![]() | 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 | → | Archive 7 |
On controversy for Animal Rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.69.101 ( talk) 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
As a newcomer to this article, I have to say the whole thing has a very misleading tone to it. Essentially, it paints a picture of Animal Rights being far more common and accepted a view by the mainstream than they in fact are. Assigning moral rights (as opposed to mere welfare) to animals is an extreme position, advocated by a tiny proportion of philosophers and indeed the public in general. Someone reading this article from a position of naivity would be persuaded that animals have rights, and that the consensus is that medical animal testing is akin to the holocaust. The whole article needs a rewrite, and in particular, how the paragraph on the holocaust got past the more senior edittors is beyond me 86.3.34.97 10:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I heartily agree. The article is deceptive from the outset; the very first sentence (which quotes the second source) is just plain wrong when compared to the cited source; saying that all members of the animal rights movement feel that animals should have the same rights as humans is not the same as saying that animals should have some basic rights. Additionally, the third source in the article equates "Animal rights advocates" (as the article refers to them) with official PETA statements (check the source; the source refers to PETA, not animal rights advocates in general); PETA is a relatively extreme arm of the animal rights movement (both in policies and in tactics) and to equate PETA with the animal rights movement as a whole is grossly inaccurate. Needs work.
I also agree 70.74.162.9 ( talk) 02:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Kudos It is deplorable to bring animals into the sphere of humans in philosophical terms. They have noble uses: as companions, food sources, ecological food web links. The thought of attributing my dog a soul or purchasing auto insurance policies to further enslave me economically is where I get off the PETA crazy train. I have a neighbor who had a funeral for his cat. $3,000 bucks! What an idiot. Bobosthecatlover ( talk) 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not clear below who is saying what. The first sentence says that Kathleen Kete argued something, but then we cite Arluke and Sax. Which part exactly is being attributed to Kete, and which to the others?
Also "Composer Richard Wagner urges attacks on laboratories and physical assault on vivisectionists, whom he associated with Jews — presumably because of kosher killing methods. [1]
Who is the source of "presumably," and do they use that word? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Alexander Cockburn uses the word in this article published in New Left Review [1]. Farnsworth J 00:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
See [2]
If animal rights activists are known to campaign against the practise then it has everything to do with animal rights. Farnsworth J 02:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Then rewrite it but please don't remove it since it's clear that animal rights activists have protested against shechita in Europe and America. Here is another source "Observant Jews should only eat meat or poultry that has been killed in the approved way, called shechita. This method of killing is often attacked by animal rights activists as barbaric blood-thirsty ritual slaughter." [3]
"The Farm Animal Welfare Council in England is scheduled to present a report in June to the British government recommending that all animals be stunned before being slaughtered. Jewish authorities unanimously stated that this is unacceptable. In fact a group of Jewish leaders walked out of a meeting with the FAWC in March when discussions broke down." [4]
"German animal rights groups, the German Animal Protection League and the Union Against Abuse of Animals, maligned the ruling permitting halal slaughter and said that they would continue their quest for a European ban on all forms of ritual slaughter which they consider cruel to animals. They vowed to take their campaign across Europe and to the European Union." [5] Farnsworth J 02:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you reverted me since I did what you asked, I rewrote the "plagiarized" sentence on Richard Wagner and I've given you citations to show that schechita is something animal rights activists talk about. Can you please write something about schehita based on the above sources? Farnsworth J 02:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should ask animal rights groups and activists why they campaign against ritual slaughter? Why do you think the German Animal Protection League and the Union Against Abuse of Animals are campaigning to ban all ritual slaughter in Europe? Xenophobia? A belief that foreigners and their practices are barbaric? A belief that the religious practices of others can easily be "updated"? A belief that animal rights trump those of ethnic minorities? Or that banning some forms of slaughter can help move society, step by step, to an ultimate total ban? Or just that ritual slaughter is cruel and even if we cannot ban slaughter altogether we can at least make it more humane?
It is quite clear that animal rights activists have much to do with the banning of ritual slaughter in several countries since they urged such a ban and the section on animal rights and anti-semitism says some interesting theoretical points about the intersection of animal rights and racism so it has everything to do with animal rights activists and, historically, with at least one school of animal rights thought, the far right nazi school.
As for your third question there is, I believe, some link between far-right anti-immigrant activism and some militant animal rights activists, those in the "deep ecology" and human population reduction movements. I could write something about that if you like. I don't think there is enough on wikipedia (hardly anything, really) about animal rights and fascist/far right thought - instead there's an emphasis on the animal rights movement as warm and fuzzy idealists. That element of fascist thought that is anti-modernist, anti-industrialist and harkens back to a medeaval pastoralism is a major influence in the animal rights movement and animal rights thought and was, some would say, the dominant strain until just a few decades ago. Farnsworth J 04:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no information on fascist theories of animal rights in the article?
There is quite a lot of literature on fascist theory and animal rights. See for instance
This is an important area that our articles completely ignore. Instead of being hostile I would hope that you would welcome the addition of aspects of the topic that have been completely absent up until now. Farnsworth J 05:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Your full question was "2) What does the banning of ritual slaughter by some govts have to do with the concept of animal rights (or even animal rights activists)?" I've already answered it several times, numerous animal rights activists and groups have advocated the banning of ritual slaughter thus animal rights activists have everything to do with the ban. If you want to know what the ban has to do with animal rights you'd be best to ask the groups what their motivations were. I've provided some ideas on that question already. Farnsworth J 05:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to ask the question for a fifth time. This time I will split it into two parts so you can address both:
1) What does the banning of ritual slaughter by some European govts have to do with the concept of animal rights, which is the subject matter of this article?
2) Why do you believe that animal rights activists had anything to do with the European bans, given that European govts routinely and steadfastly ignore the animal rights movement? Please provide a source showing the connection between the movement and the bans.
And the other question again (third time I've asked this one):
3) Are you going to write a section on everything the animal rights movement campaigns against? If not, why not? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
1) If the banning of ritual slaughter has nothing to do with the "concept of animal rights" why do various animal rights groups campaign against it [6]? I've asked you this several times, you've yet to provide an answer. It's quite obvious that some of them are campaigning on this question because they are trying to reduce the perceived harm to animals. However, given the aformentioned evidence of fascists in the animal rights movement there may be some ulterior motives.
2) "Switzerland's government recently abandoned a proposed law that would have legalized ritual animal sacrifice.
"Ritual animal slaughter has been illegal in Switzerland since 1893. The change in the law was supported by Jewish and Muslim leaders who expressed disappointment at the abandonment of the law.
"The government's about face came after animal rights activists began campaigning against the law earlier this year". "Bill legalising ritual animal sacrifice." Luke Coppen, The Times (London), March 16, 2002.
3) I don't know yet, is this a requirement? Farnsworth J 17:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
And if you actually read the passage you're autonomically reverting you'll see that some time ago I added a reference and citation for animal rights groups being involved in the bans in response to your objection. Farnsworth J 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, do you intend to add anything about the history of fascism and animal rights in the 'History of the concept' section of the article? If not, why not? Farnsworth J 17:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"Slim's questions are valid and serve a purpose." Repeating the same questions over and over again after they've been answered seves no purpose. The first line of the article makes it clear that it is about the animal rights movement as well as theory but SlimVirgin is overlooking that so she can dismiss all references to animal rights groups campaigning against ritual slaughter. She's playing a game and it's gotten tiresome. Farnsworth J 18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to remind people again that this article is note solely on the "concept of animal rights" but on the animal rights movement. The first sentence of the article reads "Animal rights, animal liberation, or animal personhood, is the movement to protect animals from being used or regarded as property by human beings." Therefore discussion the relationship between the movement and anti-Semitism, xenophobia, fascism etc is within the purview of the article as long as the information is sourced. Since this information is sourced there is no acceptable reason to conintually remove it from the article and I ask that this behaviour cease. That the animal rights movement, or parts of it, campaigned against ritual slaughter has been demonstrated quite clearly so it should not be removed even if there is a personal POV that the ritual slaughter question is outside of AR. Farnsworth J 21:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Absent from this article is any discussion of the conflict between the animal rights movement and the rights of indigenous peoples to continue traditional hunting and trapping practises. This dovetails into the perceived intolerance of animal rights theory for the rights of religious and ethnic minorities ie the cultural eurocentrism of AR. Farnsworth J 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I shortened the lead section a little as it was getting a bit top heavy (my fault). I'll find somewhere else in the article to put the material. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I edited in the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights, and was (rightfully) reverted by SlimVirgin. However, I do think that the distinction needs to made fairly early on and I would do it myself but it would seem that Slim is currently working on that. Just in case SlimVirgin finished editing the intro, I still think it's a little top heavy, in case not: Sorry, just pointin' out the obvious. Angrynight 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears we're in agreement, then. Angrynight 01:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Farnsworth, are you going to create a separate section on each thing the AR movement campaigns for? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No, see my earlier comments above. Farnsworth J 05:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The recent addition about ritual slaughter is far too specific for a general article, especially one that's already way too long, and especially because that particular campaign is not nearly the most important AR campaign of all the ones that could be included, not by a longshot. I suggest that that material be moved to another, separate article. - MichaelBluejay 07:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There are several sources linking fascism and the animal rights movement, not just one as SV claimed.
Also, look at Ecofascism and its sources. Farnsworth J 16:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not it is the POV of some contributors here that bans on ritual slaughter refer to "animal welfare" rather than "animal rights" the sources provided in the section refer to "animal rights". Farnsworth J 16:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
From Ambiguities of Animal Rights by Peter Staudenmaier Farnsworth J 02:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be legitimate to mention in the civil rights article that Communists were involved in the movement. NPOV would mean, however, that this fact not be given disproportionate weight and that the article not imply that all civil rights activists were Communists or that the Communists enjoyed a level of control over the movement that they, in fact, did not have but were simply one element among many in the movement. In the same vein it is not legitimate to censor the role of fascism in the animal rights movement in the 1930s or today though mentions of such should not distort the role.
As for poisoning the well, please consider the definition of the concept as "adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say", the operative word remains "pre-emptively". Farnsworth J 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the views of other cultures have been totally ignored in this article and this may be because users do not want to accept views of others outside their culture and religion and would like to remain in their predetermined states. I have added the views of Sikhism to the article and these have been reverted without discussion, which I feel is probably due to a prejudice against views of other cultures on this matter. I have posted detailed questions to the user who reverted these views without any details discussion and I awaits answers to the queries listed below. I would ask other users to consider the points list below and give their views as may be I am missing something here. Your help would be most appreciated.
To User:xxx "You have reverted my contribution to the above article without any discussion. So I have to assume that there was something grossly wrong with my entry. Naturally, as a long term (over 2.5 years) and avid contributor (Sikhi section) of this site, I would appreciate more details of why you have reverted my contributions to the above article, especially without any discussion. A bland pointer to various tags is of little help. It would help if you give a little more details and examples so that changes can be made. A frank and open approach would be appreciated. I don't have any emotional axe to grind but I feel that this point is a valid one to make. What do religions have to say about this right? I have made contributions to many other rights – like women rights, rights of other to worship, right to wear turban, etc. Aren't the view of others important to this site? or do you wish to just promote "your" perceived view only. I believe that by adding my contribution, we achieve a better global view of what various cultures have to say about this issue and do not restrict it to a "western" view only – I could say that you have made the article biased to a POV.
OR: I do not believe that this is Original research as various quotations from a text almost 500 years old are given to support the views. All these facts can be found on the internet. What is original in this section – please elaborate so that I can show you that it has existed for 100's of years. It may be "new" to you but its not new to the world and so it is not OR.
NPOV: The article is factual and is not a personal POV. You can only violate this rule if you state a personal POV. What I have stated, I believe are the facts in a religious documents many 100's of years old – I am only highlighting a POV of this existing text – I have not added my POV. So where does the POV issue come in. Please enlighten.
NOT: How is anything here a violation of these rules. Which section has been violated? Please give details.
I believe that you have been very unfair and are taking a very "narrow" view of the issues and are "stuck" in your predetermined attitudes to this subject matter. I would appreciate a honest and detailed discussion of the reason for your action.
Further, aren't the views of Sikhism (fifth biggest organised religion) important to articles on this site. Or are you only interested in the narrow view of the west and a view-point that suits you in the west? I hope this action is not based on a prejudice against other cultures and their views? If it is not, then I expect a detailed reply to my query.
I have been contributing to various wikis for several years (and am an administrator at one) and have authored 1000's of articles - the first on Wikipedia on 11 March 2004, a little longer than you have and I have OR and NPOV marked as links on my user page as I thought I would study them regularly. You help and explanation would be much appreciated. Many thanks." Many thanks for your help. -- Hari Singh 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that anyone person has a monopoly on the content of this article or any other article. The article is simply entitled "animal rights" and anything relevant to do with this subject matter can be added to the article as long as it conforms to the rules of Wikipedia. The header states that "This article is about the concept or philosophy of animal rights" and not as you state to do with animals as "having rights as individuals" and having the "same consideration as those of human beings". Which countries provide these rights and how is this reflected in the title?
In many eastern cultures, animals are given certain rights. Whether these are individual or group rights is something that can be narrated in the article. Sikhism is a religion not a state or nation – It provides individuals with spiritual and moral guidance and does not set legal laws or enforces them. It is like saying that Christianity can set laws and prosecute them as well. I think you fail to grasp the difference between a religion and a state and the fact that this has no relevance to the issue of rights. In other issues of rights, for example, Guru Nanak was a proponent of Women's rights and this fact features on this subject and is an important fact that needs to promoted and should feature on all modern encyclopaedias.
There is a section on "Abolitionist view" - does this culture give a "rights as individuals, which they believe should be enforceable in law" to animal? – If they don't then why, in your opinion is this section in this article. Do all the other sections conform to your strict requirements outline above? If not, then they need to be removed.
Further, I made several small changes to the top of the article which I believe that you have unfairly removed. I list these below. Could you please give reasons why these have been removed as well:
The history of animal rights is said to stretch back to before 450BC [5] and the time of Empedocles of Acagras in Sicily, c. (492-432 BC) [6] who was a philosopher and poet.
The rights of animals have been given consideration by various cultures and religion over many centuries. Various ancient rulers have also stipulated certain rights for animals. Emperor Ashoka (304 BC–232 BC) who was ruler of India proclaimed these regarding animals in his various edicts that "no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice" [7] and in Edict 11 that ".. kindness to living beings should be made strong and the truth should be spoken" and finally "The Dhamma regulations I have given are that various animals must be protected." [8]
I believe that this matter is not being dealt with fairly and that a narrow restricted POV is being propagated. I will gather more research before I return to deal with this matter. In the meantime I ask for your reply to the question posed here. Many thanks -- Hari Singh 05:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The issues outlined are not original research as all the facts that have been mentioned are recorded and these are confirmed historical facts. OR is when new material is introduced for the first time. The facts quoted are not "new material". Whether a holy book supports or opposes a view is rigidly set and is a fact – It is not original research.
If you look at my userpage you will notice that I have WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V hyperlinked – so I am very familiar with these pages – I do not need to review them. The rules say: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources". I have cited many sources which you can easily check on the net as they are very widely mentioned and verifiable. Could you please give me examples of OR in the section that I wrote?
Also the rules say: "All articles in Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." The information given by me is a secondary source as it is presented in a coherent and independent form. The quote make the point without any input from me. A primary source would be a photo or a field observation and I would have to explain what this primary source proved, etc. A secondary source does not require input from the writer. Please explain how you refer to my work based on these historical facts as OR? Please give quotes from the rules to support your assertions.
The concept of AR is not new. The rights of animals have been referred to for thousands of years – They did not have a label for them and these rights were simply referred in the ancient texts without a particular label – we have now invented a label for this right – that does not mean that this right was not recognised and practiced by our ancestors. Eg: King Ashoka ("KA") declared in about 250BC that: ""No living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice" (The Fourteen Rock Edicts, 1) That gives all animals a right to live; also "….(KA has ) , made provision for two types of medical treatment: medical treatment for humans and medical treatment for animals." Gives animals the right to medical treatment when ill. How can you say that AR is a new thing when these rights were given to animals by a very powerful Buddhist ruler over 200 years before Christ? And they are widely documented!!
I am not referring to animal welfare and how to look after animals – I am referring to the rights, liberties and the sort of treatments that was approved for the animals. If the state says that "Prisoners cannot be tortured" – that gives a right to the prisoners of non-torture. The rights of animals can be stated in various ways and it does not have to be a legal way only.
"The fundamental principle of the AR is that nonhuman animals deserve to live according to their own natures, free from harm, abuse, and exploitation." – So any text legal, religious or otherwise that has a bearing on the points mentioned here gives rise to the creation of a right or to an abolition of a right.
You have failed to address the various points outlined before – I will be much obliged if you could properly address all the queries that I have put forward now and before. Your detailed reply would be most appreciated even if it takes more time. I hope you have noticed that I have dealt with each point that you have made in great depth while most of your replies are just a short paragraph. I would appreciate if you could address the points I make with care and due consideration which I hope you will agree they deserve in light of the amount of time and energy that I have expended. Many thanks. -- Hari Singh 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Hari, I'm not sure Slim would agree with me, but my take on the article is that it's primarily about the modern animal rights movement, and the history section provides a background for the modern, western movement. I don't believe that Sikhism influenced anyone in the modern movement, or any of the philosophers who influenced the modern movement. (I might be wrong about that -- please show me if I am.) This is not to say that the information you're supplying isn't valuable: I believe there must be a place for it somewhere, perhaps a religious views of animals article, or some such.
We just can't put in every statement made about anything that could be construed as relating to the rights of animals throughout history into this article: it would be way too long if we did. We just had this discussion recently with someone who wanted to put in some Catholic stuff about animals. It was interesting, but not germane. It really feels to me like an article on religion and animals might be the way to go (if it's not been done already). IronDuke 15:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This article needs a criticism section, because criticism of animal rights is very common and relevant. Can somebody add this please? -- 216.164.193.1 18:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone has added that Julian H. Franklin's book is "ground-breaking." It's a Kantian analysis of animal rights and as such I'm sure will be interesting, but does it suggest positions that could be regarded as "ground-breaking"? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the section 'Rights require obligations' really a criticism section? The Criticism section and 'Rights require obligations' should be merged. 70.226.169.147 22:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ultimately, if this were an article about a philosophical position, or a political stance, it would have a criticism section. The article on determinism has arguments against, for example. The article on communism has a criticism section. I was surprised to see that this article does not have one, because this article IS about an ideology, and it's standard on wikipedia to present a summary of the opposing view when detailing an ideology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.183.63 ( talk • contribs) January 17, 2008 20:48 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from, but I don't think there's a strong dividing line between concept and ideology. Isn't an ideology just a collection of strongly held ideas? The idea that the means of production should be held by the state is just a concept, but it's also a central principle of an ideology. The animal rights movement affects legislation and motivates activists in exactly the same way any other ideology does. The whole animal rights article in itself is in the "political movements" catagory, along with the "right to life" and "socialism" articles, both of which have sections for criticism. I don't see why a criticism section also necessitates a praise section if it's in an article which is about a movement -- the article itself is outlining the movement, the criticism section outlines opposition to that movement. For example, the beginning of this article:
"Animal rights, also known as animal liberation, is the idea that the basic interests of non-human animals — for example, the interest in avoiding suffering — should be afforded the same consideration as the basic interests of human beings.[2] Animal rights advocates argue that animals should no longer be regarded as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as legal persons[3] and members of the moral community.[4]"
How exactly would a "praise" section differ from the existing tone of the article? I don't think it would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.218.206 ( talk) 20:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added a 2 column format for our incredibly long references, notes and external links sections. What do people think? It makes the page a little less long.- Localzuk (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
It seems to be the most biased article on English Wikipedia. Almost no criticism (see previous section) about very controversial topic. POVish Image on intro. Dozens of external links to "animal rights supporters groups". -- Haham hanuka 12:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Similar attributions of POVity have recently started sprouting up on several AR-related article talk pages, such as Talk:Ethics of eating meat. I suppose it just means that some people don't like any pro-animal voices to be publicly heard.
There are countless articles on WP that are uniformly POV against animal rights. For example, all the articles about how to chop up this and that variety of animal corpses, such as Chicken (food); which speak about animals as if they were pure commodities, with no mention of the fact that many people think otherwise. Amidst all this anti-animal POV, it is only fair that a page about animal rights should simply explain what AR is, and what our arguments are.
David Olivier 12:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
In support of the OP, the external links section is AR biased. There are links to a site set up in memory of a convicted arsonist, paramilitary organisations and myriad anti-vivisection groups, however few anti AR sites are listed (eg. the research defence society's page is not listed - soon to be rectified) As the purpose of the external links section is to provide further information, not to further an argument, I propose that more of the websites of the opposition are included, and that vandalism of that section, as seems rife (the centre for consumer freedom link has had an anti-CfCF link added - please keep your AR links out of that section) is prevented as much as possible. The above poster misunderstands what wikipedia is about. It is not a forum for argument, nor a recruiting tool for individual causes. You have the right to amend any of the "against animal rights" articles you like to show that there is opposition to those practices. You do not have a right to monopolise a Wikipedia page for your own ends. I will not post on this page again, as non AR views are clearly not welcome. 88.105.181.28 15:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Please can you tell me how I can make one of these:
WikiProject on Animal rights
![]() | This user
participates in WikiProject Animal rights. |
For my project here: Germanic Mysticism, Revivalism and Nazism (but you will need to put {{}} on either side of it to view it)
Thanks,
FK0071a
08:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to have many more links that would be necessary. Considering that Wikipedia is not a directory, do you think it would be a good idea to pare these down a touch?
Kay. As per this discussion, I'm going to cut down on the number of links. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with consistency in the disclaimer at the top that this is about concepts and philosophy, and including criticisms on methods such as the PETA-holocaust controversy, and the sentence from Tony Blair on the silent majority, belong on Animal Liberation Movement or PETA or both but not here. Philosophy is rife with debate on philosophical points, there is plenty of that to go around while staying within appropriate parameters for content. -- Animalresearcher 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the lengthy bit about David Sztybel's criticisms of utilitarianism and the rights based approach should be in its own subsection, rather than as part of the "Rights-based approach" subsection, if it is to be included at all. Since Sztybel is not a big-name animal ethicist in the league of Singer and Regan, should he even be included in this article? After all, there are many other less-well-known animal ethicists who are not mentioned in this article. What do others think? Rosemary Amey 17:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't talk anywhere about the issue of pets anywhere. That alone might warrant a small paragraph. Idleguy 06:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree 70.74.162.9 ( talk) 02:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia guidelines, footnotes should be placed immediately after punctuation, without a space. Could someone please reformat how this article's many footnotes are formatted? Patiwat 08:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
AR, can you say what "moral intuition is superior, and that it can be dissuaded with facts" means? Do you mean dissuaded by? Superior to what? Also, what are "considerational differences," and does Posner use that term? And what does Posner mean by "soft utilitarianism." What you wrote is not soft utilitarianism, or indeed any other kind. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The Posner section seems too drawn out. Mention of the existence of the debate with a link would suffice. Rbogle 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
But, I do hope that many people take the time to read it. Singer's brilliant. Rbogle 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL!! Thanks, LZ. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this link:
Why was this deleted? It looked good to be. -- Bhuston 21:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The article is totally eurocentric. Animal rights have been accepted and recognised in east far more than west in past and present. From the discussion, I can see there was an attempt to remove this bias, but was summarily dismissed presumably by a bunch of arrogant westerners. If you want an article on 'Modern western version of animal rights' create a separate article. I am going ahead and expanding this one. Stanu 15:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody know what these people think on the fact that animals are perfectly content with their normal lives killing and eating other animals in the wild with no human rights? Or what about the fact that animals have never spoken for themselves on the issue? No really, if animals are indeed, people, shouldn't they be able to speak their opinion? Maybe a section on "Contradictions to the Natural World" or something like that.-- DeadGuy 05:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the unsourced statement claiming that Charles Patterson was "George W. Bush's speech writer". Is the author confusing Patterson w/Matthew Scully? -- Bill Huston (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 8#Template:Pet Species. Please keep the discussion to the encyclopedic merits of the template, not ideology. — coelacan talk — 15:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This section has POV problems. Much of the history deals with the history of human empathy toward animals and the history of human observation of animals' behavior. It does not apply to the narrow concept of animal rights and reads like a persuesive argument. I suggest that this be corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trilobitealive ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC). Trilobitealive 02:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
OK one more time. If this were a subject which is concrete then possibly factual references back and forth between encyclopedias might be appropriate. But if a subject is predominantly a secondary abstraction then recursive references take on a quality of overabstraction. (Basically it doesn't work to support an assertion of opinion by citing another encyclopedist's editorial opinion.) It is purely POV until proven otherwise. The other paragraph cites a Wikipedia article which does not substantiate the assertion. Neither does the original Rousseau source does not substantiate your assertion.
One can read a lot into things if they have a strong POV but we're editing an encyclopedia article here and not trying to construct a history which doesn't exist. Trilobitealive 00:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Trilobitealive 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd be willing to work with you to clear some of that up, Tribobite, or do it myself but that might not address the concern. I've also noticed some rather serious issues with content in this article which discusses philisophical positions of various people and was planning on cleaning it up.-- C.lettinga 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, perhaps it would help if I broke this down into parts. If you want I can continue to explain a little bit along over time until my points become clearer or I can take it in whatever order you like. Here is one support for my apprehensions regarding use of Encyclopedia Brittanica: It is a quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources Tertiary—Summarized material drawn from secondary sources, as in general encyclopedias. These sources generally lack adequate coverage of the topic to be considered comprehensive where arguments are subtle and nuanced. They generally do not discuss and evaluate alternative interpretations. Trilobitealive 02:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
(forgot to sign and the bot got me!) Trilobitealive 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
While I agree the quality of references is improved the POV dispute remains. Please don't delete my flag without cause. You will also see I added some information from the mainstream human rights organization Southern Poverty Law Center to the introduction. I would hope this doesn't disappear into a footnote as some of the mitigating info regarding Pythagoras has done. Regards Trilobitealive 15:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Looking over this page carefully for the first time, it seems that, in particular, Cohen's position is not represented particularly well. Additionally, is there some sort of rationale for including strict utilitarian/Regan's specific rights view/an abolitionist view and not some others? There are other, "softer" utilitarians who hold an animal rights position, "rights" folks who have markedly different conceptualizations of rights, and consequentialists who also are in favor of animal rights, at least if Singer can be said to be in support of "rights." I don't think we ought to include every little neuance, but perhaps major streams of thought might be worthwhile. Just wondering what's been happening; particularly since this is an area that I'm currently working in.-- C.lettinga 23:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Please leave material, like that from the Southern Poverty Law Center, out of this article and place it instead in the Animal Liberation Movement article. This is just about the concept of AR. If we do both here, it'll be too long. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Do not change again that "The 20th century debate about animal rights can be traced back to the earliest philosophers." It is sourced and it is accurate. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
"The animal-rights debate, much like the abortion debate, is complicated by the difficulty of establishing clear-cut distinctions on which to base moral and political judgements. The default human/non-human animal relationship is deeply rooted in prehistory and tradition but arguments for animal rights are flawed by the basic human inability to understand the subjective state of animals in question. [30]" The citation for this claim does not seem to support it. The final paragraph in the paper explains that given the difficulty in reading animals' minds that the precautionary principle should be more central to the discussion of rights than most people take it to be. This paper is clearly NOT a claim that arguments for animals' rights are uniformily flawed. (I wonder whether the author of the paragraph actually read the paper they cited?) Also of interest is another paper by one of the authors. See: "Moral rights and human culture" [12] Rbogle 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the following from the history section:
In Nazi Germany, one of the first acts of the new regime was to enact animal protection laws, ( Animal Rights in the Third Reich Kaltio, Aslak Aikio February 2003, 1933 Law on Animal Protection, World Future Fund) although they continued to allow research on animals; Roberta Kalechofsky cites The Lancet, which reviewed the Nazis' anti- vivisection legislation and concluded that it was no different from the 1875 British law, which restricted but did not eliminate animal testing. (Kalechofsky, Roberta. Nazis and Animal Research, Micah Publications)
This was inserted into the history section for the purpose of equating animal rights with Nazism. It seems absurd, particularly as the Nazi anti-vivisection legislation was the same as the British legislation of 1875. Does anyone object to its removal? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Object. If the Nazis are one of the first to enact animal protection rights, then the information should be included. You shouldn't censor Wikipedia like what you did there. The paragraph in no way states animal rights is Nazism. That paragraph seems well supported as well.-- 141.213.198.142 04:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I also Object,
Therefore I have modified and reinserted the paragraph, minus the text from Micahbooks until the information can be sourced directly to the relevant Lancet article, if it indeed actually exists.-- Stor stark7 Talk 21:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Plants, like animals, don't want to be killed for their lands and nutrients. Shouldn't there be an article on Plant rights? For example, it will forbid the removal of trees from lands for houses when apartments could be built to house more people. People who love life and support animal rights but neglect plants are hypocrites. Protect trees and plants! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 ( talk) 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
There should also be an article on Plant welfare for those who believe plants can be cleared from lands for housing, and for other good intentions such as removal of invasive plant species, but unnecessary removal or damage to single plants or plant parts for aesthetic values such as mowing the lawn or removal of weeds on sidewalks should be forbidden.-- 141.213.198.142 04:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced the anti-environemntalist description of Robert Bidinotto with his job, writer. I want to make it clear that I am not advocating his opinions or beliefs, but in general this kind of editing is exactly what WP:NPOV is supposed to address:
Fairness of tone
If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone.
When the label of anti-environmentalist is applied to a person, it essentially says "don't listen to him/her they hate the environment."
This article makes it seem as if there are only two options; treat animals as equals or treat animals as the Nazi's did people.
Respectfully, I can't agree with all of the ideas of the Animal Rights movement because animals won't acknowledge any policy (they can't) and if I emancipatd my dog I'd have to open the front door and let him roam as he pleased probably never to return. If I had a dog like a Pit Bull there would also be the possibility of someone getting hurt or killed by my former dog. However I think that there is a lot that could be done to improve animal rights in a more reasonable way. Therefore I feel there is midle ground here, so I'm just saying that we should acknowledge that there are more than two ways to see this. For the basic sake of fairness, let's not use labels like anti-environmentalist (or terms like tree hugger for those inclined the other way). Anynobody 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It might be useful to bring more consistent terminology into this article. Sometimes the term "animal" is used to refer to all animals (Kingdom: Animalia), while other times it's used to refer to all animals except humans. Perhaps the former is more scientifically accurate, and can be defined in the intro as such, and then when specifically referring to all other animals species except humans, use the term "non-human animals". The term or "other species" should refer to all living things, not just animals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.178.143 ( talk • contribs) 2007-04-04 15:41:45 (UTC).
1. I think that it is odd that you have a section called "animal rights and the Holocaust," without mentioning that the Nazis were known for their pro-Animal Rights stand.
2. The article should include discussion of the latest controversy [14]. -- Mr Keck 14:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I've seen a few complaints/suggestions about a Western bias in this article.
Maybe there should be info. about Buddhism and Sikhism in relation to animal rights? I know that, for instance, no Buddhist text may explicitly talk about autonomy or "duties", etc, and though these are some of the Western ideas in support of/against animal rights that lead up to the modern movement, there are non-Western ideas, religions, etc that support animal rights without using the Western reasons. Is this relevant to the article?
Maybe just links to the Buddhism and Vegetarianism page, etc? Faunablues 02:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
and chapter four is on animal rights: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EXwHkQJQ5ecC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR9&dq=%22animal+rights%22+buddhism&ots=G586ZRMR9B&sig=JwLxB3hvwBCkCRCfBUVNPMuQpIE#PRA1-PA81,M1 It seems like, based on the different sects of Buddhism, some would support animal welfare as an interpretation of ahimsa, whereas others would see it as prohibiting the use of animals. Or at least that's similar to what I read in another wikipedia article... Faunablues 06:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
reference # 8 someone please check for more didn't know where else to put this -- 70.68.43.50 04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The Animal rights and the Holocaust section is dominated by information from the work of Charles Patterson, but no credentials are presented, although we can deduce he wrote a book. Likewise, no evidence is presented that the book is the most noteworthy statement on this topic, although it is strongly implied because of its dominance in the section. Wearing my editor's hat, the section seems weak because it is assumes to be authoritative without providing the reader with concrete reasons why it is so.
My suggestion is to replace the whole section with the lead material from Animal rights and the Holocaust. The lead section should be a good summary of the topic and it is currently well referenced. If that lead section isn't quite right as it stands, it can be updated before copying it here. Typically this is a step I would be bold about and do, but this article is a bit more sensitive to changes than some others! What do other editors think? Burlywood 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week is this coming week (April 22nd - 28th, 2007), so we can probably expect extra visitors on this and associated pages. Lets be vigilant, people. Rockpocke t 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that animals should live as it is nature. when the fox kills a chicken we should look foward to seeing new chick at easter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.151.203 ( talk) 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
I have applied {{fact}} to the statement about "Critics of the concept of animal rights argue that animals do not have the capacity to enter into a social contract or make moral choices". The reason for this is, that I'm unable to find any proof of that in the source given. Besides, Tom Regan is not a critic of the concept, but a major supporter? Can somebody please enlighten me as to where in the source it says that about the critics? -- Lhademmor 12:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add to the Animal rights Organisation List, the group Voiceless (see http://www.voiceless.org.au), but as the page is semiprotected how can I do that?
Would it do the article good if the History-section had more subsections? Give it a couple of headings so it's not a long, pure text. -- Lhademmor 14:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policy requires that the citations be from a neutral source, not an advocacy group. Citations from such sources need to be removed to meet policy standards. Important statements without a supporting reference are original research and need be removed until properly referenced. Some references are borderline and there is no official guideline that quite meets the need for these. My personal guideline is if there is discussion of both povs (when there are more than one). Articles that make the case for any pov are not good references because they have a diferent purpose. Raggz 18:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the caption for the leading image was not objective. I read the source cited, which was an advocacy group, and clearly original research. The statement The animal was kept hungry so that visitors could feed him live eels from a ladle. is neither objective nor proven in the source article.
I changed the POV part of the caption of the leading image from The animal was kept hungry so that visitors could feed him live eels from a ladle. to The photographers expressed concern that the animal must have been hungry and noted that visitors fed him live eels from a ladle. but SlimVirgin reverted it.
My effort to improve the objectivity was well-intentioned, but now realize that I failed the Wikipedia standard on original research. I am therefore about to remove the POV sentence and link entirely in order to comply with Wikipedia standards. If anyone wants to improve the caption, it should be in a manner that adheres to the Wikipedia policy prohibiting original research.
Although irrelevant to the violation of original research, I will mention FYI that there is no proof presented in the source that the civet was kept hungry so visitors could feed it. The evidence presented claimed that visitors were feeding it, which the photographer could reasonably have observed. However, the site does not say how long the animal was observed, nor how many visitors were feeding it, so even if it were not original research, the original caption is unproven. JD Lambert 01:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have come across a number of videos regarding US food industry castrating cattles on a large scale with no anesthetic medication. Basically these animals have their testicles ripped out with maximum pain on an extremely massive scale. Most would consider this animal abuse certainly if it was done on dogs or cats. Is there anything that can help cattles masturbate to control their aggression? Maybe a machine or a tool? GodBwithU 13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Entire bulls are very dangerous - to each other and people. Castration reduces their aggression and unpredictability. If two or more bulls are kept together there are no problems with intraspecific violence, although they will attack people occasionally. The problem is when there are 2+bulls AND cows - the bulls will fight over the cows, injuring or killing each other. Unlike most carnivores (e.g. wolves) herbivores like cattle have very few inhibitions about doing injury to each other. If you gave them enough space (like, say 1000 sq km) there would be LESS fighting, but not much, as all the bulls of a similar size would fight for dominance. The problem is avoided without castration in one of 2 ways: keep the animals in same-sex groups, and accept the increased risk to the handlers, or kill the male calves at birth. Neither of these is ideal, to say the least. That said, there is no reason to castrate calves without anaesthetic - my experience is that apart from anything else, its too bloody dangerous NOT to use anaesthetic - a colleague of mine nearly lost a finger when a student's knife slipped because the calf kicked at the wrong time! Oh, and masturbation wouldn't really help matter either - increased sexual activity usually increases aggression in animals like bulls and stallions. Dlh-stablelights 08:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with SlimVirgin that Sam Harris should be referred to as neuroscientist, not author. Both are correct, but for citing his expertise on the topic being quoted, neuroscientist is more appropriate. Mr. Harris is working on a doctorate in neuroscience, as SlimVirgin previously noted, which means he already has to have an authoritative level knowledge in the field. I hope no one thinks a person cannot be an authority without already having a doctorate... JD Lambert 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Mea culpa on the masters -- you're right, that was a reviewer. However, now I'm even more puzzled. The bio on samharris.org doesn't list a masters at all. Does he have a masters? If not, how did he get into a doctoral program? If he is still in it, and began in 2001, is he all-but-discertation (ABD)? I think the average limit for doctoral programs is 7 years. BTW, it was UCLA I phoned, I just referred to it as U of C because they have lots more campuses than just in LA. He could be enrolled under his middle name or something though, and I can certainly understand not wanting to be easy to find if you've published something some people might want to kill you for. :( Not getting confirmation on his enrollment and status doesn't bother me as much as finding nothing other than probably being a student to indicate an expertise in neuroscience. JD Lambert( T| C) 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, please do not revert my edit, which removed the fixed image sizes, because you claim the images are too small. You likely have a large monitor to view the images and that is why they look small, if you are viewing this article on a computer with a small display, the images without any fixed size are not too small and the images with the sizes fixed (your edit) are way too large. Please read WP:MOS, which states:
Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: On images with extreme aspect ratios. When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts. When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region. On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.
Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.
— Christopher Mann McKay user talk 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, please do not remove clean-up tags. You stated in your edit summary (when you removed the clean-up tag): "it has 53 footnotes; by all means add more if you want to, but pls don't disfigure the page." I reason I inserted Template:nofootnote is because the references section lists 21 references, and as the template says, "sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations;" just because there are already a large amount of footnotes, does not mean this clean-up tag should be removed as 21 references are still not used in footnotes. This clean-up tag is made so people will use <ref> tags instead of listing references at the end of the article. Removing a clean-up tag without proper reason is not constructive. — Christopher Mann McKay user talk 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there a userbox or Wikiproject for this subject? Someone message me on my usertalkpage please. - Pat Peter 04:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
This article completely conflates the concept of Animal rights with the Animal liberation movement - to the point that the two articles are often very redundant to each other. The first sentence of this article is "Animal rights... is the movement to protect non-human animals from being used or regarded as property by humans." There's no cite given for that, and it's wrong: "Animal rights" is not a movement at all. It's a concept. I'll see what I can do to fix it. -- Hyperbole 04:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
http://calbears.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3852/is_200601/ai_n17181360
for some reason, the page is not editable to me and I leave it with you guys
Is animal rights propaganda. It does not show what 'Animal rights' is. -- 192.28.2.6 15:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
In 2001 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (U.S.) reported in a testimony before [Congress] < http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/freeh051001.htm> that the Animal Liberation Front - an extremist group partially financed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - was considered to be the most dangerous domestic terrorist organization known. This was even before the word terrorist became sexy. Why no mention of it? I thought, for the most part, that the article was pretty well done, but balance requires the mention of what some may say is the dirty laundry of the Animal Rights Movement.-- Dentate 12:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
According to adherents.com, Animal Rights is a religion. Quote: "AR is a religion, but for the majority of Animal Rights supporters, AR functions as a movement and/or lifestyle choice, not their primary religion." Thoughts? Syneil 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the reference that is provided for this comment: <Mameli and Bortolotti argue that animal rights are questionable because humans cannot understand the subjective state of animals.< Their conclusion would be equally true for saying that "electricity is questionable because humans cannot understand it" or nuclear fission or all sorts of other "incomprehensible" things in our world. Basically, it seems that they are saying if we can't understand something, it doesn't exist. While it's fine acknowledging this as a philosophy, I'm not sure that it adequately replaces content that was removed. Bob98133 14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The article fails to state that most people believe animals don't have any rights at all. Should the article not disciuss this viewpoint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.9.52 ( talk) 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI, here is a 2003 summary of a Gallup Poll:
Poll finds Americans cool toward animal rights Animal rights activists have their work cut out for them. A Gallup poll testing public reaction to several animal rights goals found that most Americans aren't willing to fundamentally change their views about animals.
Conducted May 5-7, the Gallup survey of 1,005 adults discovered that a majority—71 percent—believe animals are entitled to some protections from harm and exploitation. But just 25 percent think that animals deserve the same rights as people.
In addition, most of those surveyed opposed banning all product testing or medical research on laboratory animals or prohibiting all types of hunting. There was, however, substantial support—62 percent—for passing stricter laws regulating the treatment of farm animals.
Bernard E. Rollin, PhD, a professor of philosophy and biomedical sciences at Colorado State University, says increased federal regulation of the biomedical research industry has assuaged public concerns about laboratory animal abuse. "Now," Dr. Rollin observed, "people are asking for agricultural protections."
Interestingly, of the 25 percent who say that animals deserve the same rights as people, many nevertheless objected to limitations on animal use. For instance, 48 percent reject the notion of banning medical research on animals; 38 percent oppose prohibitions on testing products on animals; 23 percent don't support greater regulation of farm animals; and more than half oppose banning all types of hunting.
The poll also found that women are more likely than men to support animal rights, and Democrats more likely than Republicans, but there are few differences by age. 66.120.181.218 ( talk) 04:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
African wild dogs disembowel their prey and leave it to die. Where were the rights of that prey animal? Where are the activists trying to make the african wild dogs go vegetarian? Oh, and humans are animals to. What about all the people that got bitten by sharks when they were doing their own business swimming around? Dont they have a right not to be bitten by a shark? T.Neo ( talk) 08:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I quote from the article:
The comparison has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.[50][49] Roberta Kalechofsky of Jews for Animal Rights argues that, although there is "connective tissue" between animal suffering and the Holocaust, they "fall into different historical frameworks, and comparison between them aborts the ... force of anti-Semitism.[51]
My question is about the redacted Kalechofsky quote. It seems to be logically inverted, with a probable missing negation. Does anyone have the original full quote, or the actual book it comes from? There is also no page number in the reference. Crum375 ( talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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 | → | Archive 7 |
On controversy for Animal Rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.69.101 ( talk) 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
As a newcomer to this article, I have to say the whole thing has a very misleading tone to it. Essentially, it paints a picture of Animal Rights being far more common and accepted a view by the mainstream than they in fact are. Assigning moral rights (as opposed to mere welfare) to animals is an extreme position, advocated by a tiny proportion of philosophers and indeed the public in general. Someone reading this article from a position of naivity would be persuaded that animals have rights, and that the consensus is that medical animal testing is akin to the holocaust. The whole article needs a rewrite, and in particular, how the paragraph on the holocaust got past the more senior edittors is beyond me 86.3.34.97 10:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I heartily agree. The article is deceptive from the outset; the very first sentence (which quotes the second source) is just plain wrong when compared to the cited source; saying that all members of the animal rights movement feel that animals should have the same rights as humans is not the same as saying that animals should have some basic rights. Additionally, the third source in the article equates "Animal rights advocates" (as the article refers to them) with official PETA statements (check the source; the source refers to PETA, not animal rights advocates in general); PETA is a relatively extreme arm of the animal rights movement (both in policies and in tactics) and to equate PETA with the animal rights movement as a whole is grossly inaccurate. Needs work.
I also agree 70.74.162.9 ( talk) 02:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Kudos It is deplorable to bring animals into the sphere of humans in philosophical terms. They have noble uses: as companions, food sources, ecological food web links. The thought of attributing my dog a soul or purchasing auto insurance policies to further enslave me economically is where I get off the PETA crazy train. I have a neighbor who had a funeral for his cat. $3,000 bucks! What an idiot. Bobosthecatlover ( talk) 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not clear below who is saying what. The first sentence says that Kathleen Kete argued something, but then we cite Arluke and Sax. Which part exactly is being attributed to Kete, and which to the others?
Also "Composer Richard Wagner urges attacks on laboratories and physical assault on vivisectionists, whom he associated with Jews — presumably because of kosher killing methods. [1]
Who is the source of "presumably," and do they use that word? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Alexander Cockburn uses the word in this article published in New Left Review [1]. Farnsworth J 00:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
See [2]
If animal rights activists are known to campaign against the practise then it has everything to do with animal rights. Farnsworth J 02:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Then rewrite it but please don't remove it since it's clear that animal rights activists have protested against shechita in Europe and America. Here is another source "Observant Jews should only eat meat or poultry that has been killed in the approved way, called shechita. This method of killing is often attacked by animal rights activists as barbaric blood-thirsty ritual slaughter." [3]
"The Farm Animal Welfare Council in England is scheduled to present a report in June to the British government recommending that all animals be stunned before being slaughtered. Jewish authorities unanimously stated that this is unacceptable. In fact a group of Jewish leaders walked out of a meeting with the FAWC in March when discussions broke down." [4]
"German animal rights groups, the German Animal Protection League and the Union Against Abuse of Animals, maligned the ruling permitting halal slaughter and said that they would continue their quest for a European ban on all forms of ritual slaughter which they consider cruel to animals. They vowed to take their campaign across Europe and to the European Union." [5] Farnsworth J 02:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you reverted me since I did what you asked, I rewrote the "plagiarized" sentence on Richard Wagner and I've given you citations to show that schechita is something animal rights activists talk about. Can you please write something about schehita based on the above sources? Farnsworth J 02:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should ask animal rights groups and activists why they campaign against ritual slaughter? Why do you think the German Animal Protection League and the Union Against Abuse of Animals are campaigning to ban all ritual slaughter in Europe? Xenophobia? A belief that foreigners and their practices are barbaric? A belief that the religious practices of others can easily be "updated"? A belief that animal rights trump those of ethnic minorities? Or that banning some forms of slaughter can help move society, step by step, to an ultimate total ban? Or just that ritual slaughter is cruel and even if we cannot ban slaughter altogether we can at least make it more humane?
It is quite clear that animal rights activists have much to do with the banning of ritual slaughter in several countries since they urged such a ban and the section on animal rights and anti-semitism says some interesting theoretical points about the intersection of animal rights and racism so it has everything to do with animal rights activists and, historically, with at least one school of animal rights thought, the far right nazi school.
As for your third question there is, I believe, some link between far-right anti-immigrant activism and some militant animal rights activists, those in the "deep ecology" and human population reduction movements. I could write something about that if you like. I don't think there is enough on wikipedia (hardly anything, really) about animal rights and fascist/far right thought - instead there's an emphasis on the animal rights movement as warm and fuzzy idealists. That element of fascist thought that is anti-modernist, anti-industrialist and harkens back to a medeaval pastoralism is a major influence in the animal rights movement and animal rights thought and was, some would say, the dominant strain until just a few decades ago. Farnsworth J 04:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no information on fascist theories of animal rights in the article?
There is quite a lot of literature on fascist theory and animal rights. See for instance
This is an important area that our articles completely ignore. Instead of being hostile I would hope that you would welcome the addition of aspects of the topic that have been completely absent up until now. Farnsworth J 05:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Your full question was "2) What does the banning of ritual slaughter by some govts have to do with the concept of animal rights (or even animal rights activists)?" I've already answered it several times, numerous animal rights activists and groups have advocated the banning of ritual slaughter thus animal rights activists have everything to do with the ban. If you want to know what the ban has to do with animal rights you'd be best to ask the groups what their motivations were. I've provided some ideas on that question already. Farnsworth J 05:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to ask the question for a fifth time. This time I will split it into two parts so you can address both:
1) What does the banning of ritual slaughter by some European govts have to do with the concept of animal rights, which is the subject matter of this article?
2) Why do you believe that animal rights activists had anything to do with the European bans, given that European govts routinely and steadfastly ignore the animal rights movement? Please provide a source showing the connection between the movement and the bans.
And the other question again (third time I've asked this one):
3) Are you going to write a section on everything the animal rights movement campaigns against? If not, why not? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
1) If the banning of ritual slaughter has nothing to do with the "concept of animal rights" why do various animal rights groups campaign against it [6]? I've asked you this several times, you've yet to provide an answer. It's quite obvious that some of them are campaigning on this question because they are trying to reduce the perceived harm to animals. However, given the aformentioned evidence of fascists in the animal rights movement there may be some ulterior motives.
2) "Switzerland's government recently abandoned a proposed law that would have legalized ritual animal sacrifice.
"Ritual animal slaughter has been illegal in Switzerland since 1893. The change in the law was supported by Jewish and Muslim leaders who expressed disappointment at the abandonment of the law.
"The government's about face came after animal rights activists began campaigning against the law earlier this year". "Bill legalising ritual animal sacrifice." Luke Coppen, The Times (London), March 16, 2002.
3) I don't know yet, is this a requirement? Farnsworth J 17:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
And if you actually read the passage you're autonomically reverting you'll see that some time ago I added a reference and citation for animal rights groups being involved in the bans in response to your objection. Farnsworth J 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, do you intend to add anything about the history of fascism and animal rights in the 'History of the concept' section of the article? If not, why not? Farnsworth J 17:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"Slim's questions are valid and serve a purpose." Repeating the same questions over and over again after they've been answered seves no purpose. The first line of the article makes it clear that it is about the animal rights movement as well as theory but SlimVirgin is overlooking that so she can dismiss all references to animal rights groups campaigning against ritual slaughter. She's playing a game and it's gotten tiresome. Farnsworth J 18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to remind people again that this article is note solely on the "concept of animal rights" but on the animal rights movement. The first sentence of the article reads "Animal rights, animal liberation, or animal personhood, is the movement to protect animals from being used or regarded as property by human beings." Therefore discussion the relationship between the movement and anti-Semitism, xenophobia, fascism etc is within the purview of the article as long as the information is sourced. Since this information is sourced there is no acceptable reason to conintually remove it from the article and I ask that this behaviour cease. That the animal rights movement, or parts of it, campaigned against ritual slaughter has been demonstrated quite clearly so it should not be removed even if there is a personal POV that the ritual slaughter question is outside of AR. Farnsworth J 21:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Absent from this article is any discussion of the conflict between the animal rights movement and the rights of indigenous peoples to continue traditional hunting and trapping practises. This dovetails into the perceived intolerance of animal rights theory for the rights of religious and ethnic minorities ie the cultural eurocentrism of AR. Farnsworth J 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I shortened the lead section a little as it was getting a bit top heavy (my fault). I'll find somewhere else in the article to put the material. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I edited in the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights, and was (rightfully) reverted by SlimVirgin. However, I do think that the distinction needs to made fairly early on and I would do it myself but it would seem that Slim is currently working on that. Just in case SlimVirgin finished editing the intro, I still think it's a little top heavy, in case not: Sorry, just pointin' out the obvious. Angrynight 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears we're in agreement, then. Angrynight 01:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Farnsworth, are you going to create a separate section on each thing the AR movement campaigns for? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No, see my earlier comments above. Farnsworth J 05:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The recent addition about ritual slaughter is far too specific for a general article, especially one that's already way too long, and especially because that particular campaign is not nearly the most important AR campaign of all the ones that could be included, not by a longshot. I suggest that that material be moved to another, separate article. - MichaelBluejay 07:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There are several sources linking fascism and the animal rights movement, not just one as SV claimed.
Also, look at Ecofascism and its sources. Farnsworth J 16:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not it is the POV of some contributors here that bans on ritual slaughter refer to "animal welfare" rather than "animal rights" the sources provided in the section refer to "animal rights". Farnsworth J 16:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
From Ambiguities of Animal Rights by Peter Staudenmaier Farnsworth J 02:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be legitimate to mention in the civil rights article that Communists were involved in the movement. NPOV would mean, however, that this fact not be given disproportionate weight and that the article not imply that all civil rights activists were Communists or that the Communists enjoyed a level of control over the movement that they, in fact, did not have but were simply one element among many in the movement. In the same vein it is not legitimate to censor the role of fascism in the animal rights movement in the 1930s or today though mentions of such should not distort the role.
As for poisoning the well, please consider the definition of the concept as "adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say", the operative word remains "pre-emptively". Farnsworth J 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the views of other cultures have been totally ignored in this article and this may be because users do not want to accept views of others outside their culture and religion and would like to remain in their predetermined states. I have added the views of Sikhism to the article and these have been reverted without discussion, which I feel is probably due to a prejudice against views of other cultures on this matter. I have posted detailed questions to the user who reverted these views without any details discussion and I awaits answers to the queries listed below. I would ask other users to consider the points list below and give their views as may be I am missing something here. Your help would be most appreciated.
To User:xxx "You have reverted my contribution to the above article without any discussion. So I have to assume that there was something grossly wrong with my entry. Naturally, as a long term (over 2.5 years) and avid contributor (Sikhi section) of this site, I would appreciate more details of why you have reverted my contributions to the above article, especially without any discussion. A bland pointer to various tags is of little help. It would help if you give a little more details and examples so that changes can be made. A frank and open approach would be appreciated. I don't have any emotional axe to grind but I feel that this point is a valid one to make. What do religions have to say about this right? I have made contributions to many other rights – like women rights, rights of other to worship, right to wear turban, etc. Aren't the view of others important to this site? or do you wish to just promote "your" perceived view only. I believe that by adding my contribution, we achieve a better global view of what various cultures have to say about this issue and do not restrict it to a "western" view only – I could say that you have made the article biased to a POV.
OR: I do not believe that this is Original research as various quotations from a text almost 500 years old are given to support the views. All these facts can be found on the internet. What is original in this section – please elaborate so that I can show you that it has existed for 100's of years. It may be "new" to you but its not new to the world and so it is not OR.
NPOV: The article is factual and is not a personal POV. You can only violate this rule if you state a personal POV. What I have stated, I believe are the facts in a religious documents many 100's of years old – I am only highlighting a POV of this existing text – I have not added my POV. So where does the POV issue come in. Please enlighten.
NOT: How is anything here a violation of these rules. Which section has been violated? Please give details.
I believe that you have been very unfair and are taking a very "narrow" view of the issues and are "stuck" in your predetermined attitudes to this subject matter. I would appreciate a honest and detailed discussion of the reason for your action.
Further, aren't the views of Sikhism (fifth biggest organised religion) important to articles on this site. Or are you only interested in the narrow view of the west and a view-point that suits you in the west? I hope this action is not based on a prejudice against other cultures and their views? If it is not, then I expect a detailed reply to my query.
I have been contributing to various wikis for several years (and am an administrator at one) and have authored 1000's of articles - the first on Wikipedia on 11 March 2004, a little longer than you have and I have OR and NPOV marked as links on my user page as I thought I would study them regularly. You help and explanation would be much appreciated. Many thanks." Many thanks for your help. -- Hari Singh 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that anyone person has a monopoly on the content of this article or any other article. The article is simply entitled "animal rights" and anything relevant to do with this subject matter can be added to the article as long as it conforms to the rules of Wikipedia. The header states that "This article is about the concept or philosophy of animal rights" and not as you state to do with animals as "having rights as individuals" and having the "same consideration as those of human beings". Which countries provide these rights and how is this reflected in the title?
In many eastern cultures, animals are given certain rights. Whether these are individual or group rights is something that can be narrated in the article. Sikhism is a religion not a state or nation – It provides individuals with spiritual and moral guidance and does not set legal laws or enforces them. It is like saying that Christianity can set laws and prosecute them as well. I think you fail to grasp the difference between a religion and a state and the fact that this has no relevance to the issue of rights. In other issues of rights, for example, Guru Nanak was a proponent of Women's rights and this fact features on this subject and is an important fact that needs to promoted and should feature on all modern encyclopaedias.
There is a section on "Abolitionist view" - does this culture give a "rights as individuals, which they believe should be enforceable in law" to animal? – If they don't then why, in your opinion is this section in this article. Do all the other sections conform to your strict requirements outline above? If not, then they need to be removed.
Further, I made several small changes to the top of the article which I believe that you have unfairly removed. I list these below. Could you please give reasons why these have been removed as well:
The history of animal rights is said to stretch back to before 450BC [5] and the time of Empedocles of Acagras in Sicily, c. (492-432 BC) [6] who was a philosopher and poet.
The rights of animals have been given consideration by various cultures and religion over many centuries. Various ancient rulers have also stipulated certain rights for animals. Emperor Ashoka (304 BC–232 BC) who was ruler of India proclaimed these regarding animals in his various edicts that "no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice" [7] and in Edict 11 that ".. kindness to living beings should be made strong and the truth should be spoken" and finally "The Dhamma regulations I have given are that various animals must be protected." [8]
I believe that this matter is not being dealt with fairly and that a narrow restricted POV is being propagated. I will gather more research before I return to deal with this matter. In the meantime I ask for your reply to the question posed here. Many thanks -- Hari Singh 05:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The issues outlined are not original research as all the facts that have been mentioned are recorded and these are confirmed historical facts. OR is when new material is introduced for the first time. The facts quoted are not "new material". Whether a holy book supports or opposes a view is rigidly set and is a fact – It is not original research.
If you look at my userpage you will notice that I have WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V hyperlinked – so I am very familiar with these pages – I do not need to review them. The rules say: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources". I have cited many sources which you can easily check on the net as they are very widely mentioned and verifiable. Could you please give me examples of OR in the section that I wrote?
Also the rules say: "All articles in Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." The information given by me is a secondary source as it is presented in a coherent and independent form. The quote make the point without any input from me. A primary source would be a photo or a field observation and I would have to explain what this primary source proved, etc. A secondary source does not require input from the writer. Please explain how you refer to my work based on these historical facts as OR? Please give quotes from the rules to support your assertions.
The concept of AR is not new. The rights of animals have been referred to for thousands of years – They did not have a label for them and these rights were simply referred in the ancient texts without a particular label – we have now invented a label for this right – that does not mean that this right was not recognised and practiced by our ancestors. Eg: King Ashoka ("KA") declared in about 250BC that: ""No living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice" (The Fourteen Rock Edicts, 1) That gives all animals a right to live; also "….(KA has ) , made provision for two types of medical treatment: medical treatment for humans and medical treatment for animals." Gives animals the right to medical treatment when ill. How can you say that AR is a new thing when these rights were given to animals by a very powerful Buddhist ruler over 200 years before Christ? And they are widely documented!!
I am not referring to animal welfare and how to look after animals – I am referring to the rights, liberties and the sort of treatments that was approved for the animals. If the state says that "Prisoners cannot be tortured" – that gives a right to the prisoners of non-torture. The rights of animals can be stated in various ways and it does not have to be a legal way only.
"The fundamental principle of the AR is that nonhuman animals deserve to live according to their own natures, free from harm, abuse, and exploitation." – So any text legal, religious or otherwise that has a bearing on the points mentioned here gives rise to the creation of a right or to an abolition of a right.
You have failed to address the various points outlined before – I will be much obliged if you could properly address all the queries that I have put forward now and before. Your detailed reply would be most appreciated even if it takes more time. I hope you have noticed that I have dealt with each point that you have made in great depth while most of your replies are just a short paragraph. I would appreciate if you could address the points I make with care and due consideration which I hope you will agree they deserve in light of the amount of time and energy that I have expended. Many thanks. -- Hari Singh 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Hari, I'm not sure Slim would agree with me, but my take on the article is that it's primarily about the modern animal rights movement, and the history section provides a background for the modern, western movement. I don't believe that Sikhism influenced anyone in the modern movement, or any of the philosophers who influenced the modern movement. (I might be wrong about that -- please show me if I am.) This is not to say that the information you're supplying isn't valuable: I believe there must be a place for it somewhere, perhaps a religious views of animals article, or some such.
We just can't put in every statement made about anything that could be construed as relating to the rights of animals throughout history into this article: it would be way too long if we did. We just had this discussion recently with someone who wanted to put in some Catholic stuff about animals. It was interesting, but not germane. It really feels to me like an article on religion and animals might be the way to go (if it's not been done already). IronDuke 15:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This article needs a criticism section, because criticism of animal rights is very common and relevant. Can somebody add this please? -- 216.164.193.1 18:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone has added that Julian H. Franklin's book is "ground-breaking." It's a Kantian analysis of animal rights and as such I'm sure will be interesting, but does it suggest positions that could be regarded as "ground-breaking"? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the section 'Rights require obligations' really a criticism section? The Criticism section and 'Rights require obligations' should be merged. 70.226.169.147 22:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ultimately, if this were an article about a philosophical position, or a political stance, it would have a criticism section. The article on determinism has arguments against, for example. The article on communism has a criticism section. I was surprised to see that this article does not have one, because this article IS about an ideology, and it's standard on wikipedia to present a summary of the opposing view when detailing an ideology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.183.63 ( talk • contribs) January 17, 2008 20:48 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from, but I don't think there's a strong dividing line between concept and ideology. Isn't an ideology just a collection of strongly held ideas? The idea that the means of production should be held by the state is just a concept, but it's also a central principle of an ideology. The animal rights movement affects legislation and motivates activists in exactly the same way any other ideology does. The whole animal rights article in itself is in the "political movements" catagory, along with the "right to life" and "socialism" articles, both of which have sections for criticism. I don't see why a criticism section also necessitates a praise section if it's in an article which is about a movement -- the article itself is outlining the movement, the criticism section outlines opposition to that movement. For example, the beginning of this article:
"Animal rights, also known as animal liberation, is the idea that the basic interests of non-human animals — for example, the interest in avoiding suffering — should be afforded the same consideration as the basic interests of human beings.[2] Animal rights advocates argue that animals should no longer be regarded as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as legal persons[3] and members of the moral community.[4]"
How exactly would a "praise" section differ from the existing tone of the article? I don't think it would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.218.206 ( talk) 20:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added a 2 column format for our incredibly long references, notes and external links sections. What do people think? It makes the page a little less long.- Localzuk (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
It seems to be the most biased article on English Wikipedia. Almost no criticism (see previous section) about very controversial topic. POVish Image on intro. Dozens of external links to "animal rights supporters groups". -- Haham hanuka 12:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Similar attributions of POVity have recently started sprouting up on several AR-related article talk pages, such as Talk:Ethics of eating meat. I suppose it just means that some people don't like any pro-animal voices to be publicly heard.
There are countless articles on WP that are uniformly POV against animal rights. For example, all the articles about how to chop up this and that variety of animal corpses, such as Chicken (food); which speak about animals as if they were pure commodities, with no mention of the fact that many people think otherwise. Amidst all this anti-animal POV, it is only fair that a page about animal rights should simply explain what AR is, and what our arguments are.
David Olivier 12:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
In support of the OP, the external links section is AR biased. There are links to a site set up in memory of a convicted arsonist, paramilitary organisations and myriad anti-vivisection groups, however few anti AR sites are listed (eg. the research defence society's page is not listed - soon to be rectified) As the purpose of the external links section is to provide further information, not to further an argument, I propose that more of the websites of the opposition are included, and that vandalism of that section, as seems rife (the centre for consumer freedom link has had an anti-CfCF link added - please keep your AR links out of that section) is prevented as much as possible. The above poster misunderstands what wikipedia is about. It is not a forum for argument, nor a recruiting tool for individual causes. You have the right to amend any of the "against animal rights" articles you like to show that there is opposition to those practices. You do not have a right to monopolise a Wikipedia page for your own ends. I will not post on this page again, as non AR views are clearly not welcome. 88.105.181.28 15:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Please can you tell me how I can make one of these:
WikiProject on Animal rights
![]() | This user
participates in WikiProject Animal rights. |
For my project here: Germanic Mysticism, Revivalism and Nazism (but you will need to put {{}} on either side of it to view it)
Thanks,
FK0071a
08:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to have many more links that would be necessary. Considering that Wikipedia is not a directory, do you think it would be a good idea to pare these down a touch?
Kay. As per this discussion, I'm going to cut down on the number of links. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with consistency in the disclaimer at the top that this is about concepts and philosophy, and including criticisms on methods such as the PETA-holocaust controversy, and the sentence from Tony Blair on the silent majority, belong on Animal Liberation Movement or PETA or both but not here. Philosophy is rife with debate on philosophical points, there is plenty of that to go around while staying within appropriate parameters for content. -- Animalresearcher 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the lengthy bit about David Sztybel's criticisms of utilitarianism and the rights based approach should be in its own subsection, rather than as part of the "Rights-based approach" subsection, if it is to be included at all. Since Sztybel is not a big-name animal ethicist in the league of Singer and Regan, should he even be included in this article? After all, there are many other less-well-known animal ethicists who are not mentioned in this article. What do others think? Rosemary Amey 17:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't talk anywhere about the issue of pets anywhere. That alone might warrant a small paragraph. Idleguy 06:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree 70.74.162.9 ( talk) 02:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia guidelines, footnotes should be placed immediately after punctuation, without a space. Could someone please reformat how this article's many footnotes are formatted? Patiwat 08:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
AR, can you say what "moral intuition is superior, and that it can be dissuaded with facts" means? Do you mean dissuaded by? Superior to what? Also, what are "considerational differences," and does Posner use that term? And what does Posner mean by "soft utilitarianism." What you wrote is not soft utilitarianism, or indeed any other kind. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The Posner section seems too drawn out. Mention of the existence of the debate with a link would suffice. Rbogle 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
But, I do hope that many people take the time to read it. Singer's brilliant. Rbogle 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL!! Thanks, LZ. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this link:
Why was this deleted? It looked good to be. -- Bhuston 21:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The article is totally eurocentric. Animal rights have been accepted and recognised in east far more than west in past and present. From the discussion, I can see there was an attempt to remove this bias, but was summarily dismissed presumably by a bunch of arrogant westerners. If you want an article on 'Modern western version of animal rights' create a separate article. I am going ahead and expanding this one. Stanu 15:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody know what these people think on the fact that animals are perfectly content with their normal lives killing and eating other animals in the wild with no human rights? Or what about the fact that animals have never spoken for themselves on the issue? No really, if animals are indeed, people, shouldn't they be able to speak their opinion? Maybe a section on "Contradictions to the Natural World" or something like that.-- DeadGuy 05:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the unsourced statement claiming that Charles Patterson was "George W. Bush's speech writer". Is the author confusing Patterson w/Matthew Scully? -- Bill Huston (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 8#Template:Pet Species. Please keep the discussion to the encyclopedic merits of the template, not ideology. — coelacan talk — 15:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This section has POV problems. Much of the history deals with the history of human empathy toward animals and the history of human observation of animals' behavior. It does not apply to the narrow concept of animal rights and reads like a persuesive argument. I suggest that this be corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trilobitealive ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC). Trilobitealive 02:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
OK one more time. If this were a subject which is concrete then possibly factual references back and forth between encyclopedias might be appropriate. But if a subject is predominantly a secondary abstraction then recursive references take on a quality of overabstraction. (Basically it doesn't work to support an assertion of opinion by citing another encyclopedist's editorial opinion.) It is purely POV until proven otherwise. The other paragraph cites a Wikipedia article which does not substantiate the assertion. Neither does the original Rousseau source does not substantiate your assertion.
One can read a lot into things if they have a strong POV but we're editing an encyclopedia article here and not trying to construct a history which doesn't exist. Trilobitealive 00:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Trilobitealive 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd be willing to work with you to clear some of that up, Tribobite, or do it myself but that might not address the concern. I've also noticed some rather serious issues with content in this article which discusses philisophical positions of various people and was planning on cleaning it up.-- C.lettinga 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, perhaps it would help if I broke this down into parts. If you want I can continue to explain a little bit along over time until my points become clearer or I can take it in whatever order you like. Here is one support for my apprehensions regarding use of Encyclopedia Brittanica: It is a quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources Tertiary—Summarized material drawn from secondary sources, as in general encyclopedias. These sources generally lack adequate coverage of the topic to be considered comprehensive where arguments are subtle and nuanced. They generally do not discuss and evaluate alternative interpretations. Trilobitealive 02:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
(forgot to sign and the bot got me!) Trilobitealive 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
While I agree the quality of references is improved the POV dispute remains. Please don't delete my flag without cause. You will also see I added some information from the mainstream human rights organization Southern Poverty Law Center to the introduction. I would hope this doesn't disappear into a footnote as some of the mitigating info regarding Pythagoras has done. Regards Trilobitealive 15:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Looking over this page carefully for the first time, it seems that, in particular, Cohen's position is not represented particularly well. Additionally, is there some sort of rationale for including strict utilitarian/Regan's specific rights view/an abolitionist view and not some others? There are other, "softer" utilitarians who hold an animal rights position, "rights" folks who have markedly different conceptualizations of rights, and consequentialists who also are in favor of animal rights, at least if Singer can be said to be in support of "rights." I don't think we ought to include every little neuance, but perhaps major streams of thought might be worthwhile. Just wondering what's been happening; particularly since this is an area that I'm currently working in.-- C.lettinga 23:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Please leave material, like that from the Southern Poverty Law Center, out of this article and place it instead in the Animal Liberation Movement article. This is just about the concept of AR. If we do both here, it'll be too long. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Do not change again that "The 20th century debate about animal rights can be traced back to the earliest philosophers." It is sourced and it is accurate. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
"The animal-rights debate, much like the abortion debate, is complicated by the difficulty of establishing clear-cut distinctions on which to base moral and political judgements. The default human/non-human animal relationship is deeply rooted in prehistory and tradition but arguments for animal rights are flawed by the basic human inability to understand the subjective state of animals in question. [30]" The citation for this claim does not seem to support it. The final paragraph in the paper explains that given the difficulty in reading animals' minds that the precautionary principle should be more central to the discussion of rights than most people take it to be. This paper is clearly NOT a claim that arguments for animals' rights are uniformily flawed. (I wonder whether the author of the paragraph actually read the paper they cited?) Also of interest is another paper by one of the authors. See: "Moral rights and human culture" [12] Rbogle 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the following from the history section:
In Nazi Germany, one of the first acts of the new regime was to enact animal protection laws, ( Animal Rights in the Third Reich Kaltio, Aslak Aikio February 2003, 1933 Law on Animal Protection, World Future Fund) although they continued to allow research on animals; Roberta Kalechofsky cites The Lancet, which reviewed the Nazis' anti- vivisection legislation and concluded that it was no different from the 1875 British law, which restricted but did not eliminate animal testing. (Kalechofsky, Roberta. Nazis and Animal Research, Micah Publications)
This was inserted into the history section for the purpose of equating animal rights with Nazism. It seems absurd, particularly as the Nazi anti-vivisection legislation was the same as the British legislation of 1875. Does anyone object to its removal? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Object. If the Nazis are one of the first to enact animal protection rights, then the information should be included. You shouldn't censor Wikipedia like what you did there. The paragraph in no way states animal rights is Nazism. That paragraph seems well supported as well.-- 141.213.198.142 04:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I also Object,
Therefore I have modified and reinserted the paragraph, minus the text from Micahbooks until the information can be sourced directly to the relevant Lancet article, if it indeed actually exists.-- Stor stark7 Talk 21:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Plants, like animals, don't want to be killed for their lands and nutrients. Shouldn't there be an article on Plant rights? For example, it will forbid the removal of trees from lands for houses when apartments could be built to house more people. People who love life and support animal rights but neglect plants are hypocrites. Protect trees and plants! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 ( talk) 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
There should also be an article on Plant welfare for those who believe plants can be cleared from lands for housing, and for other good intentions such as removal of invasive plant species, but unnecessary removal or damage to single plants or plant parts for aesthetic values such as mowing the lawn or removal of weeds on sidewalks should be forbidden.-- 141.213.198.142 04:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced the anti-environemntalist description of Robert Bidinotto with his job, writer. I want to make it clear that I am not advocating his opinions or beliefs, but in general this kind of editing is exactly what WP:NPOV is supposed to address:
Fairness of tone
If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone.
When the label of anti-environmentalist is applied to a person, it essentially says "don't listen to him/her they hate the environment."
This article makes it seem as if there are only two options; treat animals as equals or treat animals as the Nazi's did people.
Respectfully, I can't agree with all of the ideas of the Animal Rights movement because animals won't acknowledge any policy (they can't) and if I emancipatd my dog I'd have to open the front door and let him roam as he pleased probably never to return. If I had a dog like a Pit Bull there would also be the possibility of someone getting hurt or killed by my former dog. However I think that there is a lot that could be done to improve animal rights in a more reasonable way. Therefore I feel there is midle ground here, so I'm just saying that we should acknowledge that there are more than two ways to see this. For the basic sake of fairness, let's not use labels like anti-environmentalist (or terms like tree hugger for those inclined the other way). Anynobody 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It might be useful to bring more consistent terminology into this article. Sometimes the term "animal" is used to refer to all animals (Kingdom: Animalia), while other times it's used to refer to all animals except humans. Perhaps the former is more scientifically accurate, and can be defined in the intro as such, and then when specifically referring to all other animals species except humans, use the term "non-human animals". The term or "other species" should refer to all living things, not just animals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.178.143 ( talk • contribs) 2007-04-04 15:41:45 (UTC).
1. I think that it is odd that you have a section called "animal rights and the Holocaust," without mentioning that the Nazis were known for their pro-Animal Rights stand.
2. The article should include discussion of the latest controversy [14]. -- Mr Keck 14:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I've seen a few complaints/suggestions about a Western bias in this article.
Maybe there should be info. about Buddhism and Sikhism in relation to animal rights? I know that, for instance, no Buddhist text may explicitly talk about autonomy or "duties", etc, and though these are some of the Western ideas in support of/against animal rights that lead up to the modern movement, there are non-Western ideas, religions, etc that support animal rights without using the Western reasons. Is this relevant to the article?
Maybe just links to the Buddhism and Vegetarianism page, etc? Faunablues 02:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
and chapter four is on animal rights: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EXwHkQJQ5ecC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR9&dq=%22animal+rights%22+buddhism&ots=G586ZRMR9B&sig=JwLxB3hvwBCkCRCfBUVNPMuQpIE#PRA1-PA81,M1 It seems like, based on the different sects of Buddhism, some would support animal welfare as an interpretation of ahimsa, whereas others would see it as prohibiting the use of animals. Or at least that's similar to what I read in another wikipedia article... Faunablues 06:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
reference # 8 someone please check for more didn't know where else to put this -- 70.68.43.50 04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The Animal rights and the Holocaust section is dominated by information from the work of Charles Patterson, but no credentials are presented, although we can deduce he wrote a book. Likewise, no evidence is presented that the book is the most noteworthy statement on this topic, although it is strongly implied because of its dominance in the section. Wearing my editor's hat, the section seems weak because it is assumes to be authoritative without providing the reader with concrete reasons why it is so.
My suggestion is to replace the whole section with the lead material from Animal rights and the Holocaust. The lead section should be a good summary of the topic and it is currently well referenced. If that lead section isn't quite right as it stands, it can be updated before copying it here. Typically this is a step I would be bold about and do, but this article is a bit more sensitive to changes than some others! What do other editors think? Burlywood 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week is this coming week (April 22nd - 28th, 2007), so we can probably expect extra visitors on this and associated pages. Lets be vigilant, people. Rockpocke t 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that animals should live as it is nature. when the fox kills a chicken we should look foward to seeing new chick at easter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.151.203 ( talk) 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
I have applied {{fact}} to the statement about "Critics of the concept of animal rights argue that animals do not have the capacity to enter into a social contract or make moral choices". The reason for this is, that I'm unable to find any proof of that in the source given. Besides, Tom Regan is not a critic of the concept, but a major supporter? Can somebody please enlighten me as to where in the source it says that about the critics? -- Lhademmor 12:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add to the Animal rights Organisation List, the group Voiceless (see http://www.voiceless.org.au), but as the page is semiprotected how can I do that?
Would it do the article good if the History-section had more subsections? Give it a couple of headings so it's not a long, pure text. -- Lhademmor 14:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policy requires that the citations be from a neutral source, not an advocacy group. Citations from such sources need to be removed to meet policy standards. Important statements without a supporting reference are original research and need be removed until properly referenced. Some references are borderline and there is no official guideline that quite meets the need for these. My personal guideline is if there is discussion of both povs (when there are more than one). Articles that make the case for any pov are not good references because they have a diferent purpose. Raggz 18:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the caption for the leading image was not objective. I read the source cited, which was an advocacy group, and clearly original research. The statement The animal was kept hungry so that visitors could feed him live eels from a ladle. is neither objective nor proven in the source article.
I changed the POV part of the caption of the leading image from The animal was kept hungry so that visitors could feed him live eels from a ladle. to The photographers expressed concern that the animal must have been hungry and noted that visitors fed him live eels from a ladle. but SlimVirgin reverted it.
My effort to improve the objectivity was well-intentioned, but now realize that I failed the Wikipedia standard on original research. I am therefore about to remove the POV sentence and link entirely in order to comply with Wikipedia standards. If anyone wants to improve the caption, it should be in a manner that adheres to the Wikipedia policy prohibiting original research.
Although irrelevant to the violation of original research, I will mention FYI that there is no proof presented in the source that the civet was kept hungry so visitors could feed it. The evidence presented claimed that visitors were feeding it, which the photographer could reasonably have observed. However, the site does not say how long the animal was observed, nor how many visitors were feeding it, so even if it were not original research, the original caption is unproven. JD Lambert 01:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have come across a number of videos regarding US food industry castrating cattles on a large scale with no anesthetic medication. Basically these animals have their testicles ripped out with maximum pain on an extremely massive scale. Most would consider this animal abuse certainly if it was done on dogs or cats. Is there anything that can help cattles masturbate to control their aggression? Maybe a machine or a tool? GodBwithU 13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Entire bulls are very dangerous - to each other and people. Castration reduces their aggression and unpredictability. If two or more bulls are kept together there are no problems with intraspecific violence, although they will attack people occasionally. The problem is when there are 2+bulls AND cows - the bulls will fight over the cows, injuring or killing each other. Unlike most carnivores (e.g. wolves) herbivores like cattle have very few inhibitions about doing injury to each other. If you gave them enough space (like, say 1000 sq km) there would be LESS fighting, but not much, as all the bulls of a similar size would fight for dominance. The problem is avoided without castration in one of 2 ways: keep the animals in same-sex groups, and accept the increased risk to the handlers, or kill the male calves at birth. Neither of these is ideal, to say the least. That said, there is no reason to castrate calves without anaesthetic - my experience is that apart from anything else, its too bloody dangerous NOT to use anaesthetic - a colleague of mine nearly lost a finger when a student's knife slipped because the calf kicked at the wrong time! Oh, and masturbation wouldn't really help matter either - increased sexual activity usually increases aggression in animals like bulls and stallions. Dlh-stablelights 08:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with SlimVirgin that Sam Harris should be referred to as neuroscientist, not author. Both are correct, but for citing his expertise on the topic being quoted, neuroscientist is more appropriate. Mr. Harris is working on a doctorate in neuroscience, as SlimVirgin previously noted, which means he already has to have an authoritative level knowledge in the field. I hope no one thinks a person cannot be an authority without already having a doctorate... JD Lambert 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Mea culpa on the masters -- you're right, that was a reviewer. However, now I'm even more puzzled. The bio on samharris.org doesn't list a masters at all. Does he have a masters? If not, how did he get into a doctoral program? If he is still in it, and began in 2001, is he all-but-discertation (ABD)? I think the average limit for doctoral programs is 7 years. BTW, it was UCLA I phoned, I just referred to it as U of C because they have lots more campuses than just in LA. He could be enrolled under his middle name or something though, and I can certainly understand not wanting to be easy to find if you've published something some people might want to kill you for. :( Not getting confirmation on his enrollment and status doesn't bother me as much as finding nothing other than probably being a student to indicate an expertise in neuroscience. JD Lambert( T| C) 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, please do not revert my edit, which removed the fixed image sizes, because you claim the images are too small. You likely have a large monitor to view the images and that is why they look small, if you are viewing this article on a computer with a small display, the images without any fixed size are not too small and the images with the sizes fixed (your edit) are way too large. Please read WP:MOS, which states:
Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: On images with extreme aspect ratios. When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts. When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region. On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.
Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.
— Christopher Mann McKay user talk 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, please do not remove clean-up tags. You stated in your edit summary (when you removed the clean-up tag): "it has 53 footnotes; by all means add more if you want to, but pls don't disfigure the page." I reason I inserted Template:nofootnote is because the references section lists 21 references, and as the template says, "sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations;" just because there are already a large amount of footnotes, does not mean this clean-up tag should be removed as 21 references are still not used in footnotes. This clean-up tag is made so people will use <ref> tags instead of listing references at the end of the article. Removing a clean-up tag without proper reason is not constructive. — Christopher Mann McKay user talk 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there a userbox or Wikiproject for this subject? Someone message me on my usertalkpage please. - Pat Peter 04:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
This article completely conflates the concept of Animal rights with the Animal liberation movement - to the point that the two articles are often very redundant to each other. The first sentence of this article is "Animal rights... is the movement to protect non-human animals from being used or regarded as property by humans." There's no cite given for that, and it's wrong: "Animal rights" is not a movement at all. It's a concept. I'll see what I can do to fix it. -- Hyperbole 04:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
http://calbears.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3852/is_200601/ai_n17181360
for some reason, the page is not editable to me and I leave it with you guys
Is animal rights propaganda. It does not show what 'Animal rights' is. -- 192.28.2.6 15:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
In 2001 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (U.S.) reported in a testimony before [Congress] < http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/freeh051001.htm> that the Animal Liberation Front - an extremist group partially financed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - was considered to be the most dangerous domestic terrorist organization known. This was even before the word terrorist became sexy. Why no mention of it? I thought, for the most part, that the article was pretty well done, but balance requires the mention of what some may say is the dirty laundry of the Animal Rights Movement.-- Dentate 12:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
According to adherents.com, Animal Rights is a religion. Quote: "AR is a religion, but for the majority of Animal Rights supporters, AR functions as a movement and/or lifestyle choice, not their primary religion." Thoughts? Syneil 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the reference that is provided for this comment: <Mameli and Bortolotti argue that animal rights are questionable because humans cannot understand the subjective state of animals.< Their conclusion would be equally true for saying that "electricity is questionable because humans cannot understand it" or nuclear fission or all sorts of other "incomprehensible" things in our world. Basically, it seems that they are saying if we can't understand something, it doesn't exist. While it's fine acknowledging this as a philosophy, I'm not sure that it adequately replaces content that was removed. Bob98133 14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The article fails to state that most people believe animals don't have any rights at all. Should the article not disciuss this viewpoint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.9.52 ( talk) 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI, here is a 2003 summary of a Gallup Poll:
Poll finds Americans cool toward animal rights Animal rights activists have their work cut out for them. A Gallup poll testing public reaction to several animal rights goals found that most Americans aren't willing to fundamentally change their views about animals.
Conducted May 5-7, the Gallup survey of 1,005 adults discovered that a majority—71 percent—believe animals are entitled to some protections from harm and exploitation. But just 25 percent think that animals deserve the same rights as people.
In addition, most of those surveyed opposed banning all product testing or medical research on laboratory animals or prohibiting all types of hunting. There was, however, substantial support—62 percent—for passing stricter laws regulating the treatment of farm animals.
Bernard E. Rollin, PhD, a professor of philosophy and biomedical sciences at Colorado State University, says increased federal regulation of the biomedical research industry has assuaged public concerns about laboratory animal abuse. "Now," Dr. Rollin observed, "people are asking for agricultural protections."
Interestingly, of the 25 percent who say that animals deserve the same rights as people, many nevertheless objected to limitations on animal use. For instance, 48 percent reject the notion of banning medical research on animals; 38 percent oppose prohibitions on testing products on animals; 23 percent don't support greater regulation of farm animals; and more than half oppose banning all types of hunting.
The poll also found that women are more likely than men to support animal rights, and Democrats more likely than Republicans, but there are few differences by age. 66.120.181.218 ( talk) 04:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
African wild dogs disembowel their prey and leave it to die. Where were the rights of that prey animal? Where are the activists trying to make the african wild dogs go vegetarian? Oh, and humans are animals to. What about all the people that got bitten by sharks when they were doing their own business swimming around? Dont they have a right not to be bitten by a shark? T.Neo ( talk) 08:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I quote from the article:
The comparison has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.[50][49] Roberta Kalechofsky of Jews for Animal Rights argues that, although there is "connective tissue" between animal suffering and the Holocaust, they "fall into different historical frameworks, and comparison between them aborts the ... force of anti-Semitism.[51]
My question is about the redacted Kalechofsky quote. It seems to be logically inverted, with a probable missing negation. Does anyone have the original full quote, or the actual book it comes from? There is also no page number in the reference. Crum375 ( talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)