Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:36, 13 November 2006

Animal rights Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ritual slaughter

Why is there a whole section on ritual slaughter? This seems to be a small and pretty insignificant campaign in the history of animal rights. It seems strange to have a section on this with none on factory farming or vivisection.

Sections

"Support and Criticisms" section(s) maybe? Marskell 16:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I've restored that the UK is seen as the "Afghanistan" of the animal rights movement, because this is a widely held belief (all the animal rights books acknowledge it, most of the leading activists are there, and the ALF was founded there, as well as groups like BUAV), and I've supplied a reference to a BBC interview. SlimVirgin 23:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Morals vs Ethics

Just a quick note as to the loaded term 'Moral'. Moral implies the politics of god, whereas ethics are logic based. Most AR activists I’d say are asking animals be brought into ethical consideration.Xanax 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Violence

Once again just some thoughts to provoke some productive discussion. Violence seems to be a recurring theme in all the AR pages, and yet I can think of only less than 10 physically violent attacks on people, albiet all very recently. Where as AR activists claim to have members killed http://www.arkangelweb.org/barry/violence.shtml. There are however huge ammounts of threats made by ARM or ALF, but very few seem to be actually followed up, and when they are its usually with what the eupthamistically call 'economic sabotage'. Arguable of course propety damage is a form of emotional abuse towards the victims. I think we have to be very careful to establish a NPOV on this one as we have people screaming terrorists on one side and people screaming murderer scum on the other! (:Xanax 04:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

-What about Animal Right's violence against......animals? On several occasions protesters have 'liberated' animals subsequently mistreating them http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/01/06/nbeag06.xml Most of the beagles had to be put down -There's also a case in the UK at the moment about a group of ALF memembers who have stolen someone's mother's corpse or something like that, violence against zombies.

Please remove photo

Photo of a cute and obviously happy Francois langur monkey was taken, ironically, in London Zoo captive-breeding program which animal liberation despises. Therefore please remove it.

npov

This article needs to be renamed to Animal rights movement (which is now a redirect) in order to apply with Misplaced Pages NPOV standards. "Liberation" in the title is suggestive at best. Misplaced Pages does not concern itself with the question if "liberation" is a suitable ethics to follow or not. Intangible 04:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- Kjkolb 09:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Animal liberation movement → Animal rights movement … Rationale: →NPOV title. Intangible 15:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. Intangible 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The movement mostly calls itself the animal liberation movement. Some people within it support the concept of animal rights, and some do not. The term "animal liberation" is no more POV than the term "animal rights." SlimVirgin 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support "Rghts" wins common name battle by an order of magnitude, and is more inclusive. ~ trialsanderrors 08:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• How exactly is "rights" more inclusive? SlimVirgin 11:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. "Animal rights" is more often used in the news to refer to the movement. Dr Zak 14:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose: animals do not have rights. The movement seeks to free them, not to give them the rights people have. Thumbelina 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The claim that "animal rights" is less POV than "animal liberation" is in my mind ridiculous. Suggesting that animals have rights is about as POV as suggesting animals should be liberated. Regardless, a cursory glance across Google and some encyclopedias (for example Columbia) seems to suggest that "animal rights" is more common than "animal liberation". —Gabbe 12:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course an article animal welfare movement can be started as well, for those concerned with animal welfare on basis of morality, instead of ethics (rights). Intangible 20:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the idea of "animal rights" is framed around the same premises as "human rights", namely that animals are endowed with an inherent dignity that must not be violated. The term "animal liberation" was coined by the ethicist Peter Singer, whose ideas I'm familiar with through second-hand accounts only. As far as I know – SV, please correct me here – his work is built around the theme of social interaction and self-awareness, that is the idea of "animal personhood" adequately expressed by "animal rights". Dr Zak 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Another note on usage: the OED says about animal liberation: "animal liberation, the act or process of freeing animals from exploitation (e.g. in laboratory experiments) by man; applied chiefly attrib. to groups dedicated to this, as Animal Liberation Front; hence animal liberationist" Dr Zak 16:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Singer is a utilitarian, meanly broadly that he believes a good act is one that leads to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. This means he is a consequentialist, arguing that the value of an act lies in its consequences (although it's more complicated than that), and that acts do not have a value in and of themselves, which is called the teleological view. He therefore supports animal liberation, not from a rights perspective, but on the basis of the amount of pain that is caused, arguing that the most important interests of millions of animals are routinely sacrificed to protect the most trivial interests of our own; for example, cramming chickens into spaces so small they have no room to move, in order to make Chicken McNuggets as cheaply as possible; herding buffalo into small spaces so that rich tourists can shoot and pretend to have hunted them. SlimVirgin 16:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That was me aiming beside the point then (discussing the issue instead of the movement). The BBC still calls the movement (consisting of people opposed to animal experimentation for whatever reason) "animal rights movement". "Animal liberation movement" is mostly used when members of the movement are talking about themselves. Dr Zak 17:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We're not here to parrot the BBC. The AL movement is how they refer to themselves and largely how academics refer to them. It's also the more inclusive term, because, as I said, not everyone in the AL movement supports animal rights. SlimVirgin 17:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Animal rights movement" is the commonly encountered term, even if it mischaracterizes the motivations of its members. WP:NAME states "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". A discussion of the naming issue could go into the introductory paragraph. Dr Zak 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, we use the names used by the groups/movements themselves, unless they're misleading or offensive in some way. SlimVirgin 14:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The article itself states that the AL/AR movement is not an unified movement with a common philosophy but rather a disparate group of individuals and groups opposed to the use of animals. Saying that "the movement" calls itself anything would be a bit presumptuous, considering how diverse it is. As far as the academic use of AL vs AR goes, Nature, the prime source for academic news and policy in Europe, has 61 occurrences of "animal rights" and 7 occurrences of "animal liberation", all referring to groups opposing animal experimentation. The Citation Index has 4 hits for "animal liberation movement" from 1984 till now and 72 hits for "animal rights movement"; the keyword "animal rights" often occurs together with "vivisection", indicating that "animal rights movement" is used to refer to groups opposed to animal experimentation. Dr Zak 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• "animals do not have rights. The movement seeks to free them, not to give them the rights people have." I am not really sure what is said here. Maybe User:Thumbelina can enlighten me. Intangible 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Writing

Nrets, if you want to add material, please read the section first and try to add it in a way that preserves at least a minimum of narrative flow. SlimVirgin 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ALF

AR, BUAV opposes violence explictly and never excuses it. They allowed an ALF activist to use an office in their building 20 years ago or so. Don't give that undue weight or turn it into a declaration of support. SlimVirgin 01:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's already in the article, where we say "There is evidence of prior cooperation the BUAV and the ALF: for example, BUAV used to donate office space for the use of ALF in Britain" with a ref. There's no need to add it twice. SlimVirgin 01:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

These are two different examples of the way in which BUAV helps ALF. The first is a donation of office space, the second is helping in recruitment of personnel. --Animalresearcher 10:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How did they help to recruit personnel? The two sections I referred to are about the same thing. No recruitment of anyone. SlimVirgin 11:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

AR, there's no page number so I can't see which part of the book you're referring to. Can you give me a page number so I can look it up? You're almost certainly thinking of Ronnie Lee using some office space in the 70s or so. But there's nothing in that section of the book (or anywhere else that I know of) about BUAV being involved in any recruitment. SlimVirgin 11:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is "Valerie's Story", the story by which Valerie found Ronnie Lee (of ALF) through Kim Stallwood (of BUAV), who then directed Valerie to an ALF activism camp. Described in detail, already, with references, on the Ronnie Lee page. --Animalresearcher 12:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Valerie was not recruited by the BUAV, nor did they assist with any recruitment. She told them she was doing research; I think she may have said she was a journalist and wanted to interview Ronnie Lee. That's why they put her in touch with him. SlimVirgin 12:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And indeed, that's what it says in the Ronnie Lee article. It even says there that Stallwood made it clear he did not agree with Lee about direct action. SlimVirgin 12:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text you last reverted. "BUAV executives have connected prospective ALF activists with Ronnie Lee who connected them to activist cells." Since you've just agreed that it is factually accurate and verifiable may I un-revert it? --Animalresearcher 13:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

AR, that's POV editing at its worst, and you know it. The BUAV guy did not know he was introducing her as an activist. The BUAV is implaccably opposed to violence or direct action. If you don't know that, then with respect, you don't know much about them, so please do some reading before jumping to conclusions. They're one of the oldest and most respected animal protection organizations in the world. SlimVirgin 14:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If they were implaccably opposed to violence or direct action they would not have donated office space to ALF, or acted as a conduit for people to communicate with ALF.--Animalresearcher 15:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your argument holds no ground AR. Firstly, the contact was made as they thought it was for research, which I think you will agree is not the same as supporting direct action. Secondly, the office space was donated a long time ago and is a minor example - and putting emphasis on it gives it undue weight.-Localzuk 16:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is no different that the way in which Covance, Silver Spring, Britches, and other "animal_testing: controversy" sections are representative of animal research. If there is some other evidence that may be cited and supports the issue that BUAV does not provide material aid to people who engage in direct action please include it.--Animalresearcher 17:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

But that is not how this site works. We report on things in a neutral manner, with citations. I do not have to disprove an inferred claim - you have to prove it. The claim infers that BUAV help the ALF regularly and you give 2 examples, both of which are not evidence enough of this.-Localzuk 01:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, the sentence you are proposing, AR, implies that BUAV knew she was an activist trying to meet Lee. Whilst it is factually true, what the sentence says, it reads in an entirely POV manner.-Localzuk 15:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the latest version: "... and a BUAV executive introduced someone posing as a writer, but was actually an aspiring ALF activist, to Ronnie Lee who directed them to an ALF training camp in northern England." So what? BUAV didn't know who she was or what she wanted.

I'm disappointed in this, AR. You say you're a research scientist, but that means you're used to interpreting data and texts and understand the importance of being very accurate. We need the same commitment to accuracy on Misplaced Pages. You're editing the animal rights articles with the sole aim of attacking ideas and people you don't like. That's not what Misplaced Pages's about. SlimVirgin 17:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, assume good faith! Nrets 01:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoring and disclosure

I added some deleted material which was moved out of the Animal rights article with the understanding that it would remain on this one. Just to be clear, I recieved the following email:

From: Roncey Valley - nickcockburn@xxxxx

Subject: Misplaced Pages e-mail

Date: November 11, 2006 10:09:53 PM EST

To: xxxxxxxx

Hi,

SlimVirgin has removed all the information on the Nazis and anti-Semitism from the Animal liberation movement page where it was moved several months ago.

I can't get involved publicly (so please do not respond on my talk page) but could you look at the page and see about either restoring the stuff she removed or moving it to another article like Animal welfare?

Thanks

The name does not correspond to an actual WP user, so I suspect some inside argument is being played out here, and I don't care to be particularily involved. Whatever the case, I think the material removed does have a place, so please don't revert it based on your personal arguments with other WP users, whatever they may be. Nrets 01:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed Animal rights articles
• Unknown-importance Animal rights articles
• WikiProject Animal rights articles