Talk:Domestic rabbit/Archive 1

Bunny
According to my husband, a word geek, "bunny" used to mean any small cute fuzzy creature, not just rabbits but cats, dogs, etc. Obviously "bunny" now means specifically "rabbit". However, this article says "*technically* 'bunny' means only baby rabbits" (or something to that effect). Should we remove the reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.177.64 (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Bunny does not mean baby rabbits- the word for that is kittens or kits As far as i know 'bunny' is just another refrence, used mainly by children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.140.87 (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge suggestion with European Rabbit
I would be tempted to say "no" to the merge, not because it would not be accurate (they are, after all, the same species), but because people searching for information on domestic rabbits as pets or farm animals would benefit from an isolated article on that topic. Placing all information pertaining to domestic rabbits into European Rabbit would be bewildering and counterintuitive to people who don't understand that the domestic rabbit and European rabbit are the same species. Searching would be made more difficult for these users. As an alternative to merging this article into European Rabbit, I'd suggest slimming down the section on domestication in that article and merging the information into Domestic rabbit where appropriate. -- Krishva 03:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be fine. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, what I would like to see is clear seperation between (a) the rabbit as a wild species (b) the rabbit as a house pet, with the kind of focus that rabbit.org has (c) the rabbit as livestock. Right now everything seems to be mashed in together, which can be disturbing (eg the whole meat rabbit thing is going to be pretty upsetting to some kid who has a New Zealand running around their house).

Obviously if you are going to eat the rabbit you are not going to want to read about caring for a geriatric special needs rabbit and vice versa.

There could be a disambiguation page to explain all that.

Frossie 02:58, 2005 August 12 (UTC)


 * Maybe have this page be primarily for rabbits as livestock with a short section on pets, while having a house rabbit article for in-depth information on pets? While I'm not sure it's necessary to "protect" kids from the truth of where meat comes from, I can see where pet rabbits might warrant their own article (there's so much information on pet care!).  A lot of information would be overlapping, though, like health, and the pet, meat, and fur markets mesh so much with rabbits that I am not sure how a split would work. --Krishva 04:18, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a house rabbit page may be a good idea. One could have something at the top of the domestic rabbit page that says that this covers primarily commercial uses of rabbits as livestock, and if they are interested in pet information to go elsewhere.

I come from the house rabbit angle and I don't see huge amounts of overlap. For example house rabbit people routinely spay to avoid ovarian cancer, whereas anybody interested in breeding will have no interest in that. Training, bonding, caring for disabled rabbits, all that is only likely to be of major interest to pet people. Even diet is quite different - a breeding/meat rabbit is going to have different dietary needs than a neutered adult house rabbit, especially in the amount of protein in the diet.

And anyway, certainly the European Rabbit page is just too long and unfocussed and could do with a good prune. But it seems a bit rude to gut it out, not sure what they protocol for that is? I am new to contributing to wikipedia.

Frossie 19:52, 2005 August 12 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with moving all the domesticated rabbit details out of European Rabbit into Domestic rabbit - MPF 01:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed to move all the domesticated rabbit details out of European rabbit, as has already been done. However, the domestic uses have a wide degree of overlap (for example, 'house rabbit' advocates hold that all rabbits should be kept as inside pets, breeding culls of all types may be used as meat sources, and rabbit pelts from all types of rabbit may be used as rabbit fur.) Separate articles do not appear to contribute to an understanding of this connection, nor of the general overlap in husbandry & physical attributes of typical domestic rabbit use.  Specifics on husbandry of commercial, laboratory, or pet rabbits has been reported (in multiple rabbit-based articles) as "how-to" and "repetitive". Kerani (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

House rabbit?
I merged all the info regarding domestic rabbits from European rabbit into this article. The section on pets is very long, and I agree with User:Frossie (see above) that a separate page for pet or "house rabbits" is in order. It could hold all pet-related details, with a short summary section on pets left in Domestic rabbit directing people to House rabbit for more info. What does everybody else think? --Krishva 03:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have two concerns about the proposal:
 * House Rabbits is a name that I think many people that don't know about keeping rabbits as pets will not understand. Additionally not all pet rabbits ARE house rabbits (as many people keep them outside). My understanding of the term house rabbit has always been a description of rabbits that live inside.
 * Since nearly all the text here would be moved to the new article that article will be nearly as long, thereby minimizing (IMHO) the effect of the new article.
 * That said, I haven't been editing much on this article since the domestic rabbit information left the original Rabbit article some months back, so if I'm alone in my opinion here, so be it. --Ahc 15:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I can understand your points--the term does, to my understanding, only apply to indoor pets, and the "Rabbits as Pets" section is a very large part of the current Domestic rabbit article. I'm fine with leaving the article as-is or moving the information, whichever group consensus agrees to.
 * The main reason I like the idea of a separate article is because of the combination of quantity of pet-related information and its specialized nature. If your objection would be lowered by a different proposed title (such as Pet rabbits or Rabbits as pets), I'm sure that would be okay with anyone who is in favor of the split. --Krishva 06:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing the proposed title certainly handles my first concern, either of the two suggestions works for me. But I'm still not clear that much would be gained by spliting the text out.  I took a couple minutes to look over articles that should have similar sections (like dogs), and realized that several subsections of Rabbits as Pets really aren't just about pets (i.e. diet), or even domesticated rabbits (i.e. Caecal pellets).  To me this suggests that before we pull these articles apart any more, someone (and I include myself here) should take some time to carefully edit the article as a whole to make sure that all the information is really oragnized how it should be.  We don't want the pets section (or potiental new article) to become an adoption manual (there are other/better places for that including perhaps wikibooks). --Ahc 15:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would suggest Pet rabbit to parallel the only other example I can find of such an article, Pet skunk. --Angr/undefined 14:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * To me this re-enforces my reservations. If there is only 1 parallel article to look at, maybe that's an exception, not the rule.  Since there are 1000's of types of pets, why only 1 article with a comparible name? --Ahc 15:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering what other people's thoughts are on splitting this article in the light of the edits I made recently. Did I go too far? Or do others agree that this reshape article in such a way that it should stay as it is? --Ahc 19:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the article should be split to pet rabbit not house rabbit because not all pet rabbits are kept in the house but the care is the same. --βjweþþ (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has worked toward actually splitting this article in several months, I've removed the split template. If other feel that this is still something that needs to happen, it can always be replaced. --Ahc 19:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There are enough differences between the care of indoor and outdoor pet rabbits that, IMHO, a stand-alone House rabbit article would be justified. It would contain info on topics like pens, bunny condos, and interactions with other pets. An outdoor rabbits page (not sure the appropriate title) would cover topics such as climate control, predators, and parasites. One of the major values of wikipedia is the "one-stop shopping" overview that it provides to someone thinking of getting into something. Hence a house rabbit article (which could reference a wikibook or a site like the House Rabbit Society for more in-depth information) would be very useful to someone considering adopting a house rabbit. Thoughts? --Ed Brey 22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel the problem with an article like the one you describe is that it would become inherently biased. Once you start giving people advice about how to care for their pets, which I believe this article does too much of now, you are sharing an opinion about how to care for rabbits, that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. If you limit yourself to only describing common means of care I believe you'll find both limited information to include, and even more limited references that meet Wikipedia's standards.
 * I've been meaning for several weeks to review some of the recent additions about house rabbit care, and likely cut them back heavily. I fully support someone creating a wikibook about caring for pet rabbits (house or otherwise) as that would have more room for complete discussion of options and debates, but I'm not sure I see the need, or energy, for a separate house rabbit article. --Ahc 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that an entire book for care of rabbits is a great idea, and this is has been done many times, only not online. The best one that I am familiar with is Rabbits for Dummies. More than 90% of its 294 pages are dedicated to rabbit care, with one chapter specifically addressing house rabbits. This leaves me with the impression that there is enough encyclopedic content for a House rabbit article and a Rabbit care article, with the latter covering aspects that are generic to care of all rabbits. One idea to get started is to take much of the recently snipped content and organize it into stubs for those pages. --Ed Brey 12:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I comparing the Dummies book to other rabbit info sources, I haven't found any significant controversy regarding how to care for house rabbits. It seems that the best practices are generally well agreed upon by experts; the variation in actual practice comes about mostly due to ignorance. This seems like a situation where wikipedia can be a big help. --Ed Brey 12:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Text removed September 3, 2005
Since I suggested above that someone should edit the article as a whole, I did. I've copied the large blocks of text that I removed from the article incase anyone things I went too far.

From Children's pets:
 * Rabbits are extremely demanding and many people still wrongly consider them to be a children's pet. On the whole, rabbits make poor pets for young children, who may be careless in picking up the rabbit or physically unable to provide it the support it requires when carried. They may also forget to care for the rabbit, if they are assigned this responsibility. As with any pet, parents ought to be prepared to take over care of any rabbit purchased for a child.
 * Older children who have experience with handling and caring for animals can make splendid rabbit owners and sometimes show their animals in 4-H shows and other exhibitions.

From Other rabbits:
 * Rabbits are extremely social animals, but unaltered rabbits almost always fight when paired with another rabbit of either sex. An unwanted breeding will result if the rabbits are of opposite sexes, but rabbits of the same sex may also attempt to mount one another sexually, which stresses the rabbit being mounted.  Either situation can lead to fighting.
 * Previously, most people who kept rabbits caged each animal singly. However, it is becoming common to spay or neuter pet rabbits; if this is done, the chances of matching a spayed female with a neutered male are very high.  However, fighting can result even from pairing altered rabbits, so it should be done with care. Still, rabbits should be kept at least in pairs, as severe behavioural problems (such as general aggression, biting or withdrawal) may arise if rabbits are kept single.

From Breeds (I thought this might belong somewhere, but I couldn't figure out where):
 * Nervous rabbits or those handled improperly, regardless of breed, may kick, scratch, or even bite. Gentle socializing when the animal is young will almost invariably give them gentler dispositions.

From Acquiring a Rabbit:
 * There are many unwanted homeless rabbits in shelters and rescues all over the world, so adoption is preferable over breeding for casual owners who would like to acquire more rabbits. Petfinder.com is a good source for finding adoptable pets, including rabbits.

From Housing:
 * One of the most economical ways to build a cage is to use NIC cubes. These can be purchased at Target, Wal-Mart, other department stores, or online. Cages can also be built using a wire mesh and a plastic tray.
 * Enclosures are also important. If you have a yard, a secure enclosure is ideal for the more moderate or warmer months. Keep in mind that the enclosure should be built to not only keep the rabbit in, but also keep cats, dogs, and other predators out. Ample shade must also be provided. Some rabbit owners also construct indoor enclosures as well. These can be built from a variety of materials, but -- ultimately -- must be chew-proof.

From Diet:
 * If a rabbit's fur becomes dry or its health seems not quite up to par, its water can be supplemented with vitamin drops. Avoid vitamin drops that contain milk products. Unless under direction of a veterinarian, do not give dairy products to a rabbit, as it will upset the intestinal flora that they require in order to digest their food.

From Vegetables:
 * Vegetables are essential to the health of rabbits, though they should not be provided to rabbits until they are at least 6 months old, as they can cause diarrhea in young rabbits. At least two cups of three different vegetables per 6 lb (170 ml/kg) of body weight should be fed to the rabbit daily, ideally half in the morning around sunrise, and half in the evening around sunset, as this is when wild rabbits most frequently graze. Remove vegatables that have not been consumed within a half-hour, as they can develop unhealthy amounts of bacteria.  A wide variety of vegetables will result in the healthiest rabbit; preferably a combination of dark green vegetables and a root vegetables. Stay away from beans or rhubarb, as they can cause the rabbit to become sick. Additionally, it is wise to select vegetables that are high in Vitamin A.
 * To ensure that the rabbit can tolerate a specific vegetable, add one vegetable at a time to its diet. If the rabbit starts to act lethargic, or exhibit diarrhea or loose stools, then discontinue use of the new vegetable immediately.

From Treats:
 * Papaya is an excellent fruit to use as an occasional treat for rabbits. Papaya contains an enzyme that helps eliminate hair balls.  Look for dried papaya with no sugar added, and feed only a very small amount per day.  Below are some other acceptable fruits:

From Caecal pellets:
 * Caecal pellets are mostly-digested food that rabbits defecate and subsequently reingest; a process known as refection, a form of coprophagia. Usually a rabbit will eat the pellets straight from their anus, and as such, many people do not know of this aspect of a rabbit's diet. They are often referred to as "night pellets" or "night droppings," since the rabbits tend to eat them a few hours after their evening meal.
 * Occasionally, the rabbit may leave these pellets lying about their cage; while smelly, this behavior is harmless. If their caecal pellets are consistently wet and runny, this may indicate either too little fibre or too many starches in their diet. This probably means that they need to be fed additional hay.
 * Occasionally, the rabbit may leave these pellets lying about their cage; while smelly, this behavior is harmless. If their caecal pellets are consistently wet and runny, this may indicate either too little fibre or too many starches in their diet. This probably means that they need to be fed additional hay.

From Training and Play:
 * In this case, a solid ramp must be provided to allow the rabbit easy access to its cage when it needs to relieve itself. Rabbits may accidentally defecate outside their bathroom areas, but rabbit feces are hard and odorless.
 * In such situations, careless family members who may accidentally step or sit on the rabbit and predators who may wish to harm the rabbit (such as dogs and cats) should be kept out of the room where it is playing. Even with close supervision by an adult, a false step by a careless person or a sudden whim of a carnivorous pet can lead to a tragedy for your pet rabbit.  Very young children should never be left unsupervised with any pet, rabbits included.
 * In such situations, careless family members who may accidentally step or sit on the rabbit and predators who may wish to harm the rabbit (such as dogs and cats) should be kept out of the room where it is playing. Even with close supervision by an adult, a false step by a careless person or a sudden whim of a carnivorous pet can lead to a tragedy for your pet rabbit.  Very young children should never be left unsupervised with any pet, rabbits included.

--Ahc 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suggest to re-include the section about the caecal pellets and refection. This is one of the things about house rabbits that most people don't know about, especially that searching Wikipedia for the term "refection" returns nothing.

--Usagi Hana 07:15, 17 Oct. 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the whole article, neutralizing it and actually putting some of the information back in. For instance, putting in the necessity of vegetables. They are actually essential to rabbits as pellet-only diets do result in shorter life-spans as well as many illnesses. I have articles to back this (it's also in a lot--A LOT--of books about rabbits and in the Rabbit Talk magazine which is edited by authorities in the field of rabbit health and nutrition). Unfortunately, as I was putting the footnotes in, I thought they were being automatically added to the bottom of the page. As I'm at work, I don't have immediate access to these articles or the books that also advocate this. I did clean-up on diseases, I added and explained caecal pellets more throroughly and accurately as they are vital to rabbit health.

All in all, I revamped the whole entry. I have 2 sub-sections to cover yet: gastrointestinal stasis and cancer. I didn't bring any of my info to work with me, so I'll have to do it tomorrow. Please, please don't take the information I've added out. If you think it's not neutral enough, change the wording, but please, this information is necessary.

Narnibird 20:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Lifespan
You should think about including the lifespan of a rabbit (9 to 12 years, according to another website) in this site for potential pet owners. Rs564 15:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

'Training and Play' section
This section only has two words related to 'play.' I don't know enough to add to this myself, but it's definitely something to look at.

Also, most of it is about safety, which really warrants its own sub-section.--Gwilym 08:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

POV advice
I've been going over the article today doing some basic copyediting and removing a lot of very POV advice to rabbit owners. I've done this once before (see above), but I figured I'd comment here again to make sure that no one thought I was just cutting stuff at random. If people feel there should be how-to information, I suggest you start a wikibook. This article (IMHO) should be limited to information about the rabbit's themselves, not what people think are the best ways to care for them. Hopefully I'll finish what I'm working on later in the day. --Ahc 18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've finished. --Ahc 03:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I, too, have done copyediting and POV removal. I've also added sources, or, thought I did. This is what I put above above:

I fixed the whole article, neutralizing it and actually putting some of the information back in. For instance, putting in the necessity of vegetables. They are actually essential to rabbits as pellet-only diets do result in shorter life-spans as well as many illnesses. I have articles to back this (it's also in a lot--A LOT--of books about rabbits and in the Rabbit Talk magazine which is edited by authorities in the field of rabbit health and nutrition). Unfortunately, as I was putting the footnotes in, I thought they were being automatically added to the bottom of the page. As I'm at work, I don't have immediate access to these articles or the books that also advocate this. I did clean-up on diseases, I added and explained caecal pellets more throroughly and accurately as they are vital to rabbit health.

All in all, I revamped the whole entry. I have 2 sub-sections to cover yet: gastrointestinal stasis and cancer. I didn't bring any of my info to work with me, so I'll have to do it tomorrow. Please, please don't take the information I've added out. If you think it's not neutral enough, change the wording, but please, this information is necessary. Narnibird 22:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 20:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing help
I'm very new to editing at Wikipedia,so please feel free to delete this if it doesn't go here. I don't know if it would make a good external link, but please check out speedydutchrabbit.bravehost.com and please have an experienced editor add a link for Rabbit Center (speedydutchrabbit.bravehost.com)if it would make a good external link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.189.10 (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. The site you listed does not seem to be complete or stable at the moment (there is a virus warning on the front page).  I'd suggest that you try again when the site is healthier.  --Ahc 15:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you add a link to its forum?(z7.invisionfree.com/Rabbit_Center_Forum)I believe it is virus-free as it is not even hosted by Bravenet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.189.10 (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Rabbit Sex
Is there anything special about it? I'd like to see a section in the main page about it, if anybody knows of special details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oorgh (talk • contribs) 02:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

References trouble
I noticed tonight that the current references are in sad shape. I fixed several problems, but I'm concerned about several more. Many of them are to articles that most likely good sources, but there isn't enough information to actually FIND the articles, making them useless as references. Are there others around that know where these articles can be found so proper references can be written? I tried a track down a couple without success, but I only used online sources (really just Google and HRS's web site) and it was only a 1/2 hearted search. I'll spend some more time now cleaning up the technical problems. --Ahc 04:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Major reductions
I know people are going to be displeased with the text I've been cutting over the last twenty minutes or so, but as I've said before this article has become loaded with advice which is inherently biased. The section I expect will cause the most discomfort is the removal of the section on diet nearly in it's entirety. I'll include it here for people to look over. The problem is that it assumes we're talking about pet rabbits, and give advice about what is the best care of those rabbits, and there is only 1 valid citation provided (HRS's website is NOT a good citation for Wikipedia, their print publications we could discuss). Wikipedia should not be give advice about care of animals, just descriptions of how they are cared for. The same applies to the sections of training, and housing. They were ladened with advice on how to care for your pet, mostly written in a biased styled, and lacking citations. Let me be clear (before someone complains) I agree with most of the advice I removed, but without objective measures it's still just opinions and therefore non-Neutral. --Ahc 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed diet text
 * Unlimited hay is the main part of a healthy rabbit diet. Hay is essential because it provides most of the rabbit's nutrition, fiber, and is also helpful for wearing down a rabbit's continuously growing teeth. The hays with the best nutritional value and fiber content are timothy and oat hay. Orchard grass, brome grass, and bermuda grass may also be given.
 * Fresh veggies should be fed daily in limited quantities. For every 2 pounds of body weight, at least one cup of dark green, leafy vegetables should be fed, such as: romaine and escarole lettuces; turnip, mustard, and collard greens; kale, parsley, cilantro, dandelion, and basil. Carrots and fruits should be used sparingly, about 1 tablespoon per two pounds of body weight every other day. Starchy vegetables need to be avoided.
 * Pellets should be given daily in limited quantities. Commercial feeds should not have nuts, as nuts are highly fatty and cause health problems, such as fatty liver, in rabbits (nuts are in rodent food, and rabbits are not rodents). Pellets should be fed at once ounce per pound of body weight per day, as traditionally, pellets have been fed to rabbits that were meant to be eaten, and cause rabbits to grow overweight. If a rabbit gets pellets, a salt block is not necessary, as pellets are high in salt, though these blocks are not harmful to rabbits who like to have them occasionally.
 * Water is best given in a water crock or ceramic pet dish. Rabbits drink more with dishes than they do with water bottles. A dog or cat dish can be used.

Other reductions in the same section (diet) which imo were more lists of ingredients than encyclopedia discussion of types of diets: Kerani (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hay, fresh grass or kiln-dried grass. It is recommended that a pile of fresh hay the same size as the rabbit should be given daily. Daily acceess to a lawn can provide part of this, but lawnmower clippings can make rabbits ill since these cuttings ferment quickly. Rabbit raisers provide various varieties of hay including timothy-grass, orchard grass, oat hay and alfalfa.
 * Leafy green vegetables, herbs and plants. This might include collard greens/mustard greens, spinach, romaine lettuce, kale, bramble, dandelion, parsley, coriander or chicory. Two heaped cups of varied greens or vegetables (three or more) a day per six pounds of rabbit is a frequently cited rule of thumb.  Kits should not be given fresh vegetables until eight weeks of age.  Initially, they should be given one vegetable at a time to check for the tolerance of their digestive system. It is generally recommended that root vegetables such as carrots or parsnips should be limited. Some experts say fruits should never be given, while some say they should only be given as a treat (1 tsp./day maximum), as they are high in sugar and low in necessary fibers.  Suitable fruits to help with hairballs include pineapple and papaya.
 * Twigs or branches for rabbits to gnaw on. This helps wear teeth and relieve stress. Examples are apple, willow, hazel and hawthorn. Some types of wood may be toxic.
 * Commercial feed. Pellets are a convenient way of providing the rabbit's diet with trace nutrients, vitamins, and minerals, but they are not essential if sufficient hay and a variety of plants or vegetables are provided. Quality pellets are high in fibre and do not contain dried fruits, nuts, seeds, or colored hard food. It is often recommended that these should only be given in very small amounts to adult pet rabbits (maximum 1/8 cup/day per five pounds of rabbit), but kits up to eight weeks should be given more.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerani (talk • contribs) 11:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject
I have proposed the creation of Wikiproject Pocket pets, if interested, please visit the proposal page. thanks! VanTucky 06:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

quick question
Why doesn't this article have an infobox? VanTucky 02:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ears
My dad said that rabbits are hard to raise due to their diet and also you have to pick them up by the ears, not the stomach. And the ears are easy to break. Is this true? ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 Refill/lol 22:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. If you want information about adopting a rabbit, check out the House Rabbit Society. --Ahc 14:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Conservation Status
As this article is about domestic rabbits rather than just European rabbits in general, I think the conservation status should be changed to domesticated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.139.189 (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cannibalism in rabbits
I think the article should at least mention that cannibalism is common in domestic rabbits. When under stress, especially from changes in the environment or lack of water, the female rabbit eats its own youngs. Apparently, this behaviour is extensively documented (such as in Sawin and Crary, Behaviour 6:128-146, 1953) and an article could be written about it, Cannibalism in rabbits, if anyone has access to any good sources. bogdan 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Already covered in infanticide - it's a common mammalian behavior. Lisieski (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Veterinary Care
I think Vet Help Direct should be added as an external link here. It fulfills the follwing guidelines from Wikipedia:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

There is no other similar service anywhere else on the internet so it is not advertising one particular product over another ( it is, in any case, free to use).

The comment that other symptoms can require veterinary attention should also remain as otherwise the statement above it could imply that other symptoms do not require veterinary attention. Susievet (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The site is not exactly free; it sells insurance. See our conflict of interest policy (i.e., Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote your web site that sells insurance).. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the commend about there being other symptoms that require veterinary attention as otherwise I feel that the list could be misleading. Vet Help Direct contains far more detailed information on this and would be a useful link here. The site is credible (100% content from vets) and the only one of its kind anywhere on the internet: Ref: The Veterinary Times 16/10/06, The Veterinary Review 04/07, Miles Mendoza 16/1/07, The Times 4/10/06, Country Life Magazine 13/12/07, Dogs Today March 08, Your Dog Magazine Feb 07, British Horse Society E-News December 07, Your Horse Magazine 6/12/07, Horse and Pony Magazine3/12/07. Vet Help Direct is supported by the British Horse Society and is working with the Kennel Club. Please could I get other people's feedback on this? Incidentally Vet Help Direct does not sell insurance it has a collection of links to various policies this is the only advertising on the site which is free to use. Thanks Susievet (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, Wikipedia is not a free advertising venue for you to promote a site you are affiliated with. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As advised I am following the Wikipedia guidelines on how to approach this and asking editors on this page to give their opinion as to whether they feel the site would be useful:

You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susievet (talk • contribs) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

One other point to consider is that Vet Help Direct says, "If you are outside [the EU] then you should not use this site for advice relating to your pet." This is addressed on House rabbit by using the description "For use in the EU, helps rabbit owners decide whether to see a vet." --Ed Brey (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would be helpful to also add it to this page, with the extra information about the EU?Susievet (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The site appears to be built on a business model that creates a conflict of interest, which can result in bias toward directing owners to take their rabbits to the vet. The site charges from £90 to £120 per year for an office to be listed. Whether it is worth that cost to an office depends on how many additional calls they receive based on their listing. The more strongly weighted the advice is toward going to the clinic, the better the value proposition is for the office and thereby also for the web site owners.


 * Many paths on the site do end up recommending trips to the vet. For example, every path under "wound" ends up at the vet within 12 hours or less, even for a small scratch from another rabbit. The option of monitoring the wound for maggots for several days is not presented. Perhaps the decision tree approach used by the site, while seemingly a good idea, is an oversimplification. I'd prefer a link to a site without a financial interest in vet calls and with deeper insight into caring for the problems, if such a site is available. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture and redirect
I've just changed the top picture to one my partner took of a rabbit in our garden. This one is in profile, on the same level as the bunny, and she's looking into the camera. I think it's better than the old pic, but revert if anyone disagrees.

I also redirected Pet rabbit, Pet rabbits and Rabbits as pets to this article. They were all redlinks, so I hope nobody minds! — FIRE!  in a crowded theatre...  22:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Only european rabbits??
In north Wisconsin, many people would keep four or five rabbits in hutches out back as pets and/or occasional thanksgiving meal. These are almost always either wild rabbits caught young in live traps or the descendants of such rabbits. There is a rabbit farm in my town that sells rabbits bred from wild ones caught in the woods, along with "fancy" breeds of rabbits for a higher price. I'm assuming that the variety of wild rabbit in wisconsin is the eastern cottontail, yes? In which case, is the statement that only european rabbits are kept as pets innacurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.236.35.214 (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed (on European rabbit page). Arikk (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Rabbits are related to horses." What?
From the article on domestic rabbits, it says that "West Nile Virus is another threat to rabbits, as they are related to horses." Rabbits and horses aren't even in the same order. Where in the world is this claim drawn from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.107.42 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * fixed Arikk (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, they are actually related to horses! I have no references right now (though I have a lot of references in Norwegian, but that won't be helpful in the english page). I'll try to explain it anyway: the Lagomorpha order has a connection to horses, because the blood type in horses are really simulare to the lagomorpha's blood type. So it's actually a fact (though I bet you won't believe me without references. I just hope someone will read this and start to research for good references). --Helenecatty (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Are rabbits not covered in fur anymore?
Why don't we have a section on fur rabbits under the commercial rabbit section? As I recall fur is a very important commodity for rabbit growers and rabbit fur is one of the more readily available types of fur. we should talk about rabbits grown for fur. Did you know rabbit fur sheds like dogs for winter season and summer? --209.124.134.3 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

External spam link
Unfortunately, the link Raising Rabbits Care Center Helpful information on how to raise rabbits for fun and profit is spam - a parked domain. Perhaps the site you were thinking of is no longer online? I couldn't find those key phrases on Google anyway. Arikk (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Breeds
I am currently working on Giving all American breeds a page along with some European. If you have a good pic of a rabbit of any breed (looking for side shots, With the Rabbit 'Posed', free of background free of junk)upload them to the commons and be sure to tag what breed it is. Also currently looking for pics of RARE colors such as any of the fox groups, ermines etc. Working on Sourcing the Genetics section along with expanding it maybe to the point it can have it's own page.

Firesongponies (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Gastrointestinal Stasis Section
(Talkpage section originally placed at top of the page, moved from top by Kerani (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC))

The section on Gastrointestinal Stasis lacks any citations and appears to be written from a biased point of view. I propose a major edit to bring a neutral point of view removing exaggerate claims or claims not supported by scientific or credible reference. Truthsleuther (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. You should start new sections at the end of the page.
 * 2. There are two references at the end of the section.
 * 3. There is nothing exaggerated or NPOV about what is written in this section. What, specifically, do you find exaggerated? What points in that section do you have a problem with? 70.90.87.73 (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Section has been revised & referenced. Recommend this be marked as 'resolved' & the NPOV panel removed. Kerani (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As there has been no disagreement, I'm going to go ahead and remove the NPOV panel. If anyone has concerns, bring them up and we'll re-address.Kerani (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Caecotrophy
This can be improved: "If their caecal pellets are consistently wet and runny, this can indicate either too little fiber or too many starches in the diet. This probably means that they need to be fed additional hay."

Note: "Dietary starch levels have no effect on the chemical composition of caecal contents or on the composition of hard or soft faeces (Carabaõ et al., 1988)." (Rabbit Medicine, page 277) Also technically, "coprophagy" is a misnomer as explained in Textbook of Rabbit Medicine, page 6. Correct term is "cecotrophy" or "caecotrophy". Better to replace with section on digestion.

Replaced with the more accurate: "When caecal pellets are consistently wet and runny (semi-liquid droppings) that stick to the rabbit and surrounding objects they are called Intermittent Soft Cecotropes (ISC) which is different from ordinary diarrhea and is usually caused by a diet too high in carbohydrates or too low in indigestible fiber. If the problem is an innappropriate diet then the diet should be changed to a diet "high in indigestible fiber, which normalizes the motility of the GI tract and lower in carbohydrates, which helps normalize the flora in the cecum. A healthy diet for a house rabbit consists of unlimited grass hay as its primary component with additional green foods and limited high fiber/low energy pellets." Note also that there are other more serious but uncommon causes of ISC such as cancer, intestinal obstructions and abscesses.

Also this is not supported by Textbook of Rabbit Medicine: "The process of coprophagy is important to the stability of a rabbit’s digestive health because it is the only way in which a rabbit receives vitamin B in a form that is useful to its digestive wellness.[9]"

The cited source reads: "The water soluble B vitamins and vitamin K can be synthesized by the micro-organisms in the rabbit's cecum. While the rabbit will consume these vitamins when they consume their night-time fecal pellets, to ensure adequate vitamin intake, a complete rabbit diet should also be fortified with the B vitamins. " Not the only way. Will change and give better source since that is a pet food advertisement. Fernquestjon :)

Merging section with rabbit
"It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with rabbit. (Discuss) Proposed since January 2012."

That would be a good idea since a lot of the information applies to "rabbits in general" such as "caecotrophy" or the rabbits eating of the soft pellet "night faeces" that it produces which should actually go in a "rabbit digestive system" page that is a specialization of hindgut fermenters (horses included in this larger class too).

I started to change this page but I think a better strategy for me is to create a rabbit digestive system page. Then info can be summarized out to the "domestic rabbit" page.

I just noted that some of the info was incorrect and that the citations did not match what was said and were to perhaps not the best sources either online or not online such as a pet food afvertisement. I have collected a list of the best rabbit medicine and health sources on my user page Fernquestjon (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with a complete merge with rabbit, but, yes, a lot of the basic biology is repetative with [rabbit]. Looking at the other digestive tract articles such as ruminant and human gastrointestinal tract I don't see a good one to use as a template, and it's possible those pages will have to be edited into better shape as well.

I suggest care in discussing "hindgut fermentation" as a block group, because there are major differences between horses and rabbits (duh), starting with the caecotrophy. But you can probably get enough good info there to have links from rabbit, domestic rabbit, horses, and digestion.

Print or scientific sources would be ideal to use in a biological article, I think, and there are plenty out there, so yes, a move away from popular culture on-line sources would probably help with correcting any errors. However - diet is a part of domestic animal care, and one would not expect an article on domestic dogs, for example, to focus on their pack hunting styles to the exclusion of all other ways that a dog gets calories, because that does not reflect the reality of how dogs are fed.

Finally, I've noted the rabbit articles in general have an excessive amount of 'how-to' information, which it will probably be easier to avoid putting in than going back and removing at the end.Kerani (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A refinement of my recommendation against merging the pages - I actually suggest a three-way split - expand cuniculture to cover the agriculture/breeding/raising aspects (fancier and otherwise), adjust house rabbit to include other aspects of companion rabbit keeping, and leave domestic rabbit for those portions of biology/history/ect that apply to both. Rabbit should likely remain its own article, covering the various species called 'rabbit'.Kerani (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that this article and the house rabbit article should be merged back into the main rabbit article, BUT this does necessitate some additional articles being created e.g. Rabbit nutrition/rabbit health/rabbit care (combined or as separate articles). I think the article horse and its daughter articles e.g. equine nutrition (which has received GA status), horse care, etc. would be a very good template to follow. While a lot of the information here is currently phrased as 'how to', we do actually need to expand these sections, add in different practices/points of view and improve the quality of the references. Please improve the article rather than just deleting bits you don't like. Halon8 (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge: domestic rabbits are a distinct entity from "rabbits" as a whole: the rabbit article is currently well structured as a concise overview, yielding to domestic rabbit or other subordinate articles where appropriate. It is certainly appropriate for domestic rabbit to cover domestic rabbits in detail, but not, for example, brush rabbits. Limited overlap of material is acceptable, but care should be taken to avoid excessive redundancy. As for house rabbit, I believe it is an unnecessary split of domestic rabbit, and should be merged with domestic rabbit, but that is a different discussion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Anthon
I don't believe this idea ought to be called controversial. I believe it's one of those fairy tales made up for schoolchildren, like Parson Weems' life of Washington. This ought to be removed until you read Anthon and look up his source. If he's the only person saying it, don't ever put it back in. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Anthon cites his Phoenician information to Samuel Bochart's Geography. Read the Bochart article; it casts doubt on the reliability of this derivation.  The Phoenician information ought to be removed, or else it ought to be cited to Bochart with a link so people can see that it's not reliable.  If you want to prove that Bochart's info isn't so bad, his Geographica is available from Internet Archive.  However, it is not searchable; you will have to find the appropriate place; you also need to read Latin.  Nobody said it was easy.   108.18.136.147 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Merged PoV-forks
I merged all the domestic-rabbit-related WP:CONTENTFORKing (and WP:ADVOCACY-based WP:POVFORKing) from the absurd House rabbit article (minus the bogus citations to self-published junk sources by rabbit owners), and from relevant sections at European rabbit and Rabbit. There's no way in a million years we'd have separate articles on indoor cats, indoor dogs, indoor gerbils, or anything else simply on the basis of them being inside houses when kept by particular people; it's a non-defining characteristic and not a notable, encyclopedic distinction (if you go read it, almost all the "house rabbit" material is about pet rabbits in generally, or rabbit safety and health in general). Very little material is, or conceptually could be, particular to rabbits inside human homes. Even most of what I put under the #House_rabbits section here, for now (mainly to keep the "house rabbitry" aficionados from hunting me with pitchforks) is entirely applicable to rabbits kept in barns, garages, etc.

I agree with previous comments here and at the other articles' talk pages that this lengthy material should really be WP:SPLIT into a Pet rabbit article. At least it's all consolidated in one place now, and with redundant and much poorly sourced material massaged out, so such a split should be comparatively easy, finally.

Problems with the content remain, including:


 * trivia and excessive detail that is magazine/blog-style, not encyclopedic
 * advice material
 * questionable or blatantly unreliable sources
 * dead URLs (most easily fixable with wayback.archive.org, and/or by getting 2015 links (e.g. to the separate pages the House Rabbit Society's FAQ material has been moved to)
 * general tone problems
 * incomplete citations, mostly just copy-pasted URLs (some of which will prove to be unreliable sources)
 * PoV-pushing claims and cases of original research, about what is best/necessary/needed/required (trust me, it's really not that hard to keep rabbits)
 * entirely unsourced claims (though many can be easily sourced with the materials on hand; a single FAQ, like the Irish Blue Cross one, can be mined to source literally dozens of claims in the article.)
 * undue weight given to Rabbit.org, a self-described activism, not just education, organization
 * promotional and unsourced claims being made about two particular authors and the alleged inspirational effect they've had
 * biology material that is redundant with and needs to upmerge to European rabbit mostly, and in some cases to Rabbit
 * and many other issues.

Still, it's a start.

I also did as much citation cleanup as I could stand without eyestrain killing me, and imposed a consistent WP:ENGVAR, WP:DATEVAR, and WP:CITEVAR* on the wildly inconsistent mess. Also did a lot of copyediting, to squeeze out redundant material, organized what remained into something readers can actually follow, and reduce the how-to tone and approach of the material somewhat. I agree with above observations that much of the "how-to" problem is a matter of tone and not of details, and that the facts should be retained and the "do it this way" approach stripped out. It's strange what little resemblance this article bears to other domestic animal articles, especially Cat and Dog.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

PS: I agree that the approach taken with the horse articles is good to follow topically (e.g. with regard to nutrition, diseases, etc., being split into separate articles). Note that the Rabbit article is analogous to the Equus (genus) article; both (now that I've fixed Rabbit) address their topics primarily zoologically and in the aggregate. European rabbit is analogous in part to Horse, and should be where most of the species-specific information is, with a WP:SUMMARY approach to how humans and rabbits relate. But here the model breaks down a bit; there is no Domestic horse article, and the Wild horse article would be comparable to a version of European rabbit that was strictly limited to the wild animal. As with all analogies, it is not a perfect comparison. Horse is comparable in part to European rabbit and to Domestic rabbit, while European rabbit in turn is partly comparable to Wild horse and partly to Horse. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

New page on rabbit genetics? Wikibook on care?
This is a really C-class article. And I'm speaking as a long-time houserabbit owner. The genetics stuff is good, but it's very technical and belongs in a special article. The suggestion that someone do a wikibook on rabbit care is excellent, as is the idea of a "Houserabbit" page. When I have the time (hopefully in the near future) I will take care of those things, using the Houserabbit Society webpage as a primary source. They are a well-established organization promoting pet rabbit wellbeing, care and adoption. In fact, they probably deserve their own page. The photos in the genetics section are good and should be kept in this article as well as "breeds" illustrations. People will come to this page when contemplating getting a pet rabbit, and they should have accurate information, for the sake of both the rabbit and the owner. From the previous comments about cleaning up the article and citations, I realize that a tremendous amount of work has already gone into getting it into better shape, but it still has a longish way to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandong44 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

mating of rabbits
the article have some errors. the male rabbit is usually put in the cage of the female rabbit. my mother used to breed them and she demonstrated the process to me twice. once the female rejected the male but in the other case the male managed to mate to mate with the female.84.212.111.156 (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Color genes
The "Color genes" part uses the term "genes" wrong. It uses "gene groups" where it should be "genes", and "genes" where it should be "alleles". Jakobsdatter (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Domestication of Rabbits is much earlier than Middle Ages.
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-fluffy-bunnies-domestication-didnt.html Thanks, Marasama (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Section on "Genetics" should become its own article?
Since the Genetics section has become quite detailed (and usefully so), I propose that it become its own article. Your thoughts? Timbuk-2 (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A followup: This information exists on the Cuniculture page in its Genetics section. I have just now updated that section with the new information that was recently added here. Since that article is a more apt location for this level of detail, and since the information here is now a mirror of that information, and in the absence (so far) of any stated objection, I shall now trim this article's level of detail and refer readers to the main article at "Cuniculture". Good? Timbuk-2 (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The proposal has merit as this article is now approaching 70k in size. However, much of it is uncited text - some of it tagged as such since 2007 - and if this were to be removed the article would be quite small. William Harris •   (talk) •  22:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)