Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights/Archive 1

message: I'm not sure we had reached consensus about the name and full scope of the project. Had we? Nrets 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The scope is likely to evolve over time. I've put up the most obvious themes to get people started. As for the name, as Localzuk said, this is the shortest and most obvious. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on the short & obvious. I don't think it neccessarily excludes other concepts.  Canæn  09:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Project name?

message: I think that Juliet Gellatley should definately be added to the AR template - both under Activists (as she is the best known in the UK) and internationally but also under AR Writers. 62.25.106.209 15:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She should only be included once, but I do agree that she should be included.-Localzuk (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding her! 62.25.106.209 09:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that this information was taken out due t ocopyright and I respect that. However, if someone can work with me to re-write it and find additional information I would greatly appreciate it. 62.25.106.209 07:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding Andrew Tyler but it needs a great deal of work. 62.25.106.209 09:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Activists and Writers

message: If anyone is good at writing these articles then their is a lot of information to be found on the Animal Aid website at this link  and also obviously SPEAK will have lots of information as they are dedicated to it  62.25.106.209 14:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needed on Oxford Uni as with the Cambridge Uni article on [[Primate experiments at Cambridge University]].

message: I created a userbox if anyone wants to put it on their user page. Colours/image are flexible. I did this just to get started. 
SlimVirgin (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To use the box add  to your userpage.  Canæn  09:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: I'd certainly be glad to help you round out this project by adding/editing/critiquing text regarding criticism related to his issue. I think perhaps a Cricism section should be added to the WikiProject Animal rights article itself under Scope, don't you?DocEss 18:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would such a section contain?-Localzuk (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let's think about that for a while. We do want to get this right; i.e, we do want to create the most objective, unbiased and indepth yet practicle articles we can, so we shall have to put some thought to this. Any input anyone?DocEss 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics

message: As per the original proposal, we need to create a guideline for the use of external links on Animal Rights articles. We need to create criteria that links must comply with before being included in articles. Any suggestions?
How about some of these?
*Is/are the official website(s) of the subject matter discussed in the article.
*It must add something to the article - so if it is a site critical of the subject matter, it must add more than just a 'rant' to the article. It should also not have 2 sites critical of the subject matter unless they specifically complement the article. This goes for pro sites also.
*We shouldn't provide lists of different sites ran by a single organisation - for example PETA and their many sites or the CCF and their many sites.
*There should never be a 'pro' and 'anti' subsection of links.
*The external links section should be kept short, preferably to a list of less than 10 links.
*Sites should have a detailed description of their purpose.
Any others/less than these?
-Localzuk (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I'd want to see hard-and-fast rules. I don't agree with having fewer than 10 links; more links are good so long as they're useful or informative, in my view. I agree we shouldn't include sites that only rant, or blogs/personal websites., unless the blog is a notable one, or belongs to the person the article is about. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should there never be a pro and anti subsection? I think it is simply a useful organizational scheme. Nrets 00:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people see that as a way of adding their own personal pet project to. We end up having battles of links which obviously are bad. Also, sometimes things are not clear cut pro or anti - some organisations may not support part of something but support other areas. -Localzuk (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I think if the ones their are staaying then Hillside Animal Sanctuary should be added.   They have had a major impact, and also are the central point for animals liberated by the ALF. 62.25.106.209 15:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi 62.25, I'm not sure what you mean that they should be included. Have they been excluded from somewhere, or do you mean that they should have articles? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, included in the Template I think as the BUAV is. FK0071a 10:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thanks. We can't have everything in the template because it would be too long otherwise, so the most prominent ones are there, and the BUAV is the most prominent of the ones you mentioned. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About groups

message: Hi all,
Whilst the ambitions set out on your Project Page are indeed very noble I do not believe that you are currently offering a neutral viewpoint. If you are serious about providing both sides of the story then what about wikilinks in your infobox to groups such as Pro-Test as at the moment every single wikilink is to groups who believe that the law should be changed to afford greater protection of Animal Rights.
Wikipedia is a place for neutral writing, please do not consider these comments as advocating either POV, but merely an attempt to introduce some balance.
Martin Hinks 15:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These templates include links to articles directly related to the issue. So the Jew template includes articles about Jews, the Judaism template articles about Judaism etc. The Jew template doesn't include links to articles about neo-Nazis. The Holocaust template doesn't include links to Holocaust deniers. Similarly, the animal rights template includes articles about people and groups who focus on animal rights. Pro-Test has never commented on animal rights, to the best of my knowledge. Although their interests would have an impact on animal rights, the connection is indirect. For the same reason, we wouldn't link to "butcher," "furrier," "meat," or "elephant trainer." SlimVirgin (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template used at Jew does however contain links to topics on Jewish Persecution including the Holocaust and New Anti Semitism. I would also argue that there is a difference between Pro-Test and butchers! Whilst butchers may, in some people's opinions, violate animal rights, they are not an organisation set up for the sole purpose of campaigning for or against animal rights, they are organisations set up to make profits from the sale of meat. Pro-Test on the other hand is a group set up specifically to promote animal testing. As you link to SPEAK, a group whose sole aim is to protest against vivisection and all animal testing, it would seem that you are presenting the animal testing argument from a non-neutral point of view. Martin Hinks 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pro-Test has not been set up to campaign against animal rights. No one involved in it, to the best of my knowledge, knows anything about the subject or has ever written about it. The people and groups on the template are experts on the subject of animal rights, through their activism, their writing, or their studying. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the point I am trying to make is best shown by quoting the opening sentences of each of the articles in question; SPEAK and Pro-Test:
*SPEAK, the Voice for the Animals is a British animal rights campaign that aims to end animal experimentation and vivisection in the UK.
*Pro-Test is a British group that promotes and supports animal testing in medical research.
As you can see, these sentences, which as they are the opening sentences should convey the most important facet of each group, places SPEAK and Pro-Test at distinct opposites within the same field. SPEAK can clearly be said to be an "animal rights" group, with which you appear to agree. The existence of a group such as Pro-Test also indicates that not everyone agrees with the cause promoted by SPEAK. I would also like to point out that Pro-Test seeks to halt any legislation which would stop vivisection - which, by the inclusion of SPEAK in the list, is clearly an issue of "animal rights". Therefore, Pro-Test can be said to be a group that campaigns for the freezing of animal rights legislation at it's curent stage and by this, a group of great relevance to animal rights.
If you are going to argue that anyone not campaigning to increase animal rights (ie. pro-vivisection/testing) is not to be included in the animal rights template then there can never be a neutral point of view presented and the links within the template will not "educate readers" about the animal rights debate, it will merely show them the side that campaigns to increase animal rights. I personally would feel far happier if the template were balanced out so that it could be included on many more pages (such as Pro-Test) which would give the existing articles within this project greater exposure. Martin Hinks 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Hello to all. I'm a newbe to Wikipedia. I took something on the site to heart when it prompted, "Be bold." So I jumped right in.
As you might see I've made a couple additions and deletions to the page, and, well, then I read the sentence, "If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page." Sorry.
So, here I am, inquiring after the fact.  I'd like to join in. The various discussions here are very interesting.
Just so you all know, I'm completely biased and think animals ought to be treated like people. But, I am also interested in seeing the matter presented in a fair and relatively neutral way here, even though some of the sources quotes and cited are anything but neutral.
One other thing, I don't post anywhere on the internet under an alias. If this won't work here, then I won't stay. No biggy.
Hope I didn't mess up the page too much. Rbogle 00:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Rbogle, and welcome to the project and to the madhouse in general. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi

message: Hi,
I'm a vegan and programmer from Porto Alegre, Brazil (yeah, i'm in the world's barbecue capital). I would like to join you and help to create a neutral philosophical discussion about Animal Rights.
By the way, in my point of view Animal Rights are only "negative" or "passive" rights, like not to be molested or killed. It's just about freedom, nothing else.
Juanmaiz 11:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to have you with us, Juanmaiz. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi v2 

message: I'm just another person saying hi. I'm not too 'bold' on the web like others, but I'll do my best to play my part in this project. I'm more of a hands-on-in-real-life kinda person, sometimes I forget about the internet, but I love it nonetheless.P.S. I tried saying hi last night, but an error message occured, so I'm trying again now.Eddie mars 06:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Eddie. Welcome to the project and Wikipedia. Glad to have you with us! Rockpocket 07:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi, Version 3! 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 22:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Hi all, I notice that as of yet, Vegetarianism and Veganism are not within this project's scope. I would like to propose that at least Veganism be added in. All animal rights groups that I've ever encoutered advocate at least vegetarianism, and if someone has reached Veganism, they've usually also considered animal liberation. For me, Veganism and Animal Liberation are entirley intertwined, and since Animal Liberation is included in the scope of the article, I though it natural that Veganism would be too. Vegans coming from an ethical standpoint, and many from an environmental one, favor Animal Liberation if not Animal Rights, though I don't make a distinction between the two. I'd also like to get more involved users over at Veganism.
So, in short, my proposal: Veganism, as an integral part of Animal Liberation (at least while domestication is still around), be added to the scope of the WikiProject. With a sub-proposal that this be extended to all forms of Vegetarianism.  Canæn  09:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support your opinions, I do believe that we should Definately put vegetarianism/veganism as a main focus of this group.All in favor?Cameron Erickson (camxx) 02:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetarianism & Veganism 

message: hi, new user here.  see you when I edit something.--C.lettinga 06:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hi, joining project 

message: Greetings!
I created a wikipedia account today and plan on updating/creating a number of vivisection/animal rights related pages. How do I join this group? I'm quite new to everything. JBeckham 23:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi and welcome to wikipedia!! To sign up to this project all you need to do is edit the project page (click 'Project Page' at the top of this one) and add your signature to the list of members. -Localzuk(talk) 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New to Wiki 

message: It may be of interest to the members of this project that Foie gras page has been blocked following an edit war between a set of clearly partisan foie gras supporters on one side, and myself on the other side. Apart from the usual battles about various sources and their interpretation, there are signs that these people will try to oust the whole "controversy" section from the article, sidetracking it into a specific "Foie gras controversy" article. David Olivier 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite a long & involved discussion. I'll try and give it a look-over.  Canæn  18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foie gras page 

message: Around the beginning of this year, I categorized the animal rights activists, groups, and other cats, cleaning out what was then known as "Animal Liberation Movement".  At some point, an editor decided to remove the categories and reverse the diffusion, dumping more than a hundred articles in one category and removing all cross-references.  Why this was done was never explained. —Viriditas | Talk 03:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was undone because you made a mess of it, because you're trying to force people into categories they don't belong to. You've also recreated the List of animal rights activists, which was already deleted (deleted, not blanked) a few weeks ago, and you've added names that arguably don't belong there. We already have an article on the Animal liberation movement. What is the point of having that article, plus a new list article, plus a new category containing the same information? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show me how I made a mess of it, I created necessary categories, grouped relevant members, and diffused from the parent cat into subcats.  Please don't make assertions without evidence. Explain what you mean by a "mess" and give examples.  The way I see it, the exact opposite occurred.  Instead of being able to find groups, activists, and relevant details, one cannot easily find anything now, and the cross-references to other cats are gone.  Furthermore, the ARM cat is only meant as a reference to what is now listed as Animal rights, Political movements by issue, Ethical schools and movements, Activism by issue, and Social movements.  The members of the category itself should be diffused into relevant categories like all the other movement cats. —Viriditas | Talk 04:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not necessary categories. Other than Category:Animal rights, we already have Category:Animal rights movement, Category:Animal Liberation Front, Category:PETA supporters. We don't need another one for people, especially not one with such ambiguous boundaries. There are only 134 pages in the AR movement cat. That is nowhere near enough to have to start considering splitting it up. I think you've misunderstood what a "movement" is. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't speculate as to what you think I do or don't understand and stick to the topic.  I asked you a series of questions that you failed to respond to, and instead you launched into another digression.  This is why the discussion was on the category talk page, and not here. —Viriditas | Talk 04:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not speculating. It's obvious by your approach that you're not familiar with the people you're trying to categorize. If you were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Why on earth would the discussion be different on the category page? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with the topic, and the category talk page is an appropriate, neutral place to discuss this issue. —Viriditas | Talk 04:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify: the list was deleted by another admin, not me. I didn't even know about it until after the fact. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Localzuk

message: After looking over this discussion, I agree with User:SlimVirgin, User:Rockpocket, and User:Localzuk in that adding a subcategory of "AR activists" (or "supporters of AR" or whatever) seems counterproductive and uncessarily complicated.  If a given individual is connected with AR issues, their article ought to have references for that for those who are interested in that area of their work.  Cat: AR movement seems perfectly servicable.  I can see User:Viriditas's point about having a browsable list of activists by association, but that seems to be a project in its own right, and would seemingly require many editors working on many pages to agree to such a thing.  Perhaps, if Viriditas desires such a list, then s/he ought to start with another set of activists, as editors working on this cat clearly don't see that as a productive and positive move.--C.lettinga 21:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your polite reply.  I have worked on standarizing the activist cats for some time, and Category:Animal rights activists is no different.  I believe the category was created before this project started, and has been the target of removal for almost a year.  As it stands, the discussion about Category:Animal rights activists should be moved back to Category talk:Animal rights activists, as this involves multiple WikiProjects, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology, and the categorization project.  As you are a member of the Animal rights project, it's probably safe to say that this project objects to categorizing Animal rights activists, even though no actual reason has been cited.  I don't see the diffusion of categories as "counterproductive and uncessarily complicated", but necessary to enable users to find information.  I have provided sources for categorizing animal rights activists, however I would be more than happy to use recommendations from this group to guide the process.  If there is a dispute about labeling people as animal rights activists, then please point me to a neutral, reliable source, and I may change my opinion.  Even if the articles are allowed to remain in one category, there is no valid objection to prohibiting the addition of activist cats to facillitate cross-referencing. Sadly, this project does not seem focused on helping users find information, but instead focused on preventing information from being found, and some of the POV categorization issues in the past, as well as ongoing POV conflicts on the article pages, leads me to believe that this project is engaging in advocacy. —Viriditas | Talk 01:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, why not take up C.lettinga's suggestion and continue this work with some other group of activists first? Secondly, we're precisely trying to help people find information by making sure it's not unnecessarily complicated or misleading. You say you might be persuaded if we find a reliable source saying what we are saying, but please stop to think about that. Here you have some people who have worked on animal rights articles for 1-2 years and who therefore know something about them. We are reliable sources for this purpose, because we know the Wikipedia articles, we know how diverse a group the AR movement is, we know how hard it would be to decide who is an "activist" (whatever that means) and who not. Just as it would be very hard for you to produce a reliable source giving a definitive view on who is and is not a Jew, it's hard for us to find a reliable source giving a definitive view on who should count as an animal rights activist; well, harder, because why would any reliable source write about the latter? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is a straw man, compares apples and oranges, and does not address categorization in any way.  Animal rights activists are not an ethnicity, nor is it  difficult to produce reliable sources on who is a notable ARA (as I did on list of animal rights activists). The movement category requires either diffusion into relevant subcats, or additional  cross-references added for users looking for ARA's.  There has not been one single, valid objection to categorizing ARA's, nor have any sources been offered demonstrating such objections. The categorization of ARA activists is not reliant upon an advocacy group masquerading as a WikiProject. —Viriditas | Talk 02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And to clarify your loaded, somewhat misleading statement about  "some people who have worked on animal rights articles for 1-2 years", this  WikiProject was created four months ago on 01:31, 19 August 2006 by SlimVirgin. I originally worked on the categories in the beginning of the year, and I will be requesting the full page histories for review. —Viriditas | Talk 03:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, just to clarify one point: in case you think we're all speaking from the same POV about AR, we're not. Some of us on this page incline towards an animal rights perspective, and some incline against. You said earlier you thought it was a POV issue, but didn't say what the POV might be, and I genuinely can't see it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already stated several times that I have worked on multiple groups of activist categories.  Also, when I asked for expert sources, I am referring to verifiable  citations outside Wikipedia.  I will be restarting this discussion again on the category talk page for the reasons I gave above.  Please do not move or alter the discussion in any way. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 02:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, well, this explains what's going on.  I, too, have been trying to clean up the :Category:Activists category, and noted that a number of people who are described in their articles as "animal rights activists" are simply dumped as ":Category:Activists".  The logical response is to do with animal rights activism what has been done with human rights activism, environmental activism, and so on -- have a subcategory within the movement for the activists within the movement; the activists subcategory is listed both under "activists" and the specific movement.  The problem is that most folks here are talking only about the animal rights perspective, but Viriditas (and I) are coming at this from a holistic wikipedia perspective.  ... Within a movement / activism category, it works well (and is encyclopedic) to have subcats of activists, (people and groups), scholars, history, and so on.  Yes, sometimes it's hard to define activists from supporters from leaders from politicians -- that's a line-drawing exercise that is applicable to every category.  But it doesn't stop you from adequately categorizing things as it is.  Right now, with 100+ members in a cat, it's not useful because it's too hard to wade through it.  And by including such disparate things as activists, philosophies, groups, and so on, all in the same category, you can't adequately categorize the category. --lquilter 01:35, 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 18:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding my 2cents

message: * Okay, I'm putting this here because it's a response to an earlier comment here. And my hope is it might further future discussions of categorization here.   
: Earlier, we had a brief discussion of tags versus categorization, which stuck in my head. I think the confusion may shed some light on the different approaches that Viriditas and I have been using, versus some of the response here.  Sorry if this is old news to anyone.  
: Localzuk said that "Yes, categories are tags." in response to my comment that "Categories are not tags ... they are hierarchical structures."  I was talking about the purposes of categorization and using tags in an information-categorizing term-of-art sense.  Please look at the wp article for tagging (Tag (metadata)) which describes tags as "Tags are usually chosen informally and personally by the author/creator of the item — i.e. not usually as part of some formally defined classification scheme."  Wikipedia's categorization scheme is not a tagging scheme; it's a hierarchical structure, a formally defined classification scheme. 
: Tags are completely appropriate for applying the same tag to all related articles in an informal way, and that's how everything is currently classed in :Category:Animal rights movement. Unfortunately, this is not how the wikipedia categories are used.  Hierarchical / taxonomies (like the WP categorization scheme) let us classify things in multiple hierarchies.  So :Category:Animal rights activists would be classed under activists, which would be classed under people by occupation -- a biographical cat.  It would also be classed under the :Category:Animal rights movement category.  The articles are classed by subject and also by the kinds of things they are. 
: Now, it may be that the "Activists" category or the "Animal rights" category are the the right terminology.  But the subject articles within :Category:Animal rights movement are not well-served by being outside the categories for the kinds of things they are. 
: Thoughts for discussion? --lquilter 01:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: thoughts on categorization

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 23:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I would like to join the project.  I am not sure what I can do to help, but I'll do what I can.
  As for your arguments, STOP IT!!!  All about the animal rights wikis are people fighting over such petty issues!  We need to focus on making the project educational and POSITIVE.  With everyone fighting, people will be driven away, and that is exactly what we DON'T want to happen.  A divided cause is a hopeless cause, I say.  
  I'm certain that most people researching, or just purusing the animal rights wikis are interested in supporting the animal rights' cause.  If this project isn't united, or at least cooperating, it WILL fail.
  Also, there cannot be any emphasis on eco-terrorism.  The majority of people (including myself) don't want to support that type of movement.  It will likely deter people from the cause.
  Finally, I know that we all have strong opinions on the matter, but whatever they are, they need to be stated (if at all) in a positive way.  People will not be (as) offended by an opinion if the person who stated it is respectful to their opposition.
  I apologize for this becoming a lecture...  I don't mean to sound condescending.  Truly.
  
  -Pittlers 
: Hello Pittlers and welcome to the Wikiproject. I've removed your email address from your signoff, as its not a good idea to list it unless you wish  spambots to flood your inbox with viagra ads. Instead of just writing your name in future, we recommend you signoff with 4 tildes (~~~~), which will result in an automatic signature and time stamp.
: Regarding joining, it would be great to have you on board. First of all, add your name to the  list of participants. Then get involved! The pages within the scope of the project can be found at :Category:Animal rights movement, there are plenty that could be expanded or referenced better. Also, feel free to create new articles. One final note. The nature of the project is not to "support" the animal rights' cause or to deemphasize eco-terrorism. Its to ensure the movement is described accurately, comprehensively and neutrally. I know for sure there are members that are opposed to animal rights philosophies, and there may even be members that support or carry out direct action (i.e. are "eco-terrorists"). Indeed, I personally think a wide range of participants is essential to make this project succeed, as its important that we continue to challenge perspectives to ensure our articles are as neutral as possible. Participants from all philosophies are welcome, so long as they abide by the WP policies. We welcome your input and do feel free to ask if there is anything we can help you with. Rockpocket 22:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I want in

message: Categorization segregates mainspace (encyclopedia articles) from wikipedia maintenance/project pages.  So someone (not me, because I'm involved in other categorization discussions with members of this project) should remove the :Category:Animal rights from the project page. --lquilter 16:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mainspace categorization for project page 

message: I'm doing a lot of person-stub-sorting, including in the activists category, and will simply file people whose articles describe themselves as "Animal rights activists" in the category :Category:Animal rights movement.  Sorry to just dump them in a big category, which seems really inappropriate to me.  --lquilter 22:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lquilter, please don't put them in that category indiscriminately. They should only be in the AR movement if reliable sources (not Wikipedia) indicate they belong there, by calling them AR advocates, activists etc. If they're just people who support PETA, they should go in :Category:PETA supporters. But please make sure there are third party sources, and that it's not the Wikipedia articles you're using as sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm refraining from all categorization relating to Animal rights movement articles, even though it ends up meaning one can't properly clean up & diffuse other categories.  However, I'll still be available for discussion here.  However, I note that discussion on categorization here has largely happened only when people made changes -- so if people would prefer to reach consensus before changes, then there needs to be discussion.  It's not really a good solution to simply naysay to categorization; and then not discuss the various issues relating to categorization. Like it or not, categorization at Animal rights movement affects other categorization trees, and so the issues will keep coming up. Better to discuss and try to reach consensus, or when consensus can't be reached, to try to bring in more people / third opinions / etc.  --lquilter 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  stubsorting etc 

message: Can I ask if the article at Working terrier should come under this Wikiproject? Whether or not it should, I have come here from  to seek advice. What seem to me to be relevant cited edits are being reverted without explanation and my requests to discuss at the talk page are met with abuse. It seems to me that there are issues of WP:Civility and WP:OWN here. I would appreciate the advice of experienced editors on the extent to which animal welfare issues are relevant to this article. MikeHobday 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems SV has offered her opinion on the matter, however, I would say that that article is suitable to come under this Wikiproject's care. I'll add the template. Rockpocket 07:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help requested

message: Hello.  I've been on Wikipedia for many years but have just recently gotten into animal rights (thanks to Gary L. Francione) and have been making minor changes to some related pages (and observing all the arguments on Veganism), so I thought I should join this project.
I had a couple of questions about the page templates:  it wasn't clear to me what the criteria is for adding them to pages.  Three pages I've happened upon might be candidates for inclusion in this project: United Poultry Concerns, Animal rights and the Holocaust, Animal rights and antisemitism (oh, than last one seems to have been deleted, which is probably just as well).  So, what's the usual process?  Trent 04:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, and welcome to the project. Others may have a different opinion, but I tend to be bold and add the page templates to articles that have a significant interest to the AR field (interpret that as you wish). Both the articles you mention appear to be excellent candidates to me. Its also helpful if you list the articles here, as this brings them to the attention of other project members who may be able to improve them. Rockpocket 18:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello and questions

message: Ok, so I have been reading wikipedia for years, but never edited anything. Then, well some friends and I started our own using mediawiki software. I am coming to realize that there is a possibility for soem trading of information, and I was wondering if there was any protocall for that. 
I am also hoping, (this may be a big no no on wikipedia... sorry) if any of you who are more experienced with wikipedia could help us sort of establish things, content would be great, but we especially need help with the infastructure. All of us are pretty new to wiki. 
The focus is on consumer activism. The idea is to share and build information about companies, charities, products, really anything that people spend money on, and analyzing what effects that has. Animal rights, human rights, and environmental impact are the main concerns. 
The reason we decided to keep it seperate from wikipedia, is because of the whole point of view thing. We are trying to be objective, but also trying to sort of come to an agreed viewpoint. The idea is to consolidate our spending to support good companies, and boycott the especially bad ones. 
Anyway, I am really struggling with making templates, and establishing protocall for writing articles... the site isnt exactly open to the internat-public yet. We want to have it really nice first. But anyone willing to help get things started would be very much appreciated. 
Please leave a comment on my user page, or email me if you can/will help, or with any ideas, suggestions, flame...
<email removed>
PS... If this is completeyly inapropriate go ahead and delete it. I just wasnt really sure where or how to best approach experienced wikipedia users.
Amazingdave 02:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dave, I don't think there is any problem with asking for help here. I have removed your email address to save you from the spambots, but interested editors can find it via the linked diff. Of course, pretty much all the material on WP is free to use under the terms of the GFDL license, so feel free to "steal" whatever you like from us (but please cite the source and share alike). You might like to have a look at our simplified ruleset as a start on how to formulate writing protocols. Rockpocket 03:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi

message: Plants, like animals, don't want to be killed for their lands and nutrients. Shouldn't there be an article on Plant rights? For example, it will forbid the removal of trees from lands for houses when apartments could be built to house more people. People who love life and support animal rights but neglect plants are hypocrites. Protect trees and plants! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all this is not the place for orginal research - if the term "plant rights" really exists, then give a link and we'll talk about it. Secondly, if you actually read this article you'll see terms like "sentience" which is largely defining why plants are excluded from rights. Happy easter, sir. --Lhademmor 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not original research. Look http://www.google.com/search?q=plant+rights&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1 There's also a "plant pain" and a thing called "plant intelligence." Now you can start talking about Plant rights. Happy easter to you too.--141.213.198.142 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plant rights

message: World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week is this coming week (April 22nd - 28th, 2007), so we can probably expect extra visitors on AR pages and extra vandalism on animal experimentation and associated pages. Lets be vigilant, people. Rockpocket 23:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week 

message: Hi - I'm fairly new to Wiki but I found this page after looking for some information on Ingrid Newkirk of PETA. That page looks like it's been changed so much there's hardly anything left. I'll work out some changes and post them to the discussion page of that page and probably check out the other pages in this project. This is a great topic because it's so current and controversial so there are a lot of POV's, so keeping Wiki NPOV will be a challenge! Bob98133 14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining Animal Rights Project 

message: Hi! I have some images related to animal rights, and I've been thinking about uploading them (on Commons). Usually I like to license the images with very few conditions, but not this time. I've been thinking something like this:
For all uses                                                                                                                                	
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
</div>
For promotion of animal rights and protection                                                                                               	
This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ for the purpose of promoting animal rights and protection.''
:Category:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 files
For promotion of animal rights and protection in posters, movies (where cc-by-sa would be cumbersome but I can't think of any more examples)	
The copyright holder of this image allows anyone to use it for promotion of animal rights and protection in posters and movies; including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification.
The images are free so that they could be used to for causes I do not adhere to but GFDL is, on the other hand, a very cumbersome license.
Is this something you would be willing to use with your photos? Or would you like to change something, maybe make something clearer? The aim is that we could have a ready template to be used on Commons. Samulili 20:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal rights license for images 

message: I am a former vegan whose physical and mental health was badly damaged by my time as a vegan, who lost many relationships and much of my reputation over the issue.  I now feel very differently, and have plenty of argumentative resources to alter the world's perception of this sensitive issue in a way that allows for some resolution.  But I've had no success attempting to balance any of these articles, because I had to figure all this out on my own - which is my whole point.  Interesting, thought-provoking and controversial counterarguments to veganism and animal rights are being supressed; I never had access to any such thing because vegans are too biased to even allow for the presentation of an alternative point of view.
So, there is no resource that explains the counterarguments that finally changed my life, and because of that they will never make the shallow wikipedia 'cut' of being well-referenced - as if an idea can't be important unless it's referenced to another author.
All of these articles are fairly badly balanced.  Only the animal rights page contains any information concerning the counterargument, and it IS right in the header, as it should be.  People frequently read only the header of long, boring wikipedia articles, and not including an explanation of the counterargument is bad scholarship - on your part.
All of them are stock from ten years ago, the same misleading, overzealous ivory-tower arguments that ruined my personal life.  And I'd like to change them, to be sure that no one else has to suffer my fate - literally, I battle incurable mental problems because of this diet, and I'm trying to explain how I'm battling them and what's working - simply because the veganism pages on wikipedia are being edited by vegans.  This is a primary resource on the internet, and one that most young people turn to to research new topics.  A life choice as dramatic and important as this would benefit from a treatment that contains TOO MUCH philosophy, argument, conceptual sparring and in general "information" of a logical, not a referenced academic, nature.
If you all suppress attempts to improve these articles because you don't want additional information to be available to the reader, you are failing in your duty. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but you are in over your head if you can't negotiate with someone who has a way of improving the balance of these articles.  - Repeat2341 01:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced

message: Hey guys I made a userbox on declawing animals at 
<userbox removed per WP:SOAP, Rockpocket 18:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, please note that WP is not a soapbox and should not be used to promote any particular POV. Similarly, the purpose of this Wikiproject is not to promote AR, but to ensure that the issues are covered in an encyclopaedic way. You are free to declare your POV on declawing on your userpage, but it is not somthing our Wikiproject should be hosting. Rockpocket 18:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declaw Userbox 

message: I've made inquiries about a bot to run a setup for assessments, but if anyone is prepared to help out with creating the category system I'll be happy to set up the template at least. Richard001 11:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Richard. I'd be happy to help out in any way I can, though I'm not entirely sure how bot assisted assessments work. Rockpocket 17:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the bot I just mean a bot could probably set the whole thing up by itself. I've asked about it at the bot requests page anyway. How about I set the template up and explain what needs doing in terms of categories, and you create them for me? Richard001 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good. Feel free to do so here or, if you prefer, on my talk page. Rockpocket 23:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. So I think this categorization scheme is up and running with no major problems. The instructions need to be tweaked a bit, I'll get around to that soon, but otherwise things seem fine. Now all we need to do is start assessing. So, if anyone has some time to kill, choose some articles from :Category:Unassessed Animal rights articles, read the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights/Assessment and get assessing. Thanks, also, to Richard001 for getting this off the ground. Rockpocket 07:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment scheme

message: I think it's both a pity and somewhat illogical that we have no animal WikiProject despite the fact that there are over 20 projects that are basically its daughters. There are also other projects that could emerge from it in the future, such as one on animal behavior. The project would provide a central place for people from all animal projects to talk, a central set of guidelines for articles on animals and zoology, and an assessment system for articles related to animals. If you are interested in creating such a project please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Animals project to discuss. Richard001 09:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Animals project proposal