Jump to content

Talk:Cruelty to animals/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Cruelty to animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Cruelty to animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cruelty to animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cruelty to animals. 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:

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) 19:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cruelty to animals. 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:

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) 00:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cruelty to animals. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cruelty to animals. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cruelty to animals. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Cruelty to animals. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Moved page

helllo! I moved this page from animal cruelty to cruelty to animals because the term "animal cruelty" is ambiguous--it could also mean cruel acts committed by animals. Also expanded a bit--the original article defined "animal cruelty" as "cruelty to animals", which seemed kind of trivial. Hope no one minds. Rosemary Amey 18:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Squirrels

If you shoot a squirrel with a "High-Powered" Rifle, is that considered as a felony due to the Animal Rights Movement

That would depend on where you are. In some cultures, especially those that are far removed from the basics of survival and death, people get all freaked out about "hurting" animals. Other cultures retain the ability to distinguish their fellow man from food and pests.

Relation to other incidents

This is a very weak section and I'm going to remove it. We mention two Japanese serial killers and then take a poke at Bill Frist. If it is to be re-inserted make it much fuller and balanced. Marskell 15:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Case

Er, isn't there some sort of case going on in Maine, were they're having the first animal abuse case to bve tried as a fedearl offense? I heard something about that in school. 169.244.70.148 13:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Template crazy

There are way too many "meta information" templates on this article - it looks terrible. nixie 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the link to the French Animal Rights League. There are plenty of other internal links already in the See Also section. Besides, there are countless animal rights groups out there, and if we start linking to them this article could end up like Animal rights. Yikes! --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)........

Cats

Why is it illegal in the UK to run over dogs but not cats? --DrBat 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why this is. I think cats deserve as many rights as dogs. And what do they mean by "running over a dog or similarly sized animal is prosecutable"?74.61.138.131 20:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But dogs come in all different sizes. There are some dogs that are much smaller than cats, so you could use that as a loop hole.

i'm very unfamiliar with how laws are made in the UK but i imagine there has to be a lot of bureaucracy involved. it would then be unlikely that just one person decided they hated cats and wanted to make it legal to kill them with motorized vehicles. maybe the original law covered both cats and dogs but there was some technicality in the section about cats that people couldn't agree so they dropped the cat part. --Roonerspism 14:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly illegal or legal to run anything over, but cats are one of the few domestic animals that you don't have to report running over under the Road Traffic Act. I was taught that this was because the people who framed the law assumed that a cat had no economic value, wheras most domestic animals could be (part of) someone's livelihood. That, I suspect, and the fact that very few cat owners take responsibility for where their pets are and what they are doing at any given time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.242.7 (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you refer pet cats as domesticated, I have to agree with that.... but what about feral cats? these wild critters were always the attention for us farmers to shoot in terms of vermin controlling, do we qualified as animal abusers as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.181.172 (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The above refers to what must be reported in a road traffic collision - not sure what the legal status of feral cats is in terms of whether they are classed as vermin or not. If they're vermin, you can shoot as many as you like as long as you have the landowner's permission - but shoot someone's pet and you've committed a tort against them. That will come under game laws not road traffic laws. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Laws against animal cruelty in Japan

In Japan, animal cruelty laws historically were lax and seldom enforced. The 2002 Japan animal cruelty case lead to the first animal cruelty felony conviction in Japan. The case awakened a movement to strengthen animal cruelty laws.

The statement given in the first line is false, or at least not very clear. Are you talking about the Japanese law in modern time? Could you please be more careful about the usage of the word "HISTORICALLY". I know many people use this word way too frequently without necessary considerations properly given. You might find the following info fascinating.

In 1685, an extreme measure called "the law of compassion" was decreed to protect animals of all kinds by the 5th shogun of the Tokugawa shogunate, Tokugawa Tsunayoshi. It effectively banned all forms of cruelties against animals including bans on consumptions of poultries, birds, fish, shellfish, crabs, capturing rare animals, importing animals, hunting, fishing, excessive workload for domestic animals and forbidding animal shows. Large scale dog houses were constructed all over Japan to accommodate stray dogs. Pet dogs and gold fish were all registered their domiciles. The government set up the body called INU-METSUKE (Dog Inspectors) in order to protect dogs from abuse.

The punishments imposed for breaking the law were also extreme and harsh. For example, in 1687, Masakatsu Amano, kitchen superintendent of Edo castle, was exiled to a distant island for his failure to prevent an accidental death of a cat in a well in his kitchen from happening (ah... poor man!). Death was the price paid by a samurai for having killed a dog biting his leg! The law later extended to cover the protection of insects; people serving the shogunate were compelled to swear not to kill mosquitoes, flies and fleas, and spraying water on street was strictly forbidden for the sake of mosquito larva. The law which put animals before Man made the daily lives of ordinary people unbearable and almost impossible.

I think, this past experience gave Japanese people a bit more sober views about protections of animals from cruelty.

For more information, please refer to The Laws of Compassion by Beatrice Bodart Bailey, Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Summer, 1985), pp. 163-189, doi:10.2307/2384718

The first page of which you can find here:JSTOR; Monumenta Nipponica

On the third line about the "awakening" of animal cruelty laws in Japan, could you please back up your word "awakening" with some source? Because at the moment, it carries a negative connotation, which I believe is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Best wishes -- Iwashigumo77 13:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag (Dec 2006)

Given the amount of serious content that could be added to this subject, the current article's very weak, and poorly structured. I've tagged as cleanup in the hope someone'll help fix that. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cruelty to animals in filmaking

I have created this new section because I am sure there are many recorded cases of cruelty to animals in film making. I have included this obvious case, but I would need people to expand this section with any other cases. Thanks...Francisco Valverde 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement, "In fact, Cannibal Holocaust was only one film in a collective of similarly themed movies (cannibal films) that featured unstaged animal cruelty." is incorrect... for example, 1981's Cannibal ferox has at least one scene of real animal cruelty, featuring a young alligator being ripped apart, with its still beating heart placed upon its chest. Artificial Silence 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you should re-read what you're quoting. It's saying that Cannibal Holocaust was one of the films to feature animal cruelty, NOT that it was the only one. "Only one" as in "one of several".
Also, should we collate a list of movies featuring animal cruelty? There's rather a lot, ranging from old Westerns where horses routinely had their legs broken by trip-wires to something like Two Mules for Sister Sara, where Clint Eastwood cuts the head off a snake (for real) and hads its still-squirming corpse to Shirley Maclaine, and gets his horse to stamp on a real tarantula. Pearce.duncan 02:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there would be a lot of instances, but perhaps the section should be rewritten to reflect this because the way it is now it seems like there have only been these few instances. Bob98133 12:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

animal cruelty

The animal cruelty is variable in the dogs. in US are people that help the animal with the laws can be multed the person and also can be in jail. This depends in the violence of the animal, are diffrent kind of animal cruelty, Can be inbolucre the state of the animal int the place that he live, also can be the food, What kind of food are they give. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.211.45.125 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC). --170.211.45.125 17:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)maria ramirez--170.211.45.125 17:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bullfighting is also considered animal cruelty

Should we include bullfighting as another form of animal cruelty? I will add the Criticisms of bullfighting article as a link in see also section Francisco Valverde 16:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed link from Criticisms of bullfighting to Bullfighting and animal rights (moved page for it to have a have a more neutral title) FelisLeoTalk! 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the pig involved in film making

In the section cruelty in film making, I read:

"In 2007 May 23, South Koreans who participated in a protest, arranged to make four teams, and each team tied a long rope to each leg of a screaming live pig, and each team pulled their rope as if they were doing the rope pulling. Instantly the screaming pig was divided into four parts. [1]"

I followed the link and I find a blog writen (I suppose) in Korean with images of this act, but I wonder if it has to do with film making, or some other action? I do not find any information in English to support this. I would ask for futher information on this and if it was revealed that it was not done in a film we could remove or include it in the appropiate section. I also wonder if just one source and being of a blog is enough? Francisco Valverde 06:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ pig was divided into four parts

Animal Cruelty Section

Unless someone can give some good reason why this statement is in the Animal Cruelty (in circuses) section, I will be removing it. It's all well and good, and documented, just not relevent to the section. Bob98133 14:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Some circuses, such as Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus and Carson and Barnes Circus, have worked to preserve endangered species.[9][10][11] [UNSIGNED!!]

I second that. The first paragraph is weasel and biased, and the video links are not that great. (Idealy, there would be a superscripted link to a video section at the bottom of the page.) Vixwald 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

did you guys all know that some people are actually arresting people now. If the cops catch someone abusing an animal they will arrest you now!!! <Caitlyn Taylor Simms XD> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.245.214 (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Animal protection

In this article the section "See also" is completely about animal protection-items. In this way one might get the impression, that all those organisations are committing cruelties to animals. Think that Animal protection deserves its own article. Natubico 17:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Animal protection already defaults to this page. Thre are already pages for animal rights and animal welfare. I'm not sure an additional page such as you suggest will clarify things. If the See Also on this page references animal abusers or those who are cruel to animals it would be a very contentious area. I think it's probably better staying as it is, or at most, changing Organizations to Organizations Opposed to Animal Cruelty. Bob98133 17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Spain lacks. Not cruel death of bulls and horses are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.238.101.74 (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions are divided?

Opinions are divided whether practices such as factory farming, fur farming and animal testing of medical procedures and consumer products pose a major moral issue.

I don't believe that the above is an accurate representation. A minority of people would support factory, fur, or parts farming (bile, paws, et cetera). Animal testing is also significantly outlawed in most of the world. Not to mention the drastic consumer backlash by a vast majority of the worlds people over the past thirty years would indicate to me that the only people who aren't opposed to animal cruelty on a moral level are those who profit from it in some way, be it the products they choose to obtain and use, or produce. Perhaps this should be reflected in the article? Jachin (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


No, i think this statement represents a NPOV, and you are leaning more towards what Wikipedia is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.88.170 (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

A minority? as a grad student with bio background, animal testing are so common, actually 100% necessary at academic level. Are you insanely believe that factory farming is bad? Unless you are a vegetarian, any meat production is always cruel, but I still enjoy my juicy steak and don't give a damn about the cows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.181.172 (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This may be the best place for my clarification. It is idle to speak of opposition to cruelty to animals as "regard for animal welfare". Obviously a determination to harm animals is itself a "regard for animal welfare". I would suggest that precisely the infliction of pain, injury, or death on animals that shows a "regard" for their welfare is cruelty to animals, sincere indifference to their suffering being the appropriate human "attitude".

So, if you support factory farming, you do "give a damn about the cows"-you just "give a damn" about them as commodities-giant pieces of meat-and not as living creatures with intrinsic value.-70.190.102.49 (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Never again??

Where did this heading come from? What did it used to be? It really has to be changed.

Also, ph 2 in this article doesn't make much sense. It begins: "The animal welfare and animal rights movements represent two different responses to the issue." This might be true for humane slaughter or other issues, but insofar as cruelty to animals is concerned, I think everyone has a similar position opposed to cruelty so this ph really seems to be making a distinction that doesn't exist. I think the ph could get dumped or simplified to something along the lines that animal cruelty is opposed by most people.Bob98133 (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

China

I can see why the China section was removed since it was not sourced and innacurate. However, it seems like there should be a referenced section about animal cruelty in China since we are bound to hear more about it in the future. I will try to add something when I have time, but if someone already has this info, please add. ThanksBob98133 (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shanghai-monkey.jpg

How does the image represents cruelty to animals? Is it the use of the restraint that is cruel? Is the reader supposed to assume that the man caused the missing limb? --Dodo bird (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed--Dodo bird (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The main point is the treatment to the animal... and it is clearly being trated with cruelty.. --Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How about?: A beggar in Shanghai dangles a mutilated monkey from a rope Bob98133 (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a hedgehog lit on fire before. It died. --Doctor Bojangles (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Doc, it would be a good idea to let your local police jurisdiction know about this since someone who sets fire to a living animal could use some help before they do it again or turn their attention to fellow humans. Bob98133 (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no point man it was like 3 or 4 years ago. --Doctor Bojangles (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lea reference

The comment about this reference doesn't make any sense since it doesn't contradict what humane orgs have been saying. The humane orgs, and research, has not said that ALL kids who abuse animals become serial killers. However, MOST serial killers did abuse animals as kids, so this reference doesn't refute this, but merely throws in irrelevent information. I see no probelm with the reference staying in, but the text describing it should be less POV, and stay on point.Bob98133 (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

removal of image

24.17.83.230 - The reason you gave in the edit summary for removing this image was : whatever, this isn't "cruel") That is not a reason for removing the image. I asked for a reference that you might have proving that this image does not depict cruelty, which you did not supply. Please revert the image and see previous descussions on this page that supported the image being included. Bob98133 (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the reason for inclusion? The image shows a situation that is not objectively cruel. It's just subjective. The previous discussion didn't get anywhere, with no support of either including the image or not. 24.17.83.230 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you please explain the difference between objectively and subjectively cruel? What sort of image would you consider to be objectively cruel? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The fowl market image is a fine example. Still a bit subjective, but not as much as the monkey. To me, it seems the monkey guy is just keeping it leashed as a pet to make money. 24.17.83.230 (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'm looking around for a better image.Bob98133 (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I found a public domain image online that seems to me to be a good representation of cruelty to animals. Even though this dog may have been killed humanely, the text which this picture was used to illustrate, indicated that the dog may have been alive while being skinned. If that were documented, then I think the image definitely depicts cruelty, otherwise, i suppose there could be some doubts. If this is the case, please discuss if you remove or prior to removing. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is it neccessary to shock readers with some bloody corpse at the start of the article? This seems to me as encyclopedic as goatse or tubgirl 83.23.91.41 (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dog abuse

Should dog abuse be referred to in this article, or should I start a separate article about dog abuse? -- IRP ☎ 21:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse is cruelty, dogs are animals. I'd say it follows it should be incorporated. Jachin (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it could be included, however, this article is more about the subject of cruelty to animals, not a grocery list of all the ways animals can be abused. I think that those are best sorted out into individual articles, either mixed in with the general dog article or else detailed in articles like dog fighting or other articles about a particular type of animal abuse. It is one of the most common animal abuse in the world. Bob98133 (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

could this be added?

There's a recent controversy over a video posted on youtube. It has plenty of news coverage and notoriety YVNP (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As of now I have added him. I know this will get heat but it's recent but it has gotten more than enough attention across the internet(digg, 4chan, ytmnd, youtube, reddit, etc) plus the local news has gotten attention already. I have added to 3 pages I believe it is relevant to. If anyone has any questions ask on my talk page YVNP (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Wow, I counted 16 instances of vandalism in the last 50 edits. Semi-protect, anyone? Tezkag72私にどなる私のはかい 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not vandalism to say that "cruelty to animals" is maltreatment of animals, pure and simple. Some people think that only the "sadistic" should be condemned, others don't.-User:68.225.148.82

Hard labour

There's no such thing as a sentence of "hard labour" in the UK. Did the writer simply mean imprisonment? Earldelawarr (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

psychopathic personality disorder

The section on psychological disorders states that anti-social personality disorder is "also known as psychopathic personality disorder." Does anyone know anything about this? I'm almost certain its not accurate, at least not in mainstream clinical psychology. There are definitely some similarities between anti-social personality disorder and psychopathology but "psychopathic personality disorder" seems like a stretch. BrainDance (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

reference number 9, the peta link, is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.88.170 (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I've deleted it. (There are numerous other citations for that sentence anyway.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Really?

"One of the known warning signs of certain psychopathologies, including anti-social personality disorder, also known as psychopathic personality disorder, is a history of torturing pets and small animals, a behavior known as zoosadism." But kids here in Fes, Morocco (and for that matter, New Orleans LA) are horrible to dogs and even stray cats - none of them seem psychotic or antisocial; they just don't rate dogs and cats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.109.111 (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Source? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
These comments make a good point. Of course, psychopathy is a dubious disorder anyway: if a fellow American sadistically kills dogs and cats without remorse he's a sociopath, if a Spanish person sadistically kills bulls and horses without remorse it's cultural diversity.
This has been revised to indicate that it is a theory.
At the same time, those who abuse dogs and other animals don't fail to rate animals, they hate them in some sense or another and fail to show sincere indifference to their suffering and death, in my opinion.-Fountainoffacts (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A little biased topic?

As I have read through this article and it seems to be somewhat biased.

The animal cruelty form seems to vaguely defined in this article and under its definition, lots of actions would be considered as animal cruelty which in fact they are not.

As a rural people myself, it's somewhat a tradition or "do it yourself" rule that we control some vermin, such as feral cats , squirrel, coyotes, etc. We simply kill them whenever they threaten our livings, but by this article, we farmers must be labeled as animal abuser and potential zodiac I supposed. Not to mention back in my grandpa's generation, drowning unwanted kittens/puppies were perfectly acceptable but not by animal rights person's view.

Don't get me wrong, I've owned pet cats, dogs since age one and still do own two beautiful cats. Maybe, in a much narrower view, animal cruelty should be applied to pets only? well, unless you are a vegetarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhengjdc (talk • contribs) 09:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A lot of our articles about treatment of animals were edited heavily, early on, by users who, perhaps, have something of a WP:POV about animals, so you may be right about this, and I'm quite interested in seeing whether there are things we need to fix up. But, per WP:NOR, we really need to base any such changes on what sources say about what constitutes animal cruelty, whereas the experiences and opinions of editors are the wrong ways to go about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I suppose animal cruelty must be applied on to those who hurts animal out of pleasure only, if you come to the country side, it's quite a common scene to see farmers shooting at lots of animals(including feral cats) with .22, but it's all a form of vermin controls, none of them killing animals for fun or without proper reasons. My neighbor lady would catch squirrels and poison them with car exhaust gas, seemingly cruel? but in reality it's pretty efficient.
Also in reality, the boundary between abusing and simply killing isn't very clear either, we might be more specific about what constitutes of true animal cruelty, in my POV, it's killing animals, especially self-owned pets out of pleasure only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhengjdc (talk • contribs) 20:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a point I have made earlier. The term "cruelty" implies moral condemnation. Might it just be simpler to describe animal cruelty as "a term used to define the immoral infliction of pain, injury, or death on animals, though opinions differ on what if anything this constitutes"?

Stating it in this manner would be more accurate, and would not commit Wikipedia to a POV as to what if anything cruelty to animals constitutes.

Of course, perhaps having this article is POV to start with.

-70.190.102.49 (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Not very broad view about this article

Like my previous criticism, the definition of cruelty is very vague and narrow.

As I have traveled all around the world, unlike America, places in the other part of the world practicing animal controlling via the means of killing by battering or drowning. As I spent my summer in Zimbabwe back in 1985, the people there controlled feral cats by simply Catch&kill practice. Some of the practice is very cruel in terms of American animal rights view, they trap the feral cats with some trap and beat, battering, drowning them to death in a bucket. They usually kill unwanted animals, such as puppies, kittens and livestocks simply by throwing them to dumpster. Well, they all may sound cruel to American people, but for their standards, it is perfectly normal, did they turn out to be sociopath? not to my knowledge, some of the boys now became good business persons and I met them here and then.

Even the famous noble prize winner Doris Lessing had killed tons of feral cats during her youth in Africa, did she turn out to be a zodiac? She became a famous writter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhengjdc (talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting topic. I guess that the definition of "cruelty to animals" can be different upon cultures and national Laws. According to Italian Law 194/04, it is defined as cruelty to animals any cruel or anyway unjustified action causing suffering or death to an animal. The unjustified killing animals it is considered a different crime from cruelty. The definition of what can be justified and what can't is found in other Laws permitting or forbidding certain behaviors with specific animals (i.e.: under certain circumstances you can kill and eat a pig but you can't kill and eat a dog, etc. etc.). I guess it can be very different in other Countries. How can we put all together in one article? --Kattivik (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It's interesting, as you point out, to approach this issue from the perspective of differences according to different nations or cultures around the world. The page already does this, in the section about "In the law". However, it does not, in terms of how the concept is viewed culturally. The lead dismisses it with the sentence "Diverging viewpoints are held by jurisdictions throughout the world." What we need would be secondary sources, preferably scholarly ones, that address this topic. I'd suggest doing a Google Scholar or Google Books search. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Why was the video hub link removed? I found that link yesterday and added it because it is clearly of core interest and value to the article, and doesn't violate anything. If links like that are prohibited, I have to wonder sometimes what the criteria is for external links actually is. I'll move on, but fell that the article is lesser for what appears to be an OTT revert. 81.148.224.12 (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you would like to know the policy on external links, please see WP:EL. VideoHQ does not appear to be to a reliable source, and I'm not sure what value those videos would have in this article. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I read that page and fail to see the issue, or how you deem a site like that not to be reliable. But c'est la vie: it was only a suggestion, based on the content I found there. 81.148.224.12 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It was me who reverted it. My main concern was that the site is equivalent to a blog, and you can see how WP:ELNO treats that. Like Nuujinn, I'm not convinced that the videos there would add much value (I think it's unclear how well they have been vetted for accuracy and balance), but I'm also open to discussion, which is why I indicated in my edit summary that it wasn't a clear-cut case. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I just found that site and posted it because I thought the videos were well selected and of natural interest to anyone reading this article. I am a vet, so I acknowledge that I am perhaps viewing from a different perspective. As an aside, I didn't know that blogs were an issue for Wikipedia, but I guess that this case shows that websites that use blogger for presentation aren't all blogs. It's not a problem, but thanks anyway for discussing. 217.42.156.215 (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think you should stick around, perhaps create an account and help us out. The policies may seem a bit complex and opaque at first, but it doesn't take long to get into the swing of things. Like Tryptofish, I am open to discussion about the videos, especially if you believe the site is valuable. The question of blogs can be complicated--some blogs, especially those hosted by newspapers or run by acknowledged experts, are fine. We're just not familiar with this one. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I want to echo what Nuujinn said about inviting you to stick around, and I appreciate very much the reasonable way in which you've discussed this! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Princess Royal

At the bottom of this article, under "Warfare", there is a quote attributed to "Princess Royal". This quote is linked to a news article in the Daily Telegraph which also attributes the quote to the Princess Royal. I think that the text of the article should read "Princess Anne, the Princess Royal", so I have changed it accordingly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Thorgaard (talk • contribs) 22:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Terry Thorgaard (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Terry Thorgaard

Opening Sentence

I attempted to edit the opening sentence ("Cruelty to animals or animal abuse is the infliction of suffering or harm upon animals, for purposes other than self-defense.") to restrict its definition from including humans, since we are of course animals. My edit was reverted by "Materialscientist" because humans, he says, are not typically considered animals. In response, I'd like to say that the meaning of a term used in an encyclopedia should not necessarily be determined by the colloquial usage of the word. Yes, "animal" colloquially refers to non-human animals, but so what if the colloquial understanding is as such? For comparison, "ape" colloquially refers to most primates in general, and typically excludes humans, which is of course not its actual correct meaning. Despite the colloquial usage, the Wikipedia entry for "ape" correctly refers to apes as all hominoids, including humans.

Furthermore, the Wikipedia article "Animal rights" also clarifies that the phrase excludes humans, despite humans being animals. It states in the opening sentence: "Animal rights, also known as animal liberation, is the idea that the most basic interests of non-human animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings."

I ask you, does the opening sentence from the "animal cruelty" article reflect a mistaken understanding of the applicability of colloquial terminology in an encyclopedia, or is "Materialscientist" the one with the mistaken understanding? If the former, then I urge you to promptly edit the "animal rights" article to exclude a phrase which you believe to be incorrect and inconsistent with your understanding of the applicability of colloquial terminology in an encyclopedia. If there is no disagreement with what I have said, then I request my edits (or something akin to them) be reinstated to clarify that "animals" in the context of animal cruelty is a term in which humans are, in contrast to its true definition, discounted. Aelius28 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a veteran of the arguments about this wording at the Animal rights page, and I guess these are the kinds of things where there isn't always an obvious right or wrong answer. Personally, I think the wording at this page is pretty clear, whichever way it is worded. But I appreciate your bringing this concern to the talk page, and I've made what I hope is a compromise edit. There is certainly a case to be made that specifying "non-human" makes the language more precise and rigorous (even at the expense of saying the obvious). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nature News Network

I rolled back an edit that restored an external link to a Nature News Network site, if you check http://www.nature-news-network.org/about you can see that there's no editorial oversight per se, and that their site is basically an aggregator of RSS feeds from conservation groups. This does not look like a good source to me, --Nuujinn (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How about a list of films noted for animal cruelty?

I'd like to add "Rats Night of Terror." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.134.7 (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd avoid doing anything like that, as a list, per WP:TRIVIA. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Mexico

The paragraph on Mexico contains a circular reference to an encyclopaedia that cites its source as this very page. Nanonic (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Right! Thanks for noticing it. I've tagged it accordingly. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting Some Sources

I found a source for much information on the article, and didn't know where to put it in the talk page. here it is:

Owen, Marna. Animal Rights: Yes or No? NP: Lerner Publications Company, 1993. Print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnkappey (talk • contribs) 22:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Correction

It is stated that the sentencing provisions under the UK Animal Welfare Act are a maximum of 51 weeks (section 32 1 a ). This is indeed the case but this has not yet been enacted due to an enabling provision in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (section 281 (5)) not yet commencing. As the current legal situation stands the maximum custodial sentence for animal cruelty in England and Wales is not more than 26 weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayings (talk • contribs) 23:12, May 24, 2012‎

NPOV - animal testing

Labeling animal testing as "cruelty" seems non-neutral to me. I'll admit it's not pleasant for the animals involved, but there are requirements that animals found in distress are humanly dispatched rather than remain in distress these days. Labeling the entire practice as cruelty (which to me implies ignorance or malice) is not neutral.83.70.170.48 (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. Your comment led me to look back at the page, and I realized that there was a section called "Medicine", containing only two internal links, one of which went to Animal testing. Of course, it may be quite appropriate to have neutral and sourced text on the subject, but, as a section without real content, I removed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hog-dog rodeo

Hi, would some please come give me a hand in helping an editor understand, there is no difference between Hog-dog rodeo and Hog-baiting. There is a discussion about on the articles talk page, complete with citations and explanation. The editor seems to be displaying article ownership and they do not have a neutral point of view. Thank you. IQ125 (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This probably isn't the best place to ask, since you aren't asking about improving this page. You might get more eyes by opening an RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Animal cruelty laws in some Latin America countries

Because of the lack of content related to laws about animal cruelty in LatinAmerican countries, I got my paws on it; added some content, and ordered it in alphabetical order.

Also I would suggest to create a table ordering animal laws (not crime/fines/prison) by country.

In case of any question or comment, please, notify me. Kthx. Gatoparlante (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gatoparlante for adding that information. It was very helpful. I made some copyedits for English language and format, but I don't think that I changed the meaning of anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

[1] I tried to add this to the external links section but its disabled for IPs. Can anyone add it please. Thank you69.165.246.181 (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Australia

Hi! Wikipedia suppose to publish facts. Yesterday, I've corrected facts about the systemic dog negligence in Australia. I take the side of the neglected dogs but the wikipedia takes side of government which makes everything possible not to prevent nor to remedy the dog cruelty by negligence. I am not experienced wikipedian, so I could not find any explanation of removing my amendments. Please help me if you care for facts and to stop animal cruelty. The facts are: there is no law in Australia making mandatory responsibility for a dog by the owner. There is no definition or the specified even the most basic duties for owners for their dogs. There is no definition what is dog negligence. There is no legal basis to charge any irresponsible dog owner. (here is an example to specify a minimum standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Pet_Animals 

Well the facts are that dog complaints are the most numerous among all complaints despite a common knowledge that it is a 100% waste of time to complain to council. The dogs mentioned by me to all levels of dog management including RSPCA of state, national and international, are crying most of the day, night, and day by day, week by week, month by month and for many years. Where is rspca "P" stands for prevention. Where is prevention? Where is the law requiring all owners to be responsible? (mentioned in the article). Facts are that desperate people kill neglected dogs and the government refuse to legislate acceptable alternative. (can provide correspondence with government).

On the other hand, there is no law in Australia outlawing dog negligence or cruelty. There is no quote from the legislation. Authorities are unable to show me that it is illegal to neglect the dog nor is defined what is care and what is negligence. There are plenty of words, hopes, wishes and organisations which only ensure that dogs suffer. As it stands, the section on Australia is not true. RSPCA when reporting to them, claim that they would like to help properly but legislation does not allow them. But another time when asking them to advise the government to change the legislation, they claim that legislation is adequate. No matter who said what. There is no law in Australia, not in SA that truly specify that all owners must be responsible. Please remove the existing section on Australia. Please state the facts that dogs have no legal protection at all. If you do not wish to criticize the RSPCA as they deserve, just remove any reference to the RSPCA. But facts are that in SA and other Australian states, the government refuse to legalise a proper dog care should be publish about Australia. It was nice to read about laws in other countries in the world, I trust they are true statements. It is definitely not true what is written about Australia at present and is baseless and against facts you can observe on the street or read on legislation or that dog complaints are very high. http://www.thedogline.com.au/news/barking-dog-complaints ; http://councilgripe.com/content/barking-dogs-city-sydney; (here the council says that the dog must suffer at least 2 weeks...); https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/6729829/barking-dogs-top-noise-complaint-list/; . It is utmost wrong that my reflection of facts were removed without any reason. I provided references. Thanks. Mmistrz (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

what animals are abused most?

Dogs and cats are lucky animals! Farm animals such as chickens, pigs, cows, etc appear to be the most widely abused animals. Having a section about which animals are abused most is within the scope of this article. The "chick macerator" is one example.Kiatdd (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that your edit sources the content to groups like PETA and Mercy for Animals. They are reliable sources for the positions of those groups, and they may be reliable sources for specific numbers of animals (perhaps), but they are not adequate sources to make broad characterizations in Wikipedia's voice. Stating, in Wikipedia's voice, that agriculture is animal cruelty disregards other sources that do not define animal cruelty in that way, and violates WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
we have major news websites as reliable sources. The image of the chick macerator is copyright I thought we could have it as an external link.Kiatdd (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Dogs and cats are lucky animals? Yeah right! People in the West don't really believe that they are special; they torture them to death in laboratories just as they torture cattle and pigs on factory farms.-Fountainoffacts (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

An editor posted this message on my talk page - I have moved it here as I feel this is a more appropriate place for discussion.

I was just wondering what type of cruelty it is? currently in the page several categories are given: neglect, food industry or factory farming, psychologic disorders, cultural, circus, film industry, warfare. which one of the categories the image belongs to? neither, because it is just a man beating a dog. My first impression was that perhaps the artist tries to show a case of sadistic beating...and my second thought was that it was not the most interesting image for the lead section, I could be wrong of course. By the way, why did you revert my edit! Kiatdd (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, using the Five freedoms, I would suggest that because the dog is chained up it contravenes "The freedom to perform (most) natural behaviour" and the beating of the dog contravenes "Freedom from harm or distress". I reverted your edit for several reasons. Firstly, it added researchers' names, but the article is about animal cruelty, not the researchers, and secondly, I felt your edit did not add to the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed

An editor has recently reverted my placing a [citation needed] tag in the Article. Please will the editor read WP:inline citations. This states - "Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources." Please provide a reliable source independent of Wikipedia.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the part about "controversy over animal welfare being nonexistent...." It is mainfestly false. The very fact of such a controversy is proven by the fact that some thinkers, like Augustine, went to great lengths to deny duties to animals (with other thinkers like Aquinas arguing less self-respecting variations on the idea).70.190.102.49 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Overconsumption

Here is an article by Jordan Sosnowski[2], She raises the issue of meat overconsumption. According to her we live in the cruellest times ever in history because “a massacre” is happening every hour due to industrial animal farming. People now consume several times the recommended weekly meat intake. The problem is not that people want cheap meat, they want a lot of cheap meat, a lot more than enough.Kiatdd (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

"Animal helping"?

The first line says that cruelty to animals is also called "animal helping" which makes no sense as far as I can tell. The term is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. I assume it's vandalism or something but since I'm not sure I'm not changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:150:C100:590:C4BD:6C3C:F683:B6DB (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

edit: nevermind, I found in the history it was previously 'animal abuse' so i changed it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:150:C100:590:C4BD:6C3C:F683:B6DB (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Animals Used for Food Sources

I would have liked to see more of the topic of using animals for food sources, and is their a line to be drawn on whether this should be considered animal cruelty or not. SNB049 (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Shelby Binford

what are there motives because if they keep this up there will be no animals to see in the wild ever again so stop sitting on your but and do something with your life. stop animal cruelty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.160.223 (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Criticism required for balanced article.

The section "Criticism of alleged links to human violence" does describe a viewpoint that is not represented elsewhere in the article. Just changing the section into NPOV without integrating the views in narratives elsewhere in the article makes the whole article less, not more, NPOV, since it reduces a view from represented somewhere in the article to not represented at all in the article. So until the views are narratively integrated, the criticism section should remain.2.71.28.8 (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the section to a controversy section. It represents both viewpoints. Deleting one viewpoint and its references is not NPOV.2.71.28.8 (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User: 2.71.28.8 Which viewpoint was deleted? Which references were deleted? WP takes a very dim view of misrepresenting edits.DrChrissy (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

An earlier edit by DrChrissy did eliminate the viewpoint of courts, psychiatry and other authorities being biased by using records as the cause of apparent link between violence to animals and violence to humans without actual link between the actions themselves, and their references. That does not refer to the current article version, which was written after the supposedly "misrepresenting" talk page post. The current article version is, however, not quite NPOV (though closer to NPOV than earlier edits by DrChrissy) since it claims evidence for a link between the actions themselves, despite the existence of explanations that there is only a bias-based link between being believed to have done the two types of actions and not between the actual actions. Formulations like "apparent links to human violence" or "different criminological and psychiatric viewpoints on whether links to human violence are real or illusory" would be better.2.68.138.179 (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I have now made the section NPOV.2.68.138.179 (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@2.68.138.179 This is a serious accusation. Please provide diffs showing where where I eliminated the viewpoint and references.DrChrissy (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The revision is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cruelty_to_animals&diff=668596548&oldid=668547962 By your username too. You did remove said viewpoint and it's references. Also, the word "apparent" is not a weasel word. Since there is a viewpoint explaining the studies without actual link between the actions, and that viewpoint does have references, the heading should represent non-absoluteness.2.68.138.179 (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The diff you have provided shows that I moved material, but I did not delete material (other than a couple of words) or any references. Have you scrolled down the page?DrChrissy (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The material you moved was marked as deleted, while the moved material in your revision was not marked as newly written. I therefore thought the moved material was part of a later section in the article and unrelated to the moved material. I cannot read the whole article word by word while editing one section. Is there a bug/flaw in the move marker?2.68.138.179 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I therefore strongly suggest you strike your comments wrongly accusing me of making deletions I did not.DrChrissy (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cruelty to animals/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

At the very least, the first paragraph contains at least three discrete themes and is very poorly written. I balked at the enterprise; it may just need to be rewritten from scratch. Cain47 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)cain47

Last edited at 12:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 19:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

/* Unnecessary scientific experiments or demonstrations */ Let's at least try to be neutral and maintain editing (citation) standards

The heading "Unnecessary scientific experiments or demonstrations" is not neutral. Some people might consider experiments such as these necessary at the time, or perhaps even necessary now. Furthermore, the heading implies that all other experiments or demonstrations are necessary. So, I have removed the word unnecessary. I have replaced [citation needed] because there is no citation of this happening on the Grand Tour.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Prkprescott Why have you reverted without discussing this first as per WP:BRD?__DrChrissy (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have apologised to Prkprescott on their talk page for the tone of my edit summary ("Unnecessary scientific experiments or demonstrations */ Let's at least try to be neutral and maintain editing (citation) standards"). I have also asked for an explanation of why they accused me of vandalism and that I have a "track record" of vandalism in teir own edit summary.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "Unnecessary scientific experiments or demonstrations" is odd. First, it doesn't really describe the section, which only goes on to describe two scenarios of public demonstrations on how lack of oxygen will kill an animal. Yes, unnecessary. Not experiment. Not scientific. Also, the main article hatnotes for this section point to Testing cosmetics on animals and Countries banning non-human ape experimentation, but that is non-sequitur because they're not mentioned either. ("Main article" implies you're just mentioning a summary here, and go over there to read more on the subject.) That brings me to the first image that was on the page (I removed it just now) of the monkey in a vice-like device. There is no "animal testing" or "animal experimentation" in this article, so that image doesn't fit for the page. It was a shocking enough image that I didn't even want to work on this article. I'm sure Wikipedia readers felt the same. We're not here to shock them off the page, but to educate and elucidate. Normal Op (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

OR in "No pet policies and abandonment" section

The section "No pet policies and abandonment" is mostly original research. Neither the citations nor the breakout article, Abandoned pets/Pet abandonment, covers this information. Needs rewriting. Normal Op (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Conceptual approaches to animal cruelty?

The phrase "conceptual approach to animal cruelty" is too 'academic' for a Wikipedia article on the subject of cruelty to animals, and is not defined... at least not clearly. It is mentioned in the lead, but is not clear whether the explanation is left out or whether the following information are examples of such "conceptual approaches". The phrase is also mentioned in the section "Unnecessary scientific experiments or demonstrations" where it says there are three. Someone please, if you can even understand this... please rewrite it so that it is clear and makes sense. Normal Op (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead images for articles on animal cruelty/abuse

I recently changed the lead image in this article. I did this for several reasons. First, the previous image of a horse being beaten is not (in my humble opinion) a particularly clear example of the subject matter. The horse being beaten occupies only 1/3 perhaps 1/4 of the image. It is a lovely piece of fine art, but the eye (at least mine) is not immediately attracted to the horse. The other reasons for my edit relate to the image I chose (a man beating a dog). There are many articles on animal abuse or animal welfare where it is difficult to find a lead image that is not too shocking, but which conveys the message of what the article subject matter is. The image I chose is actually a stamp, so presumably will not cause offense. It is also clear and immediately conveys the message of what the article is about. I had hoped to use this image as a generic image for related/similar articles. I have the greatest of respect for the editor who changed the position of the image I included and I will not be reverting this. However, I would like to open up discussion about lead images for similar articles.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm that editor in whom you've badly misplaced your respect, and, as I tried to indicate in my edit summary, I recognize that this is very subjective. So, my subjective opinion is that the horse image benefits from being antique, on a page where we could easily have some very emotional photographs instead. One's attention is brought to the horse and its significance by the title of the artwork, which comes right at the beginning of the image caption. On the other hand, the postage stamp strikes me as a rather crude and cartoon-like image, with primary colors and almost-stick figures. In any case, they are both lead images, and the question is which one to have first and which second. I don't really think that there is a right or wrong answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the reply and I'm fine with the current positioning. I guess I was drawn to the postage stamp because of its primary colours, simplicity and cartoon-like nature. This allows it to show something which I suspect would cause offense if it was depicted as a photo of a real event.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Is it okay to use the image of a stamp anywhere in the lead section? and also, who would chain a German Shepherd and beat it, it is not cruelty it is madness! I suggest removing or at least moving it to another section.Kiatdd (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I have absolutely no doubt that at sometime within human society a German Shepherd has been beaten whilst chained. Whether this is "madness" I will leave to those who are medically qualified to make such a diagnosis. I would point out that the other lead image shows a horse tethered to a cart being beaten - is this also "madness"? I believe the stamp accurately depicts "Animal cruelty" in a way that is less likely to cause offense than a photo as per WP:LEADIMAGE.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Isn't it dangerous? beating a German shepherd of that size, perhaps the perpetrator is zoosadistic. Can we move the image to section psychological disorders? Kiatdd (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the perpetrator in the image is zoosadistic? I don't know, but I could certainly not verify this if I was to move the image to that section. Please give your reasons for suggesting to move the image.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the first image on the page, the monkey in a vice image, because (a) the subject wasn't mentioned in the article, (b) animal testing or experimentation wasn't mentioned, and (c) it was just too shocking. Normal Op (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes

NonhumanAnimalAutonomy I have reveted your edits again. I'll try to explain some of the problems with them.

  • First, your additions are unsourced. You have included a link to an advocacy website, but that is not a reliable source according to our guidelines.
  • Second, you make numerous subjective assertions in Wikipedia's voice, which is entirely unacceptable. This ultimately applies equally and without exception to all persons, whether human or non-human. is an opinion, not a statement of fact - that would need to be attributed. This has obvious and profound implications regarding the concept of 'Pet Ownership'. - according to whom? Is this your own reasoning? One may adopt a non-human person as they would a human child, however adoption does not confir ownership. - which legal jurisdiction does this statement apply to? Etc.

Simply put, Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. If reliable sources discuss these concepts, they could potentially be included in the article, but they would need to be attributed to the people who hold these positions, and would need to be reliably sourced. If you reinstate those changes again, I will ask another administrator to block your account for edit warring. Best GirthSummit (blether) 12:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

As you wish Girth Summit. Have it your way. Keep the miserably written, and misleading article as it is, cited sources and all. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
NonhumanAnimalAutonomy, I haven't read the article - I have no view on the quality of the writing, or the reliability of its current sourcing. The stuff you were adding, however, seemed to be entirely your own opinions, or those of the organisation whose website you linked to. That is not what Wikipedia is for. GirthSummit (blether) 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Which countries (if any) have laws conferring personhood on non-human animals? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
None. This is the ongoing mission, to achieve non-human personhood and autonomy as legal precedents. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Well you may wish to fix your research as many non-human animals have indeed been conferred personhood by various countries, mainly great apes. Canterbury Tail talk 14:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with research, sovereign states, or their local laws. Nothing has been accomplished until All non-human animal species are universally accepted as autonomous persons, which, in reality, they have always been. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That's your opinion. In any case, crusaders such as yourself seldom last very long on Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Which he didn't. Indef'd a few hours after the above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cruelty_to_animals/Archive_1&oldid=1204958288"