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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
The review by Peter Sandøe contains praise for the book but also some criticisms [1]. I believe that to keep things more accurate and neutral the single line on the article "Peter Sandøe claims that those who decide to read the book "should be able to enjoy and learn from grappling with the many simple, yet challenging arguments, mostly based on thought experiments, that Horta presents in the book",
should be expanded, because this has been cherry-picked. A single line from the book doesn't reflect the totality of the review. I don't want to step on anyone's toes here. I understand Mat Rozas authored this article so I will give this user some time to expand the source. If not I will do it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
