Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

So why is there no mention of that definition in this article? —Beautiful Pony (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest review of the style guide, particularly in relation to unsupported attributions, reliable sources and fringe theories. Arllaw (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a common or the legal definition of murder. We have to keep WP:Due weight in mind. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery Dahmer for example committed murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:8B40:6700:9129:4C68:56A4:512C (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it murder..slaves and indigenous people are often believed to be animals regardless of what it says here..many people don`t believe killing them is murder but necessary and even just..more to the point the definition of murder is not strictly a legal matter..Merrion/Webster cites multiple meanings..one being simply being to kill another person which is how many if not most people take it..if I go into a bar and shoot someone dead in front of 100 people everyone in that place is going to say it was a murder regardless of the legal definition..this is the way the word is generally used by most people..it is not just a legal matter 2600:1702:2340:9470:C66:8450:D2FC:FDCF (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ought to remove your post per WP:Not a forum. This section is not about humans. It's about non-human animals. No one stated that murder is only a legal issue. The point is that the idea that killing a non-human animal is murder is not at all a common definition of murder and falls under WP:Fringe. Otherwise, meat-eating would not be what it is.

And humans are animals, by the way. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Mariolovr's edit-summary comments about me leaving the abortion content in the article while stripping the animal rights viewpoint: This article is about humans, not animals, and the content remaining said there were some laws declaring the killing of an unborn child as murder. However, there are ZERO laws that declare the killing of an animal as murder. That AR people use the word as an epithet to denigrate people who kill animals (such as abattoirs/slaughterhouses) is WP:FRINGE and has no place in this article. Normal Op (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, my POV is like yours. I also don't think murder should include nonhuman animals. However, that's irrelevant. There is a significant minority who disagree, and that needs to be reported. Also, Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are much less strict than requiring that a law supports every sentence. Mariolovr (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read the wikipedia policies on the matter, including:

• Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Mentions in other articles
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight

— Normal Op (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Could you explain why the links are relevant. These aren't actual fringe theories and they aren't given undue weight. If anything, there needs to be more context given about the controversy, as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight says.

Remember, omitting negative information is also a violation of neutrality. Wikipedia is not censored. Mariolovr (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as a NPOV issue, nto a weight issue. As the article is presently organized, I can see how an off-topic mention of how the term "murder" is used in a different context, even if for rhetorical purposes, might be briefly mentioned under "Use of the term". However, even if I assume that slogans like "meat is murder" are calls to criminalize all killings of animals under murder statutes, I would find a substantive discussion of that position within this article to give undue weight to that position, akin to the example of why it would be inappropriate to directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept in an article about the Earth.

Removal of an unusual conception of "murder" is not the removal of negative information. It's the removal of a conception that reflects a minority viewpoint that also happens to be off-topic. Arllaw (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard of any scenarios where animal rights folks say "meat is murder" in an actual attempt to criminalize all killings of animals under murder statutes. I just know it as your first interpretation, a popular and well know animal rights catchphrase or slogan. I've even seen it as part of the stereotype of animal rights activists. Mariolovr (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the use of the word "murder" in the phrase "Meat is murder" is a FRINGE usage of the word "murder". It is ONLY used by animal rights advocates and "ethical vegans" and only as hate speech, an epithet, for shock value and to get attention. It is not part of general speech or usage, not even close. Therefore, such content is UNDUE to put in an article in Wikipedia. As to your argument about me leaving in the abortion stuff, I wasn't comparing the meat/AR concepts to the abortion concepts; I said I left in the abortion content because it seemed to have a legal precedent (and I didn't feel like reading all four citations to see if it was true or not). However, I knew the animal rights use of the term "murder" was fringe. I don't know why we're continuing to beat this dead horse. Normal Op (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a line between censoring the viewpoint of a significant minority and dismissing an insignificant and minuscule opinion because including it would be a waste of time. We're obviously getting into censorship territory. Please see FRINGE is not. In particular, "Political opinions about recent history, future predictions, social opinion, and popular culture cannot be fringe because the basis of the opinion is not scientific or academic".

That undue rule is highly subjective, but even from a subjective perspective I can't imagine how a single sentence neurally describing some people's highly controversial usage of the word would tip this article in support of their view.

Also, whether or not you consider it hate speech, shocking, etc is irrelevant. Please leave your POV out of this. Mariolovr (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FRINGE and UNDUE are not related to "how many sources use it" but are related to the weight an idea or action has in the world. The example it uses are the flat-earthers. There is probably a lot written about the flat-earth idea, but because it is so far fringe from ordinary understanding and scientific evidence that mentioning it (beyond a brief mention that "it exists as an idea") would be giving it undue weight. And even if you think that animal rights people are "in the right" and everyone else is stupid and asleep on the subject, gives you no right to be hostile here and tell me to leave my POV out of it. I'm following Wikipedia on this matter, and I'll say it one last time: the topic of murder is about humans! There are other places within Wikipedia that are about animal rights and you can go edit on those articles, but here is not where "Meat is murder" belongs. Like I said on another Talk page to you, dealing with you has been exhausting. I don't have to convince you of anything, nor do I have a duty to train you in Wikipedia policies. I've been polite; I've been stern. Neither has worked. Talk pages are not here for you to argue policy/guidelines with individual editors. It is every Wikipedia editor's job to learn the policies and work within those guidelines. If you don't like them or think they are wrong, there are other places in Wikipedia to argue your case, but here is not it. Perhaps you haven't yet been pointed to WP:ADVOCACY and WP:ACTIVIST; those might give you some insight into why your gung-ho charge into Wikipedi-ing has had a less than warm reception. Good luck in your editing. Normal Op (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I changed my argument once I realized the undue weight rule depended on sources, not fringe. But like I said, fringe is irrelevant because it doesn't apply to opinions. I thought I was quick enough to do it before you noticed. 02:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

If I may quote the undue rule, "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." Animal rights activists aren't the same as FLat Earthers. The flat earther groups are an extremely small minority, but animal rights activists are a significant minority. As Jim Wales says, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." Many famous celebrities are animal rights activists, everyone knows about PETA, and "meat is murder" is the most well known animal rights slogan. That's incredibly prominent. Mariolovr (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for not wanting to cooperate with me and reach a compromise, that seems to go against Wikipedia's community guidelines. Why don't you follow your own rules? Mariolovr (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PETA is not a reliable source in Wikipedia, so don't quote them here. PETA may be vocal... and loud... and persistent... but they are not (nor represent) "a significant minority". Normal Op (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the subject. I know you've worked really hard to scrub out every citation referencing PETA on this site (and gotten a lot of flack for it), but we're not talking about sources. There are plenty of reliable sources on this matter. We're talking about prominence, and PETA is very prominent, which, by the Founder of WIkipedia's own definition, makes them a significant minority. Besides, PETA wasn't the only thing I mentioned. Mariolovr (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]