Talk:Animal rights/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Peta etc

12/15/04: More details on criticism needed to convey any sense of neutrality. Peta's strange behavior should be discussed. Protesting and vandalism of medical research should be looked at from a moral standpoint.

the right not to be eaten

Are you sure ? Animals eat animals, so what's their explanation of calling it 'animal right' ? -Taw

The right to life is maybe more precise. Anyway, the point is, at least among some animal rights defenders, 1. that human beings don't need meat to survive and 2. that human beings have, at least in some phenomenological sense, free will, which most non-human being seems to lack. This gives us moral responsibilities that other animals lack. There are also different kinds of rights; those that are claimed, and those that are given, so to speak. Infants, for instance, don't claim a right to live, but we nevertheless grant it to dem. -LarsErikKolden

I would be surprised to hear that any animals had any explanations whatsoever! (hee hee) Perhaps your question might be better cast as, "Animals eat animals, so why do animal activists claim a right for them not to be eaten?"

The question suggests/implies that human murderers (to draw an analogy) are hypocritical to demand for themselves a right not to be executed. Perhaps the right not to be eaten should extend only to herbivores? -- Cayzle

Seems as if some "animal rights" advocates are non-vegans, participate in the food chain but dislike cruelty to animals above and beyond the minimal necessary to the food process (ie Veal). There should be some distinction or explanation of the range of opinions. Changed this to "considered by some". --justfred

"alleged rights" is confusing. What does that mean? Does "alleged rights" mean anything other than "rights thought by some"?

Is the point that animals can't talk, and thus can't assert rights for themselves?

--TheCunctator

Is anyone else confused by it? Or can we convey the thought less confusingly? "Alleged rights" is similar to "alleged victories" or "alleged crimes." Some people allege that the things in question exist, or if there's no question of their existence that they are properly described by the epithets--and some people deny that. So: some people say that there are animal rights; others deny this. We should not simply, in the first sentence, say that "animal rights are such-and-such," when many people deny that there are any such things at all. For those who happen to deny that animals have rights, that would be not unlike writing, "Anna Karenina was a Russian born in 18XX" and failing to mention in the sentence that she's fictional.

Of course, to say the above is not to affirm or deny that animals have any particular rights or none at all.  :-) --LMS

"Animal rights are rights?, or alleged rights, thought by some..." I think this is just redundant - either alleged rights or rights thought by some. --Justfred

I was going to say that even human rights can be said to be alleged, and wanted to check what was said in that article, and then it shows up it doesn't exist(!). He. --LarsErikKolden

We could probably mention specific animal rights groups, like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and some criticisms of such groups. For example, I think that some animal rights groups have argued against hunting predators like wolves or sharks, even when such predators are posing a clear danger to human lives. There's also the whole laboratory research issue, whether it's right to experiment on animals to produce more treatments and cures for humans. And the (fringe?) animal rights activists that have used violence to destroy such labs, and otherwise have literally fought for animal rights.

I personally find it interesting that this topic is already being discussed in far greater detail than Human rights, at least at the moment. But I won't complain, since I don't really want to go add stuff to Human rights either. Time is short. --Wesley


(Anecdote:) A friend of mine related this story from Washington DC: during the (Clinton) presidential inaguration, and PETA was staging major protests - throwing blood on furs, "I'd rather wear nothing than fur" (in DC in Winter?!?!), etc. So as some elegant woman was leaving one of the inagural balls in a full-length mink, an activist assaulted her: "Do you know how many animals they had to kill to make that coat?" Her response: "Do you know how many animals I had to f--- to get this coat?"

This story is apocryphal. I read exactly the same wording in a 1970s joke book (though obviously without references to a Clinton inauguration or PETA).

I was surprised that this page claims a clear distinction between those who support animal rights and those who are concerned about animal welfare. I know few people, many of whom are probably the type hard-core animal rights advocates would dismiss as merely concerned with animal welfare, who recognize such a distinction, even as they send of the annual check. Did anyone else fine this attempt to draw a line unusual?

FYI - over the last few years I've seen several style books decided to use the term "animal welfare" except when discussing a specific group, such as PETA, but it's not clear if this is copy editors and managing editors trying to lead a trend, or a way of acknowledging that many, many people feel our species has a responsibility to be merciful to other living things while very few people think that somehow wild rabbits should be protected from wild coyotes.

I think you will find this is a fairly common distinction made among activists and philosophers, as they are quite distinct philosophical positions and therefore can lead to quite different conclusions on issues. I think in an article of this nature it is worth making this distinction. Sunflower 04:36, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removed the following block. While interesting, I don't see what it has to do with animal rights. Rossami 20:25, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Those who want to antagonize the "rights" and the "welfarist" approaches should remember the words of Noam Chomsky, who, quoting Dewey (in another context), said that

[it is correct that] mere "attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance", but it can create the basis for undermining the substance. It goes back to the Brazilian rural worker's image [of] expanding the floor of the cage. Eventually you want to dismantle the cage, but expanding the floor of the cage is a step towards that.

Changed "that sentient animals, because they are capable of valuing their own life" to "that animals, accepting they are sentient and capable of valuing their own life".

Reworded the opening paragraph to eliminate POV. The sentience of animals is itself controversial. Animal rights activists probably say animals are self-aware and even fully sentient, but their opponents might not agree, so the paragraph should not imply that sentience is a fact when it is an axiom from which the activists develop their policies. Vincent 06:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the following needs to be changed to make it more neutral "All above-ground animal rights groups, as well as the Animal Liberation Front, denounce the use of violence against people. However this is not the case in U.K. where radical animal right activitsts still actively engage in harassement of family homes of individual workers of reserach facility, related business and individual shareholders."

I don't think harassment can be equated with use of violence as it is in the quote above, the point could still be made that some UK activists believe that harassment of people involved in animal industries is a valid tactic, but this does not necessarily equate to violence.

I have edited to clarify the point above. Sunflower 03:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have put in a mention for Roger Scruton's book, not because I agree with it, but because I find it interesting, and an encyclopedia entry would be incomplete without mention of counter-arguments. I think Animal Rights and Wrongs is one of two books on animal rights by Scruton, the other of which is adressed more to philosophers than to general readers.

Whilst browsing the web, I have come across 'the moral agent-moral patient identity thesis', which states that to be a moral patient one has to be a moral agent. Adherents to this thesis must think that animal rightists have got it all wrong. I have not however come across an argument for this thesis yet - merely a statement of it. Anyone know more about this?

It is kind of paradoxical that animal rights activists seem to be more militant than the animal welfare people, to the point that some of them issue death threats. Believers in rights cannot use utilitarian-style 'ends justify the means' arguments to support the use of such tactics. I guess that such people are really rather confused fanatics. I also suspect that the animal rights vs. animal welfare distinction means one thing in the context of philosophical discussion, and another thing in the context of popular campaigning.

I'm not entirely sure that splitting animal rights and animal welfare across two pages is the right approach, as it is difficult to talk about one without talking about the other, and we now have a lot of duplication. I think separate headings on a single page would be better.

--Publunch 16:59, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm new here - hopefully my revisions are acceptable. Didn't know about the "Edit Summary" feature. I added some stuff to the Animal Rights in Practice section to make it more reflective of what animal rights supporters actually think about specific issues, like vegetarianism and fur. Does anyone know if we could change the order at all? It seems very strange to have the "Animals and the Law" section near the beginning, since it's mosty unconnected to the rest of the article, and isn't very important.

Anyway, in response to the above, the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare in practice is this: animal welfare people are opposed to "unnecessary" animal suffering, where "unnecessary" means basically that no human desire or want is abridged by ending the suffering. Animal rights people actually think that some benefits to humanity (gustatory pleasure, vanity, etc.) are not sufficient to outweigh some harms to animals (like pain, slaughter, and confinement). The difference is not in philosophic constructs, but rather in the resolution of conflicts of human and animal interests.

Philosophy is much less central to the movement than most people seem to think, probably because reporters and writers outside the movement have had a much easier time reading published philosophy books than finding and talking to grassroots animal rights activists.

I think the two deserve separate articles - the reason they feel like they belong together is that the current article focuses more on how animal rights is different from animal welfare than on what it actually is. When more content is added, the two will have a lot of non-overlap. The history of the two movements, especially, is very different, although I'm not really qualified to write much about it.

---SpaceMoose 09:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Photo

I don't think this picture is a very accurate representation of animal rights. Did the German soldiers care about horses' "rights," or did they just not want their horses to die, just as they wouldn't want their trucks to break nowadays? Thoughts?-LtNOWIS 02:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the photo doesn't add anything to the article. If nobody disagrees it should be removed. Edward 12:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's the dispute?

Who put up the "disputed" warning, and why? If the idea is that PETA's "strange behavior" and the activities of anti-vivisection activists should be condemned ("looked at from a moral standpoint"), this is precisely what an encyclopedia article ought NOT to do. The intent of this article is to explain what the concept of "animal rights" means. That involves saying what animal-rights advocates believe. Doing so does not mean either advocating or condemning animal rights. Unless the disputer can explain clearly what the alleged problem with the article is, he/she should take down the warning sign. A case could be made for adding a bit more under "Criticism of animal rights", and I would be willing to do. Some critics (e.g., Jan Narveson, R.G. Frey) are hostile to the notion of animal liberation, but some critics (e.g., ecofeminist Carol Adams) are advocates of animal liberation but believe the focus on moral rights is seriously inadequate.

Hence, while there may be good reasons to treat animals humanely (out of compassion or out of respect for the wishes of other humans), it makes no sense to ascribe rights to them. However, many humans (infants and the severely mentally handicapped) are not moral agents. Do these humans have no moral rights? Carl Cohen, for one, claims that such individuals merit rights simply because they are human and therefore members of a group that typically does exhibit moral agency. Cohen’s position implies that while a human being with the mental capacity of a mouse has full moral standing, a mutant chimpanzee with an I.Q. of 150, who regularly contributed articles on philosophy to Wikipedia, would have no rights whatever.

This seems a bit POV to me. Anyone know of a better way to put this?

What is the alleged POV problem here? There's a difference between describing the point of view of those one is writing about -- something that is necessary in this case -- and imposing one's own point of view on the material. Thus, "it makes no sense to ascribe rights to them" accurately describes the view of those whose position is being explained. "Do these humans have no moral rights?" refers to a major issue in the debate over animal liberation, namely the so-called "argument from marginal cases": i.e., those who deny full moral standing to animals must deal with the problem posed for them by the overlap in mental capacities between (some) humans and (some) animals. Carl Cohen recognizes this problem and tries to deal with it by basing his argument for moral standing on "kinds" of beings rather than the capacities of particular individuals, as pointed out in the passage. His solution does indeed have the implication mentioned. (Whether it is a good idea to include severely mentally handicapped humans in the moral community while excluding clever chimpanzees, is for the reader to judge.) The contractarian position, however, which is referred to next (see main text) avoids this implication of Cohen's position. I am going to alter the text slightly to mention the argument from marginal cases. (Thanks for spurring me to do this; I think the result makes things a bit clearer for readers.)

Whose Marxian perspective?

Re. the "Criticisms of Animal Rights" section: Who exactly is it that criticizes animal rights from a "Marxian or historicist perspective", and which animal-rights supporters "often" take this as a might-makes-right argument? As far as I know, such a perspective has not been articulated to any significant extent in the debate over the moral status of animals, and therefore should probably not be included in this article. The fact that someone could make such an argument is irrelevant, it seems to me. Scales 08:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ted Benton (Natural Relations: Ecology, Animal Rights, and Social Justice) and David Nibert (Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation) have addressed the topic from a Marxist perspective, but both support animal liberation. Benton does not reject the notion of animal rights, though he finds it inadequate and prefers to talk in terms of human duties to animals. The current entry should be changed to make it clear that a Marxist perspective is not necessarily hostile to animal liberation in general or animal rights in particular. Scales

Isn't this whole animal-rights argument is a bit futile? Is there a way, after all, to show that one claim about animal rights is more "true" than other? I don't really seem to understand all those animal rights defenders, there are no truth with which they can try to convience people to defend animals. This all sounds senseless to me.

Rights versus liberation

Scales, thanks for your e-mail. I'll talk to you about this later on Thursday on this page, if that's okay with you. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:43, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

I'm pasting the alternative introductions onto this page so we can take a look at them. Yours is:

  • Version 1

Animal rights is the viewpoint that (non-human) animals have moral rights that prohibit humans from violating their basic interests, and that they ought to have legal rights to protect those interests.

The term "animal rights" is commonly used as a synonym for "animal liberation". However, not all those who favour liberating animals from human domination (e.g. some utilitarians and feminists) believe that the concept of moral rights is the best ethical approach to take.

Mine is:

  • Version 2

The philosophy of animal rights refers to the view that non-human animals ought to have certain basic rights enshrined in law to ensure the protection of their most important interests.

Switzerland passed legislation in 1992 recognizing animals as beings, not things, and in 2002, rights for non-human animals were enshrined in the German constitution when its upper house of parliament voted to add the words "and animals" to the clause in the constitution obliging the state to respect and protect the dignity of human beings. [1] The Seattle-based Great Ape Project, founded by Australian philosopher Peter Singer, is campaigning for a United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Great Ape. [2]

Some animal-rights theorists argue that animals, like humans, have moral rights, while others take a utilitarian approach. The term "animal rights" is therefore more commonly taken to refer to animal liberation, and need not imply that its supporters advocate a rights-based moral philosophy.

Most, if not all, animal-rights theorists agree that to regard non-human animals as different in kind from humans, and undeserving of legal rights for that reason, is to be guilty of speciesism, a form of prejudice that, they argue, has no philosophical or biological justification. [3] SlimVirgin (talk) 16:22, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Legal versus moral rights

(Copied with permission from Scales' e-mail to SlimVirgin):

I respectfully take issue with your emphasis on legal rights when you say: "The philosophy of animal rights refers to the view that non-human animals ought to have certain basis [sic] rights enshrined in law to ensure the protection of their most important interests." The PHILOSOPHY of animal rights is essentially just that: philosophy, and in particular, a branch of MORAL philosophy: hence, it is primarily about MORAL, not legal, rights -- or, in the broader sense of animal liberation, about the equal consideration of interests. It is perfectly okay to refer to the struggle for legal rights for animals in the article, but that should not be the way the article begins. The movement to give animals legal rights grows out of the philosophy of animal liberation, including the important branch of it that ascribes moral rights to animals. First comes moral philosophy, then law. (Actually, first comes compassion, then moral philosophy, then law.)

You say: "Some animal-rights theorists argue that animals, like humans, have moral rights, while others take a utilitarian approach. The term "animal rights" is therefore more commonly taken to refer to animal liberation, and need not imply that its supporters advocate a rights-based moral philosophy." I find this way of putting things confusing. In terms of moral philosophy, NO animal-rights theorists take a utilitarian approach. Some animal-liberation theorists take a utilitarian approach; others take a rights approach; others take a feminist approach; etc. I also find it vague or confusing to say that "'animal rights' is...taken to refer to animal liberation"; rather, the term "animal rights" is commonly confused with the broader notion of "animal liberation". Scales

Scales, I think there are merits in both versions, so it's just a question of weighing them up here, and perhaps asking for the views of other editors. I did find yours a little brief, but I take your point that mine focuses on legal as opposed to moral rights. But to focus on the issue of moral rights is to beg the question, perhaps, in terms of the aim of the animal-rights movement. Animal-rights activists don't want animals to have moral rights: they want humans to stop abusing them, and that means they need legal rights. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:27, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

About legal rights: as you know, legal rights are assigned to corporations, and my understanding is that they could be assigned in principle to anything society might decide it useful to give them to: old-growth forests, old-master paintings, ticket stubs from Celine Dion concerts, etc. Animal liberation/animal rights is about more than legal standing for animals; it's about our moral obligations to animals as sentient individuals who have experiences and lives that matter to them -- something that is not true in the case of ticket stubs or old-growth forests or corporations per se. So it seems to me that the heart of animal liberation/animal rights is morality, not legality. As I suggested in my e-mail, the push for laws protecting animals (which, I agree, is very important) grows out of the moral stance (the claim that animals should be included in the moral community). Scales

I suppose the problem I have is that your version relies heavily on drawing a distinction between animal rights and animal liberation, and while I accept there is an academic distinction (the former to do with moral philosophy, the latter the name of an activist movement or its ideology), I don't know to what extent that distinction is adhered to outside academia. I see you've written a separate article for Animal liberation where it used to be a redirect to this one. This might be a good time to debate the general direction of these pages, and whether they ought to be separate; and if so, what material belongs on each page. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:45, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate section to pose this, but its the closest in the talk page. While both Animal rights and Animal welfare mention briefly the distinction I'm surprised that neither pages present the other's criticisms of their ideas. I find that this is lacking in both articles, but I'm afraid I lack really the education in the topics to write a paragraph on them (I actually came here looking for more on this). I was wondering if anybody would be willing to start some paragraph or something about the difference in arguing for good treatment of animals from the standpoint of human moral obligation than from defense of animals as moral agents. I really feel that the criticisms of animal rights from the arguments from sympathy and humane treatment need to be included. Kablamo2007 6 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

Suggestion for new intro

SlimVirgin, you say "The philosophy of animal rights refers to the view that non-human animals ought to have certain basic rights enshrined in law to ensure the protection of their most important interests." If by "rights" is meant legal rights, then adding "enshrined in law" is redundant. On the other hand, if the idea here is that animals have moral rights that ought to be enshrined in law, the sentence needs to be rephrased, doesn't it? And doesn't the first sentence in Version 1, above, cover the bases in this regard?

By "rights enshrined in law," I meant "legal rights," so there's no redundancy. But I'd be quite happy to return to something like your first sentence: "Animal rights is the viewpoint that (non-human) animals have moral rights that prohibit humans from violating their basic interests, and that they ought to have legal rights to protect those interests." Except that animal rights is not a viewpoint, so we'd have to play it with it a bit. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right that the distinction between "animal liberation" and "animal rights" is more an academic than an everyday one. That's what the second sentence in Version 1, above, is meant to point out. Isn't a Wikipedia article just the place to point out this distinction to readers? Given that so many leading writers in the debate, including many on the pro-animal side (notably Peter Singer and some feminists) reject, or at least shy away from, ascribing moral rights to animals, "animal liberation" is a more exact term for the whole movement than is "animal rights". Still, we have to recognize that most people will look up the subject under "Animal Rights".

We could call this Animal liberation and do a redirect from Animal rights, which means that anyone looking up Animal rights would be taken to Animal liberation. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

What if we said something like this: Animal rights (or animal liberation) is the movement to protect (non-human) animals from being exploited by humans. It is a radical movement, insofar as it aims not merely to attain more humane treatment for animals, but to include many animals within the moral community — that is, all those whose basic interests (for example, in not being made to suffer unnecessarily) ought to be given the same consideration as our own similar interests. The claim, in other words, is that these animals must no longer be regarded legally or morally as property, or treated merely as resources for human purposes. To this end the movement advocates that many animals be given legal rights to protect their basic interests.

Yes, that is very good. I'd like to add the notion of personhood somewhere. For example: "The claim, in other words, is that these animals must no longer be regarded legally or morally as property, or treated merely as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as persons." SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

The above paragraph is a slightly modified version of the first paragraph in the "Animal Liberation" entry. If the essence of the second paragraph from that entry (outlining the disinction between "animal rights" and "animal liberation") were added to the "Animal Rights" entry, we could then delete the "Animal Liberation" entry and simply have a link from "Animal Liberation" to "Animal Rights". What do you think? Scales

Yes, I agree. Good ideas, excellent writing — thank you. Do you want to make the edits, or shall I? Also, in case you don't know this, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end, like this ~~~~. This will automatically add your user name (if you've signed in), the time, and the date. That helps other editors who read the talk pages to keep track of who said what and when. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I've put in the new intro, which is much better, so thank you for writing it. I've added the idea of personhood, and I've retained the material from the old intro about Switzerland, Germany, and the Great Ape Project. Let me know if you disagree with that. I've also redirected Animal liberation.
I have a question about one of your sentences: "It is a radical movement, insofar as it aims ... to include many animals within the moral community — that is, all those whose basic interests (for example, in not being made to suffer unnecessarily) ought to be given the same consideration as our own similar interests."
So you're saying that not all animals are to be included, which begs the question as to which ones ought to be, and you go on to answer that by saying: "all those whose basic interests ought to be given the same consideration as our own similar interests." But there's a sense in which this reduces to tautology — the animals that ought to be included are the animals whose interests ought to be given consideration i.e. the animals that ought to be included. Alternatively, if what you're saying is that only those animals capable of sharing similar interests to human beings ought to be included, that is a substantive point that perhaps needs some clarification.
I must thank you again for your very positive input and high-quality editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:22, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we're in basic agreement. I don't think the sentence you refer to is tautologous. The words "all those whose basic interests...ought to be given the same consideration as our own similar interests" is a definition of the moral community. The sentence simply says that many animals ought to have their basic interests given the same consideration as our similar interests. There may be other, slightly different, ways of defining the moral community. However, I don't know of any writer or activist who claims that all animals ought to be admitted to the moral community (i.e., "liberated" or given legal rights). Insects? Amoebas? Singer proposes one criterion (sentience) for who gets in; Regan proposes a slightly different one (being the "subject-of-a-life"). It's questionable whether insects or amoebas have any interests, in the sense in which interests require having desires or subjective preferences. At one point Singer suggested drawing the line for who gets in "somewhere between a shrimp and an oyster". The issue is partly an empirical one, dependent on what science tells us about the inner lives of different creatures.

This brings up the issue of personhood. One way of defining personhood could be in terms of anyone who qualifies for inclusion in the moral community (i.e., anyone who meets the criterion we select: sentience, or subject-of-a-life, or whatever). However, personhood can also be reserved for, say, those who are rational or who have a sense of self. This would mean that some who are legitimately members of the moral community, like very young children or sparrows, might not qualify as persons. Scales 23:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We touch on these issues in our article on Person. My own criterion for which animals should be included in the moral community is — anything with a face. ;-)
I'm going to create a category for animal rights today, if I can work out how to do it, and if there isn't one already, and start making a list of all our animal-rights related topics, and perhaps even create a template to put on each page linking to the others. Then I'm going to start trying to improve the pages (long-term task). Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Superfluous paragraph deleted

Weeks ago I suggested that the paragraph in the "Criticism of Animal Rights" section about "one marxian or historicist perspective" was not representative of any substantial, actually-existing Marxist facet of the animal-rights debate, but was essentially someone's idea of "here's how someone might critique animal rights"; also, the paragraph gave the misleading impression that most of those currently writing on the subject from a Marxist perspective are opposed to animal rights/liberation, when in fact the opposite is the case. Since there has been no response from whoever posted the paragraph, since the Animal Rights article is now at or beyond its Wikipedia-recommended limit, and since the sensible part of the paragraph in question is mentioned earlier in the section on "Criticism of Animal Rights" ("Unless one is a moral agent, the argument goes, one cannot claim rights for oneself or be held accountable for respecting the rights of others"), I have deleted the paragraph. Scales 02:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move

I might be wrong, but it seems like this page should be called Animal liberation, because that's the more general of the two terms (AR and AL), since some animal liberationists don't believe in animal rights. (And hence it is technically out of place for them to be on a page with the current title.)

If the page was called "Animal liberation", it could talk about animal lib generally for most of the article, and then have a section on how some (most?) animal liberationists think animals should have specific rights analogous to human rights. It probably wouldn't involve much editing of the content itself, just moving a few things around. Then Animal rights could be a redirect to Animal liberation.

I hope I'm not rehashing something you all talked about above; I skimmed the previous talk but I didn't see anything about the idea of moving the page. Zach (t) 22:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zach, there were two separate articles until three weeks ago or so, but it was felt that animal rights was the phrase people were mostly likely to look up, so animal liberation was directed here. I think the argument is that all animal liberationists want animals to be given legal rights, even if they don't adhere to a rights-based moral philosophy, and that activists are generally called animal-rights activists and the movement, the animal-rights movement. I'm easy between the two titles myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Huh, I had never thought about it in those terms -- but it makes sense, that AL-not-AR people would still want legal rights. I'm fine with leaving it if everyone else is. Zach (t) 14:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

da Vinci Quote

I have removed the following quote attributed to Leonardo da Vinci:

"I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men"

Da Vinci, never said this. This is, instead, from an early 20th century novel about the great artist and inventor's life, Romance of Leonardo da Vinci. This particular fake quote was the result of an accidental transposition of two quotes in Jon Wynne-Tyson's book The Extended Circle: A Commonplace Book of Animal Rights.

I removed these quotes from the article:
  • "I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men." — Leonardo da Vinci
  • "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." — Albert Einstein
Please don't replace them unless you can provide a specific citation. Thanks. Rhobite 19:11, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

The following page seems credible on the subject of Einstein and vegetarianism: http://www.ivu.org/history/northam20a/einstein.html . It indicates that he not only approved of vegetarianism, but adopted a vegetarian diet near the end of his life, citing a letter dated March 30, 1954. It also gives a possible source for another oft-quoted remark of his. Scales 04:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't find a source for that Einstein quote, though it is well known, but Wikiquote [4] gives a citation for this one:

It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind.

Letter to Vegetarian Watch-Tower (27 December 1930)
--Dforest 04:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Tag

Hi Crumb, you put the NPOV tag on a few days ago. For this to be used correctly, you need to make actionable suggestions for improvement, and these have to be consistent with our policies, so please let us know what you'd like to see changed. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:18, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I neglectably haven't given much thought while adding the NPOV tag into this article. Reading it a little more throughly, I think it does have meritable neutrality, and no big violations against it. This is a very sensative moral issue and I should be more sensative about this. But personally I can't get over the people that are fighting (no figurative mention intended) for animal rights, such as the ALF and PETA. Bombing medical labs does nothing but hurt your philisophical ideas. I agree that, horrid as it sometimes is, animals do get harmed in testing and do suffer. But (pardon the cliche) it is for the greater good. --crumb 03:12, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the tag, Crumb. I appreciate it. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Cohen's argument

This quote from the article: Cohen’s position implies that while a human being with the mental capacity of a mouse has full moral standing, a mutant chimpanzee with an I.Q. of 150, who regularly contributed articles on philosophy to Wikipedia, would have no rights whatever. seems a little POV for me. While it could be argued that the above is true, I don't think the article should simply state it as fact. It could equally well be argued to be false (eg, a mutant chimpanzee would be a different kind to normal chimpanzees and so could have rights, and a non-mutant chimpanzee would not have the linguistic abilities to contribute to wikipedia or the moral concepts to be a moral being, however intelligent). Perhaps it should say that that is an objection to his view, rather than an actual problem with it. I don't like to edit articles myself, I am an anonymous newbie. 212.9.22.222 14:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. I don't think the article states the above as a fact, but as an argument, and the argument is simply that if a chimp were born who could do these things, it would have no legal rights qua individual chimp in any country in the world (that I know of), whereas a human being, once expelled from the uterus, has legal rights in most countries (perhaps all), no matter the intellectual capacity. And the point here is that, according to animal-rights theorists, this is an absurdity. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I've just tweaked the Cohen bit. Anonymous newbie does have a point, precisely because what constitutes a "kind" is unclear. But this doesn't necessarily work to Cohen's advantage. I've put in a link to an article that addresses this problem; and the site I link to has a link to another article. I hope my tweaking is to everyone's satisfaction. Scales 16:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Anesthesia's Wonderland

I was curious as to why the link as the main website ( http://anesthesiaswonderland.bravehost.com/index.html ) is a Animal Rights resource and the online community ( http://p2.forumforfree.com/anesthesiaswond.html) is also related to animal rights. may I ask exactly what is the problem with the website?

Not sure what your question means. You think it should, or shouldn't, be there? And please sign your posts. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

well i've been visiting Anesthesia's Wonderland for about a month now and the community and the site itself that sprung up is pro-animal rights just like its forums, but allows for both sides to express its views. KerryJones

I went to the link provided but I couldn't see anything. Do you have a link to any animal-rights material there, and is it someone's blog, do you know? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh weird, I can see it now. The link that was put on the page didn't say anything about animal rights that I could see but the images were floating around the browser window so I couldn't see clearly. It may be a Mac issue. I'll put it back. Thanks, Kerry. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Rights IS NOT liberation

This article is not neutral.

Idea that animals have rights does not imply that they should not be used humanely, or must be "liberated" from "human domination". Radical extremiss, like Animal Liberation Front are not typical for animal rights.

Article does not properly distinguish different animal welfare concepts. Eg. most people agree that animals raised for food should be killed humanely, but far fewer agree that animals cannot be rased for food.

Indeed, this article plays to propaganda that acknowledging some animal rights (which most people do) is equal to agreeing to "animal liberation" whatever it means (few people agree) or accepting animal rights-motivated violence towards humans (even fewer people agree).

Artifically lumping these topics is damaging to opinion of less extreme animal right groups.

It is also very unlikely that animals feel or can understand being "dominated" by human e.g. farmer on a farm (it requires far greater mental skills than suffering from eg. cramped conditions or feeling pain). It is also likely that "freeing" animals can result in their extinction (How many pigs live in countries where people don't eat pork?). Unsigned by User:141.14.19.45

The idea that animals should be awarded rights is not consistent with many of the points you raise. Which less extreme animal-rights groups may have been damaged by this "artificial lumping" of topics? SlimVirgin (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Few organisations wish to be put in line with "animal-terrorists", particulary after recent grave-digging excesses of ALF. And hardly any supporter of animal rights, at least outside UK, would support ALF. And please, introduce clear note that animal rights are not welfare (it is on animal welfare page, but not at animal rights) and are not liberation. Unsigned by User:141.14.19.45

Would you sign your posts, please? You get a signature by adding four tildes. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages.
Can you say which animal-rights groups you have in mind when you say this article is damaging to them? I'd say it's made fairly clear in this article what animal rights are, and the terms animal rights and animal liberation, though they refer to slightly different ideas, are used more or less synonymously. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

With your speedy responses, please put information that "animal welfare" is different from "animal rights" for clear information for wiki users. Please also expand "criticism" section. Current article is not neutral but heavily tends towards propaganda. Wikipedia is meant to provide neutral info, not advocate goals, even worthy ones. Common sense says that any organisation, especially ones which hope for public support, are damaged by lumping with law-breaking and violent extremist branch. It is true even if I am not aware that any particular organisation specificaly protested against it. plumber

Lack of good faith

Idleguy, I don't regard you as editing in good faith here. While legitimate, well-sourced criticism of the concept of animal rights is welcome, personal essays are not. You can't suddenly stick into the middle of an article on AR that there are people in Africa starving. This was what my mother used to say to get me to eat, ironically given the context, meat. It's a silly argument: just because there are human-rights abuses doesn't mean there aren't other kinds of injustices in the world. But regardless, arguments need to be relevant and referenced, otherwise they're original research. See Wikipedia:No original research. And for the record, I'm noting here that you've nominated several animal-rights related images for deletion even though they were correctly tagged and sourced. Your lack of good faith is sadly apparent. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the paragraphs you added because the sources didn't seem to say what you were claiming. I couldn't see anything in Stephen Hawking's quote about Africa or poverty. I only scanned the second article, but I didn't see anything about donations paying only for salaries etc. Sorry if it's there and I missed it. I put Hawking back in, sticking closely to what he did say. The second article could also be put to use, but we have to stick to what the sources say and not attribute our own views to them. See Wikipedia:No original research. Deleted paragraphs below. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Some others argue that the issue of animal rights is given excessive importance especially when even the basic human rights and human welfare is often ignored. They cite Africa and many other parts of the world where poverty and other problems are rampant. These critics sometimes rebuke animal rights activists to improve the conditions for fellow humans many of whom live in conditions that are comparable to, if not worse than animals, before taking on the rights of animals. Stephen Hawking and other renowned scientists have condemned animal rights extremists stating that they have no real worthwhile causes to pursue. [5]
Further some criticize the excessive publicity created by animal rights have not always resulted in significant improvement of animal conditions. Donations are believed to largely pay the salaries of professional organizers, subsidize more fund-raising, and fuel sensationalist campaigns against animal-use industries. [6]

The Hawking quote is perfectly fair and I'd actually suggest leaving in the first comment on medical research--he's outspoken on this subject generally (stem cell debate, for instance, as I recall). Regarding Africa, specific issues could be noted. Bushmeat, for example--bad idea but people eat what's available. There's also Shooting, shoveling, and shutting up to illustrate the feeling amongst rural folk that animal rights laws are out of touch with their reality. I actually think the criticism section could say more with less space and should be gone over. Marskell 16:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason I removed the medical research part of Hawking's quote is that this is a section about criticism of the animal rights movement (or concept). But Hawking's quote about research versus meat isn't a criticsm of animal rights, because all animal rights people would agree with him: it is inconsistent to object to animals in research and not object to eating them: though I suppose an argument could be made out that the first is worse than the second, but broadly most would agree with Hawking, so that part of what he said looked out of place and a bit gratuitous. However, you're welcome to re-insert it if you want to: my main objection was he was being used to prop up material about Africa, which he didn't even mention. I agree that the criticism section needs an overhaul, but it has to be written with good sources and not just people inserting their own opinions, and then we have to stick to what the sources actually said.
I'd also suggest that Idleguy look for better sources than Hawking. Physicists don't know anything about animal research, and it's not as if there's a shortage of critics out there. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I think you interpret everything in a limited quotation. If I didn't edit articles in good faith here I wouldn't have stayed this long in Wikipedia, producing some oft ignored articles from a subcontinent perspective. The issue of images was truly one that involved massive amounts of copyvios (your kangaroo court decisions might suggest otherwise as you voted yourself to keep them. And a total lack of integrity when you refused till the end to mention the other "editor" who was helping you with the image tag issue) You also have a strictly western tilt to articles you edit assuming that the rest of the world is only an afterthought. Or maybe just a case of systemic bias.
The Stephen Hawking quote mentions "more worthwhile causes" giving nuclear disarmament as an example, NOT the only worthwhile cause. I merely used that as a base to expand on the other worthwhile causes like Poverty in africa etc. If you need the exact word to word quotations for each and every single idea, then Wikipedia would become wikiquotes. If we can't use common knowledge and build upon an opinion then I'm afraid one of us is more interested in portraying fiction and inferring with a narrow mind. It is also sad that you haven't even fully read the second source where it states that a majority of the donations of animal rights groups go to non-animal related activity. This and the fact that your talk on Veganism article where you really didn't seem to have a clue on the reality of animal products being used shows that you don't do your homework before jumping into conclusions. Asking for a source on catgut and gelatin made me laugh. (obviously you didn't even take the time to see the internal links) I only wish that you'd read sources thoroughly before sounding like a know-all.
As it stands you just want to keep readers in the dark just because you don't like criticism all the while abusing some well meaning "fair use" tags because they to further your personal agenda. And just because you chose to label me as one editing in bad faith, doesn't mean I'm going to question yours. Idleguy 19:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Idleguy, my overriding POV on Wikipedia is to see no original research creeping into articles, as anyone who knows my editing well will confirm. What you say above about Hawking is a classic example of it: that because he mentioned other worthwhile causes like nuclear disarmament, he probably meant to say Africa too. That's your opinion, but what you regard as "common knowledge," others might regard as quite false, which is why we have the NOR policy. If you stick closely to it, you'll hear no complaints from me, no matter how much criticism you insert into this article.
Regarding the images, that was no kangaroo court: Quadell is one of our most knowledgeable editors when it comes to images, and he disagreed with you. The reason I question your good faith is that I don't see you doing this with other people's images, but perhaps you do and I just haven't noticed, in which case I apologize. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, you still haven't readded (atleast) the part where I've sourced the "donations going to pay salaries" line. If you've read the source, can we please have it back?
Quadell was the only other editor who had voted (and I believe he didn't go through your entire collection of images to arrive at what I see as one too many images on the same subject). And I normally go for a user's images since someone who's uploaded more than one copyvio image is likely to have done more such images. It so happenned that you'd uploaded a lot. Remember, not all your images were tagged until I did it. And I think you should consider the flip side of the coin as well and that not all offensive sounding editors are doing it with bad intent. Fair use is applicable only in the US so the images you use are limited only to the internet version and if you upload free images then they would also come in any format (CD, print etc.) and fit for use in the international market. Idleguy 20:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Quadell is an expert on images in Wikipedia and their legal status, so he's a good person to take advice from. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


Idleguy's paragraphs

I have re-added the para claiming donations go mainly to professional organizers, etc, as a direct quote from the source Idleguy provided.

As of now, only the following points from eis original paragraphs are not present: critics say that basic human rights and human welfare are more important than animal rights and are being ignored by animal rights activists, such critics use Africa as an example of an area lacking these basic rights and welfare, such critics ask animal rights activist to improve all human conditions to the level of animal conditions before trying to improve animal conditions.

While Idleguy may consider these points obvious, it is a basic tenent of Wikipedia that any fact can be questioned and a source required. IMO, the final goal for Wikipedia is to have each and every claim made in the 'pedia have multiple reliable sources. Also, these seem like claims for which sources should be available; if critics have said this, we ought to be able to quote them directly. Thanks again to everyone for working to improve the 'pedia! JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

animal welfare in intro

It seems a bit odd that the intro contains two large paragraphs about animal rights followed by one small paragraph on animal welfare, followed by a paragraph of animal rights criticism of animal welfare. I see two large "animal rights" paragraph and one small "animal welfare" paragraph to already be skewed in the favor of animal rights, and tacking on the "animal rights" criticism of "animal welfare" seems to be over the top favoritism. I think it is already clear that animal rights advocates think that anything less than animal rights is morally unacceptable, and I don't see a reason to include it as a pot-shot against animal welfare. The PETA quote of "something is better than nothing" seems grasping. Animal rights say they are against cruelty and exploitation. The animal welfare POV says their POV is not exploitive or cruel. That should be the end of it. FuelWagon 16:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the National Beef association as a source and replaced it with the Foundation for Animal Use Education as a source. Their website has a lot more information, links, and quotes. FuelWagon 23:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Animal Rights and POV pushing

SlimVirgin: you did a blind revert of quite a bit of work I had done. Your edit summary said it was "minor", and you made no mention of why you did the revert on the talk page. I find it interesting since you were the one who was complaining about the National Cattleman quotation as being "inappropriate", so I went and found a more "appropriate" source. I replaced the criticism paragraph quoting the Cattlemen organization with sourced quotes from notable experts and a URL to back up each and every one of them. Yet you reverted it, completely, wholly, and without a single word of explanation, marking your revert as "minor". Given the emphasis by wikipedia on the importance of source quotes from notable experts with URL's to back them up, perhaps you could give some sort of a legitimate explanation for your massive revert of all these sourced quotes from notable experts with URL's to back them up. Without any such explanation, I'm left to assume this was simply the product of POV pushing on your part. FuelWagon 15:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, the problem here is that you are loading up the intro with multiple paragraphs of disjointed quotes, evidence, and critiques of the animal rights perspective. This isn't appropriate in the intro, especially as the first two paragraphs of the introduction do not provide any support for the animal rights perspective, they simply characterize it. Two descriptive paragraphs followed by a lengthy polemic against animal rights is hardly an NPOV lead. The debate can be presented in the body of the article. Let's just leave the lead as it is, without presenting supporting information for either the pros or antis. Or perhaps add a brief third paragraph characterizing the animal welfare perspective, or acknowledging that the animal rights movement has critics who come from a range of perspectives. But the polemics really need to stay out. Babajobu 10:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we are editing different articles. The one I'm editing opens with the following sentence:
Animal rights, or animal liberation, is the movement to protect non-human animals from being exploited by humans.
So, while I agree that were an intro to strictly talk about what something is in an undisputed, neutral, unbiased, non-favored way, I find it laughable that anyone can suggest that accusations of explotation in the first sentence in any way qualifies as simply defining what "animal rights" as a topic is. Far from it. This intro starts out immediately and in the first sentence as condemning the non-animal-rights view as exploitive of animals. Sorry, but this doesn't pass even the sloppiest application of "neutral" unless neutral is defined by PeTA advocates, whom, I would not be surprised, would include some of the editors involved here. This is not "simply characterizing" animal rights, this intro is clearly advocating for animal rights and advocating against anything less than full personhood as exploitation. This intro is anything but neutral and in condemning anything less than full-animal-rights, the intro needs to present the point of view of those it condemns in the opening sentence as exploiters. FuelWagon 04:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

felonious monk

re: this complete deletion: the introduction must at least mention the other major points of view around the topic or it fails NPOV. there is a major POV that opposes "animal rights" and it goes by the name "animal welfare". First SlimVirgin deleted the paragraph I added because she said it was "too long". Then she deleted it saying "don't just list quotes". So I did a complete rewrite, and now you delete it because it is "redundant"? Nice. The intro contains a short sample of the animal welfare POV. It is not redundant with the main text because the main text contains the full background of that POV. Quotes are given more context, etc. Any major point made in the intro should be covered again in the body of the article, or it wasn't worth introducing. It isn't "redundant", it's good editing: introduce the topic in the intro, then go into full detail in the body of the article. FuelWagon 16:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

trying to "understand" the "neutral" introduction

Since SlimVirgin is claiming I don't understand NPOV policy, I thought I'd review the introduction that she is claiming to be "neutral" and break it down word-by-word, phrase-by-phrase. Here are a few intersting little tidbits I found in the current introduction that someone who has more "understanding" of NPOV than I, can perhaps explain to me: (FuelWagon 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC))

protect non-human animals from being exploited by humans.
Funny, this would seem to imply that to not support animal rights is to allow exploitation of humans. Can someone tell me how exploitation is neutral? Because it would seem to me that there are "animal welfare" advocates who vehemently oppose "animal rights" who would deny that they actually support "exploitation". Now, my "understanding" of NPOV is that if one source makes a claim that is "disputed" by another main source, then you should present both sources. But apparently, people who better "understand" NPOV can somehow interpret it to mean that "animal rights" sources can make whatever accusations they wish, and even if those accusations are in dispute, other points of view are not needed because the article is just "characterizing" animal rights, and so other points of view, even about hotly disputed and emotional terms as "exploitation", aren't needed in the intro. So, someone will have to explain this to me, because to me it just looks like we are letting the pro-animal-rights sources "advocate" their "point of view", and are forbidding other points of view regarding disputed topics. But that's just little ol' me. FuelWagon 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
not merely to attain more humane treatment for animals
Again, I just have a funny interpretation of this piece. See, it seems to me that it implies that to not support animal rights is to not support humane treatment of animals. And I happen to have a notable source or two with verbatim quotes that dispute that claim directly. But for some reason, we only "characterize" the topic of "animal rights" from the "point of view" of animal rights "advocates", apparently. For some reason the ponit of view of "animal welfare" folks with regard to the idea of whether or not they treat animals "humanely" isn't important. See, that's just more of my not "understanding" NPOV. Because if one source says they want humane treatment by granting personhood and another source says they want humane treatment by guaranteeing "animal welfare", well, to me, that says both points of view must be reported. But apparently, again, we only report the POV of the "advocates" here, because we are just "characterizing" what animal rights "is". And apparently, "characterizing" what something is, is done by reporting the point of views of the advocates, and excluding any other countering point of view. I apparently missed that in the NPOV tutorial. FuelWagon 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
include many animals within the moral community
And of course, terms like "moral" are completely neutral, non-emotional, non-hot-button, not loaded, and most importantly, not disputed by any other notable source. Yeah, right. FuelWagon 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
not being made to suffer unnecessarily
Again, I believe the definitino of "animal welfare" directly countered the idea that only "animal rights" will make sure that animals won't suffer unnecessarily. It would seem to me, and I realize that it is probably because I don't "understand" NPOV, but it would seem to me that something directly contradicted by a notable source should be reported alongside the implication that only full animal rights will make sure that animals do not suffer unnecessarily. FuelWagon 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
non-human animals must no longer be regarded legally or morally as property, or treated merely as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as persons
"must no longer be regarded legally or morally" Wow. Someone who has more "understanding" of NPOV, please tell me how a "moral imperitive" is neutral, even when that imperitive is disputed by a notable source such as the "animal welfare" groups? Because to poor, little, no-understanding me, it looks like a moral imperitive comes with a moral condemnation of anything less than full animal rights, and since I have a notable source that directly disputes that moral imperitive and moral condemnation, it would seem to me that the POV should be reported. FuelWagon 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
the movement advocates that many animals be given legal rights to protect their basic interests.
Again, I have an "animal welfare" source that disputes this claim. And someone who "understands" NPOV will have to explain why we only report the pro-animal-rights point of view here, rather than both points of view around the topic. FuelWagon 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
You write: Can someone tell me how exploitation is neutral?. My answer is:
Main Entry:	2ex·ploit  
Pronunciation:	ik-'sploit, 'ek-"
Function:	transitive verb
1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness>
2 : to make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>
The second meaning is POV. The first meaning is NPOV. It is not clear to me that your decision to read every word in the piece to have the most antagonistic meaning possible is reasonable.
That being said, I see no reason why one couldn't either (a) change that word to "use" or (b) rewrite it to be MORE point-of-view, but make clear that the point-of-view being described is that of animal liberationists. Nandesuka 13:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Article RfC

FuelWagon (talk • contribs) Wrote:I've tried to summarize what I see as biased, disputed, and emotionally loaded language in the introduction

There followed a lengthy discussion that (in large) addressed issues other than article content. The full text of this can now be found at:
Talk:Animal rights/Article RfC.
brenneman(t)(c) 00:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Here from RfC..I find the 1st graf hard to read; ideally, it should present the bare bones definition of the subject in question in a concise manner. I have no comment at this time re POV, but I would suggest that a graf later on in the article under "overview" would be a much better choice as the opening graf. "Animal rights is the concept that all or some animals are entitled to possess their own lives; that animals are deserving of, or already possess, certain moral rights; and that some basic rights for animals ought to be enshrined in law. The animal-rights view rejects the concept that animals are merely capital goods or property intended for the benefit of humans. The concept is often confused with animal welfare, which is the philosophy that takes cruelty towards animals and animal suffering into account, but that does not necessarily assign specific moral rights to them." I think that defines the subject pretty well, especially putting the confusion with animal welfare up front, as it is an easy distinction to elide. IronDuke 19:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Initial draft of revised intro

I have simply taken the intro as stands, and fixed what I regard as excessively POV language, such as "non-human animals" or "non-human great apes" -- these are not standard English usage, and if used should be placed in quotes, indicating that they belong to a special vocabulary preferred by animal rights activists. The same goes for "moral community," which I left in, but in quotes with qualifying language. I believe it is also possible for animal rights protection to be added to the German constitution without being "enshrined" in it. The one other change that I made was the elimination of a redundancy in the first paragraph, where there are two sentences that say basically the same thing, that animals shall not be regarded as property. I combined them into one sentence at the beginning. --HK 00:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that non-human primates (NHP) is a term used by the scientific community, not just animal-rights activists. I would ask that people who want to get involved in editing this do some research into animal rights, rather than just turning up to cause a problem. The article as it stands is an intelligent piece of work, thanks largely to the efforts of Scales. Although it's a good thing to have a discussion about NPOV, I hope it won't lead to a deterioration in quality. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
If it is your understanding that non-human primates (NHP) is a term used by the scientific community, not just animal-rights activists, then it would certainly be appropriate to mention this in the article, with appropriate documentation. However, the term "non-human primates" doesn't appear in the current version of the intro -- the terms used are "non-human animals" and "non-human great apes," both excessively POV. And, I might add, it is rude to characterize editors responding to a RfC as "people just turning up to cause a problem." They are "turning up" because the article already has a problem, which needs input from neutral editors in order to be resolved. --HK 14:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I have apparently taken the intro as it stands after being revised by FuelWagon. I have retained the first and last sentences of his addition, but removed the specific examples of criticism, since the standard format is to place them later in the article. To avoid further flare-ups of temper, I might suggest that future changes be discussed on the talk page before being applied to the article, at least until the article is stabilized. I think that that is the general idea behind a RfC.--HK 01:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

draft

Animal rights, or animal liberation, is the movement to assert and establish a status for animals, such that they may no longer be regarded legally or morally as property, or treated merely as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as persons. It is a radical movement, insofar as it aims not merely to attain more humane treatment for animals, but to include many animals within what animal rights activists call the "moral community" — that is, all those whose basic interests (for example, in not being made to suffer unnecessarily) ought to be given the same consideration as our own similar interests. To this end the movement advocates that many animals be given legal rights to protect their basic interests.

Some countries have taken the first step toward awarding personhood to animals. Switzerland passed legislation in 1992 recognizing animals as beings, not things, and in 2002, the protection of animals was added to in the German constitution. The Seattle-based Great Ape Project, founded by Australian philosopher Peter Singer, is campaigning for the United Nations to adopt its Declaration on Great Apes, which would see gorillas, orang-utans, and both species of chimpanzee included in a "community of equals" with human beings, and which would extend to the apes the protection of three basic interests: the right to life, the protection of individual liberty, and the prohibition of torture.[7] For information about individual activists and groups, as well as their aims and methodologies, see Animal liberation movement.

Critics, such as the Foundation for Animal Use Education, state that animal rights leaders show a "fundamentally anti-human perspective". [8] Critics generally support animal welfare instead. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has defined animal welfare as "a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, human handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia." [9]

Can you say why you would use the Foundation for Animal Use in Education? It seems to me that if you want to add criticism, a scholarly source would be better than a randomly chosen website. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
"randomly chosen website"? What manner of obfuscation is this? It's a legitimate site, a legitimate source, it well represents the point of view of animal welfare. It stays. You questioned the National Cattleman's URL too. And that was specifically addressing Animal Rights versus Animal Welfare. Basically you question every webstie that is critical of your personal point of view. FuelWagon 01:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and no, I don't support the proposed version. I already had a single paragraph version and that got deleted/reverted by SlimVirgin. I'll work on another one. I'm sure she'll find issue with that too, because it will be critical of her personal point of view. FuelWagon 01:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
"It stays"? The reason you used that website is that you know nothing about animal rights, and therefore don't know who the scholarly sources are. That's why you were unable to write an intelligent section of criticism. You are on this page as part of your stalking campaign.
Slim, please Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks such as the "know nothing" thing I struck out. Do not descend to the level of those who are pestering you, or I will have to block you too just to be "fair". Do as I do, and hold yourself to a higher standard. Uncle Ed 02:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
My point above was addressed to the others who are part of this discussion. I don't see any point in debating with you, and this is my last response to you on the subject.
To repeat: if there is anyone else who wants to use the Foundation for Animal Use in Education as a source in the intro, can you say why you want to use that source in particular? It seems to me that if you want to add criticism, a scholarly source would be better. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
There is a good case for mentioning some form of criticism in the intro. Some forms of animal rights activism have led to violence, stalking (ironically) and release of helpless mink into unhospitable terrain. There must be an authoratitive source to quote as an important critic. Alternatively, we can summarise criticisms elaborated on further down in the article. But the Foundation for Animal Use in Education is a rather poor source for POV balance. JFW | T@lk 02:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This article is about the concept of animal rights, rather than specifically about the movement. There are other articles about animal rights activism e.g. Animal liberation movement. I have no problem with seeing criticism in the body of the article, but I was hoping the intro could be left as a description of what the concept is, and I see what's there at the moment as purely descriptive. However, if a third paragraph of criticism is to be added, I ask only that it be intelligent and use good sources. The problem also is that it's not a question of animal rights versus animal welfare: that's very simplistic. There are groups that support the concept of rights; others that support the idea of "liberation" but not rights; others that support rights or liberation but which campaign for improvements in animal welfare in the meantime; others who argue that campaigning for animal welfare is corrupt because it supports systems that abuse animals; others again who reject the concepts of rights and liberation completely, and only campaign for improvements in welfare. And lots of groups that straddle these various lines, which incidentally are changing all the time. It's too complex for the intro, in my view, unless we make it so simplistic as to be almost false. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about it, but these sounds like the types of distinctions that a good encyclopedia article should make. We don't want Wikipedia to say that one side or another's point of view is RIGHT - rather we want to describe what each side SAYS about animal rights. Uncle Ed 02:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but the question here is how much of it should go in the intro. I say it's too complex for the intro, and belongs in the body of the article. However, if someone can come up with a succinct and accurate way of saying it, using good sources, I have no problem including it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a third paragraph I put up as a concession to FuelWagon, but he reverted. I'm not wedded to it, but I felt it was an improvement on his list of quotes from one website, and it could be improved further by adding a quote from a prominent animal-welfare group, or from a scholarly text. "The animal-rights position is often contrasted with a concern for animal welfare, and although the distinction is not clear-cut, the animal-welfare point of view is generally that animals under human care should not be made to suffer unnecessarily. Groups that have traditionally focused on welfare tend not to make any deeper philosophical claims about the status of animals or whether they should be regarded as property. Animal-rights advocates, such as Gary L. Francione, argue that the animal-welfare position is inconsistent and ethically unacceptable. However, some animal-rights groups, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, pursue animal-welfare proposals, arguing that, until all animal use is ended, an improvement in welfare is better than nothing." SlimVirgin (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Personhood

The sentence "Some countries have taken the first step toward awarding personhood to non-human animals" is logically unsound. Persons are by definition human. Perhaps a better term could be found. The whole sentence, incidentally, is gazing in a crystal globe. Who says there will be "person"hood for animals, and who says this was the aim of the legislation discussed? JFW | T@lk 01:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The word "personhood" is being used in the philosophical or legal sense here, Jfd. But your second point — that the aim of the legislation may not be the "first step toward awarding personhood" — is a good one, so that should be reworded. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

There must be a better word. The present version suggests there is no form between inanimate things and persons. JFW | T@lk 02:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is one of the suggestions of the movement — that some form of legal "personhood" be extended to all living things, to all subjects of a life. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
complete ignoramus passing through here - would "autonomy" work at all? Possibly "Sovereign individuality" a la Nietzsche? "individual legitimacy"? "autonomous individuality"? "manumission" is very possibly closest to desired meaning. KillerChihuahua 04:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring

This talk page is really long. Any objections to me summarising it a bit? - brenneman(t)(c) 03:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections, Aaron. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for further paras in the intro

If we are to have one or two criticism paragraphs (perhaps instead of the current second one to reduce length), here's a suggestion below. Or we could have the current second para, and the first one below as a third. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Critics of the concept of animal rights argue that, because animals do not have the capacity to make moral choices, cannot respect the rights of others, and do not even understand the idea of rights, they cannot be regarded as possessors of moral rights. The philosopher Roger Scruton argues that only human beings have duties and that "[t]he corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights." [10] Critics holding this position argue that there is therefore nothing inherently wrong with using animals for food, as entertainment, and in research, though human beings may nevertheless have an obligation to ensure they do not suffer unnecessarily (Frey 1980 and Scruton 1997). This position is generally called the animal-welfare position, and it is held by some of the oldest of the animal-protection agencies: for example, by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in the UK.

Other philosophers, like Peter Singer, argue for equal moral consideration for animals without adopting a rights-based position. Singer argues that a capacity to suffer is a necessary and sufficient condition for ascribing interests to an individual (at the very least, an interest in not suffering); and where it can be established that an individual has interests, there can be no justification for allowing that individual to be treated in a way that ignores those interests, unless we can show that some of the interests are inferior in morally significant ways (Singer 1975). The implication of what Scruton has called this "vacuous utilitarianism," [11] which counts the pain and pleasure of all living beings as equally significant and removes any special moral status from humans, is that we may be forced not only to recognize that the interests of animals are equal to our own, but also that, in some circumstances, they may outweigh those of a human being. It could be argued, for example, that the interests of a fully-grown chimpanzee outweigh those of a human being in a persistent vegetative state. Many critics of animal rights or animal liberation find this conclusion morally repugnant.

  • Frey, R.G. Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals, 1980
  • Scruton, Roger. Animal Rights and Wrongs, 1997
  • Scruton, Roger. "Animal rights", City Journal, Summer 2000
  • Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation, 1975.
I think both of those paragraphs are outstanding and should be included in the article regardless of whether or not we put them in the lead. In regard to the first half of the second paragraph, my feeling is that the distinction between Singer's utility-based approach and a rights-based approach is a bit subtle for the lead and would be better explored in the body. Also, people who want to see criticism of animal rights in the lead will probably not recognize utilitarian critiques of animal rights as really a criticism at all, but rather a bit of philosophical pilpul between groups who agree on basically the same political program. On the other hand, the second half of the second paragraph gets at the nut of what I assume FuelWagon et al want to see, the contention that under some circumstances some animal rights supporters would chose an animal life over a human life. My own feeling is that the first paragraph above would make a good third paragraph for the lead and that the second paragraph above should go in the body. The first paragraph above addresses the basic substantive issues well: for the given reasons opponents of the concept are unwilling to extend rights to animals. Criticism of the Singer position on the chimpanzee vs. vegetative human scenario, or allegations that particular activists or value the lives of animals more than those of humans, should be handled in the "criticisms" section. Babajobu 14:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Baba. I'd be fine with your suggestion: the current intro plus the first paragraph above, and the rest to the criticism section. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I second Babajobu's comments. SlimVirgin, you've done an excellent job. Scales 18:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Good work. We need to represent the topic without judging it, and represent the criticisms without judging them either. This text seems to qualify. -Willmcw 21:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Remaining disputes

Thank you, everyone, for the feedback. We seem to have consensus then on having the two current paragraphs in the intro, followed by the first one above, and tweaking the current second paragraph to delete that the German and Swiss legislation is a "first step" toward awarding personhood, per Jfdwolff. And then adding the second paragraph above to the criticism section. I'll request unprotection assuming there are no objections. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
That all depends on what you mean by "the two current paragraphs." If you are referring to the revised intro I posted above, with neutral terms in place of the POV formulations such as "non-human apes," then it's fine with me. --HK 22:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying you disagree with what everyone else has agreed to? If so, why? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I had just requested unprotection by the way. I'll have to cancel that. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I am certainly not saying that I disagree with what everyone else has agreed to -- it is by no means clear to me, who has agreed to what. You simply proclaimed that the dispute was over, and as I was responding a few hours later, your POV ally Jayig was unprotecting the page. Then, shortly after you reverted my edits, Jayig reprotected. With this many editors at work on the article, it may take more than two hours to establish whether we really have a consensus.

I made my objections to the POV language in the intro clear. You responded by suggesting that the term "non-human apes" was more or less equivalent to "non-human-primates," which is not the case. You have made no argument to support a contention that "non-human animals" and "non-human apes" are standard usage, and therefore should be included in the intro without quotation marks, or attribution to the pro-animal rights POV. Similarly, the term "moral community" should be in quotes, because the idea of "including animals within the moral community" is way out of the philosophical "mainstream," and saying the the protection of animals was "enshrined" in the German constitution is unnecessary and a bit ridiculous. On the whole, SlimVirgin, this article is an advocacy piece, down to the parody of the Sistine chapel that is "enshrined" in the "great apes" image. Nonetheless, with the minor corrections that I made, and you reverted, I think the intro will do. You should elucidate the grounds for your objections to these minor corrections. --HK 16:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the intro as follows, basing it on the points raised and agreed to by everyone else. Please understand first of all that anti-animal rights is not the default position.
I have retained non-human animal, because the term is widely used by academics and scientists, who also use the term non-human primates (NHPs). The former gets 167,000 google hits, including from academic journals and organizations e.g. the headline of this transcript of a conference call between the world's leading experts on animal pain, including a professor of biology and another of anesthesiology. Putting moral community in scare quotes would be silly: this is a very widely used expression in philosophy, and including animals within it is not "way out of the philosophical mainstream," whatever that means. (What would a "philosophical mainstream" be, and in which area?) "Enshrined" has gone following Jfdwolff's point. The great apes image is the logo of the Great Ape project, which is actively campaigning to have a species other than human beings declared "persons," the only organization in the world to do so explicitly, I believe, and therefore the logo is entirely appropriate. The new intro I've written is below. There is also consensus to add my second paragraph above to the criticism section. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The below version is improved, but still problematic -- and I question your haste in asserting that it was "agreed to by everyone else." For example, FuelWagon, who called the RfC, has not weighed in. Regarding "moral community," what exactly are "scare quotes"? Quotation marks are used to indicate a usage that is non-standard, or particular to one point of view. I googled "non-human animals" and discovered that it has some scholarly usages, but at least an equal number of hits were from sites that clearly used it as advocacy jargon, such as, for example, Vegan Porn. The website that you give as an example of "scientists and academics" is also an example of the animal rights POV (Psychiatrists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.) My view is that for the purposes of an introduction to an encyclopedia article, "non-human animals" should be considered both POV and a Pleonasm. I would like to hear from other editors on this question. --HK 21:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
You're just being obstructive now, which I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by, as you and FuelWagon turned up on this page to cause trouble, nothing more. Quotation marks are used for quotes. Scare quotes are used to indicate something the writer feels is non-standard, and they are POV for that reason. Moral community isn't a non-standard expression. It's a completely ordinary term in moral philosophy. Regardless of which website the academics were on, they were academics, and perhaps if you spent any time in academia yourself, you would know that the term non-human animals is perfectly routine, just like moral community, and we are describing what animal rights is, so it's a completely appropriate use. However, I'm certainly not going to allow you to hold up unprotection for the sake of that term, so I'll happily delete it. I am not going see scare quotes being placed around any phrases, however, especially not such an ordinary one as moral community. You know, there are people who have put quite a lot of work into this intro, one way or another, trying to make sure it sounds educated. I am requesting again that you stop trying to cause it to deteriorate. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Please avoid personal remarks. And as I said, I would like to hear from other editors on this question. --HK 23:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not making personal remarks. I'm talking about your editing. You're unable to add anything of substance, you want to put scare quotes around perfectly routine phrases just because you're not familar with them, and you're holding up an agreement that everyone else, apart from your fellow troublemaker, has responded positively to. It's poor behavior, and I'm entitled to comment on it. In fact, it's starting to look like WP:POINT, a policy violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Animal rights, or animal liberation, is the movement to protect non-human animals from being used or regarded as property by human beings. It is a radical movement, insofar as it aims not merely to attain more humane treatment for animals, but also to include species other than human beings within the moral community by giving their basic interests — for example, the interest in avoiding suffering — the same consideration as our own. The claim, in other words, is that non-human animals should no longer be regarded legally or morally as property, or treated merely as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as persons.
Some countries have passed legislation awarding recognition to the interests of animals. Switzerland recognized animals as beings, not things, in 1992, and in 2002, the protection of animals was added to the German constitution. The Seattle-based Great Ape Project, founded by Australian philosopher Peter Singer, is campaigning for the United Nations to adopt its Declaration on Great Apes, which would see gorillas, orang-utans, and both species of chimpanzee included in a "community of equals" with human beings, and which would extend to them the protection of three basic interests: the right to life, the protection of individual liberty, and the prohibition of torture. [12]
Critics of the concept of animal rights argue that, because animals do not have the capacity to make moral choices, cannot respect the rights of others, and do not even understand the idea of rights, they cannot be regarded as possessors of moral rights. The philosopher Roger Scruton argues that only human beings have duties and that "[t]he corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights." [13] Critics holding this position argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals for food, as entertainment, and in research, though human beings may nevertheless have an obligation to ensure they do not suffer unnecessarily (Frey 1980 and Scruton 1997). This position is generally called the animal-welfare position, and it is held by some of the oldest of the animal-protection agencies: for example, by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in the UK.

visitor from rfc: the introduction reads like a (slightly polished) manifesto, not an encyclopedia article. it is too long, takes many assumptions for granted, & uses language like "first step" implying positive progress, to give one small example. Appleby 01:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Appleby. The new intro is above (first step has gone). We're just waiting for one editor to agree to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the article is coming along nicely. I would add (or subtract) a couple niggling things. I really don't like the phrase "in other words" in the first graf. I think it implies that the first words used were inadequate or too complex for mere mortals, and thus need further exposition. I think the phrasing could be tweaked, e.g., "The claim is..." and just go on from there. Or maybe a different transition. I also wonder whether there is a place at the beginning to say just exactly what sort of organization or organizations call themselves animal liberation, etc. It isn't until we get to the second graf and a brief mention of Singer and the GAP that we get the notion that there is a "movement" as opposed to some theory held by disparate individuals who have independently reached the same conclusion. I trust that criticism is going in its own section, maybe after the table of contents jump. The third graf is a little unclear: one could draw from it the idea that a) Scruton is an animal welfare person (I don't know: is he?) and that all people who hold the Scrutonian view (that animals don't have rights) are animal welfare people. (Also, is it wikistyle to put cites in such as " (Frey 1980 and Scruton 1997)"? IronDuke 02:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Good points, IronDuke, thank you. About the animal rights/liberation distinction, we have another suggested paragraph for the intro (see the three above, and then this would be the fourth). See below. It goes into liberation/rights, but other editors said they'd prefer to see it in the criticism section. It would be hard to say anything of note about the various movements in the intro without it getting very long, but maybe I'll try to think of something. Regarding animal welfare and who is/is not: I think everyone who isn't animal rights would say they're animal welfare, because the only other alternative is to say we owe animals no duty of care whatsoever and may cause as much suffering as we want, a position no one will admit to holding, as a rule anyway. So in that sense, Scruton counts as animal welfare, but in reality, his main thing is just to argue against animal rights. Finally, the cites in brackets are called Harvard referencing and it's one of the citation styles allowed by WP:CITE. Thanks for these comments. They're very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Other philosophers, like Peter Singer, argue for equal moral consideration for animals without adopting a rights-based position. Singer argues that a capacity to suffer is a necessary and sufficient condition for ascribing interests to an individual (at the very least, an interest in not suffering); and where it can be established that an individual has interests, there can be no justification for allowing that individual to be treated in a way that ignores those interests, unless we can show that some of the interests are inferior in morally significant ways (Singer 1975). The implication of what Scruton has called this "vacuous utilitarianism," [14] which counts the pain and pleasure of all living beings as equally significant and removes any special moral status from humans, is that we may be forced not only to recognize that the interests of animals are equal to our own, but also that, in some circumstances, they may outweigh those of a human being. It could be argued, for example, that the interests of a fully-grown chimpanzee outweigh those of a human being in a persistent vegetative state. Many critics of animal rights or animal liberation find this conclusion morally repugnant.

sorry for not reading this discussion more carefully before commenting. the above version is much better. personally, i think as a matter of organization, the first paragraph is fine as the introduction; both the country examples & criticisms should be integrated into the organization of the whole article. & just as an aside, i did not realize that "animal rights" was by definition such a radical movement; a casual listener of the media or people just not very interested in the topic might often consider "animal rights" to include the mere right of the animals to be free from abuse. just my thoughts. Appleby 04:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

We seem to have a lot of 'em. On another page (like Loudspeaker) I'd just clean up and get permission later. However, I'll go gently here. Any reason we need this many? Refering of course to Wikipedia:External links. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Animal rights movement

I was editing and someone was reverting my changes so I'll post them here in case my addition to the intro gets reverted. Here is what I want to add:

"The animal rights movement mostly consists of morally bankrupt violent extremists intent on spreading propaganda throughout the liberal media, while those opposed to their views are generally nihilist sociopaths, more generally, evangelical Christians waiting for the apocalypse."

Judging from the tone of the article, this seems to be correct. What do you guys think: put it in or leave it out? --Ben 00:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

missing section..?

What happened to the Animal Rights and the Media secion that spoke about the Animal Voices radio show? I was going to add links to other AR radio shows.....

I deleted it because it seemed to be a plug for a radio show. If you have other information about animal rights in the media, by all means restore and expand it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you think if it is appropriate if I list it (and the other animal rights radio shows) under "resources"? I think it is important to note that there are radio programs as well as magazines, newspapers, etc., that are dedicated specifically to exploring these issues.. The one radio show in particular has online archieves with all the interviews they have every done... all the authors mentioned on this page are there. What do you think? Jan 11, 06

Francione riposte 'detailed'?

That "detailed" bothers me some, since the chunky two paragraph quote it produces as evidence has little detail to offer against the very specific charge concerning NAZI anti-vivisection legislation. The legislation was enacted almost ten years before the Holocaust really got underway. Critics do not make the comparison Francione avers. Instead, in my understanding, they are pointing out that in order to promote animals in status, it is necessary to demote humans from the existing, pre-eminent status we have afforded ourselves in our laws. That is, one must have a conception of humans which verges on losing the capacity to differentiate between humans and beasts. The bestial treatment of humans that ensued in the NAZI case adds oomf to the argument, but is not its fundament. The NAZI anti-vivisection philosophy is taken to be an early-warning sign of a general philosophical readiness to demote human beings. I just don't see how the Francione bluster here amounts to a riposte, let alone a detailed one. Adhib 23:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. I changed the formulation to "Gary Francione has produced a response to one such argument." IMO, Francione's response is pretty ineffectual, since it basically boils down to "Why pick on the Nazis? There were other brutal, dehumanized (one might say, bestial) societies that also made a fetish of animal rights." --HK 20:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"Social contract"

I removed the part about how critics say that animals "do not have the capacity to enter into a social contract." First of all, I am not certain that it is true. Pets or domesticated animals that are not confined might be said to be willing participants in some sort of arrangement. More importantly, the concept of a social contract comes from John Locke, whose conception of human relations ought generally to be considered bestial. And finally, no source was offered for the inclusion of that item under "critics say," so I removed it until someone wants to document it. --HK 16:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I too believe it is untrue that animals cannot enter into social contract. However, this argument has been used by some critics of animal rights, e.g. Tibor Machan. Tom Regan has argued against contractarianism in many of his articles, for example, read The case for animal rights. Contractarianism is an important issue in the Animal rights debate. deeptrivia (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that source, DT. I've put social contract back in with the source as an embedded link. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi DT, I see you deleted the link and created a footnote instead. This article has been using embedded links and Harvard referencing for sources, not footnotes. See WP:CITE about not changing from one style to the next. Also, someone keeps wikifying years. See the MoS. Only full dates are wikified. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I got what you are saying. I was planning to change all references to footnote style very soon. But I guess it's fine the way it is too. I had wikified some years, sorry about that. I didn't know the policy. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Schopenhauer's critique of Kantian ethics

Arthur Schopenhauer's critique of Kant's exclusion of animals from his moral system is based on Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, where he argues that "humans have an inherent dignity that makes them ends in themselves, whereas animals are mere means to our ends." He argues that we do have a responsibility towards animals, but an indirect one. I looked on all relevant articles on wikipedia, and none of them explains this aspect of Kant's philosophy. Maybe it will be appropriate to explain it here since it is directly related to the animal rights debate. Also, ever since Darwin published The Origin of Species, this "inherent dignity" theory is widely debated, in our times for example, by Peter Singer. This is a good reference worth a read. deeptrivia (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Further suggestions

Typically, a discussion on animal rights also includes Descartes' automata theory ("animals are automata that act as if they are conscious"), Aquinas ("since animals cannot direct their actions, they are merely instruments that exist for the sake of humans"), and Carruthers who extends Rawls' concept of Justice as Fairness to argue against animal rights. Right now I pulled these out of my head, but can find out references. I think these inclusions will make the discussion more complete. deeptrivia (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by 68.37.99.133

Ultimately, Dr. Peter Singer has the correct, utilitarian point of view. Words and phrases such as "exploitation" or "rights" are useful to a degree, but what matters is ultimately 1) the good outweighing the bad (utilitarianism) 2) the good outweighing the bad for those who deserve it (justice), i.e. to those who do not initiate force.

It is mathematically certain that utilitarianism and justice will be in conflict in any dispute over any moral or political issue.

Game theorists have formalized these concepts, making the drivel of armchair critics is worthless and obsolete, with notable exceptions of those who take groundbreaking, original ponits-of-view, such as Dr. Peter Singer.

So, all these debates about what some animal rights soldiers or organizations have said are trivial and irrelevant. What matters is what they do, the sacrifices they have made against insurmountable odds, and the suffering they have vastly reduced.

Fighting for animal rights should be viewed absolutely no differently than a judge or police officer fighting a burglarly, or soldiers fighting Nazis in World War II. Compromises will always need to be made, but that is always the fault of the non-animal rights side. Many take the view that war for animal rights is justified, and that those who oppose this war to outlaw factory farming and breeding animals for food in an age of technology where we can get our protein from non-animal sources are unpatriotic cowards.

Removed quote

This was removed:

  • "Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenseless animals their rights. Animal friends and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany! What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized nations! It is a deed which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated friends in all nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists of all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts for this exemplary civil deed!" R.O. Schmidt, "Vivisection Forbidden In Prussia", Die Weisse Fahne {The White Flag} 14 (1933) : 710-711. [15]

1) It is too long for the quotes section, where we normally go for bite-sized, and this article's quotes section is long to begin with. It also doesn't make a point about animal rights; its point is that the end of vivisection will bring glory to the New Germany. We are not concerned about the glory of the New Germany here. The quote would make more sense on a page about the Nazi party.

2) It is POV pushing. Discussing comparisons of the animal rights movement with Nazism is completely appropriate in the article body, where these comparisons can be faithfully considered. But the quotes section should contain quotes that directly address the issue of whether animal rights are a good or a bad idea. The quote itself doesn't make a succinct or poetic point about animal rights--it is the fact that it is obvious Nazi propaganda that makes a point. That context means that the quote cannot be taken seriously. It is POV pushing via a kind of straw man argument. If you disagree, please see (1) and please do not revert before you reply here. --The Famous Movie Director 08:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think your argument has merit. However, I now think that the "Analogies to the Nazis" section ought to be fleshed out a bit. When I wrote that section, I weighted it toward the rebuttal by Gary Francione, because the quote that you removed was already in the article. Now, that section needs more documentation from the critics. --HK 15:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
abolition of vivisection is not the same as ARXanax 00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
"It is to elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher than ourselves, a flagrant contradiction. Of course, it is proper not to cause animals gratuitous suffering. But this is not the same as inventing a bill of rights for them, at our expense."

-Ayn Rand.

I think this quote and perhaps an economists view on animal rights would be a much better idea than the 'nazi' argument. After all arn't the majority of industries affected by Animal Rights Terrorism capatalist industries: drug industry, animal products, cosmetic industrys? I mean SHAC think they are waging a guerilla war within the stock market. Most animals are considered capital arn't they? The majority of animals I come into contact with are packaged, apart from when I see cows in the field... thats not NPV tho.. heres another quote to go with it.. 

"a tiny group of activists (SHAC) succeeding where Karl Marx, the Baader-Meinhof gang and the Red Brigades failed" -The Financial Times.

I just think the whole nazi discussion is just plain BAD TASTE from either side!Xanax 10:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I just removed this again. Someone is trying to re-insert it without disscussion here. Watch out for this happening in future. If it's you, please discuss it here first. I think it's irrelevant, POV and it also breaks Godwin's Law.--CalPaterson 22:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If you will consult the history tab on this discussion page, you will find that the past four or five entries were specifically on the topic of that text which you deleted. I disagree with your observations: it is relevant to a notable criticism of the animal rights movement; it is not the POV of an editor, but rather a documented quote from a notable source; and Godwin's Law, according to the article to which you have linked, applies to USENET discussions. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Of course, the implication is that "Nazi" is being used as some sort of epithet, which is also incorrect. This has all been thoroughly discussed, so please review recent discussion. I am restoring the deleted quote. --HK 07:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
It's discussed more below, but you don't seem to have support, so I've deleted the material again. It's not a notable criticism of the animal-rights movement that the Nazis banned vivisection on animals. It has nothing to do with the animal-rights movement, just as Hitler's allegedly being a vegetarian has nothing to do with vegetarianism, and the Gestapo wearing black coats has nothing to do with black coats. As you say, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so let's write as though it's one. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You didn't remove it from the "criticism" section, you removed it from the "quotes" section, with the edit caption, "OR and well poisoning." I defy you to demonstrate that a quote from the NSDAP is different than a quote from Peter Singer or Jeremy Bentham, in terms of Wikipedia policy. The idea that it is OR is flat out ridiculous -- it's a quote, for god's sake -- and "well poisoning" simply means you don't like it. You are a champion on behalf of "well poisoning" in articles where your POV runs the other direction. --HK 22:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote

This quote doesn't seem to have anything to do with animal rights (in that it makes no argument that, because animals "do not survive by rational thought," they should have no rights), so I'm thinking of removing it. Any objections? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Animals do not survive by rational thought (nor by sign languages allegedly taught to them by psychologists). They survive through inborn reflexes and sensory-perceptual association. They cannot reason. They cannot learn a code of ethics. A lion is not immoral for eating a zebra (or even for attacking a man). Predation is their natural and only means of survival; they do not have the capacity to learn any other." -Edwin A. Locke (author of "The Prime Movers")

General Criticism

1.) do you present "both sides" of racism? Is there a section on "critics of, eg, black equality?" Should there be? If no, why do the same here?

2.) Delete the passage on Nazis. Anything we can agree is good was used by someone we can agree was horrible. Remember, Mussolini made the trains run on time. Should all trains be late because a bad person made them on time?

3.) The final criticism from Stephen Hawking should be deleted, unless he has the ultimate authority to define what a "more worthwhile cause" is. If person A believes that stopping ending a form of oppression is worthy enough to persue, who is person B to say that his favorite cause is more worthwhile?

4.) The original criticisms list could use some improvement, since it's left off in the middle, as it seems. It ends with "since non-human animals aren't capable of moral decision making." You should add the following points: (1) Yes, some apes are capable of some form of morality. (2) Moral judgement doesn't lead to rights. Brain-damaged humans (and babies) are entitled to rights, despite this lack of moral thought. The claim that the moral judgement "test" should not be administered by the individual is mentioned, but glazed over. It seems strange that your rights should depend on a test given to me. Furthermore, if mentally disabled humans don't take the test, but are included because others have passed, why not non-human animals with similar mental status? If they aren't included, why? "They're not human" is morally meaningless. (3) The article states that non-humans kill each other without thinking that it is wrong. This justifies letting humans do it? The argument seems to say: "Non-human animals are incapable of moral thought. Because of this, they act immorally towards each other. Therefore, we should be able to act immorally to them." It seems strange to say someone is immoral, and then look to them for moral inspiration.

5.) The "criticism" that non-human animal rights can be anti-human never criticizes the concept. It only attacks several of the concept's promoters. Whether Chris DeRose thinks it's justified to experiment on one rat to save an incurable disease (a purely hypothetical and impossible situation nonetheless) is irrelevent to whether non-humans should be entitled to legal rights. It certainly wouldn't make humans second-class citizens to do so; when everyone is equal, there are no second-class citizens.

6.) The section on animal welfare needs to be redone. "Animal Welfare" asks that we must provide for non-human animals "all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, human handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia." Some terms are vague, such as "proper" housing and "responsible" care, but the position can be classified in two general ways.

  • The terms above can be defined to allow what we do today, i.e., eating flesh, experimenting, and such. These are "humane," and can be done. This position is identical to an almost complete disregard for non-human animals. Perhaps killing a pet cat is wrong, but killing a chicken is fine. How is that different from the standard anti-rights position? Being in favor of this kind of "animal welfare" while opposing rights serves only to make one more respectable whilst continuing the practices one does not wish to give up.
  • The terms can be defined to exclude what we do today, i.e., we have a moral responsibility not to eat flesh or perform painful experiments on non-human animals. Of course, a "universal moral responsibility" not to injure non-human animals would be enforced by law. Once a law, it becomes a right. This position is identical to non-human rights.

I can do most of the writing, but these problems must be addressed.

67.101.25.61, you should take the time to carefully read Wikipedia's policy on article neutrality. You appear to disagree with many of the criticisms mentioned in the article, but they are widely held beliefs and must be included, so that the reader may be aware of the controversies which surround the animal rights movement. I am also of the opinion that your understanding of some of these criticisms is faulty; for example, those who compare the animal rights movement to the Nazis are not doing so because the two movements, by sheer coincidence, held similar views on vivisection -- they are making the comparison because there is a deeper similarity, a philosophical outlook that blurs the distinction between human and beast, and in the view of these critics, that distinction is of absolutely vital importance to defending the modest advances that human civilization has made in the course of the last 500-600 years. --HK 21:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


HK, Yes, I understand how you need to be neutral. However, many people, even today, are of the belief that some humans, whether they be black, Jewish, low-caste, or in some way different, are inferior. If you look at the wider world, it is highly controversial to suggest that all humans are entitled to equal rights and considerations. Look at fundamentalist terrorists who hate Jews; at many Americans (I'm looking solely at my own country here) who hate blacks; at the Christians (and, perhaps members of other religions) who think people who don't practice their beliefs are inferior; and at the vast majority of Americans who believe homosexuals are not entitled to equal rights. Perhaps you should include criticisms of the idea that all humans are entitled to equal treatment in the human rights article? Why do the two receive unequal treatment? Either include "criticisms of human rights" or include refutations of criticisms of nonhuman rights. Oh, and I never asked you to delete them; just to add the responses to them.

As for analogies to the Nazis, there are none that can be honestly made. Nazis did not come up with the idea of partial liberation of nonhumans "by chance," no, and yes, it did result from "blurring the distinctions between human and beast," assuming "beast" means any nonhuman. This does not mean that there is any honest analogy to the idea of full nonhuman liberation; you're comparing apples and rotten apples, in a sense. Nazis take a position against equality— they start with the idea that "not everyone is entitled to equal rights." Who gets made "superior" and who "inferior" is somewhat arbitrary. If it's a valid criticism of rights for nonhumans, it's also a criticism of rights for white, blue-eyed, and blond-haired humans. Today's nonhuman equality stems from the idea that everyone IS equal, and should be treated as such. Saying that Nazis' granting of rights to nonhumans is an argument against such rights means that you're looking to the Nazis for moral inspiration.

There is another passage, though, which must be deleted.

"Some critics, such as Alan Herscovici, of the Fur Council of Canada, claim that 'Virtually none of the money they collect is used to fund humane shelters, develop better animal husbandry methods, or find cures for diseases. Instead, donations pay the salaries of professional organizers, subsidize more fund-raising, and fuel sensationalist campaigns against animal-use industries.'"

What is Mr. Herscovici advising nonhuman rights organizations to do with their money?

1. Fund humane shelters 2. Develop better animal husbandry methods 3. Find cures for diseases.

Well, let's see.

1. Fund humane shelters.

This is a worthy cause, but not the cause they persue. These organizations are about liberation, i.e., banning slavery, torture, etc. Humane shelters are to care for dogs and cats who rely on caring humans. It's a worthy cause, but not the same one. To use an analogy, an abolitionist in pre-Civil War South wants to end slavery. He may focus on providing support and health care for free blacks, and will almost certainly agree that this is a worthy cause. However, HIS cause is to abolish slavery. Both are important causes, but one shouldn't expect an organization devoted to one to persue the other.

2. Develop better animal husbandry methods.

OK, where to start here? Perhaps disbelief. Is he really stating that organizations opposed to slavery of nonhumans should be spending their money developing better ways to exploit slaves? The organizations OPPOSE the use of non-human animals! It would be a criticism of them if they DID try and develop better ways to use them! Nonhuman rights organizations hope to STOP the murder of chickens for their flesh; how would their money be better spent developing "better" ways to raise chickens to be murdered?

3. Find cures for diseases.

This is unrelated. Finding cures for diseases is a worthy cause, but a different one. These organizations work for nonhuman equality, not cures for disease. Even cures for nonhuman diseases are a different cause; they're worthwhile, but have nothing to do with liberation.


What is it that non-human rights organizations do, then? He lists three things, which he is opposed to.

1. Pay the salaries of professional organizers 2. Subsidize more fund-raising 3. Fuel "sensationalist" campaigns against animal-use industries.

Well, what about this?

1. Pay the salaries of professional organizers.

This is a standard cost. Organizations have staff. Employees are necessary. Employees have to be paid. This can't be avoided.

2. Subsidize more fund-raising.

Since the organizations rely on fundraising, a percentage of their funds must be alloted to bringing in more. Spend $2, and bring in $25, for example. It's a necessary and unavoidable cost.

3. Fuel "sensationalist" campaigns against animal-use industries.

Organizations working for non-human rights oppose those who vioate non-human rights. Animal-use industries violate non-human rights. Therefore, organizations working for non-human rights oppose these industries.

In short, Mr. Herscovici says that non-human rights organizations should:

1. Start funding two causes irrelevant to their own
2. Start funding one cause that contradicts their own
3. Stop funding their own cause
4. Stop paying basic operating expenses

Mr. Herscovici does NOT give any criticism of nonhuman equality. He only presents a jumbled and incoherent notion of what organizations working for nonhuman equality "should" or "should not" do. Therefore, even if a "criticisms" section is needed to provide balance, this passage has no relevance in it.

Again, please carefully read WP:NPOV. This article does not and should not draw any conclusion as to whether Mr. Herscovici is right, wrong, misguided, or a fuzzy thinker. It only reports on the fact that he makes this criticism, and he is not the only one making it. With respect to the Nazis, please take note of the fact that one half of that section is taken up by Gary Francione's rebuttal to the argument. If you know of someone who is notable and makes a more effective rebuttal than Francione, please suggest it on this page. --HK 15:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

eregweeet

HK, Yes, I see the part about the rebuttal of the Nazi comments. I must have missed it before. The thing is, is it really POV to eliminate jumbled and meaningless criticisms? Leaving Mr. Herscovici's remarks in place clouds the article with misinformation. Unless the reader thinks it over carefully, it seems to imply that non-human rights organizations spend all of their money on irrelevant or meaningless matters and are essentially hypocrites. Does Wikipedia check deeper and evaluate what people say, or merely aim for balanced "he said, she said" without carefully examining information to check for coherence, validity, or (depending on the issue and statement) factual truth? Most of the media in this country adopts a tepid NPOV in which two opposing sides are presented equally, with each side's argument presented verbatim, with no or little subsequent fact-checking, but this is far from ideal.

Regarding how charities spend donations, the newspaper Animal People (http://www.animalpeoplenews.org) produces an annual report that summarizes the assets, budget, overhead, and program costs of more than a hundred animal protection organizations and a handful of "opposition organizations", so readers can see what organizations are using donations most effectively. The newspaper also lists the salaries of the top staff in these organizations. The latest report (Dec 2005) can be found at http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/05/12/watchWhogetsthemoney12.05.htm (pdw) 08:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Herscovici isn't a well put criticism, and it should be placed somewhere other than AR because its not AR. Niether is the Nazi one and same should be done. I'll add find better criticisms on my list of things to do, because this is shoddy and not wiki standard.

The anti-human section needs the Gary Francione position as the utalitarian positions is not genrally used by ARA. Also Fruitarian belifs are not an adoption of parody AR groups, but have exsted seperatly for some time before the otherXanax 01:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Animal Lib vs. Animal Rghts

these are two distinctly diffrent philosphies and movements and I believe that this article could be broken down to these diffrent topics and more information added. Xanax 00:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

History of AR

I am at some point soon going to attempt to write a little history on AL/AR for this page, any suggestions for inclusions or snippets can be posted as drafts hereXanax 00:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

United Animal Nations

I wonder, there is no mention of United Animal Nations, and no Wikipedia article, yet they were coming into New Orleans when all others were evacuating. Does anyone have more information? Chris 20:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons to Nazis

This part is completely ridiculous. There's no need for it whatsoever. Just because the Nazis did something, and animal rights activists do it to, it doesn't make animal rights activists Nazis or make their actions in the least bit similar. This is a clear and obvious logical fallacy.

Are we to add to the page of vegetarianism that Hitler was a vegetarian as a 'criticism'? Are we to add to the page on dogs that because Hitler had one that's a valid criticism of them as a species?

An utterly idiotic and specious paragraph. Remove it in a week or I'll do it.

I completely agree with the sentiment. There have been very very many leaders who committed extreme acts of genocide and destruction who had or have no regard for the welfare of animals. Those who implemented the holocaust were overwhelmingly meat eaters.

If anyone wants to replace the section, they should have a convincing reason to do so. At the moment it stands as a fallacy. Mostlyharmless 06:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that Hitler's doctors put him on a vegetarian diet to cure him of flatulence and a chronic stomach disorder, his biographers such as Albert Speer, Robert Payne, John Toland, and others, have attested to his liking for ham sausages and other --Joewithajay 00:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)cured meats.. http://www.veg.ca/newsletr/mayjun96/hitler.htmlXanax 00:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Argreed. It's guilty-by-association logic, and was far too unfocused. I've never even heard this argued before seriously. --Joewithajay 23:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting it back (and moving this discussion to the end of the page, so that we don't disrupt the continuity.) Allow me to point out two things: first of all, it's not guilt by association; whether Hitler was a vegetarian is irrelevant. The quoted section makes clear that there is a very specific philosophical commonality between the animal rights movement and the Nazis. Secondly, whether you agree with the criticism is not important under Wikipedia policy. The question is whether the source is notable and verifiable, and it is both. Removal of information for other reasons is considered vandalism. --HK 07:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted. It's a silly section and original research. What you can do is take the material about Hitler and have a section about "Animal rights in the Third Reich." But without reputable sources saying today's animal rights activists are like Nazis (or whatever the bizarre claim is), the section as it stands violates WP:NOR. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not orginal research. It reports on what is in fact a rather wide-spread argument, sufficiently common that Gary Francione, who is listed in the article as a prominent animal rights theoretician, has responded to it in more than one location[16][17]. I think that the cited commentary by Martin Hulsey is useful because of its meticulous historical documentation. However, in case it is your contention that he is not notable as a critic of animal rights, I have added a quote from Kathleen Marquardt, one of the principle bogeymen of the animal rights movement, where she makes the same argument. --HK 15:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

(About comment in 'history') Removal of cited material isn't "vandalism" if said material is an obscure theory that doesn't seem to have any fitting in an already long article. I've seen it mentioned several times on this discussion that the section simply is unneeded and, at best, uses weak logic - but it shouldn't be removed because I don't agree with it, it should be removed because this isn't an accurate reflection of the counter-argument on the subject (if anything it seems like it's written so animal-right supporters can almost laugh at the opposition’s case). And it does feel like original research to me - despite a few comments from Gary Francione. --Joewithajay 18:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made the original source -- Martin Hulsey -- specific, and added another, Kathleen Marquandt. You may debate their value as sources, but it is clearly not original research, regardless of how it "feels." And if you are not fully satisfied with these sources, I am willing to add more; there is no shortage of critics who espouse this point of view. You can't wish it away, so please don't try to sanitize the article. --HK 23:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My concern boils down to this - there's 4 key criticisms of animal rights in the article, and if we include the Nazi comparisons section, it communicates that this is used as an argument by roughly 25% of opponents (maybe moreso, since the section is so longer than the other arguements). I know that's not how it works in reality, but to include it within arguments which are used much more frequently gives it a false sense of importance. Maybe we could compromise and include it under ‘other arguments’, since, even if it was a topic of discussion, I doubt it’s still one used in modern debate (and if it is, could you cite recent examples?). --Joewithajay 00:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Nazi section, but added it to the 'Animal rights can be anti-human' section. The Nazi section was referring to this argument anyway. Right now consensus is against having a whole section on the Nazi argument, so please leave it in its current form until we've discussed it more fully and not let this turn into an endless revert contest. (I see you reverted another removal of the section earlier today, without responding to discussion here) --Joewithajay 19:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't respond on the talk page to the other removal, because it was done by an anonymous editor who left no comment. I don't have a major problem with what you have done, but I think the Hulsey quote should be included, because it provides the documentation as to what the Nazis actually did. At one time, this was included in another section of the article, then got moved to the "Analogies" section; I think it should be preserved. I have added it to the "anti-human" section, and I hope that this is an acceptable compromise. --HK 21:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
This isn't an article about the Nazis, so to include it constitutes original research i.e. using a synthesis of published material in order to advance a position. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The title of Hulsey's article, "The Implications of Nazi Animal Protection," speaks for itself. The accusation of original research is spurious and serves a POV agenda. --HK 16:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The title doesn't speak for itself. It would need to be two things to avoid violating NOR or V: first, it would have to be an article that was specifically about the relationship between animal rights and being "anti-human," as the header says i.e. it would have to be the author's argument, not your; and secondly, the author would have to be some sort of specialist e.g. an historian, philosopher, or specialist in animal rights, (or failing that a writer/journalist published by a reputable newspaper). Also, we should say what his argument is, rather than quoting a statement from Goering. So who is Martin Hulsey and where was this article published? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, the article itself says "The "antivivisection" law that was actually passed was modeled after an existing British law that did not constitute an absolute ban, despite official proclamations to that effect." www.hitler.org/links/NAP_5.html So are you also going to argue that the British are like Nazis, because they had a similar law? I can't see where you're going with this, plus the article isn't well written and seems to be about Usenet. I doubt this would have published anywhere credible. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine -- I've restored the quote to where I originally found it, in the "quotes" section. --HK 15:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought you liked comparing people to Nazis, and accusing them of anti-Semitism. Shoe on the other foot much? --207.118.71.134 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great compromise. --Joewithajay 00:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The Nazi link (which I personally find silly, but my views don't matter) is not a mainstream philosophical argument against animal rights. I know it has become popular as a kind of taunt among lay people who immediately point to Hitler's vegetarianism, etc., but in the more formal context of an encyclopedia article like this one is supposed to be, inclusion of such argument is perhaps not appropriate. Certainly not along with other philosophical arguments given by academics. deeptrivia (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This user (who has by the way been banned from editting on Larouche articles by way of ArbCom) keeps putting the quote back in. [18]--Jersey Devil 17:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's clear to me there's a potentially interesting debate to be had on this issue, but an encyclopaedia article would be the wrong forum for such a debate. I will just note that the remaining trace reference to Nazism should be preserved, so that individuals like me coming to this article aren't tempted to whack in a whole new section. Adhib 23:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism and animal rights

I just created this page and it needs expansion. See the talk page for suggestions. The Ungovernable Force 08:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Re/moved Husbandry Institute

I moved Husbandry Institute links to a new catagory -- as it does not promote AR, it does not belong in any of the other catagories. Welfare is different than rights. --Biophilic 19:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

drawing the line

User:SlimVirgin reverted without discussion. Not good WP behaviour. I have reconsidered the edit and edited it accordingly. Pls discuss before reverting.

I have also attempted to copy edit and begin reorganisation in order to bring the word limit towards WP target. Please remember that bulk reverts are not good WP behaviour. In accordance with wikipedia policy I have referenced the points previously at the top and moved detail to the appropriate sections. The reference at the top to Frey and Scrutton was incomplete so I hope anyone who is wedded to it will complete it (note that Frey is in the references). Likewise with the RSPCA ref.

I've created a separate animal welfare quotes article and referenced it (note that not all the quotes were animal rights quotes, so I used the welfare tag - I hope this meets with consensus.

I've copy edited and merged the two criticsm sections (why have two??).

There is much POV on both sides which needs removing. Mccready 14:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the material you deleted. The intro, in particular, was decided by consensus after a lot of discussion. Please respect the tag at the top of this page. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Monkey photo needs replacing

Cute and happy monkey illustrating animal rights is captive-born baby Francois langur in London Zoo. As animal rights activists condemn zoos, it is ironic and inappropriate to use this photo.

Distorting facts and propaganda in animal rights

Above reminded me of a need of discussion about distorting facts and fakes in animal rights movement. I fell it needs at least a mention and warning to users, who might take pictures from 1980's of small zoo cages and lab animals as typical to modern treatment of animals.

If you have reputable sources for that behavior by particular activists, it would be better in Animal liberation movement or in the article about the group it's about, or the individual activist if you have a name, but it's not related to the concept of animal rights. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is common. And very much common also in animal rights not only animal liberation. Anyway, as written below, I see no point of posting data which will be removed by biased admin. Wikipedia is for sharing facts, not making propaganda posters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.14.19.45 (talk • contribs) . i.e. Mccready (talk · contribs).

Second warning

This user has bulk reverted - agreed by some in the wikipedia community to amount to vandalism. The reasons given were that consensus had already been found for the lead. Even if this was accurate - there is no need to bulk revert. I have checked the talk page exhausitvely and find NO such consensus. Secondly, User:SlimVirgin's bulk revert deleted sections for which no reason was given. For example, the section on where to draw the line is very relevant to the article. Singer says animal research should stop only in certain cases. Others disagree.

Here are my reasons for undoing the damage caused by User:SlimVirgin

  • it is A movement not THE movement - this fundamental POV cannot stand
  • see WP:LEAD - the lead section SUMMARIZES - it does not present the arguments in detail. That is why I properly moved the detailed arguments to the relevant section. For example:
  • in regard to some countries legislative systems, the lead makes the point - it doesn't present the details.
  • the notion of "moral community" is mentioned in the lead but not defined in the article - this is a flaw
  • the lead was not concisely worded - statments like "in other words" are unencyclopedic
  • statements like "for example" are not part of the summary - examples belong in the article, not the lead

The following are examples of bad English which User:SlimVirgin's edited reinstated after I had worked to improve:

"awarding recognition"
"Criticism against the concept"

If User:SlimVirgin had bothered to check, he/she would have seen that quotes of the type he/she insists on putting it belong in wikiquotes. It would be a simple matter, as I did, to link out. The article is already too long to be further filled with his/her OR.

As I said, in my original post, the article needs work. It needs to show the different degrees of animal rights. If, for example, the view that it is wrong to protect yourself from animal attack is not a significant minority view, then there is no need to include the criticisms of Bidinotto (which strike me as strawman stuff).

Bulk reverts are not the way forward in this project. I look forward to working cooperatively with editors on this article but if User:SlimVirgin bulk reverts again and fails to address the above points in discussion, I will begin an RfC process against him/her. Mccready 01:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My second "warning" notwithstanding, I agree that the writing in this article needs to be improved, but you are not doing that. Your intro, for example, is much worse than the current intro, which was arrived at after a lot of discussion, is properly sourced, and shouldn't be changed by one new editor. Please read the tag at the top of this page, which cautions against making substantial edits without consensus. Please discuss what you want to change on the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
And this edit of yours is utterly bizarre, and (not surprisingly) unsourced: "Varrious [sic] animals [sic] rights advocates draw the line differently on the use of the following laboratory animals.
  • Bacillus subtilis (gram-positive bacteria)
  • Escherichia coli (gram-negative bacteria)
  • Neurospora crassa (red bread mold)
  • Arabidopsis thaliana (mustard family) ..."
Please supply reputable sources for your edits. See WP:V and WP:NOR, and well as WP:NPOV. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin reverts again

User:SlimVirginwho is an administrator and should know better has offered inadequate explanation for her reverts. She claims the intro was agreed after discussion but provides no links to this to counter my research of the talk page.

Egregious, though I assume good faith, was her labelling of her bulk revert as minor in the edit summary.

She has a strong interest in the article, stating on her userpage "My main editing interests are the Middle East and animal rights". Given that, I would expect better behaviour than bulk reverts and a failure to discuss adequately. She fails to address most of the specific points I raised above and rather than repeat them here I ask her and others to do so if they wish to revert again.

I have carefully checked her edits and incorporated some of them and am happy to discuss. The following are my reasons for additional edits:

  • re "distinction between sentient or self-aware animals" it is not only activists who make such a distinction
  • the qualification of the "human" with "being" is POV. Human means human despite the wishes of some activists to extend the use of the word. In any case I hope my reworking of the sentence avoids the controversy.
  • "infringes upon" is tautological
  • I agree that "may be little more than automata, capable of basic reflexes" is a better wording
  • I've shortened the ref to Oswald.
  • I can't see the need to qualify Israel for a longer and more awkward sentence. I ask User:SlimVirgin not to bring her views on the Middle East to this page unless they are relevant
  • can/may is an old grammatical argument but I won't insist
  • animal rights seems more common than animal-rights

On the quotes issue. I am surprised that an administrator does not follow WP policy on this. By all means link to wikiquotes.

I've placed a link to Model organism. The statement is logical extrapolation needing no source.

I have taken great pains and much time to consider carefully each revert of User:SlimVirgin and expect the same respect from her. If User:SlimVirgin or anyone else bulk reverts for a third time without adequate discussion I will begin an RfC process. Mccready 09:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Post by banned user deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet of User:Blu Aardvark blocked. AnnH ♫ 08:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My update vandalised =

My update disappeared suddenly.

I'm afraid user SlimVirgin is making propaganda from information. I see no further point in fighting with admin to put data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.14.19.45 (talk • contribs) .

Presumably Mccready, and oddly so, because no one had touched his edit when he wrote the above. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
odd indeed because if SlimVirgin had checked edit histories she could easily see it wasn't me. The slur deserves an apology. Mccready 08:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Your repeated deletion of material is becoming disruptive. As the tag at the top of this page says, please discuss substantial changes before making them. The intro, in particular, should not have all the criticism removed from it. This is a consensus intro that was agreed between a number of editors not that long ago. You're removing properly sourced criticism from it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, you didn't address my point above, and say what you meant by:
"Varrious [sic] animals [sic] rights advocates draw the line differently on the use of the following laboratory animals.
  • Bacillus subtilis (gram-positive bacteria)
  • Escherichia coli (gram-negative bacteria)
  • Neurospora crassa (red bread mold)
  • Arabidopsis thaliana (mustard family) ..." etc.
Could you say what you meant by it, please, and which animal rights advocates distinguish between gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, or any of the others? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

4th attempt

User:SlimVirgin, I will not repeat myself. Please read my extensive points in two recent posts above and reply to them sensibly. You have already been critised on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents:

"she has displayed a rather disturbing lack of editing tact (considering that she is an administrator"

The response to your question above is contained in posts I have already made. Have you read them? I agreed with you and took the list away in my very next edit, which you reverted seemingly without reading.

You stated on another page that I had removed criticism from the lead. In the absence your detailed reasoning, I can only hope my latest attempt meets your wishes.

For the fourth time, I have again spent a lot of time on this. Please do me the courtesy of trying to respond properly rather than bulk reverting. Mccready 06:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, you seem to miss the fact that it is you who is refusing to answer my queries (see above), you who has ignored the tag at the top of the talk page asking that changes be discussed before being made, and you (not only me) who keeps reverting. I will continue to restore the consensus version. Please discuss your changes on talk before making them. Also, please stop using attack headers and threatening edit summaries. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Page protection April 6, 2006

per WP:RFPP, I have protected the article until the disputed edits have been hashed out here on the Talk page. Please remember that Wikipedia works by consensus. Tomertalk 07:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tomer. Mccready, if you post a list of the problems you have with the page, I'll be very happy to discuss them all with you. In the meantime, could you say what you don't like about the intro, what you meant about the references not being fully written out (did you mean the Harvard referencing), and also what you meant by:
"Varrious [sic] animals [sic] rights advocates draw the line differently on the use of the following laboratory animals.
  • Bacillus subtilis (gram-positive bacteria)
  • Escherichia coli (gram-negative bacteria)
  • Neurospora crassa (red bread mold)
  • Arabidopsis thaliana (mustard family) ..." etc.
And could you say which animal rights advocates you were referring to who make these distinctions? Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if anyone is interested in another opinion, but I have to say that after giving two versions a read, neither of them are great in terms of grammar and readability (and I'm not saying any one editor is responsible for that, just that the article has ended up formed in this way). I do think that taking each disagreement one by one, as tiresome and time-consuming as that may be, is the way to go, then giving it a stiff rewrite for clarity (not content). IronDuke 18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree about the need for a rewrite, IronDuke (though not of the intro, which I feel is informative and balanced). The writing has suffered from too-many-editors-itis, a common WP problem. My objection to Mccready's edit was that the writing was not improved, the intro had the criticism removed and was left too short and unsourced, and some strange points were introduced, such as the claim that activists distinguish between different kinds of bacteria; see above. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the intro was not improved: I really don't like the tendency in WP to include criticism of the term or person in question in the intro. That should almost always come later. I will also go on record as raising an eyebrow at the bacteria section. Would really need to be well-sourced. And call me a nit-picker, but the use of the phrase "in other words" in the intro is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. It is not encyclopedic, and suggests that the preceding sentence was either unclear or the reader too dim to grasp the concept. But that's a minor quibble. IronDuke 20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I like to see criticism in the intro of contentious subjects, though I wasn't hugely keen on this particular criticism because it introduces the animal-welfare angle, which this page isn't about. But other editors wanted it, so I wrote this version of the intro as a compromise, and then several others agreed, so given all the discussion, I'd be relucant to see it changed again. I'll take a look at "in other words," and see whether it can be tightened. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think "in other words" can be left out, as follows:
Animal rights, or animal liberation, is the movement to protect animals from being used or regarded as property by human beings. It is a radical social movement, insofar as it seeks not only to attain more humane treatment for animals, but to include species other than human beings within the moral community, by giving their basic interests — for example, the interest in avoiding suffering — the same consideration as our own. The movement's aim is that animals should no longer be regarded legally or morally as property, or treated merely as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as persons. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I like that intro. IronDuke 20:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, ID. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Has consensus on the disputed text been reached? Tomertalk 23:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tomer, there's been no response from Mccready, the user who wanted the rewrite. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I like SlimVirgin's version better, but I don't know if that really makes a consensus. IronDuke 23:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached. There is no evidence that anyone has considered my points. I will not repeat what I have said above. The repeated reference to bacteria is becoming tiresome (I repealed it as soon as the error was pointed out) and shows again that my posts have not been read properly. SlimVirgin's version backtracks on earlier undertaking to remove things like "moral community", "enshrined".

I note the following sequence of events:

07:38, 6 April 2006 SlimVirgin reverted and called it minor
She asked for protection 07:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
TomerTALK 07:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC) said he/she would protect

How Tomer could possibly have reviewed my posts in the time between protection request and decision is beyond me. I am also quite shocked that an admin should alter the talk page to a version which she prefers.

The article and intro as it now stands seems BY animal rights people FOR animal rights people. It seeks the moral high ground and criticises animal welfarists with the phrase "not merely". It is confused and wrong in portraying AR as wanting to reduce suffering while implying only AR wants this. The povish "merely" is repeated again in the last sentence of the lead. The sentence beginning "Some countries have passed legislation awarding recognition to the interests of animals. " is vague. The lead does not need to mention indvidual countries. These can be mentioned, as in my version, in the body. Likewise with the mention of individuals in the lead.

The article is confused about defining AR as a movement or as a concept. A read of this discussion page shows only one organisation wanting "community of equals" if this is the defn of AR. This is a major contribution, not m Mccready 07:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to want to argue rather than discuss the article. First, the protecting admin responds to a request based on whether there's an edit war. He doesn't look to see who he agrees with, because that's not the point of protecting. The point is to encourage discussion on the talk page and to stop the reverting.
Secondly, I have no idea what you mean about the version of the talk page I prefer.
As for your substantive comments: (a) the phrase "not merely" means the AR movement wants more than humane treatment for animals i.e. it wants that plus something else: hence the phrases "not merely" or "not only"; (b) the lead should stand on its own as a mini-article, giving an overview that a reader could read on its own, and this one does that; the intro you replaced it with did not; (c) "some countries have passed legislation ..." etc: what is vague about it? (d) AR is both a movement and a set of ideas i.e. a movement that has developed in support of a certain philosophy; (e) I don't understand your sentence: "A read of this discussion page shows only one organisation wanting "community of equals" if this is the defn of AR"; (f) it would be appreciated if you could explain your bacteria edit because you inserted it twice, I believe, reverting me when I deleted it, and it would be interesting to know who your sources were. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy to discuss further once you've responded to my earlier points. Discussion on bacteria is pointless. You just don't seem to get it - it was an ERROR. Mccready 08:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please list any outstanding objections here so that I can address them. If you don't, I will assume you don't have any. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Too uncooperative to make your own summary

For starters this is what's wrong with the article:

  • 1. article too long
I disagree; it's 43 kilobytes.
  • 2. list of quotes belongs in wikiquotes
Personally I have no problem with moving them, but other editors have added them and I see no strong reason to remove them either. I can go either way if no one else objects.
  • 3. A movement not THE movement
There is only one.
  • 4. WP:LEAD - the lead section SUMMARIZES - it does not present the arguments in detail
Read it carefully. The lead is supposed to stand alone as a mini article so that the reader could read that and nothing else.
  • 5. “some countries legislative systems” my preferred lead makes the point - it doesn't present the details.
Exactly. Why hint and not say which countries?
  • 6. delete "moral community" as you’ve previously promised to do
I don't recall "promising" that. What is wrong with "moral community"?
  • 7. "in other words" is unencyclopedic phrase
It was removed several days ago.
  • 8. statements like "for example" should not be inlead
Why not?
  • 9. bad English = "awarding recognition"
I disagree.
  • 10. bad English = "Criticism against the concept"
Agreed.
  • 11. needs to show the different degrees of animal rights positions
Feel free to write a new section describing them, making sure it's carefully sourced.
  • 12. if the view that it is wrong to protect yourself from animal attack is not a significant minority view, then there is no need to include the criticisms of Bidinotto (which strike me as strawman stuff).
I agree, but other editors want that section in.
  • 13. “sentient or self-aware animals" it is not only activists who make such a distinction
Who else makes it (with sources, please)?
  • 14. the qualification of the "human" with "being" is POV.
No it isn't. "Human being" is a standard term for, erm, human being; not POV at all.
  • 15. "infringes upon" is tautological
Not in and of itself it isn't, obviously. The only sentence I can see it in is: "They maintain that any human being or institution that commodifies animals for food, entertainment, cosmetics, clothing, animal testing, or for any other reason, infringes upon their right to possess themselves and to pursue their own ends." That sentence is not tautological.
  • 16. ref to Oswald should be shortened as in my version
Don't know what you mean by "ref to Oswald." If you mean we should say less about him, why do you think that?
  • 17. I can't see the need to qualify Israel for a longer and more awkward sentence.
How is it being qualified?

18. animal rights seems more common than animal-rights

Animal-rights with a hyphen is used when it's a compound adjective.
  • 19. "enshrined" should go as you've promised before. why is it back

Mccready 06:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone else may have added it. I have the information in the intro but not using the word "enshrined". But why do you object to it? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So we agree on

  • 2. move quotes to wikiquotes
I personally have no problem with, but other editors may replace them.
  • 6. re “moral community” you said “I’ll happily delete it” 23:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC). Your attempt to rehash the argument is perverse.
How am I rehashing the argument? I don't recall having an argument about it. Again, I ask: what is wrong with the phrase "moral community"?

We disagree on

  • 4/5. the lead should be one or two paras max that’s why details don’t belong
Why do you believe the lead should be one or two paras?
  • 17. Israel is being qualified by addition of the words “The State of”
Again, how is it being qualified?
  • 15 “infringes upon” – if the removal of a word means the sentence meaning is unaltered, then to that extent it’s tautological or at least unnecessary
Tautological doesn't mean the same as unnecessary, but I also don't see how "infringes upon" could be removed without affecting the sentence. Or you mean "upon" could be removed? If the latter, I have no problem with it, but you're misusing "tautological."
  • 16. Oswald – the attempt is to paint him as a hypocrite. The other info is unnecessary and also a simplistic view of the French Revolution.
Why didn't you say that, instead of saying only that it was too long?

I’m happy to compromise on the rest. Meantime the page should be unprotected while the remainder is sorted out.

AND, you have edited my edit on the talk page. This makes it impossible for a later reader to see who said what. It’s not good behaviour.Mccready 09:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, please stop lecturing me. I haven't edited your talk-page edit, at least not intentionally, and if I did so unintentionally, I apologize. I'll request unprotection if you undertake not to start reverting again. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

yes I will not revert if you agree to abide by WP policies. The edit of my edit was on this page. Mccready 08:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That gives me no confidence that you won't start reverting again, because I was abiding by the content policies before. Please give a firm assurance you won't revert again and that any further disagreements will be resolved on talk. Also, please say concerns you feel have not yet been dealt with? You haven't responded at all to the points I made above. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The policies you weren't abiding by include WP:LEAD, and your insistence on putting bunches of quotes in that belonged in wikiquotes. Your refusal to discuss your bulk reverts properly until after my 4th request and my taking it to another page where another admin criticised your high-handed attitude gives me little confidence in your bevahiour. Will you or will you not promise to abide by WP policies? Mccready 08:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to stop this. I understand how to write intros. You actually don't, although I realize you think you're the expert. In addition, WP:LEAD (which you anyway don't adhere to) isn't policy. I've already said I had no problem getting rid of the quotes; I didn't add them in the first place. Mccready, you're trolling now. You listed your objections above. I replied to them. Now you must say which objections you feel are outstanding. Stop arguing for the sake of it, and stop trying to lecture me on the content policies, which I am very familiar with. Concentrate on content, not on me. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Despite all the contraversy surrounding this article, I am pleasantly surprised with how it stands now. It is almost completely encyclopedic. I would only make these criticisms: 1) Oswald as a hypocrite: it doesn't matter whether Oswald fought in the revolution 2) the phrase "non-human animals": "animals" will do just fine 3) the quotes about about saving dogs or babies from drowning in the section "animal rights as anti-human" need to have some sort of introductory statement or they need to be moved to "quotes". As it stands now, the article implies, "These statements are examples of being anti-human." Articles shouldn't imply anything. 4) the Nazi thing: While it might be encyclopedic (you are merely stating the opinion of someone), the point of view is extremely radical and a non-sequiter. One would think that the Nazi's supposed compassion toward animals lead to Hitler's dictatorship, the Holocaust, and WWII. Up until this point in the article, you had been quoting credible sources who used the language of philosophy to argue their point. This is just insane. --Cjackb 19:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Very good points, Chris, thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been reading all of this and agree with Cjackb. As my passion is for animal rights I wish to have a good article with facts. --Dunnemince 16:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


edit to be made when page is unprotected

"The vast majority of animal-rights advocates adopt vegetarian or vegan diets; they may also avoid clothes made of animal skins, such as leather shoes, and will not use products such as cosmetics, pharmaceutical products, or certain inks or dyes known to contain so-called animal byproducts."

We need to remove the "so-called" since this is a word to be avoided. --BHC 19:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection

SlimVirgin made the following comment above for which she should apologise. "Mccready, you're trolling now." This comment was the most offensive in a stream of offence which also included her statement. "I understand how to write intros. You actually don't, although I realize you think you're the expert." The page should not remain protected at the whim of an admin who behaves like this. For the record, I will continue to abide by WP policy. If lifting of page protection does not proceed expeditiously I will seek other forums to have the dispute examined. Mccready 03:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please say which of the objections you listed remain outstanding in your view. You are the one who is holding up the unprotection. The faster you list your remaining objections, the faster we can unlock the page. And, for the fourth or fifth time, please stop creating attack headers. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be grateful to SV if she would do me the courtesy of reading and commenting substantively my post on this page of 09:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC). She has also changed the header of this section. The header was “SlimVirgin should apologise". I don't agree that this is an attack; indeed the phrase she uses appears to be one of her favorites, little used elsewher. An admin should know the standards of civility on WP. I have yet to receive an apology for this instance or for the accusation earlier when she alleged another editor’s comments were mine. This is not good behaviour for an admin. Mccready 06:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I replied days ago to your 09:39 April 10 edit. See above. My question is: which, if any, of these objections do you consider to be outstanding i.e. not settled? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


A reply is not necessarily a substantive reply. Your reply was "Mccready, please stop lecturing me. I haven't edited your talk-page edit, at least not intentionally, and if I did so unintentionally, I apologize. I'll request unprotection if you undertake not to start reverting again. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)" Once again, may I humbly request your subtantive reply? Mccready 06:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. I replied 10 days ago, and have asked you many times since then for a response, as I do once again. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And here. I have replied to every point you raised. Now I just want to know which objections of yours remain. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed absurd and an example of the dangers of your editing style of interspersing your comments into someone elses. It makes it very hard to follow who said what when. Having checked again, I have no further problems and am happy for unprotection to proceed. Mccready 07:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You were three days too late. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nazis again

The Nazi thing was added again, and I've removed it because of the source:

Critics of animal rights have pointed to the support for animal rights by the Nazi regime in Germany, and its anti-vivisection legislation. Kathleen Marquardt, founder of "Putting People First" and author of Animal Scam, The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights, writes that "By pretending to extend rights to animals, which by nature are incapable of moral cognition, the Nazis ultimately annihilated the very concept of "rights." And just as the dogma of animal rights led to the destruction of human rights under Nazism, it leads to the destruction of human rights today." [19]

According to a book review, the author Kathleen Marquardt is a "Montana ranch mom," not what we'd call a reliable source. The book itself is a described as a "manifesto," and is out of print. If anyone wants to return this material, please source it to someone reputable, and more than one, because it says according to "critics," not according to "one Montana ranch mom." Also note that the Nazis did not extend rights to animals. They introduced the same vivisection-control legislation that the British had at the time. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

animal rights and animal liberation are different things!

i just started reading this article and it totally doesn't flow or sound good at all. you can see the different disputes showing in almost every paragraph and i was thinking that maybe a way of solving this was to create two seperate categories: one for animal rights and one for animal liberation. i totally think they are two different concepts that overlap, but are still quite different and have obvious limits within their definitions. for example, while all animal liberation activists can be considered animal rights activists, not all animal rights activists can be considered animal liberation activists.

It's the other way round: while all AR activists are AL-ists, not all AL-ists support AR. There's not enough material for two articles, in my view. Also, see Wikipedia:Please sign your posts on talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think of them as seperate but overlaping. Animal liberationists support freedom, whereas animal rightists (does that seem right?) support the idea of moral rights. I don't think either group inherently includes the other. I do however think there are substantial differences between rights and liberation, and they should be addressed either in this article or in a separate article. The Ungovernable Force 04:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What about people who don't support the concept of moral rights (either for humans or for non-humans), but struggle to get animals legal rights, which they believe are the only rights one can have? I am thinking of utilitarians, for instance. Are they not part of the animal rights movement? I think they are. They in large part founded it. They support rights in one important sense. The introduction to this article excludes them.

And what about people who believe that animal rights, or liberation, or whatever, go further than just liberating animals from human abuse? What about predation? Even if for obvious reasons human abuse is a priority today, if we give equal consideration to the interests of non-human animals, then the suffering of a mouse counts just as much when it is a cat who is torturing him as when it is a human. I don't think it is fair to exclude these persons from the definition of animal rights.

Furthermore, it is false to say that animal rights wants to regard all animals as persons. Tom Regan, for instance, distinguishes between animals who are "subjects of a life" and those who, though sentient, are not (fish, perhaps, are an example). He wouldn't regard the latter as persons, and doesn't extend rights to them, though he does give weight to their welfare. So the introduction is flawed on this count too.

Tu sum up: the introduction as it is is too limited in scope.

I don't think that there can be any clear-cut definition of animal rights in general that can capture the diversity of the movement. The same can be said for many social movements. It is wrong to try to impose a definition on it. The introduction should try to be simply descriptive of what the movement is.

David Olivier 10:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for your comment. Regarding your first point, that people who support AR but don't believe animals have moral rights are excluded by the intro: I can't see that myself. The intro doesn't say or imply that animals have moral rights, simply that the aim of the movement is to include them within the moral community, which is wording utilitarian AR supporters would go along with.
Your second point: "And what about people who believe that animal rights, or liberation, or whatever, go further than just liberating animals from human abuse? What about predation?" Again, I don't see how they're specifically excluded by this intro, but more to the point: can you give an example of which people you're referring to? I'm not familiar with anyone in the AR movement who has written about the need to liberate animals from non-human predators. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin. I'll rephrase the part about the intro excluding utilitarians and others when I get back in a few days. It's true I wasn't very clear.

Concerning predation: it was an ongoing debate ten or twenty years ago inside the movement. The movement has become a lot less philosophical, unfortunately. The debate about predation certainly still exists in the French movement, at least. One well known article advocating a critical stance towards predation is Steve Sapontzis, "Saving the Rabbit from the Fox?", which was an article in the journal Between the Species, and then became a chapter of his book Morals, Reason, and Animals. See here for references of that book. I haven't found the English text of the article on the Web, but the French translation is here.

David Olivier 02:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, David. There's also Animal liberation movement in case you're interested in adding some material there. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Top

The version I propose is:

Animal rights, or animal liberation, is a social movement to achieve rights for animals so they are not regarded legally or morally as property, or treated as resources for human purposes. The movement says animals should be regarded as persons and included in the moral community, [1] by giving their basic interests — for example, the interest in avoiding suffering — the same consideration as humans.

My reasons are:

  • 1. "radical" is a value judgement which appears to be OR
  • 2. "merely" is a value judgement perjorative to those who merely don't go as far as Animal Rights proponents prefer
  • 3. "human" is one word to replace two "our own".
  • 4. The "our own" seeks to bring the reader into the same mindset as the writer and is therefore manipulative
  • 5. My version makes "legal and moral" comment once. The alternate version makes the comment about property twice and therefore suffers from redundancy.
  • 6. "The claim is" is an awkward construction; "says" is briefer.

In summary I think my version is more concise, though I would prefer not to use "moral community" because that term is used by its proponents in a normative fashion. At least the reader should be told what is meant by "moral community".

Mccready 02:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin reverted by edits without discussion. Please discuss. Mccready 07:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently because you're wikistalking her, according to her edit summaries.[20] If this is indeed the case, and I have no reason to doubt SV, then you need to stop and I encourage her to continue not responding to you. The original content is accurate and well within guideline and policy, BTW. FeloniousMonk 16:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The allegation is absurd. The fact that SV edited the page before I did gives her no right to be so high handed, as another admin has pointed out. Please address the substance of my arguments.Mccready 12:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You turned up here, which I regularly edit and you had never edited. You turned up at Lauren Slater, which I regularly edit and you had never edited. You turned up at New anti-Semitism, which I regularly edit and you had never edited. You turned up at Rat Park, which I created but you had never edited. Could be a cooincidence, of course. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Once again you fail to address the substance. Perhaps you should list all the pages you regularly edit and which I don't. Once again, you have no prior rights. You do not own wikipedia. You have no right to behave the way you do and ignore our culture of discussion. Please assume good faith - I am here to improve articles. I have reverted and ask you to address the issues.

  • 1. "radical" is a value judgement which appears to be OR
  • 2. "merely" is a value judgement perjorative to those who merely don't go as far as Animal Rights proponents prefer
  • 3. "human" is one word to replace two "our own".
  • 4. The "our own" seeks to bring the reader into the same mindset as the writer and is therefore manipulative
  • 5. My version makes "legal and moral" comment once. The alternate version makes the comment about property twice and therefore suffers from redundancy.
  • 6. "The claim is" is an awkward construction; "says" is briefer.

In summary I think my version is more concise, though I would prefer not to use "moral community" because that term is used by its proponents in a normative fashion. At least the reader should be told what is meant by "moral community". Mccready 17:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is to let Mccready know, as required by policy, that I'll be using rollback for his edits from now on, because the reason they're unacceptable has been explained several times by more than one editor, and his continued reverting looks like trolling. I also won't be commenting again. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


SV. This is untrue. These points were not covered while the page was protected. Pls do me me the courtesy of addressing the six points. Your accusations of trolling do yourself a disservice. Mccready 18:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mccready: this is a controversial topic and you know your edits to it have been considered contentious in the past. The smart move here would be to discuss on Talk before making wholesale changes which look on the face of it to be subtle rewordings of previously rejected versions. The smart move would be to play nice, talk first, and not poke admins with a sharp stick. So: are you smart? Just zis Guy you know? 17:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro misleading?

Having just read some of this article, I have to say I found the intro a little misleading. In particular, the lines

"but also to include species other than human beings within the moral community, [1] by giving their basic interests — for example, the interest in avoiding suffering — the same consideration as our own. The claim is that animals should no longer be regarded legally or morally as property, or treated merely as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as persons."

made me think that the article was saying the Animal Rights movement was advocating equal status between humans and animals (which I know no to be the case). Later on the article clarified my concerns, and re-reading the introduction after reading the rest of the article it makes more sense (apart from the person bit]]. My concern is that if the first thing people see when they read the article is something they believe untrue, it will put them off the whole article.

Given the controversy, and efforts already made to solve it, I don't want to simply edit the intro. May I suggest it be looked at again? I'd be happy to contribute some suggestions as to how it could be re-worded, but not if everyone is too fed up to consider new versions of the intro. Captainj 13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Though I would say that the introduction is not neutral, rather than just misleading. It shows bias through word choice.Kyle key 16:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Any ideas on how to modify it? Maybe just delete the bit I quoted?Captainj 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Taylor, Angus. Animals and Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate, Broadview Press, May 2003. ISBN 1551115697
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_rights/Archive_1&oldid=1146595659"