Talk:Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Page title

How is a name like "mutilatory procedures" possibly neutral? 124.169.25.246 (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a whole wiki - article on Mutilation in humans - do you question the neutrality of the term there? What name would you give to these procedures? I have deliberately kept description of the procedures as neutral as possible, but failed to think of a collective term for these. Key papers in the subject use this term. DrChrissy (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've been wondering myself about renaming the page, but I'm not sure what a better title would be. I think the problem that 124. refers to, with quite good reason, is that the word "mutilatory" sounds to the non-specialist like it is implying animal cruelty. Given Wikipedia's history of controversy over animal rights related editing, I've wondered whether the title might attract some controversy. Maybe something along the lines of "List of non-therapeutic veterinary procedures" or "List of cosmetic veterinary procedures" etc.? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I do understand the emotive nature of the name of this page, but that is probably because of the inherent nature of these practices. I have found it impossible to come up with an accurate, neutral term. The suggestion of including the term 'veterinary' is unfortunately rather inaccurate because many of these procedures are not performed by vets (e.g. Mulesing, beak-trimming, nose-ringing, toe clipping). In fact, it would be illegal for vets to perform some of these and inclusion of the term might draw (legal) attention from the veterinary profession. The term 'non-theraputic' is also, I'm afraid, not accurate for all inclusions on the list. Firing, mulesing, blinders, tail-docking are all performed for reasons people believe are theraputic. Whether they are not is a moot point, but some people believe in these firmly. Similarly, the word 'cosmetic' does not apply to all procedures on the list - bull rings, beak-trimming, ear-notching, tail clipping are all non-cosmetic. I realise the title has the potential to cause controversy but there must be hundreds of articles like that on Wikipedia. It is an accurate title and should we really become inaccurate in attempts to sanatise this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 12:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for not signing previous posting! DrChrissy (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, I suppose we could then be running into WP:COATRACK issues. I would still wonder there could be another word, or combination of words, that could be an accurate alternative to "mutilatory". --Tryptofish (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "controversial husbandry procedures"? That acknowledges that the benefits of these procedures are questionable, without the negative connotations of "mutilation". Temple Grandin and Neville Gregory refer to these surgeries as "potentially painful husbandry procedures" in their 2007 textbook, Animal Welfare and Meat Production. JohnDopp (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

List of procedures by which body parts are routinely removed from domestic animals? Just a thought (perhaps a bad one) - tell it like it is. By the way, should wing clipping really be on here? Done correctly, it's temporary - and no more painful than a haircut. Granted, being unable to fly can be significantly stressful for a bird... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for input. Unfortunately, not all of these procedures involve body-part removal, e.g. blinders, nose ringing, branding, firing, tail blocking and tail nicking. I take the point about wing-clipping. I thought about this one, especially in relation to procedures such as sheep shearing and dogs having fancy fur-trimming and other procedures such as ear-tagging. I'm happy for wing clipping to be removed, however, if this is on the basis that it causes little pain, we are then narrowing down on the elephant in the room. All these procedures almost certainly involve pain to the animal, yet, almost all are done without anaesthetic. I have consciously avoided putting this in the article to avoid controversy, precisely the problem that seems to have occurred from using the word 'mutilatory' despite this being, in my opinion, an accurate description of the procedures. I like your idea to '...tell it like it is'. I thought that is what the title did, but perhaps this should be 'Mutilatory procedures performed on animals without anaesthetic'... (please note, this is not a serious suggestion, just an indication of how controversial this could be made if it were intended)DrChrissy (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to JohnDopp. Isn't the phrase "controversial husbandry procedures" rather vague? There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of husbandry practices that are controversial. Some would say that even keeping an animal for food or fibre, or as a pet is controversial. Keeping hens in cages is controversial. Trimming their beaks with a blade or IR beam is controversial. Keeping mice for research purposes is controversial. Cutting notches from their ears for identification is controversial. Your second suggestion of "potentially painful husbandry procedures" is interesting. However, this would then need to include many other practices which are temporary such as hoof trimming, nail clipping, use of a crush, use of an electric goad, nose twitching, etc. Moreover, wouldn't the use of the phrase 'potentially painful' be just as controversial as 'mutilatory'? The article at present makes no comment as to whether the procedures are painful or not, simply that they change the appearance of the animal. DrChrissy (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with "mutilatory" but shouldnt it be "animal mutilation procedures". "Mutilatory procedures on animals" describes describes someone on an animal mutilating something. A man on horseback saying "for all intensive purposes" or a breastfeeding baby biting, for example. I also suggest adding microchipping and tattooing. stu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.106.139 (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I added tattooing and micro chipping. I also changed “routinely” to “commonly performed on animals” as I thought it was more accurate. Sure some procedures are commonly performed routinely but I don’t think they are all performed routinely. What do you think about changing the title to "Common Animal Mutilation Procedures" seems more precise than procedures performed on animals? stu

Stu, I'm not so sure I agree with the inclusion of microchips on this list. Mutilation is usually taken to mean that the appearance of the animal is changed. Microchips, if correctly injected, do not change the appearance of the animal (or at least if they do it is on a minute scale). Regarding the title, I chose the current title so it would hopefully not cause offence to those performing the procedures, perhaps especially veterinarians. To my mind, your title of "Common Animal Mutilation Procedures" infers the primary reason for the procedure is to mutilate the animal. This is not always the case, for example, teeth-clipping piglets is done to reduce the injuries the piglets cause to each other and to the sows teats.DrChrissy (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm still not entirely comfortable with the page title, I think that putting in anything about "common" or "routine" into the title itself would only be a step in the wrong direction, because it's just too difficult to draw a line a between common and not-common-enough. I'm neutral about the microchips. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked them. Montanabw^(talk) 23:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

On the title "Common Animal Mutilation Procedures" I meant common to mean this is not an exhaustive list. "Animal Mutilation Procedures" is probably better but maybe with a note explaining the list is not exhaustive. I fail to see how "Animal Mutilation Procedures" suggests any different intent than "mutilatory procedures on animals" and I think my version is simpler and clearer. I also think “routinely” should be changed to “commonly performed on animals”. I take commonly to mean.

com·mon

4. widespread; general; ordinary: common knowledge.

5. of frequent occurrence; usual; familiar: a common event; a common mistake.

and routinely

rou·tine

3. regular, unvarying, habitual, unimaginative, or rote procedure.

4. an unvarying and constantly repeated formula, as of speech or action; convenient or predictable response.

I know they can be used interchangeably but I think common is more precise. For example just because I routinely eat road kill does not make it common, grafting the head of a porpoise onto the body of a lemur may be routine for Dr Sharksfeet but is not very common. stu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.42.226 (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not so sure that either 'routinely' or 'commonly' would be helpful as this depends on the procedure. For example, beak trimming on hens is performed routinely and approximately 90% of egg layers are beak trimmed makinng it common, however, tongue amputation in calves is a very rare procedure and I do not know if it is performed routinely. One contributor said the list was not exhaustive - pointers to other procedures would be appreciated.DrChrissy (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone just get out the thesaurus for something a bit less POV than "mutilation." Got to be a simple way to say it. As for "routine" or "common," the point is to exclude some sort of weird crap that has no purpose at all -- say, the idiots who did liposuction on a horse's butt to make it look better. It happened, but it's not an animal husbandry practice, it was one guy's stupid idea. Montanabw^(talk) 21:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

For me, "mutilatory" is really the issue. I'd prefer to find an alternative word for that, one that sounds less sadistic to the general (non-veterinary) reader. Take care of that, and I think we don't need to worry about the fringe and undue stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

In looking for other possible terms, I thought it was interesting that Merriams-Webster uses the following definition and example of mutilation. ": to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors> (see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutilate) Personally, I would not use mutilate for an inanimate object, but this useage certainly has little or no POV...at least in my culture DrChrissy (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the routine vs common question. I still think the title should be changed. "Mutilatory procedures on animals" is imprecise and a real mouthful, "Animal mutilation procedures" is more precise and easier to say. I dont think using "mutilation" implies any POV it just describes the procedures listed. stu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.42.226 (talk • contribs) 03:08, June 27, 2012‎

That is, unfortunately, even worse; things like tail-docking are, to some people, not "mutilation" at all, but rather are considered legitimate health and/or safety procedures of benefit to the animal... the very term is too POV and animal-rights-ish. I am not saying that I agree with this position (though for tails of Boxers, I do sometimes wonder...) but as one of WP's pillars IS NPOV, I think we do need a more neutral-sounding title for this article. "Procedures that remove body parts of animals?" "Plastic surgical procedures on animals?" Dunno, just tossing out ideas. Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I wrote previously, not all of these procedures involve body-part removal, e.g. blinders, nose ringing, branding, firing, tail blocking and tail nicking, nor are they plastic surgery. By the way, I disagree with many 'animal rightss' arguements and philosophies, so the word mutilation was not included to push these ideas forward. Rather, the word is in common use in my subject area of work with a neutral POV.DrChrissy (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure no one is worried about POV pushing, just about misconstruing what the word means. That can easily happen when a professional writes for a general audience. But I think that with an explanatory paragraph, such as the definition that I've tried to provide, that kind of misunderstanding can be avoided. With the definition, I no longer feel a need for a different title. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've retained your parargraph and added another definition with less implied emotion. This should alert the reader to different interpretations of the term. What do you think? DrChrissy (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Definition

Tryptofish, I see that you have added a defintion of 'mutilation'. I have not undone this because I think in general it helps the non-specialist reader understand a little more about the non-emotive use of the term. However, it is not strictly accurate for this article. Several of the procedures are not theraputic, e.g. nose-ringing, ear-cropping, tail-nicking. The veterinary definition would have included the 'theraputic reasons' for legal reasons and relates only to those procedures conducted by (UK) vets.DrChrissy (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with revising what I added to correct anything misleading. But the quote actually calls these things "non-therapeutic". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to confess I sent my previous message to this thread a little prematurely. Yes, you are correct that the quote defines the procedures as 'non-theraputic', however, some people would disagree with this and argue that some of the procedures ARE theraputic. For example, firing is usually done with claims that it cures lameness; tail docking in hunting/shooting dogs breeds is usually done with claims that is saves damage to the tail; mulesing is performed with claims that it reduces fly-strike.DrChrissy (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

How about adding something more at the end of the definition paragraph, to clear those points up? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem in doing that at all. The reason I did not from the beginning was that this is a 'List' article and I was assuming that such additional information was not in keeping with a list. You are considerably more experienced in editing on Wikipedia. Is such additional information acceptable? DrChrissy (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked on the phrasing a bit, hope it helps. Curious what the US vet community says; we may have one of those words that in UK English has a different emotional punch than in US English. Montanabw^(talk) 20:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought the changes were great - have left a 'thanks' on your user page. I have had the same thought that our friends over the Atlantic might have a different interpretation of the term. I think the changes that have been made should clarify.DrChrissy (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think its a very nice paragraph and it adequately describes the use of "mutilatory". I don't think it deserves a place on the page. If the reader is too thick to understand English the onus should be on them to look in the dictionary not us. Even if the reader thinks "mutilation" is a POV term if they read the list they should understand the context it is used in. I take the view that an encyclopedia entry should be simple and correct not a discussion on language. Maybe move the paragraph to this page. stu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.42.226 (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is now. We are, after all, writing for readers who are non-specialists, and many who are perfectly intelligent will better understand what the page is about by reading the added information. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to say I agree with the reversion to the discussion of the term 'mutilatory' to the beginning of the page. I think it is important that the reader has this information BEFORE reading the list to help develop an objective appraisal of the information.DrChrissy (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I very much disagree. The article is called "List of mutilatory procedures on animals" not "Discussion on the language of veterinary science". As such the information on mutilatory procedures on animals should get greater billing than a discussion on the language of veterinary science. I disagree that mutilatory is a specialist term, rather it is simple English. I think the majority of people capable of reading the article would know the meaning of the word so any discussion on it is not important. At least not as important as the actual information the article is meant to convey. stu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.42.226 (talk • contribs) 12:59, July 10, 2012‎

Please learn how to properly sign your comments. Anyway, no one is arguing that intelligent people don't know what the word means, but rather, that it has meanings that are widely understood that are in conflict with the way it is used here. People will readily mistake it to mean cruelty to animals without an explanation. But, although you didn't mean it this way, your observation about the name of the page also touches on something that bothers me. Our style guideline for list articles discourages using tables in articles that are called "List of...". And this page really isn't simply a list, with or without that paragraph. Rather, it's an introduction or overview of the subject. I think we should consider renaming it accordingly. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I renamed it from List to Overview. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a major problem with that. When I originally wrote the article it seemed to have enough references or Wiki articles that further explanations were not necessary and it appeared as a conventional list. In trying to account for other peoples' suggestions and other edits, the article does appear to have become more of an overview. DrChrissy (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Good, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional column

I do not agree with the 'Various' column that has been added. There are many, many mutilations/procedures on animals which could be placed in such a non-specific category. The intention of the article was to inform the reader about those that are performed most frequently. I propose this change should be reverted. DrChrissy (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say keep the column. Regardless of the original intention, pages go in whatever directions they go, and I don't think there is really a basis in secondary sources to omit what's in that column. Generally, it's helpful in lists that link to other Wikipedia pages to be inclusive. A case can be made, though, for deleting those entries in the column that do not have their own Wikipedia articles, or those for which there's a cogent argument to delete based on WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

My point is that the reader was already alerted to these procedures in a sentence before the table but not within the table. The informaton was already in the article but being kept seperate from the main content to provide clarity. Having the column heading 'Various' does not help the reader understand which practices occur on which species. DrChrissy (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the column. I agree its not particularly neat but it does provide further information. The previous approach was flawed because as the list grew the separate sentence would become unwieldy. Maybe all the procedures in the various column could be listed in the relevant animal specific columns. stu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.42.226 (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Stu, I'm not sure what you mean the previous approach was flawed due to the list increasing. Looking at the history of the article indicates the last addition was in January (by myself), despite repeated requests from myself for pointers of other possibilities which I would research. The only addition subsequent to this was 'microchipping', which I disagree with being listed as mutilatory.DrChrissy (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because the organisation hasn't failed yet does not mean it shouldn't be improved. stu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.42.226 (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Microchipping

I am not convinced that "microchipping" should be on this list. The term 'mutilation' usually implies a change in the appearance of the animal, and is often part of the definition. My own 2 cats are microchipped but there has been no change in their appearance as a consequence of this.DrChrissy (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Microchipping as I understand it involves injecting a small rfid chip under the skin of an animal. This scars the animal and leaves a foreign object in the body. It may need close inspection but the animals appearance is changed. Sure the scale of mutilation is small but there is still mutilation. stu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.42.226 (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Microchipping is simply a hypodermic injection and does not leave a scar if perfomed correctly. If you have evidence to the opposite, please present this. I repeat, the appearance of my cats has not changed as a consequence of chipping. I can feel the chip, but can not see it. Yes, a foreign object remains in the body, but this is the result of many surgical procedures which are not mutilatory. DrChrissy (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Notes

I think the notes on pin firing, tail blocking, tail nicking and blinders are redundant. These procedures have their own WP article and the notes make things messy. stu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.42.226 (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they don't all have separate articles. Notes are generally advisable, with everything at the end, it clarifies matter that need to be clarified. Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually pin firing, tail blocking, tail nicking and blinders do have articles explaining them and as such i don't think they are matter that needs clarifying. stu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.42.226 (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Earmarking

Someone added 'earmarking' with a link to a WP article. Reading the article makes me think this is simply a combination of 'ear notching' and 'ear tags'. I therefore suggest that 'earmarking' is removed. DrChrissy (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's leave it for the moment and see if we should make earmarking into a dab, or do some merges, or other cleanup. Montanabw^(talk) 00:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I assumed ear notching was another term for ear marking. Seeing as ear marking is the term already used on WP I changed the list to reflect this. If ear notching is not the same as ear marking it should go back on the list. Ear tagging is a separate procedure. stu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.42.226 (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not heard the term 'ear-marking' as a procedure before but the term 'ear-notching' is very widely used. 'Ear-marking' seems such a non-specific term as it could include ear notching, ear tagging, ear removal, tattooing, temporary visual marking - all of which are different and recognised procedures.DrChrissy (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And I have never heard the term ear notching before I read this page but hear ear marking regularly. In this context ear marking is a specific term for cutting an identifying mark into an animals ear. I admit the article on earmarking throws the word "mark" into the description but I think that is just loose writing. If you think ear notching is the more widely used term you could petition to have the Earmark (agriculture) article changed, I doubt you will have any luck as ear marking is common enough to have entered everyday language. stu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.42.226 (talk • contribs) 13:38, July 10, 2012‎

Surely the term 'ear-notching' is more descriptive and accurate than the term 'ear-marking'. Just because another article has been poorly written does not mean this has to be perpetuated simply to keep consistency within WP. Surely accuracy is better than being consistent but inaccurate. DrChrissy (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of this is UK English versus US English. US says "ear mark" Montanabw^(talk) 21:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If the issue is US vs Uk how is do other articles resolve the matter. I would argue that as both ear notching and marking are commonly used then the only thing we have to go on is consistency with WP. If you search for ear notching you are redirected to ear marking. I think this discussion should be moved to the earmark (agriculture) talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.42.226 (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the article and the talk page, the article might have an Australian bias. The article is not terribly accurate as it does not appear to state clearly that tissue is often removed. This can either be from the periphery which means a notch is left, or from the centre in which case a hole remains; neither is really a "...cut or mark". DrChrissy (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it. The link is for the page "earmark" but it's not allowed to say so. If the procedure isn't earmarking then it shouldn't be linked to the earmark page122.111.250.253 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that thre page "earmark" contains infomation on ear notching, ear tagging and perhaps on other methods of identification. There is no page specifically for ear notching, and if there were, it would probably give no more information than is already given on the "earmark" page. So, I have linked to the earmark page, although it is in my opinion more accurate to describe the procedure as notching. If you feel this is confusing, perhaps the link to "earmark" should be removed.

DrChrissy (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So are ear marking and notching different procedures? because if they are then one shouldn't be linked to the other. The earmark (agriculture) page makes no mention of ear notching and only mentions ear tagging to to say it is more common than ear marking.130.95.106.139 (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The article Earmark (agriculture) discusses "...a cut or mark in the ear...". Ear notching involves removal of a piece of tissue from the ear leaving a hole or a notch. The image on the Earmark article is of equipment which looks like it would take a notch of tissue so, I am not entirely sure to what the Earmark article refers. However, previous editors have been quite insistent that the link is made. Moreover 'Ear notching' redirects to the 'Earmark' page. DrChrissy (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of humans

Mutilatory procedures performed on humans should be included in this article. My edit to add humans was deleted, and I have now reverted it to include humans. Humans are an animal, and excluding humans would be arbitrary an unnecessary. Scientists make no distinction between humans and the other great apes. Moreover, I cannot possibly see what the objection would be to including humans. This is simply additional information which some readers may find useful, and some may not. Excluding humans, with all due respect, seems to verge dangerously close to censorship. Finally, if someone wants to limit this article to "mutilatory procedures on non-human animals," then--while I cannot possibly see the reason for such an arbitrary exclusion--at least the title should be changed accordingly, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

When I wrote this article and gave it a title I was mindful that I have been told by several editors that the term 'animals' on Wikipedia usually infers 'non-human animals'. I disagree with this, humans are animals, but I went with the consensus. I therefore wrote the article excluding humans and also with the knowledge that Mutilation gives good coverage of the human procedures and others that would be inapplicable for non-human animals, e.g. mutilation as punishment. The Mutilation article also gives many other examples for humans, so the list for humans on the current page is incomplete. One other point on your posting above, I am a scientist, but I am afraid I do draw a 'distinction' in many ways between humans and the other great apes, for example, I have yet to hear a gorilla have a conversation with a human - perhaps you would like to clarify your generalisation.DrChrissy (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

My generalization--i.e. my failure to draw a distinction between humans and other great apes--is based on cladistics. In particular, any difference between humans and other great apes can only be based on an arbitrary assessment of characteristics, not on actual genetic distance. Certainly, chimpanzees and humans are closer to each other genetically than either one is to gorillas. Thus, any category which includes both "chimpanzees" and "gorillas" would have to, under the concept of cladistics, also include humans--since they and chimpanzees have most in common with each other, and gorillas are the outlier. It would be illogical, under this concept, to include both "chimpanzees" and "gorillas" within the definition of "animal" but then EXCLUDE humans. Put another way, if "chimpanzees" are "animals" but "humans" are not "animals," then "gorillas" are also not "animals" since gorillas are a greater genetic distance from chimpanzees than humans are. All of this means that this article should, by logic, include humans as animals (at least, if it would also include chimpanzees). However, you raise a good point that the Mutilation article already covers humans, and my additional references here are duplicative and incomplete. On balance, I would rather leave humans in for the purpose of logical rigor, but if--in light of your point about the Mutilation article--you feel strongly that humans should be excluded from this article, then feel free to delete humans here. I do think, however, that in that event, the text of this article should include a very clear reference to the Mutilation article and a statement that human mutilation is addressed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 (talk • contribs) 19:26, September 2, 2012‎

I agree with DrChrissy that we shouldn't have humans in this article. In fact, we don't necessarily have an exhaustive listing of non-human animals. I bet there's a small rural culture somewhere on the planet that has domesticated some species not listed here, and does something or other to it. I've reverted the material about humans. But I also added Mutilation to the see also section. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish: I question your logic on this. Humans are NOT mutilated only in some small, obscure area of the planet. Humans are the most populous species of mammal, and circumcision is a commonly-done procedure among humans. I am not going to revert the edit to include humans, at least not for now, as it seems that no one else has taken my side on this, and I do not want to go it alone. I have trouble, though, understanding why anyone would be OPPOSED to including humans. All I see here is people saying they are opposed to this inclusion, but not stating why--except for DeChrissy's point about the mutilation article, which is well-taken. Even so, no one has addressed my discussion of cladistics. I'm sure that nobody would object to including chimpanzees, if they were commonly mutilated, yet there is seemingly-inexplicable resistance to including humans, a species that shares 98% of its genome with chimpanzees and that IS commonly mutilated. I would welcome some input from others on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are being very cooperative about this, thanks, and I feel like I owe it to you to do a better job than I did of explaining what I meant. What I was trying to say was merely that this page isn't comprehensive with respect to all species of animal that might be mutilated (see, for example, painted fish), nor does it need to be. If it doesn't attempt to included all species, it doesn't need to include humans, necessarily. I fully agree with you that humans are populous and important in the sense of encyclopedic. The way I see it, though, is that including humans on this page is kind of like adopting the POV that humans are just another species of animal. That's a position taken by the animal rights point of view, but I do not believe that it is a point of view that we should adopt here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Crissy and Trypto on this, Pgordon. If you want to argue the "non-human animals" consensus on wikipedia, that is something you can do, but not here. This article is about mutilatory procedures on non-human animals, but to give it a clunky re-name that goes against current WP consensus on humans vis-a-vis animals is not a battle for this article. If consensus on this changes, then we at this article can re-visit the issue. Montanabw^(talk) 20:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware that there is a controversy regarding humans being another species of animal, nor did I know that this issue factors into the animal rights debates, nor am I an especially strong supporter or opponent of animals rights--I would just prefer the article to be as accurate as possible. I was also unaware of the "non-human animals" consensus on on Wikipedia that Montanabw mentions. If such a consensus does indeed exist, then--while I have some mild reservations regarding the consensus--I admit that this article should certainly follow it, and humans should be omitted from the discussion.Pgordon2 (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we call it Animal testing, not "Non-human animal testing". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Declawing

Is there any reason that this article does not include declawing of cats, or Onychectomy as it is called on Wikipedia? That seems to fall within the definition of mutilation, since it involves removal not only of the claws, but of portions of the digits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the omission - I have now added this and changed the link for dew claw removal in dogs. DrChrissy (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I am having second thoughts about adding Tendonectomy to the article. This surgical procedure prevents cats extending their claws and therefore prevents the need for declawing. However, this does not really change the appearance of the animal as the term 'mutilation' is used in the article. I am therefore removing Tendonectomy, but happy to discuss.DrChrissy (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling about this and will leave it to you and the other watchers of this page to make the decision. However, I will note that tendonectomy is the removal of non-regenerative tissue for the purpose of altering the form or function of an animal, which sounds like "mutilation" to me, under both the commonly-understood defintion and the definition used in this article. Again, however, that's just my off-the-cuff opinion, and I don't have a strong opinion either way about including tendonectony. Pgordon2 (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Here, I somewhat agree with Pgordon, in that even though there is not an outward appearance change, a tendonectomy is a change that affects external function mostly for purely convenience-of-owner purposes. I think there is room to discuss if this opens up a can of worms or if we could effectively keep it in. Montanabw^(talk) 20:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, upon reflection, I tend to agree. There are other examples in the list which may not change the 'normal' outward appearance such as devoicing, tongue amputation and tooth grinding, but these become apparent if e.g. the animal opens its mouth. I also believe your phrase '...mostly for purely convenience-of-owner purposes.' is highly appropriate for this article. I will re-instate 'tendonectomy' DrChrissy (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

Following up on the page title section above, I would like to reopen discussion about the POV of this article. I think a list of common veterinary procedures like these is essential to have, but calling them "mutilatory" (based on what appears to be a single source? Big no no.) is extremely POV. Articles included here such as tail docking and mulesing make clear that these are complex, nuanced issues where multiple positions are possible, not merely that it is a given that these are mutilations or unnecessary. I think the first step here is that we move to a title like List of common veterinary procedures, perhaps with a descriptor other than 'mutilatory'. I realize that not all of these are performed at all times by a licensed veterinarian, but they are in fact veterinary procedures for the most part. Steven Walling • talk 23:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that using the term "mutilatory" is problematic from a POV standpoint. I think that, by the common, ordinary definition of the word "mutilate," cutting into or removing flesh, bone or other non-regenerative tissue for purposes other than the health or well-being of an animal constitutes mutilation. Moreover, I do not believe that designating a procedure as "mutilatory" is inherently tantamount to criticizing the procedure or arguing against performing it. For example, tattoos and piercings of humans seem to fall within the common, ordinary definition of "mutilation," yet I do not believe that there is a general consensus against allowing these procedures to be performed on humans. Returning to animals, the mere fact that, for example, declawing of cats or ear-cropping of dogs is "mutilation" does not necessarily imply that these procedures should be banned. In fact, "mutilation" and "mutilatory" are, I think, the best, most-descriptive, most-succinct words for the types of procedures described in this article, and I do not believe that they are problematic from a POV standpoint. Pgordon2 (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written for the general encyclopedia reader, not the expert. The most common definition of such a term, which is obviously very negative, is how it is taken. Even if the negative connotation is not intended, there is no reason to use ambiguous jargon. What's more, an expanded list of common veterinary procedures, not just ones for cosmetic or agricultural reasons, would be of more use. Steven Walling • talk 05:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that most Wikipedia readers will believe that, just because a procedure is dubbed "mutilatory" in this article, it is automatically harmful or ought not to be performed. As I mentioned, a person who gets his/her ear pierced to wear an earring is, by the everyday, ordinary definition, "mutilated," yet there does not seem to be much of a negative feeling toward wearing earrings. The same applies to animals. I am not in favor of a declawing ban, and in fact I had one of my cats declawed many years ago and he's had an apparently happy life since then, yet I recommended adding declawing to this article because it is clearly "mutilation." Finally, I highly doubt that many other people would be in favor of a radical change to this article, which is clear, succinct, informative, useful and not, in my humble opinion, a POV problem. (In fact, I think this article is useful to both sides of the animal rights debate as a starting point for discussions.) There is, in my view, no word that more clearly gets to the heart of what this article is about than does "mutilation." If you believe that such a word exists, i.e. a simple word that should be used instead of "mutilation" (or "mutilatory"), please state what it is. As for expanding this article to include a broader range of veterinary procedures, I think that would dilute the concept that this article is attempting to get at and, moreover, would be a big project. Also, if you are interested in a more broad-ranging article, you have the option to write one as a separate entry. I would be curious to see what others think about this issue. Pgordon2 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I please urge extreme caution about using the word 'Veterinary' in the title of this article or any other similar article. In the UK at least, vets are banned from performing several of the procedures included in this article and such a title would be sure to attract negative attention from the veterinary profession. The irony is that I created the page after giving a teaching seminar to veterinary students on the subject! Incidentally, I did not choose the word 'mutilatory' based on only one source. I actually used no sources at all since it is a word in common use, although I had perhaps underestimated the emotive connotations that it evokes. I have given only one example where the word 'mutilatory' is used, but I would be confident of finding others if this is deemed necessary.DrChrissy (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's good to know. Veterinary would be misleading in the title. Steven Walling • talk 18:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

IS there an overall article for human stuff like piercing, tattooing, and the weirder stuff like head-flattening, Michael Jackson's plastic surgery, etc.? What we are trying to sort out here, basically, is a list of surgical or quasi-surgical procedures done on animals for little if any needful medical reason, but rather for either appearence (docking, cropping) or the convenience of humans (declawing, debarking, etc...) What we call it isn't a huge deal to me, but I DO think it makes sense to have this overview. I do agree that calling it "veterinary" isn't wise, but is there a title that is not OR? "Animal plastic surgery" doesn't quite work, either. Montanabw^(talk) 18:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Steven Walling's comments remind me that I still have the same concerns that I expressed in the earlier discussion. And, given our non-specialist readership, the (mis)interpretation of "mutilatory" isn't going to go away. The one-source observation prompts me to ask: can we find other locutions used in other sources? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that having only a single source for the word "mutilatory" is a concern because, as DrChrissy points out, this is a word in common use. On the other hand, people appear to have emotive issues associated with the use of this word. Also, I have yet to hear anyone propose a word that can replace "mutilatory" and get at the heart of what this article is addressing. So, how about including the overview that Montanabw mentioned? The overview could contain a disclaimer that "mutilatory" is not intended to have a negative connotation. Pgordon2 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The overview and declaration of intended NPOV is what we have attempted to include in the introductory paragraphs. Is this still not giving the message? Just to pre-empt concerns about using only a single source for the word 'mutilation', here are a couple more examples

"Many procedures, that we subject animals to, result in acutely painful conditions. These procedures include mutilations such as castration, tail docking, disbudding or destruction of the horn bud, dehorning, branding and debeaking..." http://agriculture.de/acms1/conf6/ws5apain.htm

"Mutilatory forms of identification (e.g. toe-amputation), or those which..." http://www.applied-ethology.org/ethical_guidelines.html

"Some procedures carried out by respected veterinarians are barbaric and mutilatory and in essence, vivisectionist" http://www.angelfire.com/il2/BlessedBe/birds.html PLEASE NOTE, this is not the inflammatory style of writing I would normally quote.

Section on "Mutilations" of meat and breeding chickens. http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb7275meat-chickens-020717.pdf

DrChrissy (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying what I said above, I don't think that it's inherently a problem about single source or not. My reference to that was only in terms of whether other sources might suggest an alternative page name. And I also had hoped that the expanded text would help explain how the word should be understood. But I guess the page title creates a "first impression". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

How about changing "mutilatory" to "modification" or "modifying"? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with using "modification" or "modifying" is that numerous non-mutilatory surgical procedures would fall within this definition. For example, removing a rotten tooth, or amputating a cancerous leg, are modifications, yet they are not what this article is getting at because they are done for the sake of the animal's health. One possibility I can think of, if people are concerned about the negative connotation of "mutilatory," is to title the article "elective surgical procedures on animals." I'm not sure if this fully gets at the desired concept, but it's a possibility. Pgordon2 (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

How about "non-therapeutic" or "non-therapeutic modification"? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I took your comment about the single source of 'mutilatory' in the way I think it was intended....you were simply alerting me to the fact that it would be more robust useage of the word if several sources could be quoted. I was pre-empting this as what might have become an issue for other editors less reasoned than yourself. Thanks for the 'heads up'. Regarding Pgordon2 suggestion of the word 'surgical'. Unfortunately, several of these practices could not really be described as 'surgical' e.g. Tattooing, Branding, Ear tagging, Ear notching, Teeth grinding. Moreover, I feel the word 'surgery' is actually a euphemism for many of these practices - they are frequently conducted by unskilled staff, without anaesthetic, often with make-shift tools and with little or no post-surgical care. It is these sorts of facts about this subject which although I can verify, I have kept out of the article in an attempt to maintain NPOV.DrChrissy (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, no, I wasn't intending to alert you to that. I was suggesting that looking at other sources might show those sources using an alternative wording, that we could use here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we'd need a new source for a new name, otherwise we are venturing into OR land. That said, do we have a UK-versus-US language issue here? It is clearly a term of art for the UK, but carries a lot of emotional punch to a US reader; but I don't think we even have an official collective term for this stuff (because it's mostly legal here...), so we may need to just pile on the sourcing for use of "mutilatory" and brace for impact. I don't know if articles like castration have similar problems with the word itself packing a punch. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I still think we can do better. It would be OR if we coined some kind of wording that is really out of the ordinary, but if we use language in its plain, dictionary sense, I don't think we would have that problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Piling on the sources of the word mutilation (including one dictionary which directly uses 'Mutilatory castration"), here are a few more examples of the term being used below. By the way, there is a WP article Mutilation...wouldn't avoidance of the term in the present article be inconsistent with allowing it to be used in Mutilation?

"mutilatory castration - castration of companion animal males is thought by some to be an unnecessary mutilation. The view applies particularly to dogs." http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mutilatory+castration

"The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England)(Amendment)Regulations 2008" DEFRA document. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1426/pdfs/uksi_20081426_en.pdf

"Surgical Mutilation: Position Statement on Surgical Mutilation". http://cfhs.ca/info/surgical_mutilation/

"Tail Docking in Dogs and other Acts of Mutilation in Dogs & Cats" Veterinary Ireland, http://www.dspca.ie/media/TailDockinginDogsandotherActsofMutilationinDogs&Cats1.pdf

"It is a summary offence to carry out or cause a prohibited procedure (mutilation or interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of the animal) to be carried out on a protected animal". Offences involving Domestic and Captive Animals-The Crown Prosecution Services. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/offences_involving_domestic_and_captive_animals/

I did find another term in this search..."mutilous"...never seen it before!

DrChrissy (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree that "mutilous" would be a poor choice – sounds like a hybrid of "mutinous" and "mucilage"! But looking at the Mutilation page actually shows where the concern here comes from. That page has two sections about specific examples: "Punishment" and "Mutilation as human punishment". Obviously, no one in their right mind would intend the procedures listed here to be used as punishment for the animals! No matter if we cite one thousand sources, non-specialist readers (at least in the US) will read the page title, and think "animal cruelty".

Again, how about "non-therapeutic" or "non-therapeutic modification"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. I'd be open to the idea, though I'd love someone to get out their medical thesaurus and see if we have a better word that's a term of art. The word is definitely a "loaded" one. The only problem I see with "non-therapeutic" is that some people argue that things like cropping or docking ARE (somehow) "therapeutic." But I suppose that's an easier edit war to fight. Montanabw^(talk) 23:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Non-therapeutic" on its own is not descriptive enough, because it would include procedures that we don't want in this article. For example, shearing (shaving the wool off) a sheep is a non-therapeutic procedure but is not mutilatory. Even giving a cat a bath, which many people do, is not necessary for the animal's health given cats' natural cleanliness, so it is a non-therapeutic procedure performed on cats. "Non-therapeutic" might work combined with some other words, for example "non-therapeutic modification" as was already suggested, "non-therapeutic alteration," or "invasive non-therapeutic procedure." Incidentally, I don't feel strongly that the existing title needs to be changed. However, I do see how "mutilatory" could be construed as somewhat POV, so if there's a better, more-neutral way to title the article, I would be in favor of it--as long as the new title is simple and not-too-cumbersome. By the way, in case anyone is wondering, I previously posted under the name "pgordon2" but have changed to a different username, which I think will show in this posting. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV section break

Good thing we are hashing this out now; as clearly we are seeing the concerns that would be raised. Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a medical thesaurus, as such, but I own two (human-oriented) medical dictionaries, Stedman's and Taber's. Neither has the word "mutilatory", but they both have "mutilate" and/or "mutilation". Both treat it as something pretty negative, largely in terms of amputation of limbs. I looked for other alternatives along the lines of non-therapeutic, invasive, and elective, and nothing came up that I found useful. For general English language usage, here's Thesaurus.com for "mutilate": [1]. I'm not seeing anything we haven't already touched on. Putting together what I read in this discussion already, here is a list of what I think may be possibilities:

1. non-therapeutic modification
2. non-therapeutic modifying
3. non-therapeutic alteration
4. non-therapeutic invasive
5. invasive non-therapeutic
6. invasive alteration
7. invasive modification
8. invasive modifying

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

How about titling the article "Physical Alterations of Animals for Non-Therapeutic Purposes"? ChicagoDilettante (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

INVASIVE: Using the word 'Invasive' is to my mind, problematic. The definition on Invasiveness of surgical procedures is "A medical procedure is strictly defined as non-invasive when no break in the skin is created and there is no contact with the mucosa, or skin break, or internal body cavity beyond a natural or artificial body orifice." Teeth grinding and teeth cutting do not break skin and are therefore non-invasive. Arguably, beak trimming and dehorning do not transect 'skin' per se, but a modified dermal layer; therefore according to this definition are non-invasive. Tattooing breaks the skin, but I suspect most readers would not think of this as being 'invasive'. Furthermore, this definition would mean that micro-chipping, which breaks the skin, should be included on the list, something we have argued against in the past because it does not change the appearance of the animal, a component which IS encapsulated in the term 'Mutilatory'.

THERAPUTIC: The problem with using 'Theraputic' or 'Non-theraputic' in the title is that this is POV for some of the procedures. Tail docking in working dogs is one of the most contentious of the listed procedures. Some people insist it is absolutely necessary to prevent injury to the dog whilst working, others argue it is totally unnecessary (and it has been banned in the UK). Pin Firing of horse legs is thought by some to be an extremely useful therapy whilst others consider it has no theraputic value at all. Please note that in the list I described it as a 'therapy' but that was because I was wanting to avoid arguemnent - it still mutilates whether it is theraputic or not. Beak-trimming is performed to reduce feather pecking; I would therefore classify this as theraputic. Teeth grinding and tusk trimming in pigs are performed to stop the pigs injuring each other; again I would classify these as theraputic. Nose rings in pigs are inserted to prevent the pigs rooting and damaging the ground; theraputic for the farmer but not for the pig, i.e. POV.

Sorry to perhaps appear argumentative about this, but it is something I have been thinking about and teaching for many years and I have found no solution other than 'mutilatory'. DrChrissy (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding DrChrissy's argument that this article should include procedures that are of debatable therapeutic value but are certainly mutilatory (like pin firing of horse legs), my response would be that, if the procedure is widely believed to have some actual benefit to the animal's health, then it actually should NOT be in this article. Removing a wart, or a cancerous lesion, or amputating a diseased limb, are certainly mutilatory, yet this article does not include such procedures, nor should it. Thus, if pin firing is believed by many to have health benefits to the horse (even if others think it's unnecessary), then I say it should be removed from this article. I believe that this article should be limited to procedures that either are done for humans' practical convenience (like declawing and debarking) or for show purposes (like ear-cropping). This leaves the question of procedures that are performed in order that animals can live in an artificial way that humans have set up for them--like debeaking of farmed chickens, and tail docking of working dogs. I believe that these procedures should be included in this article, because they are ultimately for peoples' benefit, not for the animal's health. If pin firing of horse legs doesn't fall into any of these categories, and is done for the animal's health (even if the health benefits are debatable), I say it should be removed.

Moreover, while I think that some people MIGHT debate POV if the article included the term "non-therapeutic," I believe that the POV problems would be substantially less than with "mutilatory." Earlier, I stated that I am not strongly opposed to leaving the article's title as is (with "mutilatory" included), but that if a better, more-POV-neutral title could be found, I would be in favor of changing to the more-POV-neutral title. I think that we're closing in on one. I'm certainly not wedded to my suggestion of "Physical alterations of animals for non-therapeutic purposes," but I think it's at least getting close to something better than the current title, and I think we're nearing a simple, precise, POV-neutral title. At least, in my humble opinion. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with ChicagoDilettante that the potential POV issues pertaining to "mutilatory" are greater than the issues with "non-therapeutic". (Perhaps this is a case where we will have to settle for the least objectionable option, lacking an ideal option.)

How about "appearance-altering procedures"? (Yes, I know a haircut, for example, will alter appearance, but I think we can allow for common sense.) Or, if we have to, "permanent appearance-altering procedures".

I feel that we have to consider one more possibility. It is starting to look to me like a very real possibility would be to eliminate this page, and relocate all of this material to pages where it would be easier to define what the subject really is. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Splitting the table really would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The purpose of the article can be very easily defined. This is not the problem. The problem is that some people are interpreting a word (mutilatory) one way and others another. As I have tried to argue elsewhere, we can not control people's interpretation of words. DrChrissy (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the ultimate consensus is on the title, I must say that I am absolutely opposed to eliminating this page or spreading its content to multiple other locations. For one thing, I don't see what would be gained. This page contains an organized collection of information that isn't easily found in one place anywhere else that I know of--at least not on the free Internet. Thus, this page is a positive addition to the public discourse. Also, I think there is little or no doubt in anyone's mind regarding what the subject of this article is supposed to be (see my discussion above starting with "I believe that this article should be limited to..."). The only question is in regard to the most appropriate title, and I don't think that that relatively minor issue should result in an otherwise-useful article being deleted. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

One other thought regarding another suggestion made by Tryptofish. I am opposed to the title "appearance-altering procedures" because it's imprecise. As has been mentioned, a haircut, as well as other things such as nail-trimming, horse-shoeing, etc. are all appearance-altering and, I think we'd all agree, should not be included in this article. I'd prefer to either leave the current title (with "mutilatory") or, better yet, switch to a title that includes "non-therapeutic" than go with "appearance-altering." ChicagoDilettante (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, then, it sounds like something based on "non-therapeutic" is emerging as, albeit non-perfect, less objectionable than various other alternatives. I'm pretty much neutral amongst the various options using "non-therapeutic" that I listed above (excluding the ones that combine it with "invasive"), but I increasingly feel that I would strongly prefer any one of those over what we have now. Does anyone have any preferences amongst those? I'd like to settle on one of them, and then we can evaluate that one against the existing title. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

My nomination is "invasive, non-therapeutic" - DrChrissy? Can that work? I actually don't really feel a lot of drive to change the title, but I do think this issue will keep coming up over and over again if we don't. Montanabw^(talk) 04:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Above, DrChrissy objected both to "non-therapeutic" and to "invasive". ChicagoDilettante and I both expressed the opinion that "non-therapeutic" was less of a POV problem than is "mutilatory". On that basis, my thinking is that we might have a better chance of consensus if we try to make it work with "non-therapeutic" and something else, but not with "invasive" as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If we use the word 'Non-therapeutic' in the title, we will have to REMOVE the following therapeutic procedures from the article:

Dew claw removal

Dehorning

Tounge amputation

Tail docking

Teeth removal

Pin firing

Ear docking

Teeth cutting

Tusk trimming

Beak trimming

Blinders

Desnooding

Dubbing

Spur removal

Detoeing

Toe clipping

Mulesing

Teeth grinding

Castration

I leave it to other editors to discuss the relative merits of removing these from the article. DrChrissy (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a veterinarian or otherwise professionally trained regarding these procedures. However, I'm perplexed as to why so many would need to be removed if "non-therapeutic" appears in the title. From what I understand about beak-trimming, for example, it's done in order that chickens don't harm each other when forced to live together in crowded conditions on factory farms. This certainly sounds non-therapeutic to me. It's done for the convenience of humans who want to force chickens to live like this for economic reasons. Free-range chickens with adequate space don't need their beaks trimmed, at least as I understand it. Thus, beak-trimming is not done for the health of chickens, but to support factory-farming with small cages. The same thing goes for castration (aids in farming and husbandry, not for animals' health) and tail docking (arguably allows dogs to be used as working dogs, not done for dogs' health). I don't know much about the other procedures mentioned (mulesing, toe clipping, etc.) but suspect they fall into this same category.

Bottom line: if the only reason that a procedure is performed is so that an animal can remain healthy when forced to live in artificial conditions created by humans, I don't think the procedure falls within the ordinary, everyday definition of "therapeutic." Perhaps it falls within the definition of "therapeutic" in some medical dictionaries. I don't have access to that information. Anyway, I think that if we want to, we could put "non-therapeutic" into the title and leave in many of these procedures on the basis that they are "therapeutic" only in the sense that they must be done for the animal's health if the animal is forced, for reasons of human convenience, to live in artificial conditions. As I have stated, however, I have only a mild preference to change from the current title to one involving "non-therapeutic." I think that such a change would make this article less POV and would make more readers, including those who do not normally care about animal rights, more receptive to giving the article a read. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

BEAK TRIMMING is performed to reduce the damaging effects of feather pecking and cannibalism. It is performed on almost 100% of UK commercial flocks (which I believe is similar for the US). It is performed on almost all free-range flocks as feather pecking is worse in free range systems than in cage systems.

CASTRATION in several species is performed so that males are less aggressive and therefore less likely to injure each other because of fighting. This is true for free range pigs and beef cattle.

TAIL DOCKING is pormed in pigs to reduce injury from tail biting, in lambs/sheep to help reduce the incidence of fly-strike, and in working dogs to reduce the risk of injury while moving through undergrowth. All are free-range.

DrChrissy (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I must confess to now being on the fence about this. On the one hand, I think it could be argued that no chicken has its beak trimmed for its OWN health (just for the health of the other chickens around it), so when a beak is trimmed, it is not "therapeutic" to the chicken on whom the trimming procedure is performed. The same could be said of castration, although tail docking appears different since a pig's tail is docked to protect that specific pig from receiving posterior bite injuries. On the other hand, this seems to have opened a can of worms so perhaps the simplest thing is just to leave the title as is, with "mutilatory" included, as imperfect as that seems given the POV issue. As I've stated all along, I can ultimately go either way on changing the title, as I see disadvantages either way. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the lead, we quote the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons as defining mutilatory procedures as non-therapeutic. On the other hand, I think that you are quite correct that there are other reliable sources that consider some of these procedures to be both mutilatory and therapeutic. This kind of conflict between sources comes up frequently on Wikipedia, and there's a well-established solution to the problem: present sources on both sides of the issue. Here, that could mean that we do, in fact, use "non-therapeutic" in the title, stating in the text that we base that on the RCVS, but we then provide text citing sources for each of the procedures you have just listed (thus keeping all those procedures in this page), saying that those sources do consider these procedures to have therapeutic value. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Dr Chrissy has a point about use of non-therapeutic. Personally I am okay with it, but there is always the very generic title I first suggested, which does not include a qualifier about the whether the procedure is therapeutic or not, merely that it is common. Steven Walling • talk 04:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV section break 2

Looking back at the list I made at the previous section break, I think that the following have fewer objections than the others. Not zero objection, just fewer!

1. non-therapeutic modification procedures
2. non-therapeutic modifying procedures
3. non-therapeutic alteration procedures

I'd like to pick one of those three, and weigh its pluses and minuses against "mutilatory", which also has non-zero objections. As I said just above, we would also add sourced text to the page, indicating where sources consider a procedure to be, in fact, therapeutic. If we have trouble deciding amongst ourselves, then we could consider opening an RfC, to get input from more editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish: I don't see how the second of your proposed phrases would even work in a title. "Non-therapeutic modifying of animals" doesn't even seem correct grammatically, at least not to me. However, if you can come up with a title that includes this phrase in a grammatically correct, non-clunky way, perhaps we can revisit it. This leaves option (1) or (3). Between these, I prefer option (3), "Non-therapeutic alteration." I guess this would result in the complete title "Non-therapeutic alteration of animals." That, along with the current title (which includes "mutilatory") are my first two choices among the options currently on the table.

The word "invasive" has also been floating around, and Montanabw recently proposed a title using "invasive." DrChrissy, however, has previously pointed out the problems with "invasive"--to wit, procedures that don't transect the skin, like debeaking and teeth grinding, are not invasive yet we want them to be included. Therefore, I think we can safely rule out anything with "invasive" in it, unless anyone objects.

I now think we are down to either: (1) the current title; or (2) something with "non-therapeutic," probably "Non-therepeutic alteration of animals." I have a mild preference for something with "non-therapeutic" for POV reasons, but this preference is mild and I can live with leaving the current title in place. I tend to think that Montanabw might be in the same boat as I am, though I don't want to speak for someone else. I also think that DrChrissy is strongly in favor of leaving the current title, whereas Tryptofish is strongly in favor of switching to a title with "non-theapeutic." I think that this is the impasse in which we find ourselves. I leave it to others to figure out how to proceed from here. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Woops! I'm sorry! I had meant all of those to include the word "procedures", and I've just added that now. What I was thinking was that those would be replacements for "mutilatory", rather than for "mutilatory procedures", but of course I see now that this wasn't clear to everyone else. Sorry again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That said, how about "non-therapeutic alteration procedures", since (if I understand correctly), you are leaning towards "alteration" over "modification"? Or, per Steven Walling below, how about simply "non-therapeutic procedures"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I just had one other thought. With regard to the suggestion by Tryptofish to open this up for an RfC, I fear that unless someone has been following this entire discussion, an RfC will result in all of the issues we have been discussing over the past few days having to be rehashed with a newbie. I'm just not sure how constructive that would be. However, if it's unavoidable, we may have to as a last resort. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that goes to show that any newbie reader of this page probably also has to figure those things out, so we aren't doing anyone a favor by leaving things as they are now. It looks to me like Steven Walling and I come down pretty strongly on the side of making some sort of title change, and DrChrissy is strongly on the side of not changing the title, with you and maybe Montanabw somewhere in between. It doesn't look to me like we are really getting closer to a solution amongst ourselves, so more eyes are likely to be a good thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think "procedures" is more accurate and neutral than any of the above. Just my two cents, Steven Walling • talk 04:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure why this discussion has now become focussed on whether the list is of therapeutic or non-therapeutic procedures. This is not the purpose of the article. As I listed above, a great many of the procedures in the article are advocated by some as therapeutic whereas other readers would argue the procedure has little or no therapeutic value whatsoever. This, to my mind, makes using the word 'non-therapeutic' as POV as 'mutilatory'.

An editor made a previous point that some of the procedures were of no direct benefit to the individual on which the procedure was performed and therefore should not be classified as 'therapeutic'. Beak trimming was given as an example. If a human has aggressive tendencies, he may be given 'therapy' for this. The procedure may have no benefit for him per se, but other humans around him will be made safer. Compare this with e.g. beak trimming, dehorning, castration.DrChrissy (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is not about whether procedures are therapeutic or not. I've already said that, if we call them "non-therapeutic", we should also expand the text to cite sources that consider some of the procedures to be therapeutic. It's a discussion of what the title of the page should be. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read my previous message again, maybe I was unclear - I was trying to say that I do not understand why 'Non-therapeutic' is being suggested for use in the title. First it is, in my opinion, POV. Second, it will be inaccurate as without omissions, the article will contain many procedures that are considered theraputic. Please may I respectfully qoute WP:POV "In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased."DrChrissy (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I'm well-familiar with NPOV. But I think it's pretty clear that some of us in these discussions do not accept that the word "mutilatory" meets the criterion of being "likely to be well recognized by readers", except in the sense of a POV meaning that no one here intends it to mean. If you look at it from a non-specialist's perspective, saying that procedures mutilate animals carries a lot more emotive weight to the general public, than does saying that the procedures are not for therapeutic reasons. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Something else just crossed my mind. If I remember correctly, DrChrissy said once in the past that many of these procedures are not permitted to be done by veterinarians, at least in the UK. (Please correct me if I misremember.) If that's true, how about calling the page "Overview of non-veterinary procedures on animals"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-veterinary does not work because, although some of these procedures are apparently not peformed by veterinarians, some of them are. For example, declawing of cats and debarking of dogs in the United States are both typically performed by veterinarians. Therefore, putting "non-veterinary" in the title and leaving in declawing and debarking would confuse people. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I figured it was worth a try. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. It is also a little more complicated than that as some of these procedures e.g. castrating piglets and lambs, can be performed by a non-veterinarian upto a certain age of the animals, but must be performed by a veterinarian after that. (For information, this is based on the belief that young animals are less sensitive to pain than older animals, a belief that is now much less widely held.)DrChrissy (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to revisit the purpose of this article using a couple of examples in the list to indicate the complications I perceive with use of the word non-therapeutic in the title.

EAR TAGGING ...this is non-therapeutic and in my opinion, low on the scale of mutilation

TOE CLIPPING...this involves amputation of one or more toes to identify animals. This is non-therapeutic and, in my opinion high on the scale of mutilation

TAIL DOCKING (in pigs)....involves amputation of the tail to prevent it being chewed. This IS therapeutic and in my opinion, high on the scale of mutilation.

MULESING...this involves removal of large areas of skin from the backs of the legs and rump of sheep to avoid fly-strike. This IS therapeutic and in my opinion high on the scale of mutilation.

The purpose of the article was to bring procedures together under a commonality - that commonality is mutilation. To use the word non-therapeutic will mean that so many qualifications and footnotes will be needed (please see the large list I posted previously) that I believe readers will end up asking why 'non-therapeutic' was ever used in the title.DrChrissy (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we seem to quickly be arriving at the conclusion that there is no neutral way to describe this list. In that light, I think it suggests this article is something of a POV fork, and which is why I suggested we expand its scope to be a list of common veterinary procedures (that have articles). In such a list, we can easily have a section for non-therapeutic and therapeutic procedures, which avoids this problem. Steven Walling • talk 18:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Shoeing of Horses

Does anyone think that shoeing of horses should be added? I don't know much about this procedure, but it's my recollection that farriers nail the shoe into the hoof, which sounds like the type of procedure covered in this article. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Shoeing requires nails to be driven into (but not through) the keratinised outer surface of the hoof. This material is dead and very similar to finger nails, so shoeing is rather similar to humans adorning their nails with small rings. The main point here is that it causes no pain. All the other procedures in the list transect (interfere with) live, innervated tissue and therefore almost certainly cause pain. There - I mentioned the elephant in the room - "pain". DrChrissy (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. If it's just nerve-less, keratanized tissue like nails, then it doesn't sound like it should be included. Thanks. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, horseshoes do not hurt the horse, and sometimes are critically necessary to prevent harm to the hoof. They are not always needed, and bad shoeing can lead to lameness and other problems, but that's only when it's poorly done or done when not necessary. There is a WP:FRINGE movement that claims shoeing is inherently and always bad, the tinfoil helmet version of the barefoot movement can get really nutty. =:-O But shoes are not mutilatory, no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 04:55, September 16, 2012‎

Loaded words

It strikes me that there are several WP pages where 'loaded' words are used in the title. By this, I mean that for some readers, negative perspectives are almost an inherent reaction when reading the word/s. However, for other readers there may be a neutral, or even positive response. My argument here is that we can not necessarily control the way people perceive some words, including 'mutilatory' If it is accurate, let's use it. Examples include -

Cult "The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre"

Nazism "... is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism."

Mutilation "Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, sometimes causing death"

Circumcision "Opponents of circumcision state that infant circumcision infringes upon individual autonomy and represents a human rights violation"

Female genital mutilation "Opposition to FGM focuses on human rights violations, lack of informed consent, and health risks..."

DrChrissy (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia-speak, that kind of argument would be WP:OTHERSTUFF. That said, the only one of the subjects you listed where reasonable people can disagree is, arguably, circumcision. All of the others, arguably, are very much the kinds of things that we would NOT want to imply about this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I had not realised there was a WP:OTHERSTUFF policy. So let's forget that approach and just think of the examples as words in the everyday use of English. My point is that something like Genital Female Mutilation would be automatically perceived as negative by some readers, neutral (no point of view) by others, and a third group (perhaps those who practice the procedure) as positive. It is not the subject matter I am thinking of here, put people's different interpretations and POV.DrChrissy (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

(Minor point: we have policies, guidelines, and essays, and that one comes from the latter.) Anyway, female genital mutilation is seen negatively by most of the, well, civilized world. And so is "mutilation" of animals. "Mutilatory" is seen as anything other than "mutilation" – in the "animal cruelty" sense of the word – only by persons familiar with the technical use of the term. So, no matter how you look at it, most of our readers will think, first, "animal cruelty" when they read the title of the page, and only understand the more nuanced meaning when and if they read the explanation in the text. The issue here is not whether or not we can control what people will think. The issue is that we are obligated not to confuse readers by using language that we can reasonably expect to be misunderstood. We are not here to tell people what to think, but we are also here not to confuse them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, the guideline on loaded words is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, my American ears hears "mutilation" as a pretty strong word, However, I'd rather see that as a title than something clunky that doesn't make sense to anyone. If "invasive, non-therapeutic procedures on animals" properly encompasses the scope, I will throw it in as a proposed new title. However, I'm not hugely wedded to it if it doesn't work. Montanabw^(talk) 04:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think just "non-therapeutic procedures..." is sufficient for the title. The list hasn't expanded so much that we need to be specific about it being invasive procedures in the title, I think. Steven Walling • talk 04:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Both Montanabw and Steven Walling, about "invasive, non-therapeutic procedures", I'm not entirely against that, but please see my reply to Montanabw about that particular wording, in #NPOV section break, above (at 18:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC), just above DrChrissy's long list of procedures). As for Steven's idea of simply "non-therapeutic procedures", I'd go along with that, but I'll point out how other editors have objected that there are very, very many other non-therapeutic procedures that do not go here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like we really need an RfC here with all the options laid out. This discussion is split between three sections. Steven Walling • talk 18:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, to reiterate, "non-therapeutic procedures" is not, in my view, accurate, since it would include things like shearing sheep, trimming a cat's nails, and shoeing horses, yet these procedures are not within the scope of this article. Moreover, anything with "invasive" in it is probably not going to work because of the non-invasive procedures, like beak-trimming and teeth-grinding mentioned by DrChrissy, that do not transect skin but that ARE within the scope of this article. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Preparing for an RfC

I see from the comments in the last day or so that we really will need to go to an RfC. But I also recognize that, unlike a lot of other RfCs, this is a situation where all of us "involved editors" are actually working together very cordially, just happening to disagree on an editorial judgment. Therefore, instead of going directly to an RfC, I'd like first to discuss some of the options we are considering, to see if we can maybe agree a little bit on, at least, what to ask. I suppose there are two, and maybe three, possible options to offer:

1. One, obviously, is to keep the page, and the page title, as they are now.
2. Another would be to rename the page. I'm going to say here how, specifically, I would be inclined to do it, but of course it's open to discussion.

   • Move the page from Overview of mutilatory procedures on animals to Overview of non-therapeutic modifying procedures on animals.
   • Revise the text, by, first, explaining that these procedures are referred to technically as "mutilatory", with explanation and sourcing as we have it now, and, second, noting that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons defines "mutilatory" as non-therapeutic, but then noting that other sources consider some of these procedures to be therapeutic. (We can do this quite easily, by the way, with a reasonable amount of text and/or footnotes.)

3. A third option would be to replace the page with a broader Overview of common veterinary procedures or List of common veterinary procedures, not limited to "mutilatory", as Steven Walling has been advocating. It's not clear to me, however, whether this third option has enough support here to indicate that we should include it in the RfC, so I'm asking about that.

Obviously, we already know who here opposes what, but are there any thoughts about how to present this to other editors? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to the third option, which is to make this into a more general list of common veterinary procedures called, for example, "Overview of common veterinary procedures." I believe that the ultimate purpose of this article--whatever its title--is to list procedures in which there is some flesh-cutting and, at least arguably, a certain amount of pain imposed on animals for dubious or debateable purposes. These dubious or debateable pruposes are usually related to the convenience or aesthetic preferences of humans. The exception seems to be those procedures, like beak-trimming and tail-docking, in which an animal's flesh is cut in order to ward off potential harm to the animal or its neighboring animals caused by aggressive tendencies. In any event, the core purpose of this article seems to be catalog procedures in which an animal's flesh is cut for dubious or debateable purposes. I think that this is important information to exist in the public discourse, and I would be strongly opposed to watering it down with a more general list of veterinary procedures that includes everything from teeth-cleaning to deworming to kidney-stone removal to amputation of a cancerous leg. If someone wants a general list like that, I'm sure there are comprehensive veterinary encyclopedias, and I don't see the point in trying to duplicate that here. Obviously, if some of you feel strongly otherwise, then we can leave the third option in when we go out for the RfC, but unless there is strong support for this, I would prefer to leave the third option out of the RfC. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the discussion so far is that your opinion of the third option is the widely-held opinion here, and I'm inclined to agree with you. But I felt that I needed to present it as an option at this point, and see what the response was. Of course, there's absolutely no reason why someone couldn't create such a page in addition to this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I too am strongly opposed to the third option. I feel this option would likely attract the wrath of the veterinary profession and perhaps their lawyers if it included several of the procedures currently in the article! DrChrissy (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have just looked at the RCVS report again. It is a little confusing. It does define muitilations as non-therapeutic, but then in the body of the document it discusses therapeutic procedures. DrChrissy (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose an RfC. Make that vehemently oppose. It will just attract the drama whores who know nothing about the topic, and maybe some of the more rabid animal rights sorts as well. We will waste our time for a month and a half in fruitless discussion, probably with a few people getting in trouble for edit-warring, and then the people who yell the longest without being blocked will come up with something phenomenally stupid that doesn't work at all. (Yes, my cynicism about the drama boards is deep - but justified) I see that we have two main questions here, they are pretty simple, and we are all discussing them cordially and with a lot of good faith. I don't think we have a deadlock or an irreconcilable conflict that warrants an RfC. Do you think I am describing these accurately? Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Is this article some sort of unneeded content fork (if so, of what other article?) that should be merged back into something else (if so, what?) or expanded into something else? (If so, what name would be used?)
2. Should this article be renamed, if so, to what?

Really, are there any other issues? If so, feel free to add. My own view is that the answer to #1 is probably no, as an expansion might become so long as to be unworkable, though I am open to further discussion. My answer to #2 is that I threw out a proposal, which I don't really have strong feelings about one way or the other, and which we are debating in a good faith manner. Either way, no need for an RfA. Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, let me put it this way. I certainly agree, and have said so, that the discussion here is entirely cordial, so this isn't a case of needing an RfC to break up a fight. I also agree with you that the answer to your first question is probably no. So, that leaves us with a discussion about whether to rename the page. If you seriously believe that you can forge a consensus about that amongst the editors already here, I'll be happy to give you a couple of days to do it – lotsa luck! But if I don't see you making progress, I'm going to go ahead with the RfC, looking at just the first two options on my list here. As for whom we might attract, I disagree with you. If you look into my editing history, I probably have more experience than anyone else on the Wiki at dealing with POV issues over animal rights, and let's just say that I'm not worried. And look at it this way: no matter how strongly you feel about that, it's an open Wiki. The kinds of people you are worried about can already find and read and edit this page. Sooner or later, find it they will, with or without the RfC. A big part of the reason I've been taking the positions that I've taken is that I would rather they not find a page with a title that screams out for them to make drama over it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding an RfC, I have not been involved in one before, however, I have always taken great care when editing the article to keep it as neutral as possible so it does not become fuel for extremists of either camp. I hope an RfC does not develop into an arguement such that splitting and diluting the article occurs.

Regarding the use of 'non-therapeutic' alterations or modifications in the appearance of animals as a title. I believe the following procedures might be placed on the list if that sort of title was used. I think we might all agree these do not belong on the list, but how would we justify this to another editor if the title was changed? It might be helpful to draft a response to an editor who proposes making these additions as to why they can not be included.

Artificial selection (consider the different breeds of dog, goldfish, cattle, etc)

Genetic manipulation (consider e.g. obese mice)

Adornments (fancy collars, head-dresses, etc)

Painting elephants (done for ceremonial reasons)

Flamingo feeding (Captive flamingoes are fed food high in carotene to give them their pink colour

Dog dyeing (a recent fad)

Horn and hoof polishing (performed before shows or public appearances)

Shearing and clipping (we have discussed this before and there was consensus it should not be on the list)

Hair braiding (Tails and manes are braided before shows and public appearances)

DrChrissy (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Trypt, I also have tangled with the Animal Rights issue, I babysit all the rodeo and related articles, which can get some nasty stuff going ... I also don't mind a few more good faith eyes here, but I just hate a lot of ignorant drama, and Chrissy properly raises the crap we will face if we take this to a RFC =:-O But more to the point, what I'm seeing here is actually a dearth of research: WHAT other terms are used besides the loaded word "mutilatory?" We've had problems with most of the other proposals, not that we dislike them, we just haven't come up with the right word or words yet; I don't see there being a lack of consensus, I see a lack of options that will work and not make more of a problem than they solve. I don't see anyone holding their breath until they turn blue to keep "mutilatory," though DrChrissy makes a good case for it being a legitimate term of art. I also don't see anyone holding their breath until they turn blue for "non-therapeutic ..." whatever. SO... the problem is, in part, that some of these things are lumped in as "routine veterinary procedures" by no less than the Merck veterinary manual in the USA, yet, some procedures are also banned in some states and other nations. So to sharpen the horns of the dilemma...: Montanabw^(talk) 17:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Are we looking for a wholly neutral title for a topic that is, inherently, value-laden, thus we have an impossible task?
2. Can we find an agreed-upon definition of what we are putting here on the list (i.e. is castration a mutilatory procedure, or is it a humane and necessary thing to do to a domesticated pet?) so we all agree more or less on what we are defining in the first place?
3. What reliable sources support various terminology?
4. How many months out of our lives do we want to devote to an endless RfC? (Anyone following that one about whether it's "The Beatles" or "the Beatles?" That's my idea of an RfC... pure dramahz hell... :-P )

More thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 17:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Pre-RfC section break

Of all the suggestions I have least objections to it is the term 'Invasive'. My arguements about which of the listed procedures are non-invasive still stand, but these are based on a definition for humans so probably was not intended to apply to non-human tissues such as hens' beaks and cattle horns. Regarding teeth grinding -I doubt anyone who has seen an angle-grinder being used to grind the teeth of sheep would realistically call it 'non-invasive'. My own feeling is that 'invasive' is just as loaded as 'mutilatory', but maybe this is just my interpretation. I really would like to avoid an RfC, so how about Invasive, appearance-changing procedures (animals) as an alternative title or does this not pass the clunkiness test. DrChrissy (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Montanabw, I see. I don't follow the rodeo etc pages, so I feel your pain. I do edit pages about the animal rights movement (and as for what I said earlier about editors eventually finding this page, you all might want to take a look at the animal rights page and assess whether anyone might have very recently followed me to here). Anyway, I could support DrChrissy's proposal of "Invasive appearance-changing procedures...", maybe without the comma, and maybe with "in animals" or "in domestic animals" instead of the parenthetical "(animals)". Or, maybe better yet, "Appearance-changing invasive procedures...", because by changing the word order, we make "invasive" less prominent. I agree with DrChrissy that even invasive has some emotional associations, but it seems to me to be less so than words based on mutilation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "invasive" is less problematic from a POV standpoint than "mutilatory," and there are things I like about the proposed title. My one concern is that "invasive, appearance-changing procedures" or anything similar will pick up things we haven't included, like amputaton of a cancerous limb or removal of a tumor or a wart. Even so, I guess I can live with this (especially if the alternative is an RfC!), but I do think that the article should then state that it doesn't include procedures (like amputation of a cancerous limb) that are performed to save the animal's life. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Invasive..." could work. The less clunky and the more in line with WP titling conventions, the better. Do we hit everything with "Invasive appearance changing procedures in domestic animals?" I think stuff done to wild animals (shark finning, rhino dehorning, etc.) is a slightly different kettle of fish (mixed metaphor alert!), as here we seem to be focusing mostly on things people do for their own convenience to animals they work with on a regular basis ... Montanabw^(talk) 21:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you think so! I'd tweak it to: Overview of invasive appearance-changing procedures in domestic animals. Unless that's too wordy, it would have my full support. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this, see my comment above just under your previous comment. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Seen, and point taken. I'm open to a better wording than "appearance-changing". I'm also open to adding the explanation in the text, about not including life-saving. In that regard, would "non-vital" be better than "appearance-changing"? Overview of non-vital invasive procedures in domestic animals? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I would support the title with "non-vital" in it, although I think it would sound a little better to flip the word order so that it's Overview of invasive non-vital procedures in domestic animals. Either way would be fine, though. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

One other thing I thought of. We might be opening a can of worms by using the word "domestic" in the title, because "domestication," under some definitions, requires that an animal be altered from the wild form so as to adapt to being raised by humans. For example, cattle and chickens are domesticated, but bison and ostriches are not, even when raised on farms for meat production. This is explained in the article on domestication. So by using the word "domestic" or "domesticated" in the title, we might run into problems if in the future want to include procedures on farmed bison, ostriches, emus, alligators, etc. I can live with the title either way--with or without "domestic" in it--but wanted to point out this issue for other editors to consider before the title is finalized. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I see similar problems with 'non-vital' as with 'non-therapeutic'. Mulesing, for example, would be considered by some Australian farmers to be absolutely vital. Teeth clipping would again be considered vital by producers using certain strains of piglet. Tail docking is vital for meeting some dog breed specifications. Beak trimming is considered vital by many egg-layer producers. It could even be argued that ear-tags are vital for disease management and product tracing. I think we are all agreed that the list should include only domestic animals, but how we incorporate this into a title without it becoming clunky, I don't know. But in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve, I will move shark finning and declawing to 'See also' (there does not appear to be a collective page for these procedures) DrChrissy (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As an afterthought, a created this list of 'non-theraputic' procedures. I think it could be argued these are also 'non-vital', but not what we would wish to include in the article.

Artificial selection (consider the different breeds of dog, goldfish, cattle, etc)

Genetic manipulation (consider e.g. obese mice)

Adornments (fancy collars, head-dresses, etc)

Painting elephants (done for ceremonial reasons)

Flamingo feeding (Captive flamingoes are fed food high in carotene to give them their pink colour

Dog dyeing (a recent fad)

Horn and hoof polishing (performed before shows or public appearances)

Shearing and clipping (we have discussed this before and there was consensus it should not be on the list)

Hair braiding (Tails and manes are braided before shows and public appearances)

DrChrissy (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

About "vital", I meant it in the sense of "vital signs", as opposed to "obligatory". I was reacting to the idea that these procedures differ from those intended to save a life, like removing a tumor. Of course, if one goes too far in the other direction, one ends up with dog dyeing. We seem to be aiming somewhere between life-saving and cosmetic, and that's a territory with fuzzy borders. Earlier, we had talked briefly about "elective". I wouldn't go that way, because the animals don't get to do the "electing". But maybe "discretionary"? And I'm completely neutral about whether we should include or omit "domestic". How about Overview of invasive discretionary procedures in animals? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Your proposed title, Overview of invasive discretionary procedures in animals, sounds good to me. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to chuck more spanners in the works but I see 'discretionary' as being a problem in the same way as 'elective' - i.e. these procedures are not performed at the discretion of the animal. Some are not even performed at the discretion of the humans, e.g. ear-tagging of cattle, sheep and pigs is required by law, tail docking of some dogs is required to meet breed standards, tattooing of dogs ears (to show they have been spayed) is a legal requirement in Australia (I think). DrChrissy (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Except that I think common sense indicates that the "discretion" is exerted by people, not the animals. And legal requirements are not the same thing as medical/veterinary requirements. These things strike me as not really being significant problems. And, as I have said before, "mutilatory" is a significant problem. If we cannot make this work amongst ourselves, I will open an RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm basically with Tryptofish on this in that these issues are not really significant problems. "Discretionary" means that the procedures are performed at the human's discretion, and even legally-mandated procedures are performed at society's discretion, not to meet veterinary requirements. Certainly, the proposed title is not perfect, and I believe that the reason it's so hard to come up with a perfect title is that the boundaries of what we want to include are fuzzy--yes for declawing and beak-trimming, no for removal of a malignant tumor. On balance, however, I believe that the proposed title is better--and in particular has less of a POV problem--than the current title. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Overview of invasive discretionary procedures in animals, would include a multitude of surgical procedures.DrChrissy (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the current title ALSO include a multitude of surgical procedures, if one really thinks about it? For example, removal of a wart is "mutilatory" and appearance-changing, so how come it's not in the current article? In any event, you may have a point. Spaying (uterus-removal) a female cat or dog is discretionary and invasive. Do we want to include it? It's not currently in the article. Perhaps we should use the title Discretionary appearance-changing surgical or quasi-surgical procedures on animals. I have omitted "Overview of" because the title is getting long, and I don't think it's necessary. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your argument about removal of warts is precisely why I used the term mutilatory. Removing warts enhances the appearance (as would amputation of a tumour or gangrenous leg). The term mutilatory indicates 'making imperfect' 'maiming' 'disfigurement'. Almost all the procedures in the list fall into this category and one or two of them would be based on an individual's perspective of the appearance of the animal. DrChrissy (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel that this discussion is just going around in circles, and the need for an RfC is getting greater. Even if we suppose, for the sake of discussion, that "discretionary" and "mutilatory" are equally flawed in terms of not definitively ruling out other procedures, then we come back to the fact that they are not equally flawed in terms of emotionally misleading readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)