User:ExistentialMariachi/sandbox

1. the article title: Ethics of animal research
2. the article working URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3AArticle+wizard%2Fskeleton&editintro=Template%3AAfC+draft+editintro&title=Draft:Ethics_of_animal_research&create=Create+draft
3. the name of at least one associated WikiProject : /philosophy
4. the proposed description and titles of sections (you must list at least 4 sections including the description): The leading parargraph will be titled "Ethics of animal research", Then the subsections will be as follows: Philosophers; Immanuel Kant, Christine Koorsgaard, Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Allen Wood;Philosophical literature: Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics; Philosophical concepts; "Specieism", "Personhood", "Human Exceptionalism", "Moral status of animals", Philosophical theories: "Utilitarianism"
5. a list of 5 sources that you will draw on to start writing your article:
   • Singer, Peter, 1990, Animal Liberation, second edition, New York: New York Review of Books.
   • Singer, Peter, 1979 [1993], Practical Ethics, second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; first edition, 1979.
   • Kant, Immanuel, [1785] 1998, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten), Mary J. Gregor (trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   • Korsgaard, Christine M., 1996, The Sources of Normativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   • Korsgaard, Christine M., 2004, “Fellow Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals”, in The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Grethe B. Peterson (ed.), Volume 25/26, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
   • Wood, Allen W., 1998, “Kant on Duties Regarding Nonrational Nature” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplement, LXXII: 189–210. doi:10.1111/1467-8349.00042.
6. an annotation for each of the five sources stating how each will contribute to your article (what sections will you use it in, for example)

Article structure as per suggestion of /philosophy

Article structure suggestion by /philosophy:

Ethics of Animal Research [edit]

Ethics of animal research

The ethics of animal research is a concept discussed in ethics, philosophy, science, and bioethics.

"The lead section of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. The article should account for all senses of the term as used within philosophy in the lead section. The lead section should establish the notability of the article's subject within philosophy

The opening sentence ideally should identify the topic by academic discipline (e.g. metaphysics, ethics, etc.) and ontologically. This is to say, that it tells the reader what it is by identifying its ontological category. This may take the form of an opening statement like:

• "A norm is a concept in ethics..."

All philosophy articles should be recursively wikilinkable to the article philosophy. This is to say that there should be some linked article in the lead section which links to the article philosophy or which links to such an article, et cetera.

The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article"

Philosophers[edit]

It is universally recommended in articles under category Category:Philosophers that some formulation of the following be used to create a consistent format:

• Philosophus (birth date - death date) was a nationality philosopher. He/she made notable contributions in field₁, field₂, ...

Philosophical literature[edit]

It is universally recommended for articles under category Category:Philosophical literature that some formulation of the following be used to create a consistent format:

• X is a (book, article, journal) in Y-academic field.

Philosophical concepts[edit]

It is universally recommended for articles under category Category:Concepts that some formulation of the following be used to create a consistent format:

• X is a concept in Y-academic field.

Philosophical theories[edit]

It is universally recommended for articles under category Category:Theories that some formulation of the following be used to create a consistent format:

• Scientific: " T-ism is a [U-ist] V-ological theory in field-W which attempts to explain X phenomenon. It is based on the observation that Y events occur, which is called Z."
• Philosophical: " T-ism is a [U-ist] V-ological theory in field-W which attempts to explain X concept. It is based on the concept that Y is the case, a concept which is called Z."
• Religious/Spiritual: " T-ism is a [U-ist] V-ological theory in movement/religion-W which attempts to explain X concept. It is based on the belief that Y is the case, a concept which is called Z."
• There should be an attempt to identify the theory within the category structure and vice versa.

Body[edit]

Philosophers[edit]

The preferred structure of an article about a philosopher is:

1. Biography
2. Philosophy
3. List of works
4. Criticism

Philosophical literature[edit]

The preferred structure of an article about philosophical literature is:

1. Historical context
2. Publishing history
3. Structure and arguments
4. Rhetoric and style
5. Reception and legacy

Philosophical theories and concepts[edit]

Formal definition[edit]

There should be an exact formal definition, in whatever philosophical terms contemporary philosophers are currently using. The formal definition may not be satisfactory to all perspectives, but is one supported by reliable authority. It may serve as a starting point for those wanting a more intellectual understanding.

Examples[edit]

Representative examples should be provided, if possible, so as to provide context as to when one might use the defined topic. Some examples of what the topic is not will also help to clarify. Examples should therefore strive to maintain an encyclopedic tone, and should be informative rather than merely instructional.

Guidelines for criticisms[edit]

Whenever possible, philosophy articles that contain criticisms or objections should also contain links to the groups, persons, or movements who raised the objection. If this is not possible, criticisms/objections must, at the very least, be attributed and documented, so that anyone can look it up in the original book/article. The reasons for this are:

1. These are philosophy articles. Philosophy demands a certain level of thoroughness of research and verifiability in its argumentation, and we should try to present arguments as completely as possible.
2. Just saying "some people think" gives the reader no resources to check out the arguments for themselves, and in philosophy it's the argument that counts, not that some, or most, or all people believe it to be true - speaking from the perspective of rational discourse, that someone presented an objection doesn't tell us anything about the soundness of their argument.
3. It looks a little sloppy, like we haven't done our research.
4. This sort of phrasing often seems to be a cover for original research at best, and a presentation of the writer's opinion masked as a philosophical viewpoint at worst (§ Unsupported attributions).
5. It tends to lead to a sort of dialogue between two characters: "Some" and "Others", and this is an encyclopedia, not a theatre piece!

The general layout should be similar to the following (except they should be true):

Logical positivism makes the claim that the only meaningful propositions are those that make falsifiable claims about the world. Michael Jackson argues that the claim that the only meaningful propositions are those that make falsifiable claims about the world is not itself falsifiable, and therefore meaningless.

What sections for criticisms are[edit]

A section in a philosophy article outlining criticisms is:

1. A place to put well known objections to a particular concept, philosophy, or philosophical position (the problem of evil in philosophy of religion articles, for example).
2. A place for specific arguments by specific philosophers (see the description of Daniel Dennett's criticisms in the Qualia article for a good example).
3. Provocative. It should encourage the reader to look more deeply into the topic, and provide links for them to do so.

What sections for criticisms aren't[edit]

A section in a philosophy article outlining criticisms isn't:

1. A place for a dialogue between two opposing camps: "some say... others counter... a common reply is..."
2. A place for the author's original work (§ Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought).

Concluding[edit]

See also section[edit]

Ideally, any relevant wikilinks will be incorporated into the text of an article. However, relevant topics not explicated in the text may be included in a "See also" section.