Talk:Speciesism

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Mount Allison University supported by Canada Education Program and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The article does not mention vermin
The article talks about philosophical positions and species that are more appreciated by humans. It does not mention rats, mice, roaches, fleas, lice, ticks, weevils, corn borers, tapeworms, etc. These species are not addressed and defended in this article. Fun to speculate why these species are not defended.Pete unseth (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The very purpose of defining speciesism is to explain the human exploitation of non-human animals. Thus, self-defense or other defensive acts (such as killing a fatally attacking lion or snake or even a human) doesn't involve speciesism. Killing vermin are primarily considered acts of defense, although animal rights activists oppose these as well. Nevertheless, speciesism applies when any of these animals (rats, mice, etc.) are exploited by humans for their body parts, scientific research, and so forth, the reason why research involving these animals are opposed. And the article very much talks about animal research. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Mammals have higher status than other animals?
The article still needs to wrestle with definition(s) of speciesism. It mentions the idea of some animal species being treated differently than others. However, the article is basically concerned with humans vs. other species. But there are huge differences in the way humans value various species, which is clearly "speciesism". Mammals are generally thought of as worthy of more value than insects. And a very small set of often-domesticated species are widely thought of as worthy of more value than other mammals. These are also examples of speciesism. The definition(s) and example should reflect this more, not merely human vs. non human. Treating some animals as more worthy than others absolutely undermines the whole concept of speciesism. Pete unseth (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This article has a few problems. It tends to assert that "scholars" say X, and per WP:RS A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Though it's not policy, it is a guideline. I couldn't check every source in this article to see if that's the case, but I have a feeling it's not based on what I have read. It also makes claims without properly attributing them, such as using PETA as a source. While there's nothing wrong with that, it's undeniable that PETA is a heavily opinionated and biased source, and when used, it should be mentioned that the preceding statement may have been made by PETA. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Al-Ma'arri in History Section
To create a more neutral point of view the History section would benefit from a reference to Abū Al-Ma'arri, see: Al-Ma'arri. (sdsds - talk) 03:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)