Template talk:Animal welfare/Archive 1

POV

I realize that this template is newly created, but I'm concerned that the initial version of it carries an animal rights POV. Of course, a more balanced selection of pages can be added to the template over time, but I feel the need to point this out now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Template

Given that Animal Welfare is a hugely wide ranging subject, I feel the current Animal Welfare template is woefully lacking. I have been working on a replacement template (see below). However, it occurs to me that this might now be too large. It could lend itself to several templates according to the context, e.g. Template:Animal welfare (laboratory animals), Template:Animal welfare (pet animals), Template:Animal welfare (farm animals)...etc. The appropriate legislation could be moved into these and perhaps other relevant sections. However, a general purpose Template does offer a quick glance reference point.What do people think?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts. I think there is a confusion in the way this template is currently structured between Animal welfare and Cruelty to animals. I don't see any way of clearly separating these categories. Maybe the template(s) could cover the combined categories, something like welfare and abuse (or distress) in animals. I agree the template is over large, particularly since many more articles might have a place, shark finning, seal clubbing, whaling in the Faroe Islands... It could be split into separate templates for domestic pets, farmed animals and laboratory animals along with a general template for the remaining material. For this to work, there might need to be summary articles for the first three templates: Welfare/abuse of domestic pets, Welfare/abuse of farmed animals and Welfare/abuse of laboratory animals. Then these summary articles could sit prominently on the general template, so the general template doesn't have gaps. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts. I have been having similar considerations. One of the problems is that there are so few articles/robust information about indicators of positive welfare. I'm afraid animal welfare scientists have concentrated for so long on indicators of negative welfare. THis means that almost any article on animal welfare will have a bias toward negative welfare which then easily blurs into issues of animal cruelty.

The seal clubbing could go along with other articles on culling - there are many examples of this. The Shark finning could be in "Body parts and secretions" which would include Bile bears, Pregnant mare's urine and others.

On a more general note, you used the word "abuse". Is this not POV? Remember the discussion we had about the use of "mutilatory"?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is POV and you can't use that term. I don't know how to pull this together. Maybe, in the interests of balance, the templates will have to accommodate grey areas. Perhaps you could specifically ask others for feedback, like Tryptofish or Montanabw, or add a request to a project noticeboard. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoooooooo boy. On one hand, I see the benefit of having the whole "family" listed, but on the other hand, what a Can of worms. We have three concepts at play here: "animal abuse" - with all the problems mentioned (though there are legal definitions out there; "animal welfare" - an extremely nebulous concept used by both sides of the "is this abuse" issue; and "animal rights" which I think has its own wikiproject and a pile of problems with fringe. The problem is that even placing this navbox on some articles will create a shitstorm, livestock branding, for example. Or tattoing. Spaying and neutering, for another. (Have you run into some of the seriously fringe stuff out there about spaying and neutering? Woooooooo... zoophilia is just the beginning... =:-O ) Nose ringing, If you want my humble opinion, I'd keep to wikiproject tagging and bag the navbox, maybe put all these articles at the project home page for those who want to find more. Do we classify horses as pets/companion animals or as livestock? Eek! I tweaked the template a bit - weaving is covered under stable vices, laminitis isn't an abuse (overfeeding can be a factor but isn't always, sometimes shit just happens) etc... I do like the basic breakdown of pets/livestock/lab animals, that's a good idea. Of course, the other stuff that could go in here could include environmental concerns that harm mass numbers of animals such as oil spills, radiation leaks, climate change, icecap shrinking, etc... anything hjumans do that harms other sentient creatures... I'm not saying not to do this, but I'm pointing out problems. (I for one would not want to see this navbox on an article about spaying and neutering, for example) Montanabw^(talk) 02:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts. I agree it is a can of worms, but I also think the current template is woefully lacking. I have introduced some terms simply to try and give a balanced point of view. For example, I personally do not see spaying and neutering as welfare concerns (although they almost certainly involve some pain), however, what do we then say about ear cropping or tail docking. Similarly, I have included animal rights simply to give a broader picture - perhaps there could be a statement this/these templates do not include animal rights issues. Regarding horses, I included animals under the section which I felt represented the most number of animals and the welfare issue listed. For example, people keep chickens as pets, but the number of pet chickens is considerably lower than in commercial industries. I guessed at the number of pet/livestock horses and I might easily be wrong putting them as pets, but remember I am from England where all our horses are in nice heated stables and have their hooves polished on a daily basis ;-) __DrChrissy (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the New Forest, they aren't! LOL! In the USA, by law in most states, horses are "livestock" - and particularly when it comes to laws about keeping animals -- you can keep a "pet" in the city, but not "livestock" (which is actually a hot issue when it comes to urban chicken farming, and this guy! Montanabw^(talk) 02:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link - very funny! Did not know about that law in the U.S. How do people keep horses to ride in Central Park - or does this not happen? Does the term "companion animal" get around the problem for the templates? Some of the welfare issues seem to be more relevant (perhaps limited?) to horses kept as pets, e.g. tail nicking, pin firing, rather than horses kept as livestock, but this might be my own pre-conceptions.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central Park and other things like that require special licenses, exemptions from the law, etc. There was a boarding stable in NYC that shut dwon a few years ago, the individual owners didn't need a license, but the facility did. People are running into this issue in the 21st century with the new thing of having a guide horse. Montanabw^(talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen your message below. Seems like the term "Companion animals" is OK for inclusion of horses. I'm happy with this too.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

{{Animal welfare|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
{{Animal welfare|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.

I have reduced the template to represent pet animals only so that we can see what it looks like. There are also a couple of additions. Thoughts please... __DrChrissy (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. It needs a summary article called something like Welfare of pet animals or Animal welfare (pets) which pulls everything together and can be blue linked in the template title. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest just sticking with one template, but either way, instead of "pet", say "companion animal" - specifically because of horses, which are legally considered "Livestock" in most jurisdictions, but people who argue for horses as livestock will accept "companion animal" but not "pet". Either that or put horses with livestock. Or in a category all by themselves because they are kind of in that gray area. Montanabw^(talk) 02:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

{{Animal welfare|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
{{Animal welfare|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.

Name of new template/s

What about calling these templates "Animal suffering" e.g. Template:Animal suffering (Companion animals), [[Template:Animal suffering (Farm animals).__DrChrissy (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the template exists, "Animal welfare" is the best term to use. "Suffering" is too subjective, some people would add Dog show or [{Equestrianism]], for example. Montanabw^(talk) 02:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Perhaps if we define " animal welfare" along with the template, along with other comments, (e.g. the template does not contain single acts of cruelty, persons found guilty of acts of cruelty, animal shows, etc) this might help people understand what the template is and is not.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletions

I have been expanding the template in various areas. I take the view that "animal welfare" can be positive for the animal or negative. So, I have been adding positive aspects (monkeys being given masses of fruit) and negative aspects (festivals of slaughter). I have also been trying to add categories rather than individual pages to keep the template manageable. A huge area of animal use is Animals in sport. There are so many variations of this that I felt it best to just add the category. There are positive aspects (racing thoroughbreds are some of the most pampered animals!) and negative aspects (what happens to greyhounds which are not successful). By including Animal racing, I am not trying to say that all animal racing is a negative. An editor (good WP friend of mine) has deleted the category - so folks, let's discuss.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is a recent smackdown over at the navbox pages where they are yelling WP:BIDIRECTIONAL at everyone. I agree that we don't want 1000 articles in a navbox, but my concern is that if things get overbroad, they lose their usefulness. It's not a huge moral issue, but they just tossed a navbox on aviation that was really useful (in that it was two clicks from thousands of articles) because it was basically a navbox of links to lists. Peek at the navbox guidelines (quietly, you don't want to draw them over here) and perhaps you will see what I'm fretting about - some folks working on the navbox projects are quite literal... Montanabw ^(talk) 06:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the heads up. I have to admit I have not read those guidelines before! The bidirectionality is something I need to look at. In addition "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article." causes some problems as in some of them at least (perhaps e.g. eating unusual animals) animal welfare is not mentioned. Thanks again.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of animal welfare probably appears in almost all the articles, may just need to b linked, somewhere, I bet...I think some people in navbox world there take things to an extreme and there is a little wiggle room for exceptions. (for example, List of horse breeds is in the navbox and on every horse breed article; it would be ridiculous to have 350 articles in a navbox! But I think it's the only list in {{Equine}}, or at least one of very few) WP:IAR always can kick in, it just can't kick in too often! (meh!) Montanabw ^(talk) 05:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link to deleted portal removed

The Animal welfare portal was recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested removal of several entries from this template

I suggest several entries be removed from this template. The category "Issues" should be about broad issues related to animal welfare, not a detailed list of practices in animal-related industries. The following 5 entries should be removed from the template.

Dairy farming is an industry, not an animal welfare issue
Poultry farming is an industry, not an animal welfare issue
Intensive pig farming is a subset of Intensive animal farming which is already on the list
Chick culling is a practice, not an issue
Livestock dehorning is a practice, not an issue

We shouldn't be including marginal topics in the template. The template is an aid to the reader, not a compendium of everything on the subject. The following two topics should be removed from the template.

Compassionate conservation isn't really a thing and may not even be a notable-qualifying topic. I'm unconvinced it exists as a field of study.
Welfare biology isn't a current field of research. Article even starts "is a proposed cross-disciplinary field of research".

We shouldn't be confusing animal rights and animal welfare. Some animal rights topics have animal welfare in mind. Few animal welfare topics have animal rights in mind. When an entry is added to the template that is a predominantly animal rights topic, it is unlikely to have broad interest in animal welfare circles. The following two topics should be removed from the template.

Ethics of uncertain sentience is a subtopic of Animal ethics which is far more of an animal rights than an animal welfare topic.
Welfare of farmed insects is an article about extreme animal rights and veganism considerations; not an animal welfare issue. To wit, there's a section titled "Debate over the issue's significance" and a line "Little research has been done on humane methods of killing insects for consumption". Most people (who are not of the animal rights or vegan kind, which is the majority) wouldn't consider insects "animals" and wouldn't consider this discussion a "welfare issue" worthy of a spot on a template.

— Normal Op (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections and no opinions? I guess the original complaint was that I had not explained my edit. Okay... re-doing it. Normal Op (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New split of "scholars" section?

Directed at Psychologist Guy: This new split you made of the "Animal welfare scholars" into Contemporary and Historical... what is your criteria? There's at least one person in the contemporary group that has passed away, so perhaps it doesn't mean "alive versus dead". Normal Op (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is the same as on the animal rights template, the vegetarianism template and others. Historical is for deceased people who usually lived, 50, 100 or 200 years ago. The alive versus dead criteria works in nearly all cases, the only exception I have seen is for recently deceased (we are talking here 5 years or less) so in rare cases there may be one or two in the "contemporary" section but for the most part the alive versus dead is the criteria by which they are grouped in. We can move the deceased to the historical section. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]