![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Pain and suffering in laboratory animals page were merged into Pain in animals. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This was split off from Pain and Pain in fish and crustaceans.
The frog was chloroformed before the dissection was taking place as the author of the photo said. So the frog didn't feel pain. The photo isn't suitable here. -- Rotatoria ( talk) 15:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
One editor has repeatedly been deleting the Descartes image from the lead of the page, in spite of the fact that both I and another editor have reverted the deletion. I don't see any alternative image being offered, nor do I really see a valid reason (in my opinion) for why the page would be better with no image. Thoughts? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This article does not descrive and maintain clear distinctions between sensing pain and suffering from pain. (I guess the reason lies in the English language and cultural perception the words "pain" and "suffering" are synonyms.) After all, there is a concept of masochism (although I have never read about masochistic animals). That animals can feel pain and try to avoid has been known beyond any doubt even in times of Descartes (I fixed the article text to this end), the true controversy is about whether animals suffer. The second rerefence ("The Ethics of research involving animals") has a reasonably good treatment of this issue, and I would like to ask a person better versed in English to summarize it from there (and from other sources with possibly different POV). Kaligelos ( talk) 00:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear All, I am very new to writing for Wikipedia, so please be gentle with me. I'm concerned this article Pain in Animals is rather unbalanced and that a lot of (recent) scientific literature indicates the possibility of invertebrates having the capacity to experience pain. Some sections of the article appear to be mis-leading. For example, saying that fruit flies are one exception to invertebrates not having nociceptors is completely at odds with the paper by Smith and Lewin, 2009 J Comp Physiol A (2009) 195:1089–1106. My feeling is that the section on comparing 'fish and crustaceans' should be extended to 'vertebrates and invertebrates'. I am willing to do this, but afraid that the major re-write I envisage would be 'vandalism'. How should I proceed? DrChrissy ( talk) 11:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
...
If you define pain as an endogenous negative reinforcement to prevent the animal from destroying itself - which must be inherent in all living organisms to some extent - then clearly, without any shred of doubt, yes, animals, even plants, feel pain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lekjjkonon999 ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear All, I would like to revisit a concern that has been raised before by Tryptofish and possibly others, namely, the inclusion of the 'Laboratory animals' subsection on the page Pain in animals. First, the article is a little misleading in that it indicates all studies in the UK performed under a Home Office license involve pain. I can understand people misunderstanding this because of the three labels of severity, however, this is for suffering, not pain. Studies where a foreign substance is administered are also regulated. For example, scientists might make a food distasteful with quinine. This does not cause pain, but the animals do not like it so it is presumed to cause suffering. Second, I do not see why there should be a section on pain in laboratory animals without similar articles on Pain in farm animals, Pain in zoo animals, Pain in pet animals, etc. also being included. I believe the 'laboratory animals' article should be moved from this page.
Similarly, I am not sure why there are sub-sections only for fish and crustaceans on Pain in animals...this neglects a huge number of animals for which there is good encyclopedic information.
Perhaps even more fundamentally, shouldn't this page be titled 'Pain in non-human animals'? After all, humans are classified as part of the animal kingdom. DrChrissy ( talk) 15:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
This line appears in the body of the text with no citation. The reading I've done in philosophy, neuroscience and pain science leaves me thinking most scientists and philosophers will concede a degree of consciousness and the ability to suffer to chimps, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans and gibbons, and maybe cetaceans. As there's no source, and as this is a crucial point, I've deleted it until a source that can speak for the scientific community as a whole can be found. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 11:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I see that the seventh criterion 'High cognitive ability and sentience' has been added to the list of criteria suggesting the capacity for a species to experience pain. The reason why I omitted this from Rob Elwood's list is that some humans have a vary low cognitive ability and apparently reduced sentience, yet they clearly still experience pain. There is no strong reason about why animals need to have high cognitive ability to feel pain. That would mean mentally impaired humans feel less pain, but I doubt anyone would argue that this is the case. Having 'sentience' as a criterion is, I belive, a circular arguement. Sentience is the capacity to have positive and negative feelings, but surely pain is a negative feeling. I think the seventh added criterion should be removed. DrChrissy ( talk) 11:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone has added the sentence "Though evidence suggests that most invertebrates do not feel pain,..." to this article. Where is the evidence to substantiate this statement? For this statement to be true, 'Most' invertebrates would have to have been tested and they clearly haven't. This sentence should be removed. DrChrissy ( talk) 11:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
toSpecialists currently believe that all vertebrates can feel pain, citation needed and that some invertebrates, such as decapod crustaceans (e.g. crabs and lobsters) and cephalopods (e.g. octopuses) might. [1] [2] [3]
Though evidence suggests that most invertebrates do not feel pain, some argue that decapod crustaceans (e.g.crabs and lobsters) and cephalopods (e.g. octopuses) may. [1] [2] [3]
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
and Smith (1991) saysthe balance of the evidence suggests that most invertebrates do not feel pain. The evidence is most robust for insects, and, for these animals, the consensus is that they do not feel pain.
andThe evidence seems to suggest that at least some of the cephalopods might have a nervous organization that would allow them to experience something like pain. It is unclear, however, whether cephalopods are able to "suffer" pain.
andpain might seem less likely in the more "simple" invertebrates, than in the most "complex" invertebrates, such as the cephalopod mollusks (and, perhaps, decapod crustaceans such as crabs and lobsters, not considered here)
andthe evidence for pain perception [in cephalopods] is equivocal
I think my version better represents the sources. (I can't access Sherwin, 2001.) The article should, however mention that, because of this uncertainty, invertebrates ought to be treated as though they can feel pain. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 13:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)the evidence certainly does not preclude the possibility of pain in [cephalopods] and, moreover, suggests that pain is more likely in cephalopods than in the other invertebrates with less "complex" nervous organizations.
But please look at the quality of the 'evidence' you are citing. The Smith et al. paper is twenty years old! We have discovered so much about invertebrates, pain and animal suffering since then. The Senate Committee paper was published in 2004 I think, and cites only 9 pieces of work - hardly fitting for such a complex issue. I can provide a copy of the Sherwin paper for you if you wish (is there a way of linking to this in a Wiki article when it is copyright material?), but this is related to suffering in general, rather than pain specifically. DrChrissy ( talk) 13:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
If the majority of scholarly sources say that the “gold standard” measure of pain in a human is that person's testimony, then please cite to one or two of them. Thank you.
Bwrs (
talk)
05:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It strikes me that sentience is different from the other items in the list of criteria for determining whether an animal can feel pain or not. The other items in this list are scientifically-determinable; sentience is a prerequisite for feeling anything, but how are you going to measure it? Bwrs ( talk) 20:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Does this article need a section discussing the way different jurisdictions and professions address how the various classes of animal may be treated? For example, I vaguely recall some jurisdiction outlawing throwing a live crayfish into boiling water. Anyway, I just thought I'd moot the idea. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 06:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I propose that the small sub-section on crustaceans is deleted. Citation tags have correctly been placed on it, but even if these were added, I think the information is well covered in Pain in crustaceans. I feel all we need here is to direct the reader to this main page rather than give them very brief details on decapod crustaceans only. __ DrChrissy ( talk) 18:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
this revert is a violation of NPOV. Low quality, unrepresentive source was used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.57.72 ( talk) 04:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Did you read read the source and edit comments I added at all? That explained. 124.149.102.102 ( talk) 13:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
views from reliable sources are rejected without explain. 124.170.210.84 ( talk) 22:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I read the sections at COIN and NPOVN. It seems to me that uninvolved editors have reached a consensus that the IP editor is making incorrect accusations. I see no reason why Dr. Chrissy and Epipelagic could not go to WP:ANI and request what is called a rangeblock. However, I will also note the advice at COIN that Dr. Chrissy and Epipelagic are undermining their own case by needlessly raising issues about the IP editor, such as not having a registered account. You are just giving yourselves an un-needed black eye, because it looks to uninvolved editors like this is just a POV dispute, with both sides acting nasty to one another. I'm not time-wasting, just pointing out what does and what does not work. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on with this article. One editor has changed instances of "animals" to "non-human animals" and has had their edits reverted several times. Can a consensus be reached on this as things are going round in circles at the moment. Kev (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
To what extent Wikipedia should aim at scientific accuracy may be controversial. But to be told that using the term "nonhuman animals" rather than "animals" constitutes "vandalism" is both inaccurate and turns the normal usage of the term on its head. -- Cassandra3001 ( talk) 21:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
In popular usage, apes are often called "monkeys". Thankfully, Wikipedia doesn't replicate the error. The comparative nature, significance and possible ethical implications of pain in human and nonhuman animals are legitimate subjects for investigation and debate. To claim or otherwise imply that humans are not animals, on the other hand, would be scientifically illiterate. IMO the accurate term is to be preferred.-- Davidcpearce ( talk) 15:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) David, you weaken your case if you use immoderate language such as you have above, referring to people who disagree with you as "scientifically inaccurate", lacking "a neutral, non-ideological stand", and producing "a compendium of popular errors". I find myself wondering at your own ideological stand and whether you are an emissary from Peta. There is nothing "scientifically inaccurate" about using the term "animals" in a context where it is clear that nonhuman animals are being referred to. That is just one of numerous conventions in the English language that make things simpler and more concise when there is little possibility of confusion. Are you seriously suggesting that that convention confuses you? You can of course persist with your immoderate language, with its implication that you have some sort of moral upper hand and the rest of us are relatively degenerate. Some of the people opposing your views that you have engaged here and elsewhere have written extensively about awareness and suffering in animals. You have no grounds for the insinuations you are making.
However, I would support a proposal that all general articles about nonhuman animals, such as Pain in animals, contain a sentence in the lead that makes it quite clear that the article is about nonhuman animals. As has already been pointed out to you in this thread and elsewhere, the talk page of a specific article is not the place to formulate a Wikipedia guideline on this matter. If you are serious about addressing the issue in a more formal way, I suggest again that you raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals. The discussion in this thread has run its course. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 15:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) David, using the term "animals" is not "archaic pre-scientific usage". You made that up all by yourself. Dawkin was talking in a specific context involving creationists who think humans are not animals. I agree with Dawkin's stance in that context. Perhaps you live in one of those parts of the US overrun with creationists, so it seems like an important issue to you. But this is an encyclopedia for English speakers in general. Wikipedia articles should not be generally slanted to specifically address the confusions of creationists. That would lack balance and give far too much weight to creationists. Also, this page is t h e w r o n g p l a c e for a discussion like this. It would be more appropriate to discuss the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 12:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@ DrChrissy: What exactly is your concern with sourced info from NCBI website? So far I'm not seeing a valid reason for removal. Brandmeister talk 21:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
re. cortex: Fine to put the cortex quote in, but this must be balanced by arguments that because an animal does not have a cortex does not mean it can not experience pain.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 22:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Chrissy, Why isn't 'non-human animal' redundant and essential to what argument? Best Regards,
Hi. This is an argument which comes up time and time again because WP adopts the default approach that humans are not animals. Therefore, many editors when discussing what happens in non-human animals, feel it is sometimes necessary to remind readers that humans are also animals. I felt that in the section concerned, "non-human" was necessary to remind the reader of which organisms were being discussed. I have no doubt there will be other points of view as this is a huge disparity in WP. If you feel so inclined, please revert. I will not challenge this. All the best.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 23:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Epipelagic, I think this is a first one for me. It never has occurred to me to call anyone's edit 'eccentric.' I can't even consider this to be uncivil, it's too funny. Editing for brevity and clarity is a real and authentic goal of mine to improve the readability of articles. You don't actually revert everyone's edits to 'your' articles, do you? Best Regards,
Can we at least agree to define the topic in the opening statement. I did a search on "..is a contentious issue." as an opening statement on all articles in wikipedia and it is usually related to a political topic. The contentiousness of the article topic is very important, but as an opening statement? It doesn't help define the subject. Doesn't the contentiousness get treated in greater detail in the rest of the article? I've read nothing about including 'nuance' in encyclopedic writing anywhere on Wikipedia. It would seem quite appropriate to include nuances in the writing of essays, though. Your eccentric fellow editor,
I am quite surprised that intensive animal farming is currently not mentioned. Farmed animals are about 1000 times more numerous than animals in laboratories, and there are many commonplace practices that seem very painful, such as the mutilation of piglets. Alenoach ( talk) 23:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Pain and suffering in laboratory animals page were merged into Pain in animals. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This was split off from Pain and Pain in fish and crustaceans.
The frog was chloroformed before the dissection was taking place as the author of the photo said. So the frog didn't feel pain. The photo isn't suitable here. -- Rotatoria ( talk) 15:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
One editor has repeatedly been deleting the Descartes image from the lead of the page, in spite of the fact that both I and another editor have reverted the deletion. I don't see any alternative image being offered, nor do I really see a valid reason (in my opinion) for why the page would be better with no image. Thoughts? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This article does not descrive and maintain clear distinctions between sensing pain and suffering from pain. (I guess the reason lies in the English language and cultural perception the words "pain" and "suffering" are synonyms.) After all, there is a concept of masochism (although I have never read about masochistic animals). That animals can feel pain and try to avoid has been known beyond any doubt even in times of Descartes (I fixed the article text to this end), the true controversy is about whether animals suffer. The second rerefence ("The Ethics of research involving animals") has a reasonably good treatment of this issue, and I would like to ask a person better versed in English to summarize it from there (and from other sources with possibly different POV). Kaligelos ( talk) 00:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear All, I am very new to writing for Wikipedia, so please be gentle with me. I'm concerned this article Pain in Animals is rather unbalanced and that a lot of (recent) scientific literature indicates the possibility of invertebrates having the capacity to experience pain. Some sections of the article appear to be mis-leading. For example, saying that fruit flies are one exception to invertebrates not having nociceptors is completely at odds with the paper by Smith and Lewin, 2009 J Comp Physiol A (2009) 195:1089–1106. My feeling is that the section on comparing 'fish and crustaceans' should be extended to 'vertebrates and invertebrates'. I am willing to do this, but afraid that the major re-write I envisage would be 'vandalism'. How should I proceed? DrChrissy ( talk) 11:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
...
If you define pain as an endogenous negative reinforcement to prevent the animal from destroying itself - which must be inherent in all living organisms to some extent - then clearly, without any shred of doubt, yes, animals, even plants, feel pain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lekjjkonon999 ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear All, I would like to revisit a concern that has been raised before by Tryptofish and possibly others, namely, the inclusion of the 'Laboratory animals' subsection on the page Pain in animals. First, the article is a little misleading in that it indicates all studies in the UK performed under a Home Office license involve pain. I can understand people misunderstanding this because of the three labels of severity, however, this is for suffering, not pain. Studies where a foreign substance is administered are also regulated. For example, scientists might make a food distasteful with quinine. This does not cause pain, but the animals do not like it so it is presumed to cause suffering. Second, I do not see why there should be a section on pain in laboratory animals without similar articles on Pain in farm animals, Pain in zoo animals, Pain in pet animals, etc. also being included. I believe the 'laboratory animals' article should be moved from this page.
Similarly, I am not sure why there are sub-sections only for fish and crustaceans on Pain in animals...this neglects a huge number of animals for which there is good encyclopedic information.
Perhaps even more fundamentally, shouldn't this page be titled 'Pain in non-human animals'? After all, humans are classified as part of the animal kingdom. DrChrissy ( talk) 15:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
This line appears in the body of the text with no citation. The reading I've done in philosophy, neuroscience and pain science leaves me thinking most scientists and philosophers will concede a degree of consciousness and the ability to suffer to chimps, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans and gibbons, and maybe cetaceans. As there's no source, and as this is a crucial point, I've deleted it until a source that can speak for the scientific community as a whole can be found. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 11:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I see that the seventh criterion 'High cognitive ability and sentience' has been added to the list of criteria suggesting the capacity for a species to experience pain. The reason why I omitted this from Rob Elwood's list is that some humans have a vary low cognitive ability and apparently reduced sentience, yet they clearly still experience pain. There is no strong reason about why animals need to have high cognitive ability to feel pain. That would mean mentally impaired humans feel less pain, but I doubt anyone would argue that this is the case. Having 'sentience' as a criterion is, I belive, a circular arguement. Sentience is the capacity to have positive and negative feelings, but surely pain is a negative feeling. I think the seventh added criterion should be removed. DrChrissy ( talk) 11:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone has added the sentence "Though evidence suggests that most invertebrates do not feel pain,..." to this article. Where is the evidence to substantiate this statement? For this statement to be true, 'Most' invertebrates would have to have been tested and they clearly haven't. This sentence should be removed. DrChrissy ( talk) 11:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
toSpecialists currently believe that all vertebrates can feel pain, citation needed and that some invertebrates, such as decapod crustaceans (e.g. crabs and lobsters) and cephalopods (e.g. octopuses) might. [1] [2] [3]
Though evidence suggests that most invertebrates do not feel pain, some argue that decapod crustaceans (e.g.crabs and lobsters) and cephalopods (e.g. octopuses) may. [1] [2] [3]
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
and Smith (1991) saysthe balance of the evidence suggests that most invertebrates do not feel pain. The evidence is most robust for insects, and, for these animals, the consensus is that they do not feel pain.
andThe evidence seems to suggest that at least some of the cephalopods might have a nervous organization that would allow them to experience something like pain. It is unclear, however, whether cephalopods are able to "suffer" pain.
andpain might seem less likely in the more "simple" invertebrates, than in the most "complex" invertebrates, such as the cephalopod mollusks (and, perhaps, decapod crustaceans such as crabs and lobsters, not considered here)
andthe evidence for pain perception [in cephalopods] is equivocal
I think my version better represents the sources. (I can't access Sherwin, 2001.) The article should, however mention that, because of this uncertainty, invertebrates ought to be treated as though they can feel pain. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 13:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)the evidence certainly does not preclude the possibility of pain in [cephalopods] and, moreover, suggests that pain is more likely in cephalopods than in the other invertebrates with less "complex" nervous organizations.
But please look at the quality of the 'evidence' you are citing. The Smith et al. paper is twenty years old! We have discovered so much about invertebrates, pain and animal suffering since then. The Senate Committee paper was published in 2004 I think, and cites only 9 pieces of work - hardly fitting for such a complex issue. I can provide a copy of the Sherwin paper for you if you wish (is there a way of linking to this in a Wiki article when it is copyright material?), but this is related to suffering in general, rather than pain specifically. DrChrissy ( talk) 13:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
If the majority of scholarly sources say that the “gold standard” measure of pain in a human is that person's testimony, then please cite to one or two of them. Thank you.
Bwrs (
talk)
05:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It strikes me that sentience is different from the other items in the list of criteria for determining whether an animal can feel pain or not. The other items in this list are scientifically-determinable; sentience is a prerequisite for feeling anything, but how are you going to measure it? Bwrs ( talk) 20:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Does this article need a section discussing the way different jurisdictions and professions address how the various classes of animal may be treated? For example, I vaguely recall some jurisdiction outlawing throwing a live crayfish into boiling water. Anyway, I just thought I'd moot the idea. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 06:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I propose that the small sub-section on crustaceans is deleted. Citation tags have correctly been placed on it, but even if these were added, I think the information is well covered in Pain in crustaceans. I feel all we need here is to direct the reader to this main page rather than give them very brief details on decapod crustaceans only. __ DrChrissy ( talk) 18:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
this revert is a violation of NPOV. Low quality, unrepresentive source was used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.57.72 ( talk) 04:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Did you read read the source and edit comments I added at all? That explained. 124.149.102.102 ( talk) 13:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
views from reliable sources are rejected without explain. 124.170.210.84 ( talk) 22:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I read the sections at COIN and NPOVN. It seems to me that uninvolved editors have reached a consensus that the IP editor is making incorrect accusations. I see no reason why Dr. Chrissy and Epipelagic could not go to WP:ANI and request what is called a rangeblock. However, I will also note the advice at COIN that Dr. Chrissy and Epipelagic are undermining their own case by needlessly raising issues about the IP editor, such as not having a registered account. You are just giving yourselves an un-needed black eye, because it looks to uninvolved editors like this is just a POV dispute, with both sides acting nasty to one another. I'm not time-wasting, just pointing out what does and what does not work. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on with this article. One editor has changed instances of "animals" to "non-human animals" and has had their edits reverted several times. Can a consensus be reached on this as things are going round in circles at the moment. Kev (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
To what extent Wikipedia should aim at scientific accuracy may be controversial. But to be told that using the term "nonhuman animals" rather than "animals" constitutes "vandalism" is both inaccurate and turns the normal usage of the term on its head. -- Cassandra3001 ( talk) 21:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
In popular usage, apes are often called "monkeys". Thankfully, Wikipedia doesn't replicate the error. The comparative nature, significance and possible ethical implications of pain in human and nonhuman animals are legitimate subjects for investigation and debate. To claim or otherwise imply that humans are not animals, on the other hand, would be scientifically illiterate. IMO the accurate term is to be preferred.-- Davidcpearce ( talk) 15:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) David, you weaken your case if you use immoderate language such as you have above, referring to people who disagree with you as "scientifically inaccurate", lacking "a neutral, non-ideological stand", and producing "a compendium of popular errors". I find myself wondering at your own ideological stand and whether you are an emissary from Peta. There is nothing "scientifically inaccurate" about using the term "animals" in a context where it is clear that nonhuman animals are being referred to. That is just one of numerous conventions in the English language that make things simpler and more concise when there is little possibility of confusion. Are you seriously suggesting that that convention confuses you? You can of course persist with your immoderate language, with its implication that you have some sort of moral upper hand and the rest of us are relatively degenerate. Some of the people opposing your views that you have engaged here and elsewhere have written extensively about awareness and suffering in animals. You have no grounds for the insinuations you are making.
However, I would support a proposal that all general articles about nonhuman animals, such as Pain in animals, contain a sentence in the lead that makes it quite clear that the article is about nonhuman animals. As has already been pointed out to you in this thread and elsewhere, the talk page of a specific article is not the place to formulate a Wikipedia guideline on this matter. If you are serious about addressing the issue in a more formal way, I suggest again that you raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals. The discussion in this thread has run its course. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 15:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) David, using the term "animals" is not "archaic pre-scientific usage". You made that up all by yourself. Dawkin was talking in a specific context involving creationists who think humans are not animals. I agree with Dawkin's stance in that context. Perhaps you live in one of those parts of the US overrun with creationists, so it seems like an important issue to you. But this is an encyclopedia for English speakers in general. Wikipedia articles should not be generally slanted to specifically address the confusions of creationists. That would lack balance and give far too much weight to creationists. Also, this page is t h e w r o n g p l a c e for a discussion like this. It would be more appropriate to discuss the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 12:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@ DrChrissy: What exactly is your concern with sourced info from NCBI website? So far I'm not seeing a valid reason for removal. Brandmeister talk 21:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
re. cortex: Fine to put the cortex quote in, but this must be balanced by arguments that because an animal does not have a cortex does not mean it can not experience pain.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 22:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Chrissy, Why isn't 'non-human animal' redundant and essential to what argument? Best Regards,
Hi. This is an argument which comes up time and time again because WP adopts the default approach that humans are not animals. Therefore, many editors when discussing what happens in non-human animals, feel it is sometimes necessary to remind readers that humans are also animals. I felt that in the section concerned, "non-human" was necessary to remind the reader of which organisms were being discussed. I have no doubt there will be other points of view as this is a huge disparity in WP. If you feel so inclined, please revert. I will not challenge this. All the best.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 23:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Epipelagic, I think this is a first one for me. It never has occurred to me to call anyone's edit 'eccentric.' I can't even consider this to be uncivil, it's too funny. Editing for brevity and clarity is a real and authentic goal of mine to improve the readability of articles. You don't actually revert everyone's edits to 'your' articles, do you? Best Regards,
Can we at least agree to define the topic in the opening statement. I did a search on "..is a contentious issue." as an opening statement on all articles in wikipedia and it is usually related to a political topic. The contentiousness of the article topic is very important, but as an opening statement? It doesn't help define the subject. Doesn't the contentiousness get treated in greater detail in the rest of the article? I've read nothing about including 'nuance' in encyclopedic writing anywhere on Wikipedia. It would seem quite appropriate to include nuances in the writing of essays, though. Your eccentric fellow editor,
I am quite surprised that intensive animal farming is currently not mentioned. Farmed animals are about 1000 times more numerous than animals in laboratories, and there are many commonplace practices that seem very painful, such as the mutilation of piglets. Alenoach ( talk) 23:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)