2066:. I see the original author has added some new sections taken from other Knowledge articles, under the "Different Types of Animal Protection" section. However, I don't think that changes the fact that the basis of the article is little more than one specific piece of original research that concluded little more than that the common generic phrase "Animal protection" appears to be understood slightly differently by different people in different places - there are few generic phrases that would be understood exactly the same way by everyone, especially when there is no single formal definition. I also think that none of the recent additions is enough to justify the apparent claim that the phrase "Animal protection" is a widely-accepted umbrella term for the specific other phrases discussed in the article, nor that the other phrases represent "Different Types of Animal Protection" - if anything, they're all just generic phrases with different degrees of overlap, with none of them representing a "parent" concept to which the others belong.
1969:'Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Knowledge. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Knowledge. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Knowledge permanently.'
745:
to the conclusions of Dr Meng, which is all your article is currently about. Links need to be correct in context, and "See also" sections should be used only for links to other major articles of direct importance to the subject - not for any article that just happens to use the same words. An important thing here is that if this article does not survive the deletion discussion, your links will create a lot of work for whoever has to remove them all - if you were left to link things however you see fit, there'd be hundreds by the end of the week.
2024:. If one consider its not balanced then reliable source need to be provided for the opposite opinions. Because of the comments of some editors here (I am always willing to listen different opinions), I have added the opposite opinions of some editors. but honestly I can not find reliable source to support those opinions at this moment. Restrictively speaking those opinions (such as animal protection equals to animal welfare) should be removed. Please find reliable source and prove current article is not neutral. --
1132:
reliable source, university publication, dissertations, conference publication and journals. The article cited all type of references. There are many other people consider animal protection is a collection of different attitudes, please read reference carefully, in particular those added later. Please focus on the latest version of the article as I am improving it. The article may not be perfect but it does not mean it should be destroyed. Thanks
1170:. I'm not convinced that there is any significant difference in terminology within English-speaking countries and this is the English language Wiki. All the references asserting that there is a difference appears to circle back to one researcher. If the point needs to be made that some believe "animal welfare" and "animal protection" are entirely different concepts, then it can be made with a cited reference in
197:. There's no way to objectively validate its list of "nations and their components of animal protection (listed in descending order of relevance, the left most component is the most relevent)" - it just seems to be a single author's opinions from a piece of original research. Actually, to delete the current new version of the article, it should presumably be reverted to the 2008 redirect version.
1958:'Knowledge places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Knowledge's policy against harassment prohibits this. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themself discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing.' please see
694:
have an animal in it, or is about a country that happens to have animal laws, etc). And
Wikilinking terms should only be done when they specifically refer to the target of the link. The multiple usages of the phrase "animal protection" that you have linked so far are most definitely not references to your report on the conclusions of Dr Meng.
461:
it to animal welfare or animal rights are also not universally accepted. As references shows, there are people disagree with it. Therefore the proposed redirection should also not be a solution for
Knowledge. The information provided in the argument shows, people should edit and improve the article instead of delete it or redirect it.
989:
of what is morally right and what is not. Animal protection is about the act of protecting or state of being protected (pls see
Cambridge dictionary online). There are difference of both. Also if its going to only have a disambiguation page, where the information about the differences of the definition in different nations should go?--
1842:
seems to be that it doesn't. Instead of repeating the same things all the time, how about you finding some more stuff that will make it fit. As I said, it's really up to you. Sometimes you might find a regular who will help. I do, quite often, when I think there is a case for survival and the creator is willing to listen.
988:
Animal has a definition in dictionary, protection has a definition in dictionary, animal protection together definitely have a general agreed meaning at certain level. As I put previously, it is 'positive attitudes towards animals' the protection of animals. Animal ethics focus on ethics, the study
744:
Of course you can edit the article - that's a core part of the AfD process. But that doesn't mean you can spam links to it all over the place (I've removed dozens so far, from all sorts of inappropriate places). And the uses of the term "animal protection" that you recently linked were NOT referring
1650:
No, the information in the section you removede is not from a self published source, it was original from the dissertation 'origins of attitudes towards animals', published by university of
Queensland, page numbers were provided and everything in the section can be verified. University dissertation
1131:
I did not find anything in the reliable source page you provided suggests supporting certain opinion would undermine the source reliability, please point out specific line and paragraph that is relevant. Many wrote articles for wiki before, supporting some authors opinions. There were many types of
800:
1)you initiated the debate, if it is deleted then you have significant responsibility. 2) if animal protection is deleted, it will be one of the biggest joke in wikipedia. 3) There are review process after deletion, deleted article can be restored. Its a place to serve for the humanity, to share up
784:
If you can turn this into an article of encylopedic quality, then the CITES article might be a good one to link from - but as it currently stands, this is just not a good-enough article to be used as a major "See also" article - and you really should hold off adding links until we know whether this
693:
spamming links to your new article all over the place while this discussion is ongoing. if the article survives, in whatever form, then you can link it elsewhere as appropriate - but you should only add "See also" links that are directly relevant to the topic (and not to any article that happens to
460:
Very good information provided 1) 'There are 822,000 Google hits on the phrase "animal protection"', yes, therefore its an important term and should has a page on
Knowledge, therefore should not be deleted. 2)'no apparent universal acceptance of any particular definition', agree. Therefore redirect
2003:
Nobody has published any of your personal information, and the "requested a change in username" clause is not applicable, as you did not request a change in username - you had a username blocked for being unsuitable. Also note that "change of username" policy can not be used as a reason for hiding
1914:
please read and comment reference 5,6,7. yes you are right, animal protection is a umbrella term, but it does not only used by animal rights and animal welfare people, other people also used it such as conservation people and people concern about genetic modification of animals. btw, the author of
1367:
experiencing in editing does not equal to expert in the area of the particular article. professional editors would know to respect the academic expertee of the author and aware they are not familiar with technique details on the particular issue. All people voted against keeping the article so far
1349:
It's a difficult area to avoid PoV in, but as this seems to be based on one person's definition it must be promotional of that one viewpoint. This may or may not be the desire of the article's creator, but as it stands it would (to my mind) require a complete rewrite to avoid this problem. I would
2054:
So I consider keep the article still be the best choice for wikipedia under this situation (why the afd statistic put me into redirect group?). 'Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at
Knowledge. Be bold.' This is the most related wikipedia policy on this
2050:
When you consider a redirect is needed, please dont only say 'redirect', please also say which page as target of the redirect and why choose this(using reliable source). you need to convince others the page should not be redirect to the page they choose. otherwise the debate don't do anything, we
1951:
Global perspective is part of quality standard of wikipedia. 'Global view Except in content with a local focus or where specific localized grammar or spelling is appropriate, or when an established precedent has been established and no clear reason has been accepted by a consensus to overturn it,
1860:
I am always listening, I have already add editors comments in the article, I have been improve the article up to the time of your post, I didn't miss 3 references when I read other peoples article . All these can be verified in the editing history. Now pls provide wikipedia official document show
1682:
Could you proved citations from other academics that would show this particular dissertation, and its definition of "Animal protection", is notable in the field, and more than just the views of that one author? Do you have a conflict of interest with the author (i.e., are you the author or have a
1372:
Also I just did Google translation search, 'animal protection' 'animal rights' together return much more results than 'animal protection' 'animal welfare'. Which perhaps suggests if look at the whole world, animal protection is more associated with animal rights than animal welfare. Please verify
715:
this is wikipedia policy, editing is encouraged, also those editing of adding internal links were constructive and was aiming to helping people when reading. Only page have the term of animal protection or similar meaning was linked, those were not spam. There are plenty of wikipedia page are lot
442:
There are 822,000 Google hits on the phrase "animal protection", and no apparent universal acceptance of any particular definition. I really don't see how an article here promoting one particular definition can be seen as anything but POV-pushing. There may be a notable movement in favour of some
1841:
It it actually up to the creator of the article to provide sources for the article that show it is up to
Knowledge's standards. Believe me, we do know what we're talking about. We do this often. We're happy for the article to survive - so long as it meets the requirements. Opinion at the moment
1521:
You missed another one
Bostock, Stephen S.T.C. (2007). Looking at 'protectionism'. Society & Animals, 15(2), 203, so 3 other sources at least, how many Knowledge article has less than 3 reliable, independent sources like this? Are they all going to be removed or merged? Otherwise its unfair
1453:
which appears to be in breach of
Knowledge's rules on copyright material. This is rather more than just a brief quote. So far as I can see, there is only one of the accessible references that doesn't mention J., Jia or Jenia Meng. The one is the World Animal Net site, which does refer to 'animal
1368:
fail to provide 'reliable secondary sources' to support the decision: which reliable source suggest animal protection is only the same thing of animal welfare? or something else? All they said is their own personal opinion. This is totally against
Knowledge principle. NO RELIABLE SOURCE PROVIDED.
1193:
reference 4 and 6 were published before the other references, they are not related!you removed the top notice, but did you read carefully? Which means we need the notice. Even in English world, there is disagreement of which term it should redirect to, animal welfare or animal rights. before my
894:) 19:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC) To those who say the article does not represent the general usage of the term "animal protection". Do you know anything about public opinion survey? The sources were based on public opinion survey. Or do you mean your personal opinion represents general usage? LOL
679:
Maybe there is a good case for an article called "Animal protection". But the article you have now isn't even close to being suitable - all it is is a publication of some of the conclusions of one specific study, by Dr Jenia Meng - it is not a treatment of the general usage of the term "animal
760:
Why those nations were linked. If one have read the article carefully, one can find the article has giving defitions of animal protection in 12 nations. Thats why those articles of the 12 nations were linked. It has the definition of animal protection in the nation. Those were not spam!!
527:
Please read the study methods, it was based on statistic analysis of opinions of over 4000 people in euroasia. If this is 'personal' opinion, then can someone provide more reliable source (not 'personal') to support the redirection (animal protection equals to animal rights)?
953:
The article has been redirected to animal welfare and animal rights in the past. So which article to redirect to? Also people in this page have apparently disagreement with redirection, one say direct to animal welfare, one say direct to animal rights. This is getitng really
2104:
After a great deal of (mostly one-sided) discussion, I still haven't seen anything to convince me that this article should not be deleted. The proper target for a redirect seems to be the only issue left. I would still prefer to see it redirected to another article, such as
2004:
the fact that a single editor has taken part in one discussion using three different IDs. Nobody is suggesting you did anything improper in that, but it is an important fact that is pertinent to the closing admin counting up how many people have commented on whatever side.
2042:
this debate as a AFD debate is already conclusive. majority does not agree delete. please note redirect mean 'keep' but change content, there is no such a thing delete and redirect in wikipedia's definition. What should apply to this article is a RFD, please see
1871:
3)also please specify which wikipedia quality standard the current article does not meet. (other than those personal opinons of editors I added)? please quote original wikipedia policy when you do this. I am very happy to make any change according to wikipedia's
1221:
I just added one more independent reference, number 7, this one is from a US organization HSUS, the previous one, reference 6 was from a UK based international organization. They both use animal protection for more than just animal welfare or animal rights.
1593:) and therefore not acceptable to be used on Knowledge. Do please read all of the relevant Knowledge policies that apply to this article. I think you would find it helpful for understanding why this article will probably be redirected. They would include:
1867:
2)'its the creators solo responsibility not the whole wikipedia community's responsiblity to improve the article to required standard'. what I read in wikipedia policy was disagreement in content can usually be amended by editing without resort to
1016:
1318:
I also ask attentions for Boing! said Zebede's attempt of defaming me in the debate by misleading other voters that my constructive editing are spamming. It would have misleaded the opinions of other voters. Detail can be found in my talk page.
1419:
1. if this article/title does get redirected, there can be a section at the target page which explains the extent to which "Animal protection" differentiates from "Animal welfare" (to use one potential target page as an example), using
1779:. My own opinion on redirection of this article hasn't changed. Because this discussion has at least another 5-6 days to go before there is a decision, I'll let other editors chime in, and I'll check back in a few days. Best of luck.
423:
The expression seems to be notable enough from the sources. The article should be rewritten so that it is explained. The list of countries should go. You would not have a list of people ranked by intelligence in the article on
443:
form of definition, but unless there is widely accepted definition (in the wider word, not just amongst "animal protection" people), then I don't think this particular POV should be allowed to usurp a common term here.
2019:
Some consider the information in the current article is not balanced, so this applys 'Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources,' see
1382:
1376:
1034:] however this method is not scientific because people in many parts of the world use other languages for their literature for example they would use proteccion de los animales which above methods can not covered. --
163:
564:, but it really is just an alternative wording for animal welfare, another, less standard, way of saying the same thing. The arguments to keep on the basis of numbers of Google hits fail to reflect that reality. --
1454:
protection' but not Meng as far as I went into it. Otherwise, the article seems overwhelmingly J. Meng based - and one particular book into the bargain. I'm not suggesting spam, but I don't feel that
1350:
ask the creator of the article to calm down a bit and accept that the experienced editors here do know at least something about how Knowledge works and what the rules, guidelines and procedures are.
628:. Most notably, in many nations, wildlife protection is a major part of animal protection. In Spain keeping animal in the zoo is against the idea of animal protection (protección de los animales).
1945:
This article animal protection was a redirect page before editing, so this applys 'Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Knowledge. Be bold.' please see
603:
Please provide reliable source to support that animal protection 'is just an alternative wording for animal welfare'. It has to be reliable source and not personal opinions and primary research.
271:
of the topic, but it is not "original research" to do so in Knowledge parlance. And primary research articles are often reliable sources. The real reason to not have this article is that it is a
1775:
A deletion or redirection discussion is about the best application of Knowledge policy to a particular article. There is no such thing as a 'reliable source for redirection'. Please see
1383:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&tbo=1&rlz=1C1DVCJ_enAU378AU378&tbs=clir:1&q='animal+protection'+'animal+welfare'&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
1377:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&tbo=1&rlz=1C1DVCJ_enAU378AU378&tbs=clir:1&q='animal+protection'+'animal+rights'&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
1504:
Begging pardon - missed out the Humane Society which also mentions 'animal protection' but seemingly not Meng. This still leaves a great amount of emphasis on the one publication.
1824:
the decision of redirect has to be based on object reliable sources other than personal opinions. This is for the interest of wikipedia being a neutral source of information.--
2051:
still dont know where the page is going to. Currently, there is roughly equal amount vote to animal welfare, animal rights and animal ethics. no really much consensus so far.
826:
and as attempt to describe a topic with no consistent definition, but whose alternative definitions are already covered in other articles. (As a second choice, redirect to
157:
871:
All intellectual creations are protected by copyright unless it is specifically waived - it is not necessary to actually state that a work is copyright for it to be so.
118:
626:
Animal Protection can mean animal welfare, animal rights, wildlife conservation, respect animals or other things in different context and different parts of the world
211:
It should not be deleted. The issue addressed in the article is reported by two peer reviewed work with multiple authors. Both original work can be accessed online.
1897:
disambiguation page. "Animal protection" is an umbrella term used by animal rights and animal welfare advocates. It has no additional meaning that I'm aware of.
483:
If the information about the nations should go, then where to put them? In a separate article? It might be too short, wikipedia have articles about people's IQ
658:
animal protection-7,510,000; animal welfare-7,390,000;animal rights-'81,600,000'. If animal protection should be deleted, why animal welfare should keep?
398:
animal protection does not equal to animal welfare or animal rights, please see references 1 to 4 of the article. Therefore it should not be redirected.
1560:
In terms of copy right violation, there is text on the page say 'Information on this webpage is in the public domain' and no copy rights were declared.--
975:-- Since the term "animal protection" apparently has no agreed-upon definition, I think that this disambiguation page would be an appropriate target. --
843:
That webpage you just cited does not has copy right declaration, it can be used. no single exsiting articles address the diversity of this definitions.
249:. You can't just state the conclusions of original research as if they were fact, and you can't use original research to redefine a commonly-used term.
1991:
1812:
1760:
1729:
1667:
1404:
1335:
1284:
are all the same editor (used serially, with one blocked, so I'm not suggesting SP - just want to make sure they're not seen as three !votes) --
123:
716:
shorter and this one. Why this is not suitable? If you know how to make it suitable, improve it, be constructive! Don't stop others good work.
1928:
91:
86:
1365:
its not one person's position, I have to say this again, many times, see references, why people dont read and assume they know about things?
1238:
1210:
1149:
1118:
1067:
910:
859:
732:
95:
711:'You may edit the article during the discussion. You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period.'
1864:
1)'articles does not meet quality standard need to be deleted'. why I see so many article with a notice of improve without being deleted?
1050:
reference four is from an independent author's study published before other sources, which gives similar definition for animal protection
1087:. The books all appear to be self-published, and I could find no sources in third-party peer-reviewed academic journals by this author.
369:
1273:
990:
665:
639:
610:
535:
493:
468:
405:
339:
218:
78:
328:'Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used.'
549:
To be fair, source can support the redirection should also be provided to show its not a 'personal opnion' and 'primary research'.
178:
940:
17:
1541:
That would then make it a reasonable short subsection at the target article, explaining the minor distinction between usages.
332:
and reference 1, 2, 3 of the article are secondary source of reference 4, reference 5 are secondary source of reference 1,3.
145:
1428:
366:
264:
769:) 19:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC) To CITES, its a international animal protection agreement, why this article can not be linked?--
267:. It is certainly bad practice to base articles entirely on primary research studies, and doing so does nothing to show the
1861:
statement above is not your personal opinion. Please provide document support following opinions implied by your above post
2071:
2029:
2009:
1987:
1920:
1877:
1829:
1808:
1756:
1725:
1663:
1565:
1527:
1400:
1331:
1306:
1289:
1281:
1258:
876:
790:
750:
699:
517:
448:
386:
318:
254:
202:
1606:
296:
1301:
The article has been changed a lot, the debate should be relisted because many vote were based on earlier versions.--
1084:
139:
1952:
content should be presented from a global view without bias towards any particular culture or group.' please see
2141:
1462:
are being followed here. Has no-one else made use of the term 'animal protection'? If they have, where are they?
36:
2140:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
2126:
2092:
2075:
2067:
2033:
2025:
2013:
2005:
1995:
1983:
1924:
1916:
1905:
1881:
1873:
1851:
1833:
1825:
1816:
1804:
1788:
1764:
1752:
1733:
1721:
1696:
1671:
1659:
1626:
1569:
1561:
1550:
1531:
1523:
1513:
1491:
1471:
1450:
1441:
1408:
1396:
1359:
1339:
1327:
1310:
1302:
1293:
1285:
1277:
1262:
1254:
1242:
1234:
1214:
1206:
1187:
1153:
1145:
1122:
1114:
1096:
1071:
1063:
1043:
1039:
1026:
998:
982:
979:
963:
959:
947:
914:
906:
891:
880:
872:
863:
855:
837:
834:
824:
814:
810:
794:
786:
778:
774:
766:
754:
746:
736:
728:
703:
695:
673:
647:
618:
595:
573:
543:
521:
513:
501:
476:
452:
444:
437:
413:
390:
382:
372:
347:
322:
314:
301:
258:
250:
226:
206:
198:
195:
60:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1975:'Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. '
194:
Contested PROD: This seems to be a single-purpose advocacy/opinion article, and is pretty much just a copy of
135:
288:
1929:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/books/rain-without-thunder-the-ideology-of-the-animal-rights-movement/
994:
669:
643:
614:
539:
497:
472:
409:
343:
222:
82:
1230:
1202:
1141:
1110:
1059:
1035:
955:
902:
887:
851:
806:
770:
762:
724:
185:
2122:
1784:
1692:
1622:
1590:
1546:
1487:
1437:
1092:
1022:
2088:
1979:
1800:
1748:
1717:
1655:
1392:
1323:
1226:
1198:
1137:
1106:
1055:
898:
847:
720:
661:
635:
606:
591:
569:
531:
489:
464:
401:
335:
214:
1713:
And now can you please provide your reliable reference for any decision of redirection? thank you
976:
933:
831:
171:
1183:
1015:
author's definition of the term, but the term is widely used synonymously with "animal welfare".
1388:
Redirect this page to any of the page would be biased, overall information in this page show.
1032:
I also searched animal rights and animal protection in google book, it returns many results too
508:
I think the information about the nations shouldn't be anywhere, because it is primary-sourced
151:
2113:, etc., but any of the targets mentioned by the redirect !voters would suffice, including the
1847:
1602:
1509:
1467:
1355:
74:
66:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2118:
2083:
No attribution in the edit summary, is the 'main article' template enough to avoid copyvio?
2056:
1946:
1780:
1688:
1618:
1594:
1542:
1483:
1433:
1088:
1018:
433:
2084:
1898:
1175:
587:
565:
272:
2106:
1455:
1171:
1166:
1008:
926:
557:
362:
280:
246:
53:
2114:
2110:
1915:
reference 5 is the chief editor of encyclopedia of animal welfare and animal rights--
1894:
1776:
1706:
1684:
1614:
1610:
1459:
1179:
1162:
971:
827:
583:
561:
378:
358:
276:
238:
49:
1843:
1598:
1505:
1463:
1422:
1351:
801:
to dated knowledge, not a place for some kids to exercise their control desire and
509:
484:
425:
242:
234:
712:
112:
1102:
just added one more reference, animal protection law includes conservation law
429:
268:
1953:
2044:
57:
1927:
He also wrote review for Rain Without Thunder of Gary L Francione, see here
1451:
http://jmeng.goodeasy.info/DefinitionAnimalProtectionVegetarianism/index.php
1083:
The main author used to support this article, Dr. Jenia Meng, does not meet
802:
1194:
editing the article has been redirected to animal rights for a long time
1482:
Note: I've removed the list of countries as a clear copyright violation.
630:
In fact animal protection is a collection of all these positive attitudes
1959:
245:) to determine notability and to enable an article to be written from a
1941:
For the interest of wikipedia, please review related wikipedia policy.
886:'positive attitudes towards animals' is the consistent definition.--
632:. Sources for the statement in this paragraph was in the article.
329:
2021:
1705:
I have not a conflict of interest that is defined by wikipedia in
1449:
Another issue is the copy-and-paste of the table of nations from
233:
Peer-reviewed work is still a primary source and thus represents
2134:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1972:
1964:
1426:, of course. 2. The person(s) editing the article should read
2057:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion'
1947:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion'
1385:
1,580,000 hits for 'animal protection' 'animal welfare'
1379:
2,250,000 hits for 'animal protection' 'animal rights'
1251:
The article was rewritten and new references were added
560:. Animal protection, per the sources, is distinct from
108:
104:
100:
170:
2022:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight
241:. Knowledge requires reliable secondary sources (see
485:
http://en.wikipedia.org/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
713:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion
1683:"close personal involvement with the subject" per
1651:are considered as reliable source of wikipedia.
1965:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikihounding#Wikihounding
1954:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
1893:the article as OR, and redirect the title to the
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2144:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2045:http://en.wikipedia.org/Redirects_for_discussion
1742:I am waiting for reliable source for redirection
184:
8:
1960:http://en.wikipedia.org/Conflict_of_interest
656:number of pages of different terms in google
1709:. for the citation please see reference 5.
1744:I am not waiting for personal opinions.
330:http://en.wikipedia.org/Secondary_sources
1589:It's still a self-published source (see
1011:. This article is based essentially on
287:to one or the other of those articles.
1973:http://en.wikipedia.org/Page_blanking
48:, with no objection to a redirect to
7:
586:, a DAB page, would also be fine. --
1796:Thanks for your time and input :)
1432:, just in case it applies to them.
823:as possible copyright violation of
1174:provided that it does not violate
24:
1931:I look forward to your response.
1939:Some wikipedia policies related
377:Redirect as at Sep 2008 was to
263:You're twisting the meaning of
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
265:Knowledge:No original research
1:
785:article is going to survive.
1648:Its based on reliable source
2161:
2034:08:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
1925:07:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
1906:06:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
1882:08:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
1852:18:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1834:18:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1817:18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1789:18:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1765:14:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1734:17:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1697:16:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1672:15:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1627:14:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1570:14:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1551:14:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1532:14:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1514:14:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1492:14:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1472:14:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1442:14:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1409:14:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1360:13:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1340:11:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1311:11:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1294:10:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1263:10:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1243:01:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1215:00:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1188:00:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1154:00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1123:00:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1097:00:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1072:23:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
1044:23:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
1027:23:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
999:23:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
983:22:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
964:21:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
948:20:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
915:20:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
881:20:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
864:19:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
838:19:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
815:20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
795:20:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
779:19:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
755:19:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
737:19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
704:19:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
674:18:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
648:18:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
619:17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
596:18:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
574:17:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
544:14:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
522:14:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
502:14:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
477:14:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
453:14:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
438:13:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
414:12:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
391:12:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
373:12:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
348:13:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
323:16:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
302:13:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
259:12:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
227:12:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
207:12:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
2137:Please do not modify it.
2127:15:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
2093:20:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
2076:12:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
2014:11:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
1996:11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
61:05:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1429:WP:Conflict of Interest
357:as POV fork, either to
313:for original research--
925:as it was previously.
689:Also, will you please
512:and personal opinion.
2117:disambiguation page.
1607:WP:Your first article
247:neutral point of view
2055:issue. ( please see
2068:Boing! said Zebedee
2026:Thisisaniceusername
2006:Boing! said Zebedee
1984:Thisisaniceusername
1917:Thisisaniceusername
1874:Thisisaniceusername
1826:Thisisaniceusername
1805:Thisisaniceusername
1753:Thisisaniceusername
1722:Thisisaniceusername
1660:Thisisaniceusername
1562:Thisisaniceusername
1524:Thisisaniceusername
1397:Thisisaniceusername
1328:Thisisaniceusername
1303:Thisisaniceusername
1286:Boing! said Zebedee
1282:Thisisaniceusername
1255:Thisisaniceusername
1085:WP:Reliable Sources
873:Boing! said Zebedee
787:Boing! said Zebedee
747:Boing! said Zebedee
696:Boing! said Zebedee
680:protection" at all.
554:Delete and redirect
514:Boing! said Zebedee
445:Boing! said Zebedee
383:Boing! said Zebedee
315:Thisisaniceusername
251:Boing! said Zebedee
199:Boing! said Zebedee
2040:My ending comments
1373:this by yourself.
1347:Delete or redirect
1272:to closing admin:
44:The result was
1999:
1982:comment added by
1904:
1820:
1803:comment added by
1768:
1751:comment added by
1737:
1720:comment added by
1675:
1658:comment added by
1412:
1395:comment added by
1343:
1326:comment added by
1246:
1229:comment added by
1218:
1201:comment added by
1140:comment added by
1126:
1109:comment added by
1075:
1058:comment added by
918:
901:comment added by
867:
850:comment added by
740:
723:comment added by
664:comment added by
638:comment added by
609:comment added by
534:comment added by
510:original research
492:comment added by
467:comment added by
404:comment added by
338:comment added by
235:original research
217:comment added by
75:Animal protection
67:Animal protection
2152:
2139:
1998:
1976:
1903:
1901:
1819:
1797:
1767:
1745:
1736:
1714:
1674:
1652:
1423:Reliable Sources
1411:
1389:
1342:
1320:
1316:Unethical debate
1245:
1223:
1217:
1195:
1156:
1125:
1103:
1074:
1052:
945:
938:
931:
917:
895:
866:
844:
739:
717:
676:
650:
621:
546:
504:
479:
428:, for instance.
416:
350:
299:
295:
291:
229:
189:
188:
174:
126:
116:
98:
34:
2160:
2159:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2142:deletion review
2135:
1977:
1899:
1798:
1746:
1715:
1653:
1390:
1321:
1224:
1196:
1135:
1104:
1053:
941:
934:
927:
896:
845:
718:
659:
633:
604:
582:Redirecting to
529:
487:
462:
399:
333:
297:
293:
289:
237:and a specific
212:
131:
122:
89:
73:
70:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2158:
2156:
2147:
2146:
2130:
2129:
2107:Animal welfare
2098:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2048:
2047:
2017:
2016:
1943:
1942:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1909:
1908:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1869:
1865:
1862:
1855:
1854:
1836:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1770:
1769:
1711:
1710:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1677:
1676:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1591:WP:SELFPUBLISH
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1475:
1474:
1444:
1370:
1369:
1362:
1344:
1313:
1296:
1278:Youdontownwiki
1266:
1265:
1231:Youdontownwiki
1203:Youdontownwiki
1191:
1190:
1172:Animal welfare
1167:Animal welfare
1142:Youdontownwiki
1129:
1128:
1111:Youdontownwiki
1099:
1077:
1076:
1060:Youdontownwiki
1036:Youdontownwiki
1030:
1029:
1009:Animal welfare
986:
985:
956:Youdontownwiki
954:interesting.--
951:
950:
903:Youdontownwiki
888:Youdontownwiki
884:
883:
852:Youdontownwiki
841:
840:
832:Metropolitan90
807:Youdontownwiki
798:
797:
771:Youdontownwiki
763:Youdontownwiki
758:
757:
725:Youdontownwiki
709:
708:
707:
706:
684:
683:
682:
681:
652:
651:
601:
600:
599:
598:
577:
576:
558:Animal welfare
525:
524:
482:
458:
457:
456:
455:
396:
395:
394:
393:
363:animal welfare
326:
325:
307:
306:
305:
304:
281:Animal welfare
192:
191:
128:
124:AfD statistics
69:
64:
54:Animal welfare
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2157:
2145:
2143:
2138:
2132:
2131:
2128:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2115:Animal ethics
2112:
2111:Animal rights
2108:
2103:
2100:
2099:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2073:
2069:
2065:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2058:
2052:
2046:
2041:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1974:
1970:
1967:
1966:
1962:
1961:
1956:
1955:
1949:
1948:
1940:
1937:
1936:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1907:
1902:
1896:
1895:Animal ethics
1892:
1889:
1888:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1870:
1866:
1863:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1840:
1837:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1743:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1708:
1704:
1703:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1649:
1646:
1645:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1452:
1448:
1445:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1430:
1425:
1424:
1418:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1386:
1384:
1380:
1378:
1374:
1366:
1363:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1348:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1317:
1314:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1297:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1268:
1267:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1219:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1168:
1164:
1163:Animal ethics
1159:
1158:
1157:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1133:
1127:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1100:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1051:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
996:
992:
984:
981:
978:
974:
973:
972:Animal ethics
968:
967:
966:
965:
961:
957:
949:
946:
944:
939:
937:
932:
930:
924:
921:
920:
919:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
893:
889:
882:
878:
874:
870:
869:
868:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
839:
836:
833:
829:
828:Animal ethics
825:
822:
819:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
804:
796:
792:
788:
783:
782:
781:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
756:
752:
748:
743:
742:
741:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
714:
705:
701:
697:
692:
688:
687:
686:
685:
678:
677:
675:
671:
667:
663:
657:
654:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
631:
627:
624:
623:
622:
620:
616:
612:
608:
597:
593:
589:
585:
584:Animal ethics
581:
580:
579:
578:
575:
571:
567:
563:
562:Animal rights
559:
555:
552:
551:
550:
547:
545:
541:
537:
533:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
506:
505:
503:
499:
495:
491:
486:
480:
478:
474:
470:
466:
454:
450:
446:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
422:
421:Possible Keep
419:
418:
417:
415:
411:
407:
403:
392:
388:
384:
380:
379:Animal rights
376:
375:
374:
371:
368:
364:
360:
359:animal rights
356:
353:
352:
351:
349:
345:
341:
337:
331:
324:
320:
316:
312:
309:
308:
303:
300:
292:
286:
282:
278:
277:Animal rights
274:
270:
266:
262:
261:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
239:point of view
236:
232:
231:
230:
228:
224:
220:
216:
209:
208:
204:
200:
196:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
125:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
55:
51:
50:Animal ethics
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2136:
2133:
2101:
2080:
2063:
2053:
2049:
2039:
2018:
1971:
1968:
1963:
1957:
1950:
1944:
1938:
1890:
1838:
1795:
1741:
1712:
1647:
1617:, and more.
1559:
1520:
1446:
1427:
1421:
1416:
1387:
1381:
1375:
1371:
1364:
1346:
1315:
1298:
1274:60.242.6.177
1269:
1250:
1220:
1192:
1161:Redirect to
1160:
1134:
1130:
1101:
1080:
1049:
1031:
1012:
1004:
991:60.242.6.177
987:
970:Redirect to
969:
952:
942:
935:
928:
922:
885:
842:
830:instead.) --
820:
799:
759:
710:
690:
666:60.242.6.177
655:
640:60.242.6.177
629:
625:
611:60.242.6.177
602:
553:
548:
536:60.242.6.177
526:
494:60.242.6.177
481:
469:60.242.6.177
459:
426:Intelligence
420:
406:60.242.6.177
397:
354:
340:60.242.6.177
327:
310:
284:
283:. We should
273:content fork
219:60.242.6.177
210:
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
45:
43:
31:
28:
2119:First Light
1978:—Preceding
1799:—Preceding
1781:First Light
1747:—Preceding
1716:—Preceding
1689:First Light
1654:—Preceding
1619:First Light
1543:First Light
1484:First Light
1434:First Light
1391:—Preceding
1322:—Preceding
1225:—Preceding
1197:—Preceding
1136:—Preceding
1105:—Preceding
1089:First Light
1054:—Preceding
1019:First Light
897:—Preceding
846:—Preceding
719:—Preceding
660:—Preceding
634:—Preceding
605:—Preceding
530:—Preceding
488:—Preceding
463:—Preceding
400:—Preceding
334:—Preceding
213:—Preceding
158:free images
2085:Dougweller
1900:SlimVirgin
1603:WP:SELFPUB
1522:editing.--
805:. thanks--
588:Tryptofish
566:Tryptofish
311:Good point
269:notability
1872:policy.--
1595:WP:VERIFY
803:ignorance
367:Fut.Perf.
1992:contribs
1980:unsigned
1813:contribs
1801:unsigned
1761:contribs
1749:unsigned
1730:contribs
1718:unsigned
1668:contribs
1656:unsigned
1417:Comments
1405:contribs
1393:unsigned
1336:contribs
1324:unsigned
1239:contribs
1227:unsigned
1211:contribs
1199:unsigned
1180:Location
1176:WP:UNDUE
1150:contribs
1138:unsigned
1119:contribs
1107:unsigned
1068:contribs
1056:unsigned
1005:Redirect
923:Redirect
911:contribs
899:unsigned
860:contribs
848:unsigned
733:contribs
721:unsigned
662:unsigned
636:unsigned
607:unsigned
532:unsigned
490:unsigned
465:unsigned
402:unsigned
355:redirect
336:unsigned
285:redirect
215:unsigned
119:View log
2102:Comment
2081:Comment
2064:Comment
1868:delete.
1844:Peridon
1839:Comment
1506:Peridon
1464:Peridon
1456:WP:NPOV
1447:Comment
1352:Peridon
1081:Comment
298:Windows
164:WP refs
152:scholar
92:protect
87:history
1891:Delete
1777:WP:AfD
1707:WP:COI
1685:WP:COI
1615:WP:GNG
1611:WP:COI
1460:WP:COI
1299:Relist
1280:, and
980:(talk)
835:(talk)
821:Delete
430:Borock
290:Fences
136:Google
96:delete
58:Jayjg
46:delete
1599:WP:RS
977:Chris
294:&
243:WP:RS
179:JSTOR
140:books
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
2123:talk
2089:talk
2072:talk
2030:talk
2010:talk
1988:talk
1921:talk
1878:talk
1848:talk
1830:talk
1809:talk
1785:talk
1757:talk
1726:talk
1693:talk
1664:talk
1623:talk
1566:talk
1547:talk
1528:talk
1510:talk
1488:talk
1468:talk
1458:and
1438:talk
1401:talk
1356:talk
1332:talk
1307:talk
1290:talk
1270:Note
1259:talk
1235:talk
1207:talk
1184:talk
1146:talk
1115:talk
1093:talk
1064:talk
1040:talk
1023:talk
995:talk
960:talk
907:talk
892:talk
877:talk
856:talk
811:talk
791:talk
775:talk
767:talk
751:talk
729:talk
700:talk
691:STOP
670:talk
644:talk
615:talk
592:talk
570:talk
540:talk
518:talk
498:talk
473:talk
449:talk
434:talk
410:talk
387:talk
344:talk
319:talk
279:and
255:talk
223:talk
203:talk
172:FENS
146:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
1687:)?
1165:or
1013:one
1007:to
943:Dat
936:Wuz
929:Wuh
556:to
381:--
361:or
275:of
186:TWL
121:•
117:– (
52:or
2125:)
2109:,
2091:)
2074:)
2059:)
2032:)
2012:)
1994:)
1990:•
1923:)
1880:)
1850:)
1832:)
1815:)
1811:•
1787:)
1763:)
1759:•
1732:)
1728:•
1695:)
1670:)
1666:•
1625:)
1613:,
1609:,
1605:,
1601:,
1597:,
1568:)
1549:)
1530:)
1512:)
1490:)
1470:)
1440:)
1407:)
1403:•
1358:)
1338:)
1334:•
1309:)
1292:)
1276:,
1261:)
1253:--
1241:)
1237:•
1213:)
1209:•
1186:)
1178:.
1152:)
1148:•
1121:)
1117:•
1095:)
1070:)
1066:•
1042:)
1025:)
997:)
962:)
913:)
909:•
879:)
862:)
858:•
813:)
793:)
777:)
761:--
753:)
735:)
731:•
702:)
672:)
646:)
617:)
594:)
572:)
542:)
520:)
500:)
475:)
451:)
436:)
412:)
389:)
365:.
346:)
321:)
257:)
225:)
205:)
166:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
56:.
2121:(
2087:(
2070:(
2028:(
2008:(
1986:(
1919:(
1876:(
1846:(
1828:(
1807:(
1783:(
1755:(
1724:(
1691:(
1662:(
1621:(
1564:(
1545:(
1526:(
1508:(
1486:(
1466:(
1436:(
1399:(
1354:(
1330:(
1305:(
1288:(
1257:(
1233:(
1205:(
1182:(
1144:(
1113:(
1091:(
1062:(
1038:(
1021:(
993:(
958:(
905:(
890:(
875:(
854:(
809:(
789:(
773:(
765:(
749:(
727:(
698:(
668:(
642:(
613:(
590:(
568:(
538:(
516:(
496:(
471:(
447:(
432:(
408:(
385:(
370:☼
342:(
317:(
253:(
221:(
201:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.