![]() | 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 6 | Archive 7 |
For example for the abolitionist view, Leadlerless resistance in animal rights would be a very relevant link. The similarities between abolitionists, direct actionists and animal liberationists are parallel.
Secondly, List of animal rights groups should be a link in there somewhere, even if it's just See also, as the groups listed are the main ones known without every single so called AR group!
Untileveryoneisfree ( talk) 04:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a link at the bottom of the page placing the animal rights page in the category “deep ecology”. I deleted that, because there is no clear relation between animal rights and deep ecology.
The link has been put back by Crum375, stating “AFAICT Deep ecology is a superset of Animal Rights, so the cat makes sense”.
I think that it is clear instead that deep ecology is not a superset of animal rights, nor a subset. One can be in favour of both, or of neither, or of deep ecology but not animal rights, or of animal rights but not deep ecology. The person often cited as the founder of deep ecology, Arne Næss, was (I have read) a hunter.
There are de facto links between deep ecology and animal rights, by the fact that there are people who believe in both. A discussion of those links can be appropriate for the article — actually, in its present state, the article doesn't even mention the expression “deep ecology” at all, except in that link! But I certainly don't think its appropriate to include the page itself in the deep ecology category, as if animal rights was a form of deep ecology.
David Olivier ( talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Polentario - the info you added about Schopenhauer and anti-semitism seems out of place in this article. Many of the philosophers referenced in the article may have influenced other philosophers, world leaders or political movements, but this article doesn't seem to be the place to go into all of those. Bob98133 ( talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Definitely not: Schopenhauers quote is a very early one about animal rights in itself and it is directlty connected with his antisemitism and the later by the animal protection movement and the Nazis. I brought some additional sources.-- Polentario ( talk) 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
"The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity and the very basic source of this lays in jewdom. [1]
The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."
I took the original and as well a secondary German source. Google is obviously full of shortened versions of the quote by animal rights activists - thats the reason why I included the quote. In fat, what is left out in most animal right websites quotations - aAND PROBABLY AS WELL IN SOME OF YOUR SECONDARY SOURCES (we have been arguing about losses in translation) is to be found in the ORIGINAL (Schopenhauers, Preissschrift über die Grundlage der Moral, nicht gekörnt von der Königlich Dänischen Sozietät der Wissenschaften, Werke IV, S. 238, 1839):
Die vermeintliche Rechtlosigkeit der Tiere, der Wahn , daß unser Handeln gegen sie ohne moralische Bedeutung sei, daß es wie es in der Sprache dieser Moral heißt, daß es gegen die Tiere keine Pflichten gäbe, ist geradezu eine empörende Roheit und Barbarei des Occidents, deren Quelle im Judentum liegt. (...)
Erst wenn jene einfache und über alle Zweifel erhabene Wahrheit, daß die Tiere in der Hauptsache und im wesentlichen ganz dasselbe sind wie wir, ins Volk gedrungen sein wird, werden die Tiere nicht mehr als rechtlose Wesen dastehen. Es ist an der Zeit, daß das ewige Wesen, welches in uns, auch in allen Tieren lebt, als solches erkannt, geschont und geachtet wird.
(Only when this simple truth will have penetrated the people, that animals basically and in a very substantial point are similar to us, the animals will not longer be rightless beings. Its high time to protects and accept this eternal being that lives in us and as well an all animals.) (...) So einem occidentalischen, judisierten Thierverächter und vernunftideolater, muß man in Erinnerung bringen, daß wie er von seiner Mutter, so auch der Hund von der seinigen gesäugt wurde. ... The latter sentence is as well let out by non nazi animal right activists. "It has to be brouzght to memory, to any of those occidential, jewryished animal hater and reason ideologist that not only he but as well the dog was fed brest by his mother."
English sources about Schopenhauers antisemism as an important influence ion the ones of Wagner. Paul Lawrence Rose, Revolutionary Antisemitism in Germany from Kant to Wagner, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 372-373).
Its not the question wether Kant had some antisemitic aspects. The one of Schopenhauer is important for the animal welfare / rights movement since it clearly connects antijewish / anti christianity (and pro eastern / aryan / indian) views with the relationship to animals. Source e.g. Hanna Rheinz, „Kabbala der Tiere, Tierrechte im Judentum, And Eugen Drewermann Rechtlosigkeit der Kreatur im christlichen Abendland in "Tierrechte, eine interdiszinplinäre Herausforderung“, Hrsg. IATE, Heidelberg 2007, S. 234-252</ref> -- Polentario ( talk) 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."
Thnx mighty teacher. I have the original german before me. I googled a first version and found an endless amount of the english quote, however with out the original ending. Any problems? Why do you keep edit warring? I have provided other edits , which are based on different sources, you just keep being destructive.
To make it very clear, the English quote is sort of nowadays rationale of Schopenhauers philosphophy in general - pity (respectively compassion) as being the central motivation put against the categorial imperative of Kant. (Personal POV.: But it leaves out the clear antijudaistic stance and as well the dangers of compassion - to take over and end the life of others out of pity has happened and is one of the central motives of the likes of Ingrid Newkirk.)-- Polentario ( talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC) -- Polentario ( talk) 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It is asserted that beasts have no rights; the illusion is harboured that our conduct, so far as they are concerned, has no moral significance, or, as it is put in the language of these codes, that "there are no duties to be fulfilled towards animals." Such a view is one of revolting coarseness, a barbarism of the West, whose source is Judaism. In philosophy, however, it rests on the assumption, despite all evidence to the contrary, of the radical difference between man and beast, a doctrine which, as is well known, was proclaimed with more trenchant emphasis by Descartes than by any one else : it was indeed the necessary consequence of his mistakes.
Such a view is one of revolting coarseness, a barbarism of the West, whose source is Judaism". I have volume IV of the original works. This is as said, a clear connection between animal love and hatred of Jews, left out by the veggie/animal movement. There is a clear connection between western animal love and the embrace of Tibetian, Indian Buddhism provided by Schopenhauer. It has been a similar story in 19th century Germany, but quite on the right. Secondary source in german was provided. OK, if its about animal welfare, you dont accept a smoking gun, do you? At least the quote is confirmed.
Polentario ( talk) 18:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me sound bloody arrogant, but you seem not to undrestand the basic differences between Schopenhauer and Kants position towards jews and jewdom. For Dummies: Kant sees jewish law as being outdated. Schopenhauer, jewish law was vivid, aggressive and encoind modern life and with regards to animals being so cruel (Scvhechita and so on ), while those loveable peaceful (aryan) animal lovers in India were so much nicer. Schopenhauer and his specific antisemitism has been more important for Wagner and Hitler and the animal rights movement than Kants. -- Polentario ( talk) 19:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There is something here that we can use. [1] SlimVirgin talk| edits 19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, at least you keep on looking. I assume that the usability of Schopenhauer for Hitler AND the animal welfare movement lays in antijudaistic aspect, his love of asia and his compassion concept. My secondary sources tell this very clearly - Hanna Rheinz is a jewish german animal welfare contender and Eugen Drewermann an allegedely leftist church critic, pro animal cleric, friend of the Dalai Lhama (and critized by Klaus Berger to be a state of 1941 theologician with a heavy antisemitic approach). -- Polentario ( talk) 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats first a plain lie - my edits in Broder do not have anything to do with the one sentence introduced in Wagner. Animal welfare in Nazi Germany is a rather new here, the topic is if relevance as well for other lemmas. I have updated some the artcles so in the german wikipedia as well, without the bullshit and the controversial attacks which happened to me here. -- Polentario ( talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Polentario ( talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I note that the entirety of my edits have been removed because 'some are not accurate, and others do not accurately reflect Scruton's position'. I request an explanation from 'SlimVirgin': the deleter, of where my edits were not accurate, and how adding 'according to Scruton' to otherwise POV heavy sentences renders them no longer reflective of Scruton's position.
The original quoted texts, followed by my edits:
(1)
Original:
Several senior Nazis, including Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler, adopted some form of vegetarianism, though by most accounts not strictly...
My edit:
Several senior Nazis, including Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler, adopted some form of vegetarianism (although not necessarily for ethical reasons), though by most accounts not strictly...
PS. This is sourced to QI: The book of general ignorance from Faber and Faber. Available here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/QI-General-Ignorance-Stephen-Fry/dp/0571233686/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207789835&sr=8-3
2 Original:
A consequentialist might argue, for example, that lying is wrong if the lie will make someone unhappy. A deontologist would argue that lying is simply wrong.
My edit:
A consequentialist might argue, for example, that telling a lie is wrong if the lie will make someone unhappy. A deontologist would argue that telling a lie betrays one's duty to be truthful, and therefore is simply wrong in principle.
3 Original:
Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal case humans (such as infants) and at least some non-humans must have the status of "moral patients."
My edit:
Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal case humans (such as infants and the severely mentally ill) and at least some non-humans must have the status of "moral patients."
4 Original:
It is in this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies. The world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when in fact they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape.
My edit:
According to Scruton, the appeal of the animal rights movement rests in fantasy. He holds that the world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when in fact they care only about themselves. Scruton claims that animal rights supporters revel in a romanticised and anthropomorphised world of the animals, which, he suggests, is a fantasy, a world of escape.
"John believes that reports of a hundred year rainstorm outside are mistaken. This falsehood has led many people to needlessly stay indoors. The weather is sunny, and rain has not occurred for more than a week. The rainstorm, John argues, is a fantasy: an excuse not to venture out"
Does this sentence really make clear that the rainstorm could be genuine, and that the falsehood of the rainstorm is merely claimed by John, and not an undisputed fact that John is just commenting on? Consider the 'Scruton' statements you've re-edited into the article (I've coloured the corresponding parts of both sentences):
"[Scruton] accuses animal rights advocates of "pre-scientific," anthropomorphism, attributing traits to animals that are, he says, Beatrix Potter-like, where "only man is vile." It is in this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies. The world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when in fact they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape"
To clarify further, I assume that you're quite devoted to the Scruton position yourself, so perhaps it will be better to put the same words in another context - in reference to someone that you probably oppose:
"[Hitler] accuses Jewish rights advocates of "pre-scientific," germanomorphism, attributing traits to Jews that are, he says, Beatrix Potter-like, where "only Germans are vile." It is in this fiction that the appeal of Jewish rights lies. The world of the Jews is money-hungry, filled with bankers who act sycophantically almost no matter what we do; in order to gain our money , and Jews who pretend to be patriotic when in fact they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape"
(NB. I don't claim this to be Hitler's actual position: just replacing Nazi stereotypes where appropriate)
And, just for your information, this is the first time I have reinstated the edits; and I did so because you had not responded to what I had written here for an extended period (and you still haven't to some of them), so I assumed that you no longer had a problem with them. Evidently you own this article, and due to your superior status here, you've afforded yourself the right to decide what goes in it without the need to justify yourself. I will not reedit the article again, you've made quite clear that Wikipedia is dictated by its moderators.
82.18.30.66 (
talk) 09:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If no response is delivered, I would request that my edits be reinstated. I hope that this reversal was in good faith, and not simply due to being partisan. If the pro-animal rights sections of the article must comply with non-POV, then so must the anti-animal rights sections.
82.18.30.66 (
talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've extended this section a little to include Schopenhauer's antisemitism and to mention his possible influence over the Nazis. [2] I hope to write more in future, but having read around the subject a little, it's not clear-cut, and I'm going to have to do more reading of the philosophical positions at the time to make sure we're not misrepresenting him. For example, some non-philosophical sources now say he blamed Judaism entirely for the German attitude toward animals, but in fact he seems to have blamed Christianity at least as much. It's also not clear how much he influenced the Nazis, if at all. SlimVirgin talk| edits 01:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This section seems short. Are there really only three notable critics of Animal Rights? Bugguyak ( talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, most of the criticisms are refuted by saying that special cases of humans, such as children or the handicapped, are not capable of reciprocating rights but still have them. Who is going around saying that children have rights? In practice, these individuals are essentially the property of their parents/guardians. They don't really get prosecuted if they violate another's rights. As they become older and can reciprocate, they gain more rights, exactly how the social contract model is supposed to work. I guess my point is that the criticism section is lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.153.223.52 ( talk) 08:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I have added a proper critism section to the bottom of the article, and put the information that was removed back into it. This text should never have been removed, as it was relevant and cited sources. If anything, as stated here, the criticism section should be expanded. Reidlophile ( talk) 16:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't make much sense to me that Roger Scruton is mentioned in the lead, in the overview section and has his own section in the criticism section - most of which all say kind of the same thing. This is a long article already - repeating this seems like overkill. Bob98133 ( talk) 01:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
What kind of unnecessary cruelty does the picture illustrate? Did the man cut off the limb to solicit sympathy. Is the restraint too tight, causing the animal duress? Is it because it is a primate? But that would fall under animal rights. Doesn't really make sense to me. -- Dodo bird ( talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Bob, that was me quoting the original caption as written by Slimvirgin. Please direct your objections to her if you like. -- Dodo bird ( talk) 23:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It disgusts me that teh ALF "activists" are not described as the violent terrorists that they are. No-one would call Bin Larden an "activist" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.236.211 ( talk) 19:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know why some authors names in this list are missing? Kevin ( talk) 22:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If the animal materials for human use are unable to be forbidden, then licensing it in the same way as government licensing the alcohol consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.191.80.9 ( talk) 01:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The following paragraph is of concern:
Should an encyclopedia make the assertion that an argument is "an impossible claim to sustain"? Gary P88 ( talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I strongly recommend to extract the content concerning animal rights in modern philosophy (i.e. "17th century: Animals as automata" up to and including "Late 1890s: Opposition to anthropomorphism") into a seperate article to make this one more comprehensible. At least this is how we solved it in es:WP-- 85.180.178.106 ( talk) 10:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this article is too long and the content suffers for it Reidlophile ( talk) 16:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
As per guidelines at WP:Article size, this article is quite large. It has at least 44kb of readable prose, whereas the recommended is about 32kb. In addition, there seems to be disproportionate coverage of the historical issues relating to Animal rights. I would suggest creating an article History of animal rights and moving most of the historical content to this article per WP:Summary style. In that way could apply due emphasis to the contemporary debates on Animal rights. Eazyskankin ( talk) 20:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Since this is an article about animals, I think it would be a good idea to have more pictures of animals than humans. Currently, there are more pictures of humans than animals. Eazyskankin ( talk) 04:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The content seems to focus on the philosophical debates of a limited number of scholars. We know that in the US, humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But what rights do animals have. Unfortunately, I don't see any details. I would therefore suggest some breakdown of animal rights per region or country. Also religious views on animal rights. Another important issue missing is the justification of humans to eat other animals. Eazyskankin ( talk) 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
im just 11 so grammar ect. not the best
i am a vegetarian and i just hate that they kill all animals!!!but with the maple lef meats kiling all the animal and then just throwing it way....there isnt much tothis litt"article" but i just needed to type it!!
70.70.19.187 (
talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)kailie
I see this article has several references that link to articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica. As britannica is a 'tertiary source' (just like Wikipedia) - we should really try to avoid doing that. SteveBaker ( talk) 22:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any chance someone could start a knowledgeable section on the role of politics in spreading or curtailing animal rights? For example, Sarah Palin, Mc Cain's running mate, is an avid hunter and there are photos of her with a huge bear skin and giant crab in her office. I shudder to think of the fate of animal rights if McCain is elected and she is but a heartbeat away from the presidency. Would it not be good to draw people's attention on here to the politicians who are helping with animal rights and those who are not? ( Truthbody ( talk) 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC))
Edits can abuse this site, but intentions cannot. If the edits that "draw people's attention on here to the politicians who are helping with animal rights and those who are not" are in keeping with the WP guidelines, I don't see what objections there can be to them.
It seems to me that listing the politicians' positions on AR both on the AR page and on their own pages would be quite appropriate. If an issue exists and concerns a lot of people — which is the case of AR — it is relevant to the issue to know which politicians support it. The positions of the politicians on the issue is also relevant to the articles about the politicians themselves. I don't see how someone might want to deny that.
David Olivier ( talk) 15:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Count me in! Obama and McCain both have pages on Facebook. So it is not inconceivable that they, or their handlers might be eyeballing wiki too. And i think if we can start a ground swell like Truthbody suggests, "section on the role of politics in spreading or curtailing animal rights?" raina_noor ( talk) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)raina_noor raina_noor ( talk) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.87.65 ( talk) 12:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Could the anon (71.197.xxx) say why he removed these passages? [4] Are they inaccurate quotations? SlimVirgin talk| edits 18:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Please, is this statement: "The Nazis' position was the first attempt by a government to reject the concept of speciesism, at that point still unnamed, but it produced the worst of all possible outcomes. Rather than elevating the status of non-humans, the Nazis traduced the status of human beings they regarded as enemies."... is it just bland and blunt or is it sort of nonsensical? In our society, where words do not blur but rather they change meaning, rejecting the "concept" of speciesism is difficult because the person would argue that it is the "concept" of speciesism they wish people to grasp. Traduced? Isn't that Abracadabra or Doo Wah Diddy?... Concept? Is that a bit light on description? "at that point still unnamed" aren't these sentences a minor heading in the chapter entitled under the Nazi name for the whole thing? Seems that the "unnamed" part could be replaced by "The Germans didn't speak English" without loss of meaning. Not giving out stink but rather hoping for more information if anyone knowledgeable sees it. It's a lesser known aspect of the Nazi regime making it all the more interesting. ~ R. T. G 13:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this material belongs here, rather than in sentience. Look it over and see if you can use it. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 14:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
In the 17th century Thomas Tryon, a self-proclaimed Pythagorean, raised the issue of non-human suffering. Soon thereafter, many philosophers used the anatomical discoveries of the Enlightenment as a reason to include animals in what philosophers call " sympatheia," the principle of who or what deserves sympathy. Benjamin Franklin's autobiography identifies Tryon's writings as an influence in his decision to try vegetarianism; later in the book, he reverts to eating meat while still following Tryon's basic philosophy. [3] Joseph Ritson coupled Tryon's work with Rousseau's for "Essay on Abstinence from Animal Food" as many Rousseauists became vegetarian. Voltaire compared the Hindu treatment of animals to how Europe's emperors & Popes treated even their fellow men, praising the former and heaping shame upon the latter; in the 17th century, Descartes, Pierre Gassendi, and Francis Bacon also advocated vegetarianism. [4]
Some of this probably belongs here as well ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 14:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
In the 20th century, Princeton University professor Peter Singer argued that Bentham's conclusion is often dismissed by an appeal to a distinction that condemns human suffering but allows non-human suffering, typically "appeals" that are logical fallacies. Because many of the suggested distinguishing features of humanity—extreme intelligence; highly complex language; etc.—are not present in marginal cases such as young or mentally disabled humans, it appears that the only distinction is a prejudice based on species alone, which non-human animal rights supporters call speciesism—that is, differentiating humans from other animals purely on the grounds that they are human.
Gary Francione also bases his abolitionist theory of animal rights, which differs significantly from Singer's, on sentience. He asserts that "all sentient beings, humans or nonhuman, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others." [5]
Andrew Linzey, founder of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics in England, is known as a foremost international advocate for recognizing animals as sentient beings in Biblically-based faith traditions. The Interfaith Association of Animal Chaplains encourages animal ministry groups to adopt a policy of recognizing and valuing sentient beings.
I note this recent edit, about whether the monkey in the lead photo should properly be referred to by "its" or by "her." That strikes me as a significant question, and I'm really not sure what the correct answer is. Of course, many advocates of animal rights would argue for the personal pronoun, but it's not clear to me that logically this encyclopedia should do the same. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I started this thing by changing its to her realizing that the usage is cententious. I just checked a few online grammar references. The first couple said that "it" is the pronoun to use for animals. The 3rd said [5], [6], [7] "However, he or she may also be used to refer to an animal, if the gender of the animal is known to the speaker or writer."
This usage appears to be changing. I get back to an earlier argument that Wiki should reflect current and ongoing changes, or at least mention them. I would prefer "her" be used for the monkey in the image caption, but I recognize that this change in thinking is certainly not universal, so my 2nd option was to mention the changing usage in the article. A lot of language is inherently POV, such as denying the use of personal pronouns to animals, however I've had to yield in the past to well-referenced sources with which I did not agree (for example calling dog fighting a sport), which is how I felt about this. If the language can be worked out, I think that Hq3's idea works but that mention of the changing language should definitely be included in the article. Not using "its" by rewriting seems like a reasonable way to avoid the issue, but I don't think it should be buried. Bob98133 ( talk) 16:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I started this thing by changing its to her realizing that the usage is cententious. I just checked a few online grammar references. The first couple said that "it" is the pronoun to use for animals. The 3rd said [8], [9], [10] "However, he or she may also be used to refer to an animal, if the gender of the animal is known to the speaker or writer."
This usage appears to be changing. I get back to an earlier argument that Wiki should reflect current and ongoing changes, or at least mention them. I would prefer "her" be used for the monkey in the image caption, but I recognize that this change in thinking is certainly not universal, so my 2nd option was to mention the changing usage in the article. A lot of language is inherently POV, such as denying the use of personal pronouns to animals, however I've had to yield in the past to well-referenced sources with which I did not agree (for example calling dog fighting a sport), which is how I felt about this. If the language can be worked out, I think that Hq3's idea works but that mention of the changing language should definitely be included in the article. Not using "its" by rewriting seems like a reasonable way to avoid the issue, but I don't think it should be buried. Bob98133 ( talk) 16:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the following comments, without altering them, from where they had been inserted in the interior of my own comments above. The first is in response to the comment that the editor reports seeing my edits frequently. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Who is POV pushing, Tryptofish? Please answer explicitly. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
To refer to the monkey picture as the "epitome" of animal ownership is POV. I can argue that it's not the epitome. Either assertion is irrelevant. We are here to document, not interpret. -- Elliskev 18:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) As a possible solution, I tried changing "a scene epitomizing the idea of animal ownership" to "a scene epitomizing the animal rights view of animal ownership." In what has become a dismaying pattern, another editor reverted it (mislabeling it as a minor edit) with the edit summary "not really, no." If it is not the animal rights view, then whose view is it? Wikipedia's? All right-thinking people? There seems to me to be no reasonable justification for this. As the page reads now, it is implicitly saying that the scene epitomizes Wikipedia's view. This page is about animal rights, so why not indicate that the image reflects the animal rights view? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It's difficult to follow Slimvirgin's reasoning. Image of a monkey and its owner is typical of animal ownership because there are more food animals than pets? I agree that the "AR view of ownership" language is problematic since I don't think AR and non-AR views disagree with the definition of animal ownership. The disagreement is over whether ownership is acceptable. But it's not true that the "epitome" caption had consensus. I contested the part of the caption regarding "cruelty" at Talk:Animal_rights#Image_caption_of_lead_photograph, and there was consensus to remove that part. I also suggested using a picture of a dog as "using the picture of a monkey muddles the line as it introduces the issues of domestic vs non-domestic animal ownership(not really a rights vs welfare issue) and that of primates deserving some rights." I'm going to add the dog pic with a new caption and see if it sticks.-- Dodo bird ( talk) 00:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like you to stop warring (both of you), or at least, if you must go on (it can happen...), I'd like to understand what it's about, so I can take sides, or sit on the fence while knowing why. I have the impression that others too are a bit baffled. The discussion is incomprehensible, unless one makes constant references to the state of the page at the moment of each comment, which would be very tedious. The only thing that keeps cropping up is the word “epitomy”, it looks like a kind of joke. Could you (both of you) make a short statement to explain what it's about? (In the meanwhile, don't count me among the 100% of anything, please...) David Olivier ( talk) 22:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Some days have passed quietly, and I hope that I can now raise again some reasonable points, without eliciting any unreasonable reactions. At the very end of my last comment before the break, I pointed out that a possible constructive solution would be to substitute the more neutral word "illustrating" for the POV word "epitomizing." I still haven't changed anything on the page, but I show at right what this change would look like. Specifically, I would like to suggest changing " epitomizing the idea" to "a scene illustrating the issue." The most important aspect of this change would be the change from epitome to illustration. Please note that in the talk directly above this break, multiple editors have pointed out, in detailed and substantive examination of content, how "epitome" violates NPOV, whereas there has never been a comparable response explaining how it might not violate it. In addition, it recently occurred to me that changing "idea" to "issue" helps convey the fact that this is, indeed, an issue surrounded by discussion. With these changes, I believe that the Francione quote would no longer be necessary, although retaining it would do no harm. Beyond that, my suggestion seeks to correct some errors that were introduced in the edit, made perhaps in haste, that established the version now on the page. The word "monkey" was de-linked, which probably does not matter, but the word "epitomizing" was again linked, which it had not been for some time. That link looks silly, as if readers need to have a definition in order to know what the word means, and also looks a bit like a tacit admission that the word is problematic, as though it cannot stand on its own without qualifying it, or distracting from it. Also, the long-standing words "a scene" were deleted, which is just bad writing, because it makes the caption read, clumsily, as though the man is doing the epitomizing. If any editors can explain thoughtfully why the proposed changes would not improve the page, I would be interested to hear it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Thompsonfest, the various sections in here are meant to represent significant milestones. I'm not sure coining the term vegananarchism would really count as that, especially not regarding the development of the concept of animal rights. Within anarchism, perhaps. [11] SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
A couple of questions about the Franklin material:
1. We say that Franklin says, "... Kant would argue that only rational (and not all sentient) beings have inherent value. It follows that, according to Regan’s approach, there is no reason why inanimate objects should not also be given rights since the logic can be extended to include all things including those which are not sentient."
This is a very bad argument. Are we sure that Franklin actually argued this?
2. Regarding Singer, we have Franklin arguing that Singer requires a calculation of the aggregate well-being of a group, rather than the individual, and that this would permit the infanticide of one sickly child permitting he was replaced by a healthy one. I'm not sure Singer ever argued this. Does Franklin actually say Singer argued it, and did Singer argue it, in fact?
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
As part of the debate on abortion, I noticed that some pro-life campaigners were deploring that animal rights often were given the priority over so-called fetal rights, the right for fetuses to be born. There was a controversy over this in Spain, where the government announced that it was giving more rights to certain animals, while at the same time it said it would be alllowing for easier access to abortions, something which deeply upset the Catholic bishops of that country. [12] ADM ( talk) 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It is probably true that animal rights are often in the same book as animal liberation. Maybe animal rights could be viewed as a part of liberation but the two are not possible to mean the same thing are they? 86.46.64.230 ( talk) 10:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The section on Bentham's position on animal rights contains the sentence:
This is not a question but it ends with a question mark. Is this correct? If so, it should be followed by "[sic]. - Pgan002 ( talk) 01:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
SlimVirgin suggests that the biocentric-anthropocentric divide within the animal rights debate is neither relevant nor notable. The radical nature of the biocentric perspective does not preclude its relevance, just as its position outside of the mainstream does not limit its notability. Excluding this perspective is merely another way to ignore and marginalize a set of philosophical stances that challenge the core tenants of liberalism and humanism so many of us have been indoctrinated into. What is there to be afraid of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinus jeffreyi ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to Be Bold with a new version of the article, but first I will submit it for discussion: Talk:Animal rights/Animal rites. -- You.tilitarian ( talk) 13:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm new here and not quite sure what I should and shouldn't say.I'm involved in animal rights as a pet owner but lately I've been getting attacked for no reason at online hobby sites. My hobby is tropical fish. I guess I'm looking for an answer for the attacks I've been getting and how to accept,challenge,or otherwise deal with them without getting banned,disrespecting, or showing a form of abuse in statements I make in common conversation topics, on these Tropical Fish Forum sites. I can explain if someone were to read my post and show an interest,but it doesn't seem like that will happen here? If my conversation in an online forum about tropical fish shows an inhumane treatment of animals namely FISH,then I should be banned, but when a animal activist,starts preaching that some treatment in the process of marketing them is inhumane its not my fault if I'm the purchaser and not the marketer thats performing the inhumanity, right? So to make a long story short they accused me of disrespect to this person that was talking off topic in the forum just to be heard.They banned my account.My rights have been abused! New Tropical Fish forum and new account and the same thing almost happened. The details are recorded and can be re-created if I need to read them again,hopefully I replied to the new accusation without disrespecting the accuser and humbling myself as I believe I am a fair person and treat animals like I need to be treated,with fairness.But for all I know, this person insinuating my morals are pretty poor and that I should look for another Tropical Fish Forum could be just waiting to unfold another biased opinion of me, and I may just be better off not trying to find other tropical fish hobbiest like myself at all,the way my morals are being judged. The name of the sites are: www.fishlore.com and www.Badmanstropicalfish.com There should be stricter rules for activists that think they can assume that they are superior to someone else's comments based on heresay. And a nice fat fine should be imposed! Orangeademan ( talk) 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Walter Horne June 08,2009 10:02 [e.s.t.] Orangeademan ( talk) 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to change the main cutline back to what it was originally e.g. see here. The current cutline (see left) is meaningless.
The point of using this image was to illustrate the key difference between animal rights and animal welfare, as mentioned in the lead's final paragraph. It's a distinction people often don't get, and it's the key to understanding what animal rights is about, so I felt it was worth illustrating. I would therefore like to change it to the cutline on the right. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
No progress is going to be possible on this article if every single thing, every single phrase, is contested and made to be written badly. This is what happened with the cutline before. It was fine, then it got tweaked and tweaked and tweaked until it said nothing. Each tweak causes the next, because there's a steady deterioration in the writing, so from the point of view of each tweaker, the changes make sense, because they're trying to improve a cutline that has been edited badly. There's no point in having this happen again. It's the lead cutline. It needs to be written properly.
To be fiddling with the writing because plants might be beings, and because one strongly AR editor argues that not everyone would see that scene as unnecessarily cruel (when we don't say everyone would, but in any event, everyone would) is the worst of Wikipedia. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
In looking at these recent edits, I notice a contradiction that may have sneaked in, regarding AR legislation in Spain. At the moment, the page says at one point that the legislation has been adopted, but at another point that it is only under consideration. Perhaps someone who is more familiar than I am with what is happening in Spain could check, and reconcile the difference. (Also, a grammatical error will need to be corrected in the lower part.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The new resolutions have cross-party or majority support and are expected to become law and the government is now committed to update the statute book within a year to outlaw harmful experiments on apes in Spain. [14]
(outdent) On WP we follow reliable sources. The NYT is a reliable source, and it says: "If the bill passes — the news agency Reuters predicts it will — it would become illegal in Spain to kill apes except in self-defense." (emphasis added) This means that the committee vote was for a bill, which if approved by the full parliament would become law, not a "recommendation". Crum375 ( talk) 19:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel like providing another reference might help. It should be considered as reliable source, because it is the newsmaker - the Parliamentary Association in Defense of the Rights of Animals (APDDA). They are the authors of the proposal under discussion. On January 14, 2009 they published the following press-release:
I think it is very clear and straightforward message. The text of the question to the Government can be obtained from here. It is the latest official information we have on this case. Probably, it's worth mentioning. 77.241.46.57 ( talk) 21:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I just noted that there is also a sentence about Spain achievements in the second para of the article (in the summary). It should be also corrected in accordace with the main text. 77.241.46.57 ( talk) 21:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Hello all. I've read carefully what both of you said, and here is my opinion about these sourcing issues. I agree with Crum that we cannot use other wikis as reliable sources, and I also agree that it's at least dicey to use a primary source from the advocacy group, although I also think that it's informative that they apparently verify the claims that the "legislation" that they would like to see enacted has not been enacted, so it appears very likely that no such legislation is law in Spain. (And I think that if we were to follow a strict policy of never using primary sources from advocacy groups, this page and a lot of other AR pages would look very different!) On the other hand, it is entirely appropriate to use primary sources from the Spanish government to document what the Spanish government does; clearly, these are reliable. Not all primary sources are useless. I found the editorial observer column by Adam Cohen from the NYT very entertaining reading, and, although I do not see much need to add it to the page in addition to the NYT news piece (from about the same time) already cited, I think that it is appropriate for us to read both NYT pieces together in order to assess what best to report from the one that we do cite. Together, they reveal some imprecision in wording in the NYT news piece which, although it does not make it invalid to cite, does point to where we need to be careful about taking individual quotes from it, quoting them verbatim, making inferences (SYNTH) from those quotes, and ending up with claims in the page here that are not supported by the sources. Taking the sources together, it is clearly not legislation, nor legislation under consideration. It is a nonbinding resolution from a committee, noteworthy nonetheless, but not more than what it is. It does not grant rights to life, liberty (the pursuit of happiness, suffrage, paid health care, registered accounts at WP), but condemns using primates for research and circuses, though not zoos. I think 77.241 has done the page a great service in making that clear. Thank you. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
In particular, "1.1 Moral status of animals in the ancient world" has nothing on Buddhism, etc. I am probably not qualified to add it, but maybe someone else can. 69.229.10.205 ( talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I just added this article, about this organization which released a video which shows workers throwing male chics being dropped alive into a grinding machine.
Please watch the article. Ikip ( talk) 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I think JM Coetzee should be included as a notable writer on the issue of animal rights, although the more general category animal-human relations is probably more accurate. Nonetheless the issue features more or less prominently in nearly all of his works - indeed it features vividly in his first novel 'Dusklands', and is unarguably the subject of 'The Lives of Animals', which is also included entirely in his subsequent novel 'Elizabeth Costello'. He also gave an interview about this after his Nobel Prize award (and interviews with Coetzee are far rarer than Nobel Prizes.) In 2007 he also wrote a speech for the 'Voiceless' organisation about the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.86.112 ( talk) 08:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Just in case anyone has questions about the recent edits to the section about Spain, please see here for an explanation. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
T, please stop trying to fix my writing. This is the subjunctive. If you don't like it, fine, but it wasn't an error. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) About
this, it's actually kind of sad, as is the comment immediately above. It looks like the edit was made in anger and haste. I say that because it re-creates a punctuation error, in which a quotation mark comes before a period, instead of after per
WP:MOS. What that has to do with a POV tag is unclear to me. (But if the editor would like any help about correct punctuation, as well as correct use of the subjunctive, just let me know.) Anyway, I don't have strong feelings about the POV tag for this page at this time. But it was hardly a "drive-by" (whatever that means) when I tried to restore it. It was my strong conviction that such a tag should not have been removed (now twice) in an edit marked as a minor edit, without prior discussion in talk here (
example). (See also:
this.) With respect to such discussion, I don't feel strongly that the tag is needed, if other editors also do not, but let's just see what consensus is, before making such "minor" edits. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 16:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I think a new page should be made with the name History of animal ethics that shows the older views on animals such as Descartes' that clearly are speciesist. Steamsauna ( talk) 02:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam.. in this article it has no direct information about recent animal cruelty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.65.187 ( talk) 18:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it really relevant where her offices are located? Would "Kathleen Kete, an animal welfare historian" or some such description serve better here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nully ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
This section is seriously flawed. Molland (who gives no sources!) does not write that the Band of Mercy was established in 1824 -- which is the date the RSPCA was founded. The temperance movement, after which it is said to have been modled, only reached Britain in the 1830s, so 1824 is almost certainly too early. The name was "Band of Mercy", not "Bands of Mercy", as Molland writes. On the whole, Moland seems to be a questionable source at best.
I have information -- which I still need to verify -- that the Band of Mercy was set up in 1875 and was only integrated into the RSPCA in 1883. These dates are given by Fred Milton on [15].
The first paragraph should be amended with the correct dates; the second paragraph is more about the Animal Liberation Front than the Band of Mercy and should be deleted. Jopetz ( talk) 13:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
On reading up on the "Band of Mercy" I would now suggest removing the whole section. It certainly makes no sense under the present heading, since the Band of Mercy was not 'created' until 1876.
According to Edward Fairholme and Wellesley Pain, A Century of Work for Animals, The History of the R.S.P.C.A., 1824–1924 (London: John Murray, 1924), ch. 10, "The Children's Branches of the Society", those 'children's branches' developed out of classes for children first offered by Mrs Suckling in 1874 (p. 166). The title "Band of Mercy" was first used by Mrs Smithies in 1876, to organize a humane society for youths and children outside the RSPCA; in 1879 they started a magazine, the Band of Mercy Advocate (p. 167). In 1883, Smithies's son (due to ill-health) offered the copyright of the then Band of Mercy to the RSPCA and at a conference on 31 January 1883 the delegates voted that a union of Band of Mercy branches should be formed and that the RSPCA should be "placed at the head of such a union" (p. 168). Jopetz ( talk) 15:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
i beleive that there shoul be a section of this page all about animals testing the rights against that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.68.63 ( talk) 21:32, 24 January 2010 (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 6 | Archive 7 |
For example for the abolitionist view, Leadlerless resistance in animal rights would be a very relevant link. The similarities between abolitionists, direct actionists and animal liberationists are parallel.
Secondly, List of animal rights groups should be a link in there somewhere, even if it's just See also, as the groups listed are the main ones known without every single so called AR group!
Untileveryoneisfree ( talk) 04:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a link at the bottom of the page placing the animal rights page in the category “deep ecology”. I deleted that, because there is no clear relation between animal rights and deep ecology.
The link has been put back by Crum375, stating “AFAICT Deep ecology is a superset of Animal Rights, so the cat makes sense”.
I think that it is clear instead that deep ecology is not a superset of animal rights, nor a subset. One can be in favour of both, or of neither, or of deep ecology but not animal rights, or of animal rights but not deep ecology. The person often cited as the founder of deep ecology, Arne Næss, was (I have read) a hunter.
There are de facto links between deep ecology and animal rights, by the fact that there are people who believe in both. A discussion of those links can be appropriate for the article — actually, in its present state, the article doesn't even mention the expression “deep ecology” at all, except in that link! But I certainly don't think its appropriate to include the page itself in the deep ecology category, as if animal rights was a form of deep ecology.
David Olivier ( talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Polentario - the info you added about Schopenhauer and anti-semitism seems out of place in this article. Many of the philosophers referenced in the article may have influenced other philosophers, world leaders or political movements, but this article doesn't seem to be the place to go into all of those. Bob98133 ( talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Definitely not: Schopenhauers quote is a very early one about animal rights in itself and it is directlty connected with his antisemitism and the later by the animal protection movement and the Nazis. I brought some additional sources.-- Polentario ( talk) 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
"The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity and the very basic source of this lays in jewdom. [1]
The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."
I took the original and as well a secondary German source. Google is obviously full of shortened versions of the quote by animal rights activists - thats the reason why I included the quote. In fat, what is left out in most animal right websites quotations - aAND PROBABLY AS WELL IN SOME OF YOUR SECONDARY SOURCES (we have been arguing about losses in translation) is to be found in the ORIGINAL (Schopenhauers, Preissschrift über die Grundlage der Moral, nicht gekörnt von der Königlich Dänischen Sozietät der Wissenschaften, Werke IV, S. 238, 1839):
Die vermeintliche Rechtlosigkeit der Tiere, der Wahn , daß unser Handeln gegen sie ohne moralische Bedeutung sei, daß es wie es in der Sprache dieser Moral heißt, daß es gegen die Tiere keine Pflichten gäbe, ist geradezu eine empörende Roheit und Barbarei des Occidents, deren Quelle im Judentum liegt. (...)
Erst wenn jene einfache und über alle Zweifel erhabene Wahrheit, daß die Tiere in der Hauptsache und im wesentlichen ganz dasselbe sind wie wir, ins Volk gedrungen sein wird, werden die Tiere nicht mehr als rechtlose Wesen dastehen. Es ist an der Zeit, daß das ewige Wesen, welches in uns, auch in allen Tieren lebt, als solches erkannt, geschont und geachtet wird.
(Only when this simple truth will have penetrated the people, that animals basically and in a very substantial point are similar to us, the animals will not longer be rightless beings. Its high time to protects and accept this eternal being that lives in us and as well an all animals.) (...) So einem occidentalischen, judisierten Thierverächter und vernunftideolater, muß man in Erinnerung bringen, daß wie er von seiner Mutter, so auch der Hund von der seinigen gesäugt wurde. ... The latter sentence is as well let out by non nazi animal right activists. "It has to be brouzght to memory, to any of those occidential, jewryished animal hater and reason ideologist that not only he but as well the dog was fed brest by his mother."
English sources about Schopenhauers antisemism as an important influence ion the ones of Wagner. Paul Lawrence Rose, Revolutionary Antisemitism in Germany from Kant to Wagner, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 372-373).
Its not the question wether Kant had some antisemitic aspects. The one of Schopenhauer is important for the animal welfare / rights movement since it clearly connects antijewish / anti christianity (and pro eastern / aryan / indian) views with the relationship to animals. Source e.g. Hanna Rheinz, „Kabbala der Tiere, Tierrechte im Judentum, And Eugen Drewermann Rechtlosigkeit der Kreatur im christlichen Abendland in "Tierrechte, eine interdiszinplinäre Herausforderung“, Hrsg. IATE, Heidelberg 2007, S. 234-252</ref> -- Polentario ( talk) 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."
Thnx mighty teacher. I have the original german before me. I googled a first version and found an endless amount of the english quote, however with out the original ending. Any problems? Why do you keep edit warring? I have provided other edits , which are based on different sources, you just keep being destructive.
To make it very clear, the English quote is sort of nowadays rationale of Schopenhauers philosphophy in general - pity (respectively compassion) as being the central motivation put against the categorial imperative of Kant. (Personal POV.: But it leaves out the clear antijudaistic stance and as well the dangers of compassion - to take over and end the life of others out of pity has happened and is one of the central motives of the likes of Ingrid Newkirk.)-- Polentario ( talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC) -- Polentario ( talk) 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It is asserted that beasts have no rights; the illusion is harboured that our conduct, so far as they are concerned, has no moral significance, or, as it is put in the language of these codes, that "there are no duties to be fulfilled towards animals." Such a view is one of revolting coarseness, a barbarism of the West, whose source is Judaism. In philosophy, however, it rests on the assumption, despite all evidence to the contrary, of the radical difference between man and beast, a doctrine which, as is well known, was proclaimed with more trenchant emphasis by Descartes than by any one else : it was indeed the necessary consequence of his mistakes.
Such a view is one of revolting coarseness, a barbarism of the West, whose source is Judaism". I have volume IV of the original works. This is as said, a clear connection between animal love and hatred of Jews, left out by the veggie/animal movement. There is a clear connection between western animal love and the embrace of Tibetian, Indian Buddhism provided by Schopenhauer. It has been a similar story in 19th century Germany, but quite on the right. Secondary source in german was provided. OK, if its about animal welfare, you dont accept a smoking gun, do you? At least the quote is confirmed.
Polentario ( talk) 18:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me sound bloody arrogant, but you seem not to undrestand the basic differences between Schopenhauer and Kants position towards jews and jewdom. For Dummies: Kant sees jewish law as being outdated. Schopenhauer, jewish law was vivid, aggressive and encoind modern life and with regards to animals being so cruel (Scvhechita and so on ), while those loveable peaceful (aryan) animal lovers in India were so much nicer. Schopenhauer and his specific antisemitism has been more important for Wagner and Hitler and the animal rights movement than Kants. -- Polentario ( talk) 19:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There is something here that we can use. [1] SlimVirgin talk| edits 19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, at least you keep on looking. I assume that the usability of Schopenhauer for Hitler AND the animal welfare movement lays in antijudaistic aspect, his love of asia and his compassion concept. My secondary sources tell this very clearly - Hanna Rheinz is a jewish german animal welfare contender and Eugen Drewermann an allegedely leftist church critic, pro animal cleric, friend of the Dalai Lhama (and critized by Klaus Berger to be a state of 1941 theologician with a heavy antisemitic approach). -- Polentario ( talk) 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats first a plain lie - my edits in Broder do not have anything to do with the one sentence introduced in Wagner. Animal welfare in Nazi Germany is a rather new here, the topic is if relevance as well for other lemmas. I have updated some the artcles so in the german wikipedia as well, without the bullshit and the controversial attacks which happened to me here. -- Polentario ( talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Polentario ( talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I note that the entirety of my edits have been removed because 'some are not accurate, and others do not accurately reflect Scruton's position'. I request an explanation from 'SlimVirgin': the deleter, of where my edits were not accurate, and how adding 'according to Scruton' to otherwise POV heavy sentences renders them no longer reflective of Scruton's position.
The original quoted texts, followed by my edits:
(1)
Original:
Several senior Nazis, including Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler, adopted some form of vegetarianism, though by most accounts not strictly...
My edit:
Several senior Nazis, including Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler, adopted some form of vegetarianism (although not necessarily for ethical reasons), though by most accounts not strictly...
PS. This is sourced to QI: The book of general ignorance from Faber and Faber. Available here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/QI-General-Ignorance-Stephen-Fry/dp/0571233686/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207789835&sr=8-3
2 Original:
A consequentialist might argue, for example, that lying is wrong if the lie will make someone unhappy. A deontologist would argue that lying is simply wrong.
My edit:
A consequentialist might argue, for example, that telling a lie is wrong if the lie will make someone unhappy. A deontologist would argue that telling a lie betrays one's duty to be truthful, and therefore is simply wrong in principle.
3 Original:
Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal case humans (such as infants) and at least some non-humans must have the status of "moral patients."
My edit:
Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal case humans (such as infants and the severely mentally ill) and at least some non-humans must have the status of "moral patients."
4 Original:
It is in this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies. The world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when in fact they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape.
My edit:
According to Scruton, the appeal of the animal rights movement rests in fantasy. He holds that the world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when in fact they care only about themselves. Scruton claims that animal rights supporters revel in a romanticised and anthropomorphised world of the animals, which, he suggests, is a fantasy, a world of escape.
"John believes that reports of a hundred year rainstorm outside are mistaken. This falsehood has led many people to needlessly stay indoors. The weather is sunny, and rain has not occurred for more than a week. The rainstorm, John argues, is a fantasy: an excuse not to venture out"
Does this sentence really make clear that the rainstorm could be genuine, and that the falsehood of the rainstorm is merely claimed by John, and not an undisputed fact that John is just commenting on? Consider the 'Scruton' statements you've re-edited into the article (I've coloured the corresponding parts of both sentences):
"[Scruton] accuses animal rights advocates of "pre-scientific," anthropomorphism, attributing traits to animals that are, he says, Beatrix Potter-like, where "only man is vile." It is in this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies. The world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when in fact they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape"
To clarify further, I assume that you're quite devoted to the Scruton position yourself, so perhaps it will be better to put the same words in another context - in reference to someone that you probably oppose:
"[Hitler] accuses Jewish rights advocates of "pre-scientific," germanomorphism, attributing traits to Jews that are, he says, Beatrix Potter-like, where "only Germans are vile." It is in this fiction that the appeal of Jewish rights lies. The world of the Jews is money-hungry, filled with bankers who act sycophantically almost no matter what we do; in order to gain our money , and Jews who pretend to be patriotic when in fact they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape"
(NB. I don't claim this to be Hitler's actual position: just replacing Nazi stereotypes where appropriate)
And, just for your information, this is the first time I have reinstated the edits; and I did so because you had not responded to what I had written here for an extended period (and you still haven't to some of them), so I assumed that you no longer had a problem with them. Evidently you own this article, and due to your superior status here, you've afforded yourself the right to decide what goes in it without the need to justify yourself. I will not reedit the article again, you've made quite clear that Wikipedia is dictated by its moderators.
82.18.30.66 (
talk) 09:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If no response is delivered, I would request that my edits be reinstated. I hope that this reversal was in good faith, and not simply due to being partisan. If the pro-animal rights sections of the article must comply with non-POV, then so must the anti-animal rights sections.
82.18.30.66 (
talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've extended this section a little to include Schopenhauer's antisemitism and to mention his possible influence over the Nazis. [2] I hope to write more in future, but having read around the subject a little, it's not clear-cut, and I'm going to have to do more reading of the philosophical positions at the time to make sure we're not misrepresenting him. For example, some non-philosophical sources now say he blamed Judaism entirely for the German attitude toward animals, but in fact he seems to have blamed Christianity at least as much. It's also not clear how much he influenced the Nazis, if at all. SlimVirgin talk| edits 01:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This section seems short. Are there really only three notable critics of Animal Rights? Bugguyak ( talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, most of the criticisms are refuted by saying that special cases of humans, such as children or the handicapped, are not capable of reciprocating rights but still have them. Who is going around saying that children have rights? In practice, these individuals are essentially the property of their parents/guardians. They don't really get prosecuted if they violate another's rights. As they become older and can reciprocate, they gain more rights, exactly how the social contract model is supposed to work. I guess my point is that the criticism section is lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.153.223.52 ( talk) 08:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I have added a proper critism section to the bottom of the article, and put the information that was removed back into it. This text should never have been removed, as it was relevant and cited sources. If anything, as stated here, the criticism section should be expanded. Reidlophile ( talk) 16:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't make much sense to me that Roger Scruton is mentioned in the lead, in the overview section and has his own section in the criticism section - most of which all say kind of the same thing. This is a long article already - repeating this seems like overkill. Bob98133 ( talk) 01:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
What kind of unnecessary cruelty does the picture illustrate? Did the man cut off the limb to solicit sympathy. Is the restraint too tight, causing the animal duress? Is it because it is a primate? But that would fall under animal rights. Doesn't really make sense to me. -- Dodo bird ( talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Bob, that was me quoting the original caption as written by Slimvirgin. Please direct your objections to her if you like. -- Dodo bird ( talk) 23:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It disgusts me that teh ALF "activists" are not described as the violent terrorists that they are. No-one would call Bin Larden an "activist" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.236.211 ( talk) 19:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know why some authors names in this list are missing? Kevin ( talk) 22:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If the animal materials for human use are unable to be forbidden, then licensing it in the same way as government licensing the alcohol consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.191.80.9 ( talk) 01:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The following paragraph is of concern:
Should an encyclopedia make the assertion that an argument is "an impossible claim to sustain"? Gary P88 ( talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I strongly recommend to extract the content concerning animal rights in modern philosophy (i.e. "17th century: Animals as automata" up to and including "Late 1890s: Opposition to anthropomorphism") into a seperate article to make this one more comprehensible. At least this is how we solved it in es:WP-- 85.180.178.106 ( talk) 10:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this article is too long and the content suffers for it Reidlophile ( talk) 16:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
As per guidelines at WP:Article size, this article is quite large. It has at least 44kb of readable prose, whereas the recommended is about 32kb. In addition, there seems to be disproportionate coverage of the historical issues relating to Animal rights. I would suggest creating an article History of animal rights and moving most of the historical content to this article per WP:Summary style. In that way could apply due emphasis to the contemporary debates on Animal rights. Eazyskankin ( talk) 20:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Since this is an article about animals, I think it would be a good idea to have more pictures of animals than humans. Currently, there are more pictures of humans than animals. Eazyskankin ( talk) 04:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The content seems to focus on the philosophical debates of a limited number of scholars. We know that in the US, humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But what rights do animals have. Unfortunately, I don't see any details. I would therefore suggest some breakdown of animal rights per region or country. Also religious views on animal rights. Another important issue missing is the justification of humans to eat other animals. Eazyskankin ( talk) 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
im just 11 so grammar ect. not the best
i am a vegetarian and i just hate that they kill all animals!!!but with the maple lef meats kiling all the animal and then just throwing it way....there isnt much tothis litt"article" but i just needed to type it!!
70.70.19.187 (
talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)kailie
I see this article has several references that link to articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica. As britannica is a 'tertiary source' (just like Wikipedia) - we should really try to avoid doing that. SteveBaker ( talk) 22:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any chance someone could start a knowledgeable section on the role of politics in spreading or curtailing animal rights? For example, Sarah Palin, Mc Cain's running mate, is an avid hunter and there are photos of her with a huge bear skin and giant crab in her office. I shudder to think of the fate of animal rights if McCain is elected and she is but a heartbeat away from the presidency. Would it not be good to draw people's attention on here to the politicians who are helping with animal rights and those who are not? ( Truthbody ( talk) 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC))
Edits can abuse this site, but intentions cannot. If the edits that "draw people's attention on here to the politicians who are helping with animal rights and those who are not" are in keeping with the WP guidelines, I don't see what objections there can be to them.
It seems to me that listing the politicians' positions on AR both on the AR page and on their own pages would be quite appropriate. If an issue exists and concerns a lot of people — which is the case of AR — it is relevant to the issue to know which politicians support it. The positions of the politicians on the issue is also relevant to the articles about the politicians themselves. I don't see how someone might want to deny that.
David Olivier ( talk) 15:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Count me in! Obama and McCain both have pages on Facebook. So it is not inconceivable that they, or their handlers might be eyeballing wiki too. And i think if we can start a ground swell like Truthbody suggests, "section on the role of politics in spreading or curtailing animal rights?" raina_noor ( talk) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)raina_noor raina_noor ( talk) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.87.65 ( talk) 12:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Could the anon (71.197.xxx) say why he removed these passages? [4] Are they inaccurate quotations? SlimVirgin talk| edits 18:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Please, is this statement: "The Nazis' position was the first attempt by a government to reject the concept of speciesism, at that point still unnamed, but it produced the worst of all possible outcomes. Rather than elevating the status of non-humans, the Nazis traduced the status of human beings they regarded as enemies."... is it just bland and blunt or is it sort of nonsensical? In our society, where words do not blur but rather they change meaning, rejecting the "concept" of speciesism is difficult because the person would argue that it is the "concept" of speciesism they wish people to grasp. Traduced? Isn't that Abracadabra or Doo Wah Diddy?... Concept? Is that a bit light on description? "at that point still unnamed" aren't these sentences a minor heading in the chapter entitled under the Nazi name for the whole thing? Seems that the "unnamed" part could be replaced by "The Germans didn't speak English" without loss of meaning. Not giving out stink but rather hoping for more information if anyone knowledgeable sees it. It's a lesser known aspect of the Nazi regime making it all the more interesting. ~ R. T. G 13:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this material belongs here, rather than in sentience. Look it over and see if you can use it. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 14:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
In the 17th century Thomas Tryon, a self-proclaimed Pythagorean, raised the issue of non-human suffering. Soon thereafter, many philosophers used the anatomical discoveries of the Enlightenment as a reason to include animals in what philosophers call " sympatheia," the principle of who or what deserves sympathy. Benjamin Franklin's autobiography identifies Tryon's writings as an influence in his decision to try vegetarianism; later in the book, he reverts to eating meat while still following Tryon's basic philosophy. [3] Joseph Ritson coupled Tryon's work with Rousseau's for "Essay on Abstinence from Animal Food" as many Rousseauists became vegetarian. Voltaire compared the Hindu treatment of animals to how Europe's emperors & Popes treated even their fellow men, praising the former and heaping shame upon the latter; in the 17th century, Descartes, Pierre Gassendi, and Francis Bacon also advocated vegetarianism. [4]
Some of this probably belongs here as well ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 14:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
In the 20th century, Princeton University professor Peter Singer argued that Bentham's conclusion is often dismissed by an appeal to a distinction that condemns human suffering but allows non-human suffering, typically "appeals" that are logical fallacies. Because many of the suggested distinguishing features of humanity—extreme intelligence; highly complex language; etc.—are not present in marginal cases such as young or mentally disabled humans, it appears that the only distinction is a prejudice based on species alone, which non-human animal rights supporters call speciesism—that is, differentiating humans from other animals purely on the grounds that they are human.
Gary Francione also bases his abolitionist theory of animal rights, which differs significantly from Singer's, on sentience. He asserts that "all sentient beings, humans or nonhuman, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others." [5]
Andrew Linzey, founder of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics in England, is known as a foremost international advocate for recognizing animals as sentient beings in Biblically-based faith traditions. The Interfaith Association of Animal Chaplains encourages animal ministry groups to adopt a policy of recognizing and valuing sentient beings.
I note this recent edit, about whether the monkey in the lead photo should properly be referred to by "its" or by "her." That strikes me as a significant question, and I'm really not sure what the correct answer is. Of course, many advocates of animal rights would argue for the personal pronoun, but it's not clear to me that logically this encyclopedia should do the same. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I started this thing by changing its to her realizing that the usage is cententious. I just checked a few online grammar references. The first couple said that "it" is the pronoun to use for animals. The 3rd said [5], [6], [7] "However, he or she may also be used to refer to an animal, if the gender of the animal is known to the speaker or writer."
This usage appears to be changing. I get back to an earlier argument that Wiki should reflect current and ongoing changes, or at least mention them. I would prefer "her" be used for the monkey in the image caption, but I recognize that this change in thinking is certainly not universal, so my 2nd option was to mention the changing usage in the article. A lot of language is inherently POV, such as denying the use of personal pronouns to animals, however I've had to yield in the past to well-referenced sources with which I did not agree (for example calling dog fighting a sport), which is how I felt about this. If the language can be worked out, I think that Hq3's idea works but that mention of the changing language should definitely be included in the article. Not using "its" by rewriting seems like a reasonable way to avoid the issue, but I don't think it should be buried. Bob98133 ( talk) 16:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I started this thing by changing its to her realizing that the usage is cententious. I just checked a few online grammar references. The first couple said that "it" is the pronoun to use for animals. The 3rd said [8], [9], [10] "However, he or she may also be used to refer to an animal, if the gender of the animal is known to the speaker or writer."
This usage appears to be changing. I get back to an earlier argument that Wiki should reflect current and ongoing changes, or at least mention them. I would prefer "her" be used for the monkey in the image caption, but I recognize that this change in thinking is certainly not universal, so my 2nd option was to mention the changing usage in the article. A lot of language is inherently POV, such as denying the use of personal pronouns to animals, however I've had to yield in the past to well-referenced sources with which I did not agree (for example calling dog fighting a sport), which is how I felt about this. If the language can be worked out, I think that Hq3's idea works but that mention of the changing language should definitely be included in the article. Not using "its" by rewriting seems like a reasonable way to avoid the issue, but I don't think it should be buried. Bob98133 ( talk) 16:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the following comments, without altering them, from where they had been inserted in the interior of my own comments above. The first is in response to the comment that the editor reports seeing my edits frequently. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Who is POV pushing, Tryptofish? Please answer explicitly. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
To refer to the monkey picture as the "epitome" of animal ownership is POV. I can argue that it's not the epitome. Either assertion is irrelevant. We are here to document, not interpret. -- Elliskev 18:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) As a possible solution, I tried changing "a scene epitomizing the idea of animal ownership" to "a scene epitomizing the animal rights view of animal ownership." In what has become a dismaying pattern, another editor reverted it (mislabeling it as a minor edit) with the edit summary "not really, no." If it is not the animal rights view, then whose view is it? Wikipedia's? All right-thinking people? There seems to me to be no reasonable justification for this. As the page reads now, it is implicitly saying that the scene epitomizes Wikipedia's view. This page is about animal rights, so why not indicate that the image reflects the animal rights view? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It's difficult to follow Slimvirgin's reasoning. Image of a monkey and its owner is typical of animal ownership because there are more food animals than pets? I agree that the "AR view of ownership" language is problematic since I don't think AR and non-AR views disagree with the definition of animal ownership. The disagreement is over whether ownership is acceptable. But it's not true that the "epitome" caption had consensus. I contested the part of the caption regarding "cruelty" at Talk:Animal_rights#Image_caption_of_lead_photograph, and there was consensus to remove that part. I also suggested using a picture of a dog as "using the picture of a monkey muddles the line as it introduces the issues of domestic vs non-domestic animal ownership(not really a rights vs welfare issue) and that of primates deserving some rights." I'm going to add the dog pic with a new caption and see if it sticks.-- Dodo bird ( talk) 00:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like you to stop warring (both of you), or at least, if you must go on (it can happen...), I'd like to understand what it's about, so I can take sides, or sit on the fence while knowing why. I have the impression that others too are a bit baffled. The discussion is incomprehensible, unless one makes constant references to the state of the page at the moment of each comment, which would be very tedious. The only thing that keeps cropping up is the word “epitomy”, it looks like a kind of joke. Could you (both of you) make a short statement to explain what it's about? (In the meanwhile, don't count me among the 100% of anything, please...) David Olivier ( talk) 22:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Some days have passed quietly, and I hope that I can now raise again some reasonable points, without eliciting any unreasonable reactions. At the very end of my last comment before the break, I pointed out that a possible constructive solution would be to substitute the more neutral word "illustrating" for the POV word "epitomizing." I still haven't changed anything on the page, but I show at right what this change would look like. Specifically, I would like to suggest changing " epitomizing the idea" to "a scene illustrating the issue." The most important aspect of this change would be the change from epitome to illustration. Please note that in the talk directly above this break, multiple editors have pointed out, in detailed and substantive examination of content, how "epitome" violates NPOV, whereas there has never been a comparable response explaining how it might not violate it. In addition, it recently occurred to me that changing "idea" to "issue" helps convey the fact that this is, indeed, an issue surrounded by discussion. With these changes, I believe that the Francione quote would no longer be necessary, although retaining it would do no harm. Beyond that, my suggestion seeks to correct some errors that were introduced in the edit, made perhaps in haste, that established the version now on the page. The word "monkey" was de-linked, which probably does not matter, but the word "epitomizing" was again linked, which it had not been for some time. That link looks silly, as if readers need to have a definition in order to know what the word means, and also looks a bit like a tacit admission that the word is problematic, as though it cannot stand on its own without qualifying it, or distracting from it. Also, the long-standing words "a scene" were deleted, which is just bad writing, because it makes the caption read, clumsily, as though the man is doing the epitomizing. If any editors can explain thoughtfully why the proposed changes would not improve the page, I would be interested to hear it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Thompsonfest, the various sections in here are meant to represent significant milestones. I'm not sure coining the term vegananarchism would really count as that, especially not regarding the development of the concept of animal rights. Within anarchism, perhaps. [11] SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
A couple of questions about the Franklin material:
1. We say that Franklin says, "... Kant would argue that only rational (and not all sentient) beings have inherent value. It follows that, according to Regan’s approach, there is no reason why inanimate objects should not also be given rights since the logic can be extended to include all things including those which are not sentient."
This is a very bad argument. Are we sure that Franklin actually argued this?
2. Regarding Singer, we have Franklin arguing that Singer requires a calculation of the aggregate well-being of a group, rather than the individual, and that this would permit the infanticide of one sickly child permitting he was replaced by a healthy one. I'm not sure Singer ever argued this. Does Franklin actually say Singer argued it, and did Singer argue it, in fact?
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
As part of the debate on abortion, I noticed that some pro-life campaigners were deploring that animal rights often were given the priority over so-called fetal rights, the right for fetuses to be born. There was a controversy over this in Spain, where the government announced that it was giving more rights to certain animals, while at the same time it said it would be alllowing for easier access to abortions, something which deeply upset the Catholic bishops of that country. [12] ADM ( talk) 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It is probably true that animal rights are often in the same book as animal liberation. Maybe animal rights could be viewed as a part of liberation but the two are not possible to mean the same thing are they? 86.46.64.230 ( talk) 10:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The section on Bentham's position on animal rights contains the sentence:
This is not a question but it ends with a question mark. Is this correct? If so, it should be followed by "[sic]. - Pgan002 ( talk) 01:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
SlimVirgin suggests that the biocentric-anthropocentric divide within the animal rights debate is neither relevant nor notable. The radical nature of the biocentric perspective does not preclude its relevance, just as its position outside of the mainstream does not limit its notability. Excluding this perspective is merely another way to ignore and marginalize a set of philosophical stances that challenge the core tenants of liberalism and humanism so many of us have been indoctrinated into. What is there to be afraid of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinus jeffreyi ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to Be Bold with a new version of the article, but first I will submit it for discussion: Talk:Animal rights/Animal rites. -- You.tilitarian ( talk) 13:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm new here and not quite sure what I should and shouldn't say.I'm involved in animal rights as a pet owner but lately I've been getting attacked for no reason at online hobby sites. My hobby is tropical fish. I guess I'm looking for an answer for the attacks I've been getting and how to accept,challenge,or otherwise deal with them without getting banned,disrespecting, or showing a form of abuse in statements I make in common conversation topics, on these Tropical Fish Forum sites. I can explain if someone were to read my post and show an interest,but it doesn't seem like that will happen here? If my conversation in an online forum about tropical fish shows an inhumane treatment of animals namely FISH,then I should be banned, but when a animal activist,starts preaching that some treatment in the process of marketing them is inhumane its not my fault if I'm the purchaser and not the marketer thats performing the inhumanity, right? So to make a long story short they accused me of disrespect to this person that was talking off topic in the forum just to be heard.They banned my account.My rights have been abused! New Tropical Fish forum and new account and the same thing almost happened. The details are recorded and can be re-created if I need to read them again,hopefully I replied to the new accusation without disrespecting the accuser and humbling myself as I believe I am a fair person and treat animals like I need to be treated,with fairness.But for all I know, this person insinuating my morals are pretty poor and that I should look for another Tropical Fish Forum could be just waiting to unfold another biased opinion of me, and I may just be better off not trying to find other tropical fish hobbiest like myself at all,the way my morals are being judged. The name of the sites are: www.fishlore.com and www.Badmanstropicalfish.com There should be stricter rules for activists that think they can assume that they are superior to someone else's comments based on heresay. And a nice fat fine should be imposed! Orangeademan ( talk) 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Walter Horne June 08,2009 10:02 [e.s.t.] Orangeademan ( talk) 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to change the main cutline back to what it was originally e.g. see here. The current cutline (see left) is meaningless.
The point of using this image was to illustrate the key difference between animal rights and animal welfare, as mentioned in the lead's final paragraph. It's a distinction people often don't get, and it's the key to understanding what animal rights is about, so I felt it was worth illustrating. I would therefore like to change it to the cutline on the right. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
No progress is going to be possible on this article if every single thing, every single phrase, is contested and made to be written badly. This is what happened with the cutline before. It was fine, then it got tweaked and tweaked and tweaked until it said nothing. Each tweak causes the next, because there's a steady deterioration in the writing, so from the point of view of each tweaker, the changes make sense, because they're trying to improve a cutline that has been edited badly. There's no point in having this happen again. It's the lead cutline. It needs to be written properly.
To be fiddling with the writing because plants might be beings, and because one strongly AR editor argues that not everyone would see that scene as unnecessarily cruel (when we don't say everyone would, but in any event, everyone would) is the worst of Wikipedia. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
In looking at these recent edits, I notice a contradiction that may have sneaked in, regarding AR legislation in Spain. At the moment, the page says at one point that the legislation has been adopted, but at another point that it is only under consideration. Perhaps someone who is more familiar than I am with what is happening in Spain could check, and reconcile the difference. (Also, a grammatical error will need to be corrected in the lower part.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The new resolutions have cross-party or majority support and are expected to become law and the government is now committed to update the statute book within a year to outlaw harmful experiments on apes in Spain. [14]
(outdent) On WP we follow reliable sources. The NYT is a reliable source, and it says: "If the bill passes — the news agency Reuters predicts it will — it would become illegal in Spain to kill apes except in self-defense." (emphasis added) This means that the committee vote was for a bill, which if approved by the full parliament would become law, not a "recommendation". Crum375 ( talk) 19:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel like providing another reference might help. It should be considered as reliable source, because it is the newsmaker - the Parliamentary Association in Defense of the Rights of Animals (APDDA). They are the authors of the proposal under discussion. On January 14, 2009 they published the following press-release:
I think it is very clear and straightforward message. The text of the question to the Government can be obtained from here. It is the latest official information we have on this case. Probably, it's worth mentioning. 77.241.46.57 ( talk) 21:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I just noted that there is also a sentence about Spain achievements in the second para of the article (in the summary). It should be also corrected in accordace with the main text. 77.241.46.57 ( talk) 21:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Hello all. I've read carefully what both of you said, and here is my opinion about these sourcing issues. I agree with Crum that we cannot use other wikis as reliable sources, and I also agree that it's at least dicey to use a primary source from the advocacy group, although I also think that it's informative that they apparently verify the claims that the "legislation" that they would like to see enacted has not been enacted, so it appears very likely that no such legislation is law in Spain. (And I think that if we were to follow a strict policy of never using primary sources from advocacy groups, this page and a lot of other AR pages would look very different!) On the other hand, it is entirely appropriate to use primary sources from the Spanish government to document what the Spanish government does; clearly, these are reliable. Not all primary sources are useless. I found the editorial observer column by Adam Cohen from the NYT very entertaining reading, and, although I do not see much need to add it to the page in addition to the NYT news piece (from about the same time) already cited, I think that it is appropriate for us to read both NYT pieces together in order to assess what best to report from the one that we do cite. Together, they reveal some imprecision in wording in the NYT news piece which, although it does not make it invalid to cite, does point to where we need to be careful about taking individual quotes from it, quoting them verbatim, making inferences (SYNTH) from those quotes, and ending up with claims in the page here that are not supported by the sources. Taking the sources together, it is clearly not legislation, nor legislation under consideration. It is a nonbinding resolution from a committee, noteworthy nonetheless, but not more than what it is. It does not grant rights to life, liberty (the pursuit of happiness, suffrage, paid health care, registered accounts at WP), but condemns using primates for research and circuses, though not zoos. I think 77.241 has done the page a great service in making that clear. Thank you. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
In particular, "1.1 Moral status of animals in the ancient world" has nothing on Buddhism, etc. I am probably not qualified to add it, but maybe someone else can. 69.229.10.205 ( talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I just added this article, about this organization which released a video which shows workers throwing male chics being dropped alive into a grinding machine.
Please watch the article. Ikip ( talk) 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I think JM Coetzee should be included as a notable writer on the issue of animal rights, although the more general category animal-human relations is probably more accurate. Nonetheless the issue features more or less prominently in nearly all of his works - indeed it features vividly in his first novel 'Dusklands', and is unarguably the subject of 'The Lives of Animals', which is also included entirely in his subsequent novel 'Elizabeth Costello'. He also gave an interview about this after his Nobel Prize award (and interviews with Coetzee are far rarer than Nobel Prizes.) In 2007 he also wrote a speech for the 'Voiceless' organisation about the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.86.112 ( talk) 08:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Just in case anyone has questions about the recent edits to the section about Spain, please see here for an explanation. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
T, please stop trying to fix my writing. This is the subjunctive. If you don't like it, fine, but it wasn't an error. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) About
this, it's actually kind of sad, as is the comment immediately above. It looks like the edit was made in anger and haste. I say that because it re-creates a punctuation error, in which a quotation mark comes before a period, instead of after per
WP:MOS. What that has to do with a POV tag is unclear to me. (But if the editor would like any help about correct punctuation, as well as correct use of the subjunctive, just let me know.) Anyway, I don't have strong feelings about the POV tag for this page at this time. But it was hardly a "drive-by" (whatever that means) when I tried to restore it. It was my strong conviction that such a tag should not have been removed (now twice) in an edit marked as a minor edit, without prior discussion in talk here (
example). (See also:
this.) With respect to such discussion, I don't feel strongly that the tag is needed, if other editors also do not, but let's just see what consensus is, before making such "minor" edits. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 16:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I think a new page should be made with the name History of animal ethics that shows the older views on animals such as Descartes' that clearly are speciesist. Steamsauna ( talk) 02:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam.. in this article it has no direct information about recent animal cruelty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.65.187 ( talk) 18:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it really relevant where her offices are located? Would "Kathleen Kete, an animal welfare historian" or some such description serve better here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nully ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
This section is seriously flawed. Molland (who gives no sources!) does not write that the Band of Mercy was established in 1824 -- which is the date the RSPCA was founded. The temperance movement, after which it is said to have been modled, only reached Britain in the 1830s, so 1824 is almost certainly too early. The name was "Band of Mercy", not "Bands of Mercy", as Molland writes. On the whole, Moland seems to be a questionable source at best.
I have information -- which I still need to verify -- that the Band of Mercy was set up in 1875 and was only integrated into the RSPCA in 1883. These dates are given by Fred Milton on [15].
The first paragraph should be amended with the correct dates; the second paragraph is more about the Animal Liberation Front than the Band of Mercy and should be deleted. Jopetz ( talk) 13:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
On reading up on the "Band of Mercy" I would now suggest removing the whole section. It certainly makes no sense under the present heading, since the Band of Mercy was not 'created' until 1876.
According to Edward Fairholme and Wellesley Pain, A Century of Work for Animals, The History of the R.S.P.C.A., 1824–1924 (London: John Murray, 1924), ch. 10, "The Children's Branches of the Society", those 'children's branches' developed out of classes for children first offered by Mrs Suckling in 1874 (p. 166). The title "Band of Mercy" was first used by Mrs Smithies in 1876, to organize a humane society for youths and children outside the RSPCA; in 1879 they started a magazine, the Band of Mercy Advocate (p. 167). In 1883, Smithies's son (due to ill-health) offered the copyright of the then Band of Mercy to the RSPCA and at a conference on 31 January 1883 the delegates voted that a union of Band of Mercy branches should be formed and that the RSPCA should be "placed at the head of such a union" (p. 168). Jopetz ( talk) 15:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
i beleive that there shoul be a section of this page all about animals testing the rights against that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.68.63 ( talk) 21:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)