Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild animal suffering


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Following a rewrite, earlier deletion arguments may no longer apply. Renominate if still deemed deficient.  Sandstein  08:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Wild animal suffering

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research. Most of the directly relevant sources are from a few non-notable people: Oscar Horta, Brian Tomasik, Adriano Mannino. This does not appear to be an existing subject in the academic literature. Pawg14 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 17.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 16:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There are several mainstream articles entirely about the topic, including in the NYT, Quartz, and Vox. There's also a lot of academic literature, much of which is cited in the article. The non-notability of some source-authors or their lack of being WP:RS isn't a good reason to say the entire article fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Empamazing (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the Vox and Quartz articles, so that might help with the notability concern. Empamazing (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC) (strike !vote by now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The article requires heavy cleanup at the very least. "Opponents of wild animal suffering" being the first and largest section? Which simply contains quotes from random people? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I look at this article and I wince. At the moment, it is in such bad shape I have difficulty telling if an article should even exist in Wikipedia. To start with, exactly what is the topic? Is there even a widely accepted term called "wild animal suffering", and if so, where are the reliable sources that provide an accepted definition? Lacking that, it's hard to say what belongs in the article. But OK, let's say we get past that issue. Next is Mr. Magoo's point. Why is there a very large section of quotes from opponents of animal suffering? Unless there are reliable sources agreeing that most people are aginst it, there's WP:UNDUE to consider. There's also original reserach thrown in. I don't know how I'd go about fixing it up, other than to start over -- assuming there's a valid Wikipedia topic buried somewhere in there. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. There is good coverage in mainstream WP:RS. The article does have some issues, but WP:TNT does not apply here. Edwardx (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:TNT absolutely applies here. This article is written from the point of view of negative utilitarians who want to either destroy the natural world, or eliminate all suffering through futuristic techno-magic (see abolitionism (bioethics)). The references are mostly to non-RS pseudoscience, and WP:FRINGE certainly needs to be considered. This is not the basis for an article on the topic, if this even is notable as a topic. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the purpose of the article may not be clear, I recommend looking at this, cited in the lede, to get an idea of what this is really about. Also from the same author: "However, many animal advocates also strongly defend wildlife, in spite of the immense amounts of animal suffering it contains. Some animal supporters are environmentalists because they think ecological preservation best advances animal welfare, while others hold an additional moral view that nature is intrinsically valuable. It's troubling that spreading the animal movement risks creating more defenders of wildlife who may cause more animal suffering than they prevent," and Habitat Destruction, Not Preservation, Generally Reduces Wild-Animal Suffering. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also see this early version and note that the article cites the main proponents of these fringe ideas - Tomasik, Donnelly, and David Pearce (philosopher), who have been among the main contributors to this article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is not organized in a way that makes his obvious, but some sections of the article are describing why wild animal suffering is bad, and others are describing why wild animal suffering might be okay. This should alleviate some of your concern that this might be a one-sided article. I think it might be helpful for someone to rewrite the section headings to collect arguments against wild animal suffering and separate them from the arguments for why wild animal suffering might be morally permissible. &mdash; Eric Herboso 20:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Eric Herboso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Edit: I am NOT a single purpose account, as can be easily seen in my edit history. I am not removing the SPA notice because I'd like to highlight that someone is seemingly indiscriminately marking accounts as SPA when they are, in fact, not. &mdash; Eric Herboso 09:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC))
 * Eric, you have previously indicated that you formerly worked with Animal Charity Evaluators, a dubious charity evaluator (accused of conflicted interests and pseudoscience by academics) which promotes this idea. Note the essay in the last link relies heavily on Tomasik, the author of the papers I linked in my previous comment and a former board member of ACE. This group is also associated with the idiosyncratic philosopher David Pearce and the others cited in this article. Can you provide concrete evidence that "wild animal suffering" is a notable topic independent of this cluster of interesting people? --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * At the risk of going on a tangent, I think that's a pretty unfair characterization of ACE. Those critics level far stronger criticisms at other animal protection groups (just look in the pages surrounding the page of that book that discusses ACE), and the book just criticizes ACE because (i) it's "interconnected" with other groups, (ii) it focuses on farmed animal advocacy, (iii) they focus on more than just "vegan" tactics (e.g. welfare reform). Hardly strong critiques. Also, your "pseudoscience" citation doesn't even critique ACE beyond saying it uses weak evidence. It acknowledges, "there is no credible, peer-reviewed quantitative scientific evidence to indicate that any organization is more effective than any other," so it's not even claiming that ACE is ignoring strong evidence, just that the evidence in the field is generally weak. I've mentioned this to you before, but I really think you should focus on substance instead of just the fact that some "academics" have made some claims. Also, there have been multiple WP:RS cited for "wild animal suffering." Sure, you can draw connections between most of the people who have written about it. You can do that with many things that are still notable. It's a small world. Tempo mage (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Tempo mage (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))
 * Please, let's not drag in random off-wiki disputes here. NeatGrey (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not off-wiki, and it does have some bearing on whether Wild animal suffering is notable and worth keeping. But I agree it's tangential and probably not worth discussing further. Tempo mage (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Tempo mage (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))
 * Glancing through the sources, I've gone and removed a bunch which looked like random blogs, but there's still a total of 43 sources listed and the majority look reliable. That's not conclusive proof the topic is notable, but I think the burden of proof is now on people favoring deletion, to explain what's wrong with all the existing sources. The arguments to that effect so far have been disagreements with the article's content, but problems with an article usually aren't a justification for deleting the article. See the policies at WP:IMPERFECT, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, WP:NOTPAPER, and the "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" WP:IDLI, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:EASYTARGET, WP:UNKNOWNHERE, WP:ADHOM. NeatGrey (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify why you deleted the links from Foundational Research Institute and Animal Ethics? While these aren't WP:RS, I don't see why they aren't good citations (and why the claims they back up shouldn't be included). I feel like that took away a fair bit of the substantive content from the article, given that these nonprofits are some of the leading research groups in the field. It seems standard Wikipedia practice to include cites from websites like these, but I am pretty new to this. Tempo mage (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Tempo mage (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))
 * Sure. It's a core policy that everything in Wikipedia has to be verifiable in reliable sources. If these organizations are serious research groups, they'll have published their arguments in journals, academic conferences, books by reputable publishers, or other places that are considered reliable. The content can then be re-introduced, with cites to these sources, and in much more detail than the short bits I deleted. If these same claims are supported by other reliable sources, again, they can be re-introduced in much more detail with cites to those sources. In that case, leaving the old content in wouldn't help much, since the other sources would be much better anyway and since the bits I deleted were so short. On the other hand, if there are no reliable sources which support these claims/arguments, they shouldn't be in Wikipedia, because they don't meet the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy. NeatGrey (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm surprised I've seen so many non-RS cited on Wikipedia, given that this is a policy, but WP:VERIFIABILITY does seem to confirm that, at least, if the claims are challenged. Maybe challenging is just pretty infrequent? Anyway, thanks! Tempo mage (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))
 * You left a bunch of WP:FRINGE sources that are connected to ACE in some way, some of them self-published, as well as a lot that don't seem to directly address the topic as such. Most of the article is still OR, as it was written by someone who interpreted all academic discussion of human intervention in nature as being about this idea of quantifying the negative utility experienced by animals and using it as a reason to support the destruction of habitats, in order to save animals from existence. Can you clarify which sources specifically establish the notability of "wild animal suffering" as an academic topic? --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. Haven't checked if these are in the article itself, but from a quick Google, there appear to be sources in peer-reviewed academic journals here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and a book by Oxford University Press here. NeatGrey (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of those are not reliably published. The book, Zoopolis by Susan Donaldson is, and so is the article by Sozmen (your 1st link). The article by Kirkwood and Sainsbury is about treatment and rehabilitation of wildlife. I'm not sure whether or not the commentary on Ng's paper qualifies - those are published without review by HSUS. There's really no coherent topic here though - it would be synthesis to try to work these together. Perhaps "wild animal welfare" could be a topic. However, such an article wouldn't include the fringe ideas on which the present article was based, and WP:TNT applies here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sammy1339: Yes, I’ve worked with Animal Charity Evaluators. I’ll put aside your characterization of ACE, since we obviously have differing opinions on whether the research ACE does is worthwhile. Instead, I will point out that the issue is irrelevant, as the topic of “Wild Animal Suffering” has been written about in several scholarly sources that have nothing whatsoever to do with the cluster of people around ACE. There can be no doubt about this because ‘’the published research is in disagreement over this issue’’. A google scholar search for “wild animal suffering” brings up 93 results; removing mentions of ACE and Tomasik brings it down to 66. Even without “that cluster of people”, the topic of wild animal suffering is clearly one that is going on in academic circles. &mdash; Eric Herboso 00:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Lots of self-published stuff and junk journals, also lots of passing mentions. GHITS doesn't cut it, especially for a fringe topic. Mind you, nobody's arguing that wild animal suffering doesn't exist, but we don't have an article on "wild animal obesity" either. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't find the accusations of pseudoscience or fringe convincing (what's the evidence? that you disagree with them?), or the accusations of non-notability (see WP:RS listed above or cited in the article, which nobody has contested), even though I do think the article is in a poor state in terms of organization and emphasis. Tempo mage (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Tempo mage (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))
 * Keep When a friend of the music composer John Cage once asked him, "But don't you think there's too much suffering in the world?" Cage replied, "No, I think there's just the right amount." Maybe most people would agree with Cage; but it's hard to argue that one of the greatest sources of suffering in the world isn't worth a Wikipedia entry. --Davidcpearce (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This article falls under WP:FRINGE, but that's not an argument for deletion. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles on quack cancer cures, after all. Authors of sources aren't required to be notable themselves, and in fact most journalists aren't notable. NeatGrey (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not original research; that would imply that the persons coming up with the concept wrote the wikipedia article. But the very first listed proponent of this idea is JS Mill, who's been dead for quite a while now. This article describes a philosophical issue that's alive in the literature today. Sure, it's not mainstream, but neither are articles like the scale relativity and transactional interpretation interpretations of quantum mechanics. I vote keep, though I strongly recommend the sections be rearranged to make it easier to see at a glance that there are two sides to this issue. &mdash; Eric Herboso 20:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * John Stuart Mill wasn't a "proponent of this idea". He briefly mentioned that there's suffering in nature. It doesn't meet the requirement for "significant coverage". Mentioning that a certain species of fish is blue and has stripes doesn't warrant a Wikipedia list "species of fish that are blue and have stripes". The existence of something does not alone make it a worthy topic for an entry. Pawg14 (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Much of Mill's essay is about exactly this idea, and even if it weren't, I think the blurb in the article is significant coverage, especially given the historic importance of the essay. Tempo mage (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))
 * Suggestion: keep the article but make it much shorter and more focused. Rename to something like "Humanitarian intervention in nature". Only include people of direct relevance, no Dawkins or Mill. Include opposing viewpoints. Pawg14 (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You mean write a different article? That's why I cited WP:TNT. I would not object to a move if someone made such a dramatic revision. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems like a less bad idea than complete deletion to me, but seems worse than keeping the article because (i) I think Dawkins/Mill are relevant - they explicitly endorse the idea that there is a large amount of suffering in nature and this suffering is morally relevant (which is exactly the idea of Wild Animal Suffering), (ii) I think the current article does include opposing viewpoints (see the "Potential conflict between..." section), although I think everyone agrees the organization of the article should be improved, (iii) "humanitarian" refers to human welfare, and I think a title that evaded that, like "Intervention to reduce wild animal suffering," would just be narrowing the issue too much, since much of the information is just about the presence of that suffering and its moral qualities as opposed to intervention itself. Tempo mage (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))

"Few or no other edits"(?) Before this sudden rash of deletion proposals from a new editor who has now reverted to a previous username, my immediately preceding edits were on Giulio Regeni, ‎Pál Prónay, Jonas Savimbi, Otto Ohlendorf, Switzerland during the World Wars, Quantum superposition, the Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown... (etc)--Davidcpearce (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Calling Mill and Dawkins "opponents of wild animal suffering" and saying that they view the suffering as "morally relevant" is a stretch. At most I'd say that each expressed dismay at one point about the amount of suffering in nature. But the quotes were cherrypicked out of much longer pieces, and don't meet the criteria for "significant coverage". 03:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Pawg14 (talk) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hi everyone. I made some extensive edits to the article, trying to address some of the concerns raised in this thread. In particular, I revised the initial paragraphs and rewrote the first section. This section could be expanded at some later date to incorporate some of the material I left out. If folks here think further changes should be made, please feel free to leave your suggestions below. Thank you, everyone, for your feedback! Pablo Stafforini (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks much better. However, it still needs to be better organized. Some of these sections should be condensed. More importantly, the article is still incredibly biased.  I still feel that the article should be moved to "intervention in  nature" or something, because that's what it's really about. And it needs opposing viewpoints!Pawg14 (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * In what other ways is the article biased, besides a lack of opposing viewpoints? As for moving the article to "intervention in nature": this would seem to miss the main point, i.e. acknowledging the existence of wild animal suffering, both as a natural phenomenon and philosophical topic of discussion. Practical applications (possible interventions, moral justifications, etc.) are tangential in this view. I wouldn't object to moving the article under a new title like "Suffering in nature", though. Adrianrorheim (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As mentioned before, the existence of a phenomenon does not in itself warrant a Wikipedia article. The (limited) philosophical discussion of it has centered around interventions. If you are interested in suffering as it relates to the problem of evil, then I'd direct you to, well, the Wikipedia article "problem of evil". Pawg14 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I agree that a phenomenon's existence in itself is insufficient grounds for an article, but the extent of suffering in nature has been a matter of scholarly discussion for at least 150 years. In any case, I've reorganized the arguments and added a section on the extent of the phenomenon itself. Hopefully this will resolve much of the disagreement over content. Adrianrorheim (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The problem of evil belongs to the philosophy of religion. By contrast, distinctly secular writers such as Richard Dawkins acknowledge the seriousness of free-living animal suffering. ["The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, others are  running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping  parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so." Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (1995)] Is such an immense source of suffering really too unimportant to merit an entry in Wikipedia? A defensible case can be made that human interventions in the rest of the living world tend to do more harm than good – and will always continue to do so. Either way, I'm not sure balance for the entry requires equal prominence to the view that there is negligible suffering in Nature - merely to affirm that most people favour the status quo.--Davidcpearce (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Davidcpearce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Dave, you're making a moral argument, not citing reliable sources.  You've consistently used Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy, which is not what Wikipedia is. The Dawkins quote was merely to demonstrate a feature of natural selection, which is covered in God's utility function, though that article is admittedly at least as bad as this one. I actually agree that the suffering in nature is morally important, but I'm able to set aside my personal beliefs and be an objective editor. Pawg14 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The existence of immense suffering in the living world is not a moral argument. Its coverage doesn't require balance except insofar as there are credible sources that dispute it. What does require scrupulous balance, as you say, is any discussion of advocacy - whether of "rewilding", compassionate biology (cf. Peter Singer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrhBJlxKqyA) or the conservation of an approximation of the status quo.--Davidcpearce (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Davidcpearce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "Few or no other edits"(?) Before this sudden rash of deletion proposals from a new editor who has now reverted to a previous username, my immediately preceding edits were on Giulio Regeni, ‎Pál Prónay, Jonas Savimbi, Otto Ohlendorf, Switzerland during the World Wars, Quantum superposition, the Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown... (etc)--Davidcpearce (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article looks much better now. I added another line in the introduction to make it more balanced. Additional moderate cleanup is needed.Pawg14 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Pawg14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Glad we were able to reach an agreement. The clause you added looks good, and I agree that the article still needs moderate cleanup. I suggest removing it as from deletion and instead place a cleanup banner at the top. Adrianrorheim (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep and improve. Make it a redirect to Cruelty to animals. Too poor content right now. These subjects are not exactly the same, and I am sure some literature can be found, but this page in current state is terrible. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Definition of Cruelty to animals: "[...]the intentional infliction by humans of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." I.e. it has nothing to do with the intentional and unintentional suffering inflicted on non-human animals by other non-human animals, natural disasters, hunger, disease etc. in wild ecosystems, which is what this article is about. In what ways would it make more sense to redirect to a completely different, only somewhat related article, than to keep and improve on this one? Adrianrorheim (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC) — Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep and improve. I will move this article from deletion to cleanup unless anyone disagrees. Adrianrorheim (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC) — Adrianrorheim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Few or no other edits? This account is nearly 10 years old, and this is literally the first time I have made any edits to this topic. Adrianrorheim (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with this proposal, though I'd still prefer the article be moved to a different, more focused page. Lrieber (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC) (aka Pawg14)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination's claims are clearly false. For example, the source Nature Red in Tooth and Claw was written by a professor and published by a university press.  The topic is quite notable and our editing policy applies. Andrew D. (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That would seem to fall under problem of evil. My issue with this article is that it's unclear what it's supposed to be about.Lrieber (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC) (aka Pawg14)
 * The problem of evil is only one instance of this topic. Much in the same way that animal cruelty deserves its own article instead of being a mere subcategory under cruelty, wild animal suffering is sufficiently distinct from problem of evil to warrant its own article. That being said, much work remains to be done with this article in its current state; but again, I struggle to see how this is more than a cleanup issue at this point. Adrianrorheim (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.