Jump to content

Talk:Animal welfare: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m reverting malfunctioning bot edit
 
(154 intermediate revisions by 60 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Cats|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Animal rights |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Dogs|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Animals|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Effective Altruism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Animals |importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Cats |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Dogs |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=High |ethics=Yes}}
}}
}}

{{Archive box|search=yes|
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:Animal welfare/Archive 1|Archive 1]] <small>(Jan 2004–Oct 2009)</small>
* [[Talk:Animal welfare/Archive 1|Archive 1]] <small>(Jan 2004–Oct 2009)</small>
* [[Talk:Animal welfare/Archive 2|Archive 2]] <small>(Oct 2009–Dec 2009)</small>
* [[Talk:Animal welfare/Archive 2|Archive 2]] <small>(Oct 2009–Dec 2009)</small>
* [[Talk:Animal welfare/Archive 3|Archive 3]] <small>(Dec 2009–Jan 2014)</small>
}}
}}

__TOC__
__TOC__
{{Clear}}
{{Clear}}


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
== Circus Animals ==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-01-14">14 January 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-03-10">10 March 2019</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/PVCC/IFS201_-_35284_(Spring)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Jeanne1525|Jeanne1525]].

{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 14:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== too many subsections of definitions ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_welfare/Archive_3#too_many_subsections_for_definitions I point out this issue in the past multiple times, I think it is still an issue]. [[Special:Contributions/124.170.213.246|124.170.213.246]] ([[User talk:124.170.213.246|talk]]) 20:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of heading/subsections is to sumarize. Giving each definition/paragraph a section is redundant/unlogical.[[Special:Contributions/124.170.223.210|124.170.223.210]] ([[User talk:124.170.223.210|talk]]) 01:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
:I agree, and will replace the subheadings with bold text highlighting the distinctive text in each paragraph, unless someone objects, or someone else does it first. Also these subtle distinctions overload the beginning of the article, and I propose to move them farther down the article.
:Within the main section of "Animal welfare issues" there was only one subsection, on Farm animals, and there need to be subsections on a variety of issues. I've added a subsection on cetaceans (captive and wild). I hope others add other subsections. [[User:Kim9988|Kim9988]] ([[User talk:Kim9988|talk]]) 23:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

== Feeling subection ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=589173152&oldid=589173084 DrChrissy added Marian Dawkins' link back into the article again]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=589171967&oldid=589100709 She also move Yew-Kwang Ng's approach into the same category (feeling)]. I opposed to this kinds of editing.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_welfare&oldid=589097770 Reasons can be found here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_welfare/Archive_3#too_many_subsections_for_definitions here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=588316166&oldid=588272553 here] [[Special:Contributions/124.170.213.246|124.170.213.246]] ([[User talk:124.170.213.246|talk]]) 21:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

== Semi-protection ==


I have semi-protected the article for a month and rev/del'd 2 edit summaries. If there's more IP disruption here (the personal attacks) let me know please. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 09:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
No mention of circuses at all? I'm not an 'animal libber', but treatment of animals, especially 'exotics' (big cats, elephants etc.), in circuses is a ''big'' issue, at times, in Australia. For completeness this should be covered. '''--[[Special:Contributions/220.101.28.25|220.101.28.25]] ([[User talk:220.101.28.25|talk]]) 13:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)'''


== Rejigging some words ==
== Richard Martin ==


'Since 1822, when British MP Richard Martin brought the "Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822" through Parliament'. Martin was not British: he was Irish. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.79.185.58|109.79.185.58]] ([[User talk:109.79.185.58|talk]]) 12:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Would anyone object if I removed the following from the section on Animal Welfarism?
Good Point! [[Richard Martin (MP)]] [[Special:Contributions/124.170.196.77|124.170.196.77]] ([[User talk:124.170.196.77|talk]]) 23:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
::Seems odd that Richard Martin who introduced an act into parliament in 1822 is a member of the wikipedia community today - however - make the edit and give it robust sources.__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 23:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
::::here is the source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Martin_(Irish_politician) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/117.202.11.93|117.202.11.93]] ([[User talk:117.202.11.93#top|talk]]) 10:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== External links modified ==
:''Garner also states that the welfarist position is that animals have an interest in not suffering, but that this can be overridden for the good of human beings.''


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
It doesn’t really add anything not covered by the Nozik quote.


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Animal welfare]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=686098407 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I also think that subjective welfare should be mentioned after the reference to animal rights since the book by Taylor indicates that both welfare and liberation can be based on subjective welfare.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081202004648/http://www.newstatesman.com/199905240041.htm to http://www.newstatesman.com/199905240041.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 19:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}
== Animal welfare is the physical and psychological well-being of non-human animals ==
Of course, Tryptofish! Why didn't we say it just like that before?!!! :-) --[[User:Robert Daoust|Robert Daoust]] ([[User talk:Robert Daoust|talk]]) 00:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
:I'm happy (and a bit relieved!) that you are pleased with it! I guess it's a re-affirmation of how the Wiki system of editing works—slow as it may sometimes be. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 15:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
:P.S., I also agree with Yaris' linking to physiology. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 15:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


Cheers. —[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 00:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
== Merge ==


== External links modified ==
{{discussion top|1=Consensus is to not merge the two articles [[User:Aircorn|AIR<font color="green">'''''corn'''''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] 05:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)}}


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
[[Cruelty to Animals]] and Animal Welfare seem to be covering the same topics. [[User:Aircorn|AIR<font color="green">'''''corn'''''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] 00:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
:I am inclined at first sight to agree for a merge, but would like to see more opinions first. --[[User:Robert Daoust|Robert Daoust]] ([[User talk:Robert Daoust|talk]]) 03:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
::There is a certain amount of overlap. Animal welfare goes much wider than preventing cruelty, but arguably cruelty could just be a subsection of welfare. That said, I am sure that an animal rights campainer would say that the real issue with animal cruelty is that animals are being denied there rights, rather than their welfare.
::To my mind, a much bigger issue with the article on [[cruelty to animals]] is that it needs a big dose of [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]]. For example:
{{cquote|Simulations of animal cruelty exist on [[television]], too. On the September 23, 1999 edition of [[WWE]] [[Smackdown!]], a plot line had professional wrestler [[Ray Traylor|Big Boss Man]] trick fellow wrestler [[Al Snow]] into appearing to eat his pet [[chihuahua]] Pepper.}}
::Really not important to the topic.
::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 18:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


I have just modified {{plural:10|one external link|10 external links}} on [[Animal welfare]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=744285295 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
If I understand your remark, Yaris, Animal cruelty should be kept as a separate article because it could be a subsection of both Animal rights and Animal welfare articles. That raises an interesting question of content organization. --[[User:Robert Daoust|Robert Daoust]] ([[User talk:Robert Daoust|talk]]) 20:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227004725/http://media.animalsmatter.org/media/resources/en/en_draft.pdf to http://media.animalsmatter.org/media/resources/en/en_draft.pdf
:I'm not too bothered either way, but I guess that is the implication of the first half of my above post. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 10:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005022426/http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm to http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328203053/http://ciwf.org.uk/animal_sentience/universal_declaration_on_animal_welfare/default.aspx to http://www.ciwf.org.uk/animal_sentience/universal_declaration_on_animal_welfare/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708233259/http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/07C48.txt to http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/07C48.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060314005853/http://www.porknet.com/archive/110702.html to http://www.porknet.com/archive/110702.html#96977
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017062147/http://awic.nal.usda.gov/research-animals to http://awic.nal.usda.gov/research-animals
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121212013248/http://www.fass.org/docs/agguide3rd/Ag_Guide_3rd_ed.pdf to http://www.fass.org/docs/agguide3rd/Ag_Guide_3rd_ed.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130307182039/http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/trans/infrae.shtml to http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/trans/infrae.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000320/http://www.kittyvillage.com/morton_v_irvin.pdf to http://www.kittyvillage.com/morton_v_irvin.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326222621/http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/hsp/soa_ii_chap03.pdf to http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/hsp/soa_ii_chap03.pdf


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
Cruelty to animals is the main article of the important category named Animal cruelty. For that reason, and because it is relevant to both articles Animal welfare and Animal rights, I oppose the merge. In order to add a bit of clarity to content organization, I added Cruelty to animals under the See also section here, and Animal welfare under the See also section of the Animal rights article. --[[User:Robert Daoust|Robert Daoust]] ([[User talk:Robert Daoust|talk]]) 01:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
:Seems sensible to me. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
*'''Oppose''' merge. I think it's useful to recognize that [[Animal welfare]] and [[Animal rights]] each represent different lines of thought about opposition to cruelty and similar things. The proposed merge would end up blurring that distinction. Furthermore, animal welfare is concerned with attention to things other than outright cruelty. On the other hand, I don't see a problem with keeping the pages as we have them now. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 08:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The arguements against make sense to me. Should we remove the tags or let it run a little longer? [[User:Aircorn|AIR<font color="green">'''''corn'''''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] 06:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
:It's up to you as the proposer, but for what it's worth, I have no objection to letting it go a bit longer. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}


== External links modified ==
==Why is Animal Welfare rated as "mid-importance"?==
Why is this article rated as "mid-importance" within the scope of WikiProject Animals, instead of high-importance or top-importance? Is animal welfare considered a relatively important topic within this WikiProject, or is it considered relatively unimportant? [[User:Jarble|Jarble]] ([[User talk:Jarble|talk]]) 03:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
:I agree with [[Jarble]] that this article should be rated as higher importance, but I am afraid I have no idea how or who determines these ratings.__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 17:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
::[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Assessment]]. Really, though, it's no big deal. It isn't a statement about the overall societal importance of the subject. It's just a prioritizing in terms of editorial effort by a WikiProject. Just think of how many articles there are about animals, and how many/few editors there are. If it really bugs you, just edit the template and change "mid" to "high". But a better approach, if it's important to ''you'', is to devote ''your'' editing effort to working on the page. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
::PS: no way "top importance"! That would be [[animals]] and very few other pages. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks for the explanation - very useful.__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 20:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== Opening sentences ==


I have just modified 4 external links on [[Animal welfare]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=778723651 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
I'm a little worried that the opening sentences in this article do not give the full spectrum of interpretations of animal welfare. Some scientists working in animal welfare would not discuss animal welfare in terms of physical injury, but only the conscious experience. For example, a dog might have it's leg deliberately broken under anaesthesia by a vet. We would normally think that a dog with a broken leg has poor welfare, but the animal is in fact not conscious of this, therefore there is no welfare concern. Similarly, a dog might have a malignant cancer which will become terminal, but before the dog becomes aware of the cancer, is there really a welfare concern? (this, to my mind, is the difference between "welfare" and "well-being".
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302102008/http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/AWA2007/intro.shtml to http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/AWA2007/intro.shtml
I'm also concerned about the statement that animal welfare can be 'measured'. If it can, what are the units? Also, using longevity as an indicator of welfare is highly problematic. An animal might survive for a long time but under horrendous conditions - is longevity a good indicator under such circumstances?__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 17:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110083040/http://www.animallawcoalition.com/gas-chambers/law/289 to http://www.animallawcoalition.com/gas-chambers/law/289
:Yes. I would be inclined to shorten or remove the second sentence of the lead and stick most of that information in the definitions section. i.e. add it to the definition from Donald Broom, since it is basically part of his definition.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130301102117/http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awreports/awreport2005.pdf to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awreports/awreport2005.pdf
:Do you have any sources related to the alternative definition you talk about? If so we can mention it in the definitions section and possibly allude to it in the lead.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101114111046/http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/humane_bookshelf/the_state_of_the_animals_ii_2003.html to http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/humane_bookshelf/the_state_of_the_animals_ii_2003.html
:[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 19:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
::The major proponents of the "feelings" based approach to animal welfare are Marian Dawkins and Ian Duncan. I will dig out some suitable sources and edit them in.__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 19:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Awesome. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 19:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
::::I noticed a few places where the text there makes evaluative statements ("one problem", "particularly useful", etc.) in Wikipedia's voice. I'd suggest attributing those evaluations to a source. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
==[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada]]==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
You may wish to participate in the discussion. [[User:IQ125|IQ125]] ([[User talk:IQ125|talk]]) 15:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
==Welfare is attitude==
DrChrissy suggested that welfare is not attitude in this edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=576638939&oldid=576523804
I disagree


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 21:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
*There are two definitions of welfare according to the article, welfare position (animal ethics) of public is obviously attitude.
*To the second definition in animal welfare science (longevity, disease, etc), in essence, it is 'scientist attitudes to animal welfare'. There are studies show scientists and the public have disagreements with what is a good welfare.


== External links modified ==
Both definitions are attitudes. The first definition (public attitudes) logically includes the second (scientist attitudes), because scientists are members of public.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
In conclusion welfare is attitude. I think definition one, the public opinion is more important than definition two, the scientist opinions. Because I take democracy seriously.
[[Special:Contributions/124.170.224.154|124.170.224.154]] ([[User talk:124.170.224.154|talk]]) 21:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
::The sentence on attitudes gives only 1 reference. I confess I have not read this book, but I note the title indicates it is about animal RIGHTS, not animal welfare. The two are not the same, and I can understand completely how animal rights are equated to attitudes. Neither is there a definition of animal welfare in respect to attitudes - please provide this. I will not edit this again just yet as I do not want to enter into an edit-war, although I think you should have also pointed out that I made a subsequent edit further to the one you mention above. However, I will be removing the link you make to the index - wikipedia articles should not link to themselves.__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 23:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
:::I have just looked at the web-page on these indices of attitudes[http://earthapril.goodeasy.info/research/AnimalWelfareIndexAnimalRightsIndex/]. It states '''"JM Welfare Index and JM Rights Index were created by Earth April scientist Dr Jenia Meng in 2008, utilising the information in the dataset of 'Global Attitude to Animals Survey 2007/08'. The indices can be used to calculate people's (in particular a group of people's) attitudes to animal welfare and animal rights. They range from 0 (do not support at all) to 100 (are extremely supportive). The higher the indices, the more endorsement or support people have for animal welfare or animal rights. Simply rate your opinions on the 13 questions below and your indices will be calculated."''' These only discuss ATTITUDES to animal welfare, not animal welfare itself. This should be clarified in the article.__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 23:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
DrChrissy, there are many false information in your response.
*'it is about animal RIGHTS'. Untrue, where did you get that? The title does not indicates that at all. Animal welfare and many other attitudes are subsets of the book. You should know this, even if you only read the title.
*'wikipedia articles should not link to themselves'. Untrue, the article currently have a link like this. See first sentence in the 'definition' section.
*The idea that 'Welfare can be attitude' (an ethical position) has been with this article for as long as I remember. It is not a new idea introduced by my edits. Please ask those who introduced this idea if you want more references.
*You still do not get my point about 'welfare is attitudes'. What you consider is animal welfare is in fact 'scientist attitudes to animal welfare'. You assumed animal welfare scientists know animal welfare better than the public. Philosophically speaking, this is not necessary the case.
*If I write this article, I would put 'animal welfare science' as an subset of 'animal welfarism'. but I am okay with the arrangement of the current article.[[Special:Contributions/124.168.24.5|124.168.24.5]] ([[User talk:124.168.24.5|talk]]) 00:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


I have just modified 2 external links on [[Animal welfare]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=789243954 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::Please be careful about suggesting other editors are including "false information".
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.humanities.uci.edu/collective/hctr/trans-scripts/2013/2013_03_10.pdf
::*The reference of the book being used as the source for this "attitudes" approach is "Francione, Gary Lawrence (1996). Rain without thunder: the ideology of the animal RIGHTS movement." (my capitalisation) I freely admitted I have not read the book, but I have assumed the title is an accurate description of the information the book contains or the arguements it develops.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001083518/http://www.animalrightshistory.org/animal-rights-law/renaissance-legislation/1635-ireland-act-horses-sheep.htm to http://animalrightshistory.org/animal-rights-law/renaissance-legislation/1635-ireland-act-horses-sheep.htm
::*Just because other editors might have made mistakes in their edits does not mean these should be repeated. Please see [[WP:links]].
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://eurogroupforanimals.org/what-we-do/category/eu-animal-welfare/list-of-eu-laws-on-animal-welfare
::*Just because content has been in an article for a long time does not make it correct or appropriate to include. Articles on Wikipedia evolve. Some aspects of an article may be considered appropriate until an editor/s discuss this and concensus is reached that it is not.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521023231/http://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/LPASearch/faces/CustomerSearch.jspx to http://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/LPASearch/faces/CustomerSearch.jspx
::*If I have an attitude about something, it does not mean I am measuring it or even understanding it. If I was to show people a picture of a chimpanzee "smiling", what does their attitude to that image tell you about the chimp's welfare? Some might say that a smiling chimpanzee is a happy chimpanzee - the attitude approach. However, biologists know that chimpanzees "smile" when they are in fear - the animal welfare approach.
::*This article already has a section on definitions. Please add a definition of this attitudes approach to animal welfare.__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 14:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
==Attitude is the overall definition==
DrChrissy
*I was talking about a different reference to attitudes ([http://earthapril.goodeasy.info/research/AnimalWelfareIndexAnimalRightsIndex/ Origins of Attitudes towards Animals]) from the article. It was cited by my link. But you removed it unfortunately. In 'Rain without thunder', welfare and rights are both described as attitude. Francione’s main point was those SO-CALLED RIGHTS movements are actually welfare movements. We have at least two references to the definition of welfarism.
*You are hijacking [[WP:links]], it clear shows section links are legitimate. It has an example for it: 'To link to a section of the same article ... write:...' . See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Link#Section_linking_.28anchors.29
*Your example of public opinions to smiling chimpanzee is not supported by scientific evidence (surveys) as far as I am aware. Though, it is a good attempt to make public look ignorant. If you have reference, please provide it. Scientific evidence ([http://earthapril.goodeasy.info/research/AnimalWelfareIndexAnimalRightsIndex/ JM Welfare Index]) demonstrated public opinion of good welfare is nothing like a smiling chimpanzee. People care if nonhuman animals are kept as pet (good welfare), if they get rest, if they endure pain during slaughtering and so on so forth. Humans are animals. We can empathize with animals naturally; the public have a sensible idea of good welfare.
*’ Please add a definition of this attitudes approach to animal welfare’ I think other editors will be in a better position of adding it. Because I do not think it is an alternative definition. I already expressed my view. I think attitudes approach is the ONLY approach. Welfare science is a scientific discipline within the framework of welfare attitude.
[[Special:Contributions/124.149.65.96|124.149.65.96]] ([[User talk:124.149.65.96|talk]]) 23:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::This Talk section is entitled "Attitude is the overall definition". If this is the case, a definition MUST be stated so that other editors and myself can discuss this and reach consensus on what is appropriate for the article and what is not.__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 14:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
===The definition===
My basic idea of the unified definition:


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Animal welfare is the perceived well being of nonhuman animals under the management of humans. It is defined numerically by JM Welfare Index. Examples of good welfare include (in decreased order of relevance), pet keeping, allowing rest, avoiding pain during slaughtering, having access to food and water, not being slaughtered at young age. Animal welfare science is a scientific discipline of animal welfare. Active areas of research are the relationship between animal welfare and longevity, disease, immunosuppression, behavior, physiology, reproduction.
[[Special:Contributions/124.168.45.245|124.168.45.245]] ([[User talk:124.168.45.245|talk]]) 22:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
::I have several questions about this definition. First, it excludes wild animals. Does this mean that wild animals do not experience good or poor welfare? Second, I know of plenty of examples where pets are kept in conditions that are cruel, so how can "pet-keeping" necessarily be good welfare. Third, why is welfare improved by slaughtering at an old age? An animal may have a terrible life and slaughter at an early age may be seen as the most ethically justifiable action.
::Please remember that if this definition is to remain in the article, it must be sourced. It can not be simply your "basic idea". A quotation would be the best.__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 22:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*I knew people may have concern about 'under management of human'. This part is for distinguishing welfare attitudes from rights. Welfare of wildlife is actually under the assumption that humans have control over wildlife. In animal rights perspective, human should respect the autonomy of wildlife, let the animals live or die without interference. The part can be rephrased to 'animal welfare assumes human's stewardship/domination of animals'.
*Of course it is sourced. All from current article's references. Primarily from the two sources of attitude approach.
*The examples are GENERAL ideas of the public gathered by JM Welfare Index. You can check the equation of the index, the examples are all major predictors of the equations. There are always exceptions for any issue. Just like the case in the animal rights debates about animal experimentation, zoo etc. A meat animal can have totally happy life and die from natural death. We have to do some generalization here. Otherwise it's too complicate to talk about any issues. The point is, public think its generally okay in terms of welfare to kill animals for humans (such as for meat) when the animals are older, but not okay when they are young (for example veal).
[[Special:Contributions/124.168.45.245|124.168.45.245]] ([[User talk:124.168.45.245|talk]]) 23:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, but I really do not follow the logic of this arguement. Animal welfare is about what the animal is experiencing. We may have attitudes about the animal's welfare state, but this is not a measure of welfare per se, it is a measure of our attitude, which may or may not be correct depending on our understanding. For example, how many people know that meat chickens are slaughtered at approx 6 weeks of age. I would imagine more than 90% of the public do NOT know this, but their attitude is to accept slaughter of chickens but reject slaughter of veal calves.__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 23:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Hi,
I think you did not fully understand different uses of JM Welfare index. The index have at least two very different functions.


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 07:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
*Usage 1, define animal welfare by reading the co-efficiencies and factors of the formula.
*Usage 2, measure individual attitude, a user input and calculation are required for this use.


==Edits warranted==
Right now the article features primarily usage 2, the measurement you are talking about. The definition I suggested is based on usage 1, nothing to do with measurement. No user input and calculation is required.


All the edits that were made were, I feel, warranted. I will deal will each in turn:
The index is self-explanatory about animal welfare.


1. "Respect" rather than "concern": Obviously, violence towards animals can itself show "concern" for their welfare". Ernest Hemingway in Death in the Afternoon says that the death of a horse in a [[bullfight]] is not moving because it is comic. He is blind to his own self-contradiction in this regard! How can it be "not moving" if it is "comic"? What [[Hemingway]] (and all other animal abusers) really have against their opponents is not that they love animals too much but that they refuse to hate them.
It is not possible to go through all the mathematical detail of the reference here. But I will try to make things easier. Usage 1 of JM Welfare index summarized the collective knowledge of welfare of the public (not limited to a few scientist). According to the mathematical models generated by algorithms, pet keeping was number one factor of welfare. The results is intuitive: the first picture of this article, selected by a human editor of Wikipedia, is a young (correspondents to the age factor in the index) puppy (correspondents to the pet keeping factor in the index) eats (correspondents to the food and water factor in the index) .


2. "The most widely held position in the Western World is a mid-way utilitarian point-of-view; the position that it is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals, provided that adverse effects on animal welfare are minimized as much as possible" (deleted): This is not really the case, rightly or wrongly. Slaughtering animals for meat (like the killing of the fatted calf in the Bible story) often does not involve any higher good than mere convenience. Moreover, practices like whipping horses during a race involve pain for entertainment (though not, I would contend, pain AS entertainment, as in [[bullfighting]], itself defended by many in [[Spain]] and [[France]] and others elsewhere in the [[Western world]]). Ultimately, this issue comes down to specific views on specific issues, though it certainly helps to have the right principles.
Imagine this: the public (as one collective person) is asked this question: what come up to you mind when you are asked about 'what is animal welfare'. First answer the public provide is 'keeping pets'. The next answer is 'allowing rest' ... those answers give a definition of welfare. This is essentially what the index demonstrated.


3. "Animal welfare was a concern of some ancient civilizations but began to take a larger place in [[Western culture|Western]] public policy in 19th-century [[Great Britain]]. In the 21st century, it is a significant focus of interest in science, ethics, and animal welfare organizations." (deleted by me): Again, this is not really the case, rightly or wrongly. [[Christian]] societies in the past did not really distinguish themselves in [[cruelty to animals]] from [[Hindu]] and [[Buddhist]] societies. Westerns had [[bullfighting]] and [[bear-baiting]]; even today there is [[cockfighting]] to the death in [[Hindu]] Bali and [[Buddhist]] Vietnam.
*'but their attitude is to accept slaughter of chickens but reject slaughter of veal'
Moreover, in terms of suffering, there is MORE, not LESS, [[cruelty to animals]] in the Western world today. There were no [[factory farms]] in medieval Europe. I have heard it argued that medievals would torture animals thus if they knew it were economically viable. This is impossible to prove or disprove, but it is irrelevant. The facts remain as they are; modern Westerns perpetrate more animal abuse than their more religious ancestors.
Finally, I may note what I have said above, animal abuse itself shows concern for the welfare of animals. People who support factory farming and vivisection DO care about animals, they care about them as mere commodities (mere sources of food or mere tools) instead of as living creatures with [[intrinsic value]] and thus hate them no less than [[bullfighting]] enthusiasts.


4. "the welfare approach has had human morality and humane behaviour as its central concerns" (replaced by me): This is a distinction without a difference. Everyone, however he believes humans should treat animals, has "human morality and humane behaviour" as his central concern by definition. [[PETA]] does not spend much time preventing lions from eating deer! Perhaps the [[indirect duty]] theory of [[Aquinas]] and [[Kant]] has practical applications, but that is here irrelevant.
1)You need provide reference (survey results) to support this assumption, it may not be the case.


5. (replaced [[Descartes]] with [[Augustine of Hippo]] as an opponent): Here is Descartes on this issue: "[My] view is not so much cruel to beasts but respectful to human beings".
2)Public accept some issue (such as slaughter of chicken) because they do not have access to the information is not really 'accept'. Not being informed makes people not liable for many legal issues. This kinds of 'accept' also can be easily changed by publicity campaign.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/108/Descartes_versus_Cudworth_On_The_Moral_Worth_of_Animals
Thus he recognized duties to animals in principle!


[[Augustine of Hippo]] did not.
3)The age factor IS less relevant to welfare compare with pet keeping, allowing rest etc., the co-efficiency of the age factor is the smallest. Therefore it was listed at the last.


In conclusion, my edits were not vandalism, and in my opinion were appropriate.
4)I already said, it is a generalization. Please read the methodology of the study. When people were surveyed, they were not asked specifically about an animal species, the opinions gathered were not limited to a specific species.


I welcome any response from anyone on this matter.
5)the reference book (OAA) did conclude that genetic similarity to humans are a major factor of human attitudes to animals (welfare). In general we like mammal (cow) more than birds (chicken), it could explain your assumption.


-[[Special:Contributions/70.190.102.49|70.190.102.49]] ([[User talk:70.190.102.49|talk]]) 18:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
6)Some part of the index may not make sense to some people, that is normal. We call it probability. The point is, the index make sense to most people at most of the time. Because it is based on the 'average opinions' of the public. The very different research methods ensure the reliability of the definition.
[[Special:Contributions/124.149.119.26|124.149.119.26]] ([[User talk:124.149.119.26|talk]]) 06:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


This is why I am reverting the edits of [[User:Epipelagic]](all of which are unsourced):
==Disorganized structure not represent main stream view==
The logic/structure of the article is a mess. Headings do not exclusively describe the content. Sections overlap. For example
*two definitions are tangled together and popup randomly
*The heading 'principles, practice' are not ideal. Many other parts of the article are about 'principles' and 'practice'.
*Five freedoms are used as definitions of animal welfare by many organizations and animal welfare scientists (search keywords 'five freedoms animal welfare' in Google). It should be described in 'definition'.


I know that some of what I say here may sound POV, but that may be inevitable given the subject matter.
Here is a better structure
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=577153188&oldid=577113869
But DrChrissy reverted it completely without full explain (please read [[WP:OWN]]). The reason given was minority view.


On the issue of the ethical treatment of animals, we must distinguish between reason and rationalization, if we seek to understand ourselves and others, among other things.
The structure is NOT a minority view. In contrast, it is a main stream view. Five freedoms are used as definitions of animal welfare by many animal welfare scientists. It overlaps the definition of JM Welfare Index on many aspects. In fact, JM Welfare index is a scientific advancement of five freedoms. This kind of approach is popular. But the article fails to present it.


He writes: "One view, dating back centuries, asserts that animals are not consciously aware and hence are unable to experience poor (or good) welfare. This once-dominant argument is at odds..."
==Problem of claiming psychological well-being==
In the first sentence 'psychological well-being of' is mentioned. This violates NPOV. Some people unsure about the existence of animal consciousness and mind.
[[Special:Contributions/124.168.46.184|124.168.46.184]] ([[User talk:124.168.46.184|talk]]) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
==Real majority view is public opinion==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=577153188&oldid=577113869 The logic of DrChrissy is self-contradicting]. If she really take majority view seriously, the article should primarily based on the public opinions (like the results of Dr Meng's international survey).


What evidence is there for the claim that this view was "once-dominant", in the West or anywhere else? In medieval animal trials animals often suffered painful deaths after being convicted of crimes, can anyone believe that this was because the societies believed animals could not suffer pain and did not experience life? Did they give them trials (however unjust in practice) because they believed humans had no duties to them? Could their behavior be explained thus?
Most recent efforts of DrChrissy on the article (see editing history), however, are downplaying/removing public views. Animal welfare scientists (include those mentioned on this article) are the real minority. They are heavily out numbered by the public. [[Special:Contributions/124.170.216.233|124.170.216.233]] ([[User talk:124.170.216.233|talk]]) 05:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


The citations provided do not support this claim, and in fact the latter citation supports the opposite claim, that people have always known instinctively that animals could feel pain and suffer.
::Public opinion used to be that the earth was flat.__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 13:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:::*That argument does not say anything. Scientists used to think the earth was flat TOO. Scientists also thought animals cannot feel pain (see [[pain in animals]]). Some scientists still denies animal can think and feel today. Animal can feel pain is a common sense for people who have normal intelligence and emotion (exclude psychopathic individuals who cannot empathize with other creatures). Scientists always make mistakes. In fact the history of science is the history of correcting the mistakes of scientists.
:::*DrChrissy is dragging down the scientific quality of Wikipedia for her inadequate ability of math. Cutting edge science in many disciplines have entered the age of large amount of data and collective wisdom. [[Human Genome Project]] and Wikipedia are both good examples. DrChrissy rejects this kind of edits. The research methods she likes rely on the (qualitative) opinions of individual scholars. They are dated, and have poor scientific value.
[[Special:Contributions/124.149.163.237|124.149.163.237]] ([[User talk:124.149.163.237|talk]]) 21:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:Your comments are now becoming personal and offensive. I will consider what further action to take. Just to put the record straight. First, I am male - public opinion and scientists would agree on that so your opinion is a minority opinion and is incorrect. Second, I am not sure why you believe I have "inadequate ability of math". I have not made any comment on the mathematics of the indices because you have stated it is too detailed to place on this page. I have been teaching statistics at University level for 25 years. I think when you talk about "large amount of data..." you are referring to methods such as [[meta-analysis]], [[logistic regression]], [[factor analysis]], etc. I have taught these statistical methods for years and have used them in many international peer-reviewed papers. Where have I rejected such edits?
:Why do you use multiple IP addresses and not sign-in as a registered user with a Talk page? __[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 15:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


Why not just acknowledge that some thinkers (like Augustine of Hippo) rejected duties to animals in principle, without necessarily denying that they could suffer? This is sourced later in the article.
== Disruptive edits reported ==


He writes: "Laws punishing cruelty to animals tend to not just be based on welfare concerns but the belief that such behavior has repercussions toward the treatment of other humans by the animal abusers. Another argument against animal cruelty is based on aesthetics."
To the editor/s involved in the disruptive editing above, including personal attacks upon myself and on the [[Animal welfare]] article: Please be advised this matter has been reported to the administrators notceboard and incidents page. I would have contacted you directly on your Talk page, but all I can see are IP addresses.__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 17:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


There is no citation for either claim, and no evidence provided for the former in any legislative history. I must say that the former claim, if made, strikes me as a rationalization rather than a reason. Of course no one would advocate punishing people for eating Waffle Crisp if it could be proved by studies that people who ate Waffle Crisp were more likely to be murderers! The real reason they want animal abuse as they define it punished is because of the animals-no other reason.
== DrChrissy's ownership of the article and disruptive/deceptive edits==
* Comments of DrChrissy were offensive from the start. He lied about the facts to new editor and even hijacked Wikipedia policy (see [[#welfare is attitude | welfare is attitude]] section). Those response he received are not personal attack. They are factual descriptions about his misconduct. The description is supported by editing history.


He finally writes: "Interest in animal welfare continues to grow, with increasing attention being paid to it by the media, governmental and non-governmental organizations."
* I'd like to draw attention to the [[WP:OWN]] and disruptive editing of DrChrissy. He repeatedly remove sourced inputs from other editors while injected original research, or minority views into the article. Detail can be found in the recent editing history of the article.


As I have said before, it is obviously idle to speak of compassion for animals as "interest in animal welfare". Obviously, violence towards animals can show concern for their welfare. If I may given an example, let me quote Hemingway from Death in the Afternoon:
* DrChrissy is discriminatory to the public, he demonstrated this kind of attitudes in multiple place. What is the public? The public is consisted of mathematicians, physicists, geologists, computer scientists, medical doctors, lawyers ...and behavioural scientists.


"The question of why the death of the horse in the bull ring is not moving...is complicated; but the fundamental reason may be that the death of the horse tends to be comic while that of the bull is tragic."
*No, I did not mean those methods DrChrissy mentioned; those look basic for me.


https://books.google.com/books?id=AdFQAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT10&dq=hemingway+death+horse+not+moving+comic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwich7vVlcbXAhUHilQKHeBGAbUQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q=hemingway%20death%20horse%20not%20moving%20comic&f=false
*I am not really concerned with the self-reported bio of DrChrissy. He made many edits in [[deception in animals]]. He must know a lot about the topic. His overall editing history on Wikipedia demonstrates his ability/understanding in math/science.


Does it seem to anyone else that Hemingway is sanctimonious and self-contradictory? How can the death of the horse be "not moving" if it is also "comic"?
==Welfare is attitude, more references==
* New references were added to the first paragraph, they further support that the view of DrChrissy is truly minority. Both references from many important animal welfare scientists show animal welfare is generally used to describe an attitude.


Does he not show an "interest in animal welfare" here?
:*1) Number one ranking book of animal welfare in Google book, contributed by many animal welfare scientists (search keyword animal welfare in book.google.com). [http://books.google.com.au/books?id=TMR0Ea3d1KEC&lpg=PP1&dq=animal%20welfare&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=animal%20welfare&f=false Linda J. Keeling, Jeff Rushen and Ian Duncan. Understanding animal welfare. Animal Welfare. 2011 Page 13. edited by Michael C. Appleby, Barry O. Hughes, Joy A. Mench]


He writes on the same page: "The almost professional lovers of dogs, and other beasts, are capable of greater cruelty to human beings than those who do not identify themselves readily with animals."
:*2) Article from chief editor of 'encyclopaedia of animal welfare and animal rights' [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/200909/animal-emotions-animal-sentience-animal-welfare-and-animal-rights Animal Emotions, Animal Sentience, Animal Welfare, and Animal Rights. Marc Bekoff]


Isn't his real beef with bullfighting opponents not that they "love" bulls and horses in an "almost professional" manner but rather that they refuse to join him in hating them?
Both sources disagree to the opinion of DrChrissy. His view is minority. And his statements are short of reference as usual.


-[[Special:Contributions/70.190.102.49|70.190.102.49]] ([[User talk:70.190.102.49|talk]]) 20:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
== Animal Welfarism ==


== Animal welfare certifications and products ==
I'm not convinced that the "definition" of animal welfarism is correct. It strikes me as being more a definition of utilitarianism. I would have thought that animal welfarism was showing concern for animal welfare. This would be influenced by people's attitudes toward the various issues. Some may show welfarism with regard only to slaughter methods, others may show welfarism to the entire process of farm animal production. So, I think this definition needs tweaking. Any comments?_[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 18:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::DrChrissy [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=577619271&oldid=577543654 removed] multiple [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_welfare#Welfare_is_attitude.2C_more_references leading] sources without explain. The excuse she gave here , "I'm not convinced", is lame.
::It is not a role of Wikipedia editors to question the established reliable sources, see [[WP:OR]],[[WP:OWN]],[[WP:CI]]. She can disagree with the content. But reference must be provide to support her argument.[[Special:Contributions/124.170.221.179|124.170.221.179]] ([[User talk:124.170.221.179|talk]]) 21:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
:::<s>[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] reverted an edit which both ''added'' and ''removed'' sources.</s> His [[WP:RS|questioning of the <s>reliability</s> appropriate use of sources]] is well within policy, which means at this point it's time to stop the [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]] and discuss both the sources and phrasing. Discussion of [[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]]'s editing are to be done ''elsewhere''. This is where we discuss how to improve the article. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Many things you said were UNTRUE.
::::*1)DrChrissy's edit was not a revert.
::::*2)'both added and removed sources' What sources were removed by other editors? Can you provide evidence? The only person I knew who is removing sources recently is DrChrissy
::::*3)she was not questioning the reliability of the source, she was questioning the content of the source. You policy of reliability is irrelevant.
::::*4)'to be done elsewhere'. Where?
::::*5)She owns the article, and she has been insert original research into the article multiple times. Correct her mistakes and report her misconducts (such as [[monopoly]]) is the first step towards improvement.
[[Special:Contributions/124.170.221.179|124.170.221.179]] ([[User talk:124.170.221.179|talk]]) 22:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::My apologies, I was hasty in my view of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=577619271&oldid=577543654 this partial revert of a number of edits] and believed he was both deleting sourced content and adding other sourced content back. I also let my fingers do the thinking when linking to [[WP:RS]] and typed "reliability of sources" when I should have written "overall use of reliable sources", for example, his comments on [[WP:RS/AC|academic consensus]] and sources which may be more appropriate for other sources. (I have stricken and clarified my comments above.) Sourced content can absolutely be removed if it's not appropriate for ''this'' article or if the source is unreliable, although it appears that he is trying to incorporate the material.
:::::Again, as for [[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]]'s editing, we have a variety of [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards]] to get outside opinions and/or develop consensus if you feel it's necessary. First and foremost, you'll want to discuss it with him first, either on his or your User Talk page. To that end, you'll probably find it easier to communicate with others (and let others communicate with you) if you [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|create an account]]. I hope this helps. Cheers! [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 23:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::*'Sourced content can absolutely be removed if it's not appropriate for this article or if the source is unreliable', have you researched into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_welfare#Welfare_is_attitude.2C_more_references what source she removed]? Can you provide specific reason to justify her [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=577619271&oldid=577543654 removal of international leading sources]?
::::::*'it appears that he is trying to incorporate the material' Can you provide evidence? I cannot see it.
[[Special:Contributions/124.170.221.179|124.170.221.179]] ([[User talk:124.170.221.179|talk]]) 00:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I personally haven't read any of the references and have no opinion on the reputation or reliability of the sources. But I know about our policies and I can recognize a content dispute, and one that will end very poorly. [[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] has reverted some of your edits, true, but there are other edits he hasn't reverted and has instead worked into the article. Everyone's time would be better served if you could suggest sources and/or phrasing to include in the article, and work to gain consensus for those edits.
:::::::I should also mention that DrChrissy has self-identified as male on this very Talk page, which makes it appear that you are deliberately ignoring others' comments. I'm trying to [[WP:AGF|AGF]] here, so please take a step back, reread what others have read, and try to build consensus. Cheers! [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 02:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Hi, thanks for the response.
:::* I use SHE mainly because Chrissy appears to be a female name, SHE was used from the beginning. I don't want to confuse newly arrived editors, it's better to keep the consistency for others convenience. Many people don't read everything.
:::*All I tried to do is recover the international leading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_welfare#Welfare_is_attitude.2C_more_references sources] I added, now you ask me suggest sources. Did you deliberately ignore what I said?
:::*There are more problem of this article. The structure and overall definitions are both problematic.
:::*Anyone can easily verify the reputation and reliability of my sources, just Google it, I thought it is a basic research skill. It is not constructive if someone does not try to verify my sources and the same time rejects them. If anyone is not good at doing research. I can provide more straight forward links or more sources. But I feel there is no point to do it, since my old [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_welfare#Welfare_is_attitude.2C_more_references sources] was not looked into yet.
:::*I can appreciate your AGF and attempts of mediating.
[[Special:Contributions/58.6.46.251|58.6.46.251]] ([[User talk:58.6.46.251|talk]]) 03:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


I believe this article would benefit from a section about the various types of consumer products (dairy, eggs, meat...) that are produced under animal welfare standards, and the certifications that exist to distinguish them in the markets. --[[User:Savig|Savig]] ([[User talk:Savig|talk]]) 22:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
==Undue weight of definitions, unexplained removals of DrChrissy ==
:If you can find notable and verifiable information about these certifications (what they say they guarantee, what they've been shown to guarantee, who funds them, etc), feel free to add a section on them. I think that would be really interesting. [[User:RockingGeo|RockingGeo]] ([[User talk:RockingGeo|talk]]) 20:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&oldid=577759745#Approaches_and_definitions Approaches and definitions] has undue weight. Any one with proper science/math knowledge should know quantitative methods, for example [[Yew-Kwang Ng]]'s definition (simple math) and the JM Welfare Index (more complicated math), should be given more weight.
*Yew-Kwang Ng's definition does not belong to feeling, apparently, grouping him with Ian Duncan and Marian Dawkins is a mistake. His method is similar to Broom. They both mention the interaction with the environment.
*DrChrissy [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=577725322&oldid=577721942 removed] the quantitative definition of animal rights without explain
*DrChrissy [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=577623325&oldid=577620787 removed] criticism to Donald Broom from John Webster without explain
*DrChrissy also added a section 'new welfarism' without any citation.
[[Special:Contributions/124.170.221.179|124.170.221.179]] ([[User talk:124.170.221.179|talk]]) 22:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::Whether some definitions have been given appropriate weightings is a matter of opinion. I have edited with my own opinion knowing the subject area of animal welfare. The article is, of course, open to other editors to change based on their own opinion. I have asked you previously to discuss the mathematics involved in the JM indices and you declined to answer the question saying that my understanding of statistical analysis was "basic".
::Yew-Kwang Ng's definition is (appropriately) a complex one. It could actually be placed in one of several approaches/definitions. I felt it was best placed where it is, but it could easily be placed in others if other editors see this as appropriate.
:I removed the definition of animal rights because this article is on animal welfare, not animal rights.
:I removed the criticism of Broom because this distracted from the article. All these approaches/definitions have been criticised and it was my editorial opinion that this criticism was simply not required. Other editors might feel differently.
:I added the section on New Welfarism originally with a citation, however, Wikipedia blacklisted the source and would not allow it. I felt the information was useful enough to retain, so it was me that added {{citation needed}} to remind me or other aditors that an appropriate citation is needed. I (or others) will provide this in time.
:_[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 15:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


== Targeted adoptions ==
:::Many things DrChrissy said are UNTRUE as usual.
Some adopters want (a) targeted adoptions (type of animals, species of animal, characteristics of animal, need of animal (e.g. rescue), etc. and (b) well-developed decisionmaking tools about (consumer, marketplace) decisions (they have pending, or which they are considering).
:::*'I have asked you previously to discuss the mathematics involved in the JM indices and you declined to answer the question saying... '
:::This is not what happened. DrChrissy is manipulating the facts,
:::She did not asked to discuss and I did not decline. Can she provide evidence from editing history to support her false claim?
:::The reference book of JM Welfare Index is about 400 pages (lots of information), it can be accessed free from many universities. Anyone who is interested can go to read the original work. I have access to the book. I do not mind to answer some questions of the book, if I have time.
:::*'this article is on animal welfare, not animal rights'. If this is the real reason, you have a constructive option of move the content to other relevant pages. Simply delete and remove is [[WP:OWN]].
:::*'the article is, of course, open to other editors to change'. It is not 'open', it is semi-protected. Only certain people can edit it.
:::*DrChrissy claims her source was blacklisted. Can DrChrissy tell us what source she intended to cite for new welfarism? Maybe I can help with it. For example asking the ban to be lifted or finding alternatives.
:::*Including criticism in the article is essential for NPOV. If there is criticism for others definitions, it should be added too.
:::*[[Special:Contributions/124.170.212.79|124.170.212.79]] ([[User talk:124.170.212.79|talk]]) 23:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


For instance, November is "National Adopt A Senior Pet Month!"<ref>[https://dogtime.com/trending/18712-november-is-national-adopt-a-senior-pet-month Spread The Word: November Is National Adopt A Senior Pet Month! DogTime. Accessed 11/09/2021]</ref><ref>[https://nationaltoday.com/national-adopt-a-senior-pet-month/ National Adopt A Senior Pet Month – November 2021. U.S. National Today. Accessed 11/09/2021]</ref><ref>[https://getyourpet.com/november-national-adopt-senior-pet-month/ Marcus A. November is National Adopt a Senior Pet Month! Angela's Thoughts. Get Your Pet. Accessed 11/09/2021]</ref><ref>[https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2021/11/05/guest-column-november-adopt-senior-pet-month/6241393001/ Deisler D. Guest column: November is 'Adopt a Senior Pet' month. Jacksonville.com. The Florida Times-Union. 11/05/2021. Accessed 11/09/2021]</ref><ref>[https://www.wyomingnewsnow.tv/2021/11/03/november-is-national-adopt-senior-pet-month/ Roedder H. November is National Adopt a Senior Pet Month. Wyoming News Now. Nov. 3, 2021 at 6:26 PM EDT. Accessed 11/09/2021]</ref><ref>[https://shallowfordvet.com/november-is-national-adopt-a-senior-pet-month/ November is National Adopt a Senior Pet Month. Shallowford Animal Hospital. Accessed 11/09/2021]</ref><ref>[https://www.petfinder.com/adopt-a-senior-pet-month/ Adopting Senior Pets. PetFinder.com. Accessed 11/09/2021]</ref><ref>[https://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/free-senior-pet-adoptions-during-november-at-arizona-humane-society abc15.com staff. FREE senior pet adoptions during November at Arizona Humane Society. Phoenix Metro News. Nov 09, 2021. 5:04 AM, and last updated 9:55 AM, Nov 09, 2021. Accessed 11/09/2021]</ref><ref>[https://www.abc57.com/news/adopt-a-senior-pet-month-is-here Bonham J. Adopt a Senior Pet Month, is here! Nov 7, 2021 3:24 PM EST. Accessed 11/09/2021]</ref> (for which there is no article, nor a mention in the [[November]] article, nor even an article about [[senior pets]], as there are not articles about short-haired hypoallergenic animals (often dogs, as Bo Obama, adopted by the First Family in 2010?). Can a brief section be developed for 'targeted adoptions' (whatever editors decide that section and topic should be labeled)?? For instance, when one chooses a cat over a dog because they don't need to be walked during the day, or a dog over a cat because they show more affection, or a caged bird over a free-roaming animal because they are more management, many issues emerge (and more are hidden): what about the 'rights' of the caged animal or the housed animal (and are those 'inherent rights' acknowledged and served (e.g. dog walking, letting out the dogs for a run and a poop, etc.) - or why any kind of animal (for 'company'?). Perhaps the WikiProject Pets should be better developed. [[User:MaynardClark|MaynardClark]] ([[User talk:MaynardClark|talk]]) 19:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
==How does DrChrissy own the article? She added Duncan's old opinion but remove his new opinion==
{{reflist-talk}}
*DrChrissy added a definition from Duncan(1996) earlier, [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=564563117&oldid=563487380 this was her edit].
*She introduced original research in the edit above by claiming Ian Duncan and Marian Dawkins are 'perhaps most notable'. I do aware of the work of Ian Duncan, but no source provided to establish 'most notable'. I searched Marian Dawkins's book in in Google book: https://www.google.com/search?q=animal+welfare&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 it ranks about 74 for keywords animal welfare. Many authors rank before her, many were not even mentioned in the article. The highlight is disproportional to the academic contribution. But at least this edit show DrChrissy think Duncan is a good source.
*Now DrChrissy [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=577619271&oldid=577543654 removed] Duncan's recent definition from a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_welfare#Welfare_is_attitude.2C_more_references top ranking book] without any explain. The reason is obvious, Duncan's new definition agrees to my position, that animal welfare in general is attitudes. DrChrissy does not concern about NPOV, she just wants to [[WP:OWN]] the article.[[Special:Contributions/124.170.212.79|124.170.212.79]] ([[User talk:124.170.212.79|talk]]) 02:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


==Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Writing Science==
==new welfarism OR==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Minnesota_Duluth/Advanced_Writing_Science_(Fall_2022) | assignments = [[User:MissSt.Bernard|MissSt.Bernard]] | reviewers = [[User:Cedarwaxwing25|Cedarwaxwing25]] | start_date = 2022-08-29 | end_date = 2022-12-16 }}
[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=578008887&oldid=578008567 this edit] use unreliable source and original research. The added text is not the source's opinion.[[Special:Contributions/124.170.210.201|124.170.210.201]] ([[User talk:124.170.210.201|talk]]) 00:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
===Suggest expansion of scientific content===
I cannot edit the article, so I put my suggestion below. A more comprehensive source using scientific methods.


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Blainethesquirrel|Blainethesquirrel]] ([[User talk:Blainethesquirrel|talk]]) 03:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)</span>
::: The term, new welfarism, was coined and described by [[Gary L. Francione]] in 1996. Dr Jenia Meng validated the prevalence of the attitude and provided quantitative definition in 2009, based on the [[factor analysis]] of an 4500 questionnaires from 12 nations.
::: She found New welfarism explains 28% overall variation of human attitudes to animals. The quantitative definition shows new welfarist movement is characterized by large scales of anti-vivisection, anti-hunting, anti-fur and anti-cruelty campaigns of the self-labeled animal rights organizations. The movement do not pursuit the abolishing of the property status of animals (such as pet keeping) of animals.


== Buddhism ==
The reference is the book already cited in the article:


Why no mention of Buddhism or Ashoka in the section on history? [[Special:Contributions/98.36.53.71|98.36.53.71]] ([[User talk:98.36.53.71|talk]]) 23:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Meng, Jenia (2009). Origins of Attitudes Towards Animals'. page 122-123 Ultravisum, Brisbane.
[[Special:Contributions/124.170.194.168|124.170.194.168]] ([[User talk:124.170.194.168|talk]]) 08:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
:{{done}}. Thanks. [[User:Rasnaboy|Rasnaboy]] ([[User talk:Rasnaboy|talk]]) 13:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
::Why are so many recent edits from multiple IPs in this article so insistent on including the work (one piece I believe) of Jenia Meng. Is this a case of [[WP:SELFPUB]]?__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 12:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
::Seems like more early welfare-related events happened in that period. Trying to find reliable sources. Thanks. [[User:Rasnaboy|Rasnaboy]] ([[User talk:Rasnaboy|talk]]) 13:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::*Because it is an important piece of work
::::::*No, if you read ORIGINS OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS ANIMALS, you will see it was a Phd thesis, PhD thesis is peer reviewed. Many contributors of the book are international leading experts on animal welfare (the names can be found in page 16). Very positive reviews of the book from peers can be found [http://earthapril.goodeasy.info/research/publications/Reviews_OriginsOfAttitudesTowardsAnimals_JMeng2009.htm here]. Reviewers include [[Marc Bekoff]] Chief editor of encyclopedia of animal welfare and animal rights , [http://www.hsi.org/about/who_we_are/leadership/senior_executive/andrew_rowan.html Andrew N Rowan] CEO of Humane society international. [[Special:Contributions/124.168.55.44|124.168.55.44]] ([[User talk:124.168.55.44|talk]]) 21:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::What on earth is this--a compilation of emailed blurbs? And how did you get this? Don't you think it's time for a bit of disclosure? [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
{{od}}No, a PhD Thesis is not peer reviewed, at least not in the sense of scientific peer reviewing. A PhD Thesis is in fact a [[WP:SPS]] source and thus either unsuitable for its use as a source or to be used ''very'' carefully. Regards. [[User:Gaba_p|<font color="blue">Gaba</font> ]] <sup><font color="green">[[User talk:Gaba_p|(talk)]]</font></sup> 15:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
::Untrue. You are hijaking wikipedia policy. see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources] text from the policy:
::'Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan or from Proquest. ' [[Special:Contributions/124.149.49.107|124.149.49.107]] ([[User talk:124.149.49.107|talk]]) 21:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Dissertations or theses may be cited. They don't '''''have''''' to be. In practice, they rarely are, unless the work has been cited by multiple independent experts in high-quality peer reviewed journals or university-level textbooks from a publisher with a reputation for quality. The way this place works is with persuasion. If you want to cite a source, you need to convince others here that it is worthy of mention. Our '''''only''''' means of determining that is by looking at its impact on other published work.
:::We don't take well to people who push a work of one scholar into numerous Wikipedia articles. At all. Especially when you haven't provided any links to high quality chapters or journal articles that cite it. (Please create an account - it takes 2 minutes and is a courtesy to others, who can then contact you on your stable "user talk page".) --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Anthonyhcole|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Anthonyhcole|email]]) 09:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
::::*see the new paragraph
::::*I already provide 'high quality chapters or journal articles that cite it' in the link many times: http://earthapril.goodeasy.info/research/publications/Reviews_OriginsOfAttitudesTowardsAnimals_JMeng2009.htm
::::Scroll it to the bottom. There are list of journal articles. How many time I have to say that? Do you deliberately ignore evidence that supports my position?[[Special:Contributions/124.149.122.14|124.149.122.14]] ([[User talk:124.149.122.14|talk]]) 09:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
*Agreed. I do get the impression that the IP(s) is (are) pushing Meng's work--and unfortunately they're doing it in really poorly written edits. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


===[[WP:BIAS]]===
== Animal ethics ==
::You can only find that kind of quantitative information/results from Meng's study. Nobody else did it better. If I find source with better scientific value, I will push it too. In fact, I already suggested multiple good sources from different authors, they are already included in the articles.
::Wikipedia suffers from [[WP:BIAS]] because of the average demographic of the editors. It's unfortunate that some editors care more about superficial formalities, such as how comment is written on the TP, than the scientific quality of the sources and content.
[[Special:Contributions/124.149.49.107|124.149.49.107]] ([[User talk:124.149.49.107|talk]]) 21:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Careful: you are guilty of ageism (or maybe classism, if "demographic" is used metaphorically). This dense language of yours with its many ungrammatical infelicities makes it difficult to decide whether you're calling editors here too young or too old, but if you can't make your argument without insulting anyone, I will block you and as many IPs as you want to use, and I will semi-protect this talk page. If you wish to salvage anything here, you will need to cite reviews and studies published in properly peer-reviewed academic journals that lend (any kind of) credibility to Meng. So far all we have is your word and a bunch of emailed blurbs. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


Disus on animal welfare violation and ethical consediretion regarding animal expermention principle [[Special:Contributions/196.190.61.229|196.190.61.229]] ([[User talk:196.190.61.229|talk]]) 20:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
:::what said above is largely UNTRUE.
:::*Don't put things in the mouths of other editors. Don't be self conscious. As demonstrated in the Wikipedia Polly, [[demographics]] include many factors, such as, religion, nationality, ethnicity etc.
:::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_welfare#Suggest_expansion_of_scientific_content I already provided] reviews (includes journal articles) from peers. I copy it to here again since you can't read. 'Very positive reviews of the book from peers can be found [http://earthapril.goodeasy.info/research/publications/Reviews_OriginsOfAttitudesTowardsAnimals_JMeng2009.htm here]. Reviewers include [[Marc Bekoff]] Chief editor of encyclopedia of animal welfare and animal rights , [http://www.hsi.org/about/who_we_are/leadership/senior_executive/andrew_rowan.html Andrew N Rowan] CEO of Humane society international. ' There are many articles including several journal/book articles that reviewed and cited the work. Go to the bottom of the page.
:::*even DrChrissy, who I have disagreement with, lent credibility to Meng when [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Reply_to_.22A_bit_of_editorial_advice.22 he talked to you on ANI]. BTW reading you discussion (about your plot and how you play politics) is very amusing, I enjoy it.
:::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woodroar#Animal_welfare I told other editor long time ago], I don't really care how you want to control the article. Please semi-protect this talk page too, I am happy about that. Because this desperate action advertise the lack of demography and neutrality of this article. This is one of my major message on this talk page
:::[[Special:Contributions/124.149.122.14|124.149.122.14]] ([[User talk:124.149.122.14|talk]]) 06:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


== Wild and Farmed Animal Welfare ==
==Vandalism on references==
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=578152823&oldid=578008567 these edits] contain vandalism. At lest in two references (of John webster and Jenia Meng) nonsense like XXXX were inserted. [[Special:Contributions/124.170.194.168|124.170.194.168]] ([[User talk:124.170.194.168|talk]]) 08:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/124.170.194.168|124.170.194.168]] ([[User talk:124.170.194.168|talk]]) 08:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
::I have spent a considerable amount of time and effort trying to standardise and make accurate the references in this article to raise its overall standard. Sometimes, previous editors have not provided required information such as the publisher of a book. Where possible, I have researched the information required and included this in the reference. Sometimes I have not been able to do this whilst logged in, so I have placed XXXX as a reminder to myself and other editors that this information should be included if possible. I don't believe I have used XXXX to replace other information, but only missing information. I therefore do not consider it to be vandalism, rather, "work in progress".
::I have been extremely tolerant of the recent personal attacks and uncivil edits from this and other IP's (which appear to be the same editor). These should stop now! I am formally requesting an apology from this editor and an undertaking that future edits will be civil and non-disruptive.
::__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 12:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
:::There is absolutely no vandalism in adding XXXX to unknown info from a source. In any case the ''publisher'' field could just be removed from the reference. I suggest the IP editor puts an end to its [[WP:PA]]s or a block will certainly be the outcome of such behaviour. Regards. [[User:Gaba_p|<font color="blue">Gaba</font> ]] <sup><font color="green">[[User talk:Gaba_p|(talk)]]</font></sup> 15:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


The areas of wild as well as animals used for human consumption or as livestock seems to be a bit lacking. I will work on finding additional resources for these areas and edit accordingly. [[User:KJSMSU07|KJSMSU07]] ([[User talk:KJSMSU07|talk]]) 14:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
{{collapsetop|No edit proposed to article. Take your concerns to AN/I if you wish.}}
===Request apology===
If it is work in progress. It should be tagged, there is Wikipedia tag for it. XXXX is not acceptable. The level of scrutiny DrChrissy received is nothing, Compare with how he has been treating valid contribution of other editor. As documented in this page, people have been extremely tolerant of DrChrissy. he has been
*constant lying
*removing valid contributions of others without explains
*inserting original research advertising minority views
*reporting other editors to admin first though he is the person at fault.
He should provide an apology formally for all the behaviors.
...what goes around comes around...
[[Special:Contributions/124.168.55.44|124.168.55.44]] ([[User talk:124.168.55.44|talk]]) 21:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}
*What a ridiculous charge, that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=578152823&oldid=578008567 this] is vandalism. XXXX as a placeholder isn't great, but sheesh, DrChrissy spent a lot of time templating the references and making, as far as I can tell, good-faith edits to the content. {{U|Gaba_p}}, above, is correct. Having said that, {{U|DrChrissy}} would do well to de-escalate; requests for an apology are no more useful here than they are in the real world--I refer the Dr and the peanut gallery to ''Paradise Lost'' III.102-106. Now, I'm about to plow through the rest of this delicious talk page and the history of the article to see what else is going on. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Request for de-escalation is noted. Thanks. I retract my request for an apology.__[[User:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]] ([[User talk:DrChrissy|talk]]) 15:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Thank you--with due deference to Milton, I suppose. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''To the IP editor''': I left you a note at [[User talk:124.168.55.44]]. Please take it seriously. Log in, start signing your messages, stop making silly claims of vandalism. If you want to be treated as a participant in the discussion, at least provide a means to communicate with you. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


==Wiki Education assignment: Senior Seminar==
==Meng's thesis = hundreds papers==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Southwest_Minnesota_State_University/Senior_Seminar_(Spring_2024) | assignments = [[User:KJSMSU07|KJSMSU07]] | start_date = 2024-01-09 | end_date = 2024-06-10 }}
Drmies complained the Jenia Meng's work appears on many wikipedia articles. She accuse those are spams.
No they all added important information to the articles. The diversity of the articles demonstrate Dr Meng's wild spread contributions (covers many disciplines) to science. It just proved the importance of Meng's work. She established nine math indexes and discovered hundreds correlations. Many journal papers can only report one correlation they discovered. Which means Meng's thesis is equivalent to hundreds journal papers. Because of the large volume of findings, people will see it adds value to many Wikipedia articles[[Special:Contributions/124.149.122.14|124.149.122.14]] ([[User talk:124.149.122.14|talk]]) 09:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
===University ranking===
*Meng's thesis was completed at [[University of Queensland]].
The relevant subject ranking of the university is SEVEN (Agriculture & Forestry) internationally: http://www.topuniversities.com/node/4576/ranking-details/university-subject-rankings/2013
*In contrast, the relevant subject ranking of Oxford University is EIGHT (Natural Science) intentionally. http://www.topuniversities.com/node/2106/ranking-details/world-university-rankings/2013
[[Special:Contributions/124.149.122.14|124.149.122.14]] ([[User talk:124.149.122.14|talk]]) 10:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:KJSMSU07|KJSMSU07]] ([[User talk:KJSMSU07|talk]]) 18:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)</span>
===Citation of Meng's thesis in independent reliable sources===
Above, you pointed me to a list of sources at the bottom of a linked page. If you mean
*Meng et al. (2009) [http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:211347 "Attitudes to animals in Eurasia: The identification of different types of animal protection through an international survey"] Conference presentation.
* Dunlop (2010) [http://www.academia.edu/3349370/Dunlop_C._A._in_progress_Explaining_Issue_Attribution_through_Mechanisms_Bovine_Tuberculosis_and_the_Responsibility_of_Farmers_Badgers_and_the_State_in_England_and_Ireland "Explaining Issue Attribution through Mechanisms: Bovine Tuberculosis and the Responsibility of Farmers, Badgers and the State in England and Ireland"] Conference presentation.
* Tulloch & Phillips (2011) [http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-19297-5_1 "The Ethics of Farming Flightless Birds"] ''Animal Welfare''. Vol. 11, pp. 1-11
* Phillips et al. (2012) [http://www.ufaw.org.uk/documents/phillips.pdf "Students’ attitudes to animal welfare and rights in Europe and Asia."] ''Animal Welfare''. Vol. 21, 87-100.
* Izmirli & Phillips (2011) [http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1913552&show=pdf "The relationship between student consumption of animal products and attitudes to animals in Europe and Asia"] ''British Food Journal''. Vol. 113 Iss: 3, pp.436-450
* Phillips et al. (2011) "An International Comparison of Female and Male Students’ Attitudes to the Use of Animals" ''Animals'' Vol. 1, pp 7-26
I note Phillips is based at Meng's university. I, personally, don't think this indicates sufficient independent recognition of the thesis in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. I'll wait for other opinions. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Anthonyhcole|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Anthonyhcole|email]]) 11:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
===Discrimination===
::[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/200912/animals-in-the-news-brief-summary-the-fascinating-lives-animals-and-peop Marc bekoff](US) and Andrew Rowan (UK) are sufficient independent source. I already provide you their review. How high you want to push the bar? I call what you are doing [[discrimination]][[Special:Contributions/124.149.122.14|124.149.122.14]] ([[User talk:124.149.122.14|talk]]) 11:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:06, 2 April 2024

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 10 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeanne1525.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

too many subsections of definitions

[edit]

I point out this issue in the past multiple times, I think it is still an issue. 124.170.213.246 (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC) The purpose of heading/subsections is to sumarize. Giving each definition/paragraph a section is redundant/unlogical.124.170.223.210 (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and will replace the subheadings with bold text highlighting the distinctive text in each paragraph, unless someone objects, or someone else does it first. Also these subtle distinctions overload the beginning of the article, and I propose to move them farther down the article.
Within the main section of "Animal welfare issues" there was only one subsection, on Farm animals, and there need to be subsections on a variety of issues. I've added a subsection on cetaceans (captive and wild). I hope others add other subsections. Kim9988 (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling subection

[edit]

DrChrissy added Marian Dawkins' link back into the article again. She also move Yew-Kwang Ng's approach into the same category (feeling). I opposed to this kinds of editing.Reasons can be found here, here and here 124.170.213.246 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

[edit]

I have semi-protected the article for a month and rev/del'd 2 edit summaries. If there's more IP disruption here (the personal attacks) let me know please. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Martin

[edit]

'Since 1822, when British MP Richard Martin brought the "Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822" through Parliament'. Martin was not British: he was Irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.185.58 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Good Point! Richard Martin (MP) 124.170.196.77 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd that Richard Martin who introduced an act into parliament in 1822 is a member of the wikipedia community today - however - make the edit and give it robust sources.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
here is the source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Martin_(Irish_politician) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.11.93 (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Animal welfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Animal welfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Animal welfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Animal welfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits warranted

[edit]

All the edits that were made were, I feel, warranted. I will deal will each in turn:

1. "Respect" rather than "concern": Obviously, violence towards animals can itself show "concern" for their welfare". Ernest Hemingway in Death in the Afternoon says that the death of a horse in a bullfight is not moving because it is comic. He is blind to his own self-contradiction in this regard! How can it be "not moving" if it is "comic"? What Hemingway (and all other animal abusers) really have against their opponents is not that they love animals too much but that they refuse to hate them.

2. "The most widely held position in the Western World is a mid-way utilitarian point-of-view; the position that it is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals, provided that adverse effects on animal welfare are minimized as much as possible" (deleted): This is not really the case, rightly or wrongly. Slaughtering animals for meat (like the killing of the fatted calf in the Bible story) often does not involve any higher good than mere convenience. Moreover, practices like whipping horses during a race involve pain for entertainment (though not, I would contend, pain AS entertainment, as in bullfighting, itself defended by many in Spain and France and others elsewhere in the Western world). Ultimately, this issue comes down to specific views on specific issues, though it certainly helps to have the right principles.

3. "Animal welfare was a concern of some ancient civilizations but began to take a larger place in Western public policy in 19th-century Great Britain. In the 21st century, it is a significant focus of interest in science, ethics, and animal welfare organizations." (deleted by me): Again, this is not really the case, rightly or wrongly. Christian societies in the past did not really distinguish themselves in cruelty to animals from Hindu and Buddhist societies. Westerns had bullfighting and bear-baiting; even today there is cockfighting to the death in Hindu Bali and Buddhist Vietnam. Moreover, in terms of suffering, there is MORE, not LESS, cruelty to animals in the Western world today. There were no factory farms in medieval Europe. I have heard it argued that medievals would torture animals thus if they knew it were economically viable. This is impossible to prove or disprove, but it is irrelevant. The facts remain as they are; modern Westerns perpetrate more animal abuse than their more religious ancestors. Finally, I may note what I have said above, animal abuse itself shows concern for the welfare of animals. People who support factory farming and vivisection DO care about animals, they care about them as mere commodities (mere sources of food or mere tools) instead of as living creatures with intrinsic value and thus hate them no less than bullfighting enthusiasts.

4. "the welfare approach has had human morality and humane behaviour as its central concerns" (replaced by me): This is a distinction without a difference. Everyone, however he believes humans should treat animals, has "human morality and humane behaviour" as his central concern by definition. PETA does not spend much time preventing lions from eating deer! Perhaps the indirect duty theory of Aquinas and Kant has practical applications, but that is here irrelevant.

5. (replaced Descartes with Augustine of Hippo as an opponent): Here is Descartes on this issue: "[My] view is not so much cruel to beasts but respectful to human beings". https://philosophynow.org/issues/108/Descartes_versus_Cudworth_On_The_Moral_Worth_of_Animals Thus he recognized duties to animals in principle!

Augustine of Hippo did not.

In conclusion, my edits were not vandalism, and in my opinion were appropriate.

I welcome any response from anyone on this matter.

-70.190.102.49 (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I am reverting the edits of User:Epipelagic(all of which are unsourced):

I know that some of what I say here may sound POV, but that may be inevitable given the subject matter.

On the issue of the ethical treatment of animals, we must distinguish between reason and rationalization, if we seek to understand ourselves and others, among other things.

He writes: "One view, dating back centuries, asserts that animals are not consciously aware and hence are unable to experience poor (or good) welfare. This once-dominant argument is at odds..."

What evidence is there for the claim that this view was "once-dominant", in the West or anywhere else? In medieval animal trials animals often suffered painful deaths after being convicted of crimes, can anyone believe that this was because the societies believed animals could not suffer pain and did not experience life? Did they give them trials (however unjust in practice) because they believed humans had no duties to them? Could their behavior be explained thus?

The citations provided do not support this claim, and in fact the latter citation supports the opposite claim, that people have always known instinctively that animals could feel pain and suffer.

Why not just acknowledge that some thinkers (like Augustine of Hippo) rejected duties to animals in principle, without necessarily denying that they could suffer? This is sourced later in the article.

He writes: "Laws punishing cruelty to animals tend to not just be based on welfare concerns but the belief that such behavior has repercussions toward the treatment of other humans by the animal abusers. Another argument against animal cruelty is based on aesthetics."

There is no citation for either claim, and no evidence provided for the former in any legislative history. I must say that the former claim, if made, strikes me as a rationalization rather than a reason. Of course no one would advocate punishing people for eating Waffle Crisp if it could be proved by studies that people who ate Waffle Crisp were more likely to be murderers! The real reason they want animal abuse as they define it punished is because of the animals-no other reason.

He finally writes: "Interest in animal welfare continues to grow, with increasing attention being paid to it by the media, governmental and non-governmental organizations."

As I have said before, it is obviously idle to speak of compassion for animals as "interest in animal welfare". Obviously, violence towards animals can show concern for their welfare. If I may given an example, let me quote Hemingway from Death in the Afternoon:

"The question of why the death of the horse in the bull ring is not moving...is complicated; but the fundamental reason may be that the death of the horse tends to be comic while that of the bull is tragic."

https://books.google.com/books?id=AdFQAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT10&dq=hemingway+death+horse+not+moving+comic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwich7vVlcbXAhUHilQKHeBGAbUQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q=hemingway%20death%20horse%20not%20moving%20comic&f=false

Does it seem to anyone else that Hemingway is sanctimonious and self-contradictory? How can the death of the horse be "not moving" if it is also "comic"?

Does he not show an "interest in animal welfare" here?

He writes on the same page: "The almost professional lovers of dogs, and other beasts, are capable of greater cruelty to human beings than those who do not identify themselves readily with animals."

Isn't his real beef with bullfighting opponents not that they "love" bulls and horses in an "almost professional" manner but rather that they refuse to join him in hating them?

-70.190.102.49 (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animal welfare certifications and products

[edit]

I believe this article would benefit from a section about the various types of consumer products (dairy, eggs, meat...) that are produced under animal welfare standards, and the certifications that exist to distinguish them in the markets. --Savig (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find notable and verifiable information about these certifications (what they say they guarantee, what they've been shown to guarantee, who funds them, etc), feel free to add a section on them. I think that would be really interesting. RockingGeo (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted adoptions

[edit]

Some adopters want (a) targeted adoptions (type of animals, species of animal, characteristics of animal, need of animal (e.g. rescue), etc. and (b) well-developed decisionmaking tools about (consumer, marketplace) decisions (they have pending, or which they are considering).

For instance, November is "National Adopt A Senior Pet Month!"[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] (for which there is no article, nor a mention in the November article, nor even an article about senior pets, as there are not articles about short-haired hypoallergenic animals (often dogs, as Bo Obama, adopted by the First Family in 2010?). Can a brief section be developed for 'targeted adoptions' (whatever editors decide that section and topic should be labeled)?? For instance, when one chooses a cat over a dog because they don't need to be walked during the day, or a dog over a cat because they show more affection, or a caged bird over a free-roaming animal because they are more management, many issues emerge (and more are hidden): what about the 'rights' of the caged animal or the housed animal (and are those 'inherent rights' acknowledged and served (e.g. dog walking, letting out the dogs for a run and a poop, etc.) - or why any kind of animal (for 'company'?). Perhaps the WikiProject Pets should be better developed. MaynardClark (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Writing Science

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MissSt.Bernard (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Cedarwaxwing25.

— Assignment last updated by Blainethesquirrel (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism

[edit]

Why no mention of Buddhism or Ashoka in the section on history? 98.36.53.71 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like more early welfare-related events happened in that period. Trying to find reliable sources. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Animal ethics

[edit]

Disus on animal welfare violation and ethical consediretion regarding animal expermention principle 196.190.61.229 (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wild and Farmed Animal Welfare

[edit]

The areas of wild as well as animals used for human consumption or as livestock seems to be a bit lacking. I will work on finding additional resources for these areas and edit accordingly. KJSMSU07 (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Senior Seminar

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 10 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KJSMSU07 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by KJSMSU07 (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]