This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just noting that the current second sentence awaits a better source. The issue of free-roaming animals is complicated and varies depending on the country. There are wild animals who are traded as exotic pets, sold to zoos, and shot by hunters who pay for the privilege. I've left the sentence semi-sourced until I have more time. SarahSV (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Leaving a note here with some ideas for article development. We could have sections on:
SarahSV (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
On the Talk:Veganism there was been some discussion on the different between commodification and property status. The article starts The commodity status of animals refers to the legal status as property - could be seen as ambiguous. Jonpatterns ( talk) 15:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Just noting that I've removed this for now, as it was causing confusion elsewhere (are all pets commodities, etc). When there's time, we can perhaps develop a section about it, as it's quite a complex area. SarahSV (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The AfD has come down firmly on the side of keeping the article but that does not mean that it does not have to be neutral.
The term 'commodity status of animals' is found almost exclusively in extreme animal rights literature and therefore needs to be identified as such in this article.
A quick look at mainstream animal rights organisations web sites, such as the RSPCA, Compassion in World Farming, and the ASPCA shows no sign of the terminology 'commodity status'. Instead the RSPCA, for example, use the more descriptive wording,'Puppies are being traded like scrap with no regard for their welfare'. Googling ' "commodity status" animals' get mainly excerpts from the WP Veganism page together with animal right liteature. I can see no evidence of widespread use of this term in the media or in general literature.
At best this terminology is wp:jargon although, in my opinion, it is in fact animal rights/vegan rhetoric. Whether it is jargon or rhetoric, we do need to make clear that 'commodity status of animals' is language used by a specific minority.
Please note that this does not meant that I want to dispute the meaning of the term as used in animal right literature. I am perfectly happy to leave that to those with knowledge and an interest in such matters. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
analysis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. None of the sources state where the term is used; Martin's own analysis of the situation, based on a subset of the sources currently in the article, is not WP:Verifiable and may be false (cf the UN etc.). FourViolas ( talk) 16:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
MOS:BEGIN says of the first paragraph [my bold], ' It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. What is the reason for wanting to ignore this policy? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 23:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia (and many other dictionaries), Discrimination is "the act of making distinctions between human beings".
This article is, as of now, part of a series on discrimination. I believe it would fit better in Animal Rights. Not only does "discrimination" denote exclusivity from animals by definition, but its association to this law-based article can be viewed as biased and extreme. This is clearly an animal rights (and ethics) matter, and should be categorized as such. GyozaDumpling ( talk) 10:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
What is a "non-human animal"? There is no such thing as human animal. It should be corrected to "non-human being". Miroslav Ďurian 21:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just noting that the current second sentence awaits a better source. The issue of free-roaming animals is complicated and varies depending on the country. There are wild animals who are traded as exotic pets, sold to zoos, and shot by hunters who pay for the privilege. I've left the sentence semi-sourced until I have more time. SarahSV (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Leaving a note here with some ideas for article development. We could have sections on:
SarahSV (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
On the Talk:Veganism there was been some discussion on the different between commodification and property status. The article starts The commodity status of animals refers to the legal status as property - could be seen as ambiguous. Jonpatterns ( talk) 15:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Just noting that I've removed this for now, as it was causing confusion elsewhere (are all pets commodities, etc). When there's time, we can perhaps develop a section about it, as it's quite a complex area. SarahSV (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The AfD has come down firmly on the side of keeping the article but that does not mean that it does not have to be neutral.
The term 'commodity status of animals' is found almost exclusively in extreme animal rights literature and therefore needs to be identified as such in this article.
A quick look at mainstream animal rights organisations web sites, such as the RSPCA, Compassion in World Farming, and the ASPCA shows no sign of the terminology 'commodity status'. Instead the RSPCA, for example, use the more descriptive wording,'Puppies are being traded like scrap with no regard for their welfare'. Googling ' "commodity status" animals' get mainly excerpts from the WP Veganism page together with animal right liteature. I can see no evidence of widespread use of this term in the media or in general literature.
At best this terminology is wp:jargon although, in my opinion, it is in fact animal rights/vegan rhetoric. Whether it is jargon or rhetoric, we do need to make clear that 'commodity status of animals' is language used by a specific minority.
Please note that this does not meant that I want to dispute the meaning of the term as used in animal right literature. I am perfectly happy to leave that to those with knowledge and an interest in such matters. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
analysis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. None of the sources state where the term is used; Martin's own analysis of the situation, based on a subset of the sources currently in the article, is not WP:Verifiable and may be false (cf the UN etc.). FourViolas ( talk) 16:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
MOS:BEGIN says of the first paragraph [my bold], ' It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. What is the reason for wanting to ignore this policy? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 23:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia (and many other dictionaries), Discrimination is "the act of making distinctions between human beings".
This article is, as of now, part of a series on discrimination. I believe it would fit better in Animal Rights. Not only does "discrimination" denote exclusivity from animals by definition, but its association to this law-based article can be viewed as biased and extreme. This is clearly an animal rights (and ethics) matter, and should be categorized as such. GyozaDumpling ( talk) 10:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
What is a "non-human animal"? There is no such thing as human animal. It should be corrected to "non-human being". Miroslav Ďurian 21:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)