Template talk:Animal liberation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Critics

I've removed the critics section as I've never seen this done on a template before. Templates collect articles that are part of the subject matter of the template. CCF has nothing to do with animal liberation. Also, if a critics section were to be included, it can't be CCF. They have no credibility whatsoever as a source.

I'll look around at other templates in the meantime to see whether this is done on others. Perhaps if the anon has an example, s/he could provide it. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Everything listed in this template is pro-animal liberation. Animal liberation is a philosophy that has vocal supporters and opponents. Whether these supporters or opponents have credibility is not important. Many people feel the CCF is not credible, however many people allso feel PETA is not credible. Wikipedia is a group effort. Can you tell me exactly what the problem is with including the major opponents? In my opinion it allows people to quickly get both sides of the story. --129.173.105.28 00:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
One ommission, CCF has a great deal to do with animal liberation, much of what they try to do is paint the animal liberation movement in a bad light. --129.173.105.28 00:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, the category is not about animal liberation. It's about the movement: individuals, groups, and their concerns e.g. the targets of their campaigns. It's not a question of pro and anti on templates, unless you can find me one like that. I've started looking around, but haven't seen one so far.
PETA is about animal liberation. CCF isn't. It criticizes anyone and everyones that opposes its funder e.g. the tobacco, meat, and alcohol industries. They're not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia. If you had individual critics like academics, that might make more sense. But could you first of all find another template that does this? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
You're correct. CCF is anti animal liberation. They are very vocal about this and are well recognized for this behaviour. For this reason they should be included in the template. An important part of the animal liberation movement is it's critics. I'm not using the CCF as a source, nor am I suggesting they should be. Stephen Hawking is a critic, may I include him? Is there a list of this type of template? I do not see whay I must find another example; criticism is part of any movement and should be linked. --129.173.105.28 00:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
CCF is not part of the animal liberation movement, which is what this template is about. Yes, please do find another example. There's no reason this one should stand out as different from all the others. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I am asking you, as a mod, to please answer my question: "there a list of this type of template?"--129.173.105.28 00:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I honestly don't know. If you look around the website, you'll find some. Offhand, I can think of Template:Jew, Template:Judaism, and Template:Islam. You could try adding a critics section to those and see what happens. Let me know if you do, so I know to go make a cup of tea and enjoy the uproar that ensues. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, the first template you provided, Template:Jew, contains the section "Persecution of Jews" which would be those critical of Judaism. Its only sublisting is anti-semitism, which is a view critical of Judaism. Does this suffice as an example of citics in a template? --129.173.105.28 00:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
The persecution of the Jews section is about the persecution, not about the critics of Jews. Please find a template that has a section header called Critics or similar, and then we can discuss whether to add it here. I can't help you to find one because I've never seen one. I think you may have misunderstood the point of templates on articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it may interest 129.173.105.28 to know that there is a precedent for including critics in a template, and that precedent comes to us courtesy of SlimVirgin. It may have slipped her mind. In Template:LaRouche, there is a article, drafted and included in the template by SlimVirgin, called Jeremiah Duggan, about a college student who attended a LaRouche conference in Germany and then committed suicide. Duggan was not a member of the LaRouche movement, but the fact that he attended a conference was used as a pretext to include this article in the LaRouche template (as well as to spin a fabulous conspiracy theory that he killed himself because he was subjected to LaRouche mind control.) Basically, the article is a compilation of various critical theories about LaRouche, and there it is, in the template. --HK 21:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent addition

What about other groups such as Pro-Test? I agree that anti-animal rights organisations should be included on this template, to present a broader set of resources on the topic. --ProTestOxford 19:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Pro-test isn't notable enough for inclusion on a template, either for or against. It's a website run by one teenager, as I understand it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you still feel the same way about including these groups? It seems there are several that could be included:
They could be included, not taking up much more space, and giving the box a larger scope allowing readers to find both sides of the arguments more easily Spaully 17:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Photo

Am I alone in finding the photo at the top of the template POV? It shows a "sad" monkey in a cage. I think this is POV for three reasons:

  1. Monkeys make up a tiny proportion of the animals subject to vivisection
  2. Vivisection is only one area of animal rights and animal liberation activism
  3. The fact the monkey is behind bars and is not looking terribly happy seems to convey an anti-animal testing POV

What do others think? Batmanand | Talk 14:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is actually a picture of a macaque in a zoo in China, so not anything to to with vivisection, although that was my impression of it before I read the image page. I would make the point however that the template focuses on organisations in the west, predominantly the UK and US, so perhaps this image is not representative of the movement.
I do agree with point 3, perhaps an image of a macaque in the wild would give an impression of what Animal liberation strives for, as opposed to the negative campaigning that it is so stigmatised for. |→ Spaully°τ 15:45, 1 March 2006
Fixed the photograph. --Neutralitytalk 06:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality, you reverted a photograph of a fairly happy looking monkey, and replaced it with the logo of the Great Ape Project, which we can't claim fair use for in a template. Apparently, fair use doesn't apply to templates. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
As I've received no response, I'm going to restore the previous image. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to reorganize

I think this template is rather upside-down - issues should be at the top, followed by groups, then activists. Activists come and go, and rise and fall in prominance; but the issues remain the same. And really, what so you want people to be reading about first - a bio, or a discussion of the problem itself? BD2412 T 17:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'added some' - Experiments section

Hi Slim,

Your rather innocuous edit summary:

(cur) (last)  00:51, 19 June 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (added some)

To me has introduced quite a subversive aspect to this template, namely the 'Experiments' section. Under this heading the section seems to suggest those examples are the limit of animal experimentation, when it highlights 5 incidents in an industry that is generally well conducted. This is especially the case for "Unnecesary Fuss", the PETA video snippets that has recieved extensive criticism.

In the interest of not misleading readers, and trying to make this inherently biased template less so, I have removed it and would not support its reinsertion in current form. |→ Spaully°τ 10:38, 10 August 2006 (GMT)

That film did not received extensive criticism. It received some but it also led to the university being put on probation, the chief vet sacked, the research closed down, and funding withdrawn. It's your opinion that this is a "well conducted" industry. These cases are central to discussions about animal rights i.e. they are famous cases, which is why they're included in the template. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Then change the title - it is misleading. To the extent that it suggests this is a fair representation of the industry. Tell me, if these are fair then why are there 6 examples when hundreds of millions of tests are conducted annually; and why are they all experiments on primates? I would suggest a title of 'Incidents' or 'Contentious experiments', but I feel neither of these is perfect. Currently there is no sense of perspective. |→ Spaully°τ 13:46, 10 August 2006 (GMT)
'Infringements' perhaps. All of the other names follow - Animal Rights Activists, Animal Rights Groups etc. Animal Rights Experiments, does not. |→ Spaully°τ 13:48, 10 August 2006 (GMT)
I don't see the issue here. These are famous cases within the animal-rights movement, and this template is about their concerns, interests, campaigns, and members. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed three red names

We don't need red names and external links in a template.. --A Sunshade Lust 19:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

This picture is stupid. Can we get rid of it? --Liface 19:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not too thrilled with it, but at least it actually has something to do with animal liberation, instead of just a picture of a monkey or ape like we used to have. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 21:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
FK0071a, you can't use a fair-use image on a template. See Wikipedia:Fair use. Also, please don't keep adding names. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
And don't add red links or external links. This is a template listing the best-known people, incidents, campaigns etc related to animal rights on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal welfare

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Alex Pacheco?

SV, Why was Alex Pacheco removed from the template? Nrets 00:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The template is getting rather long, so I removed some names that didn't seem quite as well known as the others. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

As the main activity of the Animal liberation is protesting (such as marches and banner holding) would it not be appropriate for an image of such a demonstration to be used? I have hundreds of said images that I have taken so providing one wouldn't be hard. I don't feel a picture of an animal is representative of the animal liberation really.-Localzuk (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject link should go

The wikiproject link at the bottom should go. We generally do not have self-references to our in-house stuff in our articles. See WP:SELF. Lupo 08:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/i/Template_talk%7EAnimal_liberation_8705.html"