Talk:House rabbit

message: The claim that a rabbit living indoors lives longer than one living outdoors needs a scientific citation. This kind of overly broad statement is not a neutral point of view as it uses a citation from the House Rabbit Society website who has an (understandable) bias toward indoor rabbits. This claim could be credible if true but it needs a scientific source with supporting data to be encyclopedic.  Truthsleuther (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longer Lifespan claim

message: I'm not sure how to indicate the citation for a redirect, to show that the name is common, so for now, I'm putting them in the talk page. Here are a couple high-profile web sites that use the name "House Rabbit":  . 
--Ed Brey 22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for redirect 

message: While it makes sense for this article to redirect to Domestic rabbit, since all house rabbits are domestic and since the domestic rabbit article contains a lot of info for house rabbits, IMHO it would be even better to split off the content specific to house rabbits and put it on this page. For more discussion of this, see Talk:Domestic_rabbit#House_rabbit?. --Ed Brey 22:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split from Domestic Rabbit 

message: the statement that rabbits do not need vaccinations is entirely false and should be removed.  There are a variety of illnesses which rabbits need to be vaccinated against, including indoor rabbits, as many diseases are carried by fleas.  
Additionally rabbits should be spayed or neutered, especially females which start to become prone to ovarian cancer after 4 years of age. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.137.151.22 (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vaccines addressed, including regional variation of availability, necessity and legality.Kerani (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kerani. There are  no vaccines available or required in the USA whereas the UK and other regions have them.  One should tread lightly making overreaching statements (as in the first unsigned post above)  about things with regional variability.. Truthsleuther (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  vaccinations 

message: The Rabbit page had a big and rambling section on pet rabbits.  I've taken pretty much all of the content and moved it to the relevant sections here, trying to make sure that it doesn't clash with the existing material.  Well, I think it's partly successful, but I invite house rabbit experts to fine tune it.  Arikk 07:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving content from [[Rabbit]] 

message: I undid an edit that made the term binky a link to a page not yet created. I contemplated this when introducing the term early in this page's history. It seemed unlikely that there would be enough content to make a worthwhile wikipedia article for binky, to I used elected not the make the broken link. I believe that still stands, but if someone wants to present a vision of a binky article, I'd certainly be interested. --Ed Brey 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binky article 

message: This article was flagged as needing additional citations for verification; however, there aren't any specific fact tags in the article. Does anyone know of anything in the article that isn't backed by one or more of the references? --Ed Brey 01:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation holes? 

message: This article was tagged as falling within the scope of the Pocket pets work group. However, I've never heard of anyone putting a rabbit in his pocket. Has anyone else? I think rabbits may have been lumped over-broadly in with other lagomorphs. --Ed Brey 01:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pocket-sized house rabbit 

message: I removed the reference to fly strike from the "Health" section. I agree that it is an important problem, and indeed gets good treatment in Domestic rabbit. The problem is that listing all the possible health problems in the beginning of the health section would overwhelm a reader with too much technical info, and just listing just the one root cause obscures the others (unless fly strike is especially common; if so, please say so). More useful is to list symptoms that the reader would readily recognize. Perhaps there should be a better reference to the list of heath problem causes. One possibility would be to fork the list in Domestic rabbit into its own article, which could be readily linked from the "Health" section of House rabbit. Thoughts on that? --Ed Brey (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info, especially on the prevalence of fly strike. I wasn't away it was one of the most common reasons. Given that, I agree that it has a place in the house rabbit page health section. Inclusion in the first paragraph list would be OK, but I think that a richer inclusion would be ever better, one that gives an owner enough information to identify the symptom. This might involve some restructuring of the paragraph. Feel free to be bold. The vethelpdirect web site had the major downfall that its disclaimer said that it should be not be used by anyone outside the EU (seems over-restrictive to me, but that's what they say). That made it less than ideal for linking by Wikipedia. What do you think? --Ed Brey (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of fly strike in health concerns 

message: I'd like to find a really good main picture for the article. Following are the features I'd like to see in the picture. I'm interested in suggestions on the features and specific picture suggestions.
* Distinguishes house rabbits from outdoor rabbits (e.g. a picture without a cage is preferable)
* Some element of the picture is quickly recognizable as being in a house or part of a house
* Representative of a typical day in the life of a house rabbit (so a rabbit wearing clothes wouldn't be the first choice)
* Rabbit takes up 75%+ of the frame
* Cute
--Ed Brey (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another requirement I would add is "Entire rabbit is in frame".  Willow with keys fails that one.  Ideally someone should just take a better picture, since neither image is especially good.  A photo with decent ambient light rather than taken with a flash would be a start.  siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to comment: with my own browsing preferences and screen resolution, 400px is far too big and renders the lead text nearly unreadable. I can live with 350px, although I generally prefer 300px or leaving the image size to user preferences.  siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main picture 

message: The lead image looks awkward compared to the rest of the article at the default size. The guidance on lead image size is confusing. I posted a question about it here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Lead_image_size. For now, I'd like to use a size similar to the other images, but a bit bigger to avoid a stacked look. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to comment: with my own browsing preferences and screen resolution, 400px is far too big and renders the lead text nearly unreadable. I can live with 350px, although I generally prefer 300px or leaving the image size to user preferences.  siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size 

message: I removed a sentence "In addition, if a grid is used with no litter box, it will prevent rabbits from ingesting their cecotropes, an essential part of their digestive process." because, AFAIK, rabbits reinject their cecotropes before they hit the ground. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cecotropes and wire cages 

message: There was a tag claiming that the article contained original research. There were a lot of recent edits for which I couldn't find support in the article's citations. I removed the tag and the material that needs to be sourced, which I am listing below. If anyone has a source for these, please re-introduce with a citation. Keep in mind, too, that the article should describe common practice, but not be a "how to" guide (e.g. don't use "you" when writing).
* "The complete MAIN thing a rabbit needs in it's diet is medow hay. The diet can insist of other foods but you MUST have medow hay all the time. Lettuce has little nutritional value, you can feed it to your pet rabbit, but don't use it instead of other foods."
* "By rubbing soap on electrical cords and wooden furniture/items, your rabbit should stop chewing them as they do not like the smell of the soap, however you need to maintain this as it wears off and you will find your rabbit chewing once again. Providing them with apple tree sticks/cuttings (without the leaves) will give your rabbit something else to chew on that is good for them."
* "Many rabbits enjoy watching TV or computer screens, especially when bright, active scenes like cartoons are on."
* "oat hay" [as a food]
* "Many bunnies find the buttons on a TV remote control irresistible, and will chew them off.  This issue is easily addressed by leaving the remote in the upside down position (buttons down) or out of reach of the bunny."
* "fur prevents intestinal blocking and fatal choking "
* "When done brushing, a pet owner can additionally wet their hands and wipe the rabbit down to remove any loose fur."
Also, I removed two sections, "Problems" and "Reproduction" because there were redundant with other info in House rabbit and Rabbit.
Finally, there is this blurb, which has some value, but needs to the right context. It should be folded into the section on organizations:
* "Most house rabbit problems have simple solutions, such as neutering the aforementioned male rabbit.  When issues occur, it is a good idea to consult a local rabbit shelter for advice.  Typically shelter volunteers will have encountered similar situations and will know how to deal with them."
--Ed Brey (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be really good to find a citation for this.  One place to look is the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science http://www.psyeta.org/jaaws/jaawstoc.shtml which is a peer reviewed scientific journal that focuses on issues such as the welfare of companion animals.  In fact, I recommend anyone really interested in pet behaviour to browse the articles (free online). Arikk (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research tag 

message: Alot of lines in the current revision as of Oct 10th 2007 are very iffy.
"They are a very cute pet to have and they are a good companion." I don't remember cuteness being a measurable value.
"The complete MAIN thing a rabbit needs in it's diet is medow hay. The diet can insist of other foods but you MUST have medow hay all the time. Lettuce has little nutritional value, you can feed it to your pet rabbit, but don't use it instead of other foods.House rabbits are..." - Fully capitalized words, bad spacing, and most of all: Wikipedia:NotHowTo.
• ∈nigma • (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute compared with, say, a wolverine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an encyclopedia... 

message: Don't you think the average life span of a house rabbit is a bit important? I couldn't find life span info in the house rabbit OR rabbit page. C'mon you guys, that seems pretty rudimentary for an animal article. I'd post it myself if I knew but that's why I came to this page! Sixthcrusifix (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. I agree is would be a prominent question. I added the life expectancy to the intro paragraph. Ed Brey (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life Span? 

message: I removed the following text, because it isn't supported by the cited source or any source that I could find. If anyone has a good source, please put the text back in: "When a stranger approaches slowly with an outstretched hand, a rabbit will often respond positively by sniffing and pushing the hand with his nose." --Ed Brey (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialization with strangers 

message: Despite the description on the image page, there is nothing in the picture to suggest the rabbit is dashing anywhere, let alone under a couch. Caption changed to reflect what can actually be seen – a rabbit with some keys. wjematherbigissue 18:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To corroborate the photo's metadata, the pose of the rabbit is in, stretched out as it is, would be unusual for a stationary rabbit. I see no reason to doubt the veracity of the metadata. Having the picture and the full caption is helpful in capturing the spirit of owning a house rabbit - i.e., it interacts with your life in very personal (and sometimes annoying) ways. That said, I'd rather not focus on the caption so much, but rather find a better picture. See #Main picture. It would be nice to have a picture without such a harsh flash. --Ed Brey (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What was uploaded with the image is irrelevant. This is an encyclopaedia not a story book that needs embelishments. wjematherbigissue 07:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that we don't have to use what was uploaded with the image. It's just a pool of info to draw from. The question is what will most help a reader understand house rabbits? Saying "A house rabbit dashing under the couch with her keys" tells you more in a snippet about what house rabbit ownership is like than just "a house rabbit with keys". The former helps the article educate. Why would you want to take that away? The latter caption could be removed altogether, since it adds nothing not already in the picture. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not here to promote rabbits as house pets or tell a story. wjematherbigissue 20:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But we are here to describe as richly as possible what house rabbits are like and what house rabbit ownership is like. What do you think is the best way to do that in the caption of the main image? --Ed Brey (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "rabbit carrying keys in its mouth"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering about going with more details. What differentiates a house rabbit from other domestic rabbits? One difference is they commonly have names. We could work that in. The reader doesn't care about the specific name, but the concept is valuable, and the specific example helps articulate the concept. Another difference is the strength of interaction between rabbit and owner. Meat rabbits aren't to likely to get hold of their owners keys because they don't hop freely through the house. Not so with house rabbits. So another good detail is to indicate that these are not the rabbit's keys (an assigned toy). I'm not sure how best to word it, perhaps something like, "Willow, a house rabbit, carrying her owners' keys in her mouth". We could go into where she is going with the keys, but I agree that feels a bit abstract given what's in the photo. It would exemplify another house rabbit differentiator, but a less interesting one. --Ed Brey (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of rabbit with keys 

message: This article is a terrible example of a how-to guide. I'm going to have a go at cleaning it up but would appreciate the support of others - especially in identifying the stuff to be pruned. --Simple Bob (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I found all the detail interesting, and other readers might also. That doesn't rule out the possibility that it could be made more concise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing all unsourced material would probably be the first step. --Morn (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A significant amount of it does seem to be someone relating their personal experiences with rabbits. For one thing, I've always heard that rabbits cannot be housebroken. But I don't have a source for that. I figure one major advantage of having a rabbit as a pet is that if you get tired of it, you could always cook it. Tastes kinda like chicken. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I touched on above, once the article has been stripped of the how-to stuff, and all the original research, there may well not be enough content to justify this fork of domestic rabbit and merging may be the best option. wjematherbigissue 17:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as owners of a pet dog probably don't want to read about the culinary aspects of dog meat, rabbit breeders and rabbit pet owners are usually quite distinct. Also, house rabbits are usually smaller breeds that would not yield much meat. "House rabbit" is an established term that does deserve its own article, except with better sources and not as a how-to. --Morn (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just see whats left first. I'm only saying there may not be sufficient content distinct from domestic rabbit to warrant this fork. After all we do not have separate articles for pet dogs or cats. At this point I really do not see why rabbits should be any different. wjematherbigissue 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was started nearly 4 years ago, not surprisingly by a guy who's been quite defensive about it. As you say, see what's left when the OR is gone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Morn, I believe a lot of the material you removed is actually sourced in Pavia and Harriman. Could you please put it back and add tags where you find the material doubtful or not covered by those sources? This would make it much easier to clean up. It would also be more consistent with WP:CITE#Dealing with unsourced material. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, you've been working for about four years on this article and yet haven't managed to do proper inline citations. It's your job to properly source material you put on WP. If it takes years to resolve the fact template, it's better to remove the material. --Morn (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to volunteer, but have limited time for this project. You would make it more efficient for me if you were OK with restoring your deletions and tagging instead. I don't see why issues can't be addressed in a timely fashion; this article has never had a stale fact template. Additionally, please remember this is a team effort. We can all pitch in to improve the article, including with inline citations. That said, it is important to remember that while desirable, inline citations are not required except for material challenged or likely to be challenged (WP:V). Do you see any reason that WP:CITE#Dealing with unsourced material would not apply to this article? --Ed Brey (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a big difference between unsourced claims and original research, which appeared to be rife in this article prior to the cull. wjematherbigissue 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with the distinction. I'm pretty sure quite a bit too much was removed. I'm looking for an efficient way to separate the wheat from the chaff. I'd like to follow the standard process if possible. --Ed Brey (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Nice one! Arikk (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job! In the meantime I have removed a bunch of stuff added/reinstated by . I suggest you keep an eye on the article should it be reinstated again. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful not to turn this into an edit war.  Although removing junk is good, you cannot assume that the edits of a particular user are necessarily junk.  For instance, I replaced the external link to the House Rabbit Society, which is probably the only site on the web for reliable information on the subject (except this page of course...).  Arikk (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, I don't want to start an edit war. I also agree that the House Rabbit Society is a reasonable site w.r.t. house rabbits - that's why it is used as a reference. However, I don't see why an organisation for a single country should be linked in the external links section over and above any of the 330 other rabbit-related websites that can be found via the DMOZ link. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that site is specifically about house rabbits (as opposed to just rabbits) and because they publish a fairly authoritative book on the subject, the House Rabbit Handbook, which is used as a reference. I don't think you can say the same thing for those "330 other rabbit-related websites that can be found via the DMOZ link"! --Morn (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The DMOZ link yielded very little information on house rabbits or their care/keeping - and that, only after many clicks.  It's not the most relevant link for this article. Lisieski (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Dude, it was sad. Clearly you have no soul. I cried. :(  --Stroller (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on. It's not a human, it's a freakin' rabbit. Ask the average Australian farmer how they feel about rabbits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I was kidding when I said you had no soul, and I was kidding when I said I cried, but ... hmmmn ... look, yes, this is slightly serious. I'm not saying that that was appropriate content for an encyclopaedia (I'm not judging that), but seriously, I expect that one day I myself will have to help one of my pets assimilate that his or her mate has died. Would you be laughing about someone crying when their dog died? Seriously, comments like yours are massively frustrating to those who work in rabbit rescue and to house-rabbit owners in general. We don't give a monkey's what an Aussie farmer thinks about rabbits as vermin - that is completely different to the status of rabbits as pets. Apparently the problem is that you're not asking the average pet owner what they think of their companions. Domesticated rabbits are  the 3rd most popular pet in the UK and yet they're the most abused and neglected (RSPCA figures) - that is a massive over-representation. And the reason that rabbits are so frikkin' neglected is that people don't give a toss about them, don't bother to think or learn about their welfare or their needs, and don't treat them with the respect or decency that nearly everyone gives to cats and dogs as a matter of course. Now I hope you're not reading this wrong - I'm not really offended right now, I'm just trying to explain. I'm not that sensitive about this issue - but you should be. Because there may very well be rabbit-lovers reading this page who are far more easily upset than I am, who have perhaps lost their pet this week, and IMO you should be sensitive to not making things harder for them. I don't really know what you found funny about that comment - don't bother to explain; I actually found it a little funny myself, but probably for quite different reasons - but there was no need for you to make the comment you did on this page. Wikipedia is not a chatroom nor a messageboard and your comment served no purpose. I think there's a real risk that if this page were left only to rabbit-lovers then it could become a new-age fluff-fest, so I guess it's useful to wikipedia that folks with no interest in rabbits are contributing. But on the other hand I kinda don't know what you're doing with this page on your watchlist, if you don't want to treat the subject in a mature manner, if all you want to do is laugh at people.--Stroller (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I thought it was funny at first too, but also interesting (and I keep rabbits - house rabbits, if you will.)  Also, Strolls, if you're going to call people our for misusing the talk-page for off-hand comments, it would strengthen your position to refrain from them yourself.  More topically, I think the edit (in some form) should stick, as I've detailed in the next section.Lisieski (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to get rid of the how to 

message: My recent edit containing this text: 
"House rabbits are often kept in pairs, trios, or larger groups, to help cater to their social needs, which may not be fully met by their keepers.  Pairs or groups of rabbits that live together will bond with each other, exhibiting an increase in affiliative behaviors such as mutual grooming, physical contact, and eating together and a decrease in aggressive and defensive behaviors. Some house rabbit keepers claim that rabbits are aware of the absence of their bonded peers after they have died, exhibiting abnormal behavior; proponents of this idea advocate that the surviving rabbit(s) be allowed to "view" the body of the deceased rabbit in order to "accept" its death. "
was quickly reverted.  I want to defend it (or at least its spirit, if not the exact text) and see what people think before editing it again.
I think it's fair documentation of common practices (in fact, many references can be found citing the behavioral effects of housing rabbits socially.)  I'll work on getting some scholarly sources about the effects of pair housing on social behavior, which I'm sure exist in abundance - social behavior in mammals is well-studied.
The "viewing" thing is a bit off-the-wall, but it seems to be mentioned on most online resources that deal with pet rabbits dying.  I don't think it's POV, although it certainly hasn't been investigated in any scientific way - though there is at least one peer-reviewed article mentioning it ( http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/wov/2005/00000009/00000002/art00003 ).  I think it's an important practice among people who identify as house rabbit keepers specifically, and so should be included in the article.Lisieski (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Some house rabbit keepers claim..." constitutes weasel words and certainly has no place in an encyclopedic entry.  OTOH, I had a look at your reference and although it seems quite off the wall, this peculiar journal is published by a mainstream publishing house, and so has to be given the benefit of the doubt.  If you REALLY think this belongs in the entry, and can phrase it in an appropriate way, I guess it would be hard to reject.  Although as a professional, I personally find the idea rampant and heinous pseudoscience. Arikk (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would fall under WP:FRINGE and would have to be virtually invisible to avoid lending the idea WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. wjematherbigissue 23:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social housing and "viewing" of deceased rabbits 

message: The person who removed this link specified that it contravened the WP:NOTHOWTO rule. This is simply not the case! The page provides a wealth of information for house rabbit owners to interpret the body language of their pets. It is not a 'how to' guide in any way, other than allowing you to understand what your rabbit is telling you so you may respond accordingly. To interpret this page as a 'how to guide', simply due to the semantics of its title, is being pedantic to the extreme. CrackDragon (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language of Lagomorphs external link