Template talk:Animal liberation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 TemplateAnimal liberation is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Template rated as Template-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale

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)

Comment: I am against the mistreatment of animals, it is due to my belief that there is a very thin line between mistreatment or experimentations on an animal and a human being. It does bring up several questions also, some which may sound silly but think about it a little while. If the animal is freed in a foriegn environment, you are introducing a foriegn species which is harmful to the natural species and possibly even your environment, so is it wise to free them or put them back where they came from? We have been trained to accept foriegn species with zoos and such. Alot of people have heard the old rhymes, little girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice, little boys are made of lizards and puppy dog tails.. It may sound dumb, but where do cropped puppy dog tails go to? In the USA, we have exotic pets from all over the world, what is the export ratio of our native species as their exotic pets? Are they not exotic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am curiousity2000 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 26 March 2008 (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)
Why is there a monkey or animal picture at all.. Shouldn't this be the PETA LOGO. I move that the monkey picture is completely irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NathanLee (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Animal liberation - Human liberation? KellenT 00:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What about http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/index.html, for photographs definitely for a crosslink? Like I said it is my belief that there is a very thin line between experimentation or cruelty to animals and human beings. It's a long story.... With technologies as they are I've given it thought... It's very complex to myself, the sciences are a very upsetting subject matter. They have supercolliders going off and they have proton beam cures, they have these laboratories injecting things into animals and I believe even volunteers and there is a line....... There are other items also...bioethics.gov for one that could be another crosslink possibly....Am curiousity2000 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2008 (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)

[edit] Images

It seems to me that four images of primates (and the same/similar species if I am correct) is gratuitous. Why not remove the images of the baboon? VanTucky 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? This is a template with a single image, what do you mean?-Localzuk(talk) 20:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I mean the template as I found it within the Animal Liberation Front article (at the end). May not be the same template, but its talk link redirected to here. VanTucky 22:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you mean Template:Alibend. You may like to move this over there.-Localzuk(talk) 22:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! my mistake. VanTucky 22:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Female activisits / writers ?

It's been over a decade since I've been active in the movement but, at the time, at least in the U.S., the vast majority of activists were women and eco-feminism was a rising star among the intelligentsia. So, frankly, I'm a wee dismayed to see this template with but one female name (though, admittedly, if you had to chose but one, it should be the indefatigable Ingrid Newkirk). While this is no longer an area in which I have any expertise (or street cred), I'm wondering if there's a way for this template to be more representative of the overwhelmingly female contribution to this movement. (For instance, one name that jumps immediately to mind for me for possible inclusion among writers is Carol J. Adams.) I realize that WP simply attempts to capture facts and it is not WP's place to fight society's perpetuation of male privilege (even in presumably progressive movements); for me, though, honestly, it's somewhat saddening. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs

QUESTION: Why does this template box appear on the Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs page? The article is about a group of criminals who terrorised a neighbourhood for years and who stole the body of an old lady from a churchyard. By including the template box on this page giving links to pro-animal liberation groups this wikipedia page is no longer neutral but a campaigning article.84.45.133.168 19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV

I have flagged this to be checked for its neutrality as it appears to be a celebration of animal liberation groups rather than a proper resource about the issues - for example, refusing to include critics of animal liberation groups makes this a resource for people with a specific pov rather than a general resource for peopel researching the issue generally. 87.127.44.154 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to find a comparable template which contains critics - that is why the other template was created. I am against adding any more to this template, especially as it comes down to 'what counts as a critic?'. Would 'Pro-Test' be a critic? No, they are a pro-testing group and not an anti-animal rights group as such. If you could draw up a list of anti-animal rights groups, that'd help make a better decision.
Also, when adding large banners to templates, please wrap them in <noinclude></noinclude>, else the banner will appear on all articles with the template on, and will look like the article is in need of pov checking.-Localzuk(talk) 07:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


ATTENTION: SlimVirgin

You have removed the request for npov review twice in the past two days. On each occasion you failed to mention here why you had done so. You are not in a position to give this article a NPOV check as you have been intimately involved in its creation. I would have asked you about this on your own talkpage but this is protected and I am unable to do so. This template is biased. It is not an encyclopaedic resource about issues surrounding animal liberation, it is a celebration of the animal liberation movement. That is biased. You asked in an earlier discussion (above) for any example of any other template which shows critics. Well, check out the Template:Animal_testing template which includes groups on both sides of the issue (a template which you will be familiar with through your edits on that page. Wikipedia is intended to be encyclopaedic and non-biased. This template isn't and needs to be reviewed by people who are not so intimately involved in its creation as yourself. 87.127.44.154 06:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You have not answered my question from above - can you provide a list of items that you would like included please?-Localzuk(talk) 08:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not sufficiently expert in this area to be able to provide such a list - it appears that other editors are and have attempted to include groups only for them to be edited out. But, as I said above, this template as it stands is not encyclopaedic, but a celebration of a campaigning group and therefore not in accordance with WP's npov policy. 87.127.44.154 08:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
And as has been said, they are not appropriate to the template. This template is about the animal liberation movement. There aren't any 'anti-animal liberation' groups as far as I know. For example, including Pro-Test in the template would be incorrect in my opinion, as they are a pro-testing lobby group, rather than an anti-animal rights group. It would be appropriate in the template you mention above Template:Animal testing, as it directly relates.
So, unless you can provide some actual examples, I don't see how your NPOV problem can be accommodated. -Localzuk(talk) 15:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There are many, many, many, groups which have official policies of opposing the actions of animal liberation groups that would impede or restrict research. Like the American Medical Association, Pro-test, Americans for Medical Progress, FBR, RDS, not to mention all the professional societies, the American National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Medicine, etc. --Animalresearcher 16:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed some names

Since they were unknown names to wikipedia, figured it was just someone adding in random names.. See here NathanLee 16:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

By the looks of the user they were indeed random vandalism. User has many warnings on their page. NathanLee 16:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limitation of template

I'm concerned that this template is getting out of control. Firstly its huge, and many articles are dwarfed by it. Secondly, we seem to be in a position where anyone article that has a link to animal liberation is being added. For example, Raccoon dog fur is listed as a notable controversial case, yet there are no third party neutral sources describing the controversy. What we essentially have is a few campaigns protesting an issue. That in itself doesn't create a notable controversy. Secondly, is there any encyclopaedic value in listing bands that have written a song about the AR, lent their name to PETA or donated a track to a AR cause? Templates are not indiscriminate lists, we really need so have some limits to what should be included. I'm not removing anything at the moment, but would like to hear more opinion. Rockpocket 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted some of the more recent edits. I don't know whether it's newbie editing or WP:POINT, but the template is starting to include more than it excludes. We could perhaps add George Bush because he once said chimps shouldn't be experimented on. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I've left a note for the IP who keeps adding links, but it seems to be making no difference. I'm minded to ask for sprotection until we can work out some criteria for what to add. Any objections? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Seriously, this template is way too long. It needs to be cut down. It's simply too out of control and overwhelms pages, and that doesn't make it useful. I don't think having publications and groups, of which there are many, is necessary. --David Shankbone 04:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the key groups and publications should be included. But the anon seems to be adding every AR article he can find. Some of it's useful, so I'm reluctant to revert wholesale, but perhaps we should do that until we can figure out what to keep. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think we should cut it down to the bare basics. It's an info-box about key concepts, not an index. It should be small until it can be decided what is to be included. Info-boxes are becoming more controversial on the project, and this is a good reason why - they start to dominate articles. --David Shankbone 05:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think take out "Activists"; "Groups/campaigns", "Writers/Advocates" "Films" "Books" etc. Anything that takes away from the main animal rights causes. That's really what should be in the info-box. The main things. An alternative that the LGBT project worked out, which maybe the Animals rights project wants to consider, is a bottom-oriented box that doesn't overwhelm a page. See Murray Hill (drag king) for one example. --David Shankbone 05:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Those categories have been there from the beginning. It's important to see who the main activists are, because the activists comprise the movement and most of the issues with AR. We do have a bottom-oriented template too, for when there's no space in the article for this one. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, since we agree that they are "categories", why not replace the lists with a category link (piped or not) to, let's say, Category:Animal rights activists. It will save a lot of space and have the added bonus of populating Category:Activists by issue. The same could be done for Category:Animal rights groups, etc. This would cut the template size in half. FWIW, many sidebars and footers use categories in this way, so this isn't anything out of the ordinary. —Viriditas | Talk 09:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The template still takes up too much real estate on the articles. What's wrong with having a footer-template or creating categories?--David Shankbone 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
We have been around and around on this, and the Animal Rights project is against categories for a reason that those of us who work on categorization do not understand. Every single other activist group is categorized by topic except for this one. If you are interested, you may want to get with User:Lquilter as she has a good grasp on the situation and is willing to work with the project to meet their needs and implement categorization. —Viriditas | Talk 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal welfare groups

Several of the groups listed would not (I suspect) associate themselves with the phrase "animal liberation" which implies to me an approach much close to animal rights than animal welfare. I wonder if the list shoud be slimmed down? MikeHobday (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, I suggest the deletion from the template of ASPCA, Animal Welfare Institute, HSUS, IFAW, WSPA. MikeHobday (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Bill, just to explain why I removed the name you added -- in order to make sure the template doesn't get too large and unmanageable, we try to stick to the most notable of the activists, meaning the ones who've had the most media coverage, or coverage in books and papers about the movement. The name you added has indeed had some coverage, but I'd say not quite enough to be added here. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Sorry about that - but see my comments in "Google Hits"Billlegend2 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google hits

We keep having names of uncertain notability added to the activists, so I thought it might help to list Google hits for each name. It's not a perfect test, especially for older activists who may have had the bulk of their coverage before the Web existed, but it gives an indication. The search terms were "name" and "animal rights."

Google hits vary from day to day, sometimes by a lot, so in the links below, you may not get exactly the same figures. One I searched yesterday had 27,000 hits and today 16,000; another had under 1,000 and today over 5,000. The figures below are therefore just a snapshot of the web from the time of this post.

I think we should leave out names that don't have over 1,000 at least, and preferably closer to 3-5,000. We can make exceptions for activists who had a lot of news coverage before the Web, so long as we know that they did. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Greg Avery 5,260 [1]
  • David Barbarash 5,170 [2]
  • Rod Coronado 9,030 [3]
  • Barry Horne 7,490 [4]
  • Ronnie Lee 5,520 [5]
  • Keith Mann 8,440 [6]
  • Ingrid Newkirk 45,000 [7]
  • Alex Pacheco 7,540 [8]
  • Jill Phipps 3,320 [9]
  • Henry Spira 12,700 [10]
  • Andrew Tyler 5,050 [11]
  • Jerry Vlasak 9,860 [12]
  • Paul Watson 16,200 [13]
  • Robin Webb 6,010 [14]
  • Roger Yates 746 [15]


This is real interesting. We could argue all day about the validity of the method, but I for one am prepared to go with it for a while. What seems to be being underlined here is the precise case put forward by Gary Francione, Yates and other abolitionists about the "Animal Rights Movement". That it doesn't exist, except in name. This "rights" movement does not talk about rights violations!

Sooo.... if we replace the words "animal rights" in the google search,with "rights violations", we get the following

[1] P.Watson, 1,430 hits; [2]I.Newkirk, 345; [3] R.Coronado, 76; [[4] G.Francione, 62;(not in org list)] [5] J.Vlasak, 42; [6] R. Lee, 40; [7] R. Webb, 31; [8] R. Yates, 24; [9] A.Pacheco, 23; [10] B.Horne, 22; [11] K. Mann, 21; [12] H.Spira, 15; [13] D.Barbarash, 13; A.Tyler, 8; J.Phipps, 7. Look then at the results, most 'hits' are about human rights, except in the cases of Francione and Yates, and when animal rights violation are mentioned in relation to the other names, it is most often within the writing of these two. If you put as a search, "name" and "animal rights violations", then Francione's critique of the "Animal Rights Movement" seems substantially supported because hardly anyone apart from Francione and Yates writes about animal rights violations. This supports Francione's controversial position on "new welfarists" in terms of what these notable activists say about animals and animal rights: essentially, they make welfarist cruelty statements or some other non-rights based statements about their positions on animals. I am not saying this calls for a complete shake up on wiki but it does put things in a new light which an encyclopedia would assess. Make sense?Billlegend2 (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's very interesting. Francione is on the template, by the way, but under writers. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Question is, what do the editors of an encyclopedia do with the information that most people it has under the title "animal rights" may not actually be animal rightists in the sense of rights being the basis of their statements about human-animal relationships. This latest 'Google hits search' shows that virtually no-one apart from Francione is making claims about animal rights - Tom Regan does, of course, but none of the animal rights activists. This seems to mean what Francione said it means in Rain Without Thunder, that what you have said they are, and what many of them say of themselves, does not square with their statements. See http://abolitionistanimalrights.blogspot.com/2008/02/animal-rights-has-become-pretty.html I.O.W.S., the "Animal Rights Movement" is a philosophical muddle which the human rights movement isn't!!! Do we/you/Wikipedia ignore that?Billlegend2 (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to remember that we simply reflect what the reliable sources say and represent the majority as the majority and minority as the minority. So, while Francione may have a point, the majority interpretation of "animal rights" isn't quite as distinct as his and instead his position is described as Abolitionism. I would say that Yates is probably a prominent figure in the Abolitionism sub-movement (which could probably be expanded), but I don't see any reason why we should be giving Francione's assessment on animal rights philosophy any more importance that anyone elses.
Consider as a comparison, that the relatively few members of the Continuity Irish Republican Army claim that they are the true Irish Republican Army, while the much larger Provisional Irish Republican Army (and pretty much everyone else) considers themselves to be the IRA. Its not our job to determine which is the "real" IRA (something not lost on the third claimant: the Real Irish Republican Army) just like its not our job to ascertain what it "real" animal rights among the various factions that claim that title. Rockpocket 00:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point. I have a couple of points to make myself. Not sure if the analogy with the various IRAs works because none of them would disagree about the fundamentals. Whatever their differences, I doubt if any group would reject republicanism whereas many 'animal rights' people reject rights-based statements about human-animal relationships. It is fundamental beliefs that are in dispute in the animal movement not just tactics-in fact, tactical differences arise because fundamentals are different. So, to say that there is no reason to give Francione's assessment on animal rights philosophy any particular prominence is saying that the views on animal rights by animal rightists have the same weight as non-rightists and even opponents of rights-based theories. That can't be right-although I can see there would be a major problem in fixing it. It should be noted, by the way, that this is not a case of imposing labels on people. For example, Francione and Regan say they are animal rightists and their work reflects that while Peter Singer says he's a utilitarian and rights are not fundamental to his position.Billlegend2 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I guess the problem is more one of what the secondary or tertiary sources consider to be animal rights. I don't think most commentators outside the movement makes the same distinctions as those within the field. Thus the large number of "new-welfarists" appear to have either captured or been awarded the "animal-rights" mantle by virtue of their success in promoting their version of it.
Perhaps a more germane comparison would be with the term "vivisection". 99% of what anti-vivisectionists call "vivisection" is not vivisection at all. Nevertheless, by persistently using the word in this manner, the term has begun to mean "animal testing" in general. Similarly, what we now generally consider to be "animal rights" may not technically be animal rights, but because enough people describe it in that way, thats what we associate it with.
Incidentally, I was reading some of Francione's interviews in response to your comments and I have to say, that from a personal point of view, I think of all the "AR activists", he and Singer are the only ones that couch their beliefs in sound logic. He makes a lot of sense. Its interesting to note that he seems to echo the criticisms that much of the pro-testing lobby has of the mainstream AR logic, that their actions are little more than PR stunts do not match with their stated aims. For example, that it appears illogical to argue that animals have rights, then to focus disproportionately on primates or even vertebrates, while completely ignoring the billions of other animals because they are less human-like. It always appeared to me that the Great Ape Project is completely at odds with the animal rights concept. Giving one animal human rights simply reinforces the fact that all the others don't have any. There is some irony in the the "real" AR and anti-AR positions dovetail in their criticism of the mainstream AR logic, while coming from entirely different positions. Anyway, this isn't really the place for that discussion, but it did open my eyes somewhat.
I guess more to the point: what in practical terms, and bearing in mind that we have to reflect what the sources tell us, could we do to better make these distinctions. Rockpocket 01:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
When I first started editing in this area, I tried to use the term "animal liberation" to signal that not all liberationists are rights-theorists. For example, I called our animal rights movement category "animal liberation movement." That's why this template is called "animal liberation," and the article on the movement "animal liberation movement." But I was opposed by people who hadn't read the literature, and who assumed the distinction was some kind of political nuance introducing a POV. They kept raising discussions about having the cats/templates/articles moved away from the term liberation to rights, which is why the category is so named now.
In the end, I'm not sure these distinctions matter much. There is very little that Singer, Francione, and (say) PETA would disagree on in a practical sense, because the differences are philosophical (whether you believe in natural rights for humans or non-humans) and tactical (how helpful is illegal direct action and how far should it go?) In terms of how animals ought to be treated, I see no differences: all believe that animals ought not to be used as food, clothing, entertainment, in research, or in any other way by human beings.
RP, the reason primates are focused on is simply that, if it is true that the rigid species line we draw between humans and non-humans is arbitrary, that is most easily shown in the behavior of non-human primates. That is why the animal research lobby often uses images of mice in its literature, in order to emphasize the opposite point. SlimVirgin talk|edits 11:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

SV. Francione would object strongly to the idea that his position means the same for animals as Singer’s.You can tell that from reading Francione’s blog. Catherine Grant in the justice publication New Internationalist [no-nonsense guide to animal rights 2006] says that Singer is not a rightist but his book Animal Liberation inspired an international movement dedicated to ending “animal exploitation”.That statement is more correct related to Ronnie Lee.BUT…it all really depends on what you think ending animal exploitation means. Singer thinks individual animals are replaceable so killing one painlessly and replacing him/her with another is ok. Singer says animals don’t think about the future, so actually killing them is no ethical issue.Francione disagrees with ALL of that. because he’s a rightist, he thinks about individual right holders.He thinks animals do have future thoughts, so painlessly killing an animal is wrong and is a rights violation. Francione complains that Singer’s new book about eating [with jim mason] talks about veganism as the ideal but a bit fanatical.Singer says it is possible to be a ‘conscientious omnivore’-but Francione says veganism is the BASELINE of animal rights and complains that the ‘animal rights movement’ puts both vegetarianism and veganism forward as ethical diets [and puts them forward as a personal choice].Francione thinks veganism and nothing less is the logical consequence of believing that animals have rights.Singer’s position has always sanctioned animal experiments in qualified circumstances but Francione’s position [AND Regan’s] rules them out as RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.This is what i’ve been on about in relation to the frustration for the rightists not being recognised as animal rights advocates.Francione says that the ‘animal rights movement’ have taken the meaning out of the term animal rights and that’s why there is no animal rights movement apart from a movement that uses animal rights like singer-political shorthand, not the fundamental basis of their position.Billlegend2 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Singer is approaching this from a particular philosophical tradition, utilitarianism, which judges the rightness or wrongness of acts by their consequences, and in particular the consequences in terms of preference fulfillment, or the maximization of pleasure. Because he's a philosopher, he goes where the argument leads him, and that often lands him in strange places with unrecognized terrain, at which point people start shouting, "But he's saying we should prefer rats to babies!!"
When he talks about animals not thinking about the future, for example, all he means is that, if faced with a hard choice of who to kill, it is better to kill an animal (human or non-human) who has no concept of its own life and future, than to kill one (human or non-human) who does hold such a concept. So if he had to choose between killing ten normal cows and one normal human being, he has said he would kill the ten cows, because he believes cows have no concept of a future (and I don't know how far he would take this: would he kill 100 cows, one million, all cows that exist?).
What would you do, if faced with such a choice, where you had to kill either one healthy human being or ten healthy cows, and more importantly what would your reason be for choosing one over the other? SlimVirgin talk|edits 14:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What i would do is not relevant. I think it is wrong to say that singer only applies his position on the future thinking of animals in moral dilemma cases - he says in practical ethics i think that painlessly killing meat animals would be ok because of this in theory. I think francione might choose the 10 cows. saving 10 vegans over a probable meat eater-no contest!Billlegend2 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 :-) SlimVirgin talk|edits 15:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)