Talk:Animal welfare and rights in China

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): A5ly. Peer reviewers: A5ly.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Title

As written, this article seems to be mostly about WRONGS to nonhuman persons rather than about animal RIGHTS. MaynardClark (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality - WP:NPOV

I strongly sympathize with the causes to forward animal welfare in China and would love to see the situation improve. However, this article seems to be more of an animal rights campaign article rather than a neutral in-depth analysis of the state of animal protection in China. Most of the article is a catalog of animal cruelty issues and those perceived to be animal cruelty issues in China, in addition to several animal cruelty cases, rather than the overall picture of animal welfare and rights in the country. Furthermore, the title "Animal is not for testing" is clearly non-neutral - it is stating an opinion about animal testing as a fact. Remember, Wikipedia describes disputes, but does not engage in disputes. Much of the article also hinge solely on the work of animal activists such as Dr. Peter Li and Jill Robinson, both of whom are animal activists. There are non-neutral sources that are cited, the most blatant example being Sarah Hardy's opinion piece which is clearly non-neutral, full of unsourced claims and even xenophobic. More strangely, there is an unsourced statement involving kopi luwak is an animal issue in China - that is found in South East Asia, not China. There is a strong pro-animal rights rhetoric and loaded language in the article's phrasing, especially evidenced in the quote boxes. I believe this article needs to be rewritten in a more neutral point of view, with less loaded language and with more scholarly sources. See WP:NPOV (including WP:Due weight) and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Sega31098 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is biased. But it is not biased to animal rights. It is racist. Google 'racism in animal activism' for more information. 220.245.42.117 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done significant revisions on this article to normalize it with the other country animal welfare/rights articles, including some revisions to improve neutrality. Still, further revisions are warranted; especially given the current sources and significant paucity of sources from China.184.164.13.189 (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Animal welfare and rights in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606052412/http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/114508.htm to http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/114508.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107153807/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-16/chinese-celebrities-oppose-ipo-for-operator-of-bear-bile-farm.html to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-16/chinese-celebrities-oppose-ipo-for-operator-of-bear-bile-farm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

{{已翻译}} WANGYIFAN2024 (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)