Talk:Animal rights/Article RfC

Moved from main page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I remind you once again, as dozens of editors before me have done, of WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and Wikipedia:Harassment. I repeat: if you continue to stalk me, I will take you before the arbcom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I remind you once again of NPOV policy. And if you see a violation of NPA or CIV, please point out what specific words by me were violating that policy, otherwise, I'll take your mention of those policies as nothing more than threats to get me to leave this article to POV editors such as yourself. FuelWagon 15:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I took a look at this article after seeing it listed on the RfC, and I find the intro to have very serious POV problems. It makes assertions such as "It is a radical movement, insofar as it aims not merely to attain more humane treatment for animals, but to include many animals within the moral community — that is, all those whose basic interests (for example, in not being made to suffer unnecessarily) ought to be given the same consideration as our own similar interests." The idea that it is even possible to "include many animals within the moral community" seems to me to be so POV that it should be excluded from the intro -- the article reads like an editorial. Likewise "non-human animals" -- animals are generally regarded as non-human by definition, and conversely, humans are non-animal. If the animal rights activists want to blur the distinction, that can be mentioned in the article, but not asserted as a given in the intro. Do we know of any debates within the animal community, as to whether carnivores should cease their bloody exploitation of smaller carnivores, or even worse, innocent herbivores? And are the herbivores entirely innocent, given that they consume plants, some of which, it is said, feel pain? The philosophical positions taken by the animal rights movement are novel and perhaps interesting, but the present intro to the article contains an implicit endorsement of these axioms, which is, to my mind, totally unacceptable for Wikipedia purposes. --HK 16:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Grindel 11/27/05/14:46 EST

I looked at the article page for animal rights and have come to a few conclusions. There are two ways to eliminate this argument from the perspective of an article on this topic. One way is to write an article that is unbiased that has no opinion from either side. Present the topic from a perspective of documenting not supporting a philosophical debate. This is the simplest method. If one were to read an encyclopedia on a controversial debate one should find that article makes the reader aware the debate exists and should highlight the major arguments on both sides of the debate. The article should lead with and introduction that dose not go into the arguments at all, however explains that the debate exist and identifies the debating parties. The next section of the article should highlight one side of the debated and identify the basis for their argument. It should however refrain from using language designed to sway the reader’s views or opinions. It should be a raw look at the goals and arguments of one side of the debate. The third section should of course highlight the other side of the argument in the same and unbiased manner. The article should lack a conclusion. A conclusion in writing is designed to tie all the points together and present the opinion of the writer and attempt to sway the reader into agreement. This is not needed and should be excluded. This article is about informing the reader not winning followers to one side or the other.

The second method is the write two articles that are linked and related. One article is written and edited by those who believe in one side of the debate and the other article is written and edited by those who believe in the other point of view. Restrictions should apply to both though. Nether of the articles should be permitted to contain any literations that argue against the other side of the debate. Both articles should be strictly for their perspective points of view. The article should be permanently linked together near the top.

I must say however that the present article will not do. It reads like an animal rights pamphlet with some minor opposing POVs so that it appears unbiased. This article is a disgrace. I would have thought that a colabrative effort would have produce something better than this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.125.77.144 (talk • contribs) 19:38, November 26, 2005.

The anonymous viewpoint above discusses the option of two articles, which has historically been rejected at Wikipedia as a method of achieving NPOV. The first method discussed is the only acceptable option. I agree with this reader's assessment that "the present article will not do."

After examining the article some more, I notice that there is no mention of the controversy over the implications of the embrace of animal rights by Hitler and the Nazis, although there is a quote at the end which alludes to it. Gary L. Francione and other animal rights advocates have taken some pains to rebut the charge that there is a philosophical affinity between Nazism and the animal rights movement, and the article should report on this controversy without endorsing either side of the debate. --HK 22:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to debate this with regular editors. But that the only people attacking the intro are a stalker, a LaRouchie, and an anon doesn't exactly inspire confidence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

And the main editor who is arguing for the intro to remain the way it is, completely devoid of any views critical of the pro-animal-rights movement, is you, SlimVirgin. And given your POV pushing on other articles, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence either. You could sort this all out quite quickly with a single URL to a wikipedia policy that says "there shall be no critical points of views in the intro". Otherwise, you are suppressing a legitimate point of view simply because that view is critical of your personal view. This intro is an advocacy piece. FuelWagon 15:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The appropriate way to resolve this is to have an intro that contains neither criticism nor advocacy. SlimVirgin, your personal attacks are not moving this any closer to resolution (nor, most likely, are they helping your ArbCom case.) FuelWagon posted a Request for Comment, and he is entirely within his rights to do this. Hopefully it will attract more editors to this article, which certainly needs attention. --HK 17:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

To present the concept of animal rights by avoiding anything that is disputed about the topic is to not report on the topic but to dance around it, touching on just a few undisputed facts. The heart of the topic of animal rights is the fact that it is disputed. While I can go along with avoiding the ethical arguments in the intro of the Veganism article, I don't see that working here, since animal rights is, at its core, an ethical argument. And avoiding mention of the ethical argument to avoid criticism in the article is not serving wikipedia readers. The introduction should give an overview of what is the core of the animal rights topic, and the core of animal rights is that anything less is ethically wrong. FuelWagon 18:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The aim of the "Let's Prove That Two Plus Two Equals Five Society" is to prove that two plus two equals five. To say this is neither to endorse nor to reject the aim of the Society, but merely to state a fact. To say "The Nazis thought that 'non-Aryans' were inferior to 'Aryans'" is not to endorse the Nazi point of view. Similarly, to say that the animal-rights movement "aims...to include many animals within the moral community" is merely to state a fact. Whether this aim is good or bad, logically possible or impossible, is irrelevant in the context of defining the concept of animal rights. To give the animal-rights point of view in the introductory paragraphs is NOT to take a point of view. Some people in this thread don't understand that. Second, while it is appropriate to point out in the intro that animal rights is controversial, it is not appropriate to detail criticisms in the intro. Third, critics should at least know enough about the serious philosophical debates that have been conducted over the past thirty years to insert serious criticisms. For example, to suggest that there's a problem with animal rights because herbivores are guilty of eating plants is so silly that it undermines serious criticism of AR. The downside of Wikipedia is that it puts people who know little or nothing about a subject on the same editorial footing as people who know a lot. Scales 08:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The bit about the herbivores was facetious. However, the point about the "moral community" was not. It were inappropriate, for example, to intro an article by saying, "of the two commonly accepted sums of two plus two, four and five, the 'Two plus Two Equals Five Society' has campaigned for 'five.'" I'm sure we can come up with an intro that describes the animals rights POV without endorsing its axioms. I'll suggest a possible re-write on this talk page within the next day or so. --HK 15:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Scales, I think that the topic of "animal rights" has a couple of significant points of view. And I think that these significant points of view should be reported in the introduction. Animal rights activists think that it is immoral to eat animals, think that animals deserve to be treated as equals to humans because they can feel pain, think that animnals deserve rights. But that's only part of the topic, the view from animal right activists, and these views are disputed. Animal welfare folks believe that it is not immoral to eat animals. believe that rights require moral judgement on the part of the reciever of rights, that animals cannot exercise moral judgement, and that animal rights activist exhibit a distinctly anti-human ideology. Reporting the advocate point of view is not to endorse their point of view, but it only reports part of the story. There are other views of animal rights that are critical of animal rights. When you add those views together with the advocate point of view, then you get a full view of the topic. FuelWagon 16:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please watch your temper. You not only reverted FuelWagon's edit on criticism, which seemed like a good edit to me, you also reverted my correction of a typo. I would suggest that take a look at WP:OWN, and that you discuss further edits on the talk page rather than starting a revert war. Let's start with what you objected to in Fuelwagon's section on criticism. --HK 15:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)