I propose that a WikiProject be started to help provide co-ordination between editors of the many Animal Rights related articles.
Reasons edit
Currently we are fighting an uphill battle as there are no central guidelines that govern the articles. We are seeing constant revert warring over things such as external links, insertion of perjorative words, use of biased sources, the reliability of sources and other such things.
By creating a WikiProject we would be able to create a set of guidelines that cover these areas. That way we can follow them and any problems with them would be discussed centrally, rather than on 2 dozen articles (as in many cases the arguments spill over to various articles).
We have a dedicated community of editors who are trying to improve the animal rights articles and as such, the community needs somewhere central to discuss things.
Proposed name edit
Depending on the proposed scope of the project (which is, obviously, upto the editors who support it) it could be named
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal Liberation Movement - which would cover only the liberation movement articles
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal Rights and Welfare - which would cover all the articles in Category:Animal welfare and Category:Animal liberation movement
- I'd like to see a WikiProject animal rights, and a separate one for welfare, because they're entirely separate. Also, I wouldn't like to see a separate one for the movement, because the theory of animal rights, and the activists and writers who campaign for it, are part and parcel of the same thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I was meaning that it could be one or the other. What would you propose as a scope and name then? -Localzuk (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- How about just Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal Rights as it just covers that area and is a short name? -Localzuk (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would definitely prefer that, but with a lower-case r: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Animal rights. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't agree that animal rights and animal welfare are completely separate issues, one basically leads from the other. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights and welfare is better, and more likely to produce a balanced set of articles. Nrets 13:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would definitely prefer that, but with a lower-case r: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Animal rights. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- They are intricately linked and inseparable issues; more importantly, include PETA in there too. Call it whatver you like, but just get the ball rolling. And I beg you, open your (obviously sharp) minds when it comes to criticism.DocEss 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. here is an interesting noite: it is incorrect to call the word 'radical' a pejoritive: being a radical is not necessarily depreciatory --- Lech Welesa was a radical and calling him so only added value to his name.
- It is often used as a pejorative though. A lot of people, including myself, self-identify as queer, but if some random person on the street called me a queer I wouldn't be too happy. I'm also a radical, and I don't really mind when someone applies it to me, but trying to apply it to groups that really aren't that radical (especially in comparison to other groups with the same issues) is a major pov problem. But this is not the place for that discussion. I think animal liberation, rights and welfare should all be included in the same wikiproject. Perhaps a name like "Animal ethics"? I can't think of anything better at the moment. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- They are intricately linked and inseparable issues; more importantly, include PETA in there too. Call it whatver you like, but just get the ball rolling. And I beg you, open your (obviously sharp) minds when it comes to criticism.DocEss 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. here is an interesting noite: it is incorrect to call the word 'radical' a pejoritive: being a radical is not necessarily depreciatory --- Lech Welesa was a radical and calling him so only added value to his name.
- Hey, Queery. How some word is used is hardly the point. Words in formal writing (especially encyclopoedias and dictionaries!) must be precisely defined and used. The word radical is not pejorative; to find out what this or another word means, look in the darned dictionary - don't give us opinions based on perceived popularity and then start a debate over it. The word means what it means!.DocEss 20:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. I think this is a good idea, Localzuk, and i would be happy to get involved. In the interests of full disclosure - i should point out i'd consider myself an animal welfarist and not a rights-ist (though many in both camps would consider me neither). Clearly there are philosophical differences between rights and welfare positions. On whether this is important enough to differentiate between for a Wikiproject, i would lean towards the negative. To me, such a project is functional in purpose - the issues relating to maintaining articles on both subjects surely overlap extensively and i would predict there are few editors that have an interest in one that does not have an interest in the other. Either way, i would like to help out. Rockpocket 02:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and set it up: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights. The precise scope is something that will evolve over time, depending on who stays involved and who's willing to do the actual writing, research, and editing. I've listed some of the obvious themes in the meantime. I also added the names of those who had expressed an interest on the proposal page. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Don't I get to play?DocEss 18:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)