Talk:Speciesism/Archive 2

Clarification on definition

I think the article should clarify the definition of speciesism: where are the limits? Some use the concept to protext apes, others to protect dogs & cats, others to protect equines. Where do people see the limits? What about rats in an apartment? Cockroaches? Termites? Malarial mosquitoes? Killing amoeba in boiling water? Clarification of the limits in the article would clarify some issues. I suspect there is a range of opinions. Pete unseth (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Pete, if you want to add something about parameters, please find an academic source and use that. Adding personal opinions is only going to make the article worse. I know it could use some improvement, but I'd like to make sure it's roughly based on scholarly sources going forward, or similarly high(ish)-quality ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you please stop adding this? [1][2][3][4] The source is not reliable, and it doesn't make sense as written, especially not for the lead. "There is disagreement as to how many species should be protected from speciesism, many bugs and worms being seen as pests."

The article isn't about which species would be "protected from speciesism" (not clear what that would mean). It's about the concept of speciesism. If you have an academic source that makes your point, by all means add it. But if you read the first paragraph, you'll see that it's about discriminating on the basis of species membership and "morally irrelevant physical differences." No one would argue that there are no morally relevant physical differences between, say, a fruit fly and an ape. So you are arguing against a straw man, based on a poor source (or, for your first few edits, no source). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin. Pete, the concept works interchangeably within preset limits or artificial constraints. There is a general concept under discussion, but smaller topics contained within it, such as issues related to animal rights, balance of nature theories, interplanetary contamination issues, etc. Therefore, the limits are situational. There's also interesting problems that develop. For example, in parts of Africa, both rats and midges are eaten for food, but at the same time act as disease vectors. Without the rats and midges, there would be a lack of food, but their presence can also kill people. Nature is dual-use, and for this reason, all living things have value. You can even take this a step further and claim that non-living things have similar value, but that's another discussion. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion in the article of the film Meet Your Meat would require anti-speciesism to consider the mental differences and the differences in practiced moral code between chickens and people morally irrelevant. Perhaps some editors would argue that there are no morally relevant physical differences between chickens and humans, but that would just their own POV. If there is a published source that states that the physical differences between people and chickens are less morally significant than the differences between people and wheat, then maybe that source can be used as a basis for better defining what the speciesism article is about.

The inclusion of Richard Dawkins as source of comment does not contribute to the scholarly nature of sources for the article because he is not a scholar of Ethics or Religion, but rather of Ethology, not the same thing at all. Any published comment on speciesism is as scholarly as his comments because he comments outside of his field of expertise. - Fartherred (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC) & 02:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Back to my earlier series of questions posted above, What are the limits and definitions of speciesism? I was advised to find a published source to ask this. Actually, I think the shoe is on the other feet: what are the definitions that are being used. Is there any reason I cannot post "There is yet no broadly accepted definition of which species are seen as included in the definition of speciesism"? The article 'needs' a definition, or more likely, definitions. Those who actively advocate and write in the field should have a definition of the limits of speciesism. Seeking clarity.Pete unseth (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Peter, the second paragraph of the lead seems to explain this well. Which part do you not understand?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments about the limits of Speciesism from the animal rights people or their opponents are relevant to the article, but they should come from well published sources. Some of our fellow editors do not like this source but this edit clearly puts the opinion of an editor into the article. One should avoid that. I agree with the opinion, but policy requires a reliable source. - Fartherred (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

In the media

In the section on speciesism in the media, except for the list of films, the content violates NPOV about how an editor(s) values the media showing humans as separate and superior to other species. Speciesism is not limited to fantasy or science fiction, it is 99.9999% of media content.

I think the section should be drastically rewritten, or I think it should be removed.Pete unseth (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement about Buddhism

Buddhism, despite its reputation for respect for animals, accords humans a somewhat higher status in the progression of reincarnation.

I'm not sure that is an entirely accurate statement. While I'm sure it is certainly true for certain sects of Buddhism (and this should be attributed appropriately), it is debatable as an interpretation. There are countless Buddhist parables about humans sacrificing themselves for animals, etc. As for whether we have a "higher status", I think that's referring to the status of being on a certain path, not in relation to nature itself. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The source is Paul Waldau, The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals, Oxford University Press, 2001. A good source but no page numbers are offered. He discusses Buddhist views in chapter seven from page 140 onwards. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I think, if it is verified, it should be attributed to a specific sect. More liberal (or even modern) flavors of Buddhism do not promote this view. It is probably true for a certain type of Asian Buddhism, but in the West, these kinds of beliefs have fallen out of favor. There's a lot of parables about the Buddha cutting off his arm to feed an Eagle, etc. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the reference to a "progression of reincarnation" also appears in error. Buddhism seeks to put a stop to reincarnation, not to continue its progression. Whether this error is attributable to an editor trying to paraphrase or to the original author is unknown at this time, but I'm very skeptical of the entire sentence at this point. Although I may be entirely wrong, I seem to recall reading old Buddhist texts that talked about animals achieving liberation from samsara without having to take human form. If true, this would refute the central point. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether the statement is accurate or not (though it is), because of the opening line of the article "Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership." - that humans are higher on the path of reincarnation is because of their enhanced mental abilities, but this does not lead to different values or rights or considerations based on species membership, unless you think that not teaching a dog vipassana is some kind of prejudice. I'm removing the whole part below Christianity, because none of it (not the Buddhism, Hinduism or animist) are arguments in favour - or against - speciesism. They're just nothing to do with it and only there, it seems, to contrast (or compare) with Christianity, and that's a bogus reason for having them there.Yb2 (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections to the removal, Yb2. I think it would be good at some point to add Buddhist views if they're relevant, and I think Waldau's book would be a good source to start with, but it would take a lot of reading to get it right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Speciesism not listed among the "general forms" of discrimination?

Speciesism is currently listed under related topics, not general forms under the series of discrimination. I personally do not think that makes sense, as the concept precisely relates to discrimination, and similarly to the others to discrimination based on biology. How to go about moving it, if there's agreement that it should be moved?

Interstates (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I will gently disagree with Interstates. I can maybe see it under related topics, but I do not consider it discrimination against anyone to treat species differently. Dogs cannot get driver licenses, cats cannot vote, gerbils cannot collect food stamps, I am not legally liable if I step on an ant on the sidewalk-- this is speciesism, but not discrimination. Pete unseth (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And I gently disagree with Pete unseth. It is discrimination in the most technical sense, no matter what. About this there can be no discussion. Discrimination is not necessarily a morally charged concept, it simply refers to differential treatment to individuals on the basis of membership in some category. About this there is no doubt and Wikipedia's own article on the "discrimination" can be cited in support of this assertion. What moral judgments we make about this kind of discrimination is a different matter and clearly there are differing ethical opinions about what discrimination is accepted or even proscribed, for instance, w.r.t. sexuality, however this does not militate against the inclusion of that kind of discrimination. Enbrightenment (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a hard call. I mostly agree with Enbrightenment, though I'm not familiar with the exact guidelines. Children cannot get driver licenses or vote, yet Adultism is included in the list of "Specific forms" of discrimination. The question isn't whether the individuals in question have all rights of adult citizens but whether they have some rights. Animals are protected by laws in many countries, and animal cruelty is a crime in some cases. If we wanted to only focus on discrimination that's illegal for, say, job applications (race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, etc.), then we'd have to nix Adultism, Fatism, and other items from the list. Brian Tomasik (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to indicate, additionally, that also a standard dictionary definition of speciesism describes it precisely in terms "discrimination", for instance, "prejudice or discrimination based on species; especially : discrimination against animals". Enbrightenment (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it discrimination in the most technical sense? Unless all things in the universe are treated equally, we have to draw the line somewhere. Even if there were no animal speciesism, we would still treat plants differently. If you believe that the differences between animals are arbitrary, then so are the differences between animals and plants. But at some point, we need to define what is discrimination and what isn't. The easiest way to do that is to say that discrimination only applies to treating people differently. While people who are not opposed to sexism think that it is justified, it can't be reasonably argued that sexism is not discrimination. But wanting animals to be defined as people is trying to change the definition of "person" and "discrimination". McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The argument of speciesism is largely a moral one claiming that animals are moral subjects because they are similar enough in their functions as humans, and that a species divide is thus arbitrary. I've not seen any philosophically sound academic papers claiming that plants are relevantly similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.227.112 (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No one claims that plants have rights equivalent to people, in particular no anti-speciesist so claims. The question is why do the anti-speciesists want to grant rights to some species and not others. Why gorillas and not dogs? Why dogs and not fish? Why fish and not oysters? Why oysters and not potatoes? It seems that there is no philosophically sound academic paper for any of the divers suggestions that people want to include in anti-speciesism. The lack of any philosophically sound basis for any limit on anti-speciesism is consistent with Leonard Peikoff's characterization of anti-speciesism as altruism gone mad in his Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, page 358; as noted in the article. - Fartherred (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Organization

(especially in the sense of section headings, prefaces, sequence)

Above someone says that the article is about "the concept of speciesism". Partly, and especially in section 1. But sections 2 and 3 may be to summarize arguments against and for an ethical(?) position or family of positions regardless whether the developments covered in section 1 have yet produced a coherent concept.

Sections 2 and 3 will benefit from short introductions, at least one complete sentence each, to explain their scope and perhaps structure (eg, sequence that is chronological in some sense). The section 2 heading "Anti-speciesism critique" is unfortunate, about three times so clunky as the term "speciesism". Why not 2. Arguments against speciesism and 3. Arguments in favor of speciesism?

Anyway 'twere best never to say anything like this, early in 2.1: "She writes that it is not only philosophers who have difficulty with this concept." For the text evidently goes on to show that and how non-philosophers disagree with the position.

The first half of subsec 3.2, Religious, is not evidently religious.

--P64 (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Lafollette and Shanks views

On current reading of the article it has made their views look as if they are proponents of speciesism.

This is not what their view has been.

I have added this into the reference for now:

" [Note: The authors Lafollette and Shanks are not proponents of speciesism]"

As before it simply listed their names after this:

"Such proponents may explicitly embrace the charge of speciesism, arguing that it recognizes the importance of all human beings, and that species loyalty is justified." followed by the reference taking us to:

" Lafollette and Shanks (1996) (courtesy link)"

The article is a commentary on speciesism, and not an argument for it.

If you wish to edit this so it's less clumsy that's fine, but please do not leave their view as ambiguous or imply that they are proponents of speciesism :) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.227.112 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Intro paragraph 3

"Throughout human history, every society has treated animal life forms as different than humans and to be used in ways that benefit humans, including milk, eggs, meat, wool, transport, power, guarding, entertainment, etc. All of these activities that were standard human behaviors across the millennia and across the globe are now pejoratively labeled by some as "speciesism"."

I must say I am picking up some definite bias here, on top of the obvious redundancy. Recommend re-write.

--Leland01 (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

To Leland01, are you saying that the material you quoted is not true? If it is true, then it should stand, even if it clashes with some people's positions. Neutral point of view allows facts to stand, but restricts editors posting opinions. If the quoted material is correct, then it should remain.Pete unseth (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Certain films are out-of-place

Listed among the films on Speciesism are Enemy Mine, Alien Nation, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

These films have no place being sited as films about speciesism. The non-human species featured in these films are alien species that interact at or above a human level -- and are allegorical to how different races and/or cultures within humanity treat each other -- or at most to the potential of a non-human species being discovered in the future that functions at or above human level -- and are very *clearly* not to any non-human species currently known to exist on Earth.

Placing them here as examples of films that critique speciesism is misleading ---- unless one can provide solid evidence that the makers of these films *intended* them as a commentary on speciesism as discussed in this article. Sophiashapira (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Speciesism is a very one-sided debate, since those who want to protect the rights of non-humans are purely human at this point in time. Until we make contact with sentient alien life, or create an AI that is sentient enough to have its own opinion on matters, we will never actually have opposition against speciesism that isn't "speaking for those that can't". Personally I believe its a ridiculous concept, since animals aren't sapient, they can't think "oh this shepherd wants my wool, that's so discriminating" (the irony being that domesticated sheep need their wool sheared off regularly to survive), I mean technically it is because they're a different species, but the actions against them are rarely malicious ("harvesting" for materials necessary for survival). The reason that fiction containing aliens/AI are relevant is because they are intelligent enough to actually be discriminated against. Consider it like racism, except you're not discriminating an entire race of people (and, presumably, not another race of that same species), but instead the entire species. The fact that they may or may not function on a higher level is irrelevant, since its still discrimination against another species regardless.

Replying to the unsigned comment just above: The use of the word "discrimination" is sometimes used almost casually by some today. If I understand the use of "discrimination" in the last sentence, by trying to destroy all HIV viruses, we humans are are discriminating against them. I very happily accept the charge of being discriminating against another species in this way. Part of what makes us human as that we can distinguish between humans and non-humans. Pete unseth (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The fatal flaw in anti-speciesism

There is no more reason to give equal rights to dogs than there is to give equal rights to wheat and rice. They are all other species. Is there no reliable source that has pointed this out? Find a published source for the idea or publish it and get it into the Wikipedia article. - Fartherred (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't think this even warrants a response honestly, but I'll leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal#Characteristics 2602:30A:2CCF:C770:7582:2B4:C6B4:72D0 (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That is separating animal species from other species, which would be "speciesism" by definition. That's the point OP is making – if you're claiming there's something inherently wrong with discriminating between species, you should also want equal rights for plants, bacteria, etc. The whole concept is illogical. We discriminate species based on factual biological reasons; racism and sexism are not based on anything that makes factual sense. I'm sure there are many pieces of academic literature that will argue this. "Anti-speciesism", if it can be called that, is still a fringe belief though, so it can be difficult to find anything decent that seriously discusses it. M.Clay1 (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There's an enormous philosophical literature on animal rights. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/ is a good semi-technical introduction. To OP's point, the standard answer is that moral status attaches to some morally relevant characteristic such as self-perception, the ability to feel pain, the ability to think of things as good or bad, etc., which many members of nonhuman animal species have and which wheat and rice clearly seem not to; it's these characteristics which motivate different treatment of pigs and rice plants, not species membership itself. I suggest collapsing this per WP:FORUM. FourViolas (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the argument is that the list itself- "self-perception, the ability to feel pain, the ability to think of things as good or bad, etc." - is inherently anthropocentric. A more specific version of this is that animals themselves tell us (through their behaviour) that they are willing to undergo pain to reproduce (e.g. males fighting over mating opportunities), but we human are far more willing to protect them from pain than protect them from infertility.Mukogodo (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

something about vegetables, air, and dirt?

Fartherred restored this section in this edit after I and an IP editor both tried to remove it. I think the only source, this, is not a good one. I also don't understand what the section is trying to say. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sammy's edit summary said "badly sourced and incoherent". The whole of the section is supported in the first four sentences of the cited web page. How is this source inferior to the opinions of Dawkins who is not a specialist in ethics. The section demonstrates that people in support of eating plants are willing to justify it on the grounds of necessity but do not accept that rational for eating meat. It shows their inconsistency. - Fartherred (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly you are trying to use this self-published blog post as a straw man, supposedly demonstrating something a larger class of people believe, though you have no source saying that. In other words, this blatantly violates all three core content policies. Is that correct? --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I would have put the explanation of the meaning of the section into the article, but readers are supposed to be smart enough to figure these things out for themselves, and Wikipedia frowns on editorializing. Blogs are good sources for the opinions of those who publish the blogs. The blog is just as representative of vegetarian positions as Dawkins is representative of anything outside of his field of expertise. Just what policy is it that you imagine that I am violating, and how? - Fartherred (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

All of them. And severely. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The section you deleted violates none of the core content policies. It promotes a neutral point of view by supplying a representation of the majority point of view that vegetarianism is not rationally based. It is verifiable because it is supported directly by the cited source. It is not original research because it includes nothing not directly supported by the source. So your objection is merely an example of your own tendentious editing in which you delete the pertinent cited addition of another. - Fartherred (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to the noticeboards. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion of ANI is no argument.

I see you restored it again. What it comes down to is this: we don't use self-published personal websites for opinions of large groups of people to which the website owner belongs, and we certainly don't editorialize those opinions without a source for the analysis. I'm sorry to keep reverting, and I really don't want to pick a fight, but since these are really bad violations of the core content policies, I'm going to remove the section again. Please get consensus before including something along these lines, especially if you do so without a good source. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

As an independent editor, I have looked at the source and it appears to be a blog. I do not believe this is RS compliant.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I have additionally attempted to find an RS which takes this blog seriously or offers analysis of it, and have failed. Sammy is correct that WP:SELFSOURCE does not authorize using questionable sources to support statements about other people and organizations, and http://www.todaysmodernwoman.com cannot claim to represent all vegetarians and vegans. FourViolas (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

use of "anthropomorphism"

A previous editor use the word "anthropomorphism", marking it with a wikilink. However, the article by that name is about literary uses of "anthropomorphism". Should the sentence be reworded? Or, the wikilink removed? Or, other?? I don't want to misrepresent what a previous editor has written, but I am not sure what was meant. Pete unseth (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Law and Policy

I am advocating that there should be a new section related to Speciesism's affect on law and policy historically and currently. Thoughts? (I am new to Wikipedia editing, so please inform me if I have posted improperly in this discussion)BlackWidow80 (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You're doing fine! That would be a great addition to the page, in my opinion. I suggest you start by looking at Animal law, and seeing if there's material about law and speciesism which doesn't fit there; if not, all we need here is a short summary (see WP:SUMMARY). If you do think there's material that would be best here, gather some reliable sources (e.g. books, scholarly papers) which discuss law and policy in terms of speciesism and go from there. Good luck! FourViolas (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! BlackWidow80 (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Speciesism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114004403/http://www.criticalsocietyjournal.org.uk/Archives_files/1.%20Speciesism%20Again.pdf to http://www.criticalsocietyjournal.org.uk/Archives_files/1.%20Speciesism%20Again.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.communalism.org/Archive/5/aar.print.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114004403/http://www.criticalsocietyjournal.org.uk/Archives_files/1.%20Speciesism%20Again.pdf to http://www.criticalsocietyjournal.org.uk/Archives_files/1.%20Speciesism%20Again.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050317052329/http://www.communalism.org/Archive/5/aar.print.html to http://www.communalism.org/Archive/5/aar.print.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Human Supremacism

The intro lists "Simply considering humans superior to other animals" as an example of speciesism. However, the intro also states that speciesism "involves treating members of one species as morally more important than members of other species even when their interests are equivalent". Unless I misunderstand the meaning of "interests" in that sentence, human interests are not equivalent to those of other animals (e.g. political or philosophical interests).

I feel like either these two statements are in contradiction or at least one of them needs clarification, especially since the rest of the article does not concern itself with the actual meaning of speciesism. Jazzpi 23:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzpi (talk • contribs)

Incomplete reference(s?)

Hi, I'm using this article to improve the one in spanish and I came across reference number six [5] which doesn't have a publication title. Does anybody know where is this taken from? If I find more unconsistent references I'll add them here. Thanks! u v u l u m (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Speciesism thoughts -- reverted

The article gives an example of how a certain attitude about different species (use of pain killer when removing tails from dogs but not for cattle) would be an example of speciesism. I agree, it is a valid example. I added another example, showing another, simpler example of speciesism: killing rats and cockroaches that attack human food supplies. I am not surprised that it was deleted. Can we stop and think why one of the two examples should remain in the article and the other example should be deleted? One is more esoteric, the other is closer to our daily experience. Hoping to start a gentle, polite conversation. Pete unseth (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Hey, I've been trying to clean up the references. I've noticed there's a few that aren't actually cited in the text. I've removed them, feel free to revert this if you disagree. Would be nice to integrate them into the text though or add to the further reading section Throughthemind (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Throughthemind: I moved the unused refs to the further reading section for now, but my formatting is probably off as this isn't my strong suit. I noticed that whole section needs major cleanup too. RockingGeo (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Biased and partisan

This article is mostly written to support this ridiculous concept. Needs the other POV. The caption on the cow/dog picture is particularly tendentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.22 (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree, the first part of the article comes across as tending towards a polemic and most of the sources are anti-speciesism in nature. Needs to be sorted out, I'll see what can be done if I have the time.Sdio7 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing cow-dog picture

The picture has a caption claiming that cows and dogs have a similar interest. There is no reliable source provided for this claim at all. Furthermore, authors referenced in the article would probably dispute the claim being made in the image (that cows and dogs have equal moral interests), thus in the event a source is provided, it should be made clear who specifically is making this claim. Hence why I removed it. It was removed before on similar grounds and was restored without any of the prior issues being addressed at all. Sdio7 (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

In the "Arguments in Favor" section of the article, it lists eleven people who are in favor of speciesism. You might expect that these are the people who would dispute the claim made in the image, yet every single one merely makes various arguments claiming that humans differ from animals in terms of moral interest; and the arguments that they use seem to imply that they would be okay with the claim that two different mammalian species might have similar moral interests.

With that said, I don't doubt that there are some philosophers somewhere who have made such claims, but none come to mind. Usually if someone is arguing that dogs deserve moral consideration that cows do not, it is not due to the animals' interests, but instead due to humans' interests on behalf of those animals. A quick google search seems to lightly confirm this, but I suppose I could be wrong here.

However, I grant that it couldn't hurt too much to either change the language of or include a source for the statement, even if no one currently quoted in the article seems to dispute it with their included arguments. How about: "The different treatment between dogs and cattle in most cultures may be an example of speciesism. If they have similar moral interests, then their species membership may be the sole reason cattle are treated much worse than their dog counterparts."? — Eric Herboso 05:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"Similar interest" here doesn't mean the exact same one as that cast in the same mould (the dog is interested in chewing bones while the cow is not) but only means sharing a similar basic bio-psychological interests (interests to live a pain-free life, staying away from sufferings and life-threatening sources, seeking emotional fulfilment at their species level, etc.). The concept of equal moral interests is discussed in detail in several works (e.g., the very first chapter of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, pp. 1–23). The said picture perfectly depicts the concept and the contradiction resulting from a speciesistic view point, and the caption explains that in a brief manner. I don't see any flaw with the image and I strongly suggest the image stay until we have another one that depicts the concept in a better way, which I fear won't be as brief and concise as the current caption. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why one has to delete an image that neatly and unbiasedly depicts the idea described in the article. As User:Eric Herboso says, every idea will have counter argument from the opposite party and that shouldn't affect the very definition or its illustrated depiction. After all, the image is the depiction of the idea, not its counter idea. That all sentient species share similar moral interests has been explained by several researchers over the years such as Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Richard D. Ryder, Gary L. Francione, Mylan Engel, Steve F. Sapontzis, Melanie Joy, Corey Lee Wrenn to name a few. Just as the lede paragraph of any Wiki article, the caption that simply condenses the idea discussed in the article doesn't need a citation. However, if required, we can add citations for the same as well. That doesn't require the image to be removed or the caption changed. Ultimately, the illustration should reflect the very definition of the topic of the article—speciesism, and the current image does just that. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The principle problem is that it is not clear if animals do have similar interests (consider Scruton's argument that rights are a human construct, also echoed by Williams). Sure, you have people arguing this, but you also have those that don't. Therefore the image should not be making a claim that the two have similar moral interests. Some people think they do but that doesn't mean they do as an objective fact. If animals have no moral interest, then treating them differently can't be speciesist (because there isn't any violation of equal interests because none exist, so the concept becomes incoherent).

In essence, if it cannot be demonstrated that they have identical moral interests or even possess moral interests at all, then this can't be an example of speciesism. Indeed it could be argued that if species membership creates a difference in moral interests, speciesism is ipso facto impossible (because species will always be relevant in determining interests). I would note that the examples given by User:Rasnaboy of researchers showing a similar moral interest are mostly by philosophers - they are philosophical arguments, rather than scientific ones. This is because you cannot scientifically prove that animals have similar moral interests because of the is-ought problem, you demonstrate it philosophically. I would simultaneously observe that philosophers listed in the article would dispute this - Maclean's observation about the hawk eating a marmot would be an example (since you could argue that both marmot's and humans have an interest in not being eaten but nobody gets upset when a hawk eats a marmot. This indicates that moral interests aren't really something that Maclean thinks makes sense when talking about animals, so talking about animals having similar moral interests makes no sense). Nozick's point about endangered animals would also count. Wells' argument might count as well. Grau's point about the issue of an impartial observer and suffering could also count (in the sense of arguing that moral interests in animals doesn't make sense as a coherent concept). I think Scruton did come up with an argument about differential treatment somewhere else but it admittedly isn't posted on the page.

(To be clear I don't want to turn this into an argument about whether animals do have similar moral interest (to humans, each other or anything else) because that's what talk pages sometimes descend into, I'm just using these philosophers as examples of people who might dispute this for the purposes of discussion of the image).

The image isn't unbiased. It picks two animals, both cute mammals. It could have had a dog and cockroach or a dog and an anglerfish. Why are they shown side by side (especially weird given the physical dimensions of the animals are very different)? Why not the cow on the top and dog on the bottom (or vice versa) This tugs at heartstrings. This is the kind of image you put out if you want to argue they have equal moral interests (consider the famous vegan-billboard "where do you draw the line"), which is what is under contention in the article itself. If the image was voiced e.g "Philosophers such as Peter Singer would argue that cows and dogs...." then it would less of an issue. If nobody objects I will go ahead and add in this voice, specifically referencing Singer (because he's the most famous philosopher on this idea). For example "Philosophers such as Peter Singer have argued that the different treatment...."Sdio7 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be using this talk-page to debate philosophical views, that is not the point of this talk-page. The cow-dog comparison has been used for years by animal rights activists and actually appears in animal rights literature on the topic of speciesism so it is relevant to this article. I have seen it used many times to raise the issue of speciesism. Have a look for example at Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. I see no reason to remove the photograph, the idea behind the photograph supports the article well. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I brought up the philosophical parts because they were mentioned in the responses to me and to respond to Herboso and Rasnaboy (I explained this in my first paragraph when I pointed out the issue with making the claim since not all of the article supports that view). I am aware that the image has been used by animal rights activists to make their point however. My point is that the image makes a claim that is not necessarily fully supported - I even proposed simply explaining whose views it reflects in my last paragraph (that of Singer et al). Indeed if the picture is being used to reflect the viewpoint of animal rights activists, we probably should make clear whose viewpoint it is reflecting. Like would anyone be opposed to keeping the image but making clear whose view it represents? Sdio7 (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point. The cow-dog image/comparison is commonly used to illustrate the idea of speciesism, and therefore I see no reason for it to be removed. A quick google search demonstrates this (there are some other variations, but the cow/dog is the most common). It seems the larger issue is with the caption rather than the image itself, in particular the latter part on the "similar moral interests" of the two. I believe the caption is fine as is, but if removing the last part but keeping "The different treatment between dogs and cattle in most cultures is an example of speciesism" would resolve the issue, I would not object. It's succinct and to the point. Although I believe finding a RS to include as a citation is the best solution here, rather than removal.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@User:Sdio7 We must understand that the caption is not making a claim but is just illustrating the idea of speciesism, which makes the claim. Ideas are essentially defined by philosophers, not scientists, and science later corroborates the idea with evidence. For example, the term life was first defined by philosophers and not scientists and was (and is still being) refined by science as it advances. That said, the very term speciesism was defined by philosophers like Richard Ryder and Peter Singer. All the component terms of speciesism, viz. morality, moral equality, equal interest, sentience, qualia, consciousness all first have philosophical definitions and only the physical and biological ones will later have scientific explanations furthering the philosophical meaning. That said, the terms morality, moral equality, equal interest are all defined by these philosophers. Coming to the scientific definitions, the terms sentience, qualia, and consciousness have been proven to exist in non-human animals too by the 2012 Cambridge Declaration. So there is no reason to delete the image. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of the Cambridge declaration. The issue is that the image claims the two have a similar moral interest, which is different to possessing properties like qualia. Moral arguments cannot be proven scientifically, they are argued for philosophically. If this was a voiced claim it wouldn't be a problem because it wouldn't be portraying moral interests as scientific fact but rather as a philosophical argument. I put an example of how it could be worded at the bottom of this edit. After all, while philosophers can define these terms, other philosophers can disagree with them on those definitions (or their application). Sdio7 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should keep the picture BECAUSE the charge of speciesism may refer to how (some/many) humans prefer some animals to others (and thus disadvantage those whom they do not prefer). For instance, 'Why do we love animals called pets and feed those pets the bodies of other animals whom we call 'pet food'?? Aren't many animals substantially equal or at least parallel in terms of their intentionality and will to continue living and to engage in social relationships 'with their own kind'? Dogs and cows; dogs and sheet; cats and fish; etc. Whentechnologies (such as plant-based meats) provide plant-based fully-nourishing foods for all companion and captive animals, won't photo like the cow-dog image become less politically volatile and more an expression of what 'the common sense' will have become? Suggesting moral parity between those who are companion animals (dogs, et al.) and those who are used for food is morally and existentially problematic for those who don't see an out, an escape, a resolution to the moral dilemmas that it illustrates. The picture supports the content of the article. MaynardClark (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Since the article is on speciesism as a topic, including for and against, having one image on the "against" aspect (that is to say, supporting moral parity between companion and commodity animals) doesn't make as much sense unless it's voiced, which is what I brought up in my last paragraph as a compromise.Sdio7 (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Speciesism by its very definition is a discrimination against members of other species. Any image depicting a discrimination can only include the "against" part and not the "for" part as illustrating the concept. For example, an image for the article on racism can only have the "against" illustrated and we shall never have the "for" part as (one of) the main illustration(s). I wonder what makes one think that we should include images of some clans/governments silently supporting racism to prove that counter argument to "racism" does exist. That can only be described in text in the section "arguments supporting racism", if at all. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Discrimination refers to treatment based on being in a category. Not hiring people who lack qualifications for a job is discrimination for example - an image could depict a man being denied a job for lacking whatever academic qualification required without being against it (or for it). Discrimination is not inherently negative (for example, Singer and others advocate Personism, which is a form of discrimination where rights are allocated based on whether a being is a person or not. Obviously this discriminates against non-persons, since that's the point of the philosophy). This is why philosophers debate speciesism, because some philosophers don't really see anything wrong with it or even think it is a good thing. For example they would hold that species automatically creates a difference of interest (which renders speciesism ipso facto impossible as a concept because you can never have an equality of interest if there is a difference in species, which is basically what some of the arguments in the "arguments for" section are making. Indeed Singer himself notes that one could argue that a human's interest in living may be qualitatively different from that of pig and thus one could argue that killing a human is worse than killing a pig but this wouldn't be speciesist. This means that equality of interests may seldom actually exist (this is often brought up in debates around the argument from marginal cases). That's why the article talks about how the concept and the morality of it has been debated - it even cites an article by Francois Jaquet discussing if it is wrong by definition (which he wrote in response to Ocar Horta who argues that it is wrong by definition. Horta is also cited on the page). I said I was ok with keeping the picture if it was voiced (that is it as made clear who was making the argument that cows and dogs have similar moral interests and thus who argues the two are treated differently in a presumably unjustifiable way. Otherwise there's no reason to mention this). It isn't sufficient for there to be discrimination, it must also be shown the discrimination is unjustified (of course one can always define discrimination as "unjust treatment based on a category", but then you have to refrain from calling something discrimination unless you can demonstrate it's unjust (since that would be part of the criterion for discrimination), which of course is what the article is debating with the "for" and "against" sections). Also if the image was unbiased, which some people argue it is intended to be, then it can't be for or against speciesism as a concept. It is presumably just meant to be explaining the concept rather than discussing the morality of it.

Sdio7 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The photo and caption illustrate the article's subject and should be kept. BrikDuk (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The image seems to appropriately illustrate the topic. Approximately (sources needed), cows and dogs do seem to have similar levels of cognitive complexity and, as domesticated mammals, are likely to share many interests (e.g. survival + security, subsistence, freedom from constraint + harm, companionship...). In many cultures, their treatment varies radically based on human categorisation of their species (companion or farmed animal). JamieWoodhouse (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sharing interests seems to be a moral category however. If cows and dogs both have a desire to avoid pain this wouldn't show an equality of moral interest, since it could be argued that the desire to avoid pain is not a moral interest (since I would assume moral interest means an interest that involves ethics and conceptions of right and wrong, as opposed to just a preference. Otherwise it's not clear what moral interest means.) It's also not clear that treatment should depend upon interest (which is what the article is arguing about). I would also mention it's not clear if people do treat cows and dogs differently based on species - it is possible that people think dogs are smarter or more sensitive or whatever than cows are so they treat them differently. Obviously one can argue they are mistaken but it would still be incorrect to say they were treated differently based on species membership (since it is their perceived attributes that matter rather than species). If people treat species differently because of how they like them (e.g people like dogs but hate cows) that wouldn't be discrimination based on species membership but on how likeable an animal is (which obviously correlates with species membership). To be fair this could just be something that is expounded in the article (it is brought up in some of the cited sources actually).Sdio7 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

What about the following caption "Philosophers such as Peter Singer and R.G. Frey, as well as others, argue that the differential treatment of cows and dogs is an example of speciesism. They argue that the two species share similar moral interests, yet in many cultures cows are treated as livestock and eaten for food while dogs are treated as companion animals." This both explains the view of the concept and makes clear who argues it. Alternatively, just remove the "despite" from the caption, since this implicitly states that "species should be treated the same if they have the similar moral interests", which doesn't necessarily follow but instead constitutes a point-of-view (specifically the view that similar interests means similar treatment), whereas Wikipedia is meant to be WP:Neutral point of view. If this was voiced this would avoid this issue entirely however, which is why I favour doing that (this also avoids the issue that speciesism apparently needs to involve a difference in moral treatment, which is also a point-of-view, so voicing this quote resolves that problem too).Sdio7 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I am strongly in support of this change as a reasonable middle-ground solution here. Indeed, I think it's a WP:SNOW matter that the language that the language needs to be better nuanced and attributed than it presently is. The fact that all of us on this talk page (including I presume Sdio, based on their knowledge of the relevant moral philosophy and research) seem to come from a somewhat similar place with regard to our stances on animal rights does not obviate us from following this projects policies and basic community consensus as regards WP:Verification, WP:Neutrality, and WP:WEIGHT to wit, a moral declaration (even one vigorously supported by all present) does not constitute an empirical fact and should not be presented as such in Wikipedia's own voice (see WP:YESPOV).

This is an issue that has to be balanced in every article on this project relating to moral philosophy and I suggest that anyone who finds what Sdio is suggesting here controversial probably needs to broaden their reading of the larger corpus of this project's articles on normative ethics, because what they are suggesting is nothing less than the usual standard expected here under some of our most basic policies. It's been a while since I've reviewed this article, but it still seems to be in pretty good shape in this regard (that is to say, it appropriately contextualizes the idea of moral equivalency for animal interests in the manner in which that concept has developed and gained recognition), so I'm wondering how much of this is down to the fact that the perspectives here seem to have been deliberately WP:CANVASSED for support. Rasnaboy, I recommend you review that policy, because the manner in which you seem to have selectively called for involvement of editors likely to support your view via their talk pages is pretty blatantly inappropriate and I would expect an editor of ten years experience to know better--for that matter, I would have expected some of the people who responded ought to have recognized the inappropriateness of validating this strategy: next time you need to use a neutral process like WP:RfC or, at most, notices delivered in a project space--sand bagging discussions in the manner that was done here can lead to community sanctions.

Please take me at my word when I reiterate that I am a lifelong advocate (within both research and policy spheres) for animal rights and will undoubtedly go to my grave believing in many of the principles discussed in this article. However, work on Wikipedia often requires us to set our personal views to the side for the sake of presenting our encyclopedic content in as neutral and objective a frame as possible for the reader, and I personally feel that Sdio's proposal of massaging the wording of the caption is the least of what can be done to keep this emotive image from unduly prejudicing the tone of the article. Whether any given editor likes it or not, the question of whether disparate animals have equal basic needs and interests is not just a controversial statement, it is a deeply divisive one across many spheres of study--even to an extent amongst those who study animal ethics. It is therefore incumbent upon us to attribute the statement in question here, such that it is clear that it is an argued-for assertion, not a plain fact (however much it may resonate with some of us, outside the context of this project). Beyond that, I can virtually guarantee, based on my years working on articles in this area, that if this issue was submitted to the wider community, this would be the consensus outcome.

Anyone feel free to ping me if my perspective needs clarification or if I can be of further help; Sdio, if you continue to face resistance to the suggest massaging of the language of the caption, I suggest that you take the issue to WP:RfC, and additionally make it known for anyone who might administratively act on that discussion that there was previous canvassing here. The changes you propose are really not even approaching controversial under Wikipedia's policies on the neutral wording of content and attribution of particular moralistic views and you shouldn't be having such an uphill fight on this. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pitching in @User:Snow Rise. It's me who asked User:Sdio to start the discussion here in the talk page and only with that involvement did I participate, too. Yes, I will consider your suggestion of using WP:RfC. And the reason I asked for the people's opinion here was to widen the discussion so as to get different perspectives and never for canvassing as you think. I asked only those who are involved in the topic of animal rights, were participants in previous discussions, or who I consider were experts in the field (all in accord with WP:APPNOTE). Maybe my not leaving a note in the discussion page is what makes you think it as canvassing. Nevertheless, I appreciate your genuine intent, which I'm not in contradiction with. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and understanding. I will add in the following voiced caption for the image: Philosophers such as Peter Singer and Steven Wise, as well as others, argue that the differential treatment of cows and dogs is an example of speciesism. They argue that the two species share similar interests and should be treated as such, yet in many cultures cows are treated as livestock and eaten for food while dogs are treated as companion animals. I hope you will find this to be appropriate.

For clarification I've also changed "equal moral interests" to "similar interests" since the sources note that the interests need to be strictly equal, just that they be approximately similar, and I've mentioned before that it's not entirely clear what "moral interests" refers to (the sources also don't use this phrase, they just say "similar interests").Sdio7 (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That might be a little premature: it wouldn't hurt to get some more feedback before locking that wording in. If no one objects, we'll go with it, but if there is pushback, I recommend you avoid edit warring (as in any occasion) over it. For my own impression, I broadly support your changes, but I think the quote could do with a very slight pairing down. You might start with just saying "some moral philosophers" rather than just singling out Singer and Wise: support for this notion is broader than those two figures, despite their (Singer's in particular) prominence in the area, and for the sake of the conciseness and simplicity expected of captions, it suffices to point to the field of experts at large and let the reader get the more gradient detail of specific assertions from a deep review of the article, as well as additional articles linked within.

As to the "moral interests" ----> "interests" switch-up, that strikes me as non-controversial, given what you have just told me about the sources themselves not using "moral interests"--I thought that wording sounded awfully novel and non-consistent with anything I had heard from the academics in question--and I for one would support that swap immediately, both within the caption and elsewhere. Sticking a term as loaded as "moral" in front of language being associated with particular works, where the term was itself not used in said work, is editorializing bordering on (if not completely over the border into) WP:original research. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand, that's fine. My apologies, I was a bit over eager. I agree with your point about about perhaps changing the quote, I was just trying to namedrop some prominent people as examples rather than as an exhaustive list. I'll personally wait a few days before modifying in case anything else needs is brought up before I change it but if you want to go ahead and change it any time you want, I'm fine with that. I appreciate your understanding on the part about moral interests. Sdio7 (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Hopefully, with a little luck, the other editors here will find these changes palatable, considering it would preserve the photo itself and the substantive tone of the assertion, even if it is more clearly attributed--which, per the forgoing discussion is certainly warranted and I'm optimistic it will be seen why that cannot be in Wikipedia's voice alone. I'll consider changing the wording to remove the reference to Singer and Wise, since I presume that the some others here would rather the word was more generalized to reflect the fact that it is not just couple of prominent thinkers who have suggested this concept, but in fact a fair number of thinkers converging on the same general notion. But I'm not going to rush to any action. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and changed it now. It now reads: Some philosophers argue that the differential treatment of cows and dogs is an example of speciesism. They argue that members of the two species share similar interests and should be given equal consideration as a result, yet in many cultures cows are used as livestock and killed for food, while dogs are treated as companion animals. This makes it a bit more generic and avoids referring to any specific philosopher, since most of them are already discussed in the article itself. Sdio7 (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds kinda okay to me. However, when as a matter of fact several thinkers suggest this idea as said by User:Snow Rise, I feel the change to "Some philosophers argue..." gives the false impression that it is only a proposed notion within a small circle, when in fact it is not, especially in the wider academia. When not using the names of the philosophers as before, I would suggest changing it to "Many philosophers argue..." to get to the nearest sense of the overall issue. Other than this, the caption seems okay to me. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Obviously both "some" and "many" are highly subjective terms, but insofar as this is a position espoused by a significant number of figures in the field who have weighed in on the subject, I think it is defensible as a WP:WEIGHT matter to say many. I'll wait until tomorrow to see if there are objections or thoughts from Sdio or any other party and then make the change myself tomorrow or the next day. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

What about "Numerous philosophers"? I agree "some" might come across as portraying this as a rare and fringe viewpoint held by a mere handful of thinkers since it tends to be used to mean "more than one but much less than a majority or plurality". "Multiple" could also be used but I think that's a bit too close to "some" and would again imply only a few people argue this. I think "numerous" is also comes across as a bit less subjective than "some" and "many" but that's just my view on the matter. Sdio7 (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Later this year, we will have a definite answer to the question. The PhilPapers Survey 2020, although postponed due to the pandemic, will still happen this September, and it has a specific question that asks about speciesism. Whatever choice is made here now, we may want to go back and change it to whatever the survey ends up saying, whether it is "few", "some", "many", or "most". — Eric Herboso 17:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The survey would be fine as a source, though the question it's going to ask seems to be along the lines of "humans always count more than animals, yes or no", which is slightly different from the example (cow vs dog), and other questions don't seem about it, so I am not sure if it is a good example for the caption? At least according to this which seems to be on what the 2020 survey would be about: http://consc.net/ppsurvey.html On the other hand, we could use it as a rough proxy for deciding what to put e.g if we find that only 50% of philosophers think human interests always count more than animals, I think that would be justifiable reason to make it by "Many philosophers", for example. Sdio7 (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m changing the caption to “Many philosophers” per the discussion. I request other editors to feel free to make further correction, if any. Thank you. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding Webster's definition in the lede

I added (or retained a deleted info, to be precise) Webster's definition of speciesism in the lede. The very first sentence "the differing treatment or moral consideration of individuals based on their species membership" is more academic and to make it more simple in layman terms, the definition from the dictionary was added. While the dictionary definition does include the term "discrimination", it is not a synthesized definition by wiki editors. However, there are many counter-arguments (including that from the "Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics"), which cannot be used to define the very definition of speciesism but only to be included as part of the varied opinions on the definition. The dictionary definition is not meant to contrast these opinions and hence the removal of the dictionary definition from the lede is not sensible in my view. The dictionary definition is part of the main definition per se, and not to be moved solely to include it in the for–against portion of the lede. Hence I'm reverting this. Discussions welcome. Rasnaboy (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The definition provided by Webster is different to that provided in the first sentence. Merriam-Webster defines speciesism as morally wrong differential treatment. The first sentence just defines it as differential treatment, with no regard to whether it is justified or not (that is to say, it doesn't say speciesism is morally wrong in its definition). These are two completely different definitions. This means the article is alternating between different definitions, with no clear regard as to which one is to be used. This isn't a simplistic layman's definition, it's a different definition to the one in the first sentence. Note that if we actually expand the word "discrimination", we would get this line "In short, it is the prejudice or morally wrong treatment based on species", which is a different definition to the first line because the first line doesn't say if it's morally wrong or not. "Differing moral treatment" and "discrimination" are not synonymous, unless one thinks differing moral treatment is wrong by default (in which case that's an argument and shouldn't be used as a definition). We would also have to remove this line: "They argue speciesism is a form of discrimination that constitutes a violation of the Golden Rule because it involves treating other beings differently to how they would want to be treated because of the species that they belong to" because it doesn't make sense if speciesism is defined as a form of discrimination within the article.

Thus the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition is not part of the main definition. It is different to the main definition. The very definition of the term is the subject of dispute, within the Wikipedia page itself. In fact I'd say we probably need to change the opening paragraph to reflect this (confusingly, the sources for the first sentences definition contradict each other, because Horta defines it one way and Hopster another). Note that Encyclopedia Britannica also it differently to Webster, defining it as "Speciesism, in applied ethics and the philosophy of animal rights, the practice of treating members of one species as morally more important than members of other species; also, the belief that this practice is justified.".

Webster was also included as one alternative definition as well. It wasn't removed, it was already present as one of the different definitions. Per this line of the lead "Some definitions of speciesism also require that the treatment be unjustified as part of the term's definition,[1][3] whereas others define it as differential treatment without regard to whether the treatment is justified or not.[2][5]", which reflects the diversity of definitions (Webster is source Number 3). The opening paragraph, prior to the incorporation of the disputed line, already explains the different definitions. Thus the lead already discussed how the word is also defined as a form of discrimination by some sources (and not by others) and the newly added line doesn't do anything.

I'm also fairly certain defining it as morally wrong violates NPOV, unless we specify that it is Merriam-Webster saying so e.g "Merriam-Webster defines speciesism as prejudice or discrimination based on species". The opening, as currently written, does not do this and thus violates NPOV. However the paragraph already discussed the different definitions, including Merriam-Webster's, so this just means we cite Webster twice. I would also point out that Wikipedia defines Discrimination as amongst humans only (and thus would exclude non-humans by definition), which is another argument for giving POV to the Webster source, which the paragraph already did prior to the line being added. Personally I may just re-write the entire opening paragraph because it is currently juggling about half a dozen different definitions from different authors and writers. Sdio7 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point, Sdio7. The problem here is not that. Speciesism comes in the lines of racism, sexism, etc. The very purpose of defining this relatively new concept was to explain the otherwise ineffable injustice done on the basis of species. Thus, the very definition of speciesism remains that it is a morally wrong differential treatment. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, even the very belief that speciesism is justified is again speciesism. Singer defines it as "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species". Only those who come in the defense of speciesism do go to the extent of generalizing it as "differing moral consideration based on species membership", diluting or completely doing away with the "unjustified" or "morally wrong" part, only in an attempt to justify it. We can't set the first sentence—the actual definition—based on these counter beliefs, can we? Then even racism/sexism can be defined on a middle-ground stance based on counterdefinitions to racism/sexism. Going by your definition, I now feel the very first sentence needs to be fixed based on the actual definitions by the proponents, not by its opponents.

I would say the Merriam Webster's definition in fact reflects the actual definition which is lacking from the article (especially in the lede sentence) as of now. See the OED's definition ("discrimination against or exploitation of animal species by human beings, based on an assumption of mankind's superiority") or the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy's definition ("By analogy with racism and sexism, the improper stance of refusing respect to the lives, dignity, or needs of animals of other than the human species."). All use the idea that it is unjustified. Then how can we have the lede that says it is only a form of treatment regardless of whether it is justified or not? Rasnaboy (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"the actual definition which is lacking from the article" – There is no "actual definition" of speciesism. Some use it in the sense that it's immoral, others in the sense that it's OK. Wikipedia uses the common meaning of words. If there are multiple common meanings, we have to report that fact.

Your comparisons with racism and sexism are flawed. No one uses these words in the sense that what they denote is morally justified. There are a lot of people who hold racist or sexist beliefs, but even they don't say "racism / sexism is morally justified".

In contrast, there are many people who explicitly say that speciesism is morally justified. It doesn't matter whether they are "proponents" or "opponents" of any ideology. All that matters is which meaning of the word is common. So far, it looks like both meanings are common, so we have to report that fact.

A more apt comparison: Nationalism. Quote: "In practice, nationalism can be seen as positive or negative depending on context and individual outlook." It would be wrong for Wikipedia to use the word solely as it is defined by the proponents of nationalism. Similarly for speciesism: It would be wrong for Wikipedia to use the word "speciesism" solely as it is defined by the proponents of the idea that treating species differently is morally wrong.

"We can't set the first sentence—the actual definition—based on these counter beliefs, can we?" – Yes, we can, because these "counter-beliefs" are quite common.

"I now feel the very first sentence needs to be fixed based on the actual definitions by the proponents, not by its opponents." – You're wrong. That's not how Wikipedia works. We don't care much about the original definition of a word, and we don't care much who is a "proponent" or "opponent" of any meaning. We use and explain the current common meanings of words. In the case of speciesism, there appear to be multiple common meanings. It would be wrong for us to pick one. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I have to tell you I'm not asking you to pick one of our choice, but the most common definition. I very well understand how Wikipedia works (hence this discussion). The original definition is that speciesism is morally unjustified. All the common definitions (the original definition by Singer and others, the dictionary definitions [OED, Webster's, Collins, etc.], the Encyclopedia Britannica definition) only imply so. It's important to mention the counter-arguments in the article (even in the lede), but that shouldn't define (or re-define) the very term at the beginning of the article (If I remember correctly, this is exactly what you meant in our earlier "adding speciesism to the discrimination article" argument). That would only lead to definist fallacy there (and all further arguments built on this incorrect definition would only result in fallacious implications). Below I give the most common, general definitions of the term speciesism.

• Peter Singer: a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species
• Britannica: the practice of treating members of one species as morally more important than members of other species; also, the belief that this practice is justified.
• OED: discrimination against or exploitation of animal species by human beings, based on an assumption of mankind's superiority
• Merriam-Webster's: prejudice or discrimination based on species; especially: discrimination against animals
• Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: By analogy with racism and sexism, the improper stance of refusing respect to the lives, dignity, or needs of animals of other than the human species.
• Collins English Dictionary: a belief of humans that all other species of animals are inferior and may therefore be used for human benefit without regard to the suffering inflicted
• The Chambers Dictionary: the discrimination against, and exploitation of, animals by humans in the belief that humans are superior to all other species of animals and can therefore justify putting them to their own use.
• Macmillan Dictionary: the idea that animals are less important than humans and do not have as many natural rights
• Webster's New World College Dictionary: discrimination against or exploitation of animals based on the assumption that humans are superior to and more important than all other species

None of these mention the counter idea but only the main idea of the term. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, even the very belief that speciesism is justified is again speciesism" not quite I'd say, EB states "Speciesism, in applied ethics and the philosophy of animal rights, the practice of treating members of one species as morally more important than members of other species; also, the belief that this practice is justified." It's saying that speciesism is "the view that it is justified to treat members of one species as morally more important than members of another" So it's not saying "the belief that speciesism is justified it itself unjustified".

This would also prevent us from including arguments about it, because if speciesism is defined as unjustified, then any differential treatment based on species that is justified isn't speciesism (and thus shouldn't be on the page). Several sources in the article make this point. This also means a lot of sources in the article shouldn't be here, since they define the term differently. Oscar Horta, who is cited as defining it as "[S]peciesism is the unjustified disadvantageous consideration or treatment of those who are not classified as belonging to one or more particular species." actually says this in the same source "According to the definition I have defended, a justified prescription according to which only the members of some species could enjoy certain goods or benefits would not be speciesist (just as it is not sexist to defend that only women, and not men, may receive gynecological attention).For instance, as we will see later, the idea that humans’ interests count for more than the interests of other beings is usually considered to be a justified position. If this is actually so, then we will have to conclude that this is not a speciesist view" This also means arguments against it make no sense, since it would be wrong by definition - "speciesism is unjustified because of X argument" becomes a tautology. Disputes over the definition are done because if people want to argue about the morality of it, you cannot just work the morality of it into its definition.

Personally I think the best way to have the lead reflect the contested nature of the term would be to have it open with something like "Speciesism is a term used in philosophy and animal ethics concerning the treatment of different species. The term has different definitions..." and then we list of those definitions according to sources. This is important given sources are otherwise talking past each other. Sdio7 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sdio7. The general view of speciesism (from the common definitions given above) is that it is unjustified or discriminatory, so the belief that it is justified falls under speciesism. As simple as that. This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says. Any argument/belief that justifies racism is again racism. This holds for all, and we don't have to state it explicitly. Your point about Horta's statement is not unique to Horta. All proponents state that. For example, Singer says the same thing in several of his works, including Animal Liberation and "Animal Liberation at 30". For example, we uphold the right to education and employment only with humans, and not with any other species. This is not speciesistic, although it does discriminate one species from the other. Given the very purpose of the term is to explain the unjustified discrimination due to species difference, attempting to define the term in a generic term (to cover both justified and unjustified), trimming off any shades of discrimination and injustice from it, doesn't do justice to the very scope of the article. That's not tautology. The other definitions countering it can be included in the article, but they cannot define the primary definition in the lede. Maybe let's have some expert's opinion on this. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand why the term was originally defined that way. However, other sources define it differently. If we chose to use the definitions that make it a form of discrimination by definition, then we would need to remove most of the article, because otherwise they are using the term differently to what the article's definition would be. Of course we could, as you suggest, have different definitions of the term included in the same article but then we shouldn't have a strict definition in the article (this is why I suggested that the lead should be re-written to reflect the contested definition of the term, since to be fair it wasn't doing this even before the disputed sentence was added), since otherwise the article is talking about different things that just happen to have the same word (with different definitions of that word), so the article ends up being about different topics that just happen to share the same name.

Of the definitions given above in your response to Chrisahn, it seems that Britannica, Collins and Macmillan do not state that speciesism is unjustified as part of the definition they give it. Encyclopaedia Britannica's article defines it as "speciesism is the belief that it is justified to treat some species better than others because of their species". This does not say speciesism is unjustified by definition (although it does discuss why it may be unjustified in logical terms) because it is using its own definition of speciesism (which it defines in the first sentence of the article). Collins defines it as "a belief of humans that all other species of animals are inferior and may therefore be used for human benefit without regard to the suffering inflicted". It does not state that this belief is unjustified, merely what this belief is. Macmillan states "the idea that animals are less important than humans and do not have as many natural rights", which does not say anything about whether or not this belief is justified or not (it may well be unjustified but Macmillan doesn't say this). Singer also defines it differently to some of the dictionaries, since he defined it specifically as prejudice in favour of ones own species and against those of others, whereas some of the dictionaries define it as discrimination based on any species membership. Thus under Singer's definition, humans treating chimpanzees better than rabbits would not be speciesism but it would be under some of the dictionary definitions (and thus the definition in the disputed sentence). Thus these definitions also do not match up either. Sdio7 (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Original definition in the lede

For all the discussions we had earlier, there wasn't any useful definition of the term in the lede for the common reader so far other than the "unjustified–differential" jargons. So added one yesterday. I feel the original definition by Ryder needs to be added too for reference. That said, I'm adding it in the lede. Hope this fills the gap long due. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Relationship between speciesism and AIC

I've added the relationship between speciesism and the animal–industrial complex as a separate section since this is being repeatedly encountered in the literature on both the topics. Initially, I added this point in the lead but it was removed citing it wasn't significant enough. So I moved it to a separate section. The whole section was removed saying that the AIC is a "fringe" concept. The reason cited for this was an earlier comments on the talk page of the AIC article based on Richard Twine's purportedly "vague" early definition during the concept's initial days (which wasn't a wider discussion in the first place but just an opinion of one editor). Now we have plenty of scholarly sources for this since later studies all implicate the concept with various topics within the "animal business" domains (which is what the concept of AIC attempts to define), including COVID-19 and other zoonosis. A wider discussion on the "fringeness" of the concept can be found here: the result of this discussion was that the AIC is a growing body of mainstream academic research and is neither a fringe concept nor a pseudo-science. The section "Relationship between speciesism and AIC", which is well-sourced, establishes a vital connection between speciesism and the AIC, which warrants wider discussion in the articles of both the topics. I don't see this as violating WP:UNDUE, especially in the articles on the concepts themselves, since it only explains the underlying connection between the core concepts. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Based on the wider discussion, which I was a part of, the strong sourcing (all academic) and the arguments presented above, I would say the material is WP:DUE for this article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

AIC is attracting more and more scholarship in the academia than ever (the available number of sources now speak to it), especially since when it was found that it is responsible for wider problems, including global climate change and pandemics. In fact, the AIC article was about to be nominated for deletion last year due to lack of sources, but now multiple sources are available on it. It could have been a fringe at the time of its conception in the early 1990s, but it is now implicated in almost every sphere of the society, its economy and development, resulting in more and more research studies on it. Modern sources that talk about speciesism connect it to the AIC and its components such as the agro-industrial complex, vivisection-industrial complex, medical-industrial complex, etc. The section is needed to make the article grow. Moreover, all these are well sourced, so there's no place for contention as far as I could see in it. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems extraordinarily WP:DUE, clearly discussed and well expanded upon with appropriate sources. However, perhaps there actually needs to be a broader article on 'Speciesism in animal exploitation', of which the AIC application is a subsection, with the mention on this page being a link to that main article, leaving this page more clearly emphasized on the central philosophical discussion. I think animal exploitation is better anchor point that AIC because it is debatable whether certain activities, such as hunting, fall under the umbrella of AIC. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Trophy hunting certainly falls under the AIC, while sustenance hunting comes under general animal cruelty and may not explain speciesism broadly (killing and violence also occur within species). The idea of 'speciesism in animal exploitation' sounds good, but since the involvement of speciesism in animal exploitation is what is being explained by the AIC, I'm afraid the new article might amount to WP:POVFORK. The AIC covers all these including speciesism's role in exploitation, commodification of animals, and every other industrial complexes involving animals. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I hear you, but I would still say AIC is a specific form of and subdivision of animal exploitation, as defined in its opening paragraph as a particularly 'institutionalized' form. The argument for speciesism in a broader context of animal exploitation is that this would also include 'non-institutionalized' forms of animal exploitation. This could even include the inherent speciesism at work in the culture and mindset of a subsistence hunter-gatherer and the ways this factors into their exploitation of specific animals - none of which would likely be considered 'institutionalized' in the more traditional sense, but which could nonetheless be considered exploitative. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It's true that sustenance hunting works on speciestic foundations, too. AIC is indeed an institutionalized form of exploitation and a subset of animal exploitation, but it comprises the major part (close to 99% of all exploitation). For this reason, scholars who earlier discussed solely about general animal exploitation in speciesism studies now specifically focus on institutionalized exploitations since it comprises most of the exploitations. We can try creating a broader article focussing on the non-institutionalized part as well, but we need to make sure it doesn't result in POV fork. We need to find enough sources for it. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The "Relationship between speciesism and AIC" section is well sourced and should not be removed in my opinion. I would disagree though to creating another article on speciesism in animal exploitation. I don't think we need anymore articles on these topics, it helps the reader IMO having the content on one article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The AIC is simply defined as: The term animal–industrial complex (AIC) refers to the systematic and institutionalized exploitation of animals. It includes every human activity involving animals, chiefly economic, such as the food industry (e.g., meat, dairy, poultry, apiculture), animal testing (e.g., academic, industrial, animals in space), religious (e.g., animal sacrifice), medicine (e.g., bile and other animal products), clothing (e.g., leather, silk, wool, fur), labor and transport (e.g., working animals, animals in war, remote control animals), tourism and entertainment (e.g., circus, zoos, blood sports, trophy hunting, animals held in captivity), selective breeding (e.g., pet industry, artificial insemination), and so forth. Proponents of the term claim that activities described by the term differ from individual acts of animal cruelty in that they constitute institutionalized animal exploitation.

Since it literally covers every human activity involving animals (as stated in the opening line), it would already be covered under Human uses of animals, making the page redundant and certainly WP:UNDUE.

@Chrisahn: brought this issue up, both on the Talk Page referenced by Rasnaboy and the animal-industrial complex's own talk page (I pinged him since I've referenced his points in my edits, since they're the criticisms I've been talking about). The sections I am referring to are Talk:Animal–industrial_complex#Difference_from_other_industries and Talk:Animal-industrial_complex#Quotes_from_Twine_paper

Google scholar on the "animal-industrial complex" returns only 689 results (searching without hyphens gives 686, a negligible difference). Speciesism returns 19,700 hits, so the AIC doesn't even return 10% of that. So giving it an entire section makes little sense due to relative irrelevance compared to speciesism alone.

This is why I said it was WP:UNDUE, because the term is largely a rhetorical-political concept rather than a descriptive one - it seems to have been created by its authors to bring up the pejoriative connotations of the military-industrial complex and similar ideas, yet is defined incredibly broadly. It is poorly defined on its original page and I would argue that, as it is currently defined on the animal-industrial complex's page, it could even be a candidate for deletion because it overlaps with human uses of animals and I cannot see much distinction between the two. This is arguably supported by the fact that almost every source on the AIC's page is largely people criticising it, rather than reporting on what it actually is - the page should go into detail about things like farming, pets, zoos, hunting, medicine, animals in culture and so forth, not using sources on the AIC (for example, there should be sections on the use of working dogs since that would technically fall under the definition provided. Which would just make it overlap with human uses of animals and thus be a redundant page.

Contrast this with the more specific definitions of the military-industrial complex or the prison-industrial complex, which is basically where links between the private organisations and the state exist to enrich each other to what its critics hold to be the detriment of the general public and society at large. It does not refer to the defence industry or prison industry in general, unlike the animal-industrial complex which is much broader and, as far as I can tell, excludes only highly personal uses of animals like hunting (as Rasnaboy argues above) or maybe pet ownership. Chrisahn pointed out these issues on its talk page.

Academic sourcing is therefore irrelevant because of the conceptual issues with the AIC as an idea - to put it simply, the AIC on its own has issues, let alone bringing it up in another article. Sources implicating the concept are simply sources criticising the use of animals in general, there is no indicating the AIC is a distinct thing that can be separated from "human uses of animals", which Wikipedia already covers elsewhere. Giving it a dedicated subsection on this article is way too much.

Basically, when people criticise the animal-industrial complex, they are just criticising uses of animals in specific domains (e.g criticising farming, zoos, vivisection etc) or criticising the idea that humans can use animals in general (e.g advocating for things like veganism).

Therefore, as it is a essentially rhetorical term to criticise the use of animals, it doesn't need a part on the page and is WP:UNDUE because of this.

EDIT: To clarify, my criticism is not the animal-industrial complex is a fringe per se, rather than it doesn't belong on the article because of conceptual issues with the AIC that would make it difficult to justify putting it on the page.Sdio7 (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

While "Human uses of animals" cover all human interactions with animals, the AIC cover only the economically pertinent ones. There are certain aspects of the AIC that cannot be given due weight in other articles including "Human uses of animals". Since this is a growing concept among scholars, there's enough (and increasing) scholarship out there. What User:Chrisahn said was based on Twine's definition (which the user himself claimed "vague"), which is one of the earliest references when the concept wasn't even known much in the academic world. When the post-COVID-19 scenario revealed the dark sides of the animal agriculture and all other animal-related domains (which is now called the AIC), scholarly interest in critical animal studies and AIC piqued, resulting in many sources in the past year alone. Besides catastrophic climate, environmental, health, and economical issues, most of the pandemics too are attributed to the AIC and our handling of animals. That said, AIC is no more a rhetorical concept. Although coined from the military-industrial complex, the AIC is now the "legal supplier" to all other industrial complexes (as can be seen from the sources), resulting in its interrelating and overlapping with almost every other domain (this is acknowledged right from the AIC's initial days). When the AIC article was considered for deletion nomination a few months ago, it was saved with only a meager number of citations. Now the number of citations has more than quadrupled, of which at least 6 or 7 sources are from the post-COVID period. Am not sure how you say that academic sources aren't relevant here. The recent surge in academic interest is what has made the topic grow. Rasnaboy (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason to be prejudicial towards the topic simply because the volumes of current research on it are low, especially if, as Rasnaboy indicates, it is an early-stage academic discipline. There are 17,000 general search hits for the term. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes but the animal-industrial complex isn't distinct from "human use of animals" - the article's own page makes the definition incredibly broad and with unclear limits. As I pointed out above, the AIC is a term used to refer to the use of animals and it's page only covers it critics, suggesting that it is a rhetorical term to criticise the use of animals - it doesn't actually differ from "use of animals". It should logically discuss different industries, how they function, how animals are used etc because it's supposed to be a term that refers to the fact that humans use animals in various industries but it doesn't do any of this, which is evidence it's a rhetorical term.

For example, criticism of animal agriculture and zoonosis existed prior to the AIC as a term and criticisms of of it don't even use the the term "animal-industrial complex" - the term doesn't add anything. Contrast this with the military-industrial complex, which was used to refer to very specific relations between defence industries and state actors for mutual benefit to the detriment of society at large. For example, taking from your quote, "the dark sides of the animal agriculture" and "the dark sides of the animal-industrial complex" both mean the same thing, so the term is redundant in terms of expressing meaning.

If it only refers to economic and not individual uses (such as hunting or pets), then that would still make it redundant because Wikipedia already covers that with pages such as Industrial agriculture or Animal husbandry = indeed the page states that the AIC dates back to the first domestication of animals, predating modern economies, which would mean even early farmers are part of the complex and thus being further evidence that it is a rhetorical term to criticise animal agriculture rather than a descriptor of a particular kind of relationship that is distinct from topics already covered elsewhere by Wikipedia.

Academic sources aren't relevant because they don't describe anything not covered on Wikipedia already as a topic - the term is used by critics of animal usage, rather than a descriptor of a phenomenon - logically it should be placed on pages concerning those topics as a criticism (with the criticism then named "animal-industrial complex", rather than its own page. Basically, the "concept" isn't a concept that is distinct as it is currently defined, it's a term for the same thing as human use of animals (which is the actual concept). The "concept" is used to criticise the use of animals, not to actually explain things. Sdio7 (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The key terms that differentiate the "animal-industrial complex" from the "human use of animals", at least as it is detailed in the article, are "systematic" and "institutionalised" - this does not even vaguely cover the full gamut of uses that humans have for animals - only the most exploitative. Arguments about degrees of animal suffering aside, an example of a use of an animal that is totally disassociated from any sense of an "animal-industrial complex" could include the use of parts of an animal after its natural death, such as the use of the bones of a deceased animal for symbolic reasons. And a sense of the AIC is also not just industrial agriculture or animal husbandry - it also applies to modern commercial fishing, commercial beekeeping (and bees are not particularly domesticated), etc. Even if existing criticisms of human practices regarding animals exist, that is no reason to specifically exclude an article explaining the concept of AIC as a concept in its own right as it begins to rise from within academic literature. Wikipedia is full of such terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I get your point Sdio7, but that's not the issue at all. Like Iskandar323 put it, there's more to AIC than the usual animal agribusiness. Military, state, and "defence industries" (i.e., weapon manufacturers or blacksmiths) existed since long ago but the military-industrial complex brought out the unseen relationship between these that cannot be explained otherwise. Monitory dominance existed since antiquity but capitalism explained it from a different dimension. AIC differs from the long-existing animal agriculture the same way as the military-industrial complex, capitalism, etc. differed from their predecessors. In the simplest terms perhaps, AIC results from a capitalistic element added to the agribusiness and other businesses of various other domains involving animals, for the same mutual benefit (that you said) to the detriment of the society at large, additionally resulting in a catastrophe that has gone up to initiating a mass extinction. Pandemics may not appear to be related to the academic-industrial complex or climate change to the vivisection- or pharmaceutical-industrial complexes, but the AIC connects these all. Hope you understand that scholars aren't researching more and more on a domain that, in your terms, was simply created using a synonym. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Lede does not reflect references given or originator's concept.

See edits to here [6].

The lede does not reflect references given nor the originator Richard D. Ryder's well document concept, which described "the exclusion of nonhuman animals from the protections available to human beings", (as per his topic page).

Before reverting back to whichever wikipedian's interpretation has become the previous version, please show me where in the references this is supported. Short answer, as above. It doesn't.

I've also removed the communalism.org/net reference as it was a short-lived, essentially self-published source, now long gone off the internet. I'm not against including the point of view, but it need a more update & well established source. (I think only two editions were ever published, & the last .net domain it had is now an affiliate marketing site).

My understanding of the Wikipedia is that it is not a place for individuals' original ideas, & that editors are encouraged to be rigorous about including & following references, & removing content that is not supported by them. The previous version constitutes a significant semantic shift in the term's meaning.

If other editors wish to document a claimed semantic shift, then it should be done so in a subsequent section along with references to support its redefinition, i.e. who, when, where, why.

However, priority should be given in the lede to the original concept.

In the papers given it does talk about different interpretions but these are limited to Ryder's, above, & Singer's of a "prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species”, which is then repeated in the Britannica (they are both, in essence, the same reference).

As it's very difficult to believe that Singer is anthropomorphizing and suggesting that other species bear prejudices, I can only presume that by "one’s own species" Singer is referring to humanity. Neither suggest discrimination between different non-human species, e.g. the Merriam-Webster clarifies "against animals", not between animals.

If such a semantic shift has happened, then it is clearly significant enough to have been documented in academia.

Thanks.

--Made private later (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

PS I would obviously like to clean up & develop the article further but we're not going to get very far doing that if certain individuals keep reverting back to what it was without justification.

I do agree with your points, but we need consensus to achieve this. To be honest, I myself am not fully convinced with the original lead para before you edited (especially, the first four sentences, which sounded as if speciesism weren't an absolute discrimination but simply a concept with several different definitions), the reason why I did not immediately revert the changes you made as an IP user a few days ago but simply waited for other editors to opine on it. This discussion has been going on for the last couple of years at least (see the earlier talk page discussions and the corresponding edits during that time). But I'm not sure why you removed Ryder's definition in the lead. I strongly feel some current definition (at least a dictionary one) ought to be there to define speciesism in simple terms in the lead. Let us see what others say on this (I'm not reverting your changes until then). I shall be more than happy if the discussion changes the first few lines to exactly reflect what speciesism originally means in the academia and the animal rights circle (without unnecessary semantic shifts). Rasnaboy (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to remove Ryder's definition, more to emphasize & be faithful to it. It's in the first line. Perhaps the original should be in a blockquote somewhere?

The Etymology section is a little strange. In a sense, there's very little etymology to the word as it's an neologism but it is currently under History which does not seem right. I was thinking of rescuing it to a short but dedicated Etymology section, & then separating a Richard Ryder sub-section followed by a Peter Singer sub-section under History (instead of "Spread of the idea" which, again, doesn't seem a very scholarly heading). In the topics of the given and other comparatives, etymology has its own section, and it strikes me that Ryder & Singer both deserve their recognition.

I'm not sure how directly relevant the Preceding ideas section is but I'd have to read up on Ryder's influences first. I certainly think the article should move forward to credit Ryder quicker. It's one of those duplicative "all and everything" lists you often find on the Wikipedia that presumably has just snowballed over time. Whereas they might fit in somewhere, I think it should probably be more about the history of how Ryder and his group got to the point. What is it supposed to achieve? Is it suppose to lend credence to the idea or detract from Ryder's credit? --Made private later (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

First of all: WP is based on consensus, see WP:CONSENSUS. @Made private later: if you are the IP whose changes you restored, you are definitely edit warring, see WP:WAR. I think it's common human decency to follow the rules of a place you are new to. The position that speciecism is a form of discrimination or prejudice is a minority position in philosophy, and the lead has to reflect this. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree & say WP has to be based on references (reliable sources). If it was merely down to "consensus" it would be possible for small groups of motivated individuals with their own agendas to dominate articles & push their own original research, bias, or points of view based simply on a "democracy" of consensus among themselves.

Correct me if I am wrong.

How can the concept that the originator & major proponent have in mind when they invented it be considered a "minority" position. Don't just claim it. Show us a reference that specifically substantiates your own point of view.

Thanks. --Made private later (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Correction, Made private later: Wikipedia's content is based on reliable secondary sources, and the actual writing of it, and what content to include or exclude, is arrived at via the process of consensus. One more thing--please don't use so many separate paragraphs; it's hard to read. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to this page Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Thank you but, old eyes, I find discussion much easier to follow is it is well paragraphized.

I've asked Rsk6400 to provide sources for his POV but at present neither have they, nor the ones given. It would be helpful if people actually read the papers linked to as they are very clear. Made private later (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rsk6400. It's really quite simple, show us some references that say approximately, "Richard Ryder's original concept has now become a minority position". If it really such a majority position, then there should be lots of them. If there's not, then I think it must just be your own point of view. --Made private later (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Made private later: You are restoring your changes in the lead against the will of two other editors (three if you include me). This is simply edit warring. You should continue the discussion here and reach an agreement with the other editors involved before making any further attempts to introduce sweeping changes to the lead. Please see WP:BRD and read about the consensus-building process. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

There are some perfectly valid points to be made here about the need to revise the lead. Not least, it is overcited. But edit warring is not the way to win over other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, if there are some smaller, more obvious corrections or sections of text that you think need to be better aligned with the sources, it might be better to break down your proposed changes into more itemized points, both in discussion and in your edit comments. Especially when it comes to controversial topics, you will find it is a case of more haste, less speed, and vice versa. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 As I've written many times now, to a stunning silence all round, show me the references that support the opinion that Ryder's original concept, as supported by Singer, is now a "minority position". Or show me how the given references support the claims being made.

I hardly think this is a "controversial topic", nor a controversial issue, so what is all this about? Why not accuse those individuals who keep reverting it back to the unsupported version of warring instead? The simple fact is, there are no references that do, so why can't we move on to improve the article?

How do we manage this, e.g. give Rsk6400 7 days to come up with them & if they can't, move forward?

It's notable that no one doing the reverting or obstructing of improvement has actually shown any evidence of having even read the references and commented on the content on that basis. --Made private later (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be that you've got a load of editors who just don't like changes, who don't want to read references or research new ones, who will write "discuss it" as a cover to edit war & provocation, but then simply don't discuss it. So let's actually discuss it. --Made private later (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Made private later: There were quite a lot of things wrong with your edit even without discussing content, including the facts that you deleted several references, that the reference citation templates that you inserted were a mess, and that we do not include large blockquotes in the lead. As I said, perhaps begin by itemizing, clearly, the changes that you think it would be beneficial to make. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Taking that point by point:

(a)"we do not include large blockquotes"; [FALSE] I did not include a large blockquote in the lede.

(b)"you deleted several references"; [FALSE] I removed one reference to a long obsolete blog post (Staudenmaier, communalism.org [7]). Policy states blogs are not reliable sources. It was not published in any peer reviewed journal.

(c)"the reference citation templates that you inserted were a mess"; [FALSE] I didn't insert any citation templates. I laid out the existing ones that I check as per the template page, i.e. in vertical form rather than horizontal form[8], so that they could be more easily read, checked, and added to. This is entirely according to policy.

(d)"begin by itemizing, clearly, the changes that you think it would be beneficial to make"; I've have already done so above. That is, I think that it would be beneficial if;

(i) the content actually reflected what the given references say, and

(ii) the lede prioritizes the original definition of the word as per the originator of it, Richard D. Ryder, & the propagator of it, Peter Singer.

Rather than the onus being placed on me to justify that Ryder's and Singer's version is the accurate one, as per the references, the onus should be on those who claim Ryder's and Singer's definition is a "minority position" to prove it with alternative references. If the revisionists' position is truly the majority position, as they claim, then they should be able to produce multiple clear and explicit examples of it.*

I have no real objection to including the sentiments contained in Staudenmaier's 2005 blog post but proponents of them should really find a better reliable source. Am I not correct on that from a policy point of view?

• (I note that both the Ryder and Singer pages define it as I am arguing in favor of it being). --Made private later (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Made private later: See WP:NOCONSENSUS for the onus and WP:3RR for making three reverts in (just a bit more than) 24 hrs. Please respect WP rules, even if you think a different set of rules might be better. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

My mistake on the blockquote point, and ok, it seems like only one source, but the reason why that was so hard to tell is because of your messing around with the citation formatting, which just makes it harder to understand your edits (in addition to the insertion of needless empty lines). And there IS a guideline on that: MOS:STYLEVAR, which cautions against arbitrarily altering styles where two are equally acceptable. Wrapping up style changes and unnecessary template additions with your content edits is a good way of getting reverted. And by itemizing your proposed changes, I mean saying something like: 'We should exchange statement X for something more like statement Y.' Vaguely worded points about making the content reflect the references doesn't really tell anyone what you have planned. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Forget policy distractions and get back to the references. It's been claimed Richard Ryder's original concept has now become a minority position. Is that what the references say?

@Iskandar323:MOS:STYLEVAR"your messing around with the citation formatting" [FALSE]. MOS:STYLEVAR refers to the style of the written content, not the formatting of citations. It's the Wikipedia's Manual of Style. You could have called upon WP:CITEVAR instead, however, that refers to contrasts between template use & parenthetical referencing. ::::::The vertical form is obviously easier & clearer to work with.

OK, enough about policy from both you. Let's discuss the actual given references, or please come up with alternative ones that support the revisionist view. How many days do you need to do so? --Made private later (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Made private later has been blocked for sock-puppetry. This was the blocked user Iyo-farm who vandalized The Vegan Society article and talk-page for several months on many different accounts and IPS and harassed several users. This user every few months uses hundreds of 82.132 mobile IPs to evade his block, if we go back a week on this very article, there has been repeated edit-warring by 82.132 IPs. I have emailed admins about his abuse so this article is now being watched. If this user continues to edit on new accounts or the 82.132 mobile range all such edits should be reverted per WP:EVADE. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

While reading this article explaining speciesism it was hard to understand without examples and did not include a lot of depth with the explanations. Some things were also very close to the source it came from so I worked on adding examples and changing some sentences to make them less simmilar to the original source.The overall paper was nuetral, nothing was distracting and all the citations I checked worked.Harleensarai688 (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Just going through your changes. I agree with speciesism causing a divide in how certain species are viewed by us. May I know which source says "speciesism shows the significant impact on beings as they are not being protected equally leading to some being endangered." At least, I couldn't find that. Rasnaboy (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Harleensarai688, I reverted your changes, because you didn't give sources for them. That is called "original research" (see WP:OR) and has to be avoided on WP. Also, I didn't see that your additions were easy to understand. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Discrimination

The navbox (and lede) has kept speciesism so I am going by Wikipedia:Bidirectional. I believe this has been the usual status regarding the connection between speciesism and discrimination. However, the discrimination navboxes and this page have had some history so perhaps an RfC must be requested to finally resolve the issue. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC) I misread bidirectional but will leave this discussion per overall longstanding status in the lede: navboxes should be compatible with anything that can be mentioned in the introduction. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at Template_talk:Discrimination_sidebar#Speciesism_merits_inclusion_in_related_topics. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Philosophy Article or Animal Rights Activism?

Despite ostensibly being about a philosophy topic a sizable part of this article is dedicated to speculating on the psychological basis for speciesism. It is worth nothing that in none of these psychological studies have the subjects been philosophers nor have there arguments been determined. This is tantamount to surveying the population on the details of stellar nucleosynthesis and asserting that photo-disintegration does not exist simply because the sample (presumably with a low population of physicists) did not mention it.

This results in what is essentially a lengthy ad hominem. (The alleged bigotry of proponents is completely irrelevant to the actual speciesist argument {as the actual philosophy sections of the article point out}).

Additionally far too much weight is given to papers with questionable research methods. Unfortunately this is a point of failure for Wikipedia, as one can find a paper to argue for any position but counter arguments are absent due to the triviality of the topic. (i.e anyone can make questionable claims in a social science journal but most peers aren't going to bother to counter them in a response paper, and debunking it yourself is "original research"). JSory (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Sentence added to lead

In my view, there's no possible balanced treatment of the lead which doesn't:

• define individual
• mention anthropomorphism
• make the underlying mammal-centrism overt (check out the illustrative photo)
• nod vigorously at the vast diversity of known biology

Thus I added the following sentence to the lead right as the second sentence:

Note that individuality is an anthropomorphic concept, which is least stretched when applied to other mammalian species, but becomes problematic when applied further afield to social insects, sponges, fungal organisms, or bacteria.

I'm a realistic person, so I doubt this survives the night, and hence I'm posting it here, mainly for posterity.

I'm the kind of person who roams far and wide, and I have a pretty good idea I've read somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 different wikipedia leads over the past 15 years (I can presently list 30,334 explicitly).

I'm struggling to recall any other lead of this caliber of involvement with this level of innate bias.

I didn't even wade in to deal with the problem of the undefined word 'exploit'.

To what extent does "exploit" include regular predation, such as also practiced by all the other predatory mammals? In organizing our predation (i.e. farming) have we somehow implicitly crossed over from natural predation to exploitative predation?

No properly balanced article would not at least address the existence of these semantic concerns, not least because if you conduct a survey asking people about their attitudes, how the survey takers interpret the language used in the survey questions is central to whether their aggregate response means any damn thing.

Not all that long ago, I watched an entire documentary about the treatment of horses in WWI.

As beasts of burden in the UK, I did not regard them as particularly exploited, preferring instead to think of this as a symbiotic relationship with an inherent power asymmetry (asymmetry in biology is universal, and fails to shock me). The horses get a lot back from the relationship in care and feeding, though they don't end up living their charismatic lifestyle as wild animals. Imported into WWI, it was a different matter. They were still cherished by many of the common soldiers, but nevertheless they surely got the worst end of every stick. Hundreds of thousands of horses who managed to survive were finally turned into horse meat when the war ended, to spare the cost of shipping them back home (also to expand the available food supply to help feed starving people in France, if you're into that old-fashioned brand of misguided humanitarianism). But it's also true of WWI that every living organism in every direction suffered collateral damage as we created—at colossal expense—a vast new ecosystem best suited to cockroaches, rats, flesh-eating worms, and septic soil organisms.

Fortunately, times change. We're back in the business of churning up European soil to best suit cockroaches, rats, flesh-eating worms, and septic soil organisms, but at least the horses are not faring as badly in Ukraine as they did in WWI.

Did we treat our horses as more expendable in WWI than we treated ourselves? Yes, but not by a large margin. As I see this, tragic as it may have been, it wasn't precisely exploitation. (In our mortal dander, we clusterfucked everything, almost indiscriminately.)

If this lead is going to lean on sociological surveys of exploitation (undefined), then for reasons of avoiding bias, it needs to make clear the different lines that different people draw concerning what constitutes exploitation. While my own lines are perhaps slightly idiosyncratic, my lines are far from outside of the mainstream. — MaxEnt 02:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)