Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Project name?

I'm not sure we had reached consensus about the name and full scope of the project. Had we? Nrets 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The scope is likely to evolve over time. I've put up the most obvious themes to get people started. As for the name, as Localzuk said, this is the shortest and most obvious. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed on the short & obvious. I don't think it neccessarily excludes other concepts. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 09:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some distinctions that might be useful

[edit] Groups

On the project page, under "Scope," I've separated the list of organizations into three:

The only reason I'm stressing this upfront is that it's something a lot of people get confused over.

1) The ALF is an example of a leaderless resistance movement, not a group. It has no structure, no formal heirarchy, no membership list, and only a brief collection of aims and policies. If you act to further that list of aims, you're a "member" by definition. What being accepted as an ALF activist means is that other ALF activists will regard you as a prisoner of conscience if you're arrested; the Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group will adopt you and you'll be sent letters, money, and they'll help to organize vegan food if you're in jail.

2) Animal rights campaigns like SHAC are also not groups. They are campaign names. They have some formal structure (more so than the ALF), but there's a tremendous amount of overlap of activists, so that SHAC, SPEAK and Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs (using these only as examples) might consist of most, or even all, of the same people. They have no list of members, no membership fees. They're not registered anywhere. They own no property.

3) Then there are the groups proper: BUAV, PETA, Animal Aid. They may own property, they have members, membership fees, staff, a formal heirarchy. They are what's called "above ground," rather than "underground."

[edit] What constitutes an animal rights group?

The animal rights groups/campaigns/movements are opposed to speciesism and the treatment of animals as property. More specifically, they believe that animals should be regarded as persons in law. They may make these declarations openly and clearly, or they may simply be implied by the positions they take. The crucial distinction between the animal rights movement and people/groups who are concerned about animal welfare is that the latter believe animals may be used — as food, entertainment, objects of experimentation, clothing — so long as there is no unnecessary cruelty. Animal rights groups believe that animals may not be used by human beings.

The distinction is a stark one: philosophically, practically, and legally. For example, to become a charity in the U.S. or UK, and I believe also in the rest of Europe, an organization must (in law) exist for the benefit of human beings. All sizeable animal welfare groups, such as the RSPCA, are charities. I'm not aware of any animal rights group that has charitable status, because animal rights groups exist for the benefit of non-human animals, not for the benefit of humans (though I stand to be corrected if, in fact, some have achieved charitable status).

There is some overlap of activists within these organizations. Robin Webb, for example, started off working for the RSPCA (animal welfare); then became the director of Animal Aid (animal rights, above ground); and now runs the Animal Liberation Press Office (animal rights, underground). But the fact that some animal rights activists started their careers in animal welfare groups should not obscure the enormous gulf that separates the two philosophies. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement under the U.S. tax code for an organization to benefit humans in order to receive charitable status, also referred to as 501(c)3 status. The Internal Revenue Service says:
The exempt purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. [1]
The U.S.-based organizations PETA, In Defense of Animals, and the National Anti-Vivisection Society (among many others) all have 501(c)3 not-for-profit status, according to GuideStar, which reviews charitable organizations and the reports the groups file with the government. GuideStar's wording for each group is, "This organization is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity." -MichaelBluejay 10:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[There are also] Online animal rights communities e.g. Animal Rights in China(ARC) [2] Template:Unsigned by 130.102.0.176

Hey, I'm not sure all people who advocate animal rights believe in assigning animals (even some animals) the status of people. That would imply a full set of rights. Even PETA doesn't go that far. They state "People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests". But, for example. they do not argue that animals should vote, serve jury duty, or otherwise be held liable for the laws that humans make. Can an animal break the law? Even in the dream-world of the staunchest animal rights activist I don't think animals get "personhood". BUAV is an animal rights group that focusses on animal testing ONLY. Peter Singer is clear in not assigning the same rights as people have to animals, because many of them do not make sense - and his consideration of the rights animals deserve is based on equal consideration for their suffering. Singer is even not uniformly opposed to animal testing - it should come on a cost-benefit according to suffering, and if an animal experiment reduced suffering en todo, it would be allowable under Singer's ethics. The Dalai Lama has similar beliefs - that the greater compassion is the key, and experiments are fine as long as they lead to greater compassion. Is there an honest-to-goodness animal rights group that wants animals to have the same rights as people? Or do they want 1) equal consideration for their pain and suffering OR 2) equal consideration for their "exploitation" OR 3) equal rights to pursue life as they see fit. In reading over animal rights philosophy, I concluded that the morals and ethics driving the movement are very scattered - and although they would all lead to a drastic reduction in human use of animals, they are not equivalent at their end-points. --Animalresearcher 16:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any animal rights group that believes in assigning animals the status of "people," if by that you mean human beings. Perhaps you're confusing "people" with "personhood"? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I am misled when I see the suggestion that animals be regarded as "persons" under law. That clearly implies that animals get the same rights under law as people, such as right to vote and serve on jury duty, right to work for money and pay taxes, liability for their actions under law, etc. When I read about the animal personhood movement, the usual claim is that animal rights proponents want animals to have certain "personhood" rights. I think there is a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon between regarding an animal as a "person" under law, as you state in the opening of this section, and granting them certain personhood rights. I know it is somewhat semantic, but this is an important philosophical point. Animal rights proponents believe animals should have certain rights normally assigned only to people - but not that they should be regarded with the same rights as people. These are the two sentences I am referring to
The animal rights groups/campaigns/movements are opposed to speciesism and the treatment of animals as property. More specifically, they believe that animals should be regarded as persons in law. Hope this clarifies this distinction. Although it is certainly possible I am misunderstanding something - that would be further reason to clarify the issues about personhood rights and the animal rights movement(s) - so that others do not misunderstand in the same way. --Animalresearcher 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Awarding personhood doesn't involve giving animals the same rights as human beings. Do you have a source that supports what you're saying? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
they believe that animals should be regarded as persons in law. This statement clearly implies that animals would have the same rights as people, it follows in a very straightforward way from use of the English language. I would recommend rewriting it to say they believe that animals should legally have certain personhood rights. I think the latter statement is a much more accurate reflection of the animal personhood movement than the former. The animal personhood movement clearly believes in assigning animals personhood, but then goes on to say that only certain person's rights should be assigned to animals (and of course NONE of people's responsibilities). --Animalresearcher 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You won't convince her. It doesn't matter how well-thought your post is, or how obvious the NPOV is, it rarely changes anything. Going 'round and 'round in semantical circles until the other person tires from the game is the most frequently observable activity that SlimVirgin participates in while on these "animal rights" pages. It makes the entire project a joke. Even though it never counted for anything in the past, my interpretation of her wording is the same as yours. That is, the line about "personhood" is misleading to the average reader, who will be unable to make the distinction between "legal personhood" and legal "personhood," regardless of whether quotation marks are used, or even if the word "legal" is thrown in at all. Most people will read that line as saying "Animal rights advocates believe animals should be seen as humans," because they'll use the common definition for "person" not the legal definition, and as such, it's a weasel word, whether SlimVirgin intended it to be or not. It preys on the average user's already held belief that humans are the 'end-all, be-all' of existence and that any attempt of putting other beings on a similar level must mean that person is a lunatic. Kyle Key 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that...SV probably thought I was referring to something on the main page and not something SV wrote higher on the discussion page. In philosophical debates, semantic consistency is very important, so I wouldn't consider it going round and round at all. And despite my role as an animal researcher, I am interested in the animal rights debate, and in staying on a course that my government believes is both legally and morally sound. If my government says Great Apes are to be given the right not to be included in animal experimentation, so be it. Or monkeys, or rats, etc. The law is the law. There are benefits on both sides of the fence in this case. Wikipedia is about letting both sides be heard. --Animalresearcher 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
SV is unconcerned with your opinion, whoever you are. Read her pages and her edits. Read about AR and PETA and see the discussions about criticism of these radical groups (indeed, see the discussions about whether they're radical). She has a set agenda and won't allow criticism to see the light of day. These articles (AR, PEta etc) are so skewed and biased thery are nearly laughable. They need reparation and it is your duty as an intellectual to ensure objectivity, credibility, veracity - in short we need the truth! We need to show that most people disagree with their radical position. Most people believe that animals have nuttin but the right to be tasty!DocEss 17:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not forget to assume good faith, as in WP:AGF. Just because people have different points of view doesn't mean they cannot work together constructively on encyclopedia entries by sticking to procedure, citing appropriately referenced materials, etc, basically just following wiki official policies. Ad hominem attacks and criticism of intent are just not constructive. Just add appropriately referenced material supporting views you feel are being shortchanged. --Animalresearcher 15:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I began this journey in good faith. SV has demonstrated tendencies which shake the faith of even the most faithful, with her instant reverts and intractability when it comes to common sense. However, I have faith that someone as intelligent as she is will one day have the faith in her abilities to compose objectively written articles and ignore the emotional need to guard the gate from criticism. I will faithfully continue to try to convince her of the same. Faithfully yours, DocEss 17:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Attacking SlimVirgin appears to be a popular past-time around here. Both your, and Kyle Key's assertions about her are unfair and unfounded. SV may well have an entrenched personal position on AR (your constant and logically-vacuous statement that "animals have nuttin but the right to be tasty" hardly gives you the moral highground on that score), but she most certainly is able to edit from a NPOV position. She has demonstrated time and again that she will accept what may appear to be a "pro-testing" edit when the justification for it is framed logically and in terms on WP policy. See this debate i had with SV as a recent example: Talk:Animal_Liberation_Front/archive2#Terrorist_designation. Sure, i too have locked horns with SV over AR issues. But despite having polar opposite personal views to her, i've found by working with her within policy (as opposed to reverting to personal attacks or sarcasm) progress can and has been made on AR realted articles, making them better. Perhaps you can explain why both i, as an animal experimentor of many years, and Animalresearcher feel able to work constructively with those of differing personal views yet you feel you cannot? Rockpocket 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Yawn. What you claim to be unfair and unfounded I claim to be accurate. My quip that "animals have nuttin but the right to be tasty" is not at all logically vacuous! It is what most people believe: most people believe animals have no rights whatsoever! That quip is right on point and serves its purpose well. And it has nothing to do with where I stand on the moral ground. (Moreover where I stand on the moral ground has nothing to do with with truth and accuracy, the two basic characteristics that give an encycloepedia its force and value.) I will keep repeating that little sentence because it is a pharaphrase of the view that most huimans hold. Where does it say in any of the AR/PETA articles that their stances are counter (indeed, oppossite) to what most people believe? Where does it say that many groups vehemently opposes statements like "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment"? Where does it say that these beliefs are atypical and have recieved intense opposstion and scathing scrutiny? Where does it acknowledge that most people beleive there is no moral quagmire about animal testing for medical purposes? Where does it acknowledge that humans must treat animals properly? Anytime an editor tries to include those lines of thought SV et al crush the attempt. THAT makes her a target for editors who believe her behavior is stubborn, intractable, counter-productive, biased, agenda-based, difficult and, worst of all, unworthy of someone of her high intelligence. Goodness, I wish you people would de-register your emotional centres in your brains, divorce yourself from pre-conceived ideas and write objective articles. Actually I don't hope you will, I know you will - whether I have to use a whip or a carrot.18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Provide reliable sources stating the claims you make and i will insert them into the appropriate articles personally. If you stated them in the form you did here ("most people believe...", "many groups vehemently oppose...") they were correctly removed per WP:AWW and WP:V. Your reasoning is comically flawed. You criticise others for lacking objectivity in their edits and then list subjective assertions that you believe you be included in articles. See if you can spot the flaw in logic here:

"animals have nuttin but the right to be tasty" is not at all logically vacuous! It is what most people believe: most people believe animals have no rights whatsoever!

I couldn't have reinforced the point better myself. Your contributions to AR articles are pretty much restricted to criticising others on talk pages in a garrulous manner, thus the only place your "whip" will take you is to WP:PAIN. Rockpocket 19:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Explain flaws, please.DocEss 20:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I'll paraphrase for clarity. You assert in two sequential sentences:
  • Most people believe animals have the right to be tasty.
  • Most people believe animals have no rights.
Those two statements are mutually exclusive and thus a logical impossibility. You simply reinforced my point that is is logically vacuous to repeatedly state the former in support of your principle argument, which is the latter. That is clearly flawed logic. Rockpocket 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
How exactly are those statements mutually exclusive? They are barely related. Further, it is hardly POV to sugest most people believe "animals have no rights whatsoever." Most people eat em, wear em, own em, benifit from medicine tested on em. Use your common sense. DocEss 16:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC) <added> Can't you see that the statement "animals have the right to be tasty" is nothing but a quip. It is not meant to be a premise for anything at all - it's like saying "you have the right to shut the hell up" when I would mean that you do not have the right to speak at all, so be quiet. Can't you seet hat? Does everything have to be explained to you? Do you just simple prefer to argue with me in Talk pages so I'm too busy to edit the articles?DocEss 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If you can't follow a logical argument like mutual exclusivity, there is little more i can do to explain it to you. I'm fully aware you think you are being funny in repeating that "quip" ad nauseum, but that doesn't help us improve any article in a logical manner (hence it is "logically vacuous" to repeat it so often). Moreover, this principle is something you appear to apply to other editors, but ignore when it reflects on you. Let me quote back to you - in typically uncivil language - something you told another editor yesterday:
"Then I suggest you be quiet. Your observations, however clever to yourself, do not get us closer to the goal." [3]
I, personally, have reached the limit of my tolerance interacting with you, DocEss. Your incredibly uncivil personal attack on Localzuk below was the final straw as far as i am concerned. Thus please be aware that i am asking an admin at WP:PAIN to intervene. Good day. Rockpocket 17:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I could have said it better than Rockpocket. Your argument is full of unsourced POV. Unless you can provide sources to back up your supposedly commonly held views then they should not be included. The onus is on you to provide sources. 'Common sense' has no part of it, the key things are reliability, verifiability and the ability to edit in a neutral way.-Localzuk (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I know you can't say things better than PocketRocket. We are all aware of that. I wish you could say things better, but alas....Common sense has no part in it? Can I qoute you on that?DocEss 16:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Despite DocEss's garrolous manner, he does seem to have a point here. Based on these sources: [4], [5] majority of people in the US and Britain support animal testing. Although it seems that, when asked whether chimps should have righs, just over half of Americans think that they should [6]. Nrets 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There was a debate in the animal testing talk page about this. The problem is that, depending on who commissions the poll, the results are very different. The wording of the question is crucial and subtle changes can give very different poll results. I, personally, was supportive of a section on opinion where polls commissioned by reliable sources could be noted, but that the time, the consensus was against it. Perhaps this issue could be looked at again, however. Rockpocket 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that link to the Chimp poll alludes to this fact. But I think we could probably gather some reliable polls and revisit the issue. I think that as long as we state where the poll comes from, the reader can interpret the results on their own. Nrets 00:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

DocEss, the point to be made here is that you CANNOT directly use your common sense. If you see something you believe is wrong in a Wiki page, find a source, cite it, and refer to it in a NPOV manner. Let the sources do the talking, that is what a good encyclopedia does. We are not here to use common sense or perform original research, we are here to source and cite original research that exists elsewhere. On the other hand, I personally believe less than 1 in 1000 people believe in animal rights in the sense pushed by PETA - that animal exploitation of all kinds by humans must be stopped. You can make a checklist. For someone to truly believe that, they would need to be a vegan, avoid western medicine, not have pets, leather, or pest control for rodents. Hence, less than 1 in 1000 practice that (btw, Alex Pacheco is often pictured with a pet dog, and Jerry Vlasak practices western medicine). Right now I'm grappling with ethics and morals in animal rescue (dogs). Dogs "to be euthanized" are picked up, evaluated, and sometimes found homes. Sometimes we pick them up, and they are not a suitable rescue dog. The one at my house now has heartworms badly and kidney problems, but it an otherwise great dog. He doesn't make the grade. Rescue is a heartbreaking practice, because 2-3 million pet dogs and cats are euthanized for population control each year, and no matter how many you find good homes for, at least 10 others are going to be put down, and some of them will need to be euthanized by you. And I wonder for every person dropping molotov cocktails on my colleagues front doorsteps, how many animal rights activists are active in pet rescue? I've never met one. --Animalresearcher 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Animalresearcher, all that prose is irrelevant (but nicely written). Moreover, my, your, Sv's, rocketpocket's or anybody's personal opinions of AR don't really matter to an encylopoedia - what matters is that we describe things properly, reflecting truth and accuracy. The point is that these articles are biased and skewed and they don't need to be. I repeat: where does it say in any of the AR/PETA articles that their stances are counter (indeed, oppossite) to what most people believe? Where does it say that many groups vehemently opposes statements like "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment"? Where does it say that these beliefs are atypical and have recieved intense opposstion and scathing scrutiny? Where does it acknowledge that most people beleive there is no moral quagmire about animal testing for medical purposes? Where does it acknowledge that humans must treat animals properly? The article must recognize all this or it is biased and in-objective. DocEss 18:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Doc, I agree that these things are missing from the article, do a Google search for "Animal Rights Poll" and you'll find plenty of sources backing up what you say. I listed 3 of them above. I'm sure you could find others. Rather than complain about it, just add it to the article, otherwise people might start to think you're here just to pick a fight. . Nrets 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
DocEss, no one has countered what you are saying as there is nothing to counter it with. Go ahead and add these things if you can provide verifiably, reliable sources that state it, and that you attribute any claims of such to whoever makes them. It is as simple as that. Most of the argument you have presented has been, IMO, pointless as you have constantly ignored this simple response.-Localzuk (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Loca, I will do exactly that. And then the revert will we come, I can just smell it....DocEss 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
A revert will only come if the information you present is any of:
And if such a revert were to happen, I would expect a reason would be forthcoming from the editor who did it.-Localzuk (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Activists and Writers

I think that Juliet Gellatley should definately be added to the AR template - both under Activists (as she is the best known in the UK) and internationally but also under AR Writers. 62.25.106.209 15:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

She should only be included once, but I do agree that she should be included.-Localzuk (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding her! 62.25.106.209 09:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone help weith the entry for Andrew Tyler, whom is the director of Animal Aid. I would greatly appreciate it. I thnk he deserves to have an entry and it could be made fantastic if people will help. As stated, he is the director of Animal Aid which is the largest and best known group in the UK - It is the UK's leading animal rights organisation. Thanks in advance. FK0071a 06:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC) and I also think he shold be added to the Activists section of the Animal Rights template FK0071a 07:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this information was taken out due t ocopyright and I respect that. However, if someone can work with me to re-write it and find additional information I would greatly appreciate it. 62.25.106.209 07:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding Andrew Tyler but it needs a great deal of work. 62.25.106.209 09:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needed on Oxford Uni as with the Cambridge Uni article on Primate experiments at Cambridge University.

If anyone is good at writing these articles then their is a lot of information to be found on the Animal Aid website at this link [7] and also obviously SPEAK will have lots of information as they are dedicated to it [8] 62.25.106.209 14:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

This user is a member of the Animal rights WikiProject.

I created a userbox if anyone wants to put it on their user page. Colours/image are flexible. I did this just to get started. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

To use the box add {{user wpar}} to your userpage. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 09:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critics

I'd certainly be glad to help you round out this project by adding/editing/critiquing text regarding criticism related to his issue. I think perhaps a Cricism section should be added to the WikiProject Animal rights article itself under Scope, don't you?DocEss 18:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What would such a section contain?-Localzuk (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well let's think about that for a while. We do want to get this right; i.e, we do want to create the most objective, unbiased and indepth yet practicle articles we can, so we shall have to put some thought to this. Any input anyone?DocEss 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal rights vs. Welfare - move from template talk

  • The following discussion, regarding whether animal welfare should be within the scope of the animal rights project (and template) has been moved here, to allow a larger scope of opinions. Nrets 19:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete Animal welfare from template, since this article is as related to animal rights as as Animal testing is. Nrets 02:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What on earth does animal welfare have to do with animal rights? Animal rights is about NOT USING ANIMALS and NOT seeing them as property. Animal welfare concentrates on HOW TO USE ANIMALS without being unnecessarily cruel. The two movements are diametrically opposed.
Nrets, it isn't fair of you to be constantly trying to thwart everything I do, while at the same time not knowing anything about animal rights yourself. I'm sorry to speak like this, but this has gone on for too long. If I say black, you say white just for the hell of it. If you think something might be anti-animal rights, you support it, whether it makes sense or not, whether you've understood it or not.
This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, not a battleground. If you're interested in animal rights, and know something about it, or want to learn about it, I welcome your participation, no matter your POV. But if all you want to do is oppose, revert, argue, without any basic background in the subject, then it's pointless and destructive. Please either let's find a way to work together or stay out of each other's way. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


I agree with Nrets. Why delete Animal Welfare? I see your point SlimVirgin, and I happen to agree with it. I think Animal Welfare thwarts the Animal Rights movement. But why delete the entry? Many/Most people feel that AW **IS** an AR topic, and I think it is a related issue. Give people a link to AW and let people make up their own minds Bhuston 14:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you find a reliable source showing that AW is an AR topic? What most people think, by the way, is irrelevant. We go by what the authoritative published sources say. It's probably true that most people in the world think that homosexuality is a sin, but we don't add that to Gay. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
SV, just because I disagree with you does not mean I am "thwarting your every move". I often feel you are doing the same to all my edits. If it was not for the animal rights movement there would be very little in the way of animal welfare, and you very well know this. You really leave no room for gray areas in the way you view the issue, and I feel like you see editors in this issue either for or against you. I have been dealing with animal rights and animal welfarfe issues for a long time and for you to blatantly attack me for not knowing anything about the topic is extremely pedantic and annoying. Nrets 18:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Well then I think we need to find some new way to accommodate one another. It's true that I do find editing the animal rights pages frustrating, because everyone thinks they can have a view without doing any research. I honestly don't get the impression from your editing that you have dealt with animal rights issues and so I wonder whether we're using the term differently. For example, you say "If it was not for the animal rights movement there would be very little in the way of animal welfare ..." But that isn't true, to the best of my knowledge, unless you have some specific campaigners in mind. Perhaps you could say what you mean, and then I'll be able to see where you're coming from. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that there are no incompatibilities between AR and AW positions, but to give an example that you will be familiar with. The case of the Silver Spring monkeys is an example where an incident both led to the creation of PETA and to the Animal Welfare Act of 1985. PETA, which is one of the best known advocates for animal rights, is also an advocate for animal welfare. Whether there are philosophical differences between the 2 positions is irrelevant to the fact that Animal Rights and Welfare are closely related issues. By your logic, Animal testing should also be removed from the template, since it is directly incompatible with animal rights. Finally, to add animal testing but omit animal welfare is a subtle way to introduce POV to the template, which is merely a navigational aid and NOT a place to espouse your POV, a point echoed by Bhouston above. Nrets 00:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
What is the POV that is being introduced to the template? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No, PETA is not an advocate of the animal welfare position. PETA is an animal rights group. I think you may have misunderstood what the animal welfare position is. Animal welfare groups believe it is all right to eat animals and to use them in experiments. Their focus is purely on the reduction of cruelty. Animal rights groups believe animals should not be used by human beings. If they work toward reducing cruelty, it is only as a side issue, or stop gap. The animal welfare ideology is directly opposed to the animal rights one. It is true that animal rights campaigns can lead to improvements in animal welfare, because for example in the Silver Spring monkeys case, the public was shocked by the evidence animal rights activists found when they took photographs of the lab. But that is very much a byproduct. AR groups don't want animals simply to be treated better in labs. They want the experimentation to stop. Read the introduction to Animal rights, which explains the difference. Describing the difference between them is not introducing a POV; it is a simple statement of fact. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I realize there is a difference between the two philosophies, but as you state in many of your comments, there is often substantial overlap, where the two intersect. Thus I see no harm in including articles relating to animal welfare in the Animal Rights project and I see no harm in highlighting these in the AR template. Does anybody else have an opinon about this? Nrets 19:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Why would you regard animal welfare as so central to animal rights that it needs to be referenced on the template? The lead of the article you want to link to makes clear it is inimical to animal rights: "Animal welfare is the viewpoint that animals, especially those under human care, should not suffer unnecessarily, including where the animals are used for food, work, companionship, or research. This position usually focuses on the morality of human action (or inaction), as opposed to making deeper political or philosophical claims about the status of animals, as is the case for an animal rights viewpoint" (my emphasis). SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess I see it the other way around, that animal rights is central to animal welfare. As I said before, you leave no room for any gray areas and portray the AR movement as a coherent whole where you either grant all the same rights to animals as you do to humans, or none at all. But there are middle ground positions that would argue that animals have some rights, such as the right not to suffer, be treated humanely, etc. Such a position, for example is consistent with the quote from Alan Dershowitz I added below. In this middle ground, Animal Welfare does become a central issue. Nrets 19:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
As for why animal testing is there, it's because it's one of the two major concerns of the animal rights movement. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If i may offer a comment. I would propose that at some level Nrets is talking about animal welfare while SV is talking about Animal Welfare. Clearly the welfare ("quality of life") of all animals is an important issue in both movements. However the movement that has adopted the moniker Animal Welfare has important philosophical differences from that which is labelled Animal Rights. In terms of animal welfare (no caps) - somewhat ironically, it appears to me - the Welfarists accept a less stringent position on overall welfare than the Rightsists. Thus welfare (again, no caps) could be said to me more relevent to the Rights movement than the Welfare movement.
So, (if you are still with me after this linguistic dance) you might think i'm being facetious her, but i'm trying to make a genuine point. As i think Bhuston was hinting at, giving complex movements simple labels can lead to differences in implication/inference depending on the reader. With this in mind, maintaining strict navbox boundaries, on a philosophical basis, should not be required when the articles themselves make the complexities clear. Thats my tuppence anyway. Rockpocket 06:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Animal testing is clearly a strong motivation for much of animal rights. It definitely should be included. Animal welfare encompasses the entire current moral and ethical framework under which animal testing occurs. In as much as animal rights are proposed as a substitution for animal welfare, it is also enormously relevant. But I would only recommend including it as part of the ethical and moral framework currently instantiated into law - the framework that animal rights feels should be changed. --Animalresearcher 18:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
My contribution here put in wrong place - I have moved it.DocEss 17:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Dershowitz

I tried to verify the claim thatg Alan Dershowitz supports the notion of animal rights. The source provided simply linked to an article stating that someone said that he did, but quoted no actual source. I found this source from the Harvard Magazine, where Dershowitz is mentioned in the following quote: Dershowitz argued that animals do not have inherent rights, but rather rights vis-à-vis people. In other words, because great apes can show that they suffer, and because people can see that they suffer, it would be humane to make laws to prevent that suffering. "You can't really make the argument that animals have the right to live," he said. "If we did, humans would have to protect the smaller animals in the jungle from the larger animals."

This reads to me as Dershowitz not supporting the idea of extending rights to animals, certainly not to most animals. I suggest we remove the ref to Dershowitz from the AR page and this Project Page until we can get a more authoritative source. I'll see if I can check out from the library Dershowitz's 2004 book "RIGHTS FROM WRONGS: A SECULAR THEORY OF THE ORIGINS OF RIGHTS", which seems to be the source for his view on AR, and see if it really is accurate to leave the WP statemnt as is. Any objections to me removing this? Nrets 19:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I object to it being removed because it's sourced. If you find a better source, we can by all means revisit the issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Nrets, do you intend to spend your time at this WikiProject raising invalid objections and generally being obstructive? Because if so, let me know so that I don't waste any more time here. The source you quoted makes clear that Dershowitz supports animal rights:
It's still legal to buy our closest living relatives as pets," declared Jane Goodall, the renowned primatologist. "You can buy them on the Internet." She spoke at a symposium on "The Evolving Legal Status of Chimpanzees" cosponsored by Harvard Law School's Student Animal Legal Defense Fund and the nonprofit Chimpanzee Collaboratory; the September conference explored legal protections (and lack of same) for the great apes... Goodall's landmark study of chimpanzees in Tanzania helped redefine the boundaries between animals and humans, the very boundaries that were the symposium's focal point. The event attracted primatologists like Richard Wrangham, Moore professor of biological anthropology, who directs the Kibale Chimpanzee Project in Uganda, as well as legal figures such as Stephen Wise, who taught the first animal-rights law class at Harvard, in 2000, and Frankfurter professor of law Alan Dershowitz. Most speakers took as given that chimpanzees can communicate and emote, and that their rights should be expanded ... Several speakers, including Dershowitz and Goodall, compared the chimpanzees' situation with that of slaves in nineteenth-century America. Going even further, Fouts drew an analogy to Nazi Germany: "We abuse animals to make ourselves feel better, and we justify it," he said—just as Nazis justified their attacks on Jews and the mentally retarded. Dershowitz argued that animals do not have inherent rights, but rather rights vis-à-vis people. In other words, because great apes can show that they suffer, and because people can see that they suffer, it would be humane to make laws to prevent that suffering."
Yet you take the above to mean that he does NOT support animal rights, just because he argues that they are not inherent? Do you understand what he means by that? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
He is arguing they should be treated humanely, again let's quote Dershowitz in the same article:
Dershowitz argued that animals do not have inherent rights, but rather rights vis-à-vis people. In other words, because great apes can show that they suffer, and because people can see that they suffer, it would be humane to make laws to prevent that suffering. You can't really make the argument that animals have the right to live," he said. "If we did, humans would have to protect the smaller animals in the jungle from the larger animals. (my emphasis)
I really can't see how you interpret this any other way. And I do not appreciate your personal attacks and efforts to portray me as obstructive. Nrets 19:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I have never seen a WikiProject people by editors who oppose the topic. It's impossible to proceed at this level. Please tell me what it means to say "animals do not have inherent rights". What does the word "inherent" mean in that context? Are you aware that Peter Singer, possibly the best known of animal rights activists, who wrote what is widely regarded as the "bible" of the animal rights movement, does not believe that animals have inherent rights? Are you saying that means Singer doesn't really support the idea of animal rights/liberation? That all he really wants is for animals to be treated humanely? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not arguing about Peter Singer. All I'm arguing is that the source initially mentioned above as well as my source do not fully reflect Dershowitz's views and we should remove his name until we can find a better source. And please stop trying to bully me out of disagreeing with you and adding personal little jabs at me to your every comment. Nrets 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You are still arguing that we should remove his name? You still haven't looked for a source yourself?
Nrets, even the briefest search of Google returns multiple documents showing Dershowitz supports animal rights, because he's extremely well known for it. For example, here, and in his book, Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights, 2004, pp. 198-99, chapter "Do Animals have Rights?", he argues: "[W]e have made the somewhat arbitrary decsion to single out our own species — every single member of it — for different and better treatment. Does this subject us to the charge of speciesism? Of course it does, and we cannot justify it except by the fact that in the world in which we live, humans make the rules. This imposes on us a special responsibility to be fair and compassionate to those on whom we impose our rules. Hence the argument for animal rights." SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I found the same sources you did, and I haven't seen anywhere where it describes what he means by rights. Yes he argues great apes should be afforded rights (fully agree with that), but does he oppose medical research? Is he a vegan? A vegetarian? Does he wear leather shoes? Does he oppose all uses of animals as other activists do? The way he is featured in the WP article/project seems to imply he does, by taking one quote out of context. As I mentoned before, there are gray areas here, and differences. I'm not saying he does or doesn't, just that we need a more accurate source. Nrets 20:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
And where does it say that, in order to support animal rights, people have to do any or all of those things???
This situation can't continue. You're not familiar with the subject matter, which is fair enough. But what's not fair enough is to join a WikiProject and continually lodge objections to other people's work on the basis of that lack of knowledge. It would be like me deciding to join WikiProject Nuclear Physics, and turning up with spurious objections based on issues not being sourced the way I would prefer, even though I wasn't familiar with any of the sources and couldn't understand what they were saying — and then being astonished when people objected to my presence there.
I asked you above, but you didn't answer: what does the word "inherent" mean in the context of arguing that animals do not have inherent rights? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that inherent rights are the same as fundamental rights. In the case of animals, their rights are not inherent to them but come from another source, such as humans. Am I mistaken? Nrets 21:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, that's more or less it. People who argue that rights are inherent are saying the rights exist somehow in virtue of who or what that being is i.e. that they're God given or somehow come from nature. Very few theorists argue this. I doubt Dershowitz argues that human beings have inherent rights either.
That's why I prefer to use the expression animal liberation, because a large number of animal rights supporters aren't rights theorists (though they still argue that animals need to be given legal rights or personhood in order to protect them). But on Wikipedia the term "animal rights" seems to have stuck to describe both camps. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"...as the only possessors of souls"? Is this a pretty narrow POV, i would have thought, even in the movement. Rockpocket 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "those rights are not ours to give or take" is often used by animal rights activists. Although I agree Dershowitz aligns pretty far on the animal rights side of the fence, he CLEARLY believes those rights to give/take belong to humans. They get rights when we decide they get rights, and not because they are intrinsic or fundamental. But also clearly, Dershowitz believes we SHOULD give those rights to animals. At the end of the day, I think the distinction between his position and that of PETA is not really that great (at least as applied to apes). In my book he still lobbies that animals should have rights under law that they do not have today, and that pretty much makes him an animal rights proponent. --Animalresearcher 00:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't rights a two-way street? Would animals, if given "personhood", be expected to respect the property and safety of humans, as humans would be expected to respect the property and safety of animals? How would a situation like that happening recently in Olympia, Washington (attacks by wild raccoons) be handled, were the raccoons to have "personhood"? Would the raccoons be arrested, charged with murder (they have killed several cats, who I assume, would also have "personhood"), put on trial, and (if found guilty) imprisoned? I'm very curious to see how that sort of situation, and other situations where animals run amok would be handled; and if the same standards of behavior that the law sets for humans would be applied. If a wolf eats a rabbit, is it murder, or dinner? --Weirdoactor 09:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think an animal personhood proponent would argue that humans value pain and suffering of animals to some degree. And to some, the degree to which animal pain and suffering is valued depends on the sentience of the animal. If an animal has a sense of self, can project and anticipate the future, and feels happy and sad, how should we let humans interact with that animal? Is it OK to put the animal in a cage and feed it Harlan monkey biscuits for years on end? Is it OK if the animal receives enrichment, co-habitation, and social contact with other members of its species? Are there animals that humans should simply not use in animal testing? Hunting? As pets? For food? The animal personhood movement is not about giving animals the same rights as people. It is about giving them certain rights, and among members of the movement there is still a wide variety of ethical and moral arguments, and lists of rights animals should have, and which animals should have them. This project is about clarifying those arguments and issues, and how they relate to animal use and laws today.--Animalresearcher 16:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
An excellent summary, AR, thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting; but I am still left wondering how animal personhood rights affect animal relationships, outside of human interaction (although humans *are* animals, being great apes). Will some sort of enforcement of human standards on animal behavior need to be implemented? If we are to believe that sentience plays a part; who determines that? Humans? Or animals? Can an animal determine its own sentitnce, or that of another animal? I love my feline owners (you know that humans don't own cats, right?); but I recognize their limits insofar as what they understand about the world around them. Even some humans have animal limits to their sentience. Do we judge an animal to be roughly as sentient as a mentally disabled human? Moreso, perhaps? That's a slippery slope, but an interesting discussion, I'll bet. --Weirdoactor 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"I love my feline owners ... but I recognize their limits insofar as what they understand about the world around them." That's your first mistake right there, innit. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure they recognise, with a level of distain, your limits in attempting to understand theirs ;) Rockpocket 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I get it. I should tell them to get jobs, pay rent, and change their own damn litter boxes. I'm such a silly human! Enjoy your fantasy world, guys. --Weirdoactor 12:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think of it as a fantasy world. First of all, you must understand, the animal personhood movement is quite varied. At one extreme, you may have "a human is a dog is a rat is a jellyfish". At the other end, you may have people who simply think that Chimps are intelligent and self-aware enough that a Chimp that poses no threat to humans should not be enslaved to human interests. There is no need to jump from animal rights to thinking that your cat is going to be serving jury duty, and it doesn't serve the debate any useful goal, either. Perhaps the Chimp should not be caged and used as a subject in awake in-vivo physiology experiments. Because it would be considered truly barbaric to impose that on another human (not to mention against the law and even the Geneva Convention). This is a rather interesting set of ethics, morals, and law that is unfolding. You do bring up a good point though - it is entirely probable that animals will also bear some responsibility in order to attain those rights. For example, should a chimp who threatens the lives of humans (like the birthday cake story - google "chimp birthday cake") receive the same rights as a chimp that poses no threat to humans? And if we extend this basic right to chimps, does it morally follow that we would need to protect the lesser animals from the greater animals as we are protecting the chimps from us? Or do we only need to protect animals with some threshold level of self-awareness and/or sentience? --Animalresearcher 16:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points, Animalresearcher. In terms of animal testing, I am of the belief that if human volunteers are available, there is no need for animal testing; but animals are cheaper and easier, so that's what most researchers use. Like so many things that human beings do because they are easier and cheaper; this is one of those "buy now, pay later" deals…see: the environment, the failure of the education system, chemically corrupted food, etc. Just out of curiosity; how do those in the animal personhood movement feel about animals cloned with no brains being used for research? Does that eliminate the problem of sentience, or does it open up a whole new can of worms? I think (hope) someday we'll have humans cloned with no brains for organs and testing. But maybe I've been reading too much sci-fi. --Weirdoactor 20:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Animals cloned with no brains? Nrets 21:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Specifically worms? Then forced into cans, to be opened at a later date? Someone, please, think of the children!! Rockpocket 21:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
A counter argument comes in the form of "law of the jungle". I have a good reference in mind, but will need to wait until tomorrow to grab quotes from it. Basically, there are many new viruses/bacteria that could threaten humans. Suppose one came along that was devastating, that chimps provided a good animal model, and that devastation to the human race could be avoided by animal testing in a few thousand chimps. Would that be OK? The philosophical argument is that species are inherently in competition, and that IF competition clearly raises its head again, animal rights goes out the window. Or does it? Part of the debate. A similar philosophical argument can be made about the birthday cake chimps. They were terrorizing humans. No one thought twice about killing them. Were those actions just? --Animalresearcher 22:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Joking aside, "rights" as a concept does not exist in nature at the level of the individual. They are not, as mentioned by SV above, inherent. For one to have a "right" to anything, there must be others who accept that right, thus the concept is borne of society.
I would say they are uniquely human, though I guess one could argue there are established "rights" in animal communities also (for example, in meerkat communities everyone understands that the dominant pair are the only ones with the "right" to reproduce). However, the concept of "interspecific" rights is clearly uniquely human.
If we accept that then its not difficult to resolve the moral caveats pointed out above: we simply make an value-judgment based on our own POV. Afterall, thats what the rights movement appears to be. The concept is not one based in strict logic, infact there are huge holes in the logic of some in the rights movement. For example, a general principle invoked is to include species other than human beings within the moral community, but then many of the same activists support the Declaration on Great Apes. If this was accepted, then it would serve to give non-human apes superior rights to other animals, a form of speciesism. In supporting such a movement, one is implicitly accepting that "all animals are not morally equal", and thus some (apes) have more "moral value" than others (fleas). I fail to see how these two moral stances intergrate in a logical manner.
On the other hand, the situation as it stands is, in theory at least, is highly logic based. Its easy to draw a moral line between human rights/benefit and other animals. You hold that line and the moral decisions make themselves. You cross it and, to paraphrase, you find yourself in a seriously big nest of gay vipers. Rockpocket 23:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Reference Nature 437, 30-32 (1 September 2005). (Subscription required) The authors justify the use of chimps by noting the unique research capabilities of the chimp. For example, similarities in immune system allow monoclonal antibodies to be tested in chimps, because the clearance of the monoclonal antibodies is similar in chimps and humans, whereas in monkeys and non-primate mammals the clearance is much faster because their immune systems recognize the monoclonal antibodies as foreign. Hepatitis B and C only cross-infect chimps and humans, and not any other animals to our scientific knowledge. Therefore they provide scientific power in such studies that cannot be replicated elsewhere. Chimps have a malarial parasite similar to the one that infects humans, but not cross-infecting (ie: humans can't get chimp malaria, but its malaria is closely related to human malaria). Malaria is an enormous world health issue. The authors point out these unique capabilities not to suggest that cures will definitely follow, but to suggest that scientifically these are the best bets. We can look backwards in time and know how chimps contributed to our current health treatments, looking forward is far more difficult, but there is good reason to believe human health care will be impacted by research in chimps in the upcoming decades. And currently the USA doesn't import or breed any chimps for its primate facilities. This article of course presents the scientific issues related to projected health care benefits from chimp research - the issue of their pain and suffering is not addressed, nor is the ethical issue of whether their potential pain and suffering from the primate facility testing justifies the potential benefits. If chimps are specifically exempted from animal testing, how does the reduction in their short-term pain and suffering compensate for the lack of reduction in long-term future human pain and suffering. Or is that trade-off immoral just as it would be immoral to experiment on non-consenting humans? Can chimps understand enough to consent? The majority of doomed late cancer patients consent to experimental low-probability therapies that at best may help future patients. Is it immoral to test on a non-consenting chimp but moral to experiment on a late-term human cancer patient? --Animalresearcher 15:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sort of on subject, but kinda not: I seem to recall reading that for some research, pigs are more like humans (in terms of the needs of the research) than chimps. I can't find the article where I read that. Thoughts? --Weirdoactor 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what you are studying. If, for example, you wanted to study sunburn, then pigs are great and chimps are pretty useless. If you wanted to study leprosy (or quadruplets), then you should get hold of some armadillos. See Model organism for more info. Rockpocket 18:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

As per the original proposal, we need to create a guideline for the use of external links on Animal Rights articles. We need to create criteria that links must comply with before being included in articles. Any suggestions?

How about some of these?

  • Is/are the official website(s) of the subject matter discussed in the article.
  • It must add something to the article - so if it is a site critical of the subject matter, it must add more than just a 'rant' to the article. It should also not have 2 sites critical of the subject matter unless they specifically complement the article. This goes for pro sites also.
  • We shouldn't provide lists of different sites ran by a single organisation - for example PETA and their many sites or the CCF and their many sites.
  • There should never be a 'pro' and 'anti' subsection of links.
  • The external links section should be kept short, preferably to a list of less than 10 links.
  • Sites should have a detailed description of their purpose.

Any others/less than these? -Localzuk (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd want to see hard-and-fast rules. I don't agree with having fewer than 10 links; more links are good so long as they're useful or informative, in my view. I agree we shouldn't include sites that only rant, or blogs/personal websites., unless the blog is a notable one, or belongs to the person the article is about. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Why should there never be a pro and anti subsection? I think it is simply a useful organizational scheme. Nrets 00:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Because people see that as a way of adding their own personal pet project to. We end up having battles of links which obviously are bad. Also, sometimes things are not clear cut pro or anti - some organisations may not support part of something but support other areas. -Localzuk (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About groups

I think if the ones their are staaying then Hillside Animal Sanctuary should be added. [9] [10] They have had a major impact, and also are the central point for animals liberated by the ALF. 62.25.106.209 15:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

BUAV are anti-vivisection, so shouldn't the Dr Hadwen Trust, British Anti-Vivisection Association [11], National Anti-Vivisection Society and the Lord Dowding Trust be included? 62.25.106.209 09:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi 62.25, I'm not sure what you mean that they should be included. Have they been excluded from somewhere, or do you mean that they should have articles? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, included in the Template I think as the BUAV is. FK0071a 10:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay thanks. We can't have everything in the template because it would be too long otherwise, so the most prominent ones are there, and the BUAV is the most prominent of the ones you mentioned. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Hi all,

Whilst the ambitions set out on your Project Page are indeed very noble I do not believe that you are currently offering a neutral viewpoint. If you are serious about providing both sides of the story then what about wikilinks in your infobox to groups such as Pro-Test as at the moment every single wikilink is to groups who believe that the law should be changed to afford greater protection of Animal Rights.

Wikipedia is a place for neutral writing, please do not consider these comments as advocating either POV, but merely an attempt to introduce some balance.

Martin Hinks 15:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

These templates include links to articles directly related to the issue. So the Jew template includes articles about Jews, the Judaism template articles about Judaism etc. The Jew template doesn't include links to articles about neo-Nazis. The Holocaust template doesn't include links to Holocaust deniers. Similarly, the animal rights template includes articles about people and groups who focus on animal rights. Pro-Test has never commented on animal rights, to the best of my knowledge. Although their interests would have an impact on animal rights, the connection is indirect. For the same reason, we wouldn't link to "butcher," "furrier," "meat," or "elephant trainer." SlimVirgin (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The template used at Jew does however contain links to topics on Jewish Persecution including the Holocaust and New Anti Semitism. I would also argue that there is a difference between Pro-Test and butchers! Whilst butchers may, in some people's opinions, violate animal rights, they are not an organisation set up for the sole purpose of campaigning for or against animal rights, they are organisations set up to make profits from the sale of meat. Pro-Test on the other hand is a group set up specifically to promote animal testing. As you link to SPEAK, a group whose sole aim is to protest against vivisection and all animal testing, it would seem that you are presenting the animal testing argument from a non-neutral point of view. Martin Hinks 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Pro-Test has not been set up to campaign against animal rights. No one involved in it, to the best of my knowledge, knows anything about the subject or has ever written about it. The people and groups on the template are experts on the subject of animal rights, through their activism, their writing, or their studying. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the point I am trying to make is best shown by quoting the opening sentences of each of the articles in question; SPEAK and Pro-Test:
  • SPEAK, the Voice for the Animals is a British animal rights campaign that aims to end animal experimentation and vivisection in the UK.
  • Pro-Test is a British group that promotes and supports animal testing in medical research.

As you can see, these sentences, which as they are the opening sentences should convey the most important facet of each group, places SPEAK and Pro-Test at distinct opposites within the same field. SPEAK can clearly be said to be an "animal rights" group, with which you appear to agree. The existence of a group such as Pro-Test also indicates that not everyone agrees with the cause promoted by SPEAK. I would also like to point out that Pro-Test seeks to halt any legislation which would stop vivisection - which, by the inclusion of SPEAK in the list, is clearly an issue of "animal rights". Therefore, Pro-Test can be said to be a group that campaigns for the freezing of animal rights legislation at it's curent stage and by this, a group of great relevance to animal rights.

If you are going to argue that anyone not campaigning to increase animal rights (ie. pro-vivisection/testing) is not to be included in the animal rights template then there can never be a neutral point of view presented and the links within the template will not "educate readers" about the animal rights debate, it will merely show them the side that campaigns to increase animal rights. I personally would feel far happier if the template were balanced out so that it could be included on many more pages (such as Pro-Test) which would give the existing articles within this project greater exposure. Martin Hinks 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


To weigh in:

Perhaps a way to accomidate both positions would be to have a seperate page of "animal rights--criticism" with much the same format as the current page. --C.lettinga 06:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hello to all. I'm a newbe to Wikipedia. I took something on the site to heart when it prompted, "Be bold." So I jumped right in.

As you might see I've made a couple additions and deletions to the page, and, well, then I read the sentence, "If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page." Sorry.

So, here I am, inquiring after the fact. I'd like to join in. The various discussions here are very interesting.

Just so you all know, I'm completely biased and think animals ought to be treated like people. But, I am also interested in seeing the matter presented in a fair and relatively neutral way here, even though some of the sources quotes and cited are anything but neutral.

One other thing, I don't post anywhere on the internet under an alias. If this won't work here, then I won't stay. No biggy.

Hope I didn't mess up the page too much. Rbogle 00:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rbogle, and welcome to the project and to the madhouse in general. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi v2

Hi,

I'm a vegan and programmer from Porto Alegre, Brazil (yeah, i'm in the world's barbecue capital). I would like to join you and help to create a neutral philosophical discussion about Animal Rights.

By the way, in my point of view Animal Rights are only "negative" or "passive" rights, like not to be molested or killed. It's just about freedom, nothing else.

Juanmaiz 11:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Good to have you with us, Juanmaiz. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetarianism & Veganism

Hi all, I notice that as of yet, Vegetarianism and Veganism are not within this project's scope. I would like to propose that at least Veganism be added in. All animal rights groups that I've ever encoutered advocate at least vegetarianism, and if someone has reached Veganism, they've usually also considered animal liberation. For me, Veganism and Animal Liberation are entirley intertwined, and since Animal Liberation is included in the scope of the article, I though it natural that Veganism would be too. Vegans coming from an ethical standpoint, and many from an environmental one, favor Animal Liberation if not Animal Rights, though I don't make a distinction between the two. I'd also like to get more involved users over at Veganism.

So, in short, my proposal: Veganism, as an integral part of Animal Liberation (at least while domestication is still around), be added to the scope of the WikiProject. With a sub-proposal that this be extended to all forms of Vegetarianism. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 09:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully support your opinions, I do believe that we should Definately put vegetarianism/veganism as a main focus of this group.
All in favor?
Cameron Erickson (camxx) 02:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi, joining project

hi, new user here. see you when I edit something.--C.lettinga 06:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New to Wiki

Greetings!

I created a wikipedia account today and plan on updating/creating a number of vivisection/animal rights related pages. How do I join this group? I'm quite new to everything. JBeckham 23:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to wikipedia!! To sign up to this project all you need to do is edit the project page (click 'Project Page' at the top of this one) and add your signature to the list of members. -Localzuk(talk) 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foie gras page

It may be of interest to the members of this project that Foie gras page has been blocked following an edit war between a set of clearly partisan foie gras supporters on one side, and myself on the other side. Apart from the usual battles about various sources and their interpretation, there are signs that these people will try to oust the whole "controversy" section from the article, sidetracking it into a specific "Foie gras controversy" article. David Olivier 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a long & involved discussion. I'll try and give it a look-over. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for any help you can give. I think that foie gras is a major issue in the AR debate. Some of it may seem somewhat technical, and a lot of the relevant litterature is in French - your skills can be useful for that, especially if you read the well-documented litterature produced by Stopgavage. Also, it is important to remain objective on all aspects of the debate. I believe that foie gras is one of the most egregious cases of animal abuse, and that that should be apparent from the facts stated on the Foie gras page; without any need to overdo anything. David Olivier 10:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Animal_rights_cb1e.html"