Talk:Pet/Archives/2013

Animal welfare

I think that the comparison of keeping pets to slavery (removed here) would be best addressed in animal welfare. However, this article should have a section on animal welfare summarizing the other article with emphasis on the welfare of pets. --Ronz (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.am.dodea.edu/acss/ams/Schoolinfo/documents/AMSNov12newsletter.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Problems with statistics

There appear to be several problems with the statistics on pet ownership on this page. For one, the numbers cited in the text ("78.2 million pet dogs in the United States, and approximately 86.4 million pet cats in the United States") do not match the numbers in the table (93.6 million cats in the US, 77.5 million dogs).

It turns out that citation for the US Census Bureau is actually just the US Census Bureau citing the American Veterinary Medial Association; for example: "Source: American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, IL, U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook, 2007, (copyright). See also <http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/sourcebook.asp>". Is there anyone with access to this source, who can fill in hopefully more accurate information from a single source?

The sources for the table are fairly dubious; one is a an answer on a QA forum that cites no sources. As that's the only source for the worldwide numbers, it seems quite dubious.

Is there anyone who has better sources for the worldwide numbers? Without a better source, I think these should just be deleted. A quick Google turns up this source, which looks considerably better, but it appears that they are collecting statistics from a variety of disparate sources, which may have problem as different source may use different methodologies.

In fact, even with better world population figures, we shouldn't be mixing data from different sources into a single table; as different sources use different methodologies, they may have very different error characteristics, and so the resulting figures are not comparable.

— λ (talk | contribs) 01:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The statistics section on the Pet page notes there are 59 million dogs in Canada - quite unlikely since that would require at least 4 dogs in every single household in Canada. The more likely dog population in Canada is 5.9 million. Also, the 5.9 million population number would compare more logically with the dog population number quoted for the U.S.Realist Debraco (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Owner vs Guardian

{{Help me}}

May term " pet guardian" be used to describe "pet owner" in Wikipedia?

Why, doesn't Wikipedia have enough bullshit PC terminology already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:4011:3046:1A23:C4AA:B3DC (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The pet is owner's property, therefore the person who has the pet in his (her) legal possession is referred to as an owner. He might be described as "pet's guardian", but this term is totally misleading. It does not clearly describe legal rights and responsibilities of human who has the pet, and interferes with another animal related meanings of same word such as " guardian dog", " guardian animal", " guardian Llama" etc.

I believe that use of term " guardian" instead of " owner" is improper for Wiki Afru (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Huon (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Socially and legally, the term "guardian" as an alternative to "owner" is increasingly becoming more common. A simple internet search of [pet guardian owner] results in half a million pages discussing this very topic. To represent a neutral perspective, this article should include both terms. Startswithj (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There is one term per one meaning, not a choice of terms. Search results for either word will give that or higher number. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Shall we also add term "Mommy" for the reason that my neighbor often refers to herself as her pets' "Mommy", to add even more neutrality  ? Afru (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Owner is still the most widely used term, and is technically correct; I don't know of any jurisdiction in which pets are not treated as "property" in the sense that they can be freely sold to another party or relinquished without legal action. In any case, you'd need to find sources indicating that "guardian" is a common term (versus an activist term), which I doubt you'll be able to do. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Scores of municipalities and at least one US state have adopted the new terminology on legal documents and public signage; it would be biased not to acknowledge this. I've parenthetically added the newer word to the introduction, with citations and modeled after the existing pet–versus–companion mention already existing there. Startswithj (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is wonderful, but once again, this is not a state or municipal directory, this is a worldwide directory, and terms adopted in any given one state do not justify use of these terms anywhere else. "Guardian" is not a synonym to "owner" either, unlike "pet" to "companion animal" Afru (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The term has not been adopted in just "one" place. The term does not need to be entirely a synonym; its usage is comparable and more pertinent to millions of readers. To represent a worldwide view, the term should be included. Startswithj (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

added according tags. This article needs more than a mild correction. Afru (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact remains that in some jurisdictions a person keeping and/or taking care of a dog, cat, etc., is legally called a guardian instead of an owner. Would it help to add a "legal status" section to expand on this definition and its related issues, or would that be removed too? Best. Startswithj (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more this strikes me as a WP:WEIGHT issue. Yes, some jurisdictions use the term "guardian": Rhode Island, San Francisco, Boulder and a few others. The first three have a combined population of about 2 million. If we're generous and assume the others add a third million, that's still only 1% of the US popuplation, and an even tinier fraction of the population of English-speaking countries worldwide. A legal term used by that small a minority simply isn't significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. Huon (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Searching the web, I found a list of cities, counties, and states that have changed their legal codes (at http://www.guardiancampaign.org/guardiancity.html). The list includes locations in the United States as well as Canada. It totals the officially affected population at 6,028,503 citizens. It also presents the locations by date; they range from the year 2000 to just last year. Startswithj (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Startswithj, thanks for a wonderful link! So you admit and realize that there is an active campaign that promotes the usage of the term guardian instead of owner"" ? Wiki is NOT a place for this type campaigns, please remove term "pet guardian" from the article Afru (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Afru, I am not a member of that or any similar campaign (I was unaware of its existence until searching for statistics), nor should the existence of such a campaign matter (would the existence of campaigns for reproductive rights, marriage equality, or voting rights negate the inclusion of such issues from their relevant pages?). I'm not advocating that this Wikipedia article endorse any position (not including the newer term would be); I merely wish that the article be minimally relevant to the millions affected by the newer statutes. Startswithj (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

well, if there is no other pet owner besides me, who is WIKI editor that feels harassed and/or rightfully worried by this term to the point to correct this article, why shall I bother?Afru (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

References

My changes

I deleted the section of pets legal status because this is a general article about pets and the legal status of pets would be best addressed in animal rights page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipodedia (talk • contribs) 23:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the Legal Status section is worth keeping. It's brief, it applies to multiple countries, and it's specific to pets (not animals in general). It may be Western-centric (specific to North America, Europe, and Australasia), but the whole page seems to be so. I believe the article would sooner benefit from the addition of other nations' perspectives and histories throughout all sections, not the deletion of this one section. Startswithj (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Edipodedia. Need to strip the article from animal rights content, and add refs to animal rights specific pages. Afru (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought the Local Restrictions section had less relevance to the article's subject and to its global scope than the Legal Status section. Because both sections were small and related, I've combined them into a new "Legalities" (or maybe, "Legal Considerations"?) section, thereby reducing their prominence while maintaining their still applicable content. Startswithj (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The point of view of this article must be neutral, and the article needs to be factual. For example, if a minor part or US citizens uses a "guardian language", please state so instead of making impression that this is a legal term elsewhere in USA. Same applies to the entire article. If a part of US citizens believes in overpopulation, state so and provide a link to according article. Same applies to other countries. If there is a campaign, state so, and provide a link. This is an international source, and current articles gives a very wrong impression on the subject Afru (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added stipulation that the change in language from owner to guardian is thus far limited to North America. I can't speak to topic of sterilization or euthanasia without doing further research. But again I would agree that all sections of this article would benefit from the addition of content relevant to countries outside the Anglosphere. Startswithj (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No, this change only refers to a few cities and/or municipalities. Great majority of North American people use "owner", and a lot of them are offended by "guardian", "guardian language", entire animal welfare campaign etc. Please keep the references reflecting both points of view.

Will add more on the subject time allowing. Please read the article before editing, and don't remove sense from the subject. Pets are for enjoyment, not for protection Afru (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please:

• Roughly six million Americans live in areas affected by the guardian terminology. Out of a greater population of about three hundred million, that's two percent (one in fifty), enough to throw the results of an election. Mention of the newer term is small, unbiased, and minimally explained.
• The article is tagged for not representing a worldwide view. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias suggests:

Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting against inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented. Thus, the first question is "What haven't we covered yet?", rather than "how should we change the existing coverage?"

The article has sections on the US, UK, and Canada. Afru, your User Page states your native language is Russian. Perhaps you could add perspectives from Eastern Europe or Northern Asia? Startswithj (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)