Template:Did you know nominations/An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 10:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory
[edit]
- ... that An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, by Alasdair Cochrane (pictured), was one of the first books to look at animals from the perspective of political theory?
Created by J Milburn (talk). Self nominated at 15:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC).
The hook fact appears to be OR, as it cites two papers regarding politics / animals, rather than citing a paper which states the fact explicitly — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Garner 2012: "Cochrane can be added to the select group of political theorists who have taken our obligations to animals seriously". Donaldson/Kymlicka 2012 "There area few notable exceptions, but 99% of the work done in contemporary political philosophycontinues to assume that we can theorize these issues without taking animals intoaccount. And, to be fair, this indifference is largely reciprocated: the vast bulk of work done in animal rights theory (hereafter ART) has not seen it as necessary or helpful toconnect ART to the core concepts or debates within political philosophy." (footnote specifically citing this book). As a bonus, Garner 2013: "relatively few political philosophers have tackled the question of what is owed to animals" with a footnote reference mentioning this book. J Milburn (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Few =/= one of the first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I was meaning to implicate that he was one of few, but now there are more, making him one of the first few. I get that this may be a little OR-y for the MP. How about something like:
- ... that in An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, Alasdair Cochrane (pictured) argues that animals are best offered justice through a theory combining utilitarianism and liberalism?
- This would be a bit more manageable, but right now the hook fact is linked to the book itself, rather than a review (i.e. primary not secondary). Since this also does not appear to be stated explicitly in the book, a secondary source may be preferable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- The book itself, pp. 141-2: "...the political theories I am most sumpathetic to in general, and when formulating our obligations to animals in particular, are utilitarianism and liberalism. [He has no space] to outline and defend a full theory of justice for animals which draws on these two theories, [but he does say something]." Garner 2012: Cochrane "eventually settles on a combination of utilitarianism and liberalism as his ideal theory of justice for animals". I'll add the Garner cite to this fact. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Hook fact checks out (first page has the line quoted above; this tick added assuming the Garner cite will be added to the sentence in question), article is new enough and long enough, referencing is thorough (and includes a referenced content summary, which I think all articles on academic books should have), hook is short enough and interesting. Image is free (CC license release by uploader). Looks decent at 100px, though nothing stunning. ALT1 is ready to go so long as the hook fact is also cited to the secondary source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- The book itself, pp. 141-2: "...the political theories I am most sumpathetic to in general, and when formulating our obligations to animals in particular, are utilitarianism and liberalism. [He has no space] to outline and defend a full theory of justice for animals which draws on these two theories, [but he does say something]." Garner 2012: Cochrane "eventually settles on a combination of utilitarianism and liberalism as his ideal theory of justice for animals". I'll add the Garner cite to this fact. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- This would be a bit more manageable, but right now the hook fact is linked to the book itself, rather than a review (i.e. primary not secondary). Since this also does not appear to be stated explicitly in the book, a secondary source may be preferable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
