pythagoras has done. RegardsTrilobitealive 15:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosopher's Positions

Hi. Looking over this page carefully for the first time, it seems that, in particular, Cohen's position is not represented particularly well. Additionally, is there some sort of rationale for including strict utilitarian/Regan's specific rights view/an abolitionist view and not some others? There are other, "softer" utilitarians who hold an animal rights position, "rights" folks who have markedly different conceptualizations of rights, and consequentialists who also are in favor of animal rights, at least if Singer can be said to be in support of "rights." I don't think we ought to include every little neuance, but perhaps major streams of thought might be worthwhile. Just wondering what's been happening; particularly since this is an area that I'm currently working in.--C.lettinga 23:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi C.lettinga, the rationale behind anything not being included is probably a lack of time or familiarity on the part of the contributors here. Whatever improvements you can make would most likely be very welcome. — coelacan talk — 23:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi C.lettiga, by all means give it a go. Any material should be within the content policies, which basically means don't add your own opinions or arguments, and stick to what major animal rights sources (for or against) say. The article does need major improvement by someone who's able accurately to describe the various positions. Good luck. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Animal liberation movement

Please leave material, like that from the Southern Poverty Law Center, out of this article and place it instead in the Animal Liberation Movement article. This is just about the concept of AR. If we do both here, it'll be too long. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Trilobite

Do not change again that "The 20th century debate about animal rights can be traced back to the earliest philosophers." It is sourced and it is accurate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy

"The animal-rights debate, much like the abortion debate, is complicated by the difficulty of establishing clear-cut distinctions on which to base moral and political judgements. The default human/non-human animal relationship is deeply rooted in prehistory and tradition but arguments for animal rights are flawed by the basic human inability to understand the subjective state of animals in question. [30]" The citation for this claim does not seem to support it. The final paragraph in the paper explains that given the difficulty in reading animals' minds that the precautionary principle should be more central to the discussion of rights than most people take it to be. This paper is clearly NOT a claim that arguments for animals' rights are uniformily flawed. (I wonder whether the author of the paragraph actually read the paper they cited?) Also of interest is another paper by one of the authors. See: "Moral rights and human culture" [12]Rbogle 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed a paragraph

I've removed the following from the history section:

In Nazi Germany, one of the first acts of the new regime was to enact animal protection laws, (Animal Rights in the Third Reich Kaltio, Aslak Aikio February 2003, 1933 Law on Animal Protection, World Future Fund) although they continued to allow research on animals; Roberta Kalechofsky cites The Lancet, which reviewed the Nazis' anti-vivisection legislation and concluded that it was no different from the 1875 British law, which restricted but did not eliminate animal testing. (Kalechofsky, Roberta. Nazis and Animal Research, Micah Publications)

This was inserted into the history section for the purpose of equating animal rights with Nazism. It seems absurd, particularly as the Nazi anti-vivisection legislation was the same as the British legislation of 1875. Does anyone object to its removal? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Object. If the Nazis are one of the first to enact animal protection rights, then the information should be included. You shouldn't censor Wikipedia like what you did there. The paragraph in no way states animal rights is Nazism. That paragraph seems well supported as well.--141.213.198.142 04:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I also Object,

• 1. Speculation on the purpose of the addition to Wikipedia is

• a) Completely redundant since that can never be an issue in Wikipedia. All that is relevant is whether the information is notable and cited to a reliable source. and
• b) OR, and not very good OR at that, since the original source also describes how some neo-nazis who have read up on the history of the topic have tried to join the AR movement but at least in Finland "misanthropic deep ecology appears to be marginal within the thought of Finnish animal activists."

• 2. Those who have read the source Animal Rights in the Third Reich know that it was about more than vivisection (see also the law-chapters). In deed, I believe I recognize the removal of the cited paragraph in the description provided in the source regarding others actions. Sadly at the end we learn that "Most of the Nazis' animal protection rules were dissolved after the fall of the Third Reich. The wolf was hunted extinct, and nature preservation areas were cultivated. In Germany, history burdened everything connected with nature preservation and vegetarianism until the beginning of the 70s."
• 3. What is the source for the claim that the Nazi vivisection laws were the same as the British legislation of 1875? The source given, Micahbooks is what seems more like a webblogg than a reputable publisher. And indeed she publishes her own books, and self-published books are not permitted to cite in Wikipedia since they then have not gone through the review process that a reputable publisher performs.
• 4. If indeed this even has ever been published in a book, in which case the name of the book and ISBN should have been provided.
• 5. Further, her reference to the Lancet provides no information on how to locate the Lancet article to check for one self the accuracy of her allegation (verifiability...). Any scholarly paper worth its name would at least have provided a date in a footnote.
• 6. There are other sources available that show that the German laws were indeed notable.

"The new administration took immediate legislative actions affecting the entire biomedical community. For example, it ceased to enforce the extraordinarily advanced legislation of the Weimar Republic on human experimentation99 100 while at the same time implementing a most stringent and research restricting law on animal protection.101 102" (Ref: Hartmut M Hanauske-Abel Not a slippery slope or sudden subversion: German medicine and National Socialism in 1933 BMJ 1996;313:1453-1463 (7 December)

• 7. Indeed the Nazis themselves apparently felt that they were doing good for animals, not just window dressing with paper laws. See Himlers October 1943Posen speech, where he tried to cheer up the gloomy SS people: "We Germans, who are the only people in the world who have a decent attitude towards animals, will also assume a decent attitude towards these human animals."

Therefore I have modified and reinserted the paragraph, minus the text from Micahbooks until the information can be sourced directly to the relevant Lancet article, if it indeed actually exists.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 21:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The major flaw I see with this entire section, and the Finnish source is that they both cover 'Animal welfare' and not animal rights. I see no mention in the law itself which mentions animal rights, instead it covers the concepts behind 'animal welfare'.

Second, the article makes a series of outlandish claims without any sources to support them (such as animal rights people making things up to say that Hitler wasn't a vegetarian, etc...). I would say that this source is unreliable - it is full of problems and is entirely unsupported by sources.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Aslak Aikio describes the motives behind the law in the chapter "No difference between animals and people". Not quite the equality between man and beast used in modern human rights, but a hierarchical continuum with no sharp borders. Close enough to me since it is in the history of this article section. And true, in the English text no sources are given, and I don't know Finnish so I cant check the Finnish version. However, this type of source is allowed, since for instance the International Herald Tribune is permitted, and they rarely provide sources either. Besides we're using no claims that can't be checked. Surely editors active in this article would react if it was untrue that the "classic Animal Liberation (1975) by Peter Singer. In the meticulous history section, he leaves the period 1880-1945 out completely". Please be more specific about "outlandish claims". My reading of the paragraph is that he says that some animal rights people lie about Nazi animal rights by denying it, and some Vegetarians lie about Hitlers vegetarianism. It is well known that Hitler was a vegetarian, but not on moral grounds since (according to Albert Speer at least, or someone, cant remember) he believed it would make him live long enough to fulfill his dream, but he had no qualms about a tidbit now and then. He also rarely drank, and after German scientists discovered in the 30's that smoking caused lung-cancer Germany endured some of the strictest anti smoking campaigns, so I don't believe he smoked either. The Finnish article also points out that "Hitler apparently lapsed every now and then into eating the Austrian mountain delicatessen of his childhood, sausage, game animals, and air-dried ham.". An jay.. wiki has an article on the notable topic Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler... The Micah site brings up the vegetarianism topic as well, and lets do a google on "Hitler was a vegetarian", and what do we find.

• Hitler was not a vegetarian Vegetarian guide
• Was Hitler vegetarian? Toronto Vegetarian Association
• Carni-Fuhrer: Why one vegetarian activist is obsessed with Hitler's diet. Slate
• Why Hitler Was Not a Vegetarian
• Hitler a vegetarian? The food revolution

All this (and more) on the first Google page. It seems that it is important for some Vegetarians to distance themselves from Hitler, and that some will make stuff up to be able to do so doesn't seem so "outlandish". Perhaps it applies to other areas as well?--Stor stark7 ^Talk 23:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There are other problems with the artcle frpm Kaltio. 1) The supposed quotes from the law are not found in the law, 2) The statement ""The law was also the first one to abolish the distinction between domestic and wild animals" is incorrect, Sweden did the same in 1907 [13] 3) The article says "If someone, for instance, had transported slaughter animals in the same way Jews were transported to extermination camps, that person would have been shot" though the law states a maximum penaltyof two years in prison. All in all, the article seems very speculative to me, and I think that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's quality standards.Sjö 13:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Plant rights

Plants, like animals, don't want to be killed for their lands and nutrients. Shouldn't there be an article on Plant rights? For example, it will forbid the removal of trees from lands for houses when apartments could be built to house more people. People who love life and support animal rights but neglect plants are hypocrites. Protect trees and plants! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

There should also be an article on Plant welfare for those who believe plants can be cleared from lands for housing, and for other good intentions such as removal of invasive plant species, but unnecessary removal or damage to single plants or plant parts for aesthetic values such as mowing the lawn or removal of weeds on sidewalks should be forbidden.--141.213.198.142 04:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all this is not the place for orginal research - if the term "plant rights" really exists, then give a link and we'll talk about it. Secondly, if you actually read this article you'll see terms like "sentience" which is largely defining why plants are excluded from rights. Happy easter, sir. --Lhademmor 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not original research. Look http://www.google.com/search?q=plant+rights&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1 There's also a "plant pain" and a thing called "plant intelligence." Now you can start talking about Plant rights. Happy easter to you too.--141.213.198.142 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"You're either with us or against us"

I've replaced the anti-environemntalist description of Robert Bidinotto with his job, writer. I want to make it clear that I am not advocating his opinions or beliefs, but in general this kind of editing is exactly what WP:NPOV is supposed to address:

Fairness of tone

If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone.

When the label of anti-environmentalist is applied to a person, it essentially says "don't listen to him/her they hate the environment."

This article makes it seem as if there are only two options; treat animals as equals or treat animals as the Nazi's did people.

Respectfully, I can't agree with all of the ideas of the Animal Rights movement because animals won't acknowledge any policy (they can't) and if I emancipatd my dog I'd have to open the front door and let him roam as he pleased probably never to return. If I had a dog like a Pit Bull there would also be the possibility of someone getting hurt or killed by my former dog. However I think that there is a lot that could be done to improve animal rights in a more reasonable way. Therefore I feel there is midle ground here, so I'm just saying that we should acknowledge that there are more than two ways to see this. For the basic sake of fairness, let's not use labels like anti-environmentalist (or terms like tree hugger for those inclined the other way). Anynobody 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Term inconsistency: animal, non-human animal, other species

It might be useful to bring more consistent terminology into this article. Sometimes the term "animal" is used to refer to all animals (Kingdom: Animalia), while other times it's used to refer to all animals except humans. Perhaps the former is more scientifically accurate, and can be defined in the intro as such, and then when specifically referring to all other animals species except humans, use the term "non-human animals". The term or "other species" should refer to all living things, not just animals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.178.143 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-04 15:41:45 (UTC).

Two suggestions

1. I think that it is odd that you have a section called "animal rights and the Holocaust," without mentioning that the Nazis were known for their pro-Animal Rights stand.

2. The article should include discussion of the latest controversy [14]. --Mr Keck 14:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

First, the latest controversy is a media frenzy over whether or not animal protection laws are being broken by, effectively, domesticating a wild animal. We shouldn't be including every little news article related to animal rights in this article, else it would be the single largest article on the site.

Second, the relation to Nazi animal welfare laws is stupid - the nazi's passed laws protecting animal welfare, not giving animals rights. Also, the laws that were put in place in Germany in 1933 were similar to the laws passed in the UK. If you can find some credible sources discussing this subject then by all means provide them.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Less Western views

I've seen a few complaints/suggestions about a Western bias in this article.

Maybe there should be info. about Buddhism and Sikhism in relation to animal rights? I know that, for instance, no Buddhist text may explicitly talk about autonomy or "duties", etc, and though these are some of the Western ideas in support of/against animal rights that lead up to the modern movement, there are non-Western ideas, religions, etc that support animal rights without using the Western reasons. Is this relevant to the article?

Maybe just links to the Buddhism and Vegetarianism page, etc? Faunablues 02:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The non-Western ideas are definitely relevant, FB, so long as the texts discuss the concept of animal rights (even if they don't use that exact term), as opposed to animal welfare. I don't know what you have in mind, so it's hard to judge. Would you mind giving an example? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the basis distinction (greatly simplified) is:

• Animal welfare = "we may own and use animals so long as we avoid unnecessary suffering."
• Animal rights = "we may not own or use animals, no matter how well we treat them." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I had in mind involves a book by Norm Phelps, "The Great Compassion: Buddhism and Animal Rights." Basically about what Buddhist writings (scripture? not sure if that's an accurate term) prescribe for Buddhists' treatment of animals (including an argument for Buddhists to be vegan). Not an online source, but I did find this http://www.springerlink.com/content/q26qw77x36543372/

and chapter four is on animal rights: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EXwHkQJQ5ecC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR9&dq=%22animal+rights%22+buddhism&ots=G586ZRMR9B&sig=JwLxB3hvwBCkCRCfBUVNPMuQpIE#PRA1-PA81,M1 It seems like, based on the different sects of Buddhism, some would support animal welfare as an interpretation of ahimsa, whereas others would see it as prohibiting the use of animals. Or at least that's similar to what I read in another wikipedia article... Faunablues 06:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks interesting. That source certainly discusses animal rights explicitly, so it seems valid to include it here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad Link

reference # 8 someone please check for more didn't know where else to put this --70.68.43.50 04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Animal rights and the Holocaust - a suggestion

The Animal rights and the Holocaust section is dominated by information from the work of Charles Patterson, but no credentials are presented, although we can deduce he wrote a book. Likewise, no evidence is presented that the book is the most noteworthy statement on this topic, although it is strongly implied because of its dominance in the section. Wearing my editor's hat, the section seems weak because it is assumes to be authoritative without providing the reader with concrete reasons why it is so.

My suggestion is to replace the whole section with the lead material from Animal rights and the Holocaust. The lead section should be a good summary of the topic and it is currently well referenced. If that lead section isn't quite right as it stands, it can be updated before copying it here. Typically this is a step I would be bold about and do, but this article is a bit more sensitive to changes than some others! What do other editors think? Burlywood 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

With no contrary opinion, I will go ahead and make this change. Burlywood 19:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week

World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week is this coming week (April 22nd - 28th, 2007), so we can probably expect extra visitors on this and associated pages. Lets be vigilant, people. Rockpocket 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Animal rights

I think that animals should live as it is nature. when the fox kills a chicken we should look foward to seeing new chick at easter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.151.203 (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

"Unable to enter into a social contract"

I have applied {{fact}} to the statement about "Critics of the concept of animal rights argue that animals do not have the capacity to enter into a social contract or make moral choices". The reason for this is, that I'm unable to find any proof of that in the source given. Besides, Tom Regan is not a critic of the concept, but a major supporter? Can somebody please enlighten me as to where in the source it says that about the critics? --Lhademmor 12:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the list of organisations

I'd like to add to the Animal rights Organisation List, the group Voiceless (see http://www.voiceless.org.au), but as the page is semiprotected how can I do that?

Subsections of history

Would it do the article good if the History-section had more subsections? Give it a couple of headings so it's not a long, pure text. --Lhademmor 14:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy Standards

The Wikipedia policy requires that the citations be from a neutral source, not an advocacy group. Citations from such sources need to be removed to meet policy standards. Important statements without a supporting reference are original research and need be removed until properly referenced. Some references are borderline and there is no official guideline that quite meets the need for these. My personal guideline is if there is discussion of both povs (when there are more than one). Articles that make the case for any pov are not good references because they have a diferent purpose.Raggz 18:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no position on whether the original version is OR, I do believe that you cannot mutilate the text by removing the first sentence from the introduction. Without that, the text becomes extremely unclear. I would advise you to follow policy and not just delete stuff but use tags like I did for you. C mon 19:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Leading image caption

I noticed that the caption for the leading image was not objective. I read the source cited, which was an advocacy group, and clearly original research. The statement The animal was kept hungry so that visitors could feed him live eels from a ladle. is neither objective nor proven in the source article.

I changed the POV part of the caption of the leading image from The animal was kept hungry so that visitors could feed him live eels from a ladle. to The photographers expressed concern that the animal must have been hungry and noted that visitors fed him live eels from a ladle. but SlimVirgin reverted it.

My effort to improve the objectivity was well-intentioned, but now realize that I failed the Wikipedia standard on original research. I am therefore about to remove the POV sentence and link entirely in order to comply with Wikipedia standards. If anyone wants to improve the caption, it should be in a manner that adheres to the Wikipedia policy prohibiting original research.

Although irrelevant to the violation of original research, I will mention FYI that there is no proof presented in the source that the civet was kept hungry so visitors could feed it. The evidence presented claimed that visitors were feeding it, which the photographer could reasonably have observed. However, the site does not say how long the animal was observed, nor how many visitors were feeding it, so even if it were not original research, the original caption is unproven. JD Lambert 01:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Animal Masturbation vs Castration

Hi, I have come across a number of videos regarding US food industry castrating cattles on a large scale with no anesthetic medication. Basically these animals have their testicles ripped out with maximum pain on an extremely massive scale. Most would consider this animal abuse certainly if it was done on dogs or cats. Is there anything that can help cattles masturbate to control their aggression? Maybe a machine or a tool? GodBwithU 13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're making an undocumented leap that the castration of cattle is done to reduce agression. I'm not sure, but it's probably done to reduce costs or produce more meat. Electro-ejaculation or other ways of gathering bull sperm, which is done for most breeding, is costly and wouldn't really address the agression issue. This is similar to debeaking chickens in intensive agriculture. The claim is that it is to reduce agression, but if the chickens had more space the agression wouldn't be a problem. Probably the same story for intact cattle.Bob98133 14:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Entire bulls are very dangerous - to each other and people. Castration reduces their aggression and unpredictability. If two or more bulls are kept together there are no problems with intraspecific violence, although they will attack people occasionally. The problem is when there are 2+bulls AND cows - the bulls will fight over the cows, injuring or killing each other. Unlike most carnivores (e.g. wolves) herbivores like cattle have very few inhibitions about doing injury to each other. If you gave them enough space (like, say 1000 sq km) there would be LESS fighting, but not much, as all the bulls of a similar size would fight for dominance. The problem is avoided without castration in one of 2 ways: keep the animals in same-sex groups, and accept the increased risk to the handlers, or kill the male calves at birth. Neither of these is ideal, to say the least. That said, there is no reason to castrate calves without anaesthetic - my experience is that apart from anything else, its too bloody dangerous NOT to use anaesthetic - a colleague of mine nearly lost a finger when a student's knife slipped because the calf kicked at the wrong time! Oh, and masturbation wouldn't really help matter either - increased sexual activity usually increases aggression in animals like bulls and stallions. Dlh-stablelights 08:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sam Harris

I agree with SlimVirgin that Sam Harris should be referred to as neuroscientist, not author. Both are correct, but for citing his expertise on the topic being quoted, neuroscientist is more appropriate. Mr. Harris is working on a doctorate in neuroscience, as SlimVirgin previously noted, which means he already has to have an authoritative level knowledge in the field. I hope no one thinks a person cannot be an authority without already having a doctorate... JD Lambert 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm unhappy with a PhD student with no other background in neuroscience being referred to as a 'neuroscientist', particularly when he is notable for other reasons (i.e. as an author). --Coroebus 16:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it depends what you are using as the definition of 'neuroscientist'. He is a scientist doing a PHD in neuroscience. I personally see that as being a neuroscientist.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is probably a scientist/non-scientist thing. I wouldn't call a PhD student a scientist (well I would in the sense that you call an undergraduate a 'historian' or a 'physicist'), nor would I call someone with a PhD that doesn't actively do research a scientist either. In this case, as Harris has no background in science, your criterion would make anyone accepted onto a PhD programme a 'scientist', 'historian', whatever, the moment they start, despite having done little to no science (particularly in US PhD programmes that last forever). In this case his notability comes entirely from his status as an author - I've got a neuroscience PhD, but you wouldn't quote me! By calling him 'neuroscientist Sam Harris' rather than 'author Sam Harris' we are misleading the reader as to the guys notability - in no way does his notability, and thus inclusion, derive from his being a part-time graduate student! --Coroebus 17:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see why people would be reluctant to use "neuroscientist," but on the other hand, he is doing some very unusual and pertinent research: a philosopher using medical imaging to look at belief (i.e. consciousness). That makes his views directly relevant here, and we have to convey that somehow. Calling him an author doesn't convey it. Perhaps we could simply describe his research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a fair bit of that kind of research done now that imaging has become so widespread. I'm not aware of what kind of research he is doing specifically. I'm not sure exactly what to call him as reading his article (I only know of him qua atheism) he seems difficult to pin down beyond 'author'. 'Writer on science and religion', or, in terms of relevance, just plain 'science author'? --Coroebus 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I've made the atheism/animal rights connection I'm motivated to go dig out some Marian Stamp Dawkins stuff for this section. --Coroebus 17:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Doctoral programs don't normally accept candidates without a substantial amount of knowledge in the field. However, there appears to be a dearth of biographical info on Mr. Harris other than he is the author of several best-sellers that are not on neuroscience. The info I've found shows a bachelors in philosophy from Stanford and a masters in Creative and Transactional Writing from Brunel. I also called the University of California, where samharris.org says he is working on his doctorate in neuroscience, and the registrar could not find him by Sam or Samuel Harris. So until someone can explain how much time he's been in the doctoral program, or provide other neuroscience credentials, I think a citation as author is best. JD Lambert 17:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

He's been doing the PhD since 2001 at UCLA. I'll dig out a ref for you. He may have left, or he may have had his name removed for security reasons; he's apparently not keen on people knowing much about his whereabouts because he's criticized Islam. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That he's at UCLA. [15] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Harris is the one with the master's in creative writing; I think you may be confusing him with one of his reviewers. [16] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Mea culpa on the masters -- you're right, that was a reviewer. However, now I'm even more puzzled. The bio on samharris.org doesn't list a masters at all. Does he have a masters? If not, how did he get into a doctoral program? If he is still in it, and began in 2001, is he all-but-discertation (ABD)? I think the average limit for doctoral programs is 7 years. BTW, it was UCLA I phoned, I just referred to it as U of C because they have lots more campuses than just in LA. He could be enrolled under his middle name or something though, and I can certainly understand not wanting to be easy to find if you've published something some people might want to kill you for. :( Not getting confirmation on his enrollment and status doesn't bother me as much as finding nothing other than probably being a student to indicate an expertise in neuroscience. JD Lambert^(T|C) 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to have a masters to get onto a doctoral programme. I believe that he is a part time PhD student (from one of his interviews) so presumably the time limit doesn't apply. --Coroebus 21:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a master's to enter a PhD program, and he'd still be within the seven years time limit if full-time (and it's easy to get extensions anyway). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that, to mention him as a "neuroscientist", one would at least expect to have some peer reviewed work on neuroscience published. Whether he is still a student or not, If he had published a few neuroscience papers then I would think it is fair. If he hasn't, and we can find no evidence of a higher degree in neuroscience, then it would be better to leave "neuroscientist" out, or at least preface it with "training to be a..." Rockpocket 21:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rockpocket. When I originally endorsed referring to Harris as a neuroscientist, I expected him to have a significant track record in order to qualify to enter the doctoral program, but I have found nothing significant in this regard. The reference should be changed to author for now, and should be updated if and when he finishes his doctorate or gets a peer-reviewed article published. JD Lambert^(T|C) 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with going back to writer, but I'd like to see some reference to what he's doing, because otherwise it's not clear why we're bothering to cite him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your new description of Harris -- it's excellent. Thanks! JD Lambert^(T|C) 22:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. I think this provides more context to his expertise also, most "neuroscientists" wouldn't have a clue about theories of mind. Rockpocket 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image sizes

SlimVirgin, please do not revert my edit, which removed the fixed image sizes, because you claim the images are too small. You likely have a large monitor to view the images and that is why they look small, if you are viewing this article on a computer with a small display, the images without any fixed size are not too small and the images with the sizes fixed (your edit) are way too large. Please read WP:MOS, which states:

Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: On images with extreme aspect ratios. When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts. When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region. On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.
Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Christopher, I'm happy to reduce them, but using only thumbs leaves them tiny for many readers. Please don't apply the MoS rigidly; it's just a guideline and a controversial one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the thumbs don't leave the images too small for many readers. Readers who use large displays may have a problem viewing the images, but that is why they can change their preferences to make the images larger. Again, the fixed images are too large for people will small displays. I know the MOS is controversial, but keep in mind the guidelines were reached by consensus and there are guidelines for a reason--not to simply ignore them because you disagree. I think the image in the lead should be at 200px or 225px if you insist it should be fixed, but the other image should not be fixed in accordance with the MOS. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

MoS guidelines are rarely reached by wide consensus, which is why it's usually ignored. Most readers don't have image sizes fixed in preferences; it's editors who do that, but we're writing this for readers, not for ourselves. As I said, we can compromise with smaller images, but not as small as you'd prefer them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the MOS was usually ignored, but one should also consider while enlarging the photographs will be beneficial to those with large displays who have not set their preferences and who don't want to click on an image to enlarge it, it would be a nuisance to those who have a small display because large images will warp the text to make the article harder to read. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 02:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

SlimVirgin, please do not remove clean-up tags. You stated in your edit summary (when you removed the clean-up tag): "it has 53 footnotes; by all means add more if you want to, but pls don't disfigure the page." I reason I inserted Template:nofootnote is because the references section lists 21 references, and as the template says, "sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations;" just because there are already a large amount of footnotes, does not mean this clean-up tag should be removed as 21 references are still not used in footnotes. This clean-up tag is made so people will use <ref> tags instead of listing references at the end of the article. Removing a clean-up tag without proper reason is not constructive. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Notes section listed 53 footnotes — inline citations — which is fine for an article this size. It's nowhere close to the quality of article that needs a clean-up tag. The ref section is just a repetition of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Christopher, if you make a change to an article, and someone reverts you, the right response is not simply to revert back, but to address the objections. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware the reference section was just a repetition of some of the footnotes. Usually, when a reference is noted in <ref> tags, it is not listed again as a bullet under references, I was just confused. I would not have reverted your edit, but your edit summary didn't properly explain the situation and I didn't know the references section was repeating references in the notes section; sorry about that. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 01:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Userbox and Wikiproject

Is there a userbox or Wikiproject for this subject? Someone message me on my usertalkpage please. -PatPeter 04:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow... problems with this article.

This article completely conflates the concept of Animal rights with the Animal liberation movement - to the point that the two articles are often very redundant to each other. The first sentence of this article is "Animal rights... is the movement to protect non-human animals from being used or regarded as property by humans." There's no cite given for that, and it's wrong: "Animal rights" is not a movement at all. It's a concept. I'll see what I can do to fix it. --Hyperbole 04:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's both a concept and a movement, but I've tweaked the lead to reflect your concerns. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki admin, please integrate the content of the artile to the topic

http://calbears.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3852/is_200601/ai_n17181360

for some reason, the page is not editable to me and I leave it with you guys

Thank you. It's very interesting. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The main picture

Is animal rights propaganda. It does not show what 'Animal rights' is. --192.28.2.6 15:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please enlighten us as to what would be representative of animal rights, other than an animal in a situation which has relevance to the animal rights/animal liberation movement?-Localzuk^(talk) 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism in the Movement

In 2001 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (U.S.) reported in a testimony before [Congress] <http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/freeh051001.htm> that the Animal Liberation Front - an extremist group partially financed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - was considered to be the most dangerous domestic terrorist organization known. This was even before the word terrorist became sexy. Why no mention of it? I thought, for the most part, that the article was pretty well done, but balance requires the mention of what some may say is the dirty laundry of the Animal Rights Movement.--Dentate 12:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that anyone can testify about anything in Congress - that doesn't make it true. A lot of testimony in Congress is just grandstanding and pushing a point of view. If PETA is financing ALF, I'm sure there would be some hard news with details, indictments, etc. which should go in this article, but without those this is just speculation. I don't think that ALF was declared to be "the most dangerous domestic terrorist organization known." I recall that the FBI just said that animal rights and environmental terrorists were the most dangerous domestic terrorist organizations, although ALF or ELF may have been mentioned, they weren't sinlged out as more dangerous than any other. If there is some act of animal rights terrorism, including massive loss of human life, such as the Oklahoma City bombing, then certainly include that.Bob98133 13:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would point the original poster at Animal Liberation Front for the correct place for this to be mentioned.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Animal Rights a religion?

According to adherents.com, Animal Rights is a religion. Quote: "AR is a religion, but for the majority of Animal Rights supporters, AR functions as a movement and/or lifestyle choice, not their primary religion." Thoughts? Syneil 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a religion as 1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship.. As there is no supernatural controlling power etc... then no, Animal Rights is not a religion - it is an philosophical ideology and a movement.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, where on that site is that claim made? I cannot find it at all, Animal Rights is not listed by name anyway...-Localzuk^(talk) 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Philosophy section

I reviewed the reference that is provided for this comment: <Mameli and Bortolotti argue that animal rights are questionable because humans cannot understand the subjective state of animals.< Their conclusion would be equally true for saying that "electricity is questionable because humans cannot understand it" or nuclear fission or all sorts of other "incomprehensible" things in our world. Basically, it seems that they are saying if we can't understand something, it doesn't exist. While it's fine acknowledging this as a philosophy, I'm not sure that it adequately replaces content that was removed.Bob98133 14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Bob but found no other source to make the point. Therefore thought it should be removed until a source was found. I agree that M and B are non-sensical but who am I to argue with the SOURCE. Mccready 14:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Animals have the right to be tasty.

The article fails to state that most people believe animals don't have any rights at all. Should the article not disciuss this viewpoint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.9.52 (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You would need a reference to support your point of view about what most people believe. Spell check wouldn't hurt either. Bob98133 04:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yewell haf ta exkuze mi puur thpelleng. Anyway --- how many people believe animlas have rights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.9.52 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If the matter of how many people believe that animals have rights is of interest to you, please find that information and reference your source. I would be interested in seeing the number. Bob98133 00:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would expect the article to state said number. Does anyone know how many people believe animlas have rights?

How many people believe humans have rights? David Olivier 15:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

All believe humans have rights.

The estimated world population as of July 2007 is 6,602,224,175 [17]. The statement "All believe humans have rights." indicates that all 6,602,224,175 believe that humans have rights - but this can't possibly be correct since a large percentage of these 6.6 billion are under the age of understanding rights, while other percentages are senile, insane and otherwise incapable of making any distinction or holding any opinion about rights - human or animal. That's why we need references to put something in an article, not just opinions. Similarly, the intial statement that "most people believe animals don't have any rights at all" means that up to half of the world population may believe that animals have rights, since "most" indicates at least one more than 50%. Whether or not people believe that animals have rights or not, or how many believe this, really is not germane to an article about animal rights any more than the number of people with color blindness is to an article about red.Bob98133 01:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you've clarified on which side of the issue you sit. Anyway...Does anyone know how many people believe animlas have rights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.9.52 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, here is a 2003 summary of a Gallup Poll:

Poll finds Americans cool toward animal rights Animal rights activists have their work cut out for them. A Gallup poll testing public reaction to several animal rights goals found that most Americans aren't willing to fundamentally change their views about animals.

Conducted May 5-7, the Gallup survey of 1,005 adults discovered that a majority—71 percent—believe animals are entitled to some protections from harm and exploitation. But just 25 percent think that animals deserve the same rights as people.

In addition, most of those surveyed opposed banning all product testing or medical research on laboratory animals or prohibiting all types of hunting. There was, however, substantial support—62 percent—for passing stricter laws regulating the treatment of farm animals.

Bernard E. Rollin, PhD, a professor of philosophy and biomedical sciences at Colorado State University, says increased federal regulation of the biomedical research industry has assuaged public concerns about laboratory animal abuse. "Now," Dr. Rollin observed, "people are asking for agricultural protections."

Interestingly, of the 25 percent who say that animals deserve the same rights as people, many nevertheless objected to limitations on animal use. For instance, 48 percent reject the notion of banning medical research on animals; 38 percent oppose prohibitions on testing products on animals; 23 percent don't support greater regulation of farm animals; and more than half oppose banning all types of hunting.

The poll also found that women are more likely than men to support animal rights, and Democrats more likely than Republicans, but there are few differences by age. 66.120.181.218 (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

rights in the wild

African wild dogs disembowel their prey and leave it to die. Where were the rights of that prey animal? Where are the activists trying to make the african wild dogs go vegetarian? Oh, and humans are animals to. What about all the people that got bitten by sharks when they were doing their own business swimming around? Dont they have a right not to be bitten by a shark? T.Neo (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Great idea, but not for this article since the focus of this article is animal rights from the human perspective. Perhaps you could do a new Animal Rights in the Wild Wiki page, research and document whether sharks have the right to bite and whether people have the right not to be bitten. Go for it. Bob98133 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust quote question

I quote from the article:

The comparison has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.[50][49] Roberta Kalechofsky of Jews for Animal Rights argues that, although there is "connective tissue" between animal suffering and the Holocaust, they "fall into different historical frameworks, and comparison between them aborts the ... force of anti-Semitism.[51]

My question is about the redacted Kalechofsky quote. It seems to be logically inverted, with a probable missing negation. Does anyone have the original full quote, or the actual book it comes from? There is also no page number in the reference. Crum375 (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I can supply a page number, I think. How would it seem to be logically inverted? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you supply the complete quote? For me, "aborts the force of X" means "weakens X". Which would mean that the comparison weakens antisemitism, whereas I would have assumed she meant strengthens. It's possible I am missing something, of course. One idea: maybe she said "abets"? Crum375 (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she meant weakens it. She is saying that if you compare animal abuse to antisemitism -- if you talk about them in terms of moral equivalence -- you are weakening the concept of antisemitism. Weakening it as a bad thing to be accused of -- "comparison aborts the force ..." I'll try to find the whole sentence, but I'm pretty good at not lifting things out of context in a way that changes them, so I am trusting my own judgment here, even though I have no memory of it. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Aborts the concept of antisemitism could make sense, I suppose. But "aborts the force" is different. So we do need the full quote, I think. Crum375 (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The force of the concept, the force of the allegation. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Still very unclear, at least to me. It would be very useful to have the complete quotation, to see exactly what she said. All I can find on Google are echoes of this article, with the redacted quote. Crum375 (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what difference it will make: "But animal suffering and the Holocaust fall into different historical frameworks, and comparison between them aborts the historic matrix and force of anti-Semitism." p. 12. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my own denseness, then. I don't understand how comparing between the suffering of animals in slaughterhouses and factory farms, and humans in the Holocaust, has any impact on antisemitism. Presumably her point is that it is less horrible to torture and kill animals, and I suppose she'd be in a wide majority. But how does that affect antisemitism, and why does it abort its historic matrix and force? Antisemitism is generally the hatred of Jews; how does comparing their fate in the Holocaust to that of animals affect that hatred? Crum375 (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

She is just making the common point that to compare the Holocaust to anything (and the antisemitism that led to it) weakens the memory and history of it. She believes there is a comparison to be made with the treatment of animals -- but she feels it ought not to be made; that making it is too risky and too disrespectful. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see that to compare the Holocaust to animal suffering, from her perspective, would weaken the memory of the Holocaust. But does that "abort the force of antisemitism"? If anything, that would enhance the force of antisemitism, or the hatred of Jews, if we assume that antisemites would like to forget the Holocaust. Crum375 (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)