Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights 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.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have no idea how long this almost exhaustive "Animal welfare" box has been in the appendices of the article but I feel it goes to far. I believe there is an actual need for some control such as Animal husbandry, any animal vivisection techniques, as well as any creature that is the subject of any form of endangered protection, with the exception of pest insects.
There are those that advocate for the ethical treatment of insects, say like Xerces Society, which is very relevant, and seems to be missing.
A problem I have is incorporating such a huge list of animal rights organizations on an article concerning invertebrates. Actually, the arthropod species should be included because that includes spiders and such.
The main concern is that, as far as I know, the extremely large list cannot be edited. Rights activists that espouse protection on any sentient being would be a worthy cause. The blanket display, and therefore advocacy, for almost all, at the least a very large portion, of animal rights activists that may not concern themselves with invertebrates or arthropods should not be on the article.
Should PETA be on the list? Peta2 states: "All animals have feelings—regardless of their shape or size or whether they’re considered pests" and "So just like all other animals, bugs suffer when they're poisoned, squished, trapped, left to die, or killed in other ways. It doesn't matter that they don't look like us—they're sentient beings who deserve to live". It would seem prudent for editors not to advocate for an organization that "acknowledged that it euthanized 95% of the animals at its shelter in 2011", and "PETA euthanized over 80% of the shelter's animals and justified its euthanasia policies as "mercy killings"".
Whatever! There will be editors, possibly activists, that object to the removal but someone should create (I didn't look) an "Insect welfare" box because articles like
Pain in fish? I cannot find the connection to this subject. However, "Pain in worms" would be a worthy subject. People, without mercy, stick a hook through their bodies and dangle them under water to be snatched up by a fish or drowning. Sometimes the poor creature has the horrible pain of only being bitten in half.
