Talk:Domestic rabbit

Added Citations
I added three sources regarding the Draize test and claims of cruelty under the laboratory rabbits section of the article. That said, it's my first time adding a reference, so it would be greatly appreciated if anyone would be willing to make sure the format is correct. Cheers! --Pacack (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

missing subjects
The article says a lot about the diseases but close to nothing about weight, height, length, and litter size, More needs to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1001950cats$ (talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Housing
The housing section is a bit strange. It's very pro-hutches but the source actually only lists reasons not to house them in a hutch. Also, it's 2022. Can we not admit at this point that rabbit hutches are clearly not designed with rabbit welfare in mind? That they're a mistake of human culture, and don't take the slightest bit of rabbit biology into account, hence why hutch rabbits have crazy short lives? Even wild European rabbits don't live outdoors ffs. 2601:600:9C00:2C00:4434:9340:EB36:3518 (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"Bnuuy" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bnuuy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 1 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 18:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Rabbit Spaying and Neutering section
There was a long and unsourced rambling recommending users NOT to spay a female rabbit, along with a note at the bottom explaining why OP didn't agree with a scientific study that claims unspayed female rabbits get ovarian cancer at a higher rate. To their credit, that part was sourced but layman interpretation of a published scientific article does not belong here.

If anybody can find a few primary sources that recommend NOT to spay (preferably a vet or an actual professional source!), then we can keep it up. But I really don't think anybody is going to find that. 142.136.2.21 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Instead of just deleting entire passages, maybe you should first try to find a source for what is stated or insert a “citation needed”, especially if you are unfamiliar with the topic. I may be wrong, but based on what you’ve deleted, I have to assume that you have no experience with rabbit behavior, since all of the behavioral problems described in that paragraph are common knowledge among experienced rabbit owners. I’ve therefore undone your revision and added some new sources.
 * The note at the bottom, however, is neither subjective nor a layman interpretation, but only a summary of Greene’s publications and their key problems. If you actually read those papers, you will find that everything stated in that note is indeed correct. That Greene, despite having no validity over the total house rabbit population, is usually cited as the original source of claims about an extremely high incidence of uterine cancer in female rabbits, is something you will only notice after reading loads of publications and by following up citations. Many of those turn out to be citations of citations, which one way or another almost exclusively lead back to Greene. I haven’t yet encountered one single publication with a sample representative of the total house rabbit population that did not somehow relate to Greene or contained other shortcomings, but if you know a viable one, please feel free to send me a link. SapereAudete (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree either with a blanket "do not spay females" ideology that the current section reads. I also absolutely do not agree with your aggression towards the concerned poster. 99.9% of House Rabbit societies and veterinarians recommend spaying females. You can list the dangers of spaying while also not making claims that the majority of rabbit specialized experts disagree with.This section needs to be heavily revamped so it falls in line with Wikipedia's [| Fringe Theory Policy] . 96.40.211.103 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not aggressive in any way and I don’t agree with any ideology, but only with science. What societies, veterinarians, or researchers recommend has no merit if there is no reliable scientific study to back it up. By the way, in some countries, e. g. Germany, prophylactic castration just because an animal might develop whatever sickness later in life is outright illegal. In case you’ve planned on reworking the paragraph, you should be aware that only scientific papers will be accepted as proof for a claim and only if the methods applied in those studies actually allow for the drawn conclusions. The webpage of whatever society or veterinarian cannot be accepted as proof if its content is not based on scientific evidence. If you manage to find a reliable and representative study, which proves that benefits of spaying will outweigh negative health outcomes, feel free to add a section about it. SapereAudete (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

your being called out because your saying stuff thats very suspicious like saying spaying is not advisable and then saying the concerned people don't know about rabbit behavior? I cant find any sources either that advice not to spay (not talking about the dangers, talking about the recommendation not to spay). I took out that section and added a POV tag. Its not neutral. Somebody else needs to get a fresh set of eyes on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B123:BCF5:0:52:19CF:F01 (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Needs more (or any source) sources stating why male neutering is necessary and female spaying is not for companion rabbits if this section is going to stay as-is, especially because problematic behaviors (litter box issues, aggression, etc) is present in both sexes and is corrected by spaying and neutering. Also since having multiple rabbits is a common case, you cannot have a bonded pair of rabbits if one of them still has sex hormones.  It would be a false bond at best if it worked at all. 96.40.211.103 (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please tell me, how can spaying females even be advisable, when there are so many severe negative effects on the rabbit’s health and the one medical reason usually cited for the spaying (nearly inevitable uterine cancer) is scientifically unsubstantiated? If there are so many negative effects, one doesn’t need a source to proof why you shouldn’t spay but one that proves, that the benefits of spaying indeed outweigh all the dangers. Fortunately, I was able to find sources that discourage from spaying females routinely, which I have now added to the section, as well as an article by a veterinarian who states exactly the same as is written in that note.
 * That rabbits are generally unable to bond if one is left unneutered is baloney. Keeping intact females with castrated males works perfectly fine, if the rabbits are chosen by their characters and not by their owner’s preference. In my opinion, pets should always be chosen by what is best for them and not by what feels best for the owner. Rabbits are usually either docile or dominant in character and form strict hierarchies within their social groups. Females are usually rather dominant in character, which is why female-only groups rarely ever work. Neutering will make most rabbits more docile, but you only need one of two to be docile for a well bonded pair. So, if you had to choose between a small operation with a small incision and basically no negative effects on the rabbit’s health and a huge operation where the entire abdomen has to be opened up with possibly devastating consequences, which one would you choose? SapereAudete (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Scientific name
The article currently claims the scientific name of the species as "Oryctolagus cuniculus domesticus (Linnaeus, 1758)". But I am not aware of the existence of such a name. I looked at Linnaeus's description of "_Lepus Cuniculus_" and it never mentions the word "_domesticus_". As far as I know there is no commonly accepted scientific name for domestic rabbits.

Unless someone presents evidence that this scientific name is in real use, I am going to remove it from the article. That shouldn't affect the existence of this article: it's still useful to discuss domesticated rabbits separately from their wild relatives. Ucucha (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: First Year English Composition 1001
— Assignment last updated by Bluebunny12233 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The opinions and claims of organizations like RSPCA or HRS are no valid sources for a Wikipedia article, especially not on medical subjects. The information they give may be perfectly correct, however, it still has to be verified through scientific articles. For example, if you want to write that certain bacteria carried by rabbits can infect guinea pigs, you will have to find a reliable scientific article to prove it. You cannot just cite a private webpage. Here you can read more on reliable sources. SapereAudete (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Textbook of Rabbit Medicine
Some of the health information was really sketchy here, I just cleaned up the respiratory and conjunctival section, but anyone can start working on the health related sections of this article now that NLM allows for free access to the Textbook of Rabbit Medicine. Recon rabbit  23:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal
The peer review pointed out a pretty big issue - that the health section of this page is way too long to be within the scope of just "domestic rabbit". It should be split out into a seperate article in the same way that we have the perfectly fine articles with this level of detail: Cat health, Dog health. Recon rabbit  11:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm the peer reviewer. This section is in obvious violation of WP:PROPORTION and WP:UNDO (also, some of it is not specific to domestic rabbits). It's already an article unto itself. I'd encourage @Reconrabbit or anyone else to just create the new article. There is no way this article would make it through the GA process as is, and it would be a real shame to delete (what to this non-expert looks like) good work. Patrick (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just done it - something unusual is that when trying to publish Rabbit health, I was given the error that the text contained a "deprecated source", but I wasn't able to figure out which of the references was a bad one. Any ideas would be welcome (and the article itself is still missing a lot of information - currently it's just a mixed bag of the various health problems rabbits have that is in no way comprehensive). Recon  rabbit  15:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is probably a script to detect that, but I'm not sure. Maybe check in at the Help Desk if you're also interested in developing that article. Patrick (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)