Talk:Animal trial
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Can anyone verify anything in this article? We need citations. -- 22:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)199.80.13.96
This is the stuff
[edit]... that makes Wikipedia great. We need more articles like this one.
Some day I shall write an article about Barthélémy Chassanée, a French attorney famous for defending animals accused of felonious crimes.
--Seduisant (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Europe?
[edit]The accounts of animal trials seem to be restricted to Catholic France. I think that it may be misleading to refer to Europe as a whole.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- This whole article is a series of gross, unlimited generalisations, which often directly contradict each other. In one place it is claimed that animals did not have legal defence in criminal trials, and in another place that they always had criminal defence. The entirety of human history is treated as singular. 2A00:23D0:E6F:7101:CCBD:5C5D:2D61:D0D1 (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Animal trial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727122106/http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/276_s216.pdf to http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/276_s216.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629062204/http://www.humphrey.org.uk/papers/2002Bugs&Beasts.pdf to http://www.humphrey.org.uk/papers/2002Bugs&Beasts.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
this is so obviously wrong
[edit]the page currently says
- During the Napoleonic Wars, a French ship was wrecked in a storm off the coast of Hartlepool. The only survivor from the ship was a monkey, allegedly dressed in a French army uniform to provide amusement for the crew. On finding the monkey on the beach, some locals decided to hold an impromptu trial; since the monkey was unable to answer their questions and because they had seen neither a monkey nor a Frenchman before, they concluded that the monkey must be a French spy.
As if the people in 18th century England were unaware that the nation they were at war with was populated by fellow humans. I could see if this happened in 6000 BC and the people of Britain thought that they were an island of humanity, and that other species each had their own nations too. Putting it in early modern history is absurd, however. I think the page is better off without this paragraph. —Soap— 05:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
The article is seriously lacking
[edit]- The second sentence of the first paragraph misparaphrase and contradicts its own source. "Such trials are recorded as having taken place in Europe from the thirteenth century until the eighteenth." Which is from "In the Report and Researches on this subject, published by Berriat-Saint-Prix in the Memoirs of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of France (Paris, 1829, Tome VIII. pp. 403-50), numerous extracts from the original records of such proceedings are given, and also a list of the kinds of animals thus tried and condemned, extending from the beginning of the twelfth to the middle of the eighteenth century, and comprising in all ninety-three cases. This list has been enlarged by D’Addosio so as to cover the period from 824 to 1845, and to include one hundred and forty-four prosecutions resulting in the execution or excommunication of the accused, but even this record is by no means complete [bold by I]. (Vide Appendix F for a still fuller list.)" Indeed, in the same ebook : "Chronological List of Excommunications and Prosecutions of Animals from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century.[5]"
- The structure doesn't make sense The information is spread all across the article with seemingly no logical continuity, as illustrated by the title hierarchy : Historical animal trials Punishments of animals Types of animals put on trial Individual cases Proceedings against animals The insects' advocate
- Unnecessarily vague or specific statements "Such trials are recorded as having taken place in Europe from the thirteenth century until the eighteenth. The most documented of these trials being from France, but they also occurred in Italy, Portugal, Spain, and other countries." Only in Europe? "In modern times, it is considered in most criminal justice systems that non-human animals lack moral agency and so cannot be held culpable for an act." How do we define "modern times"?
- Repeated information The three last paragraph of the "Punishments of animals section" either repeats or would rather fit into the next section, "types of animals put on trial"