Talk:Animal welfare/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Animal welfare distinct from animal rights

I removed the REDIRECT to Animal Rights, because the Animal Welfare position is really different, and deserves an entry of its own.

Bhuston 23:21, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This page needs more information about what animal welfare is, aside from distinguishing it from animal rights. Rosemary Amey 15:53, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, Rosemary, I'll see what I can do.--Publunch 13:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the interests of balance and good scholarship, I have written a couple of paragraphs about people and arguments that are either anti-animal welfare, or else attempts to circumscribe animal welfarism's scope. I have also listed one or two books. I could list more if people are really interested. Please note that I am doing this in the interest of balance and am not a supporter of anti-welfarism. --Publunch 13:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You suggest that Animal Welfare thinks animal use is "morally acceptable", this is erroneous, animal welfare is a science, not a moral framework, which considers the experiential view point of the animal, but, as it is a science, it is designed to take a neutral standpoint. Many welfarists are dedicated to the cessation of animal exploitation but take the view that, as long as it exists, there must be action to reduce suffering. Others do not consider death to be a welfare issue, rather the process of living and manner of death. Please, if you are going to expound animal welfare don;t make a fundamental error in the first sentence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.210.139 (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

More on animal welfare

Would the next editor for the animal welfare page include the five freedoms, please.

Done, as part of the first step towards standing this article up on its own merits. That task still largely remains: Animal welfare is a much older, more thoroughly institutionalised and politically widespread doctrine than Animal rights. As more editors (preferably using non-Anglosphere examples) add further detail to the history of the Animal welfare movement, the remaining material treating of welfare's contrasts with rights doctrine will want trimming and refining, I think. For that reason, I corrected the intro which implied both welfarism and rights allocate ethical value to animals: Several proponents of welfarism recommend it precisely because it does no such thing - for them, the ethics are entirely located in the human component of the human-animal relationship. Again, I'm not convinced that it is correct to characterise Singer's as a welfarist position - he believes rights to be reducible to utilitarian welfare principles, as far as I can see - so in denying that there are any irreducibly human, sovereign rights, he concurs in at least one crucial respect with Animal rights advocates. Still. That's for another day. Keep it coming! Adhib 17:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the interests of balance other animal welfare tools like the 3Rs might be included--and more mention of events outside of the UK?Ratinabox 15:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo->Google

I changed the category/directory link from a Yahoo! category to a Google category simply because Yahoo has been responsible for some atrocious human rights violations in China. Please read Yahoo!'s article for more details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimMony (talk • contribs) 00:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

"This has less to do with concern for the animal (although this is a factor), and more the indisputable evidence that well-cared-for meat tastes better." What indisputable evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavePGD (talk • contribs) 03:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I added a UK focussed link as all the others appeared to be American. Also, it appears as if the http://www.animaluse.org/ site is either down or no longer about animal welfare. Don't know if anyone else wants to take a look. I didn't delete it but it might need to be replaced if it remains as is. Misssunshine 4 July 2006

Sources

This article needs to be sourced. It reads like a personal essay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Singer

As somewhat stated by Adhib, Peter Singer is not a supporter of animal rights, as he is a philosophical utilitarian. He advocates improved conditions for animals on utilitarian grounds, not via claiming that animals have or should have "rights." If Singer is to be mentioned on this page, his name would best be removed from the context of animal "rights." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanna890 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I've removed some OR and have requested sources. We need some solid writing rather than "some critics say this, some that." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Five freedoms

Could someone who knows more about this add something on what the 5 freedoms are, who came up with them, how often if ever they are realized for farmed animals (I believe these are advocated only for farmed animals though I could be wrong.) Thanks!

Rosemary Amey 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not just for farmed animals, although I believe they were originally developed for use by farmers. The RSPCA uses them as a basis for care guides for companion animals as well. And in theory they could be applied to any animal in any situation. 195.149.48.125 15:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

This section needs a rewrite, as some of it is very unclear e.g. "Both the growing jewish and muslim German communities are nowadays allowed to practice Shechita, on the exemptional [sic] rulings given by the original law, which were fore seen for Hitlers muslim allies." Can the editor who added it say what that refers to, please? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this section should be taken out. It is a random slice of a negative use of animal welfare and if anything alienates the reader from the cause in the US and elsewhere. One questions the motive of the author to include such a historical note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.226.21 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Alienates the user from the acuse by inserting critical thinking? --Polentario (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Query

I have a query about this section:

Canadian ethicist David Sztybel distinguishes six different types of animal welfare views from his perspective as an animal rightist and animal liberationist:

• animal exploiters' animal welfare: the reassurance from animal industry publicists that they treat animals "well" (e.g., spokespersons for the animal industry)
• commonsense animal welfare: the average person's concern to avoid cruelty and be kind to animals
• humane animal welfare: a more principled opposition to cruelty to animals, which does not reject most animal-using practices (except perhaps the use of animals for fur and sport)
• animal liberationist animal welfare: a viewpoint which strives to minimize suffering but accepts some animal use for the perceived greater good, such as the use of animals in some medical research
• new welfarism: a term coined by Gary Francione to refer to the belief that measures to improve the lot of animals used by humans will lead to the abolition of animal use
• animal welfare/animal rights views which do not distinguish the two

The source is Sztybel, David. "Distinguishing Animal Rights from Animal Welfare," in Marc Bekoff (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998, pp. 130-132.

Does anyone know what he says exactly? The above doesn't look like something anyone knowledgeable about this would write, to be frank, except for the "new welfarism" definition, which is more or less right. For example, I can't find any references to the term "animal liberationist animal welfare" except on sites that have copied it from Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 13:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this section, because it really does seem like a very idiosyncratic view. We should probably use one of the mainstream or better known scholarly sources for an overview, then we can go into more detail about individual views if necessary. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Explaining my revert

Polentario, that seems to be animal rights you're writing about. Also, I'm not sure what the image of the cat adds. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 16:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The entry was about the the methods of animal welfare activists including violence. The fact that oldfashioned animal welfare installed animal shelters while PETA prefers to kill and neuter ambulantly is nothing about animal rights. --Polentario (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No it wasn't. It was explicitly about some animal rights activists. MikeHobday (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, you dont read. Hogwash. --Polentario (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be personal (again). Let me give some examples. The Animal Liberation Front is an animal rights group, not an animal welfare group. So is PETA. As I understand your claims, Pim Fortuyn was killed by an animal rights activist, not an animal welfare supporter. Need I go on? MikeHobday (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To what does Animal Welfare refer?

In the first line of the page Animal Welfare is defined as the ethical basis of the different of uses of animals by humans. That confuses me a bit because isn't that "Animal Use Ethics" whereas "Animal Welfare" is actually the well-being of the animal itself? Should this be clarified?CRaines (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of Animal Welfare

This section is badly in need of evidence.

"For example, the welfare movement commonly opposes anesthetized declawing of pet cats by veterinarians, but rarely contests the unanesthetized toe cutting of commercial birds by poultry workers."

Most veterinarians oppose declawing of cats, and not for cosmetic reasons.

"Welfarists though, often point out that there would be no cannibalism among the hens if they weren't kept in such stressful environments to begin with."

Can you cite any welfare committees that have made this argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RamziE (talk • contribs) 09:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinion between the article

I think that this fits more this discusion page than in the article, so I move it to here. It was under "The legislation was retained in postwar Germany, east and west, although both the Jewish and Muslim communities there are now allowed to practise ritual slaughter, called Shechita and Dhabihah"

Greetings. Akhran (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The above paragraph was written by a different author and its' wording is somewhat misconceived. First it should be noted, that while German butchers slaughtered animals without any other consideration, Kashrut was at least an attempt to make sure that if one is going to eat animals, that the animals do not suffer. Secondly, In the Torah, there is a principle concerned with kindness to animals. Thirdly, there is a long list of famous jewish intellectuals who were vegetarians. The Nazi claim to be proponents of animal welfare was a sham and so is any historical proposition that claims that they were proponents of animal welfare. There are more jewish animal welfarists and animal rightists than there ever were or will be Nazis who claim to be. Fourthly, as part of Nazi propaganda, there were films made that compared jews to rats, therefore Nazi's were not very fond of rats. Fifthly, Hitler was not a vegetarian and in fact, actually loved sausages. The attampt to paint the Nazi's as important historical supporters of animal welfare is utter nonsense.

Proposed new section: Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare

Bethgranter (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose to add the following information: "A number of Animal Welfare organisations are campaigning to achieve a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW) at the United Nations.

In principle, the Universal Declaration will call on the United Nations to recognise animals as sentient beings, capable of experiencing pain and suffering, and to recognise that animal welfare is an issue of importance as part of the social development of nations worldwide.

The campaign to achieve the UDAW is being co-ordinated by the World Society for the Protection of Animals, with a core working group including Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), the the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), and the Humane Society International (HSI)." (source)

If nobody has a problem with that I'll make this live in a few days.

Verification is need...

for the following info http://caod.oriprobe.com/journals/jjdwxb/Journal_of_Economic_Animal.htm --222.64.31.145 (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

so is this http://www.peta.org/feat/chineseFurFarms/index.asp --222.64.31.145 (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

AND FYI

http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&newwindow=1&q=%E7%8B%90%E7%8B%B8%E5%85%BB%E6%AE%96+gov.cn&btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2

http://huli.yangzhi.com/ --222.64.31.145 (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.cn/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2%E5%AD%A6%E6%9C%AF&as_epq=%E7%8B%90%E7%8B%B8%E5%85%BB%E6%AE%96&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&hl=zh-CN&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.31.145 (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

http://news.google.cn/news?hl=zh-CN&newwindow=1&q=%E7%8B%90%E7%8B%B8%E5%85%BB%E6%AE%96&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn --222.64.31.145 (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=allintitle:+fox+farming&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&start=0&sa=N --222.64.31.145 (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Good news anyway http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+fur+farming+animal&btnG=Search --222.64.31.145 (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A topic of....

List of huntings has been added based on the following info

• Fox hunting
• Wolf hunting
• Deer hunting
• Bear hunting
• Lion hunting
• Boar hunting
• Rabbit hunting
• Whaling
• Waterfowl hunting
• Turtling (hunting)
• Seal hunting
• Human hunting
• Bowhunting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.223.104 (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Shed hunting
• Turkey hunting
• Tiger hunting
• Dolphin drive hunting
• Reindeer hunting in Greenland
• Upland hunting

and

http://scholar.google.cn/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+English+fox+hunting&btnG=Search

http://scholar.google.cn/scholar?as_q=fox+hunting&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.223.104 (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed part of "criticism" section

I removed the uncited part of "Criticism". Why? First, if there is NO citation, how do we know it's even true? How do we know it wasn't a AR pyscho that is agaisnt animal welfare? F*ck, I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.37.207 (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

For that exists the "Fact" tag. It doesn't seem to me a justification for delete all the text. Akhran (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I strongly object to the following lead sentence: "Animal welfare refers to the viewpoint that it is morally acceptable for humans to use nonhuman animals in certain ways—for example, as food— so long as unnecessary suffering is avoided." First, this is a blatant misrepresentation of a welfarist's viewpoint. It is tantamount to saying that animal right refers to the viewpoint that it is morally acceptable for humans to die of starvation, so long as abusing the sovereignty of nonhuman animals is avoided. Second, animal welfare should not be treated as an expression that 'refers' to something: this encyclopedia is not about words but about things. What is animal welfare? In the context of this article, it is not as such the well-being of animals that is the matter, but rather what could be called 'animal welfarism', that is to say the concern (the article speaks further below of "systematic concern for the well-being of other animals"), or position (doctrine, belief) if you prefer, of some people. That is why I suggest to replace the lead sentence with the following:

'''Animal welfare''' is the concern shared by people who believe that nonhuman animals used for food, in [[Animal testing|animal research]], as pets, or in other ways, deserve consideration, especially with regard to their well-being and their protection against unnecessary [[suffering]].<ref>[http://www.animalsmatter.org/downloads/UDAW_Text_2005.pdf Draft of the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare]</ref>

--Robert Daoust (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the protection of animals isn't that considered animal welfare, what about animals being used for testing; some dogs are walking around with one kidney because they were used for animal research. Dogs are used for medical testing and develop abnormalities and defects because of the testing. I believe protecting animals is considered animal welfare. Not allowing owners or anyone else to hurt animals.

User name pook51 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pook7551 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarity and sources

Robert, you're adding unclear writing to a lead that is very clear, and replacing a good source with a poor one, yet you keep reverting. The key to the animal welfare position, which is not a "concern," is the idea of unnecessary suffering. Suffering is allowed, and indeed necessary for some forms of animals use. It is unnecessary suffering that the AW position excludes.

Your lead says that animals "deserve consideration, especially with regard to their well-being and their protection against unnecessary suffering."

What does "deserve consideration" means? What does "especially with regard to" refer to i.e. what is there other than well-being and protection against suffering? It seems to me that you're not thinking through what you're writing and are just adding your personal opinion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What is authoritative about animalsmatter.org? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I beg to differ. Other opinions would be welcome. Already, there are two entries above in archived talk page which go in the direction of my suggested replacement:

You suggest that Animal Welfare thinks animal use is "morally acceptable", this is erroneous, animal welfare is a science, not a moral framework, which considers the experiential view point of the animal, but, as it is a science, it is designed to take a neutral standpoint. Many welfarists are dedicated to the cessation of animal exploitation but take the view that, as long as it exists, there must be action to reduce suffering. Others do not consider death to be a welfare issue, rather the process of living and manner of death. Please, if you are going to expound animal welfare don;t make a fundamental error in the first sentence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.210.139 (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

and

To what does Animal Welfare refer? In the first line of the page Animal Welfare is defined as the ethical basis of the different of uses of animals by humans. That confuses me a bit because isn't that "Animal Use Ethics" whereas "Animal Welfare" is actually the well-being of the animal itself? Should this be clarified?CRaines (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my writing is not clear enough. It is indeed my opinion and experience that prompted my small edit in the lead sentence, but I am sure I could back what I wrote with appropriate sources (but will I have the availability to do it?). The movement for animal welfare is not just about suffering, it is preoccupied also, for instance, with freedom to enjoy life as naturally as possible (v.g. Organic egg production). To me, animal welfare must ALSO be understood as it is used by animal lovers advocates and animal scientists. I realize that a lot of 'animal welfare' institutions are in fact 'humane or anti-cruelty or anti-unnecessary-suffering' associations or laws, and I understand what you mean. So, I acknowledge that we seemingly have a problem regarding how to deal with the topic animal welfare. I think I must quote here at some length Marlene Halverson in FARM ANIMAL WELFARE: CRISIS OR OPPORTUNITY FOR AGRICULTURE?:

I would like to clarify some terms. Specifically, I would like to clarify the difference between the welfare of animals and individuals' views about the rights that animals may have. I think confusion in this area is unnecessarily muddying the debate. (...) First of all, it is useful to distinguish between animal welfare and animal rights. The welfare of an animal is subject to determination and measurement by scientific means. Animal rights, as an ethical concept, belongs to the realm of moral choice. In the animal rights philosophy animals are endowed with innate and inalienable rights analogous to those many civilizations have recognized as human endowments. The study of animal welfare, on the other hand, recognizes that animals experience a welfare status, that is, a state of being (good or poor or in between) resulting from their interactions with their environments. In combination with other environmental factors, human management and husbandry of animals are important determinants (for better or worse) of the welfare status of animals being used by humans. However, they are not equivalent to animal welfare, just as animal care and animal welfare are not equivalent concepts. Second, if we appreciate these distinctions, we will also recognize that where people express concern about the welfare of animals in livestock production systems, it is not about whether or not humans should use animals at all, but about how well we use them, how well we make provisions for the quality of life they experience while they are in our care. (...) When we speak of an ideal level of animal welfare, this is defined to be "a state of complete physical and mental health in which the animal is in harmony with its environment" (Wood-Gush 1983). So there are two critical components of animal welfare: basic physiological health, hygiene, and comfort of the animal and mental, or psychological, health of the animal. Taken together, these two components define the "quality of life" or level of welfare the animal experiences. (...) It is very important to recognize that when advocates for animal welfare recommend change in livestock production systems, or when scientists and engineers design production systems that take welfare into account, in addition to improving contributions of design and management to physical health of the animals, they are responding to a perceived neglect, in modern production practices, of the mental dimension of health and well-being. Their goal is to achieve a positive level of total welfare. This level of total welfare is determinable by physical measures of general health and soundness; by observations of the animal's behaviors (the science of ethology); and by neuroendocrine analysis. So, welfare exists on a continuum from very good to very poor (Baxter 1983). Given an appropriate amount of time, in a controlled setting, its degree can be assessed precisely, in a scientific way (Broom 1988). What we find can then be used to evaluate welfare of animals in an applied setting. The question that must be asked after a welfare evaluation is made is the moral choice: "How poor must the welfare be before people consider it to be intolerable?" (Broom 1988). On this question, not surprisingly, people's views differ. Some people believe that human and non-human animals have equal rights. In particular, they believe non-human animals have the right not to be used for any purpose by humans. This is an extreme animal rights position. Note that not all animal rights philosophers or activists subscribe to this extreme position (moreover, very few of them resort to extremist tactics of misrepresentation or violence to defend it), and that for some these rights are innate and inalienable while for others these rights are perceived to be in the nature of property rights, transferred or extended by caring humans. Note, also, that in advocating no use of animals at all, the extreme animal rights position really is not related to questions about the welfare or quality of life of the animal in the course of food production or other use by humans. A different extreme is represented by the belief that humans have no obligation at all to consider the welfare of animals in food production. All that matters is productivity because animals exist specifically for humans to use and have no intrinsic value or internal purpose. Note that this view also does not relate to the question of welfare, as defined above to include both mental and physical aspects. From this, it should be obvious that when two people representing each of these extreme views are pitted together in a debate, a lot of heat and a lot of friction, but very little light, are generated. In particular, very little information or understanding can be generated regarding the questions surrounding the welfare, or the well-being, of individual farm animals during the course of food production. Somewhere in the middle are those who do not oppose human use of animals but believe the quality of the lives animals are allowed to live while they are under human care (their welfare) should be considered in the course of food production. This is the position of most main line animal welfare organizations and characterizes the views of many farmers who regard their livestock as more than mechanical inputs in the production process. Broader environmental concerns are not inconsistent with concerns about the welfare of individual animals. Habitat destruction, for example, affects the welfare of the individual animals whose habitat it is. Later we will explore the connection between farm animal welfare and sustainability of agricultural systems. But these views are all in the realm of moral choice. Although organizations concerned with the welfare of farm animals see advocacy on behalf of animals to be their moral choice and may broaden their interests as well to ecology and the environment, welfare itself and the moral choice taken with respect to it are different concepts.

--Robert Daoust (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For a consensual view on animal welfare

SlimVirgin and I disagree on a definition of animal welfare for this article, according to sources. All my edits in the introduction of the article have been reverted, by that user, to a same preferred version that I find too narrow and written from an 'animal rights' POV. My last version of the introduction can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_welfare&diff=318291909&oldid=317639535. SlimVirgin's last revert is not commented here on the Talk page but it has the following edit comment: "removed inaccurate OR". There has been discussions above under sections #Lead_sentence and #Clarity_and_sources. I ask for third party input. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=322772373&oldid=322772198) -- Robert Daoust (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I much prefer Robert Daoust's version. SlimVirgin's is based on the contrast with a view of the world based on animal rights. The first few sentences need to define animal welfare in a more general way. If anything I would change Robert's version slightly so that it started by defining animal welfare, before it went on to talk about any system of belief. I notice CRaines made a similar point on 19 October 2008. I would propose something like

Animal welfare is the health and well-being of non-human animals. A systematic concern by people for animal welfare is usually based on a belief that non-human animals are sentient beings that deserve consideration, respect, and care. In particular, animal welfare organizations advocate that animals used for food, in animal testing, as pets, or in other ways, should enjoy basic well-being and be protected against suffering.

Animal welfare can be contrasted with animal rights. From a belief in animal rights, a concern for animal welfare can seem paternalistic. It has been argued that this will ultimately perpetuate abusive exploitation of animals.

Yaris678 (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I like it, lets put that in the lead. ZooPro 23:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at what SV's "good source" for the definition of animal welfare says:

The idea that animals used by people should not be treated like inanimate possessions but should be protected from actions that might cause suffering is very old and widespread in human society.

And she is claiming OR and poor sourcing for Robert Daoust's version. --Dodo bird (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OR and poor sourcing? I included a reference to the work of the highly recognized author Marlene Halverson FARM ANIMAL WELFARE: CRISIS OR OPPORTUNITY FOR AGRICULTURE?, in which we can read for instance: "When we speak of an ideal level of animal welfare, this is defined to be "a state of complete physical and mental health in which the animal is in harmony with its environment" (Wood-Gush 1983). So there are two critical components of animal welfare: basic physiological health, hygiene, and comfort of the animal and mental, or psychological, health of the animal." --Robert Daoust (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that if anyone's version is poorly sourced or WP:OR, it's her's. --Dodo bird (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Okay. As a matter of fact the complete text of Broom on Google books says that animal welfare includes also "happiness, contententment, control of the interactions with the environment and the possibility to exploit abilities". SV's reference could in fact be added to the version of animal welfare that I propose! --Robert Daoust (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert, the problem here is that you're adding your personal opinions, then looking around for any old source that might support them. There is a scholarly literature on this, which defines the animal welfare and animal rights positions. Your edits ignore that literature. What, for example, is "useless suffering"? And your definition of animal rights is a definition of one strand of it only.

There is also a problem with the writing e.g. "The concern for animal welfare has been criticized, especially from people in favor of animal rights." The concern has been criticized from? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't really comment on RD's approach to editing. However, I agree with SV's criticism of RD's words. I don't think my words, suggested above, have any of the problems idententified with RD's words. Yaris678 (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The only academic source you used, Yaris, was one I added, and you've used him to make a claim about animal rights that is correct about a particular strain of animal rights theory, but not correct in general. :) It's also not clear what, "From a belief in animal rights, a concern for animal welfare can seem paternalistic" means, or who has said it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You make some good points SV. I agree that those sentences are relating animal welfare ideas to a particular strain of animal rights theory. That is why I used the phrase "It has been argued that". If you think that is giving undue weight to that strain of animal rights theory then I can't argue because I'm no no expert on that area. The bit about paternalism was my attempt to summarise the distinction. I can see that it could be called orignal research... but then what do we put in its place? After all, we probably should mention animal rights. Yaris678 (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument you highlighted from AR theory (that a focus on animal welfare might cause the suffering to go on for longer than it otherwise would) is an argument put forward by the "abolitionists". I think it's a view that is increasing, but so far not a majority one within the movement so far as I can tell. I've written a lead now that is based entirely on academic sources; see here. I can expand on the animal rights position if you think we ought to, by summarizing the abolitionist position, but as this article is about animal welfare, I thought it best to stop there. Perhaps we could add a section about it, rather than having it in the lead? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Who knew animal welfare was so complicated!. I think were making a simple and easy to understand issue way way way to complicated and trying to compare it to animal rights, whilst the two sometimes go hand in hand more often then not they dont. look at PETA they oppose zoo's however Zoo's follow animal welfare rules and guidlines (granted this varies greatly from country to country, even zoo to zoo). From a regular persons view i would look at this aticle and go WTF?. From a Zoo curators position im looking at this article and going "hmmm". I think we need to re-think our aproach on this article. Regards ZooPro 12:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a simple matter, which is why it's best to rely on scholarly sources who've published material specifically about this issue. We can develop sections on how it's viewed in different areas: research, agriculture, zoos etc. We don't have to compare it to animal rights, but it seems worth adding to the lead what the difference is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ZooPro. My wording may have had some minor issues but SV’s has some major ones:

• Starts by contrasting to animal rights.
• This is initially done implicitly rather than explicitly, which makes it even more confusing.
• Doesn’t actually define animal welfare.
• Talks about the interests of animals being over-ridden
  • Not all proponents of animal welfare would agree with this.
  • Those who do agree would see it more as animal welfare itself being overridden, rather than part of the definition of animal welfare.
• Talks about animal suffering in the moral calculus in relation to animal rights as if this isn’t considered by those who believe in animal welfare.

I would say that a considering animal suffering in the moral calculus would be a good basis for a systematic approach to animal welfare. From an animal rights point of view, you could argue that suffering is irrelevant so long as animals have their rights.

You can have all the scholarly sources you like in the lead, but if it is misleading it is misleading.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yaris, can you give examples of the animal-welfare proponents who would disagree with what I've written? Also, I didn't understand this: "Those who do agree would see it more as animal welfare itself being overridden, rather than part of the definition of animal welfare."

The problem with this term is that everyone thinks they know what it means, without having read any of the literature. There's therefore a big danger of OR. To avoid OR, we must stick to reliable sources, and it makes sense to use the best ones available. I'm quite happy to see other material added, so long as it's well-sourced, preferably to academics. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

To quote John Webster, founding member of the FAWC and the original proponent of the 'Five Freedoms':

The most generally accepted single-sentence definition of animal welfare is that of Fraser & Broom (1990), i.e. ‘the state of an animal as it attempts to cope with its environment’.

Not a very useful or clear definition but the point here is that you want to define animal welfare strictly as an ethical position(you cite two animal ethics books for your definition) and are omitting the more common usage of the term to mean the state or well-being of an animal.--Dodo bird (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Webster has written a book about animal welfare, so why not use what he says in that book as a source? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The most obvious example of animal welfare coming before human interests is in the Hindu and Buddhist tradition. Animals are seen as sentient beings who you should not harm. Even if you really want a bacon sandwich. This is not the same thing as animals having rights. Yaris678 (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Even in those traditions, humans are seen as superior. The best thing here is for us to rely entirely on reliable sources. I've added another one to the lead, and per Dodo bird's point, which was a good one, I've split the discussion into the ethical position, and the scientific one, using David Fraser's description of animal welfare science. He is Professor and NSERC Industrial Research Chair in Animal Welfare at the University of British Columbia, Canada. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This version is better but it is still based on a misunderstanding about what animal welfare is. Since you keep talking about sources I thought I’d check one of them and I can now see that you are misreading it. What Garner is talking about on p15 of Animal Ethics is what he sees as the orthodox position. This position includes a consideration for animal welfare and it includes the idea that this can be over ridden by other factors. Garner does not state that a belief in animal welfare is a belief that animal welfare can be overridden. Garner does mention sentiency and inherent value in relation to a belief that animals have rights, but this is not the same as stating that they can not relate to animal welfare. Most of what you have written is describing Garner’s orthodox position and not describing animal welfare. Yaris678 (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty understanding your point. Garner describes the animal welfare position, which he says is also called the orthodox position and the humane position. I doubt there's an academic active in this area who would disagree with what I've written, because it is a widely known and very simple definition. Animal welfare position in ethics = animals may be used by humans so long as there is no unnecessary suffering. What exactly do you disagree with? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I will reinstate my version of the introduction because all comments here except yours are consensually in favor of my version. However, I will change the words 'from' for 'by', and 'useless' for 'unnecessary', as you suggested. You keep pushing a rightist POV on the writing of this article. If you persevere in reverting my version, I suppose the next step is dispute resolution... --Robert Daoust (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert, your editing here and elsewhere has been largely based on original research, which is not allowed. You've posted a link to your website on your user page, which gives details of how you left school as a teenager, and since then have been researching pain and suffering on a private basis, financed by temporary jobs. You also write that you were "eager to get into action" on the Internet to spread your views. [1]

This is admirable work, but you can't use Wikipedia to further it. You don't appear to have read the scholarly literature on animal welfare (or to have much respect for it). It's that literature, whether from an ethical or scientific perspective, that this article must reflect. If your work has been published by independent sources, please let us know and we can consider using it, but otherwise we have to stick to the views of academics, scientists, and mainstream groups and thinkers. I'm sorry to write this way. I don't mean for a second to undermine the research you've done, but we have strict rules about this kind of thing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Garner does not describe the animal welfare position. He describes the orthodox position, which happens to include consideration for animal welfare. Yaris678 (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"The animal welfare position is that animals have an interest in not suffering, but that their interests should be overridden to promote the interests of human beings." That seems entirely accurate and supported by the literature.[2] It is not an orthodox position but a statement of commonly accepted fact. Garner classifies it under "moral orthodoxy/animal welfare/humane treatment" so you are reading it wrong. Why did you remove it? Your edit to this article removed timely and accurate information from Professor Robert Garner at the University of Leicester[3]and replaced current sources with an outdated position paper from 1991 taking an agricultural position in favor of farm animals and a paper from the World Society for the Protection of Animals. This is totally unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources were not the reason I reverted the text. If you want to work the sources into text that makes sense then please do. The text I reverted from makes a leap of logic in defiance of how most people understand the term "animal welfare". Further, it is not supported by the sources:

• Garner writing "moral orthodoxy/animal welfare/humane treatment" is only stating that these concepts are closely related. He does not say they are equivalent. He does not state anywhere I have seen that to believe in animal welfare is to believe that welfare must be subjugated to humans.
• The Psychology Today article talks about "welfarism" and puts it in quotes. They do not say that you can use the words "welfarism" and "animal welfare" interchangeably. Yaris678 (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Garner most assuredly states that that the animal welfare position believes that "animals have an interest in not suffering but this can be overridden to promote the greater good of humans who are autonomous agents". This is equivalent with the moral orthodoxy position, and Garner says this on page 72. As for Bekoff, he is talking directly about animal welfare when he uses the word "welfarism" and he makes this clear. The replacement of these sources with the current version is not supported. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again WTF, I have no idea how we got so off track with what animal welfare means. In simple terms it is that animals should be safe and have a good quality of life, that statement is reflected in EVERY animal welfare stance, be it zoos, rspca shelters, laboratory, or in the wild. We are delving into stuff like "orthodox and paternalistic" I am sorry but in my entire career as a zoo keeper and now a curator, in all the speeches and orientations I have ever given new keepers on animal welfare, not once have I mentioned anything about, "orthodox positions" or quoted anything other the five freedoms. Also SlimVirgin I feel your comments about Robert were a personal attack. I don’t think it correct that we use people’s real lives as a reason to attack their edits. This is getting way to complicated and heated for me so I will take no further part. Just remember we are not writing a doctorate on animal welfare intended for government usage, we are writing an encyclopedia for everyone to use and understand.Cheers and good luck ZooPro 02:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

We use the most current, authoritative, and accurate sources at all times. Why were SlimVirgin's edits reverted? I have not seen an adequate answer to this question. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No personal attack was intended, ZooPro, and I apologize to Robert if it came out that way. My point is simply that his website makes clear that developing certain views about suffering has been his life's work, which he clearly believes is relevant to his editing because he's added links to his user page, and he stated explicitly that he was looking for ways to add his views to the Web and to Wikipedia. But we're here to add the views of reliable published sources only, preferably academics where appropriate. We can't allow original research, no matter how interesting it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

On page 72, Garner talks about "the animal welfare position" although it is clear that he prefers the term "moral orthodoxy". He is talking about a position in an argument and not seeking to define animal welfare per se. I am perfectly happy for the position to be described on Wikipedia, I just don't think it should be described as animal welfare because animal welfare is the welfare of animals. Perhaps you should create a separate article on "The orthodox position on animal ethics". You could mention "utilitariansism for animals, Kantianism for people " and the word "welfarism". This may all seem like I am going on about the sources too much, but when people try to use the sources to justify saying effectively “Animal welfare means that the welfare of animals is secondary” then it is necessary. Close examination of the sources reveals that using the term "animal welfare" to mean this is just a shorthand used by some academics, and not even preferred by any of the authors cited. We are writing an encyclopedia for everyone. If a term has two meanings the main article should mostly be about the most common meaning. Yaris678 (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the original text clearly stated "in animal ethics, it refers to...the animal welfare position is..." You refer to "some academics" and "any of the authors", claiming that they hold different meanings. Please show me these different meanings. The ethical position cited above is common and found just about everywhere. You keep objecting to it for trivial reasons that don't seem to be based on anything. Show me the different meanings, please. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yaris, by the "orthodox" position, Garner means the animal welfare position or "humane" position. They are the same thing. This is an entirely uncontroversial thing to say: it is two plus two equals four. Anyone familar with the literature is aware that the orthodox/animal welfare position is: Animals have interests in not suffering, but human interests override them. Therefore, we may use animals—for food, research, etc—so long as we ensure that they do not suffer unnecessarily. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that using the term "animal welfare" to mean the orthodox position is controversial, I am saying it is secondary. The primary meaning of "animal welfare" is the welfare of animals and the article under that name should reflect that. If you want to write an article which is mostly about the secondary meaning, there are some better names suggested by the authors cited - "The orthodox position on animal ethics" or perhaps "Welfarism (animal ethics)" Yaris678 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Cant help myself, this is a perfect qoute from the British Society of Animal Welfare.

"Animals are used by man for many purposes including the production of food and clothing, draught power, companionship, recreation, scientific research and education. In all cases, some degree of modification of the genetics and/or environment of the species concerned has taken place. Both those responsible for the animals, and society as a whole, have a duty to ensure that the welfare of the animals is not unacceptably compromised in these processes. The validity of the use of animals for these different purposes is a philosophical question of Animal Rights, on which individuals hold sincere but often conflicting views. Animal Welfare deals with the related, but different, question of the health and well-being of the animals in any given situation. Whilst this is also often an emotive issue, scientists are continually seeking ways to allow objective and informed judgements to be made. " [4]. Lets just use that. :) ZooPro 09:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This quote is very good on both the context in which animal welfare is considered and its relationship to animal rights. It doesn't try to define animal welfare in terms of its relationship to animal rights, which is good. Instead it describes the relationship in a way that most readers will understand. Yaris678 (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia tends not to use organizations as sources for encyclopedia topics unless the topic is about the organization itself. I have yet to see a problem with readers understanding other, more reliable sources on this topic, so your assertion is unclear. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read it very well then, the society didnt write it, Dr Sandra Edwards, University of Aberdeen did, is that a good enough source? a university professor? ZooPro 10:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a paper published by an organization with an agenda, rather than a paper published by an author in a peer-reviewed journal or outside publication. Take a moment to read WP:RS. I wasn't even addressing the author. The bottom line is, if there are multiple POV, you represent the most significant ones using the best sources. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What is happening here is that editors who haven't read the scholarly literature, but who have strong personal views, are using the Web to hunt down a fact here, and a quote there.

Look, guys, the definitions Viriditas and I are arguing for are not controversial. They are bog standard in the animal welfare world. Animals cannot be kept and worked on in research labs without some suffering involved; the animal welfare position is that it must not be unnecessary suffering. They cannot be used for food without suffering involved; again, it should not be unnecessary. The idea that Zoopro wrote above, that animal welfare means: "In simple terms it is that animals should be safe and have a good quality of life, that statement is reflected in EVERY animal welfare stance, be it zoos, rspca shelters, laboratory, or in the wild." This is a personal opinion, and with respect it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Animals who are about to be slaughtered for food should be "safe and have a good quality of life"?

This article has to be written in accordance with WP's policies. That means sticking to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. WP:V, the sourcing policy, says:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is.

That's what we must stick to: the best sources we have available, preferably academic. No personal opinions, either of our own, or from people we've heard talking about animal welfare. No random cherry-picking from websites we happen to agree with. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that SlimVirgin's view is the only correct one. No one else may put forward a generaly accepted view or they will be shot down in flames using wikipedias policies. I am stunned to understand how you managed to turn an article into scientific jargon that still fails to address what people want to know. What is Animal Welfare? ZooPro 11:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Animal welfare is, at its most simplistic, a term used to describe the well-being of animals. But that's almost a tautology; it tells us nothing. Your question is a complicated one with a complicated answer; you're arguing that we should ignore that complexity and should instead promote simplistic descriptions found on websites. Yes, the scholarship is harder to understand, but people look things up on Wikipedia because they want to learn something. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It may seem tautological to say that "animal welfare" is the welfare of animals, but the solution is to explain what welfare means in the context of animals. To use an analogy, ZooPro and I are, in our different ways, arguing that the article on Manchester should be about the city in North West England and SlimVirgin and Viriditas are arguing it should be about Manchester capitalism. You will find plenty of sources referring to "Manchesterism", "the Manchester school" etc. but it doesn't change the primary meaning of the word "Manchester". Yaris678 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Manchester is first and foremost a location, defined in relation to us, by its human inhabitants. It also has a political and cultural history. In fact, the "primary meaning" of the word "Manchester" has a very small part to play, taking up ~ 100 words in a 131,474 byte article. The article on Manchester is neither about its etymology nor concerned with the history of Mamucium. In the same way, Animal welfare is not defined in the context of animals, but rather in relation to us. And the philosophical nature of animal welfare is rooted in bioethics, even though there are different approaches to the topic. I fail to see how these edits have improved the article, and I await an explanation. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, can I take it then that you accept that the primary meaning of the term "animal welfare" is the welfare of animals? Yaris678 (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't play games. SlimVirgin already addressed this tautology. Animal welfare only means something in relation to human culture and ethics, and this meaning could vary depending on the culture and ethics in question. Viriditas (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Was that a "yes" or a "no"?

I assure you I am not playing games. This is quite an important point.

SlimVirgin did raise the issue of tautology and I addressed it by saying that we need to write about welfare in the context of non-human animals. You seem to think this is an impossible task, since we are human. I reject this idea. We can write about many non-human things. Obviously, our ability to know about the welfare of a dog (for example) is limited by the fact that we are not dogs, but that does not change what animal welfare is.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yaris, it is clear that Viriditas considers animal welfare as anything except the welfare of animals in the context of this article, which he would want to be about an ethical position, and/or a field of scientific/philanthropic activity. I myself have a hard time figuring how the sentence "Animal welfare is the state of an animal with regards to its experiences..." when those experiences are hellish! However health has been defined, for instance, as "the overall condition of an organism...", so I may understand that the word welfare might refer to good and bad states. But then, to be clear, shouldn't we rely on Phillips words ("In defining the welfare of any animal, we are essentially trying to answer the question, 'How good is an animal's state in its environment?'"), and modify your definition as follows, "Animal welfare is the state, good or bad, of an animal with regards to its experiences...", or something like that?--Robert Daoust (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The definition cited in the lead is inadequate, as the source says. As Phillips, a professor of Veterinary Science at the University of Queensland explains, Donald M. Broom's definition (you forgot to attribute as well) is not the only one, and is only one among many that he chooses to use. Phillips makes it clear that there are problems and shortcomings with Broom's definition (which promotes the use and management of farm animals) and fails to address the "internal state" of the animal (genetics, experiences) and the animal's own sentience of this state. Phillips offers many definitions, and the article should attempt to describe them. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break 1

As has been mentioned above, the animal welfare position should not be defined in the context of animal rights. Stating outright that animal use is acceptable does that. The current version stands on its own without referring to the animal rights position, which we do in the latter para. That animal use is acceptable is implied. --Dodo bird (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a thing. Can you give me an example outside of this article? Viriditas (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes even im a little confused. (i am confused by Viriditas) ZooPro 00:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I find Dodo's paragraph above quite clear, and the present new lead excellent (except for the fix on bad states that I requested). It is Viriditas' question I don't catch: what "such a thing" is he/she talking about? --Robert Daoust (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And I find Dodo'sViriditas para here above ("The definition cited in the lead is inadequate, as the source says" etc...) obfuscatory. Please clarify. --Robert Daoust (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's direct and to the point. Have you bothered to read the source? You need to attribute the defintion to Donald M. Broom, as it belongs to him. Encyclopedia articles do not choose one definition over many and present it as fact. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

. Have YOU bothered to read the source or even the current text? The current definition already includes experiences and feelings. I am not using just the Broom definition, which only defines animal welfare as the state with regard to external environment. If you don't want to read the whole text, at least look at the section headings - which includes topics such as "coping with the environment", "animal's feelings", "experiences" - and read the first one or two paragraphs that follows each heading.--Dodo bird (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The definition belongs to Broom and needs to be identified as such. We don't steal the ideas of other people and call them our own. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that we terminate the discussion going on in this whole section? I am satisfied with the kind of consensus that was obtained, and don't believe unanimity will come out. --Robert Daoust (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree. seems like we are going in circles with no end in sight. ZooPro 02:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is no such definition. There are multiple definitions, and the lead section isn't used to assert one or the other but to best describe the topic. As SlimVirgin said above, a group of editors have managed to cobble together definitions from different authors. This is basically original research. Instead of trying so desperately to fit this broad topic into a narrow box, it is best to first start by describing what the topic covers and what it does not. This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Describe the topic (history, practice, application, methods) and the definition will emerge by itself. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia:Lead section, it says "If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition". It doesn't says "If every writer on the subject agrees on the definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition", which seems to be Viriditas's argument here. Either way, most people would agree that animal welfare is the welfare of animals and the rest is just a difference of emphasis. I think the definition provided by Dodo is the sort of thing we want. If citations can be provided for the different aspects of the definition or the definition as a whole then so much the better. Yaris678 (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Subjects amenable to a concise definition are things like firefighter, water, or house. Politically-charged philosophical concepts like animal welfare are not amenable to concise definitions. Even biological concepts like life, which most of think we can easily define, cannot be properly defined in concise terms. Animal welfare needs to be defined by its topic, which includes multiple definitions. The lead section needs to summarize the article, rather than trying to squeeze the article into a definition. The definition comes out of the article, not before it. You're trying to write the lead before writing the article, and this is the opposite of how it works. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The meaning of animal welfare is so obvious it was recently described as a tautology. All the other stuff about positions in ethical debates, the research that is taking place etc. can more easily described if we first say what animal welfare is. Yaris678 (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(fixed your sp.) The lead section is supposed to summarize the article. And in a contentious article with multiple definitions, we focus on the subject, rather than a narrow definition. Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is getting anywhere. I only came into this to provide a WP:Third opinion. Perhaps we should go to WP:Requests for comment. Yaris678 (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you summarize your third opinion position so I can comment on it? I've asked you several questions above, none of which have received answers. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

“ I much prefer Robert Daoust's version. SlimVirgin's is based on the contrast with a view of the world based on animal rights. The first few sentences need to define animal welfare in a more general way. If anything I would change Robert's version slightly so that it started by defining animal welfare, before it went on to talk about any system of belief. ” — Yaris678

, Talk:Animal welfare#Third opionion, 19:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That was my opinion then and it hasn't changed much. All this stuff about it being a complex issue... if anything that just goes to show that it is important to start with the basics. Jumping in and talking about animal walfarism as if it is animal welfare is just going to confuse people.

I don't know what these questions are that I haven't answered. Were they actually questions for Dodo bird? He seems to be doing most of the editing recently.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but that doesn't tell me anything at all. The current version now defines animal welfare in a more specific, not general way. And since it is a system of belief, and has a long history to back it up, this is an integral part of the topic. Even Phillips makes this point when he introduces the definitions. Viriditas (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is where we disagree. I think animal welfare is the welfare of animals and that there are various systems of belief which take this into account. You think animal welfare is a system of belief. Some editors seem to agree with me and some with you, some probably don't get the distinction but aren't happy with the system of belief as described. Rather than keep arguing this one in circles, lets got to WP:RfC. Yaris678 (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing for me to go to an RfC with here, and believe me, I wish there was. All I see is a basic misunderstanding of how articles are written. It's not a matter of disagreement. The lead section is supposed to sumarize the article, not present a narrow definition created from a hodgepodge of unattributed, cherry picked definitions that you agree with. That's what we call original research. You're offering me rookie arguments. Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You've made comments along the lines of "rookie arguments" before. But you haven't really said why anything I have said is wrong. I have explained why taking definitions that relate to a specific context and applying it to this context is wrong. Yaris678 (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have explained in every instance, and in detail, why these edits don't work, and yet, each time I ask why SlimVirgin's edits were reverted, I never get an answer. I get "I liked the other version better" and other vague comments. Your preference for one definition over another actually goes against the fundamental policy of NPOV. For the last time, animal welfare does not have one definition. Viriditas (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, it isn't me doing most of the editing. However, if you look at SlimVirgins last version is says "Animal welfare refers in general to the well-being of animals", which is pretty close to a definition. I have argued repeatedly that the well-being of animals is the primary definition and I haven't seen you say anything to refute that. The problem with that version by SlimVirgin is that it then jumps straight into "the view that it is morally acceptable for humans to use nonhuman animals... so long as unnecessary suffering is avoided" That is talking about the orthodox view on animal ethics. That view is sometimes called "Animal welfare" but using the term as such so early in the article is just confusing, especially when better names for the orthodox view are available e.g. "The othodox view on animal ethics" or "welfarism". Yaris678 (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yaris, you have been corrected on these points at least twice, first by myself at 22:54, 30 October[5], then by SlimVirgin at 10:27, 31 October 2009.[6] You have also previously acknowledged these points at 19:46, 1 November[7], but do not seem to understand the points being made. "Moral orthodoxy" is a synonym for animal welfare, or rather the "speciesist utilitarian approach" that allows the use of animals for human benefit. It is term used by political theorist Robert Garner to refer to the current moral status of animals in relation to humans. This position says it is acceptable to use animals for our purposes as long as unnecessary suffering is avoided. Animal welfare is not defined in the context of animals, but rather in relation to us and how we use them for our benefit. You're ignoring this point in the lead section, on purpose, even though the reference you are cherry picking for the lead says, "we need to be aware of who we are defining it for" and goes on to describe many different definitions of the term designed for different audiences and then on page 63, goes on to directly support SlimVirgin's previous version of the article. This is bad editing and needs to stop. As SlimVirgin said, you and others are cherry picking what you like and ignoring what you don't like. This is not how we write encyclopedia articles. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Cherry picked from page 63:

"An animal’s welfare is a scientific absolute, evaluated on a continuous scale from low to high. By contrast, animals’ rights are determined by beliefs and their existence is even denied by many individuals, religious groups and most legislation, for which animals are just property."

There's no point arguing with you if you think this supports your view. --Dodo bird (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong paragraph. Try the second one. I can't believe you are continuing to cherry pick and ignore this. Neither you nor any other editor has managed to poke a single hole in SlimVirgin's version of the article, and the source you are using actually supports it. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've poked several holes in SlimVirgins version. You obviously think you have "corrected" me on that but I have seen no convincing arguments against anything I have said. You are obviously not convinced by my arguments either, which is why I have suggested going to RfC. If you want to carry on this argument maybe it will get us somewhere. The discussion between you and Dodo bird on the book by Clive Philips may resolve the issue. Yaris678 (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please pick the best "hole" and show it to me. I do not see any. What I see is your misunderstanding of the concept of moral orthodoxy, which is a synonym for animal welfare, and even after being corrected on this point by myself and SV, repeating it again. I also see you ignoring the fact that we can't define animal welfare with a simple definition but rather need to represent a summary of the topic. So, where are these holes? The current version of the article isn't based on any collection of sources, but rather on a patchwork quilt of original research, carefully chosen to represent one POV. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Section Break 2

Do you really want to go through that again? Here goes... At 13:26 on 30 October 2009 I listed my main issues with SlimVirgin's text:

• Starts by contrasting to animal rights.
• This is initially done implicitly rather than explicitly, which makes it even more confusing.
• Doesn’t actually define animal welfare.
• Talks about the interests of animals being over-ridden
  • Not all proponents of animal welfare would agree with this.
  • Those who do agree would see it more as animal welfare itself being overridden, rather than part of the definition of animal welfare.
• Talks about animal suffering in the moral calculus in relation to animal rights as if this isn’t considered by those who believe in animal welfare.

You have argued that these points are based on my misunderstanding of what animal welfare is and that it is obviously a position in an ethical debate, as evidenced by various sources. I argued that the authors of those sources obviously preferred other terms such as "the orthodox position" or "welfarism" so it makes little sense for us to use "animal welfare" to mean that position. Furthermore, I argued that the meaning of the term "animal welfare" is obviously the welfare of animals. You argued that it can't really be the welfare of animals; it can only be about something human, since we are human. I argued that we talk about lots of non-human things so there is nothing special about animal welfare. You have argued that it is pointless to try to define animal welfare, given that it is a complex issue. I have argued again that the definition is obvious and that the SlimVirgin's text is assuming that it is a position in an ethical debate, which is unhelpful given that that definition is not the primary definition, and anyway there are better terms to use for that meaning. And so the argument goes on.

Any significant point I've missed there?

Yaris678 (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all of them. You've merely repeated the same points I've already refuted, but most importantly, you repeat the same debunked nonsense about "orthodox position" and "welfarism" which is your own stubborn straw man and doesn't actually bear fruit in reality. Either you have difficulty understanding what you read or you are purposefully repeating false statements. Which is it? Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I was attempted to repeat the entire argument, in reduced form, so obviously I repeated things you believe to be false. I don't think the point about the orthodox position or welfarism has been debunked, but obviously you do. Surely this just illustrates how the argument is getting nowhere. As I said above, it may help to continue to discuss, with Dodo bird, the book by Clive Philips. Failing that, I think RfC is the way forward. Yaris678 (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but when two editors correct an error you made about moral orthodoxy and welfarism, and show you how and why you made the error, you either need to admit your error and correct yourself, or stop repeating the error. Is this clear, or am I not getting through to you? Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you aren't getting through to me. What is this error I'm supposed to have made? Yaris678 (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Been there, done that: [8], [9], [10]. Viriditas (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

These posts are all a combination of:

• Restating the belief that "Animal welfare" is a position in an ethical debate.
• Stating that we need to base our work on reliable sources.

This second point misses the point of what I am saying. Obviously reliable sources are good. However, one of the sources you cited doesn't even use "Animal welfare" to mean what you think it means - it uses "Walfarism" - the other source does use the term but the author obviously prefers the term "Orthodox position". Given that, there is no reason to override the obvious meaning of the term "Animal welfare" - the welfare of animals. Yaris678 (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Moral orthodoxy and welfarism are common synonyms for the animal welfare position, a position that says it is acceptable to use animals for human purposes as long as unnecessary suffering is avoided. There is nothing controversial about this statement. This position is found in every RS on the topic, including Phillips (63), the source you are using in the first sentence of the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

By me I assume you mean Dodo bird. I have already said that it may help if the two of you continue to discuss Phillips.

The rest of your argument is strangely familiar. I will repeat what I said last time. I am not saying that using the term animal welfare to mean a position in an ethical debate is controversial, I am saying it is secondary. You seem to have accepted this point yourself since you are now using the term "animal welfare position" rather than "animal welfare".

Yaris678 (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Which brings us to the next point: What you consider secondary might be considered primary depending on who is defining what and for whom. This point was also made by Phillips. You are insisting on narrowly defining a broad idea, an idea that notable experts on the subject say cannot be defined in a brief manner. What we need is a description of the topic in the lead section, not a definition. By trying to define this topic in the lead, you are attempting to frame it under one POV. Have you even bothered to look at how other encyclopedias treat the topic, like, for instance, the Encyclopædia Britannica? Viriditas (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Two points on that:

• You are actually arguing against SlimVirgin's text now since it assumes that animal welfare is a particular position in an ethical debate.
• There seems to be two main definitions being discussed here. One is general and leads into other things, the other is narrow and has better terms to describe it.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the point, in case you missed it: I'm not arguing for or against any one POV. I'm saying, that broad Wikipedia articles like this one, generally discourage narrow definitions in the lead and tend to favor summarizing the broad topic and letting the definition emerge on its own. If there are multiple, notable POV (which there are), we describe them and note who uses them. By trying to define the topic, first, you are forcing the topic to grow in one direction, when in fact, there are many branches, each with equal importance, whether from a historical, philosophical, scientific, or religious approach. So, what do other encyclopedias say? Viriditas (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I know that you are not defending SlimVirgin’s text we might be able to have a more intelligent conversation. I have some issues with some of the text that Dodo bird has put in but I didn’t want to raise that until we cleared up the previous issue - a disagreement between SlimVirgin and Robert Daoust, on which I had expressed a third opinion.I don’t know what Britannica says, the online version just mentions animal welfare acts. What does it say? Yaris678 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say much, but what it does say is in a discussion about animal rights. In any case, I had some time to go through the tertiary literature, and I don't see anything that would oppose SlimVirgin's version of his article. However, I do see a lot that would support it. So, Yaris, I'm still not clear what the objections are to her version of this article. You've made a list above, and I'll address them here: 1) Starts by contrasting to animal rights. Well, most sources contrast animal welfare with animal rights, so I'm not seeing a problem here. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, not introduce new information, and that is what SV's version appears to be doing. 2) This is initially done implicitly rather than explicitly, which makes it even more confusing. I'm not following you. I don't see anything confusing about this, as it is summarizing the article and is non-controversial. 3) Doesn’t actually define animal welfare. As I have previously explained, in a topic like this, we don't need to define the concept, but rather demonstrate and show how it is used, who uses it, and how it is applied. There are multiple definitions, and most sources define it in terms of its philosophy, which is best done in its own section, not the lead. 4) Talks about the interests of animals being over-ridden. No, the source says, "animals have an interest in not suffering but this can be overridden to promote the greater good of humans". That is the animal welfare position. 5) Not all proponents of animal welfare would agree with this. Name one. 6) Those who do agree would see it more as animal welfare itself being overridden, rather than part of the definition of animal welfare. It's not a definition, which explains your confusion. It's a statement of the philosophical position, which is true and non-controversial. 7) Talks about animal suffering in the moral calculus in relation to animal rights as if this isn’t considered by those who believe in animal welfare. I'm not seeing a problem with the version you are criticizing. What I am seeing, is a new version that introduces a definition cobbled together from multiple definitions to promote the idea that such a definition exists, when in fact, it does not. This is original research. I've addressed these problems below and I will address them again. In Pond and Bell's Encyclopedia of Animal Science, Paul B. Thompson summarizes these problems in "Farm Animal Welfare: Philosophical Aspects"[11] The current version of this article is erroneous in many ways. User:Dodo bird in particular, has added original research that is neither supported by a source or the article.[12] Other editors have made edits that have removed good sources and material[13], and reformated the headings and layout against best practices[14]. I do not see any improvement over SlimVirgin's version, but rather a constant degradation of the article, from bad to worse. Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. You are defending SlimVirgin’s text. Perhaps I misunderstood when you said you weren’t supporting any particular point of view. Obviously you believe SlimVirgin’s text is from a neutral point of view, even though it is written from a point of view of “Animal welfare is a position in an ethical debate”.

I thought we might get somewhere for a second but obviously not. This argument could go on forever. Let’s just go to RfC.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Animal welfare is most certainly, according to all reliable sources on the topic, an ethical, philosophical position. Yaris, have you done the most basic research on this subject? Your confusion on this topic seems to be due to your unfamiliarity. Why don't you start by reading Paul B. Thompson's article on the subject?[15] It might help to clear up some of your confusion. When you are done, I have about a dozen other sources for you to read. There is no "argument" here. You are merely misinformed about this topic. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Have started RfC, needed to be done as we seem to be running in circles and getting no were. ZooPro 12:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

An RfC is not going to help you and others how write Wikipedia articles or educate you on the subject, so I have no idea what purpose it is going to serve. It's just another distraction. The comments from Yaris above demonstrate that he doesn't understand the subject he is talking about. Viriditas (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not need to be educated on the subject i am already well learned in the area of Animal Welfare. The purpose is to gather outside opinion.ZooPro 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? So you admit that you are editing this article based on your own personal beliefs and not actual sources? That's precisely the problem. Show me a source on animal welfare that uses a single definition. And for your information, no single encyclopedic, tertiary sources defines animal welfare. What they do, is discuss it in terms of its philosophical underpinnings, history, and application. The only reason you keep trying to argue that we need to define it is so that you can push a single POV. Please note, no actual reliable source on this subject does that. All the article needs to do is describe the concept in terms of the people who use it. It is that simple. There is no requirement for any single definition, nor is one possible. Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As per below i have never edited this article per this discussion so i could not have inserted any of my own beliefs. Apart from that being a total breach of WP:NPOVZooPro 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, I tend to treat a tag team as one entity. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Original research

This edit by Dodo bird does not appear to be supported by the sources. Viriditas (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dodo bird removed the OR tag I added without commenting here.[16] I have therefore added the disputed tag. Viriditas (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Authoritative sources

Sources defining animal welfare are numerous in the scientific literature. Marlene Halverson or Donald Broom are recognized authors by Wikipedia standards. It is a beginning, a lot of other references could be brought to this article. All of us, whatever our position or motivation, should collaborate in good faith and without personal attacks for improving this article, which is an important article as far as the welfare, and rights, of countless beings are concerned. --Robert Daoust (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

See Animal Welfare: Competing Conceptions and Their Ethical Implications (2008) by Richard P. Haynes. There is no one accepted definition of animal welfare, and the article needs to focus on describing the topic rather than imposing a single definition that does not exist. Haynes notes that according to animal scientists Michael C. Appleby, Peter Sandøe, David Fraser, and Ian J.H. Duncan, "a brief definition of animal welfare is not possible". (109) Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3