![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Three options: (1) I'm going to remove the "citations needed" that are attached to anecdotal phrases, (2) sources can be found for the phrases, or (3) the phrases can be removed altogether. But either way, you're asking for citations on a casually obeservable statement, not one that requires scientific research. Kyle key 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
CaptainJ ( t | c | e) 17:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This section seriously needs cleanup. Apart from being far too long the links and books themselves need prioritising. Only the most important ones should be listed and the others removed. if someone wants to find webpages about a subject they can use google, not wikipedia. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 09:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
A recent revert (see Special page:History) deleting "authorless books" made two deletions of titles listed under the first item by Stephen R.L. Clark. I have two questions:
Hoping some knowledgeable person will sort this out and restore/repair as necessary. It would be unfortunate to lose valid reference citations due to their having been written improperly or with insufficient information. Thanks -- Deborahjay 10:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll add a SUGGESTION (caveat: I haven't checked this out with the Wikipedia Manual of Style) that the Further reading list be subsectioned into Books and Articles and the citations alphabetized under those subheadings according to author's name. This might help make the section more user friendly and easier for future editors to maintain and update. -- Deborahjay 11:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone deleted large sections of the intro, including properly referenced material, so I've restored it. This intro was worked out over as a compromise between several editors with different views, and I think it works pretty well. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If we're citing policy pages, WP:NBD and WP:AGF. My intro meets the requirements of WP:LEAD.
I am willing to modify my introduction to include more of the present information, but that information still requires rewording. Simply put, it's poorly written.
The way that the introduction is set up now, all animal rights critics support animal welfare...or at least, that's what most educated people would infer from reading it. And that's not true.
On a separate but related note, adding a source for an opinionated, irrelevant statement is quite possibly the most illogical thing I've yet seen on Wikipedia. I can find thousands of pages that don't refer to it as a "radical" movement, should I cite them too? No, it doesn't make any sense. Your finding of someone else who called it "radical" seems ridiculously childish and makes me question your position as an administrator.
It's amazing how someone acting as a representative of Wikipedia has managed to ruin the experience for me in a matter of a few hours. Especially since what I'm saying isn't complex or particularly hard to comprehend, yet you're unable--or unwilling--to consider any of it. The statement works just as well, if not better, in my version. Removing the word in the current version produces an unintelligible sentence because the sentence itself (and the one after it) are so strongly slanted against the topic--without a similar statement defending the article--that the discrepancy requires a rewrite. A consensus in the past isn't forever binding.
What else? Your inability to put aside your position within the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens is evident throughout your previous comment. Scientific classification, like a prior Wikipedia discussion consensus, is subject to change as new information is discovered. Emphasis added
Scientific classification or biological classification is how biologists group and categorize extinct and living species of organisms (as opposed to folk taxonomy). Modern classification has its root in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics. These groupings have been revised since Linnaeus to improve consistency with the Darwinian principle of common descent. Molecular systematics, which uses DNA sequences as data, has driven many recent revisions and is likely to continue to do so. Scientific classification belongs to the science of taxonomy or biological systematics.
So, yes, your statement is pure, unfounded opinion: "There are few things more radical than the idea of breaking down the species barriers." What's even more peculiar is that this is not even an issue within animal rights....I haven't seen or read about anyone saying that we should "break down the species barriers" and include all animals within Homo sapiens, and if sources for that do exist, they are an extreme minority and in no way representative of the movement. My understanding of animals rights is this: "we shouldn't treat like garbage those beings that have a subjective experience of pain and/or undertake actions outside of those related to growth or preservation--that is, consuming nutrients and resting are essential functions that, in and of themselves, don't constitute inclusion in the "rights" category, but performing tasks like playing or helping a fellow creature are representative of a state of being that should most likely be preserved." A far cry from what you're implying.
My final comments will be on these statements: "It refers to the interests of human beings i.e. the people writing and reading the article. How is it POV?" You answered your own question. "['Our own'] refers to the interests of human beings" which is POV in an article on a subject that seeks to have humans look outside of their own consciousness. See the irony? I also stated it plainly the first time: "It's an attempt at identification with the average reader by saying "hey, you're a human, you're not on THEIR side are you??," reinforcing and pitting the view that they probably already have against the article before they even have a chance to read it. If they're against the topic, the absence of this relatively irrelevant information isn't going to change their mind."
In short, it should be obvious to anyone who reads this that I have an abundance of thought placed behind my arguments and an abundance of good intention behind my edits. My opinion is at least equal to yours and further total revertions of my edits will be looked at as either personal attacks or attempts at enforcing an outdated consensus. "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to." Thank you.
Kyle Key
14:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
SV, I made some of the changes to the intro, after posting on talk page which was later archived. Only one person responded, and they agreed changes needed to be maded. So they were. It's not so much the accuracy of the intro as how it first reads to someone perhaps not so familiar with this topic (although even after reading the whole article, I feel that the word "persons" is inaccurate). I think the intro may have been changed further, after my changes, but I would suggest looking at it again. CaptainJ ( t | c | e) 11:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I have just taken a look at the list of animal rights critics at the bottom of the article and have found that maybe we need some more which a) aren't from the same site and b) aren't funded by the Centre for Consumer Freedom.
eg:
There are 2 sites which are ran by CfCU There are 2 links to a hunting vs animal rights site (should be one - to the main page only) The link http://www.petalgae.com/ whilst funny is not really a criticism as such. http://www.capitalresearch.org/ap/ap-0797.html doesn't work at all Why is the Animal Rights use terrorism linked to a specific page rather than the main page of the site?
I am pretty sure that there are many criticism sites out there, and I'm sure people could provide some decent ones if they put their minds to it. -
Localzuk
(talk)
09:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering why exactly they are mentioned. If they are mentioned as exceptions to the general idea of "animals are meant for human use" in Western cultures, it's fine. If we are saying that we owe the concept of animal welfare to them, we might also mention that in Dharmic religions, Animal welfare has always been a fundamental part. deeptrivia ( talk) 23:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
In the interest of NPOV, I believe the "Dealing with animal rights critics" and its link should go. I feel that the link, especially its placement, marginalizes the "Animal-rights critics" section. It introduces extreme bias by basically saying "ok here's some links to criticism, but they're just here to do lip-service to NPOV, this is what you should really think". As this might be controversial I'm bringing it up here before making the change. Thoughts? -- AbsolutDan (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have been looking at the huge list of links that are on this article and it seems a little bit large to me. I think we should maybe come up with a set of criteria for including external links. As it stands, we have far too many. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. - Localzuk (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this page needs a section on the argument from marginal cases and a seperate section speciesism as these are an integral part of the animal rights argument but are only dealt with in passing. What do you think?
Man has the obligation to treat his possessions properly and be a responsible steward of what God has given us. Here is an interesting viewpoint from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (I hope this link works: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P8B.HTM#LZ) and it is the Church's view of our responsibilities:
{begin} Respect for the integrity of creation
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.194 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.
2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice, if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. {end}
I am nowhere near as eloquent, but....If we need to fry a few mosquitoes to prevent west nile virus or we need to perform vivisection on some monkey to help cure a disease or we need to ride a horse in a rodeo, then we're doin just fine. Putting the cat in the microwave is not ok. Starving an animal is not ok. Flogging an animal is not ok. In most normal people's view, the only other rights animals have are: 1) to be cute, cuddly and otherwise attractive; 2) to be obidient as beasts of burden; and 3) to mostly be just plain be tasty. I am planning to behave according to this mantra and I truly hope all of the whining, bleeding heart cry-babies out the cringe in horror as they imagine me wearing my fur coat, my leather shoes and my alligator belt as I walk to the restaraunt to eat my milk-fed veal. Grow up people and work on what counts: the real horrors in life can be seen on the news or your street corner every day where we stupid humans can't even be nice to one another. Gotta go - veal time. DocEss 18:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
They forgot to mention Voltaire, Bonaparte, and Wagner.
I've just finished referencing as much as I could within the criticism section. I used cite templates since I'm lazy and find it easier to just put them in than try to remember the exact formatting preferred, but if others object to using the templates then feel free to reformat the references.
Like I said I referenced as much as I could, but two quotes beat me. First, I had difficulty tracking down The Foundation for Animal Use and Education. The only non-Wikipedia related mention of them I could find was on the National Animal Interst Alliance's board page which lists Dr. Larry S. Katz as sitting on the board of the FAUE, but his homepage doesn't mention this. I suspect the organisation did exist, but is either now defunct or has changed its name. Searching for the quote yielded only Wikipedia and mirrors. Searching for the Chris DeRosse quote, meanwhile, only pulled up one non-Wikipedia/mirror link [3], but that only reprints the quote and doesn't specify any source. I've put {{ fact}} tags next to the relevant quotes, hopefully somebody else can manage to track down the necessary citations. -- Daduzi talk 20:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, as I mentioned above I have a few issues with the article as things stand (having said that, though, I do think it's a generally solid article). I thought it best to raise them here rather than engaging in full scale editing since doing so might annoy some people and, in any case, some of the issues I'm not in a position to correct. Anyway, here's the list:
Like I said, this is nit picking to a certain degree, and these aren't major issues. And like I said, the rest of the article is fine. I do think that the little effort required to fix these issues would help make it a really top quality article, though. Having said that, if anyone feels that any of these aren't really problems feel free to say so. -- Daduzi talk 17:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Would people please not use citation templates? They makes the inline references very long, and the text hard to edit. It is just as fast, if not faster, to write the ref out without the template and doing so makes it easier to edit around them. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the link to the Toronto group because Wikipedia is not a directory, because its listing does not add value to the article, and because there are already several, much better external links. We already list a ton of organizations, that are *national* or *international* in scope, which are best reference. There is no credible reason to list a very small regional organization like the Toronto one. If we did that, we'd need to list the other regional groups, and there are hundreds and hundreds of them. They would best be listed in an article specifically about animal rights *organizations*, which may even already exist. - MichaelBluejay 10:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason to remove this specific one is that it's super-local in nature: Its scope is a mere city. That's the whole point. The other, better resources we list are national or international in scope. Like I said, I don't know the Toronto group would get special consideration over the hundreds or thousands of other tiny, city-scope groups, and if they didn't get special consideration, then we'd be listing those hundreds of other groups here, which is patently ridiculous. Again, Wikipedia is not a directory, and there is no compelling reason to list such a tiny group with such an extremely limited scope, especially when we already list a ton of broader, better, more authoritative resources. - MichaelBluejay 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I just removed Toronto again, as well as a bunch of other local groups that someone else added. There already exists an article List_of_animal_rights_groups. The article here should not attempt to duplicate the one that already exists. Until someone provides a compelling argument for why we should add dozens or hundreds of local groups to this article, I'll continue to remove them. - MichaelBluejay 00:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I bristle at my edits being called disruptive. I have yet to see any compelling argument as to why we should include a lengthy directory in this article given that other articles already exist for that very purpose: List of animal rights groups and List of animal welfare and animal rights groups. It does not improve the quality of this article to list a gazillion different links. Readers are best served by listing the most relevant and most *general* external resources, and in this context that means national and international groups, not groups whose scope is limited to a single city. And again, the local groups can be happily listed in the article(s) that exist to document all groups, not this one. Again, I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why this article should have a super-lengthy directory that includes micro-focused local groups. Even without the local groups, the directory in this article is already way too long. (See Search engine optimization for comparison, and just try to get *any* external reference added to that article without it being removed in 15 minutes.) I would much rather that the list of orgs in this article be much shorter. I believe that my removing only the vegetarian-specific and local-specific groups is a sporting compromise. - MichaelBluejay 13:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, the French group is *not* local, and I didn't remove it. I simply alphabetized it. Your revert was unnecessary. - MichaelBluejay 13:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, please stop calling my edits disruptive simply because you disagree with them. Also, please do not give me orders in how to edit. You have no more authority here than I do. It is quite inappropriate for you to claim that I may not make a certain edit simply because you made an objection to it. You do not have that kind of authority. You also know as well as I that the length of time that material has been in an article is wholly irrelevant to whether it should be there. I am not "judging" the worth of organizations beyond noticing that micro-focused groups should not be included in a list that is already way to long, especially when *two* (count 'em) other articles exist solely for the purpose of cataloguing such groups. I have said repeatedly that I will remove micro-focused groups unless I see a compelling argument to the contrary. I still haven't seen one, or even an attempt at one. Just complaints that I'm "disruptive" and orders to not exercise my rights as an editor. - MichaelBluejay 13:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. As for your complaint that "it shouldn't matter where an org. is based", I agree. May I ask you to pay attention to my actual concern, rather than inventing a strawman? My concern is not that an organization is based in some city, because obviously they all are. My concern is with groups whose *scope* does not extend beyond the city they're in. That is why, say, In Defense of Animals is a lot better resource for the reader than, say the Toronto Animal Rights society.
Incidentally, although the New England Anti-Vivisection Society uses a regional area in their name, they are, for all intents and purposes, a national organization. I understand this distinction. The Toronto group, on the other hand, is not nearly so broad. - MichaelBluejay 14:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
P.P.S. SlimVirgin, I see you have reverted my good faith edits again, with the justification that there has been an objection. Very well. I hereby object to your re-including material that doesn't belong in this article. There, I have made an objection, and by your rules you should not add it back. Though somehow I doubt you will agree.
SlimVirgin, you're in a poor position to demand discussion when you yourself refuse to discuss the substance of my arguments. So far, by saying the onus is on me because I want to change something that's already there, your argument has amounted to little more than, "I was here first!" I emphatically disagree that I must gain consensus for obvious and commonsense edits, when only one other editor objects to my edits. As for why I removed barryhorne.org from the list of Animal Rights Organizations, it's quite simple: BarryHorne.org is not an animal rights organization. If that is not as obvious to you as an elephant in a bathroom then our conflict is even greater than I'd imagined. You asked about my criteria for listing groups here. I believe they should be notable (a Wikipedia concept) and national or international in scope. Other AR-related groups should go on List of animal rights groups and List of animal welfare and animal rights groups. I have stated this repeatedly but you have not ever once even acknowledged the existence of those articles. When you refuse to discuss, when you declare me to be disruptive, when you give me orders about how to edit, when you refuse to acknowledge the more appropriate homes for the links I'm removing, and finally, when I believe you are making a very bad judgement about bloating this article, you cannot expect me to believe that I am being the irresponsible party. - MichaelBluejay 08:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to discuss this. Though when you ask, "First, why do you feel there is a problem with links on this page?", I have already answered that, repeatedly. I will ask you to read what I have already written.
As for why national/international should be a criteria, I thought it would be obvious. A good encyclopedia lists the broadest, most general resources for a given topic. As for how we determine their scope, it's pretty easy: Geographically focused groups generally state their geographic focus. Our review may not be 100% perfect, but that's no argument for the alternative of listing a gazillion groups with extremely limited geographic focus, making the article quite amateurish.
I continue to bristle at your effective "I was here first!" argument, which you continue by saying, "You turn up at an article that, so far as I can tell, you haven't edited before..." and "when one of the regular editors on the page objects...". Wikipedia has no "first-edit, first authority" policy. I will ask you to recognize that I have as much right to edit this article as you do.
As for BarryHorne.org being an organization, that is certainly not apparent from the 5500+ words on the home page of BarryHorne.org, which describes an activist's biography, not an organization. Digging into the site, we find a list of actions committed by OTHER GROUPS (such as ALF) in MEMORY of Barry Horne, not actions carried out by a BarryHorne.org organization itself. I see zero credible information or argument that BarryHorne.org is an actual organization. As for why I didn't list it under Resources, I don't consider it to be an important "resource", as the term is generally used, and further, as I have stated repeatedly, this article is simply cheapened by the inclusion of any and every animal rights-related link, turning it into a mess of a kitchen sink. A good article lists only the best groups and links, not every one it can find -- *especially* when there are *two other articles* devoted specifically to listing animal rights organizations -- the existence of which you still have never acknowledged here.
Consider the article Environmentalism. There are local environmentalist groups, but they're not one is listed in the article. Only very general links are listed, and the groups are listed in a separate article, List of environmental organizations. I'm not suggesting we be nearly as restrictive as Enivronmentalism and have fewer than ten external links, but certainly we now have way too many. - MichaelBluejay 10:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that Ed Poor changed the intro to say: "The philosophy of animal rights (also animal liberationor animal personhood) asserts that animals should have the same rights as human beings," which of course it doesn't, so I restored the old intro. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Why not make a list of the main slaughterhouses in each country —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.153.204.25 ( talk • contribs).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Three options: (1) I'm going to remove the "citations needed" that are attached to anecdotal phrases, (2) sources can be found for the phrases, or (3) the phrases can be removed altogether. But either way, you're asking for citations on a casually obeservable statement, not one that requires scientific research. Kyle key 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
CaptainJ ( t | c | e) 17:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This section seriously needs cleanup. Apart from being far too long the links and books themselves need prioritising. Only the most important ones should be listed and the others removed. if someone wants to find webpages about a subject they can use google, not wikipedia. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 09:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
A recent revert (see Special page:History) deleting "authorless books" made two deletions of titles listed under the first item by Stephen R.L. Clark. I have two questions:
Hoping some knowledgeable person will sort this out and restore/repair as necessary. It would be unfortunate to lose valid reference citations due to their having been written improperly or with insufficient information. Thanks -- Deborahjay 10:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll add a SUGGESTION (caveat: I haven't checked this out with the Wikipedia Manual of Style) that the Further reading list be subsectioned into Books and Articles and the citations alphabetized under those subheadings according to author's name. This might help make the section more user friendly and easier for future editors to maintain and update. -- Deborahjay 11:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone deleted large sections of the intro, including properly referenced material, so I've restored it. This intro was worked out over as a compromise between several editors with different views, and I think it works pretty well. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If we're citing policy pages, WP:NBD and WP:AGF. My intro meets the requirements of WP:LEAD.
I am willing to modify my introduction to include more of the present information, but that information still requires rewording. Simply put, it's poorly written.
The way that the introduction is set up now, all animal rights critics support animal welfare...or at least, that's what most educated people would infer from reading it. And that's not true.
On a separate but related note, adding a source for an opinionated, irrelevant statement is quite possibly the most illogical thing I've yet seen on Wikipedia. I can find thousands of pages that don't refer to it as a "radical" movement, should I cite them too? No, it doesn't make any sense. Your finding of someone else who called it "radical" seems ridiculously childish and makes me question your position as an administrator.
It's amazing how someone acting as a representative of Wikipedia has managed to ruin the experience for me in a matter of a few hours. Especially since what I'm saying isn't complex or particularly hard to comprehend, yet you're unable--or unwilling--to consider any of it. The statement works just as well, if not better, in my version. Removing the word in the current version produces an unintelligible sentence because the sentence itself (and the one after it) are so strongly slanted against the topic--without a similar statement defending the article--that the discrepancy requires a rewrite. A consensus in the past isn't forever binding.
What else? Your inability to put aside your position within the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens is evident throughout your previous comment. Scientific classification, like a prior Wikipedia discussion consensus, is subject to change as new information is discovered. Emphasis added
Scientific classification or biological classification is how biologists group and categorize extinct and living species of organisms (as opposed to folk taxonomy). Modern classification has its root in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics. These groupings have been revised since Linnaeus to improve consistency with the Darwinian principle of common descent. Molecular systematics, which uses DNA sequences as data, has driven many recent revisions and is likely to continue to do so. Scientific classification belongs to the science of taxonomy or biological systematics.
So, yes, your statement is pure, unfounded opinion: "There are few things more radical than the idea of breaking down the species barriers." What's even more peculiar is that this is not even an issue within animal rights....I haven't seen or read about anyone saying that we should "break down the species barriers" and include all animals within Homo sapiens, and if sources for that do exist, they are an extreme minority and in no way representative of the movement. My understanding of animals rights is this: "we shouldn't treat like garbage those beings that have a subjective experience of pain and/or undertake actions outside of those related to growth or preservation--that is, consuming nutrients and resting are essential functions that, in and of themselves, don't constitute inclusion in the "rights" category, but performing tasks like playing or helping a fellow creature are representative of a state of being that should most likely be preserved." A far cry from what you're implying.
My final comments will be on these statements: "It refers to the interests of human beings i.e. the people writing and reading the article. How is it POV?" You answered your own question. "['Our own'] refers to the interests of human beings" which is POV in an article on a subject that seeks to have humans look outside of their own consciousness. See the irony? I also stated it plainly the first time: "It's an attempt at identification with the average reader by saying "hey, you're a human, you're not on THEIR side are you??," reinforcing and pitting the view that they probably already have against the article before they even have a chance to read it. If they're against the topic, the absence of this relatively irrelevant information isn't going to change their mind."
In short, it should be obvious to anyone who reads this that I have an abundance of thought placed behind my arguments and an abundance of good intention behind my edits. My opinion is at least equal to yours and further total revertions of my edits will be looked at as either personal attacks or attempts at enforcing an outdated consensus. "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to." Thank you.
Kyle Key
14:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
SV, I made some of the changes to the intro, after posting on talk page which was later archived. Only one person responded, and they agreed changes needed to be maded. So they were. It's not so much the accuracy of the intro as how it first reads to someone perhaps not so familiar with this topic (although even after reading the whole article, I feel that the word "persons" is inaccurate). I think the intro may have been changed further, after my changes, but I would suggest looking at it again. CaptainJ ( t | c | e) 11:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I have just taken a look at the list of animal rights critics at the bottom of the article and have found that maybe we need some more which a) aren't from the same site and b) aren't funded by the Centre for Consumer Freedom.
eg:
There are 2 sites which are ran by CfCU There are 2 links to a hunting vs animal rights site (should be one - to the main page only) The link http://www.petalgae.com/ whilst funny is not really a criticism as such. http://www.capitalresearch.org/ap/ap-0797.html doesn't work at all Why is the Animal Rights use terrorism linked to a specific page rather than the main page of the site?
I am pretty sure that there are many criticism sites out there, and I'm sure people could provide some decent ones if they put their minds to it. -
Localzuk
(talk)
09:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering why exactly they are mentioned. If they are mentioned as exceptions to the general idea of "animals are meant for human use" in Western cultures, it's fine. If we are saying that we owe the concept of animal welfare to them, we might also mention that in Dharmic religions, Animal welfare has always been a fundamental part. deeptrivia ( talk) 23:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
In the interest of NPOV, I believe the "Dealing with animal rights critics" and its link should go. I feel that the link, especially its placement, marginalizes the "Animal-rights critics" section. It introduces extreme bias by basically saying "ok here's some links to criticism, but they're just here to do lip-service to NPOV, this is what you should really think". As this might be controversial I'm bringing it up here before making the change. Thoughts? -- AbsolutDan (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have been looking at the huge list of links that are on this article and it seems a little bit large to me. I think we should maybe come up with a set of criteria for including external links. As it stands, we have far too many. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. - Localzuk (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this page needs a section on the argument from marginal cases and a seperate section speciesism as these are an integral part of the animal rights argument but are only dealt with in passing. What do you think?
Man has the obligation to treat his possessions properly and be a responsible steward of what God has given us. Here is an interesting viewpoint from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (I hope this link works: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P8B.HTM#LZ) and it is the Church's view of our responsibilities:
{begin} Respect for the integrity of creation
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.194 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.
2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice, if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. {end}
I am nowhere near as eloquent, but....If we need to fry a few mosquitoes to prevent west nile virus or we need to perform vivisection on some monkey to help cure a disease or we need to ride a horse in a rodeo, then we're doin just fine. Putting the cat in the microwave is not ok. Starving an animal is not ok. Flogging an animal is not ok. In most normal people's view, the only other rights animals have are: 1) to be cute, cuddly and otherwise attractive; 2) to be obidient as beasts of burden; and 3) to mostly be just plain be tasty. I am planning to behave according to this mantra and I truly hope all of the whining, bleeding heart cry-babies out the cringe in horror as they imagine me wearing my fur coat, my leather shoes and my alligator belt as I walk to the restaraunt to eat my milk-fed veal. Grow up people and work on what counts: the real horrors in life can be seen on the news or your street corner every day where we stupid humans can't even be nice to one another. Gotta go - veal time. DocEss 18:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
They forgot to mention Voltaire, Bonaparte, and Wagner.
I've just finished referencing as much as I could within the criticism section. I used cite templates since I'm lazy and find it easier to just put them in than try to remember the exact formatting preferred, but if others object to using the templates then feel free to reformat the references.
Like I said I referenced as much as I could, but two quotes beat me. First, I had difficulty tracking down The Foundation for Animal Use and Education. The only non-Wikipedia related mention of them I could find was on the National Animal Interst Alliance's board page which lists Dr. Larry S. Katz as sitting on the board of the FAUE, but his homepage doesn't mention this. I suspect the organisation did exist, but is either now defunct or has changed its name. Searching for the quote yielded only Wikipedia and mirrors. Searching for the Chris DeRosse quote, meanwhile, only pulled up one non-Wikipedia/mirror link [3], but that only reprints the quote and doesn't specify any source. I've put {{ fact}} tags next to the relevant quotes, hopefully somebody else can manage to track down the necessary citations. -- Daduzi talk 20:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, as I mentioned above I have a few issues with the article as things stand (having said that, though, I do think it's a generally solid article). I thought it best to raise them here rather than engaging in full scale editing since doing so might annoy some people and, in any case, some of the issues I'm not in a position to correct. Anyway, here's the list:
Like I said, this is nit picking to a certain degree, and these aren't major issues. And like I said, the rest of the article is fine. I do think that the little effort required to fix these issues would help make it a really top quality article, though. Having said that, if anyone feels that any of these aren't really problems feel free to say so. -- Daduzi talk 17:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Would people please not use citation templates? They makes the inline references very long, and the text hard to edit. It is just as fast, if not faster, to write the ref out without the template and doing so makes it easier to edit around them. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the link to the Toronto group because Wikipedia is not a directory, because its listing does not add value to the article, and because there are already several, much better external links. We already list a ton of organizations, that are *national* or *international* in scope, which are best reference. There is no credible reason to list a very small regional organization like the Toronto one. If we did that, we'd need to list the other regional groups, and there are hundreds and hundreds of them. They would best be listed in an article specifically about animal rights *organizations*, which may even already exist. - MichaelBluejay 10:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason to remove this specific one is that it's super-local in nature: Its scope is a mere city. That's the whole point. The other, better resources we list are national or international in scope. Like I said, I don't know the Toronto group would get special consideration over the hundreds or thousands of other tiny, city-scope groups, and if they didn't get special consideration, then we'd be listing those hundreds of other groups here, which is patently ridiculous. Again, Wikipedia is not a directory, and there is no compelling reason to list such a tiny group with such an extremely limited scope, especially when we already list a ton of broader, better, more authoritative resources. - MichaelBluejay 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I just removed Toronto again, as well as a bunch of other local groups that someone else added. There already exists an article List_of_animal_rights_groups. The article here should not attempt to duplicate the one that already exists. Until someone provides a compelling argument for why we should add dozens or hundreds of local groups to this article, I'll continue to remove them. - MichaelBluejay 00:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I bristle at my edits being called disruptive. I have yet to see any compelling argument as to why we should include a lengthy directory in this article given that other articles already exist for that very purpose: List of animal rights groups and List of animal welfare and animal rights groups. It does not improve the quality of this article to list a gazillion different links. Readers are best served by listing the most relevant and most *general* external resources, and in this context that means national and international groups, not groups whose scope is limited to a single city. And again, the local groups can be happily listed in the article(s) that exist to document all groups, not this one. Again, I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why this article should have a super-lengthy directory that includes micro-focused local groups. Even without the local groups, the directory in this article is already way too long. (See Search engine optimization for comparison, and just try to get *any* external reference added to that article without it being removed in 15 minutes.) I would much rather that the list of orgs in this article be much shorter. I believe that my removing only the vegetarian-specific and local-specific groups is a sporting compromise. - MichaelBluejay 13:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, the French group is *not* local, and I didn't remove it. I simply alphabetized it. Your revert was unnecessary. - MichaelBluejay 13:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, please stop calling my edits disruptive simply because you disagree with them. Also, please do not give me orders in how to edit. You have no more authority here than I do. It is quite inappropriate for you to claim that I may not make a certain edit simply because you made an objection to it. You do not have that kind of authority. You also know as well as I that the length of time that material has been in an article is wholly irrelevant to whether it should be there. I am not "judging" the worth of organizations beyond noticing that micro-focused groups should not be included in a list that is already way to long, especially when *two* (count 'em) other articles exist solely for the purpose of cataloguing such groups. I have said repeatedly that I will remove micro-focused groups unless I see a compelling argument to the contrary. I still haven't seen one, or even an attempt at one. Just complaints that I'm "disruptive" and orders to not exercise my rights as an editor. - MichaelBluejay 13:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. As for your complaint that "it shouldn't matter where an org. is based", I agree. May I ask you to pay attention to my actual concern, rather than inventing a strawman? My concern is not that an organization is based in some city, because obviously they all are. My concern is with groups whose *scope* does not extend beyond the city they're in. That is why, say, In Defense of Animals is a lot better resource for the reader than, say the Toronto Animal Rights society.
Incidentally, although the New England Anti-Vivisection Society uses a regional area in their name, they are, for all intents and purposes, a national organization. I understand this distinction. The Toronto group, on the other hand, is not nearly so broad. - MichaelBluejay 14:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
P.P.S. SlimVirgin, I see you have reverted my good faith edits again, with the justification that there has been an objection. Very well. I hereby object to your re-including material that doesn't belong in this article. There, I have made an objection, and by your rules you should not add it back. Though somehow I doubt you will agree.
SlimVirgin, you're in a poor position to demand discussion when you yourself refuse to discuss the substance of my arguments. So far, by saying the onus is on me because I want to change something that's already there, your argument has amounted to little more than, "I was here first!" I emphatically disagree that I must gain consensus for obvious and commonsense edits, when only one other editor objects to my edits. As for why I removed barryhorne.org from the list of Animal Rights Organizations, it's quite simple: BarryHorne.org is not an animal rights organization. If that is not as obvious to you as an elephant in a bathroom then our conflict is even greater than I'd imagined. You asked about my criteria for listing groups here. I believe they should be notable (a Wikipedia concept) and national or international in scope. Other AR-related groups should go on List of animal rights groups and List of animal welfare and animal rights groups. I have stated this repeatedly but you have not ever once even acknowledged the existence of those articles. When you refuse to discuss, when you declare me to be disruptive, when you give me orders about how to edit, when you refuse to acknowledge the more appropriate homes for the links I'm removing, and finally, when I believe you are making a very bad judgement about bloating this article, you cannot expect me to believe that I am being the irresponsible party. - MichaelBluejay 08:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to discuss this. Though when you ask, "First, why do you feel there is a problem with links on this page?", I have already answered that, repeatedly. I will ask you to read what I have already written.
As for why national/international should be a criteria, I thought it would be obvious. A good encyclopedia lists the broadest, most general resources for a given topic. As for how we determine their scope, it's pretty easy: Geographically focused groups generally state their geographic focus. Our review may not be 100% perfect, but that's no argument for the alternative of listing a gazillion groups with extremely limited geographic focus, making the article quite amateurish.
I continue to bristle at your effective "I was here first!" argument, which you continue by saying, "You turn up at an article that, so far as I can tell, you haven't edited before..." and "when one of the regular editors on the page objects...". Wikipedia has no "first-edit, first authority" policy. I will ask you to recognize that I have as much right to edit this article as you do.
As for BarryHorne.org being an organization, that is certainly not apparent from the 5500+ words on the home page of BarryHorne.org, which describes an activist's biography, not an organization. Digging into the site, we find a list of actions committed by OTHER GROUPS (such as ALF) in MEMORY of Barry Horne, not actions carried out by a BarryHorne.org organization itself. I see zero credible information or argument that BarryHorne.org is an actual organization. As for why I didn't list it under Resources, I don't consider it to be an important "resource", as the term is generally used, and further, as I have stated repeatedly, this article is simply cheapened by the inclusion of any and every animal rights-related link, turning it into a mess of a kitchen sink. A good article lists only the best groups and links, not every one it can find -- *especially* when there are *two other articles* devoted specifically to listing animal rights organizations -- the existence of which you still have never acknowledged here.
Consider the article Environmentalism. There are local environmentalist groups, but they're not one is listed in the article. Only very general links are listed, and the groups are listed in a separate article, List of environmental organizations. I'm not suggesting we be nearly as restrictive as Enivronmentalism and have fewer than ten external links, but certainly we now have way too many. - MichaelBluejay 10:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that Ed Poor changed the intro to say: "The philosophy of animal rights (also animal liberationor animal personhood) asserts that animals should have the same rights as human beings," which of course it doesn't, so I restored the old intro. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Why not make a list of the main slaughterhouses in each country —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.153.204.25 ( talk • contribs).