Talk:Holocaust analogy in animal rights

As discussed

Ed, I've created the stub. Good luck! :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, it's still #5 on my to-do list. But thanks for the headstart! --Uncle Ed 19:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, Slim, sorry I didn't get started yet. I was working on Mission of the Messiah which somehow seems related.

I hope when you finish, we can use the nifty {{main}} template to link from PETA to this article; with Animal rights and the Holocaust being a sub-article or "spin-off" from PETA. (If it's neutral, then it's not a fork. Keep saying this, like a mantra. ;-) --Uncle Ed 20:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Singer reference

Should the comparison made by a Singer character in the Letter Writer, as referenced by the PETA article, not be included here too? Crum375 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, also in The Penitent. There's a lot more material to add. I'm planning to work on it over the next few days. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I've already added the Singer quote, not having read this talk page before. Feel free to rewrite it or put it into better context or whatever. —Gabbe 11:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge this and 'Animal rights and antisemitism'

As someone has proposed the 2 be merged, and no-one has discussed it over there, I will ask about it here. Animal rights and antisemitism seems to be the large chunk of text that someone was trying to add to Animal rights a while ago. As it stands, it is entirely biased and therefore POV. I think we should summarise the text further as it seems to be an analysis of one author only, quoting lots of their text. However, it also contains some valid points.

We wouldn't really want to merge it into this article as it would be off topic, but should we merge this article into that one after working on it? What do people think?-Localzuk^(talk) 14:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Note also, that it was created by Farnsworth J, a known Homey sock. It does seem to be a bit of a POV fork to me.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, I see it would be off-topic to add it here. I don't know what to do with it. It's an incredibly silly argument/page that HOTR added only to cause trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 25 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No such user (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Animal rights and the Holocaust → Animal holocaust – The term has become more widely used over the last 20 years or more, not just informally but in academic literature beyond just "animal rights" activism, e.g. in philosophy . Move would create a clearer differentiation of the use of the word for the Shoah, so as to be less offensive. Current title & tone of page is somewhat article like, rather than an encyclopaedic definition.

For the sake of discussion, although I consider the above to be the best option, another alternative might be Holocaust (animals) inline with the other related topics on the disambiguation page.

References

--Iyo-farm (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: inappropriate conflation with the Holocaust. Note that in the first entry listed, "Animal holocaust" is included in scare quotes. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

* Comment No, I've been very clear about this. It is not a conflation of the terms, it is about the evolution & use of the second term &, as is discussed in academia, the difference between small h- and capital H- use (referred to in discussiona as h/Holocaust). The word holocaust (-h) has a far older use relating to animal, than to humans. In fact, it has the original claim on it. --Iyo-farm (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose this would be a substantive change of focus for this article. The proposed title is also clearly making a political implication (that raising animals for human consumption is morally comparable to the Holocaust) that is a fringe viewpoint. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose http://ethicalvegan.net/read/animal-holocaust].
• Oppose: Given that this article documents in some considerable detail just how controversial comparisons between the Nazi Holocaust and the killing of non-human animals have been, it would be a violation of WP:NPOV and thus inappropriate for the article title to make exactly that comparison as an outright assertion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

* Comment The use of the term exists. The portmanteau or neologism, if you wish. It's use is increasing. That in itself is establishing notability. That you or anyone else finds it "inappropriate" or offensive has no value as per WP:OM. Furthermore, through use it is taking on a new meaning, closer to its original meaning, entirely independently from any comparison to the Shoah. The question is, are there sufficient references, of sufficient quality, to support it? And the answer to that is, easily. I could argue the opposite that this article is only establishing & exaggerating any controversiality, & should therefore should be made more neutral.

@ AndyTheGrump. To be quite frank, if anyone should be offended at being compared to burnt animals, it should be the victims of the Shoah (aka "The Holocaust") & their families. That is what I find utterly irrational about your position. That is what you are forcing upon them, & I am attempting to create some more distance between. It was a catastrophe, not an animal sacrifice.

(I'm presuming everyone here knows the accurate definitions of the words) --Iyo-farm (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. The page as it stands is already grossly, offensively non-neutral, the proposed title would make it still more so, and would tend devalue the (very strong) connotations of the word "Holocaust" in relation to the awful events of the Second World War. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If it's to be moved, it should probably be to the round file. Just for the record, I don't eat meat and am in general opposed to the killing of animals for gain; I kill vipers, hornets, rats and other vermin when necessary. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose; and rapid close – Iyo-farm is now under a partial t-ban which will limit their ability to respond here. Probably this RM should be procedurally closed, as there will be nobody arguing in favor, I suspect. If my WP:!vote is needed, it's Oppose, per power~enwiki, et al. Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Response No, I can still respond here. We still haven't got beyond WP:OM and WP:IDONTLIKEIT reactions, no one addressing the actual arguments & references that I've provided to establish its notability.

Although, having said that, I see now that it would be better to split it into two pages; Animal rights and the Holocaust and Animal holocaust to differentiate the two, as that would be supported by adequate references.

Let us remember that the word holocaust does refer to animal slaughter & burnt offerings, & not human beings, therefore if anyone should be offended by the persistent comparison, it should be the human victims of the Shoah, & their families.

Thank you. --Iyo-farm (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Note to closers: Hm, per the letter of the T-ban, Iyo-farm appears to be correct re the t-ban, and apparently is not banned here at this moment. I have no objection to letting it play out, as the outcome seems clear. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support The usage does exist and is increasingly being used in the animal rights movement and by academic scholars. This is reflected in various publications as listed earlier. Comparing an idea with an existing one and naming the new one accordingly is a normal convention that can be seen throughout human history. That's not be be treated as POV. When women oppression was first voiced out a few centuries earlier, male chauvinists called it but a POV of a fringe section of the population and opposed that women rights should not be compared with men's rights. People even mockingly compared women rights with the then-non-existent-and-absurd animal rights. When Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of today's feminists, published her Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792, Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher, mockingly published A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes, claiming women's rights is as absurd as "rights" to "brutes" like dogs, cats, and horses (Singer, P., Animal Liberation, 2009, New York: HarperCollins, p. 1). Thus, these POV, fringe, etc., are just a matter of time. IMO, if we have enough sources supporting the change, the title can be changed. Rasnaboy (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I think this article should be renamed, but in quite a different direction. "Animal Holocaust" does not seem to have particularly widespread usage as a set phrase, and the different sources on this page are not in agreement over whether such a term is even appropriate. A more suitable and specific name for this page would be "Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy", which is what the page is actually about. This is a format used in other places on Wikipedia, such as, for instance (though I hesitate to make the comparison), on: Israel and the apartheid analogy. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Any attempt to dilute the Holocaust, no matter the cause, should always be rejected. Comments saying that the word had previous meanings, or has been used differently fail WP:COMMON. I'd agree that maybe "Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analog" could be considered, but maybe after how this gone as a separate move request. 89.241.33.89 (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. There appears to be non COMMONNAME for this topic, and the proposed title has extreme POV issues by uncritically conflating the Holocaust with this. Similar issues exist within the current title, but to a lesser extent. I also note that the current title fails WP:CRITERIA #1, as it is not clear what it refers to; my initial impression was that it referred to an occurrence during WWII. Given this, I would support a move to "Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy", or even better "Animal cruelty and the genocide analogy". BilledMammal (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 14 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is unanimous support for this move. (non-admin closure) VR _talk 18:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Animal rights and the Holocaust → Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy – The proposed change of this article's name to "Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy" drew a positive reception when posited in a comment in the 25 September move request. I made this suggestion based on the use of analogous formats for other areas of contentious subject matter on Wikipedia. It would also pave the way for restructuring the article in terms of arguments in favour of and against the analogy. Framing the article in these terms would also be more precise and potentially less inflammatory or open to being misconstrued than the present title. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support: This sounds fairly straight and unambiguous. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support – meets the requirements for a non-judgmental descriptive title as described in article title policy. I can support this. Mathglot (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. It would reflect the content much better. Current title is very confusing. Walrasiad (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The current title sounds like it refers to animal rights during the Holocaust. BD2412 T 20:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per all the above. The current title is misleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the above. —AFreshStart (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead image used in article

Hiding content due to the sensitive nature of the topic. The consensus seems to be to remove these images from the lead and to have it blank. As this attracted a lot of attention, editors ought not to introduce images to the lead without discussing them on this talk page first. Thank you. —AFreshStart (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Animal rights advocates have illustrated comparisons between the Holocaust and the treatment of livestock by juxtaposing images of dead pigs with those of holocaust victims. @Koopinator: With regards to the lead image used in this article, do we really have to use the comparison of Buchenwald victims to those of dead pigs? Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, I understand the visual similarities and the fact that these comparisons have been used by some animal rights organisations – as mentioned in the source you cited – but I believe this lead image is gratuitously offensive. The cited source (which, btw, is an opinion piece) calls the comparison "truly despicable... on several levels", likening it to KKK-style hate speech. Likening any dead person to a non-human animal is generally considered bad taste, never mind those who died in a genocide. Plus, the fact that pigs are considered unclean in Jewish dietary law just adds to the offensiveness here. If this image really needs to be included, I would argue that it should be moved further down in the article, a mention in the caption to the fact that likening Jewish Holocaust victims to dead pigs is considered offensive on a number of levels by most people (mentioned in the source Koopinator cited). But even that seems gratuitous to me. Pinging active users who have heavily edited this page, Holocaust victims, or the Animal rights movement pages in order to facilitate a wider discussion: @NMaia:, @Tryptofish:, @Crum375:, @C.J. Griffin:, @Rasnaboy:, @Ozhistory:, @Doczilla:, @Miniapolis:, @DocWatson42:, @Gobonobo:, @Mashaunix:. —AFreshStart (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Edit: Also pinging @AndyTheGrump:, @BD2412:, @Mathglot: and @BilledMammal:, who have also been involved in previous discussions on this talk page. Sorry if this seems excessive, but I really do think we need to make sure there is a wide range of opinions when gauging consensus on something as serious as this. —AFreshStart (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC) I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter. I just restored it because the claim it was OR turned out to be untrue upon inspection. Koopinator (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC) That's fair enough, I probably wasn't clear in my reasoning why I considered it original research (which was because comparing these particular images is OR, not that the general comparison was). Tbh, I should have said that the main reason I wanted it deleted was that I thought the image was gratuitous, but from what I've seen in other WP discussions, whenever WP:GRATUITOUS is cited the WP:NOTCENSORED crowd comes in – and tbh, it's a fine line balancing those policies. FWIW, I'm not casting any aspersions on you or anyone else as an editor – the comparison image just shocked me, that's all. —AFreshStart (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC) WP:IMAGEOR: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments".Koopinator (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC) The comparison between the images is no more appalling the basic nature of the images themselves. which are used here with the express intent of showing appalling things, so in that sense they are very much fit for purpose and illustrative. When I first landed on this page, those images were what told me exactly what this page was actually about, even though at the time the title was somewhat more confused. A more innocuous image would have not have conveyed the same volume of information so succinctly, so the visual comparison seems appropriate in the context. Does it need to be pigs that are shown to illustrate the comparison? Probably not. This likely merits further discussion. While the choice of livestock is largely irrelevant in terms of the actual subject of the article and the comparison being drawn, it potentially touches on cultural sensitivities in a needless manner. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Agreed. In fact, I objected to their removal but Koopinator beat me to restoring the images. I do actually think pigs are appropriate given their level of intelligence compared to domesticated pets which humans usually treat much better. The fact some consider them "unclean" seems to me to be a case of cultural bias and ignorance IMHO.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC) I think we should still try to make the comparison less offensive if we can. If the problem lies in the fact that pigs are used in the comparison, maybe we could use chickens instead? I am not aware of any religious or cultural sensitivities about chickens as they are not mentioned on the Chicken article. Unless the problem comes from the juxtaposition of human and non-human carrion. --Kzkzb (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC) A possible solution could be to retain the images there now and include an additional image of chickens or some other animal species slaughtered en masse for human consumption, so as not to be singling out pigs for the comparison.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC) There certainly shouldn't be any hasty removal of the stable image. It is possible that the intelligence of pigs was one of the motives for this image's use in the first place. As unfair as it may be, most people naturally create a hierarchy of animals in their minds based on intelligence, and pigs are certainly above chickens and so the sense of their needless deaths, when we are confronted with it, is potentially more salient. But including other animals might help the balance. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC) The very idea of this article is to convey the evils of discriminations such as racism and anti-Semitism in the past. Replacing the image of one species with another, or removing it altogether, to lessen the effect or "sensitivity" might only amount to speciesism—a strikingly similar form of discrimination that is being discussed in this very article. Given the images are more relevant to the topic being discussed and the real intentions are to convey the idea of injustice rather than mock or hurt the sensibilities of people, I think WP:NOTCENSORED conveys the same spirit. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC) The fact that portraying Jews as pigs is an antisemitic trope seems very relevant, especially on a Holocaust-related article. I'm sure the comparison was not intended, but I don't see why the image need be unnecessarily offensive. –Ploni (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Comparing Jews to pigs is offensive. The imagery is sensationalistic and unnecessary. Remove it. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Umm ... it doesn't portray anyone as anything. It puts two pictures next to each other and draws a comparison, as explicitly done by PETA with reference to pigs, possibly hence the choice. PETA did it. It is therefore illustrative of events. The comparison is one of the scenario, not anything else, i.e.: comparing slaughtered dead bodies with slaughtered dead bodies. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC) (←) Thanks for the ping. I agree that the image (not to mention the unwitting comparison) is gratuitously offensive, and has a boomerang effect. Miniapolis 19:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Thanks for the ping, from me too. I think the image should be removed. I agree with other editors that it echoes an antisemitic trope, and that is unacceptable. (Even if the intent is to compare the treatment of animals to the treatment of people, it just as much equates the animals and the people. This is actually a view within animal rights theory, but it is, on its face, incredibly disturbing.) My first thought on seeing it, before reading more, was that it was OR; now that I better understand the sourcing, it would need (if kept) to be much more specific in attributing the comparison to the source. But even then, it becomes WP:UNDUE to privilege that source's POV to the lead image of the page. All and all, the reasons to remove the image are overwhelming. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC) The whole article draws these comparisons, and is obviously controversial: "The comparisons began immediately after the end of World War II, when Jewish writers recounted the lack of resistance by European Jewish victims of the Holocaust, who were led to their death as "sheep to slaughter". The comparison is regarded as controversial..." Isn't this just a case of does what it says on the tin? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC) I know that. Article text can give nuance that is badly lost in the image. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Fair enough. But are you saying that you would have no such images like this anywhere in the article, even when groups of PETA have explicitly used them? Because if that's the case, I think you're leaning too hard on WP:GRATUITOUS. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC) That would depend, and it isn't the question here. PETA has its biases, of course, and it would be a matter of editorial judgment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict)I still don't think we should include the image, and Mathglot's reasoning below (which I tend to agree with) has further convinced me it shouldn't be on this article, anywhere, in its current form. If it does belong, it belongs in the PETA section, with the caveats Mathglot mentions below (i.e. a collage of images with correct attribution). Even then, I think it's unhelpful and unnecessary – and yes, still gratuitously offensive. But all this is shifting the goalposts quite a bit; the image isn't in the PETA section, it is in the lead, it specifically compares dead Jews to dead pigs, and is basically using PETA's tactics on a Wikipedia article – and in the lead, at that. The comparisons Mathglot makes to pro-life imagery and their absence on Wikipedia's articles on the topic is pretty apt. Plus, all of the sources which mention PETA doing this also say that it is offensive to Jewish people, so why repeat that here unnecessarily? (Thank you for attributing PETA in the caption, btw, but I still don't think it's appropriate here in its current form). —AFreshStart (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Perhaps a different and more pertinent question then: what image would you use? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Before I comment on the merits, some housekeeping first: though I'm generally not in favor of long ping lists, since you did so, I feel that some editors who participated earlier and were not included must also be pinged in order to avoid any appearance of selection (which I'm sure you did not intend). So, here goes: @K.e.coffman, 力, Justlettersandnumbers, Iskandar323, and Walrasiad:, and apologies in advance if your ping was unwanted. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC) I'm open to persuasion, but my first inclination is that we should not include it in the article, for reasons having little to do with the offensiveness (or lack thereof) of the image. When we write about the position of advocacy groups in the text of a Wikipedia article, especially advocacy groups holding extreme positions or opinions reflected by only a tiny minority of the society at large, such advocacy positions are never stated in Wikipedia's voice in an article, but as quotations within double quotes and with intext attribution. Now, images are different, and the cliche is that they are "worth ten thousand words". My concern about including the image, is that we can't quite make the same distinction about the image, by divorcing it from Wikipedia's voice in the same way as we can with text. Sure, we can double quote and source the caption, but once the image is there, you "can't unsee it". It seems to me, that placing the image makes Wikipedia somewhat complicit in promoting the extreme advocacy position of this organization, a position we should not be roped into. In trying to find an apt analogy, I went to two anti-abortion articles at Wikipedia, to see if they contain images I have seen that are used (rarely) by fringe elements of anti-abortion groups, that contain photographic depictions of bloody, mangled fetuses. Neither Anti-abortion movements nor Right to life has any such image, and I believe, rightly so. My concern is that by using extreme images created by an advocacy group expressly in order to further their position, Wikipedia would be complicit, and images are different enough from text that it is difficult for in-text attribution to assuage that feeling of complicity. I can think of one way to perhaps include this image: if someone created a collage with 12 or 16 thumbnails, so that at standard viewing size (250px or whatever it is) you would get an idea of the image in question from the thumbnail of it without seeing it too clearly, and leave it up to those interested to click through to Commons to see the full-size picture (which also contains the full attribution statements and origin of the image) then I'd be okay with it. Including it as only a thumbnail and making users click through for full size and info, seems like a kind of image-universe analogy to our requirement of double-quotation and in-text attribution in the article text. Maybe we need to have a discussion about "WikiVoice for images", but that's something for another time and another place. Mathglot (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC) I can see the case for potentially have no lead image at all, as is one suggestion on MOS:LEADIMAGE, which as I now note has a specific guideline on Holocaust images under WP:SHOCK. I guess there's a bit of clash here between both being illustrative and avoiding shock! For the broader use, perhaps the actual PETA image itself should be hunted down if it is to be used in the PETA section. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Keep This article is about what animal rights advocates believe, we don't have to personally believe or disbelieve what is in the cited photo it just had to be an accurate representation of what animal rights advocates believe and in this case it is. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Isn't it about both what they believe, and the rebuttals to what they believe? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Any rebuttal is still about the analogy, so then the image is illustrating what is being rebutted. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you, Mathglot. This article has too many problems even to list, but at the very least the resoundingly inappropriate juxtaposition of these two unrelated images should be promptly removed. If PETA used this comparison then that is harmful and quite despicable (though that's no surprise as just about everything they do is harmful and despicable); it gives us no possible reason or licence to do the same. No objection to a single image of a heap of dead animals of some other species; that should be easy enough to find with all the foot-and-mouth and mad cow and so on. Here's one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC) The whole article makes the comparison. PETA just makes explicit the visual juxtaposition. Not really so revelatory. Doesn't the mind's eye already conjure such images when hearing the comparisons put forward from the very mouths of Holocaust survivors? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Then leave it up to the mind's eye to conjure up those images. That doesn't justify the images being used in the article. —AFreshStart (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC) This discussion made me think back to an analogous discussion a long time ago. Here: [3], you can see what the lead image once was at Animal rights. And here: [4], is a discussion (one among many) that eventually led to a change. It's usually a bad idea to use a visual embraced by some in the animal rights movement as a way for Wikipedia to sum up a topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Ugh, nice to know this isn't a recent issue; sorry if I've unwittingly stirred the hornet's nest of some old-school wiki-drama that I was unaware of (but tbh, not that surprised about). p.s.: What about that image of Seig-Heiling lab animals? Could that be included on this page? Or maybe an image of the Hitlers and Blondi? (Of course I'm being facetious, they're all as inappropriate as the current comparative image). —AFreshStart (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Ha! Another possibility would be to relocate the present image down to the section about PETA, where it more closely matches the text content. I also took a look back at this page's history, and it had no lead image for a very long time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC) I'd personally prefer not to do that, but if we did, we could possibly do it with some of the caveats that Mathglot wrote about in his very detailed response. —AFreshStart (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC) After double-checking the MOS:LEADIMAGE and WP:SHOCK guidelines, they definitely seem worth a re-read with this article in mind. I went to double-check the notes on having no lead image at all in the case of controversial subjects. Maybe so. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) Comment: there may be a WP:DUE WEIGHT issue that is being ignored here. The claim is made above, that "[the image] just ha[s] to be an accurate representation of what animal rights advocates believe and in this case it is". But, is it? In an attempt to find out, I did a search experiment for the top 20 results for "animal rights", and looked for images used on those pages: The top websites for "animal rights" having images and not off-topic I performed a google search for "animal rights" and dropped wikipedia sites or mirrors, politicans, sales, and o/t news articles. I was hoping for 20, but after the 19th, almost everything was news or feature articles, and either no images or off-topic, so this list has 19 items: Humane League PETA Brittanica BBC World Animal Protection Faunalytics Animal Rights Coalition Tree Hugger Animals Society Institute Animal Legal & Historical Center Animal Rights Foundation of Florida Brooks Institute Defenders of Animal Rights Farm USA * Animal Rights National Conference Voters for Animal Rights Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach * Nonhuman Rights Project Northwest Animal Rights Network The two websites with the strongest images are starred above, and contain (rotating) images of severe over-crowding, and devices that hold animals in a very tightly controlled spaces, some similar to pillories. The results: the most extreme images on any of these websites are bad enough, but none approach the image being discussed in this section. The image in question is either not an accurate representation of what animal rights advocates believe, or those that believe it are sufficiently in the minority that they do not appear in the top websites relevant to the question, or it is what they believe but they themselves are not willing to use the image. Either way, the image is not present in the majority, or in a significant minority of such websites. Conclusion: it represents a tiny minority of such websites and thus per Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE should not be used in the article. Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC) This isn't a page about animal rights; it is about an analogy, which is what you should search for. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC) That would be WP:CHERRYPICKING. Of course you'll find what you're searching for; the rarer it is, the better Google's page rank algorithm is at locating it. In order to satisfy DUE, you have to perform a valid search, and that means avoiding use of the very term you are trying to evaluate in the context of a particular corpus. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC) It's being specific. That's the subject. The articles doesn't even discuss animal rights AT ALL. Animal rights advocates are just SOME of the proponents of the analogy. Your search is simply off-topic, and anecdotal as evidence regardless. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC) You may be right that animal rights advocates are only some of the proponents of it, I was not aware of that, so my search question may bias the results. However, your mere claims that this is the case are not persuasive. If it is the case, then run your own experiment. Do so without including the proposition you are trying to prove in your query terms, and expose the results publicly, so others can evaluate what you say. Mathglot (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC) The image is unencyclopedic and violates MOS:SHOCKVALUE. I have removed it. Per WP:ONUS, it should not be restored until such time as a consensus emerges for inclusion. Generalrelative (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Ha! Only a matter of time before a "screw the discussion", "I know best" type popped up I suppose. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC) @Iskandar323: That was a WP:NPA violation. I caution you to stop it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Mathglot the mainstream animal rights organizations are all about trying to appeal to a mass audience and get donations (money) to help animals and make a profit themselves. They are not going to do this by putting holocaust victims or body-parts on their home-websites, that would be membership or readership suicide (it would put people off). However, if you read the animal rights literature going back nearly 30 years, the holocaust analogy has often been raised. David Sztybel for example authored "Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?" [5] in the journal "Ethics and the Environment" and there were published commentaries about his paper (our Wikipedia article doesn't even mention this). Charles Patterson wrote a book on it Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust which has been discussed in peer-reviewed animal rights literature [6]. The topic was even raised in an animal rights novel The Lives of Animals and discussed in papers [7]. The comparison of the Nazi treatment of the Jews to modern factory farming slaughter is widespread in the animal rights literature and amongst activists, i.e. Gary Yourofsky gained a career boost from promoting it [8]. It is not a "fringe" idea in animal rights. Many recent recent animal rights books raise the analogy. Having personally communicated with hundreds of animal rights activists and scholars in my life-time I have often heard this analogy and the analogy of slavery. It is almost like Godwin's law, sooner or later it is mentioned. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Psychologist Guy, you make a good point, and I don't doubt your personal experience. But if we're saying that groups are avoiding certain statements or images (except to those in the know of where to find them) then how do we deal with that with respect to WP:DUEWEIGHT (which is policy, and part of the Five Pillars)? You claim it is not a fringe idea in animal rights, and I don't doubt that many animal rights books mention it. But, show your data: if you compile 50 books on animal rights, how many mention it, and to what extent? That is the WP:DUEWEIGHT question. If it's a majority, or significant minority, then the *topic* is not fringe in the context of animal rights. The search I compiled was only of web search; a search of books would be more reliable. Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Ah! Good shout! Perhaps a book cover would make for an unobjectionable lead image! Iskandar323 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Psychologist Guy, even if what you say is true (I will admit that I am too ignorant of the scholarly literature on these comparisons to say whether what you say is true or false), I still don't see how this excuses the image that (was) used in the lead paragraph of this article. —AFreshStart (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC) My understanding is that the holocaust analogy is taken seriously in the animal rights scholarly literature, both peer-reviewed papers and published books. The history of animal rights has always used social analogy's to appeal emotionally to gain supporters. For example Frances Power Cobbe compared the abuse of women to that of non-human animal slaughter, feminist animal rights advocate Carol Adams took it further arguing that we live in a mans world in which women are treated like consumable meat. Many writers also use the example of afro-american slavery and animal beatings, the list goes on. These type of analogy is heavily used in the literature. I used to have over 200 books on animals rights but I sold them all recently (I no longer believe in "rights" but reformed welfare and I have come to the conclusion that many of the modern writers arguing for animal rights contradict each other, they can't even define "rights", nobody can, so it's not a practical topic for me) but anyway yes the holocaust analogy was made in quite a few of the books I had, not a main theme but it was mentioned. Tony Milligan has an entire chapter on "The Holocaust Analogy" topic in his book Animal Ethics: The Basics, this is a book that has been used by students in UK universities, it was once given to me. So yes I would say the analogy is an important topic in animal rights. I wouldn't go as far as saying it is a main topic but it has been covered from all angles in the literature. Angi Buettner in her book Holocaust Images and Picturing Catastrophe also has a section on the analogy (she is a skeptic) and admits that "The use of holocaust analogies in the context of animal rights and environmentalism is a widespread practice". So it is widespread in the animal rights literature, but outside of animal rights it would be seen as a fringe idea. By default you could argue this topic would be considered fringe by mainstream academia so I don't think the fringe criteria helps here. I am not going to cite 50 books but when I have time I may look at some of the modern animal journals like Journal for Critical Animal Studies or Journal of Animal Ethics and see how often it has been mentioned in total. The photograph has been removed so all this is probably a waste of time but the article could always be expanded with some of the papers I listed above. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) I too have had the impression that the Holocaust has been discussed numerous times in the literature (indeed, this page might well have failed WP:GNG were that not the case), but I think that it's useful here to notice the difference between an animal rights theorist having written some number of paragraphs exploring the comparison, and Wikipedia using an image to bluntly illustrate the comparison. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC) I found Mathglot's argument to not include very persuasive. We should be careful about using graphics, especially those that are promotional or activist in nature. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Keep No image I came here following a notice at WikiProject Animal rights. The title of this article is "Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy". There are about 30 sources cited which compare animals and the Holocaust, so we have verification that this is a comparison that many people have made. The two images - one of a pile of dead pigs and the other of a pile of dead bodies - correctly match the subject of the article. I posted the images in the discussion here so that they would be available for review. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC) I understand that argument, but do you not accept the argument made by Mathglot and others — i.e. that while such comparisons have been made by some advocacy groups, authors etc., having those images in the lead of the article is undue and would be as if the anti-abortion articles on WP were illustrated with images of mangled foeti? Additionally, the specific use of pigs has been criticised in many of the sources given in the article, and likened to antisemitic propaganda (cf Judensau). We shouldn't be gratuitously offensive in the lead image, and WP:SHOCK has specific guidelines on the use of imagery of Holocaust victims (note: not lower-case 'holocaust' victims, as has been repeated throughout this article before my edits). This image clearly violates the latter, especially so in the lead section. –AFreshStart (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC) @Mathglot and AFreshStart: Mathglot I feel that you made an imprecise comparison. You say "Neither Anti-abortion movements nor Right to life has any such image" "When we write about the position of advocacy groups in the text of a Wikipedia article, especially advocacy groups holding extreme positions or opinions reflected by only a tiny minority of the society at large" The error is comparing this very specific article topic to other broad topics. The more appropriate comparison would have been to an article like the non-existent "Anti-abortion movements and the Holocaust analogy" or the group Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust. If such articles had graphic pictures comparing the two concepts, then I think it would be appropriate. I agree that using very specific extremist comparisons in Wikipedia articles about broad topics is inappropriate, but once we have such specificity as we have in this article's title, then a comparison of images is the least surprising choice for image selection. This article is beyond the sources cited and images used to illustrate the articles for both "Animal cruelty" and the "Holocaust", and we are only citing and presenting the minority of sources which are comparing these two topics. When we disregard the 99%+ of sources which talk about one but not both of these topics, we are left with only sources which put descriptions and imagery such as this together. These sources will be highly focused on this comparison, but that is what happens in highly specific Wikipedia articles. Once a topic merits a Wikipedia article, then we present the sources we have for it. Briefly about the pigs: if the choice of animal is the problem then we could switch to another image from Commons:Category:Mercy for Animals. The point is to show animal conditions, not to raise the Jewish cultural context of pigs. I recognize that there are some other arguments in this discussion which I did not address, but I thought I would focus just on responding to this point for now. Thoughts? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Before I start – as much as I detest the image used in comparison, thank you for including this on the article talk page so editors can discuss this properly without having to go back-and-forth through diffs. I understand this is an article about a specific analogy, but I really think that these specific images violate Wikipedia's guidelines. MOS:SHOCKVALUE has specific guidelines on how we should present images relating to Holocaust victims, and this is clearly presenting the subject in a provocative manner in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of these guidelines. I know I raised the issue of pigs being unclean in Judaism, I still think if this were changed to any other animal it would also violate the MOS. That's not to say these images individually cannot be used at all in the article (although I think that requires another discussion, unfortunately), but this specific side-by-side comparison in the lead is gratuitously offensive IMO. I really don't think this image is the least surprising choice for the article lead. —AFreshStart (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC) @AFreshStart: Can you say more about what is offensive here? Is it one of these reasons? - This article's subject is offensive, so even if these images correctly illustrate the topic, it is offensive to candidly present this topic The article's subject is fine, but this sort of image comparison is not the most on-topic depiction of the article's subject, so the misuse of images in an off-topic way is offensive The article's subject is fine, and the images accurately depict the subject, but this is a situation where illustrating the article with on-topic images would be offensive so we should choose less shocking images or de-emphasize them. This is not about the subject, the accuracy of depiction, or the images themselves; the issue is that Wikipedia's editorial policy has a strong default to avoid using images like these, and no one has made the case for an extraordinary exemption Feel free to state your own reason in your own words; I wrote these options for myself to think through why someone might object. Thanks for talking it through with me. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC) A combination of #1 and #3, probably. I do think the comparison is on-topic for the article so I don't think #2 applies. Reading WP policy, I do think it is also against WP policy, but I know IAR applies, and tbh I wasn't aware that Wikipedia had such specific guidelines re Holocaust imagery in its MOS. I definitely agree with your argument about de-emphasis; I likely would not have thought this was as much of a problem if these were not the lead images. If it's really necessary to include these images, I still think the caveats Mathglot talks about would be a good compromise. And preferably in the article main text, not the lead. —AFreshStart (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC) I appreciate the idea of switching to a different kind of animal. However, we would have to be very careful about WP:SYNTH. There would have to, at a minimum, be a source that is both reliable and not undue weight, that associates that particular kind of animal with the comparison, and preferably, puts the primary emphasis on that kind of animal rather than on another kind and just mentioning this one in passing. Additionally, it would be best if we could use images where the source also referred to those specific images in making the comparison, although I would not insist on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC) ... it would be best if we could use images where the source also referred to those specific images in making the comparison ... – I would agree with that, if it could pass legal and was notable enough (although this would still not lead-worthy IMO, just in the main text section that talks about the comparison). —AFreshStart (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC) cow @AFreshStart and Tryptofish: I was thinking of discussing further, but I do not see a quick end to talking this through. Instead, can either of you describe an end result which you would find acceptable? I see mathglot above proposed small images. I really would prefer some kind of large image in the lead because Wikipedia is optimized for that. If possible, since most of this article is about the views of animal rights activists, I would like for the lead image to show something about the animal industry that animal rights activists find upsetting. If you can show an example image for discussion, as from Commons:Category:Mercy for Animals or similar, or if you can briefly just describe what you are expecting in text, then maybe we can find something. Here is a cow. I think this is better than nothing as a lead image, but I do not think it communicates enough. What kind of image you find acceptable? Bluerasberry (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC) I understand that Wikipedia is optimised for large images in the lead, but I think this is one example where it would be preferable not to have a picture in the lead. Most articles on animal rights don't have lead images, and I am wary about using images from advocacy groups in the lead for the same reasons Mathglot mentioned. Sorry. If you want to add the image of a cow, I won't oppose, but I agree that it doesn't communicate enough about what the article is about. —AFreshStart (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC) I could criticize the cow image as being a peaceful representation that is at odds with criticism of animal farming. But more importantly, I agree with AFreshStart that there is no need for a lead image on this page, and that it would be best not to have one. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC) @AFreshStart and Tryptofish: I am feeling censorship here. The sources we are citing are from animal rights activists who have a certain perspective. The way that these people and these sources communicate is by confronting people with accurate and truthful images of the animal industry. There is no way to make factory farming look pleasant; that is, there is no media collection provided by the livestock industry to make things look good. I see two sides to this issue: the people who talk about "Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy", and the other side that says almost nothing except to suppress the conversation. I feel like you both are taking the side of the people who want the conversation suppressed. I am requesting a compromise of an image in the lead because I feel that imagery is very important for this topic. I mean it when I can accept a photo of any random animal, like that cow, because to me showing any animal is sufficient to communicate some of the message in this article. I will not push you further if you insist not, but can you please consider suggesting what sort of image would be appropriate? You both said "it would be best if we could use images where the source also referred to those specific images in making the comparison" - please think twice because if I wrote to some of the people named in this article, I think they would give me images. Otherwise, why do you feel that the best way to communicate this perspective to readers is with text and no images? Bluerasberry (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC) I guess you could see it as censorship, inasmuch as WP:GRATUITOUS is self-censorship. I really do think that leaving the lead blank is the best way forward. "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic" – I think this applies, i.e. there is no easy way to represent this topic that doesn't involve gratuitously offensive images (as you say, "there is no way to make factory farming look pleasant" – and it's not obvious to me that a reader of this article would expect to see that sort of imagery in the lead). Tryptofish mentioned a similar discussion on the animal rights article a long time ago regarding this image; that article doesn't have an image in its lead section anymore. (p.s. When I was agreeing with the comment you've just quoted, I was meaning in the article text, not the lead. If it's anything like the images we have just removed, MOS:SHOCKVALUE still applies, as well as the other issues surrounding advocacy). —AFreshStart (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Bluerasberry, I apologize if you feel that you haven't been sufficiently listened to. But I really do not see this as a matter of censorship. Rather, I see it as a typical content dispute. I personally don't think that an image would provide sufficient value to the page, to balance out the issues that it would raise. I won't repeat my reasons that I've already given, but that's how I think. It's not a case of me wanting to suppress something because I disagree with the subject matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) no image @Tryptofish: No need for apologies - we are communicating well, and you heard me out for everything I said. AFreshStart Thanks also for the conversation. I enjoy and respect the Wikipedia discussion process and I think it worked well in this case. I can see that you both represent the majority view here and that many other participants in this conversation would have said what you have said. Also in the end we have to make a decision. I still prefer an image here, but it is unlikely that I or anyone else will be able to propose a image that the broader Wikipedia community would find more useful than distracting. I appreciate you both talking this through. I understand your position better and I can see its merit. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Remove (i.e. keep removed): ViolatesMOS:SHOCKVALUE; gratuitous image of victims of Nazi atrocities. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Remove per K.e.coffman and Mathglot. (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"Earliest use" section

Something worth discussing: The article is about comparisons between animal cruelty and The Holocaust, not about usage of the word "holocaust" to describe animal slaughter. The fact that the term was used is an interesting bit of trivia, but I'm not convinced that this section belongs belong in an article on comparisons with the genocide of European Jewry. Pinging @Iskandar323 and @AFreshStart here, on account of recent edit history. –Ploni (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. The Independent source even notes that this isn't referring to the Holocaust, but that the term 'holocaust' was generally used to any mass killings prior to the Holocaust. So yeah, it was called a "pet holocaust", but it's not really an analogy to the genocide of European Jewry, as you say, which is what this article is (supposed) to be all about. Don't know about the book, but I'm guessing it makes the same claim. —AFreshStart (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I was a bit torn on this, as having some sort of definition does help make the article more self-contained. It helps flag that "holocaust" as a word has a wider usage outside of The Holocaust, and the September 1939 pet extermination seems more than a little interesting in the context. In the absence of such a section, readers would need to click quite a few times to get to similar terminology notes, and nowhere else would they find the 1939 example. (One might argue that it would be worth explaining that the original meaning of holocaust was animal sacrifice.) Iskandar323 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

As it happens, in The Great Cat and Dog Massacre (cited in the section), the author explains the use of the term and explicitly rejects comparison with the Holocaust. –Ploni (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

"[...] I would later discover that the term 'holocaust of pets' or 'massacre' were not post-hoc constructions but contemporary descriptions. The Oxford English Dictionary carefully describes the different meanings of the word holocaust, noting that its modern meaning of the 'mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis' did not start to be used until 1942. An earlier meaning of the word meaning a sacrifice or massacre on a large scale was used to describe the unnecessary killing of at least 400,000 'pet' cats and dogs in London in the first week of the war in September 1939. The word may have had a different meaning but it still nevertheless indicated a 'great slaughter or massacre' or a large-scale sacrifice wholly consumed by fire.' This was no routine killing. The government, state, veterinary profession, and animal charities were all opposed to this 'sacrifice.' It was not required by the state even at this initial moment of war."

Wow, thanks for that! In light of this, the "Earliest use" section should definitely go. I'm sure there is something to be said about the original meaning of the term 'holocaust' meaning animal sacrifice, and it is a rather interesting point. But I just can't see any real reliable sources linking it to the explicit references to the Holocaust (note: this should be mentioned as such in the article, not 'the Jewish Holocaust' – this puts 'Jewish Holocaust' and 'Animal holocaust' on an unfairly even footing, whereas the former is accepted by the vast majority of historians, and the latter only used by some activists/groups. This could be seen as trivialising the Holocaust, even if it is unintentional). —AFreshStart (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Large-scale trimming down of this article

Hi there. I have significantly trimmed down this article, as I felt it was too quote-heavy from PETA-aligned individuals, among other things. Also removed content cited to Reddit or YouTube channels. As WP:SPS says, if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Kept quotes from published books.

If editors disagree with any of my edits, feel free to revert me. I'm aware I have been very bold with cutting down this article. —AFreshStart (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: I support trimming but I object to the removal of citations and wikilinks without discussions. I am not going to revert now because everything is tangled and other people are editing, but I feel that sources and name drops to prominent commentators have extra value. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Out of curiosity, which sources are you referring to? I really don't think we should be re-adding the YouTube or Reddit links, but I'm less certain about removing opinion pieces. The main reason I removed them in my edits was because they were incorrectly attributed. I know my edits were quite drastic, but seeing as this page has evidently had some long-standing issues I was unaware of (as raised by the lead image discussion), I thought it better to be bold. —AFreshStart (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: I object to the outcome of your actions but you personally did everything correctly. Sometimes correct actions result in undesirable outcomes. Thanks for doing everything right.

You link to your changes in your first comment, thanks for that. The first thing I see is that you deleted the wikilink to Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust. This book was cited in the first sentence and two times elsewhere. Now it seems to be cited once. Perhaps it should be featured in the article text in addition to being a citation, because it seems to have respected positions on this topic and also fact-checks some claims which other named individuals make.

You removed the wikilink in the text body to Alex Hershaft due to citation to reddit. However, this is a person with their own wiki article and a media reputation for talking about the subject of this article. In general I supporting deleting content without reliable references, and I do not expect reviewers to hunt down those sources on the open Internet, but I do encourage reviewers to tolerate lack of sources in one article so long as by linking to a Wikipedia article one can easily find lots of sources. This guy is an animal rights activist and a Holocaust survivor and is famous for both; text about his views belongs in the body of this article.

You removed the link to Joey Carbstrong, and while sourcing is not as strong for him, he is on-topic for this article, and perhaps there should be a link to him somewhere here. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, and thank you for being civil with me. I understand this is a contentious topic with strong feelings on either side.

I thought that the second paragraph in the lead was undue, but I don't mind it being re-added to the lead (although if it is, I think it should be in the initial sentence, with the criticism from the ADL and USHMM after those quotes to avoid giving these specific comments undue prominence). I also think that Eternal Treblinka should be mentioned cited in-text; I'd be all for someone who is more familiar with the book including a brief summary here, as it seems appropriate.

I'm not against including Alex Hershaft's opinions at all in this article; as you say, he has a Wikipedia article and is definitely notable and on-topic for this article. I would prefer better sourcing (preferably from a third party) that summarises his views, rather than rely on self-published sources. But I don't mind a brief summary of Hershaft's views cited to the Reddit comments. After all, he is pictured in the article, and mentioned in the sources here. As you say, he is famous for talking about both issues.

I have more of an issue re Joey Carbstrong's comments about the term 'holocaust' being used to refer to the Armenian genocide (or a nuclear holocaust) as proof that the term 'holocaust' isn't specific to Jewish people... This rather overlooks the point that both of these terms refer to harm to human beings (well, the latter is the collapse of all civilisation, but I think you get my point). That's not even going into the subject of non-Jewish Holocaust victims, but that's a subject for a different article. I'm not an expert, but looking at his article, it's clear that he's known for making a lot of purposefully inflammatory comments on the topics of veganism and animal rights. His comments seem to go against the principles of WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, imo. A problem with these self-published sources means some of the specifics are hardly ever debunked, as they are unlikely to garner the attention of fact-checkers (unlike a book or other published media). —AFreshStart (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"...stated the reason he survived..."

I removed this from the caption of Mr Hershaft's photo as shown in this diff: ...and stated that the reason he survived was to end the oppression of animals. My reasoning was that article is not the place to advance his viewpoint for which he has no proof; moreover, he was a child back then. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that! Yeah, that definitely needed to go... —AFreshStart (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Rename and change focus - "Holocaust analogy in animal rights activism"

Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy → ? – The current title of this article is "Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy". Much of the content here compares animal cruelty to the Holocaust, but little or none compares the Holocaust to animal cruelty.

Should this article include comparisons of the Holocaust to animal cruelty? I think no, because there are enough sources here to only focus on how animal rights activists have used this comparison without also trying to include Holocaust comparisons with animals too.

Like sheep to the slaughter is one article giving one narrow comparison of the Holocaust to animal treatment, but I can imagine there were many comparisons. When compared in that way the discussion has nothing to do with animal rights; it seems to me to be a way of describing a situation. I cannot quickly find other comparisons but I expect that they exist.

If this article will not compare the Holocaust to animal treatment, then can we rename it to clarify that the comparison here only goes in the direction of animal rights to Holocaust, and not also the reverse? Possible titles:

• Animal rights activists' use of Holocaust comparisons
• Holocaust analogy for explaining animal rights
• Holocaust analogy in animal rights activism
• Animal rights activism using Holocaust analogies

Thoughts from others? Bluerasberry (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the titles suggested would be accurate as the article features quotes from people who are not involved in animal rights activism (e.g. Marguerite Yourcenar, AFAIK) making the analogy. --Kzkzb (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of a change along those lines myself, and I think it would focus the article better. "Holocaust analogy in animal rights activism" would be my preference if this article changed titles. But I'm very much on the fence about this. —AFreshStart (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I, too, am interested in a rename along these lines, so thanks, Bluerasberry, for raising the issue. Until fairly recently, the page was called Animal rights and the Holocaust, and although I think that changing from "Holocaust" to "Holocaust analogy" was an improvement, I would have opposed the change from "animal rights" to "animal cruelty" if I had been paying attention at the time of the move. So I definitely support changing back to an emphasis on animal rights. But animal rights activism is something specific (think PETA and the Animal Liberation Front) and at least part of the page is more about writers and scholars, as correctly noted by Kzkzb. Perhaps "Holocaust analogy in animal rights theory" or "Holocaust analogy and animal rights"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Those sound better, I agree (and I do remember thinking that the "animal rights" to "animal cruelty" change was odd at the time of the move, but I wasn't that fussed one way or another at the time). —AFreshStart (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we should likely get rid of the "animal cruelty" part as some would argue that the killing of animals for food (for example) isn't cruel. The "Holocaust analogy and animal rights" title makes sense to me; although "Holocaust analogy in animal rights" might be better.

Should we add the {{subst:Requested move}} template to this discussion? --Kzkzb (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. —AFreshStart (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kzkzb: You should start a fresh move request discussion first with either a clear set of options for people to motion for or a single option for people to motion for or against. Retroactively adding a move request template to an existing discussion is a confusing approach, and it also front loads the move request discussion with a false sense of consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some options clearly listed here. It looks to me like the top 3 contenders so far are (in no particular order):

1. Holocaust analogy in animal rights theory
2. Holocaust analogy and animal rights
3. Holocaust analogy in animal rights

I'd be ok with any of those three, and don't have a strong preference. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Holocaust analogy in animal rights. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy → Holocaust analogy and animal rights – Per a previous discussion.

TL;DR: Although the article is concerned with the use of the analogy in the context of animal rights, the article's current name doesn't make it clear.

Suggested names:

1. Holocaust analogy in animal rights theory
2. Holocaust analogy and animal rights
3. Holocaust analogy in animal rights
   -- Kzkzb (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support any of those three, no strong preference among them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging the users involved in the previous discussion: Bluerasberry; AFreshStart;Iskandar323. --Kzkzb (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support any of these; slight (but not strong) preference for #1. Thanks for bringing up this issue! —AFreshStart (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support any, with a preference for 3. Any one of these is better than the current title. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, with a preference for #3. I don't find #1 to be perfectly fitting, since the article is about uses of the analogy by both theoreticians and activists. –Ploni (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Just playing devil's advocate (and probably over-parsing the differences), I could argue than an analogy would not be "in" those rights. It could be in theory, or in advocacy, but not in the purported rights themselves. I'm actually not that bothered by that issue, however, and I agree that any option would be better than the present pagename. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I suggested using "in" instead of "and" in the previous conversation because the article concerns the usage of the analogy in the context of animal rights; the "and" might make it look like the two topics are only loosely related imo. --Kzkzb (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Definitely not over-parsing, that's a pretty good point (it actually came across my mind after posting). I reckon Holocaust analogy in animal rights advocacy is more accurate / grammatical. –Ploni (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• I don't know if I should participate to a move request I started, but I also have a preference for the third title: #2 is too similar to the previous name of this page ("Animal rights and the Holocaust"), increasing the likelihood of a move request; #3 is preferable over #1 since there is no Wikipedia page named "Animal rights theory" as I'm writing this, making #3 a less astonishing title. --Kzkzb (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Nazi analogy and animal rights I found that there is a Wikipedia article called Nazi analogies and also category:Nazi analogies. Since that seems to already be an established term to apply to these sorts of analogies in many contexts, then I think it is worth keeping in this case too. I do not see a strong reason to make a distinction between Nazi behavior and the Holocaust, even though many sources refer to the Holocaust rather than Nazis generally. I support simply "animal rights" because that also is a common term. If we choose existing terms this interconnects better with other articles, which makes the subject easier to communicate. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support any; prefer #3 over #1, per precision and concision, and over #2 because it seems like a slightly awkward elision of either "Holocaust analogy in [the field of] animal rights", or of the wording in #1. Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I feel that "Holocaust analogy in animal rights" reads a little strangely. While "analogy" can be used in the collective sense, as it sounds here, it is usually treated as a singular and prefaced with a "the" or an "an". Secondly, I wonder if using "Holocaust analogy" makes the subject sound too much a set phrase, when, as far as I am aware, none of the sources actually say "Holocaust analogy". I therefore wonder is a preferable variant that avoids both the reading issue and the potential of being misconstrued as mentioned above might be Holocaust comparisons in animal rights. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. After reading more comments from editors, I want to say that #3 is fine with me, and I prefer pretty much any new proposal here to be superior to the existing pagename. I'm ok with "comparisons". "In animal rights advocacy" isn't bad, but maybe a little verbose. I don't like "Nazi analogy", because it could sound like critics of animal rights compare animal rights activists to Nazis, which is the opposite of the subject here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: If the title were "Holocaust analogy in animal rights", then would you object to mutual linking between this article and Nazi analogies, and to categorizing this article in category:Nazi analogies? Bluerasberry (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That would all be fine with me. Thanks for asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support I support option № 3 (Holocaust analogy in animal rights). Quick Quokka ^[talk] 18:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Images c:File:6.1 DeathPile (4098870755).jpg and c:File:Buchenwald Corpses 06670.jpg

These images have been removed twice, the first time citing WP:OR in the edit summary, and the second time citing WP:ONUS.

While I don't agree with the topic of the article or the analogy at all, I think the images should remain there.

I do not see how the picture could even begin to be understood as "Original research", or something that can be verified. --Quick Quokka ^[talk] 18:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion clearly shows editor consensus to remove these from the lead. My first claim of original research was incorrect, but the majority of editors felt that this was gratuitious imagery of Holocaust victims (see WP:SHOCKVALUE, which has specific guidelines on how these sorts of images should be used). —AFreshStart (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)