Talk:History of animal rights

History info

 * This page was started at 04:47, 21 July 2008 by User:Eazyskankin as a partial cut-and-paste (= text-split) from page Animal rights.
 * At 08:37, 18 September 2011 User:Anthony Appleyard text-merged in page History of Animal Rights. (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

Peter Singer's philosophical position

 * There is ambiguity in the article about Singer. It is rightly pointed out that his is not a rights-based position, then it says later that he is an animal rights advocate.  Does this need clearing up? Billlegend2 (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Faxian's quote on Vegetarianism in ancient India
Further to the discussion at, the above Faxian quote on vegetarianism in ancient India, in my view, has a high relevance in this article as much as it has in any vegetarian-related article. The ancient Indian concept of ahimsa arguably marks the beginning of animal rights in history as early as the first millennium BCE, which gives rise to non-harming, non-killing, shunning meat-eating (vegetarianism/veganism), compassion, awareness of animal sufferings, etc, as can be seen in numerous ancient Indian works. Ethical vegetarianism/veganism (as opposed to health or economic reasons) is the direct result of ahimsa in practice. Any animal rights discussion invariably involves discussions about meat-eating, killing, animal cruelties, vegetarianism, veganism, etc. Thus, vegetarianism/veganism is indeed related to animal rights, without having to expect a particular source to indicate it every time. Going by this, adding Faxian's quote seems highly relevant here. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Strongest Oppose A random and factually incorrect quote is cherry picked and being proposed to be added here to distort history. Please provide WP:HISTRS to prove that his claims are factually correct. They are not. To summarize, I am looking for (1) verifiability (2) factual accuracy (3) relevance to this article (4) how the reader is benefitted by reading this in this article. Venkat TL (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec)
 * The quote, when seen in its entirety, shows the 'vegetarianism' to be from an angle of perceived purity in terms of caste related identity differentiation. From skimming the chapter a bit, I don't see any treatment of the idea of animal rights in Faxian's account.
 * As I said in my edit summaries, none of the secondary sources produced (Saxena, Bodhipaksa, Mellor) which use the quote, are talking about it in the context of animal rights. It is used solely (as far as I can see) in the context of vegetarianism. To claim that vegetarianism is a form of animal rights would be WP:OR (even if some reliable source does say that, using it would be WP:SYNTH unless it uses this quote as well).
 * So unless there is a reliable source which interprets the quote to be implying something about animal rights or uses the quote in that context, I do not see how it can be added here without violating WP:OR. Hemantha (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify more about my insistence on secondary sources, a discussion of animal rights can include vegetarianism; but vegetarianism can also be completely decoupled from animal rights. Sorry for jumping to Hitler right in the second comment, but he was a vegetarian; is that enough to use Mein Kampf quotes here? Hemantha (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Although I admit that the subject of animal rights and vegetarianism can be mutually exclusive, I believe Faxian's quote here is of academic relevance at the least, as I've consistently stated. Although Faxian isn't directly talking about animal rights, I think his quote reflects the Indian people's customs of his time. Animal rights in India is clearly a product of ahimsa, a principle unique to the three dharmic faiths: Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, which heavily influenced ideas, beliefs, food habits etc of the people. The principle involves the idea of love, tolerance (and simultaneously, nonviolence) for all living beings, which resulted in many communities embracing vegetarianism, and therefore this particular observation made by Faxian is both a) a clear reflection of animal rights in ancient India & b) of enough relevance. I don't think this distorts history in any shape or form, instead I believe it only adds subtle and questionless beneficial academic perspective. I'd also like to point out that I don't quite agree with the bit that the addition of the aforementioned quote somehow implies/promotes false equivalence, as User:Hemantha remarked, since Hitler is of nil relevance when it comes to animal rights/vegetarianism in the Indian subcontinent, but Faxian is, by virtue of the fact that he travelled to India, stayed for a significant ten years and made important observations of the ancient Indian society. Hitler isn't nearly as much of an imperative figure in the context of discussion regarding customs and practices of ancient Indian society as Faxian. He obviously made no scholarly observations, unlike Faxian. Comparing him and Hitler on this subject is stretching things by a long shot. Any inclusive and encompassing animal rights discussion is undoubtedly incomplete without the coverage of ahimsa and its impacts in the Indian subcontinent, so to avoid a quote like this would be almost equal to leaving the subject partial and deficient. Furthermore, in my opinion, inclusion of this quote does not violate WP:OR. Cheers. Dissoxciate (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Overall, you've repeated Rasnaboy's original post. Without WP:SECONDARY sources which interpret this quote to imply something about animal rights, I do not see how this discussion can progress. If some text is disputed as OR, simply claiming that it isn't, is not enough. If you aren't convinced about my 'Original Research' claim, you can take this issue to the No original research noticeboard. Hemantha (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Precisely because "animal rights and vegetarianism can be mutually exclusive", I agree with Hemantha that a quotation like this needs to be shown to at least imply something about animal rights. A recent academic article by Krithika Srinivasan includes the following: "There has been a long-standing identification of vegetarianism as an upper-caste Hindu practice that reinforces social (caste) hierarchies and marginalization through logics of purity (vegetarianism) and pollution (omnivory/non-vegetarianism) (Ilaiah, 1996). The eschewal of meat and eggs is understood as a way of maintaining caste ‘purity’ in upper-caste (Brahmin) Hinduism. Literatures on the cultural dimensions of meat and vegetarianism in India have shown that the non-consumption of meat is shaped by religion and caste as opposed to ethical motivations." Although Srinivasan's article is focused on contemporary India, I think the point about having to show a connection with animal rights stands. Scales (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)