Category talk:Animal rights movement

message: Should places that have been targeted by the animal liberation movement be categorised here? I don't think they should, because they aren't part of the animal liberation movement. Arfan2006 21:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think there may be some different opinions on this matter.  You suggest not appropriate to categorize them here because they "aren't part of" the ALM.  My understanding is that categories are not necessarily "true subcategories" in the sense of a logical "part of" relationship.  Categories, as used in wikipedia, also indicate relationship to the subject.  So if the targeted status is really significant to the subject of the article, then it should be listed in Cat:ALM -- and in a sense that makes sense, because where else would they be listed?  But to avoid confusion with those who are "part of" the ALM and those who are "related to" or "targeted by" the ALM, subcategories would be appropriate -- for instance, :Category:Targets of animal liberationists. However, that category might not make sense for other reasons though and might be inclined to be abused.  Moreover, categorization of this category is not in consensus now, so it's not really clear how (if at all) it is appropriately subcategorized .... The upshot is that maybe a "List of targets of animal liberationists" would be better for any number of reasons; that doesn't answer whether it should be categorized in :Category:Animal liberation movement; I would argue yes. --lquilter 17:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: places targeted by ALM

message: Individual activists should be contained in a separate category to allow for easier access to information about such activists and to reference a specific animal rights activists category as a member of other categories without including the general category.  For example, :Category:Animal rights activists (or whatever you want to call it) should be a member of :Category:Activists and :Category:Animal liberation movement.  For one example, see :Category:Civil rights.  This makes it easier to find and sort specific information as well as make subcats members of other cats. --Viriditas 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - was this previously discussed or handled? --lquilter 01:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights have been  preventing any categorization of animal rights activists.  Some of their arguments may be found here.  I don't feel that any of their arguments are persuasive, compelling, or even address the issue.  I've spent a significant amount of time searching academic databases, and the categorization of animal rights activists is fully supported.  Additionally, this allows cross-references in :Category:Activists and other categories.  The project has gone so far as to redirect Animal rights activism and List of animal rights activists, both valid articles.  Lastly, the article Animal rights movement is currently named Animal liberation movement, which violates naming convention guidelines.  As you can see by the dated comments, this dispute has been going on for almost a year. —Viriditas | Talk 02:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks - I agree there needs to be some clarity & consistency between the other activist categories.  --lquilter 02:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Subcatting -- for 2 weeks there's been no further discussion of the subcats, which used to exist, for "activists".  If we can't reach consensus here, I'm taking it to Categories for Discussion. --lquilter 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support taking this to CFD, however I recommend waiting until winter break is over for most students; the entire Animal rights project will probably block this CFD again, and that may be difficult to counter with fewer people participating.  I suggest getting other WikiProjects involved, such as WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Sociology.  Some of these activists are considered philosophers, so WikiProject Philosophy may or may not be helpful. There may be others. —Viriditas | Talk 18:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, sorry, your strategic concerns are probably valid, but I went ahead & did it before I saw your note. --lquilter 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  All we care about is improving the encyclopedia.  If we can't find information, or a categorization doesn't work, we should welcome change.  —Viriditas | Talk 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I started discussion at Category talk:Activists on thinking through the problems of categorization -- the Animal rights movement project people don't have unique problems, but they are problems that should be addressed. Maybe we should spawn a project, but for now I started a discussion. Hopefully it will pull in people from all sorts of perspectives and we can come up with a good scheme that addresses all the issues in a comprehensive & consistent fashion. --lquilter 22:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for other projects, we should get Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories involved. —Viriditas | Talk 23:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done.  --lquilter 00:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual activists 

message: I removed :Category:Famous animals and its subcat :Category:Famous apes from this category.  I'm not sure how these famous animals are part of the Animal liberation movement.  Is the fact of accomplished or well-known animals supportive of the movement?  Anyway, if an editor feels strongly about restoring the categories, just :Category:Famous animals will suffice, as the other is a subcategory. -Acjelen 18:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous animals 

message: I've orginally put the cat up for a renaming to :Category:Animal rights movement, but there was already a :Category:Animal rights groups I found out. Still "liberation" in this case is not neutral, since "liberation" in this case might mean using force against humans or property. You can share your thoughts here, or at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Animal_liberation_movement_to_Category:Animal_rights_movement. Intangible 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cat isn't called "animal liberation," which I can see might be POV (at a stretch). It is called "animal liberation movement." That is simply the name of the movement. It contains people who agree with the concept of animal rights, and people who do not. I don't see the benefit of changing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with the merge of :Category:Animal liberation movement to :Category:Animal rights. Animal liberation is a very specific and well defined sub part of the animal rights movement, namely those who engage in liberating animals and employ Direct action techniques to acheive those aims. I'm thinking of thaking this to Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Salix alba (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Salix, the bot owner has agreed to stop and reverse what the bot did, so I think it'll be okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  renaming 

message: I again propose this cat to be renamed to :Category:Animal rights movement, again for POV reasons. See the earlier CFR . Intangible 13:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet again we have a poorly advertised CfD [discussion], from what I can tell there was not even a notice placed on the the category page. Dispight the fact that the previous merge was overturned on Deletion review precisle because it was inadaquatly advertised and discussed. --Salix alba (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Poorly advertised? See Google Cache. Intangible 17:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:CFD Consider adding  to the main article's talk page owing to the controvsy over the renaming it would have seemed apropriate in this circumstance. Again we had a CFD discussion where those who know something about the field were not involved. I don't know why but it didn't seem to show up in my wacthlist. --Salix alba (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it was very poorly advertised. Animal rights != Animal liberation and visa versa. I will be taking this to deletion review as people who no nothing about this area should not be able to judge on it without doing some basic research. There is a movement where people think animals should be liberated, it is called the animal liberation movement and the individuals are 'animal liberationists' - they are a subset of the animal rights movement but are not one and the same.-Localzuk(talk) 18:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  renaming 

message: I have place a cleanup tag on the article. It does not follow the accepted convention. My attempts to clean it up were reverted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged with cleanup