Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights

Humans are naturally plant-eaters (i.e. meat-eating is unnatural)

POV-pushing. See Talk:Herbivore. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I want to use this table below. It's very useful. I wanted to use it in the article Ethics of eating meat. But didn't find it appropriate because that article dealt with "ethics" and not "the level of biological normalcy" of meat-eating. I think eating other animals who, were it not solely for the sheer voracity of meat-eating people, could have been alive, is no less barbaric than cannibalism. Humans are naturally plant-eaters according to the best evidence: our bodies by Michael Bluejay • June 2002 • Updated March 2012 A fair look at the evidence shows that humans are optimized for eating plant foods, according to the best evidence: our bodies.  We're most similar to other plant-eaters, and drastically different from carnivores and true omnivores.Those who insist that humans are omnivores, especially if their argument is basedon canine teeth, would do well to look at what the evidence actually shows. We'll cover that below. I first wrote this article many years ago, but sincethen Milton Mills, M.D. wrote an excellent paper which covers the anatomy of eating, so let's skip right to my table-ized summary of his research: Humans are biologically herbivores Carnivores Omnivores Herbivores Humans Facial muscles Reduced to allow wide mouth gape Reduced Well-developed Well-developed Jaw type Angle not expanded Angle not expanded Expanded angle Expanded angle Jaw joint location On same plane as molar teeth On same plane as molar teeth Above the plane of the molars Above the plane of the molars Jaw motion Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back Major jaw muscles Temporalis Temporalis Masseter and ptergoids Masseter and pterygoids Mouth opening vs. head size Large Large Small Small Teeth: Incisors Short and pointed Short and pointed Broad, flattened and spade-shaped Broad, flattened and spade-shaped Teeth: Canines Long, sharp, and curved Long, sharp and curved Dull and short or long (for defense) or none Short and blunted Teeth: Molars Sharp, jagged and blade-shaped Sharp blades and/or flattened Flattened with cusps vs. complex surface Flattened with nodular cusps Chewing None; swallows food whole Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing Extensive chewing necessary Extensive chewing necessary Saliva No digestive enzymes No digestive enzymes Carbohydrate digesting enzymes Carbohydrate digesting enzymes Stomach type Simple Simple Simple or multiple chambers Simple Stomach acidity with food in stomach ≤ pH 1 ≤ pH 1 pH 4-5 pH 4-5 Length of small intestine 3-6 times body length 4-6 times body length 10-12+ times body length 10-11 times body length Colon Simple, short, and smooth Simple, short, and smooth Long, complex; may be sacculated Long, sacculated Liver Can detoxify vitamin A Can detoxify vitamin A Cannot detoxify vitamin A Cannot detoxify vitamin A Kidney Extremely concentrated urine Extremely concentrated urine Moderately concentrated urine Moderately concentrated urine Nails Sharp claws Sharp claws Flattened nails or blunt hooves Flattened nails The details are in Mills' paper (PDF). The rest of this article covers mostly angles not in that paper, and since it's long, here's a condensed version: The anatomical evidence tells us that we're optimized for eating almost exclusively plant foods. The only way to come to another conclusion is to ignore the bulk of the anatomical evidence, which is what my critics do. (They either use inferior evidence, such as disputed assumptions about the prehistoric diet, or they cherry-pick the anatomical evidence while ignoring the bulk of it.) The animals most similar to us, the other primates, eat an almost exclusively vegan diet. "Omnivore" doesn't mean 50% plants and 50% animals. Many consider chimpanzees to be omnivores but 95-99% of their diet is plants, and most of the rest isn't meat, it's termites. If humans are omnivores, then the anatomical evidence suggests that we're the same kind: the kind that eats almost exclusively plant foods. Saying we're omnivores because we're capable of eating meat is simply silly. We're capable of eating cardboard, too. And by the "capable" argument, then cats are omnivores, since nearly every commercial cat food has plant ingredients. (Check the label.) Nobody would ever make the argument that cats are omnivores based on what they're capable of eating. But they sure make that argument for humans, enthusiastically. Our so-called "canine teeth" are "canine" in name only. Other plant-eaters (like gorillas, horses, and hippos) have "canines", and chimps, who are almost exclusively vegan, have massive canines compared to ours. (See picture) Our early ancestors from at least four million years ago were almost exclusively vegetarian. (see source) We sleep about the same amount of time as other herbivores, and less than carnivores and true omnivores. The most common cause of choking deaths is eating meat. (source) Real carnivores and omnivores don't have that problem. The meat-eating reader already has half a dozen objections to this before s/he's even read the rest of the article, and I will address those objections specifically, but first let me address them generally: It's human nature to want to feel that what we're doing is right, proper, and logical. When we're confronted with something that suggests that our current practices are not the best ones, it's uncomfortable. We can either consider that our choices may not have been the best ones, which is extremely disturbing, or we can reject that premise without truly considering it, so that we don't have to feel bad about our actions. That's the more comfortable approach. And we do this by searching our minds for any arguments we can for why the challenge must be wrong, to justify our current behavior. This practice is so common psychologists have a name for it: cognitive dissonance. Think about that for a moment: Our feeling that our current actions are correct isn't based on our arguments. Rather, our actions come first and then we come up with the arguments to try to support those actions. If we were truly logical, we'd consider the evidence first and then decide the best course of action. But often we have it in reverse, because it's too difficult to accept that we might have been wrong. This is particularly true when it comes to vegetarianism. It's easy to identify because the anti-vegetarian arguments are usually so extreme, compared to other kinds of discourse. A person who would never normally suggest something so fantastic as the idea that plants can think and feel pain, will suddenly all but lunge for such an argument when they feel their meat-eating ways are being questioned, and they're looking for a way to justify it.  That's psychology for you. I used to be in the same position as most readers probably are now.  Long ago my eating habits were challenged by a book I ran across in the library. I didn't want to consider it fairly, because I wanted to keep eating meat. I'd grown up eating it, and I liked it. So I came up with various weak defenses to justify my behavior. But deep down I knew I was kidding myself, and practicing a form of intellectual cowardice. Eventually I knew I had to consider the arguments honestly. So I challenge you: stop trying to figure out ways that I "must" be wrong even before you've bothered to read the rest of this article. Instead, read it, and actually consider it rather than reflexively trying to come out with ways to dismiss it out of hand. You can certainly still disagree after you've considered all the evidence -- but not before. Most meat-eating readers will find it necessary to try to defeat me, at least in their minds, so let's agree that that would mean providing more and better evidence for your position. One does not win the argument by making a single point, as most of the critics who email me seem to think. The evidence favoring a plant diet for humans is clear, convincing, and overwhelming. There is definitely some evidence for the other side, to be sure, but it's simply not nearly as strong. While you think this would be obvious, I mention it because my critics seem to believe that whoever makes the fewest and weakest points has presented the most convincing case. They somehow seem to believe that all the evidence I present somehow vanishes into thin air when they present their lone argument. Evidence that humans are primarily plant-eaters Evidence to the contrary Many believe that lunging at at the minority of evidence in the red box makes their position compelling. But it doesn't. The only way to make that position compelling is to present more and better evidence, not to pretend that the green box doesn't exist. [skipping some part of the source article] "Vitamin B12. End of story." I'm not joking when I tack on "End of story" to the sample counter-arguments. People actually make them that way, literally. B12 isn't made by animals, it's made by bacteria. (source) It's found where things are unclean. (And meat is dirty.) This easily explains why historically it's been easy to get B12, because until recently we didn't live in a sanitized environment. Plants pulled from the ground and not washed scrupulously have B12 from the surrounding soil. (source) Vegans should take a B12 supplement, not because veganism is unnatural, but because the modern diet is too clean to contain reliable natural sources of dirty B12. B12 is also found in lakes, before the water is sanitized. (source) Also, consider that chimpanzees' main non-plant food is termites, and termites are loaded with B12. (source) Incidentally, our need for B12 is tiny -- 3 micrograms a day. Not milligrams, micrograms. The amount of B12 you need for your entire life is smaller than four grains of rice. (More on Vitamin B12 from John McDougall, M.D) "You're not considering evolution." Of course I'm not. Humans' hunting skills are relatively recent in our history but evolution takes place over a much longer period of time. In short, we haven't been hunting for long enough for our anatomy to favor a mixed plant-animal diet. Source article

Somebody help me

See this, my contribution is being called a "vegetarian propaganda" because I created a new section named Humans' similarity to Herbivores!

I want somebody to back me up with more reliable sources. Or, Could anybody review my revision? Some autopatrolled editor is harassing me by erasing my edits without giving me any convincing reason. Thanks in advance. --DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 23:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Your additions have been rejected as per the discussion at Talk:Herbivore. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Much of the information on this is fals humans have a stomach acid ph of 1.35 to3.5 the human intestine is at its maximum 6 times the human length and at its minimun 3 times the body length or 32 to 15 feet the temporal muscle is quite well developed in humans the only animals that have nails are primates which are almost always listed as omnivores espically chimpanzees wich hunt monkies regularly the mouth size vs head size dose not take into account the human encephalization quotent the jaw joint location is located above the jaw line in carnivores and omnivores to you foeget that the human eyes are placed in the front of the face instead of on the sides and the way omnivorious traits are listed here are false Irishfrisian (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

On Some Changes That Are Contentious

A big discussion concerning SlimVirgin and myself relating to this WikiProject is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alan Liefting and semi-automated edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No Portal for this topic

There does not appear to be a Portal for this topic. It is a wide enough topic to justify one. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Well done SlimVirgin. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Marketing" this WikiProject

I have added links to this WikiProject at:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/History_and_society#History_and_society
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Human_rights#Related_WikiProjects -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Aim of this WikiProject

The aim is stated as "WikiProject Animal rights is to educate readers and editors about the concept of animal rights". This is not correct. It should be, as stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject:

"A WikiProject is a group of editors that want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia.".

I would like to see it changed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• I could agree that the existing phrasing comes remarkably close to indicating an advocacy position, which might be seen as indicating a POV and, perhaps, of the project being an attempt to push a particular POV. Having said that, it would be reasonable to see a specific suggestion as to what the language should be changed to. John Carter (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and while I am a supporter of animal we are not here to push a POV. I have changed it to the following which I copied from WP Philosphy:

"A WikiProject is a group of pages in the "Wikipedia" article namespace which are devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors who use those pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles directly, but a resource to help coordinate and organize the writing and editing of those articles. This group focuses on articles in the broad field of animal rights."

How does that look? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Animal rights organizations

I created Category:Animal rights organizations and started populating it with articles from Category:Animal rights movement. My edits were contested by an editor and the task is now only partly finished. To me it makes sense to have what are clearly defined as an animal right organisations in its own category. I makes for less "clutter" and makes finding articles in Category:Animal rights movement that are more directly pertinent to the movement itself easier to find. Article such as Animal protectionism for instance are lost in the sea of animal rights organisations articles. Categories work best as a navigational tool when there is a strong relationship between the listed articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Creating a specific subcategory sounds reasonable, provided that there is some effort to ensure that the groups involved are actually clearly relevant to the category. If the groups have been clearly described as "animal rights organizations" by some independent source, that should probably be sufficient basis for their inclusion in such a category. If they haven't been, then it may make sense to not place them in such a category, but try to find some other relevant category to place them in, or keep them in the parent category. John Carter (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alan, just a note to say I'm still happy to discuss the AR cats with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I was looking for an unbiased article about Calf269 and the offshoot org called Life269. Sadly, the article currently on wikipedia needs to be heavily edited for bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.156.46.126 (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed expansion of project

I note that there do not yet seem to be any particular groups dealing specifically with issues of "animal protection." Humane society, for instance, is tagged for both the Dogs and Cats WikiProjects, but neither really deals directly with the broader field of animal protection. The existing project whose scope seems to most closely approach that general topic area would apparently be this one. Personally, I think it is not unreasonable to think that, if the scope of the project were expanded to cover such topics, that might easily in the eventual improvement of those articles, while probably at the same time bring a bit greater attention to the articles already covered within the scope of the project, and by extension their improvement. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There may well be a need for a Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal welfare to cover all aspects of animal welfare. Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights does not get a lot of activity and could be subsumed into a potential Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal welfare as a task force. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see a WikiProject Animal advocacy or WikiProject Animal protection that covered both animal rights and animal welfare. I wouldn't be keen on an animal welfare project that had animal rights as a subtopic. They are both aspects of animal advocacy/protection, and take very different approaches, so one shouldn't be subsumed under the other. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I personally find it an odd phrase which I acknowledge not ever having to my memory actually encountered before, Animal ethics seems to be the broadest existing "article" space page which indicates the potentially broader scope of the group. That phrase seems to include Wildlife management as well, which to the best of my knowledge also isn't directly covered anywhere else. Any opinions on changing the project name and scope to rerlect a change to that topic? John Carter (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, John. At first glance, I thought yes. But thinking about it some more, it can include how to use animals to the best advantage of human beings (the wildlife management article being an example of that). And that's the antithesis of animal rights, and although not quite the antithesis of animal welfare, it can be at odds with it. Having said that, I'm not totally opposed, and wouldn't mind thinking about it a bit longer.

Would WikiProject Animal advocacy or WikiProject Animal protection not be closer to what we have in mind? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

They might work. Personally, although I acknowledge that this is itself an indicator of my own biases, I have always thought that, where possible, it might make sense to have WikiProjects deal more or less directly with the subjects of relevant existing high-quality reference works. Encyclopedias or dictionaries are a great indicator as to what are major topics in the field, as well as, potentially, what content might best be included in which article. The 2 volume Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare edited by Marc Bekoff and reissued in 2010 is according to the review of the 2010 reissue in Library Journal an excellent source in that regard for the topics it deals with. Maybe using the title of that book as the name of this project, "Animal rights and animal welfare," might work best, with the project including within its scope all the topics which are substantively covered in the 200 entries in that book? John Carter (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Animal rights and animal welfare is fine by me, John. I think I'd prefer WikiProject Animal advocacy or WikiProject Animal protection because they're shorter, but that's a minor point. I'm also happy to include in the project's scope whatever Bekoff includes, with the understanding that we're not limited to that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I could like with either change myself, and I think it would be reasonable that any additional articles which are either 'sub-articles" of the articles in that book, or otherwise related, like for instance individuals who are associated with the topic, would reasonably be included as well. But maybe the articles included there might be among the more "important" articles to this project, given that they are included in another highly-regarded encyclopedia dealing with the same basic subject matter. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; we could assign the issues/people covered in Bekoff as "important" in terms of the project's ratings. So shall we plump for WikiProject Animal rights and animal welfare? The more I think about it, the more I like that title, the length issue notwithstanding. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I could go with that name. In general, "Top" importance is supposed to be assigned to articles "essential to an encyclopedia." I think the major articles in the Bekoff encyclopedia would probably qualify as Top. I don't have a copy in front of me, but I think it probably indicates which articles are "subarticles" of others, and they would probably qualify as High importance. Things not included, except for major events since it was published, would probably be Mid or Low. I should be able to get a copy early next week at the latest and see what all it includes. One idea arises. Bekoff also has an encyclopedia of human/animal relationships. Should those topics be included as well? If yes, WikiProject "Human/Animal relationships" might be acceptable. John Carter (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, John, I only just noticed your last response. I wouldn't be keen on Human/animal relationships, because the juxtaposition implies that human beings aren't animals. Human/non-human relations (or relationships) would be better, but it would significantly increase the scope, so I'm not sure it would be a good idea. But I do agree that it makes sense to assign "top" importance to issues that Bekoff covers. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've spent the last 10 days or looking around at the AR articles to see whether expanding the project would make sense, and I've concluded that it would be hard to justify it as things stand. There's still a lot of significant coverage missing from the AR categories, and I can't see editors working systematically on this or other areas (e.g. animal protection in general). So I'm not clear at the moment what expanding the project would achieve. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"Messy" category pages

SlimVirgin has removed cleanup tags from Category:Animal rights advocates and Category:Animal rights. They are a mess! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Animal rights

Template:Animal rights is for too big for use as a footer template. It is becoming more of a project outline. See Template_talk:Animal_rights#Too_big. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

SPCAs

Recently on Anderson Cooper 360, two SPCAs came up, I was wondering if they are notable enough to have articles?

• Montreal SPCA (official name: Canadian SPCA), an SPCA scammed by Quadriga Art, which had their building liened to force them to pay for the fundraising advertising costs (costs exceeded funds raised by $4 million)
• SPCA International, an NYC based organization headlined by Terri Crisp to ostensibly bring back army dogs from Iraq/Afghanistan, instead of having them left there as surplus, which has spent $56 million on bringing back strays adopted by soldiers and contractor dogs, but no army dogs, and is $8million in debt to Quadriga Art

-- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on whether Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home meets notability per Wikipedia:Notability (films) ?

Hi,

I just wrote an article on the movie Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home

Feel free to take a look and let me know if you have any comments.

The movie is about farmers reexamining their relationship to animals and moving away from the raising of livestock for ethical and/or health reasons, and it also tells the story of two animal rescues. Perhaps some people reading this may have already heard of it.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice start-class article; it's in main namespace now. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

okay, thanks for the feedback. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

TAFI

Hello, Please note that Poaching, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

Comments on Proposed New Article The Witness (2000 film) (per WP:MOVIE)

Perhaps some people in this WikiProject group have already seen the film or heard about it.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(one thing to note is that the submission process is currently severely backlogged)

---

Animal welfare by country

I have created a Animal welfare in New Zealand article and there is a need for similar articles for the subcats of Category:Animal welfare and rights by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_8#Category:Critics_and_criticism_of_animal_rights

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_8#Category:Critics_and_criticism_of_animal_rights. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Brian Whitlock and Jordan Dale Lucas

The articles Brian Whitlock and Jordan Dale Lucas have been nominated for deletion. You might want to participate in the discussion. IQ125 (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_10#Category:Vegans

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_10#Category:Vegans. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Category inclusion criteria

Editors may be interested in discussion at Category talk:Animal rights advocates#Inclusion criteria. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada

You may wish to participate in the discussion. IQ125 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Improving the "China–Cornell–Oxford Project" Stub

Hello everyone,
I recently watched "Forks Over Knives," a documentary that advocates a whole-food, plant-based lifestyle. Before watching this film, I was a vegetarian but still consumed a diet heavy in dairy products. Since watching this documentary a few weeks ago, I have since adopted a fully vegan diet. To me, the most influential piece of evidence in support of transitioning to this diet was the explanation of the findings of the China-Cornell-Oxford Project. This study was one of the most comprehensive studies of nutrition ever conducted. Its findings promote the vegan lifestyle by linking animal products to a variety of health issues including type I diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and low cholesterol. Since learning about this study was so pivotal in my choice to become a vegan, I would like more information about the study to be available on Wikipedia. This page is considered low importance as a part of Wikiproject china, but I think it should also be considered a part of the Animal right WikiProject. I am going to begin converting this page from a stub to a full article, and I would greatly appreciate any help and editing tips!
Thank you! Stephanie3460 (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for staying on to help edit Wikipedia after your school project! I think it could obviously stand some expansion and cross links to, eg, The China Study and Forks over Knives. (I've noticed that multiple Wikipedia articles often overlap; sometimes, it is useful to merge them). A full expansion that follows WP:NPOV would involve covering criticisms (I haven't read the book or seen the film, but I'm aware not everyone agrees with Prof Campbell), as other editors will probably point out on the talk page. So if you want to go for the full expansion, I'd suggest reading around WP:NPOV and - given that you've indicated your WP:POV here - being ready to explain your edits to editors who suspect POV-pushing. But, also, consider whether a full expansion of a potentially controversial article is too ambitious for your second Wikipedia project :).

Others might offer different advice. Ian McDonald (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Anahareo.jpg

image:Anahareo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory (book) nominated for GA

The entry on An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, a book by Alasdair Cochrane is a Good Article nominee.

It seems to meet Good Article criteria - but I think completeness as well as verifiability could only really be judged by someone who has actually read the book. Has anyone here read the book?

Ian McDonald (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Meat Atlas + Farmageddon (book)

I just created an article about the Meat Atlas (Meat Atlas – Facts and figures about the animals we eat). You might want to improve this article by uploading some of the graphs which can be found on the hompage of the Heinrich Böll foundation. All graphs are licensed for Wikipedia under a creative commons licence. Thanks. NewJohn (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Farmageddon (book) - Another new article about industrial livestock production which you might want to review and expand. Thanks again. NewJohn (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose merge from Meat market to Butcher

I have proposed that Meat market be merged to Butcher. Discussion is at Talk:Meat market#Merge discussion. Cnilep (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We are fed up

A review of We are fed up would also be great... This article is about a series of demonstrations in Germany against industrial livestock production and for a more sustainable agriculture. Thanks, NewJohn (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Animal Rights At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review page needs reviewers

I made a peer review page for this project, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights/Peer Review

Please let me know if you would be willing to be an active peer reviewer by saying so here on this talk page. Thanks! Maranjosie (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Collaboration page

I made a collaboration page for this project, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights/Collaboration

Task force

Does WikiProject Animal rights currently have a task force? If so can you please post a link to it here? Thanks!Maranjosie (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed award

The Animal Rights Barnstar was created to reward those who advance the goals of WikiProject Animal rights .

Please let me know what you think.Maranjosie (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

As there is no objection, I will put in in the WikiProject Awards and barnstars.Maranjosie (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this award. By the way, Maranjosie I have been working on Donald Watson with the hopes of bringing that article up to snuff. I think Watson's contribution is important, since he coined the term, "vegan." I'm new to wikipedia, but I'd love your feedback on how we can get to a point of removing the banner. Thanks! --Jonddunn (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Animal trapping listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Animal trapping to be moved to Trapping. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Tyke the elephant

Hi, I've recently made some edits to the Tyke (elephant) page, and also left a new thread on the talk page. Was wondering if any of you could help me out on what I raised on the talk page?

Thanks!

Littleghostboo[ talk ] 02:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Dog Meat Festival

Comments welcome at Talk:Dog Meat Festival#The name of this article.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Anti-hunting listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Anti-hunting to be moved to Opposition to hunting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

"Psychology of eating meat"

The usage and topic of Psychology of eating meat is under discussion, see DRAFT TALK: Psychology of eating meat -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Animal testing on non-human primates listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Animal testing on non-human primates to be moved to Experimentation on non-human primates. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Animals, Property, and the Law

I've nominated this for deletion, but I'd like to be convinced otherwise, if possible. If the article's claims about this being the first setting out of the legal case for animal rights are true, this is a very notable book, but the source for the article's claims are... the book itself. Not a source we can necessarily take without questioning. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Animal testing listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Animal testing to be moved to Animal research. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Animal testing listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Animal testing to be moved to Animal research. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Animal killing, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

New article - Animal testing on Syrian hamsters

• Animal testing on Syrian hamsters

I just made this new article. I also made a new category, Category:Animal testing by animal type, and put all similar articles into that category. I thought I would share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Monkey test" and "monkey testing"

The usage and topic of monkey test and Monkey testing is under discussion, see talk:monkey test -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)