Talk:Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals/Archive 3

Spaying and neutering
Why aren't spaying & neutering listed? Spaying is a highly invasive procedure (and neutering is certainly as invasive as many of the other listed procedures), and both are certainly discretionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.142.216 (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This list is mostly for more controversial and potentially health-damaging procedures with no therapeutic benefic. Its original title was "mutilatory procedures." Spaying and neutering may be viewed as such by some people, but that is a WP:FRINGE view.  As a general consensus, they are considered standard, non-mutilatory veterinary procedures.   Montanabw (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point, Montanabw, but I think we should at least cite to Neutering in the "see also" section. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think that "see also" links could be reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My only concern is that the see also could turn into a huge laundry list. Wonder if there is some article that discusses the spaying/neutering controversy? Montanabw (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Spaying and neutering are uncontroversial. Their main controversy is that people think they are not done often enough. Having them on a "see also" list seems reasonable in that they are clearly discretionary.  I don't see it becoming a laundry list. They are done largely for owner convenience, rather than in response to any specific medical diagnosis.  Proponents make compelling arguments that it improves health, longevity or quality of life for the animals, but proponents of more controversial procedures like tail docking make the same arguments, albeit with less widespread support.  I can't think of a laundry list of non-therapeutic procedures that fall close to the same line. Tangledweb (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Although on relooking at the page I see castration/caponisation listed under various. Is the consensus that it should be removed? Tangledweb (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Castration/caponisation is in the list. This is because it can take various degrees of invasiveness.  It might be conducted under full anaesthetic (dogs), elastrator rings (lambs), or removal of the internal testicles of cockerels with no anaesthetic whatsoever.  I'm not really sure what this conversation is trying to achieve - spaying and neutering are already covered in the list - see Castration.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I wonder whether we should be considering implantation of Neuticles (replacement testicles .__DrChrissy (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Neuticles fit the category in my mind. I'd assume they are generally implanted at the same time as castration, so there is probably not a specific incident of invasiveness, but they are a purely cosmetic modification that requires surgery.Tangledweb (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to draw a distinction between the main part of the article, and the "see also" section. Listing something in "see also" does not mean that it fits within the subject matter of the page, whereas including it in the main text obviously does. "See also" merely tells the reader that if you are interested in this page, you may perhaps be interested in reading these other pages. In that regard, I'd make a case for being more inclusive in the "see also" section than elsewhere on the page, possibly including the two links (crab declawing and shark finning) that were recently deleted from it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just about to post a message indicating exactly the same point. Whilst fears of a possible laundry list have been expressed, I would rather see that than a highly exclusive 'See also' list.  Perhaps Tangledweb would like to explain the motivation behind removing these as the edit summaries did not seem consistent with each other__DrChrissy (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh gawd! Neuticles!  EEP!   Montanabw (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Shark finning was discussed several months ago, by some of the same editors in this discussion, and the consensus seemed to be that it is something done to wild animals incident to harvesting or hunting, and is not the type of mutilatory procedure on (typically) domestic animals that are within the scope of this discussion. The shark-finning discussion is near the bottom of Archive 1.
 * Moreover, I fully agree with the comment that "see also" topics do not have to be within the scope of this article, and that it's better to be inclusive in "see also." One of the points of Wikipedia seems to be to establish a repository of information linked in a way that allows easy navigation from article to article. This facilitates readers making connections. An expansive "see also" list is consistent with this, and so I'm not worried about it becoming a "laundry list." ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * See my comment on this in the section below. Montanabw (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Pin firing
Given the summary by Montanabw does pin firing still fit? It is not done for cosmetic reasons (in fact it leaves scars of its own) or human convenience. It falls more into a category of discredited, vintage medical procedures. I know it is still done, but aging race horse trainers are a superstitious lot who cling to a lot of older veterinary techniques.

As a (possibly discredited) medical practice does it still belong? Tangledweb (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As of 2006, the AAEP still OK'd it for limited purposes. It's a gray area, as it does also remove some other evidence of lameness, I'll take no position on it being in or out of this article, though "discredited veterinary procedures" could also be raised for mulesing, ear cropping and tail-docking, all of which have had proponents raising medical necessity.   Montanabw (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There are several procedures that are not done for cosmetic reasons and are now largely discredited (evident by them being banned in some countries). These include mulesing, tail docking in dogs, dewclaw removal.  However, these are practised in some countries and therefore should remain on the list.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that tail docking IS purely cosmetic in 90+% of cases. People maintain it is needed for working dogs in some breeds but very few dogs "work". Maybe discredited was not an explicit enough word.  Pin firing was a mainstream therapeutic practice that is no longer believed to work.  Nobody claims that mulesing or dew claw removal don't work, they claim they are cruel. Pinfiring is more like bloodletting or making potions out of eye-of-newt than it is like tail docking. Tangledweb (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I am not sure about the numbers, but I would agree that tail docking in dogs is/was largely cosmetic - that is why it is on the list. However, it is now largely discredited when it is performed for breeding standards.  Discredited in the sense that it is no longer essential once the clubs have changed their show standards.  Mulesing and dewclaw removal are often performed routinely even though they may not be necessary for the individual animal - that is why they are on the list.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What belongs in "See Also"
There seems reasonably good agreement about what belongs in the main body of this article. What still belongs in "See Also". I'd rather it was used for topics relatively strongly related to the article that did not quite fit. If it's used as a general repository of links of the pattern "If you think some of the things on this page are cruelty to animals, you'll probably think these things are too" then it will be a very, very long list. Tangledweb (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Montanabw (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think most editors previously involved in discussion of this page would agree that they want the former, i.e. strobgly related (hope I am not incorrectly speaking for other people). However, it is a matter of opinion what is strongly related and what is not. There was discussion about De-clawing and shark finning and there was consensus they should not be in the main article.  There was no discussion (objection) about them being placed in "See also" but you felt you should delete them.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Declawing is in the main article. Perhaps I missed the nuance between consensus on "does not belong in article" and "does not belong in article, but belongs in a section on article page". That's why I created a subheading to explicitly ask. Tangledweb (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that shark-finning and lobster-declawing should be in the "see also" section. They're the type of mutilatory procedures that would be of interest to a reader of this article. Also, by including them in "see also," we clarify that we've considered them and decided not to put them in the main article. That is, we've at least addressed them. I'm not worried about the "see also" list being somehow "incomplete" in that we don't list all procedures that are arguably cruel to animals. We never represented that the "see also" list is comprehensive. It's just some topics that a reader of this article would be interested in. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well stated.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that also. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest we adhere to WP:SEEALSO: "...[links] should be limited to a reasonable number." The MOS does allow "tangential" links, so there is probably no rule against adding spaying and neutering, or shark-finning, etc., but I hesitate to insert these as "mutilations" and do worry about the see also section becoming a POV paradise and source of edit wars: "...many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section." (Due to all links being already included in the text of the article.) I agree on the shark-finning and crab leg removals... they are cruel forms of food harvesting, not what we are talking about here. What might work (except someone has to do it) would be to do a see also link to some sort of List of food-harvesting techniques that mutilate animals or list of sterilization surgeries or list of dubious and discredited veterinary procedures. The the relevancy is clear and any POV fight over what to include can be there and not here. Montanabw (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that I pretty much agree with Dr. Chrissy, Chicago Dilettante, and Montanabw. I want to make it clear that thinking that anything is cruelty to animals really doesn't, or shouldn't, have anything to do with it, and suggesting that it would injects something into this discussion that doesn't belong here. Thus, it really isn't about the risk of making the list too long, and we are presently in little danger of it growing to an unreasonable number. As already stated, it's a matter of including stuff that we rejected from the main text as not being exactly within the page scope, but being something that readers might also want to read about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

devocalisation of cats
Would other editors please look at the following links to Devocalisation in cats and comment on their suitability for inclusion in the article. 1 2 3 4

To my mind, 3 is the most neutral and informative.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that number 3 is the way to go. It best satisfies WP:RS. Number 1 pretty much fails WP:RS, while 2 fails WP:NPOV, and 4 is too much of a primary source. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3 is a well written, informative publication, but it from an unabashedly partisan advocacy group. Maybe link it from Devocalization instead?  I'm not sure you'll find an equally good NPOV write up.  Tangledweb (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure I see such advocacy in reference 3. I believe WP policy is that links to other WP links as references is not permitted.  I will go ahead and place reference 3, but still open to discussion.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just realised that of course we link procedures in the article to other WP articles, so I think an explanation of my previous comment is required. I did not know that devocalisation of cats was practised. When I started researching this, there were very few references I could find and these were from rather extremist web-sites which I initially doubted the validity of.  So, when I found the humane society reference, this seemed to be an authoratative source stating that cat devocalisation is practiced. This is why I changed the reference.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WIki can't be a source for Wiki. ref 1 is not going to pas WP:RS,  Ref 3 is OK with me.  Ref 4 can be used for certain things (definition, etc...)  Ref 2 is pretty POV, though could be used in a limited way (as in "opponents of devocalization state...") .  Are you going to create an article and then link to it here?  Montanabw (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not suggesting using wiki as a ref, just suggesting having no ref on that item, a link from that item to the wiki page, and putting that ref on the wiki page. It's a good document, but if you read their "about us" page they specifically state they oppose the procedure. http://www.hsvma.org/policy_statements#.UYP3wcpveek They are an advocacy group with a defined POV.  Tangledweb (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not found a reference on this procedure that does not have POV (either for or against). This is presumably due to the highly controversial nature.  The reference I have entered is to demonstrate that the practise occurs, not to create an opinion in the mind of the reader on the ethical nature of the procedure.  I was surprised when I first read this occurs in cats and it took me a while to verify this - I am trying to save the reader time by directing them to an authoratative source of verification.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Devocalization of horses?
Seeing as we are talking about cats, where it seems like there are decent if likely POV sources that say it happens to cats. I can't find a good source for horses.

The "RCVS List of Mutilatory Procedures" that is the first ref for the page mentions it, but the only other mentions I find are repetitive anti-bullfight pages that claim bull fighting horses are devocalized so the crowd can't hear them scream and pro bullfight pages that say it's a myth that bull fighting horses are devocalized.

If it has happened, but rarely or ever is done it seems like it belongs. If it is a bogey man myth invented to bolster an unrelated cause it should either go, or have that noted. Tangledweb (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have heard of military horses and other equids being devocalised so they did not betray their position. I left a request for verification of this on the Talk page of Devocalization but I have had no replies.  If you are unsure about the validity of a website which has an obvious POV, you could write "It has been claimed that horses used in bullfights are devocalised." and give the url.


 * That sounds even less probable. Partly because even without vocal cords horses are fairly noisy. Partly because when cavalry horses were common surgery was far riskier than it is today. I just can't see an army risking a third of their horses dying of infection on the off chance that at some point in the future the horse will be needed for a covert mission.Tangledweb (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * May I ask how you know that horses without vocal chords are noisy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 22:56, May 3, 2013‎ Sorry, forgot my tildes!__DrChrissy (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect this is hogwash, and at any rate, I've never heard of it -and I've heard of some pretty damn whacky stuff done to horses. Tangledweb's argument that surgery in the time of cavalry use was pretty primitive, plus, a horse's "wind" was very precious -- they had to be able to run like hell or they weren't worth much.  Where stealth was needed, such as in Bedouin culture, mares or geldings were preferred over stallions, and there are claims that they can be taught not to neigh or call out to other horses (which is about the only time a horse would give away position by neighing, they are prey animals not that prone to tell the lion, "hey dude!  I'm over here!  Attack me in the dark and eat me!") If there is some website that clams this, just remember that we don't have to debunk every single bit of fringe lunacy that exists out there ... and yes, horses make all sorts of noises without use of vocal chords, snorting and blowing in particular, they can make a lot of noise through their nostrils.  Montanabw (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes DrChrissy, Montanabw  summarized what I meant. It's not that I am familiar with what horses without vocal cords sound like, just that I am well aware that they can make numerous loud noises using other body parts.  Nasal snorts, stomping, kicking, fidgeting in harness, and moving across hard ground all make loud distinctive noises and occur relatively frequently.  Outside of movies, most horses scream in fear and neigh in greeting fairly rarely. One of mine thinks he should have speaking parts in movies, but he's the exception, and he would have made a reasonably good non-stealth warhorse so I suspect would have been reassigned rather than surgically corrected. Tangledweb (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I did have a printed article from a very trusted magazine (Kuukausiliite, the monthly supplement of Helsingin Sanomat) that was about bullfights in Spain and said a few things about the horses used. Some of those were that old nags are used (so that valuable horses don't get hurt if and when an accident happens) and that those horses are devocalised so that in case of said accident (such as a horn to the belly) a scream would be quiet. I don't remember if it was explicitly said, but in a bullfight, the audience would most likely overpower any sound a devocalised horse might be able to make. Now, I can't promise I have that article any more, but I know for a fact there was one, and I might be able to find it microfilmed it in a library, and in any case this should set us on a path to find more sources. --Pitke (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, though rare. The use of "Rocinantes" in bullfighting is a whole article in itself. I do wonder how reliable the article is, though....  (U.S. horse magazines have their editorial slant and sometimes are a little loose with the truth ...)  Not sure we need to include such a rare occurrence here, though I suppose an argument could be made... just thinking out loud...  Montanabw (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmmm. I think I would have to disagree with that.  Devocalisation of cats and tongue amputation of calves are rare but we have these in the list.  If horses were devocalised for military or bullfighting purposes, this would probably have happened to hundreds of animals - although if it did happen, I am surprised my searches have not revealed this. In my view, if there is a trustworthy verifiable source, then it should be in the list (otherwise are we not in danger of censorship?).  We could always put a footnote indicating its rarity or that it is now historical.  But let's find that source first.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree on sources. IMHO, there are two kinds of "rare;" there is "rare" as in "doesn't happen very often but there are just enough random sick F**ks out there that it's a worry," versus "rare" as in "has happened a couple dozen times in all of recorded history within a very narrow cultural WP:FRINGE context and appears not to occur any longer."  (grin)   Montanabw (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean like Neuticles ? hee hee! __DrChrissy (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh gawd, neuticles! For those we need List of animal enhancements that reveal the psychological hangups of their owners!   Montanabw (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's rare as in "happens in small numbers" or "used to happen in moderate numbers but never does any more" it should be on the list. If it's "rare" as in "only happens in third hand accounts of scary, unpleasant activities in some far away land where people look different and speak a funny language" then it belongs on a list of fictional tales told to scare children, not this one. I'm not convinced it was ever real.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangledweb (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the beauty of WP:V and WP:RS. If a source appears, we can reconsider. Until then, not. Montanabw (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hugely important issue - US English or British English?
Dear All - First, forget about the "huge importance" of this thread - it is my weak attempt at humour. It wasn't until an editor recently posted the word "odor" on the page, that I realised we have not decided which English this article should be in. As a Britain and the creator of the article I had always considered it was British English. But, maybe I am wrong. I actually don't care which it is, but we should probably try to reach consensus.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:ENGVAR. I think that in this case, we should just use whatever variety of English was introduced into the article first once it got beyond stub-length (haven't looked myself). Doesn't seem to be a topic that has any particular pressing need to be one type or another... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a moral issue at all. That said, US English uses fewer vowels, heh, heh, heh. Usually the tie-breaker is either which nation is more relevant to the topic (which is no help here) or which version it was started in (which is often kind of silly).  Is there any default for use of medical terminology? (oestrus or estrus?  etc...)  Basically, I don't really care, though I will probably write in US English and need others to clean up after me, just saying... ;-)  Montanabw (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that's no bloody help! I was going to use that excuse for writing in British English expecting US advocates to clean up after me!  ;-)  __DrChrissy (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL! I can do that, it's way easier to remove vowels than add them!  Do you want to pop the proper template on so we have a decision?    Montanabw (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah - not really worth it. I think most people are busy enough with other more important matters.  As the creator, I'm happy for it to stay as US English....there, it's in writing!__DrChrissy (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article: Changes to Introduction
While this article clearly lists procedures that are clearly offensive to most, if not all people, the introduction struck me as not being particularly neutral or conforming to the Wikipedia style. I realize that this is hard to do on certain topics (think Nazi death camps), but is nonetheless important to maintain Wikipedia's integrity. It was probably unintentional, yet the paragraph devoted to the Royal College of Veterinarians loaded term "mutilatory" dominated the introduction, and thus set a certain tone for the article. The fact that the whole topic is controversial was not really called out explicitly. It is also important to recognize that there is considerable regional variation on the acceptability of many of these procedures. I agree that the title of the article is appropriate for a Wikipedia entry: Perhaps the College of Vets didn't consider the term "Discretionary Invasive Procedure" to be succinct enough. They chose to use their term for a broad category of procedures. Many would not consider these "mutilatory", but the fact that it has been defined this way helps those who feel that people should not be allowed to conduct cosmetic or non-health related procedures on animals.

On a minor note, the procedure "toe clipping" may or may not be referred to as an "amputation". While I don't have strong feelings about this, it too is a loaded term. A toe is a digit, not a limb, as animals have 4 limbs, not 20, and Merriam Webster refers to amputation as a removal of a limb. While terms may be used metaphorically, figuratively, or for dramatic flourish, that's not really the Wikipedia style. I realize that this is just semantics, and that it is also inappropriate to use a euphemism, especially if vague and non-descriptive. "Removal" is both specific and neutral and so I favor it over "amputation" for things other than entire limbs. Otherwise you could "amputate" just about anything, an appendix, hair, tails, toe nails, tongues... Oh yah, the term shows up in the article for tongue too. I don't agree with that one either. mattelfesso (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's see your sources or a link in the MOS. Terminology can be so bland that it's meaningless ("removal?") but I do favor accuracy. I kept "tongue resection."  In the meantime, don't remove sourced material, don't add verbiage without being certain it is verified by the source cited, and be aware that the intro was carefully written after getting consensus. If you add sources, please do them properly and consistent with the others in the article, we don't do inline links.   Montanabw (talk)  07:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your commentary Montanabw. I can from this Talk page that there is good discussion on this article, and I do respect the effort of you and others on the topic. While I'm attempting (perhaps feebly) to follow Wikipedia guidelines "be bold" I also will not make further changes until I have a better understanding of your critique. Thanks for the warning inline links. May I ask what you mean by "being certain it is verified by the source cited" Do you mean that citations should be limited Journalistic sites that verify their source material (meaning not most of the internet)?


 * I'm not sure that I agree with the statement that a "bland" term is necessarily meaningless. If the term is very specific and accurate then it's blandness is appropriate because it does not try to charge the statement with emotions. I do agree that terms are vague or overly broad should not be used especially if it is being used to obscure the meaning or lump it with more palatable activities. Bland terminology can make an article downright boring, but there's probably no risk of that here.


 * I would also appreciate input about my Talking points, above. Does this look like a normal Wikipedia article, or is this whole thing on the definition of "mutilatory" just kind "coming out of nowhere" without a lot of context?

mattelfesso (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There was a huge amount of discussion about the title of this article and I am glad it has been found to be neutral. My original title was something like "mutilatory procedures on animals."  Whilst I understand some may view this as a loaded term, I argued it be kept in the title as there were no other words that succinctly and accurately described these practices.  However, after an extremely informed and curteous discussion, I realised the consensus was against me and as a group we came up with the current title.  I feel it a shame then that the use of "mutilatory" in the body of the text is being used to say the article is not neutral.  The word is used in the Veterinary document.  We can not ignore that.  To not state this because some (and it is only some) see the word as loaded, would mean that the article was incomplete and had perhaps become a victim of censorship.
 * Regarding the use of "amputation". I think this depends on the dictionary you use.  Some seem to suggest it is "usually" a limb or digit, others suggest it is any extremity.  I tend to agree with the latter, after all, do we not talk about penis amputation? Is a penis a limb!__DrChrissy (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Following up on whether this is a "normal" wikipedia site because it focusses on mutilations. There as an entire article on Mutilation.  In context, many of these mutilatory procedures are performed on millions of animals around the world - in many cases, these procedures are totally unnecessary but cause pain to the individual animal.  I think in the animal welfare arguement, it has a massive context.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)