Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

US House Resolution 1955

Members of the Project may be interested in US HR 1955. Criminalization of thoughtcrime. It has implications for Animal rights activists. I want to get it on the front page if it passes the Senate. Vert et Noir^talk 04:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the article, there's nothing in that bill that criminalizes anything. The article only says it sponsors research intended to help mold the minds of the citizenry--strictly along the lines of a great deal of other psychological research intended to produce well-adjusted, educated, productive citizens who avoid drugs, pay taxes, vote, respect the legitimacy of existing state institutions, and would only think to resist them within the officially sponsored channels. In other words, a minor adjustment in funding and direction for a long-existing project. —Jemmy_tc 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

i have redirected all pages taht linked to 'hr 1955' to Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, and i have put up HR 1955 for speedy deletion, because every congress, every year, has an HR 1955... it just means its the 1955th bill before congress of that year. Decora (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

AFD on Paola Cavalieri

FYI: There's an AFD on Paola Cavalieri, an animal rights theorist. --Lquilter (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Result: keep.

Eco-terrorism, Green Scare, etc.

These two articles, especially Green Scare, as well as several articles linked from them, are in need of some unification/reorganization, cleanup, etc.. The articles are mostly decent quality, but information is spread between them in a way less than ideal (suggesting little cooperation between their respective editors). This project may be interested in putting some effort into them. Just a heads up. —Jemmy_tc 21:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The Animal Rights template

Have y'all ever considered hiding the sections of the template? It's so big it looks really odd in stubby articles like GANDALF trial. Murderbike (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Magnitude of Issue

SlimVirgin, the source calls animal rights '... this most central philosophical issue of our time'. This is not equatable to it being the most important issue, but only one of them. As such, your revert to 'the' was misguided, and I'm changing it back.

Also, is it realy relivant that someone has called it thus? I'm sure you can find enviromentalists who call it the most important issue. What one person thinks isn't really important. Argueably, that sentance doesn't deserve to be in there at all, unless Kathleen Kete is very notable. Larklight (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Larklight, everyone who talks about this issue -- mostly people who support it or are studying it, obviously -- calls it the most central, most important philosophical issue, because it's exploring the boundaries of personhood. Can you think of any other issue that philosophers are involved in that has the implications of this one? I'm also not sure what you mean by distinguishing most important from most central, and also bear in mind that this is not article space. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit has no meaning in English: "it has been described as a most central philosophical issue." Do you mean to say one of the most central issues? If so, what are the others? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Other issues that have the importance? The only thing I've ever heard about giving animals personhood was a rather dismissive article, and I read the Economist, the New Scientist, The Times, and have recently taken up the Philosophers magazine. From what I've heard, the issue of personhood was sorted ages ago, with the ability for complex mental process, and their demonstration. I'd say deciding what rights personhood entailed, environmental ethics and the proper role of Government were more pressing. And, of course, Epistemology. I've become very interested in Hume and Popper recently. But anyway, that doesn't matter.

What does matter is that the page as it is misrepresents Kete's statement. Saying soemthing is 'this most central issue' isn't mutually exclusive with saying that soemthing else is also centrally important. Saying soemthing is the central issue means excluding the possibility that anything else is central. The possibility that she believes that religious philosophy (for example) is also of central importance is not excluded by her statement. The old version implies that it is.

This isn't article space, but it does use references. As such, they have to be represented accurately. And is she really notable?

'One of the most central' may be a better wording, yes. But mine did make sense. Larklight (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

First things first: I agree with your edit. It should be "one of the most" rather than "the most." However, the issue of personhood has not been sorted out yet, and it certainly wasn't sorted out ages ago. That should be obvious even from Google-ing around a bit. Animals aren't presently regarded as persons. Prominent philosophers and legal scholars at respected institutions (as well as a significant number of laypeople, I might add) are arguing that they ought to be; hence, the issue is not yet sorted out. Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether Kathleen Kete is notable. The page only cites her, it's not about her. All we are concerned with is whether Cabinet Magazine is faithfully reproducing Kathleen Kete's claims, and whether Kete is a crackpot or not. I would guess that Cabinet is faithfully reproducing her claims, and I think it's obvious that Kete is not a crackpot: Her undergraduate, Masters and Doctoral degrees are all from Harvard, and she teaches at Trinity College. Djk3 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

On Tom Regan

We need a short-ish paragraph on Tom Regan's approach to animal rights, and specifically any statements he's made directly regarding veganism for the 'ethics' section of the veganism article. It would be most helpful if this was rigorously cited and included direct quotes, as with the other paragraphs in this section about Singer and Francione. Kellen^T 14:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Anybody? Kellen^T 16:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kellen, I could try to write something, but I can't promise when, if that's okay. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Animalresearcher

I would like some help knowing how to approach the edits made to animal rights articles by Animalresearcher (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) and also just to have more eyes on the situation.

He's been editing in this area since July 2006 with this account, and before that with anon IPs. He has said in various places that he conducts research on non-human primates, and I believe said he was in charge of such a unit. He has also said that he sits or chairs (or used to sit or chair, I forget which) his institution's Animal Care and Use Committee.

If this is true, he could be an enormous help on articles about animal testing (although in a sense he's also in a conflict of interest -- he has posted in various places that this is personal for him). However, instead of being helpful, his edits are deeply problematic. He strongly represents only the pro-testing side (and I suspect only an extreme side of that POV) to the point where it is hard to trust what he writes. Sources who disagree with his POV are routinely removed and dismissed as idiots, even when they're reliable scientific sources. Often his edits appear almost meaningless, with typos and spelling errors, and without proper citations (though that aspect has improved recently). Sometimes he seems actively to misrepresent the sources. The result is that I have to follow him around copyediting and trying to work out what he means.

The following edit is very typical. ("This methodology" refers to an experimental procedure on a non-human primate): [1]

Connolly developped [sic] this methodology to minimize interanimal variability to increase statistical power to detect differences in stroke treatment groups, and to "provide important information not obtainable in rodent models."

Apart from being almost meaningless, the source -- Stroke. 2000;31:3054 -- isn't one that all readers can easily check, the citation is incomplete, and it looks like a primary source that's dependent on his interpretation.

At the other end, his edits misrepresent the source by leaving out key information. For example, this edit implies that the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection cooperates with the Animal Liberation Front, although anyone familiar with these groups knows that the BUAV opposes violent action by the ALF:

Despite their claims of leaderless resistance, Ingrid Newkirk, in her book Free the Animals, describes how Ronnie Lee introduces an aspiring ALF activist to a new activist cell in northern England. The activist initially found Lee by first contacting BUAV, making it clear that a BUAV officer is at most two contacts away from direct action activists, and that these contacts are facilitative. [2]

In fact, the Newkirk book that Animalresearcher cites makes it clear that the "aspiring activist" pretended to be a journalist, and that this was the only reason the BUAV helped her. So although not strictly speaking false, the way the edit is worded is very misleading.

I've cited only two edits here but they're representative of almost all the edits he makes to these pages. I've spoken to him many times about it to no avail, so I'm posting here in the hope others can help. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, those citations are fully defined, as in anyone who has access to a medical library can look up an article in a given year, volume, and page number of STROKE. Similarly, a polite request to fill out those citations could be easily accomplished. Slimvirgin had a similar point of issue with a citation in the last week that could be looked up in five minutes on PubMed (as this one similarly can be looked up). And I looked it up, again, and provided the entire abstract for her perusal. As a second point, this talk page discussion by Slimvirgin is sort of an ambush - none of these edits occurred on the page for which this is the appropriate discussion forum. She presumably thinks that people that edit the ANIMAL RIGHTS page need to know about this sort of underhanded activity. Third, the noted contact between the aspiring ALF operative and BUAV is cited, and has not been refuted, to my knowledge, or I would not have included it. --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need any help with medical citations, SlimVirgin, you can ask for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, or get in touch with me on my user page. I will always be happy to help. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does "two contacts away" mean? That the BUAV officer knows someone who knows someone who is a direct action activist? If so, that is really a very weak assertion. Almost everyone is "two contacts away" from thousands of people, a great number of whom they may heartily disagree with. I'm an animal rights activist, but if someone came to me wanting to interview a pig farmer, I could arrange that easily, with one that I have "just two contacts away"! David Olivier (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am quite sure you can look over the history of edits on that page and come to your own conclusions. The section of that page described the modes of resistance used by different groups. BUAV, for example, presents themselves as being opposed to violence and property destruction. Yet in the referenced instances they readily offered office space to the ALF, and directed people who were trying to find the ALF to Ronnie Lee. The "two contacts away" was bad writing, and it was replaced by another editor. --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that is a very good point - for example, I'm sure I'm only two contacts away from terrorists on both sides of the Irish troubles. More specifically, to make that interpretation we would need to attribute it to a source that makes this point. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another objection to the tone of the above criticism - that I am extreme in the context of people who conduct animal testing. People who conduct testing are my direct peers, and I am in contact with them daily. I tend to be much more familiar with the animal rights efforts than most of them, and also more familiar with animal welfare legislation than them. But it is highly desireable to have someone who conducts animal testing, and who works in the regulation of animal testing, editing on the animal testing articles. I think you would have a VERY hard time finding another scientist who conducts animal testing who thinks my edits are extremely POV for a scientist. In other words, just as I assume good faith and assume your bad edits are caused by perspective and not an active anti-testing campaign you are conducting by inserting BUAV commercial literature throughout the testing pages, I expect you to assume good faith as I edit with the perspective of a scientist in the field of animal testing. As another point of reference, I have not to date performed any work, or done any consultation, with any non-scientific pro-testing agenda driven associations. In other words, I have no relation to Pro-test, or the Foundation for Biomedical Research, etc. I do belong to multiple societies that are scientifically organized, and all of them have pro-testing arms (which I similarly do not participate in). I am not a pro-testing activist. Just a scientist that is alarmed at my perceived misrepresentation of my profession on Wikipedia which is caused by an enormous imbalance in the contributions of strongly anti-testing editors like you, and the contributions of people who actually conduct testing and their POV. From my POV, testing is about animal welfare, and progress on scientific agendas. Animal rights receives a dramatically UNDUE balance - it occupies less than a fraction of a percent of the activities related to testing, yet covers more than half the testing pages because it occupies the majority of the opinion of two vigilant editors on testing.--Animalresearcher (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fox hunting nominated for FA

Any assistance welcomed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fox hunting. Thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

List of acts claimed by the ALF

Hi all. An editor with a history of problematic advocacy is going great guns at List of acts claimed by the ALF. I'm concerned he or she is essentially cut and pasting incidents from the ALF's website, with all the POV and verifiability issue that engenders. I'm trying to de-POV, but can't keep up. The editor has been blocked previously but reincarnates with a variation on the name. I'm trying to bring this under control without blocking again, but don't seem to be getting though. If anyone can't help, I feel I have little choice but to block for evading an indef. Rockpocket 08:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is an inherent problem with articles about "acts claimed by." If you consider one of the editor's other articles at Hunt Retribution Squad and read reference 2, the key player in the HRS says:

• "we began to play with the media a bit - because they had turned on us by that time anyways. That was around the time we became known as the maniacs of the press"
• "we definitely did have plans to use violence against hunt people. But that got thwarted by our arrest and it never quite materialized from then. But whether or not it would have happened I don’t know, because I don’t know if we are violent people."

Even the most reliably sourced claim may be false. MikeHobday (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the name, List of acts claimed by the ALF is part of the problem, because of the face of it you can't really blame anyone for thinking anything and everything claimed by the ALF should be documented. However, clearly we can't do that or else we become a mirror for Bite Back. It was fine before our friend got going, because it listed the acts picked up by the press and explained the consequences (arrests/sentences) for the activists as well as what they did. I'm also concerned with the upload of ever more images documenting various crimes from activist websites and Indymedia (and editors claiming to be the copyright holder) and using them to document the articles of the subject of the crime. See Highgate Rabbit Farm and QinetiQ#Animal rights campaign for example. I'm not convinced this is appropriate. Rockpocket 09:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this editor (if it's the same person as last time, which isn't clear as there were several account names and IP addresses) is trying to edit within the policies, judging by some of the edits I've seen. But it's clear that he's not very familiar with them. So I suggest as a first step trying to have a word with him, which I'm willing to do, then thinking about admin action if that makes no difference. As for the images, all ALF images are released into the public domain, which has been confirmed by e-mail to permissions, so I don't see these as problematic. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for him. [3] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SV. I'm pretty sure it is the same person, but I never really supported a block in the first place. I think they are trying to be helpful, but seem unwilling to listen to advice. If the blocking admin spots them, I'm sure he will reblock, but if we can reign the editor in a little, then we may be able to avoid that. As for the images, I don't have a problem with their use in articles about the ALF and their actions (though even there some of them have questionable encyclopaedic value and seem more about promotion than education), I do have a problem with using them to illustrate articles on the subject of the raids. Principally because they are unreliable representation and give undue weight to a POV. Rockpocket 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw one of them being used as the main image on the new article about the rabbit farm, which is clearly not an appropriate use, unless the article's about the raid, but the raid in itself isn't notable enough. I was going to remove it, but then I saw the rest of the article, and really the page ought to be deleted, so I just left it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cat abuse incident in China

The article Kitten killer of Hangzhou was previously speedy deleted because the administrators believed it to be nonsense,[4] but it refers to a 2006 animal abuse incident in China with a main article on Chinese Wikipedia.[5] It has been covered by The Daily Telegraph[6], The Independent (South Africa)[7], and various online media in China.[8]. A Wikinews article is here.

Is the article's subject notable enough to be re-created? It has brought up some discussion about the lack of laws addressing cruelty to animals in China. Shawnc (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Animal love

Does this project want to adopt this article (i.e. have its banner on the talk page)? Richard001 (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Animals and ethics

Posted to WT:WikiProject Philosophy, WT:WikiProject Animals and WT:WikiProject Animal rights, discussion preferred at WT:WikiProject Philosophy

I don't think we have a broad article on the place of non-human animals in ethics. There are a few specific articles like animal rights, ethics of eating meat, animal cognition etc, but nothing on the broader issue. Going in the opposite direction, there are articles broader than animals that cover more 'holistic' views, e.g. environmental ethics and deep ecology, though given that most animals are probably not conscious beings that would also overlap with the subject. I guess such an article could be called animals in ethics or something like that. It might also mention the prehuman precursors to morality seen in other animals (which relates to the origin of morality, another needed article), although this is broadening the scope a little more. Richard001 (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Prisons

If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation of articles regarding specific prisons here. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Law

I think this should also be considered a descendant WikiProject of WikiProject Law, and so it should be categorized under Category:WikiProject Law. Thoughts? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Island restoration

I am flagging this article to the attention of this project to see if you are interested in reviewing it and possibly adding to it. Disclaimer, I wrote most of it (quite a while ago). I suspect there may be overlap as the field of island restoration is one of the greatest sources of friction between some elements of the animal rights movement and the conservation movement, the extermination of introduced species from island environments. I'm particularly interested in improving the criticism section (which I wrote myself, although I was logged out at the time). I myself am a proponent of island restoration and while I hope I addressed the criticisms neutrally I would value another set of eyes. Reading over it again I see that I wrote it before inline cites were pushed as aggressively as they are now, I'll address this over the next few days. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Animal rights

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment from WikiProject Agriculture

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Agriculture#Need_help_with_an_unusual_article. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sentience Article

Why has this project tagged the Sentience article? What does sentience have to do with animal rights? Marginal connection at best. Animal rights should not be the primary focus of the article. Members of this project have hijacked that article, when it should be focused on concepts like thought, perception, communication, expression. While I wouldn't object to discussion of sentient animals (which is what I came to the article to find discussion of), that should not be the whole focus of the article. And animal rights should receive minimal coverage. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The link between sentience and animal rights is rather clear. Animals are defined (philosophically) as sentient beings; and sentience is what makes attributing rights, or more generally moral status, meaningful. That connection is not at all marginal and fully justifies the tagging. As for the contents of the sentience article itself, which you believe is too heavily centered on AR, I'll answer on its talk page. David Olivier (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Students and Workers for the Liberation of UCLA Primates

An article on an apparent new group, the Students and Workers for the Liberation of UCLA Primates has been created, but I have doubts about their notability. Thoughts would be welcome. Rockpocket 19:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This article has now been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Students and Workers for the Liberation of UCLA Primates. Thank you. Rockpocket 23:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Zoophilia

Fresh eyes on this article and new editors with more mainstream viewpoints would be appreciated. Sticky Parkin 00:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul McCartney GAR notification

Paul McCartney has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New speedy deletion criterion for animals

Hi everyone. As this week's Wikipedia Signpost reports, articles about "individual animals" are now candidates for speedy deletion if the article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. I have left comments here and I think input from other animal-related wikiproject participants would be helpful. Best regards, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

NAVS

National_Anti-Vivisection_Society article needs a thorough going over. It mixes up two organisations, one in the UK and one in the US - alternating as to which is appears to be referring to - it needs a proper going over (and shortening). London prophet (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

New article: Mercy_for_Animals

I just added this article, about this organization which released a video which shows workers throwing male chics being dropped alive into a grinding machine.

Please watch the article. Ikip (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:Veganism

Hi, a request for comment relating to the ideology of Veganism has been requested Talk:Veganism#RfC:God_Almighty. ~ R.T.G 23:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested change at Stephen R. L. Clark

Please see Talk:Stephen R. L. Clark for the details on the requested change. This is in reference to an OTRS ticket. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

Belugaboy here, with the Signpost! I was wondering if you'd like to do an interview for publication on May 24. Let me know on my talk page (accessable by clicking Talk to Me!' in my signature). Thanks!

Belugaboy ^{Talk to Me!} Milk the chicken!! 22:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Review of Paul Watson

Currently classed as C... I think it may possibly be ready for a B. Not familiar with the project, not sure if there is a specific way preferred to suggest an article for class review.- Sinneed 14:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, Sineed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal protection

The article, Animal protection, was started by a new editor based almost entirely on one otherwise unpublished author's Phd dissertation and a blog. Without having a background in this area, it's difficult to tell whether this should be an article. Maybe it just needs better sourcing and writing? Or not? Input from this WikiProject would be helpful. First Light (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I've left a comment. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Animal rights articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Animal rights articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Militant Forces Against Huntingdon Life Sciences

I've nominated Militant Forces Against Huntingdon Life Sciences for deletion as another non-notable front in the ALF / SHAC stable. Opinions are welcome. Rockpocket 16:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

PETA lawsuit

My edit to the SeaWorld article about, according to the media, a groundbreaking lawsuit by PETA using the 13th Amendment to argue against animal enslavement, was reverted by an editor who appears, according to the article history, to own that article. 67.52.144.60 (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)