text:
Animal rights

Animal rights is the idea in which some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own existence and that their most basic interests—such as the need to avoid suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings.

A

 * Making lasting gifts for animals in our estate plans is perhaps the single most important thing we can do to ensure animals have the strongest possible voice for their protection.
 * Bea Arthur, interview, The Los Angeles Times, March 3, 1990

 * PETA has a proven track record of success. Each victory PETA wins for the animals is a stepping stone upon which we build a more compassionate world for all beings - and we will never give up our fight until all animals are treated with respect and kindness.
 * Bea Arthur, interview, The Human Society, January 7, 2004

B

 * Humans inflict untold suffering and death on many billions of animals every year, and the overwhelming majority of humans are heavily complicit.
 * David Benatar, The Misanthropic Argument for Anti-natalism (2015), p. 43

 * Certainly in the case of the treatment of animals, the scales are heavily weighted against us. Although it is true that some humans do some good for animals, much of this is merely rescuing animals from the maltreatment of other humans. At the level of the human species such benefits cannot be used to offset the harms. If there were no humans to inflict the harms, these benefits would not be necessary. Of course, humans do bestow some other benefits, such as veterinary care for their companion animals. However, the number of animals affected and the amount of good done is massively outweighed by the harm the human species does to non-human animals.
 * David Benatar, The Misanthropic Argument for Anti-natalism, (2015), p. 52

 * The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. [...] A full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
 * Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Ch. 17, p. 309: Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence

 * To my apprehension, every act by which, without prospect of preponderant good, pain is knowingly and willingly produced in any being whatsoever, is an act of cruelty; and, like other bad habits, the more the correspondent habit is indulged in, the stronger it grows, and the more frequently productive of its bad fruit. I am unable to comprehend how it should be, that to him to whom it is a matter of amusement to see a dog or a horse suffer, it should not be matter of like amusement to see a man suffer; seeing, as I do, how much more morality as well as intelligence, an adult quadruped of those and many other species has in him, than any biped has for some months after he has been brought into existence.
 * Jeremy Bentham, Letter to the Editor of the Morning Chronicle (1825)

 * If physical force is needed to save an animal from attack, then that force is a legitimate form of what I call "extensional self defense." This principle mirrors US penal code statutes known as the "necessity defense," which can be invoked when a defendant believed that an illegal act was necessary to avoid great and imminent harm. One only needs to expand this concept slightly to cover actions that are increasingly desperate and necessary to protect animals from the total war against them.
 * Steven Best, The Politics of Total Liberation: Revolution for the 21st Century (2014), p. 68

 * The entire human species gains at the expense of millions of nonhuman animal species and countless billion of animals that humans enslave, exploit, and kill. In the greatest zero-sum game of all, human advances exist in inverse relation to the massive loss of freedom and life suffered by animals. Thus, the more humans gain, the more animals lose; the greater the human comfort, the more suffering and death for animals; and growth in human population numbers bring extinction to other animals and reduces biodiversity. While helping humanity in highly uneven ways (as determined by class, state power, imperialism, systems of hierarchy, and so on), modern techno-science intensified the misery and slaughter of animals, and exacerbated the destruction of the earth. This is evident in the growing horrors of vivisection, factory farming, slaughterhouses, fur farming, and sundry systems of exploitation, which polluted and poisoned all aspects of their immediate physical surroundings, and provoked catastrophic climate change on a global scale.
 * Steven Best, The Politics of Total Liberation: Revolution for the 21st Century (2014), p. 146

 * The US and other governments are business partners and active participants in the exploitation of animals. The US government sponsors or hires many thousands of scientists and staff to experiment on animals every year. The industry is large and has many vested supporters like the cage, equipment, food and instrument manufacturers, the animal breeders, and the journals that publish articles by vivisectors. It is unlikely that any of these business partners are interested in disturbing the status quo. There is too much money at stake.
 * Rick Bogle, Vegan Nation. (2012) p. 81 ISBN 978-0984284474
 * Many humans look at nature from an aesthetic perspective and think in terms of biodiversity and the health of ecosystems, but forget that the animals that inhabit these ecosystems are individuals and have their own needs. Disease, starvation, predation, ostracism, and sexual frustration are endemic in so-called healthy ecosystems. The great taboo in the animal rights movement is that most suffering is due to natural causes. Any proposal for remedying this situation is bound to sound utopian, but my dream is that one day the sun will rise on Earth and all sentient creatures will greet the new day with joy.
 * Nick Bostrom, "Golden" (2004)

 * I don't hold animals superior or even equal to humans. The whole case for behaving decently to animals rests on the fact that we are the superior species. We are the species uniquely capable of imagination, rationality and moral choice—and that is precisely why we are under the obligation to recognise and respect the rights of animals.
 * Brigid Brophy, "The Rights of Animals" (Sunday Times, 1965), in Don't Ever Forget: Collected Views and Reviews (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), p. 21

C

 * I believe that animals have rights which, although different from our own, are just as inalienable. I believe animals have the right not to have pain, fear or physical deprivation inflicted upon them by us. [...] They have the right not to be brutalized in any way as food resources, for entertainment or any other purpose.
 * Roger A. Caras, "We Must Find Alternatives to Animals in Research" in Newsweek (26 December 1988)

 * There is a healthy and an unhealthy love of animals: and the nearest definition of the difference is that the unhealthy love of animals is serious. I am quite prepared to love a rhinoceros, with reasonable precautions: he is, doubtless, a delightful father to the young rhinoceroses. But I will not promise not to laugh at a rhinoceros. . . . I will not worship an animal. That is, I will not take an animal quite seriously: and I know why. Wherever there is Animal Worship there is Human Sacrifice. That is, both symbolically and literally, a real truth of historical experience.
 * G. K. Chesterton, Seriousness,” The Uses of Diversity (1920)

 * Every system of law is a system of education, and, in extending legal sanction to the scientific torture of animals, the State educates the nation in a false view of the relations of man to the lower creatures, encourages selfishness and cruelty and the disregard of the rights of the weak by the strong.
 * Frances Cobbe, The Modern Rack: Papers on Vivisection (London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1889), Ch. XV: "Four Reasons for Total Prohibition of Vivisection", pp. 223–224

 * Many believers in animal rights and the relevance of animal welfare do not critically examine their basic assumptions [...] [T]ypically these individuals hold two conflicting views. The first view is that animal welfare counts, and that people should treat animals as decently as possible. The second view is a presumption of human non-interference with nature, as much as possible [...] [T]he two views are less compatible than is commonly supposed. If we care about the welfare and rights of individual animals, we may be led to interfere with nature whenever the costs of doing so are sufficiently low.
 * Tyler Cowen, "Policing Nature", Environmental Ethics, Vol. 25, Iss. 2 (2003), p. 170

D

 * The director of a zoo is entitled to "put down" a chimpanzee that is surplus to requirements, while any suggestion that he might "put down" a redundant keeper or ticket-seller would be greeted with howls of incredulous outrage. The chimpanzee is the property of the zoo. Humans are nowadays not supposed to be anybody's property, yet the rationale for discriminating against chimpanzees is seldom spelled out, and I doubt if there is a defensible rationale at all. Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees! [...] The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.
 * Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1996), pp. 262–263

 * Our ethics and our politics assume, largely without question or serious discussion, that the division between human and 'animal' is absolute. 'Pro-life', to take just one example, is a potent political badge, associated with a gamut of ethical issues such as opposition to abortion and euthanasia. What it really means is pro-human-life. Abortion clinic bombers are not known for their veganism, nor do Roman Catholics show any particular reluctance to have their suffering pets 'put to sleep'. In the minds of many confused people, a single-celled human zygote, which has no nerves and cannot suffer, is infinitely sacred, simply because it is 'human'. No other cells enjoy this exalted status.
 * Richard Dawkins, "How would you feel about a half-human half-chimp hybrid?", in The Guardian (2 January 2009)

E

 * You have just dined, and, however scrupulously the slaughter-house is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity, — expensive races, — race living at the expense of race.
 * Ralph Waldo Emerson, Fate, in The Conduct of Life (1860)

G

 * The least I can do is speak out for the hundreds of chimpanzees who, right now, sit hunched, miserable and without hope, staring out with dead eyes from their metal prisons. They cannot speak for themselves.
 * Jane Goodall. Reported in Janelle Rohr, Animal rights: opposing viewpoints (1989), p. 100; Jane Goodall and Jennifer Lindsey, Jane Goodall: 40 Years at Gombe (1999), p. 6. Occasionally misreported in truncated form, as "The least I can do is speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves", in, e.g., quote honored on EarthE eco money

 * In what terms should we think of these beings, nonhuman yet possessing so very many human-like characteristics? How should we treat them? Surely we should treat them with the same consideration and kindness as we show to other humans; and as we recognize human rights, so too should we recognize the rights of the great apes? Yes.
 * Jane Goodall, "Chimpanzees - Bridging the Gap", in Paola Cavalieri, Peter Singer, The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity (1996), p. 14

 * Researchers find it very necessary to keep blinkers on. They don't want to admit that the animals they are working with have feelings. They don't want to admit that they might have minds and personalities because that would make it quite difficult for them to do what they do; so we find that within the lab communities there is a very strong resistance among the researchers to admitting that animals have minds, personalities and feelings.
 * Jane Goodall, "An Interview with Jane Goodall", in Defense of Animals (date unknown)

 * The more we learn of the true nature of non-human animals, especially those with complex brains and corresponding complex social behavior, the more ethical concerns are raised regarding their use in the service of man—whether this be in entertainment, as "pets," for food, in research laboratories, or any of the other uses to which we subject them.
 * Jane Goodall, Through a Window: My Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe (2000), p. 245

 * In general, the core moral and philosophical question at the heart of animal rights activism is now being seriously debated: Namely, what gives humans the right or justification to abuse, exploit, and torture non-human species? If there comes a day when some other species (broadly defined) — such as machines — surpass humans in intellect and cognitive complexity, will they have a valid moral claim to treat humans as commodities whose suffering and death can be assigned no value? The irreconcilable contradiction of lavishing love and protection on dogs and cats, while torturing and slaughtering farm animals capable of a deep emotional life and great suffering, is becoming increasingly apparent.
 * Glenn Greenwald, "The FBI’s Hunt for Two Missing Piglets Reveals the Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms" The Intercept (2017)

H

 * Animals are the main victims of history, and the treatment of domesticated animals in industrial farms is perhaps the worst crime in history. The march of human progress is strewn with dead animals. (...) the fate of farm animals is not an ethical side issue. It concerns the majority of Earth’s large creatures: tens of billions of sentient beings, each with a complex world of sensations and emotions, but which live and die on an industrial production line.
 * Yuval Noah Harari, | Industrial farming is one of the worst crimes in history (2015), The Guardian

 * Opening the eyes, the minds, and the hearts of the American people to the evil of eating animals. I care about this issue because it goes to the core of all I believe in: justice, public health, world hunger, and environmental quality. Other people should care about this because it defines who they are. Animal rights is not so much about "them" as it is about us.
 * Alex Hershaft, in People Promoting and People Opposing Animal Rights: In Their Own Words, ed. John M. Kistler (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002), p. 147

 * So, we’re outside of a dumpster at Circle Four, and they literally just took a mother pig who is sick and not able to stand any longer, threw her in here headfirst with a pile of probably a hundred dead babies. And when we just got here, we could still hear the blood dripping from her body. And, you know, she probably died from blunt force trauma to the head. She’s covered with all sorts of disgusting feces, blood, rotten corpses. And again, this is what happens at every single pig farm in the world, because they treat these animals as if they’re just things. But they’re not things, they’re living creatures. And they deserve better than this.
 * , "Right to Rescue: Jury Acquits Animal Rights Activists Who Saved Piglets at Smithfield Factory Farm" (2022),

I

 * If they [animals] were capable of formulating a religion, they might differ considerably as to the shape of the beneficent Creator, but they would nearly all agree that the Devil must be very like a big white man. For we have always treated our poor relations in fur and feathers as if they had no rights at all. We have not only enslaved them, and killed and eaten them, but we have made it one of our chief pleasures to take away their lives, and not infrequently we have tortured them. Our ancestors sinned in ignorance; they were taught (as I deeply regret to say one great Christian Church still teaches) that the world, with all that it contains, was made for man, and that the lower orders of creation have no claims whatever upon us. But we have no longer the excuse of saying that we do not know; we do know that organic life on this planet is all woven of one stuff, and that if we are children of our Heavenly Father, it must be true, as Christ told us, that no sparrow falls to the ground without His care. The new knowledge has revolutionised our ideas of our relations to the other living creatures who share the world with us, and it is our duty to consider seriously what this knowledge should mean for us in matters of conduct.
 * William Ralph Inge, "The Rights of Animals" (1920), in Lay Thoughts of a Dean (1926)

J

 * After looking at this building there appeared a white dome on the top of a hill, to which men were coming from all quarters. When I asked about this they said that a Jogi lived there, and when the simpletons come to see him he places in their hands a handful of flour, which they put into their mouths and imitate the cry of an animal which these fools have at some time injured, in order that by this act their sins may be blotted out. I ordered them to break down that place and turn the Jogi out of it, as well as to destroy the form of an idol there was in the dome.
 * About a temple where people could redeem themselves of the sin of animal cruelty. About Jahangir. Tûzuk-i-Jahangiri, translated into English by Alexander Rogers, first published 1909-1914, New Delhi Reprint, 1978, Vol. I, pp. 254-55., in Goel S. R. & Shourie Arun (1991). Hindu temples what happened to them. vol. 2

 * Though a small proportion manage to lead successful lives, [Animal Rights] theorists cannot restrict their concern to successful r-strategists. Any sentient being is morally significant from an [Animal Rights] perspective, and thus all sentient individuals born into r-strategist species must be taken into account when determining whether r-strategists are flourishing. And the facts about r-strategists’ life histories suggest that they aren’t [...] most r-strategists die very painful deaths, e.g., starvation, exposure, and being eaten by predators [...] most of them die minutes, days, or weeks after birth, and thus do not have the opportunity to experience the enjoyment associated with reaching a stage in life where one has learned to competently manage and be comfortable in one’s environment [...] these facts suggest that, at best, most r-strategists fail to live flourishing lives. At worst, they suggest that most r-strategists experience more suffering than enjoyment in their lives: that they do not even have lives worth living. Furthermore, since one of the defining characteristics of r-strategist species is that they produce far greater numbers of offspring than K-strategist species, it seems that we’re left with an even more depressing conclusion: at best, most wild animals born into the world fail to flourish, and at worst, most do not have lives worth living.
 * Kyle Johannsen, "Animal Rights and the Problem of r-Strategists", Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 20, Iss. 2 (Apr. 2017), p. 338

K

 * The free movement of the moral impulse to establish justice for animals generally and the claim of their rights from mankind are hidden in a natural psychic sensibility in the deeper layers of the . In the ancient value system of humanity […] the moral sense had risen to a point of demanding justice for animals. […] Just as the democratic aspiration will reach outward through the general intellectual and moral perfection […] so will the hidden yearning to act justly towards animals emerge at the proper time.
 * Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, "Fragments of Light: A View as to the Reasons for the Commandments," in The Lights of Penitence, The Moral Principles, Lights of Holiness, Essays, Letters, and Poems, trans. Ben Zion Bokser (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), pp. 317–318

 * At one level, this movement on behalf of oppressed farm animals is emotional […] Yet the movement is also the product of a deep intellectual ferment pioneered by the Princeton scholar Peter Singer. […] This idea popularized by Professor Singer — that we have ethical obligations that transcend our species — is one whose time appears to have come. […] What we're seeing now is an interesting moral moment: a grass-roots effort by members of one species to promote the welfare of others. […] animal rights are now firmly on the mainstream ethical agenda.
 * Nicholas Kristof, "Humanity Even for Nonhumans", in The New York Times (8 April 2009)

L

 * The custom of tormenting and killing of beasts will, by degrees, harden their minds even towards men.
 * John Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693)

M

 * All breathing, existing, living, sentient creatures should not be slain, nor treated with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor driven away.
 * Mahavira, Ācharanga Sutra, Book 1, lecture 4, lesson 1, as translated by H. Jacobi, quoted in The Boundless Circle: Caring for Creatures and Creation (1996) by Michael W. Fox, p. 262

 * The "animal rights movement" […] is at once colossally powerful but ultimately hobbled by a weak spot both miniscule and fatal. […] That colossal power emanates from hundreds of thousands of everyday activists who justifiably believe that conscientious consumers can, through a wide variety of measures, take gradual steps toward removing animal products from their diet. These true believers do the grunt work of activism: they hand out pamphlets, write books, blog, make documentaries, start campus veg societies, publish vegan recipes, open vegan food carts, work for animal sanctuaries, run veganic farms, and do basically anything they can to encourage consumers to contemplate the face on their plate. I consider myself a member of this noble tribe. The heel of the movement, by contrast, consists of a handful of radicals, mostly academics, who do little more than set an unrealistic benchmark of success […] First, it seeks to eliminate all animal exploitation, in every realm of life, immediately, and without compromise or strategic capitulation; and second, it aims to eliminate all forms of oppression […] The heel does not want the good, or even the better. It wants perfection.
 * James E. McWilliams, "Radical Activism and the Future of Animal Rights", in Pacific Standard (3 July 2013)
 * There is, in fact, but one great crime in the universe, and most of the instances of terrestrial wrong-doing are instances of this crime. It is the crime of exploitation—the considering by some beings of themselves as ends, and of others as their means—the refusal to recognize the equal, or the approximately equal, rights of all to life and its legitimate rewards—the crime of acting toward others as one would that others would not act toward him. For millions of years, almost ever since life began, this crime has been committed, in every nook and quarter of the inhabited globe.
 * J. Howard Moore, The Universal Kinship (1906), pp. 275–276
 * All beings are ends; no creatures are means. All beings have not equal rights, neither have all men; but all have rights. The Life Process is the End — not man, nor any other animal temporarily privileged to weave a world's philosophy. Non-human beings were not made for human beings any more than human beings were made for non-human beings. Just as the sidereal spheres were once supposed by the childish mind of man to be unsubstantial satellites of the earth, but are known by man's riper understanding to be worlds with missions and materialities of their own, and of such magnitude and number as to render terrestrial insignificance frightful, so the billions that dwell in the seas, fields, and atmospheres of the earth were in like manner imagined by the illiterate children of the race to be the mere trinkets of men, but are now known by all who can interpret the new revelation to be beings with substantially the same origin, the same natures, structures, and occupations, and the same general rights to life and happiness, as we ourselves.
 * J. Howard Moore, The Universal Kinship (1906), p. 324

N

 * Even without the horrendous health, environmental, and human rights consequences of the animal industrial complex, the horrific treatment of other animals that it produces is in itself a powerful and compelling reason to resist and reject the system. Sentient beings who have preferences and desires, who are capable of profound social relationships and who have inherent value apart from their ill use by the Complex, are treated essentially as inanimate objects, as "biomachines." Most of these individuals, experiencing torturous confinement in CAFOS, have no opportunity for normal activity or stimuli, and many are kept in darkness for long periods. Their bodies often are crudely and painfully mutilated to facilitate growth or to mitigate the pathological behavior produced by overcrowding. Some animals are so intensively bred and genetically manipulated that they have difficulty standing. Animals are roughly handled and cruelly prodded when transported to slaughterhouses; once there, they are beaten and forced with electric prods onto the slaughterhouse floor, where many are still conscious when the “disassembly” begins. In just the United States, more than ten billion individuals suffer inexpressible horror every year in the name of "food" production.
 * David Nibert, "Origins and Consequences of the Animal Industrial Complex" in Steven Best; Richard Kahn; Anthony J. Nocella II; Peter McLaren (eds.). The Global Industrial Complex: Systems of Domination (2011), pp. 207-208

 * The oppression of other animals as food is unquestionably the deadliest practice; globally, more than 65 billion land-based beings are killed to be consumed as food every year, while the water-based other animals killed for food number in the hundreds of billions. The physical and emotional suffering from such horrific treatment experienced by each individual being, multiplied by the billions of individual animals who undergo it, results in a degree of severe distress and pain — every second — that defies comprehension.
 * David Nibert, "Introduction: The Unsavory Origins and Nature of Capitalism" in Animal Oppression and Capitalism (2017), p. xi

P

 * Of course, in the wake of the growth of the animal-rights movement, there has recently arisen a hitherto unfelt need to demonise and demean our non-human victims - and those who try to help them - now that our previously well-nigh unquestioned right to kill and exploit them is being challenged. Bloodsports enthusiasts, for instance, currently spend a lot of time cataloguing the alleged depredations of our victims on the environment. Recreational animal-killers go to extraordinarily lengths to avoid admitting that they themselves enjoy hunting and killing other creatures for fun. But then until a few years ago such rationalisations seemed scarcely called for. Selfish DNA had honed our intuitions so that the most agonising bloodshed seemed simply "natural".
 * David Pearce, "The Post-Darwinian Transition", Hedweb, 1996
 * What right do we have to claim, as some might, that human beings are the only inhabitants of our planet blessed with an actual ability to be "aware"? [...] The impression of a "conscious presence" is indeed very strong with me when I look at a dog or a cat or, especially, when an ape or monkey at the zoo looks at me. I do not ask that they are "self-aware" in any strong sense (though I would guess that an element of self-awareness can be present). All I ask is that they sometimes simply feel!
 * Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind (1989), Ch. 9

 * A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
 * Proverbs 12:10, King James Version

R

 * The dissolution of commercial animal farming as we know it obviously requires more than our individual commitment to vegetarianism. To refuse on principle to buy products of the meat industry is to do what is right, but it is not to do enough. To recognise the rights of animals is to recognise the related duty to defend them against those who violate their rights, and to discharge this duty requires more than our individual abstention. It requires acting to bring about those changes that are necessary if the rights of these animals are not to be violated. Fundamentally, then, it requires a revolution in our culture's thought about, and its accepted treatment of, farm animals [...] But prejudices die hard, all the more so when they are insulated by widespread secular customs and religious beliefs, sustained by large and powerful economic interests, and protected by the common law. To overcome the collective entropy of those forces against change will not be easy. The animal rights movement is not for the faint heart.
 * Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), pp. 352–53

 * Unless the massive amount of violence done to animals is acknowledged by those who do it, and until meaningful steps are taken to end it, as certain as night follows day, some ARAs [animal rights advocates], somewhere, somehow, will use violence against animal abusers themselves to defend the rights of animals.
 * Tom Regan, "How to Justify Violence", taken from Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals (2004), p. 236

 * While we often think of ecological damage as a modern problem our impacts date back millennia to the times in which humans lived as hunter-gatherers. Our history with wild animals has been a zero-sum game: either we hunted them to extinction, or we destroyed their habitats with agricultural land.
 * Hannah Ritchie, "Wild mammals have declined by 85% since the rise of humans, but there is a possible future where they flourish." . (April 20, 2021)

 * What is the foundation of human rights, that is not foundation, for animal rights also? A man has rights—and they are important to him because their observance is necessary to his happiness, and their violation hurts him. He has a right to personal liberty. It is pleasant to him—permanently pleasant and good. It is therefore his right. And every creature—or I will call it, rather, every existence, (for whether created or not, they certainly exist, they are) every existence, that is capable of enjoying or suffering, has its rights, and just mankind will regard them. And regard them as rights.
 * , "The Rights of Animals", A Collection from the Newspaper Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers (1847), pp. 339–340

 * What do animal rights advocates want? For most avowed rightists, that's easy: The complete liberation of animals from human exploitation as quickly as possible. Yet while we work diligently to achieve such a status for animals over the long term, we also have a duty to respect the "rights" of those individuals who are currently suffering to a life less miserable. To dismiss opportunities to ameliorate their pain and distress is to treat those animals as mere abstractions rather than as sentient beings inherently worthy of consideration now—a position, ironically, often held by the very exploitive institutions we seek to overturn.
 * Kirsten Rosenberg, United Poultry Concerns Third Annual Forum: "Do Animal Welfare Campaigns & Reforms Hurt or Help Animal Rights & Abolition?" (8-9 December 2001, Machipongo, Virginia)

 * In consequence of the sensibility with which they are endowed, they ought to partake of natural right; so that mankind is subjected to a kind of obligation even toward the brutes. It appears, in fact, that if I am bound to do no injury to my fellow-creatures, this is less because they are rational than because they are sentient beings: and this quality, being common both to men and beasts, ought to entitle the latter at least to the privilege of not being wantonly ill-treated by the former.
 * Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality (1754), preface

S

 * Have the lower animals "rights?" Undoubtedly—if men have.
 * Henry S. Salt, Animals' Rights (New York: Macmillan & Co, 1894), Ch. 1

 * If "rights" exist at all—and both feeling and usage indubitably prove that they do exist—they cannot be consistently awarded to men and denied to animals, since the same sense of justice and compassion apply in both cases.
 * Henry S. Salt, Animals' Rights (New York: Macmillan & Co, 1894), Ch. 1

 * The charge of "sentimentalism" is frequently brought against those who plead for animals' rights. Now "sentimentalism," if any meaning at all can be attached to the word, must signify an inequality, an ill balance of sentiment, an inconsistency which leads men into attacking one abuse, while they ignore or condone another where a reform is equally desirable. That this weakness is often observable among "philanthropists" on the one hand, and "friends of animals" on the other, and most of all among those acute "men of the world," whose regard is only for themselves, I am not concerned to deny; what I wish to point out is, that the only real safeguard against sentimentality is to take up a consistent position towards the rights of men and of the lower animals alike, and to cultivate a broad sense of universal justice (not "mercy") for all living things. Herein, and herein alone, is to be sought the true sanity of temperament.
 * Henry S. Salt, Animals' Rights (New York: Macmillan & Co, 1894), Ch. 1
 * It is of the utmost importance to emphasize the fact that, whatever the legal fiction may have been, or may still be, the rights of animals are not morally dependent on the so-called rights of property; it is not to owned animals merely that we must extend our sympathy and protection. [...] To take advantage of the sufferings of animals, whether wild or tame, for the gratification of sport, or gluttony, or fashion, is quite incompatible with any possible assertion of animals' rights.
 * Henry S. Salt, Animals' Rights, (New York: Macmillan & Co, 1894)

 * It is asserted that beasts have no rights; the illusion is harboured that our conduct, so far as they are concerned, has no moral significance, or, as it is put in the language of these codes, that "there are no duties to be fulfilled towards animals." Such a view is one of revolting coarseness, a barbarism of the West, whose source is Judaism. In philosophy, however, it rests on the assumption, despite all evidence to the contrary, of the radical difference between man and beast,—a doctrine which, as is well known, was proclaimed with more trenchant emphasis by Descartes than by any one else: it was indeed the necessary consequence of his mistakes.
 * Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Basis of Morality (1840), trans. Arthur Brodrick Bullock, London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1903, Part III, Ch. VIII, 7, p. 218

 * Europeans are awakening more and more to a sense that beasts have rights, in proportion as the strange notion is being gradually overcome and outgrown, that the animal kingdom came into existence solely for the benefit and pleasure of man. This view, with the corollary that non-human living creatures are to be regarded merely as things, is at the root of the rough and altogether reckless treatment of them, which obtains in the West.
 * Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Basis of Morality (1840), trans. Arthur Brodrick Bullock, London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1903, Part III, Ch. VIII, 7, p. 225
 * The thinking man must [...] oppose all cruel customs no matter how deeply rooted in tradition and surrounded by a halo. True manhood is too precious a spiritual good for us to surrender any part of it to thoughtlessness.
 * Albert Schweizer, The Animal World of Albert Schweitzer (1950), p. 179

 * It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary preparation that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horror does not excite intolerable loathing and disgust.
 * Percy Bysshe Shelley, in A Vindication of Natural Diet (1813)

 * The butchering of harmless animals cannot fail to produce much of that spirit of insane and hideous exultation in which news of a victory is related altho' purchased by the massacre of a hundred thousand men. If the use of animal food be, in consequence, subversive to the peace of human society, how unwarrantable is the injustice and barbarity which is exercised toward these miserable victims. They are called into existence by human artifice that they may drag out a short and miserable existence of slavery and disease, that their bodies may be mutilated, their social feelings outraged. It were much better that a sentient being should never have existed, than that it should have existed only to endure unmitigated misery.
 * Percy Bysshe Shelley, On the Vegetable System of Diet (c. 1815; posthumously published, 1929)

 * As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behaviour toward creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right.
 * Isaac Bashevis Singer, Enemies, a Love Story (1972), Ch. 9, §3

 * The animals themselves are incapable of demanding their own liberation, or of protesting against their condition with votes, demonstrations, or bombs. Human beings have the power to continue to oppress other species forever, or until we make this planet unsuitable for living beings. Will our tyranny continue, proving that we really are the selfish tyrants that the most cynical of poets and philosophers have always said we are? Or will we rise to the challenge and prove our capacity for genuine altruism by ending our ruthless exploitation of the species in our power, not because we are forced to do so by rebels or terrorists, but because we recognize that our position is morally indefensible? The way in which we answer this question depends on the way in which each one of us, individually, answers it.
 * Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals (1975), p. 185

 * If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that the suffering be counted equally with the like suffering – in so far as rough comparisons can be made – of any other being. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account. This is why the limit of sentience (...) is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others.
 * Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 3rd. edition (2011), p. 50

 * My own life has convinced me that the limitations most of us encounter in our relations with other animals reflect not their shortcomings, as we so often assume, but our own narrow views about who they are and the kinds of relationships we can have with them. And so I conclude by urging anyone with an interest in animal rights to open your heart to the animals around you and find out for yourself what it's like to befriend a nonhuman person.
 * Barbara Smuts, Reflections, in The Lives of Animals (Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 120

 * No one has the right routinely to override anyone else's rights, including those of animals. One must act in everyone's best interests as much as possible. [...] [Since] the law most unequivocally accords rights to persons, and typically denies rights to nonpersons, then practically, there is an imperative to deem sentient animals to be persons.
 * David Sztybel, "The Rights of Animal Persons", Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal 4, no. 1 (2006); quoted in Creature Discomfort (2016) by Scott M. DeVries, p. 13

T

 * A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.
 * Leo Tolstoy, Writings on Civil Disobedience and Nonviolence (1886)
 * The importance of animal suffering seems to be one significant lacuna in the ethical views of most elite thinkers. It's helpful to expand people's hearts and minds on this issue, although we need to make sure to do so in a way that actually helps suffering animals in nature rather than reinforcing some of the other ideas of the animal-rights movement, like that we should "leave animals alone in all cases."
 * Brian Tomasik, "Caring About Animal Suffering", Essays on Reducing Suffering, 20 Nov. 2013

 * How important it is, then, that the child be taught to govern its passions! How important that it be taught to be kind, gentle, loving, and humane; and in all the range of human thought there is not a better, wiser, or more expedient way of accomplishing this end than by teaching kindness towards God's lower creatures. If children are thus taught they will have instilled into their hearts those principles of action which will make them kind and merciful not only to the lower animals, but also toward their fellow-men as they attain to manhood. Let them be taught that the lower animals are God's creatures, as they themselves are, put here by a common Heavenly Father, each for its own special purpose, and that they have the same right to life and protection. Let them be taught that principle recognised by all noble-hearted men, that it is only a depraved, debased, and cowardly nature that will injure an inferior, defenceless creature, simply because it is in its power to do so, and that there is no better, no grander test of true bravery and nobility of character than one's treatment of the lower animals.
 * Ralph Waldo Trine, Every Living Creature: Or, Heart-training Through the Animal World (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Co., 1899), pp. 6–7

V

 * Hold then the same view of the dog which has lost his master, which has sought him in all the thoroughfares with cries of sorrow, which comes into the house troubled and restless, goes downstairs, goes upstairs; goes from room to room, finds at last in his study the master he loves, and betokens his gladness by soft whimpers, frisks, and caresses. There are barbarians who seize this dog, who so greatly surpasses man in fidelity and friendship, and nail him down to a table and dissect him alive, to show you the Mesaraic veins! You discover in him all the same organs of feeling as in yourself. Answer me, Mechanist, has Nature arranged all the springs of feeling in this animal to the end that he might not feel? Has he nerves that he may be incapable of suffering? Do not suppose that impertinent contradiction in Nature.
 * Voltaire, Dictionnaire philosophique portatif (1764), "Beasts"

W

 * The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men.
 * Alice Walker, foreward to The Dreaded Comparison: Animal Slavery and Human Slavery (1996) by Marjorie Spiegel, p. 14.

title: Animal rights


text:
Wikiquote talk:Citing sources

How to ask for citations?
The templates under this section don't seem to work.... how can I tag a quote as needing a citation? The templates that work on Wikipedia don't seem to work on Wikiquote. For example, just leads to an empty Template page on Wikiquote instead of the functioning page on Wikipedia. Maybe there is a Wikimedia-specific template page? Help appreciated. Jim Butler 19:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * fact should work now. The instruction on this page are in need of polishing though. jni 11:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I actually don't recommend using fact when you're looking for a source; typical Wikiquote practice for quotes without sources is just to include them as part of an "Unsourced" section on a page, rather than tagging them with any specific template. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What if I have doubts that some quote in "Unsourced" section is in fact a vanity quote by some 13 year old kid? Just remove it or move to talk? I think there should be a template for marking it for verification by others. jni 06:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

 * For something that you're fairly certain is a vanity quote or something that a person never said, the best course of action is probably to move the quote from the page to its talk page, explaining why you think that the quote isn't appropriate for the page. That way, it's not lost in the edit history, and if someone comes along and can confirm the quote, it can be restored with ease. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tagging inadequate sources
A depressingly huge amount of quotes in Wikiquote articles are unsourced or inadequately sourced. Many that are in "Sourced" sections aren't sourced at all by Wikimedia standards. (One very common misunderstanding is the idea that it's enough to identify who, where, and/or when something was said or written, without providing an actual reliable source for this claim.)

Since we're very far behind in doing a comprehensive job tuning our WQ:CITE and WQ:SOURCE articles, and clearly aren't getting the message across, I am thinking we should be much more explicit about the inadequacies of sources, so that readers and editors can see exactly why something is considered "unsourced". (Policy pages, notes on talk pages, and even HTML comments just don't seem to work very well.) I suggest we try something like this (taken from the current David Horowitz, which I just reformatted and separated into Sourced/Unsourced):

 * More than ever before, for humanity to live under capitalism, is to live on borrowed time.
 * Empire and Revolution, 1969, unidentified chapter/page/edition

 * Commodity fetishism is the key to the prosperity and efficiency of the capitalist economy and to the relative peace of capitalist states. It is what makes us work together.
 * Debate with Michael Albert, unidentified 2001 date, unidentified forum, unidentified publication citation

 * Republicans like art, so people who are genuine artists shouldn't worry.
 * Minneapolis Star Tribune, unidentified issue, unidentified article about cutbacks in the NEA, sidebar

Such explicit indications of "unidentified" information give clear justifications for the quotes' location in "Unsourced" as well as the way to get them into "Sourced", without having to look up policy pages on WQ and WP. This would be further enhanced if we had links to specific paragraphs in this policy page that would give detailed explanations of how to cite this information. Examples:

 * "unidentified chapter/page/edition" could be linked to a section that describes minimum requirements for book citations; i.e., chapter or page and edition, preferably with ISBN
 * "unidentified publication citation" would describe how to cite published versions of quotes from speeches or other events
 * "unidentified issue" would ask for a date or issue number
 * "unidentified article" would indicate the need for an article title or specific page numbers

These variations could be templatized to simplify tagging problem sources and collect them in categories that indicate which articles need source work. But the most important aspect of this explicit tagging is that readers will be able to pick up our philosophy by osmosis instead of having to read policy articles (which most of us don't want to do, anyway).

Whatever the details or methodology, it seems clear that we need to make it much more obvious why so many quotes aren't up to Wikiquote sourcing standards, and how to solve the problems. We should do this in a way that helps our large audience of casual readers easily understand how to do a little research and incrementally improve Wikiquote. It could be argued that information like "unidentified this-or-that" may look a little odd or ugly in the source lines, but I would counter-argue that the value of Wikiquote, like Wikipedia, is that we strive for accuracy through reliable sourcing, and this information makes clear when we aren't sure of some quotes, and how anyone could help us gain that surety. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Discomfort citing this draft policy
I am concerned that this current draft policy, being largely a copy of w:WP:CITE, so poorly reflects actual Wikiquote practice that I am no longer comfortable citing it when advising editors how to cite sources, an increasingly important task here. If we can't get this thing rewritten soon for Wikiquote's needs, I'm thinking we might be better off replacing it completely with a simple description of our basic sourcing methods. How does the community feel about this? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this page is totally misleading with respect to Wikiquote's customary citation style.
 * Stamp out footnotes! ~ Ningauble 17:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Brief, specific source lines with detailed footnotes
I've posted at WQ:SOURCE a mini-essay on a hybrid source-citing method that attempts to provide detailed source information without cluttering up the mandatory source lines with repetitive information. (I posted it there because that draft policy is much closer than this one to reflecting actual Wikiquote practice. This draft policy page is currently hardly changed from the old Wikipedia version that Essjay copied over nearly two years ago.) I invite discussion of this approach there. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing video
Nixon's quote "I am not a crook" has a citation needed, and there's about a dozen videos of it on YouTube. However, it seems that isn't an accepted wiki source, though it's a natural for TV quotes like this one. What would the format be? Can someone clarify? Conflatuman 15:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am confident that a good print source for that quotation can be found because it has been widely discussed in mainstream media. E.g., part of the quote can be found in Carroll Kilpatrick, "Nixon Tells Editors, 'I'm Not a Crook'," Washington Post, 18 November 1973, p. A1. A YooToob video would then be a good supplementary link. ~ Ningauble 14:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Case citations for court decisions.
Citations to quotes from legal cases should generally be laid out according to the shorter format in Wikipedia's case citation article. The sourcing of such quotes will probably be of most interest to lawyers, who would benefit from the use of that citation form. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotes assigned to someone which have record of being made.
What is the policy of attributing a quote to a living person which has not been verfied to have been said by that person?

For example, if someone is quoted in a RS as saying, "Barack Obama said 30 years ago, 'We should kill all Dolphins.'.", can you list on Obama's quote page as him having made the quote "We should kill all Dolphins." - Barack Obama 1982?

I would say that if there is no first hand record of the comment, then there is no way you could say that the person made that quote, and certainly not attribute it to the person. 66.44.182.212 00:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * The source of attribution should be made clear. If the cited "someone" is anonymous or non-notable then we would be relying on the "RS" for secondary attribution. Whether to include it at all depends on its reliability and quotability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Improper source
Here, I moved some quotations from the Disputed section of the Augustine of Hippo page to it's talk page. Here, Kalki has reverted my edit.

The quotations being disagreed upon do not cite the writings of Augustine directly, but rather cite another author who has quoted the phrase and attributed it to Augustine. For example:

 * Patience is the companion of wisdom.
 * As quoted in Distilled Wisdom: An Encyclopedia of Wisdom in Condensed Form (1964) by Alfred Armand Montapert, p. 270

 * Woman, compared to other creatures, is the image of God, for she bears dominion over them. But compared unto man, she may not be called the image of God, for she bears not rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him. The woman shall be subject to man as unto Christ. For woman, has not her example from the body and from the flesh, that so she shall be subject to man, as the flesh is unto the Spirit, because that the flesh in the weakness and mortality of this life lusts and strives against the Spirit, and therefore would not the Holy Ghost give example of subjection to the woman of any such thing.
 * As quoted by John Knox The First Blast to Awaken Women Degenerate (1558)

To which section do such quotations properly belong? Thanks to all, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe they are properly placed in the Disputed section. As these quotes are attributed to Augustine of Hippo, users should be able to find them when searching (even if they are improperly attributed). The relocation of quotes to talk pages IMHO is for when there is no source given (or the source is not genuine or only partially cited) and the goal is to find a proper source. In the case of quotes such as those you are moving, I'm not sure there will be better sources to be found, but the real issue is that others believe the author of them is Augustine, when that may in fact not be the case - hence the use of a Disputed section. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

General list of potential unreliable sources?
I'm not a frequent editor here, but I've been looking to see if there's a WQ: page that cautions against using certain tempting but unreliable sites (BrainyQuote, for example) or other compendiums as sources, similar to Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources. Have I missed it?

I'd volunteer to help create one, but I suspect there are more regular contributors who would have a better handle on this.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone been banned for bad formatting
I'm curious if adding too many bare urls is the official sole reason for anyone being banned or blocked; I know there were also a lot of unsourced statements at one point as well, was anyone banned or blocked over those? I checked out the Wikiquote:Block log which seems to consist of nothing but 2004 spam blocks. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

 * WTF would someone be sanctioned for contributing content? Paradoctor (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a rhetorical question by someone who has been blocked for other reasons. Just ignore it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, drama! We don't have enough of that. :P Thanks for the clue. Paradoctor (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

How to cite a page
Please help me I am facing difficulty to cite a page Jogesh 69 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikiquote talk:Citing sources


text:
Hans Morgenthau

Hans Morgenthau (17 February 1904 -19 July 1980) was one of the leading twentieth-century figures in the study of international politics. He made landmark contributions to international-relations theory and the study of international law.

Politics Among Nations (1948)

 * Politics Among Nations : The Struggle for Power and Peace; this work has gone through many editions, and the oft quoted "Six Principles of Political Realism" first appeared in a 1954 edition.

 * Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. In order to improve society it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences, men will challenge them only at the risk of failure. Realism, believing as it does in the objectivity of the laws of politics, must also believe in the possibility of developing a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objective laws. It believes also, then, in the possibility of distinguishing in politics between truth and opinion — between what is true objectively and rationally, supported by evidence and illuminated by reason, and what is only a subjective judgment, divorced from the facts as they are and informed by prejudice and wishful thinking.
 * Six Principles of Political Realism, § 1

 * Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is also aware of the ineluctable tension between the moral command and the requirements of successful political action. And it is unwilling to gloss over and obliterate that tension and thus to obfuscate both the moral and the political issue by making it appear as though the stark facts of politics were morally more satisfying than they actually are, and the moral law less exacting than it actually is.
 * Six Principles of Political Realism, § 4

 * Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation, but that they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place. The individual may say for himself: "Fiat justitia, pereat mundus (Let justice be done, even if the world perish)," but the state has no right to say so in the name of those who are in its care. Both individual and state must judge political action by universal moral principles, such as that of liberty. Yet while the individual has a moral right to sacrifice himself in defense of such a moral principle, the state has no right to let its moral disapprobation of the infringement of liberty get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the moral principle of national survival.
 * Six Principles of Political Realism, § 4

 * Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. As it distinguishes between truth and opinion, so it distinguishes between truth and idolatry. All nations are tempted — and few have been able to resist the power for long — to clothe their own aspirations and action in the moral purposes of the universe. To know that nations are subject to the moral law is one thing, while to pretend to know with certainty what is good and evil in the relations among nations is quite another. There is a world of difference between the belief that all nations stand under the judgment of God, inscrutable to the human mind, and the blasphemous conviction that God is always on one's side and that what one wills oneself cannot fail to be willed by God also.
 * Six Principles of Political Realism, § 5

 * However much the theory of political realism may have been misunderstood and misinterpreted, there is no gainsaying its distinctive intellectual and moral attitude to matters political. Intellectually, the political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere, as the economist, the lawyer, the moralist maintain theirs. He thinks in terms of interest defined as power, as the economist thinks in terms of interest defined as wealth; the lawyer, of the conformity of action with legal rules; the moralist, of the conformity of action with moral principles. The economist asks: "How does this policy affect the wealth of society, or a segment of it?" The lawyer asks: "Is this policy in accord with the rules of law?" The moralist asks: "Is this policy in accord with moral principles?" And the political realist asks: "How does this policy affect the power of the nation?" (Or of the federal government, of Congress, of the party, of agriculture, as the case may be.) The political realist is not unaware of the existence and relevance of standards of thought other than political ones. As political realist, he cannot but subordinate these other standards to those of politics.
 * Six Principles of Political Realism, § 6

 * We must distinguish between military and political power. Political power is a psychological relation between those who exercise it and those over whom it is exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter through the influence which the former exert over the latter's minds. That influence may be exerted through orders, threats, persuasion, or a combination of any of these.
 * p. 27 (1954 edition)

 * The struggle for power is universal in time and space and is an undeniable fact of experience. It cannot be denied that throughout historic time, regardless of social, economic and political conditions, states have met each other in contests for power. Even though anthropologists have shown that certain primitive peoples seem to be free from the desire for power, nobody has yet shown how their state of mind can be re-created on a worldwide scale so as to eliminate the struggle for power from the international scene. … International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power.  Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim.
 * p. 29 (1978 edition)

 * When we speak of power, we mean man's control over the minds and actions of other men. By political power we refer to the mutual relations of control among the holders of public authority and between the latter and the people at large.
 * p. 33 (1993 edition)

 * Throughout the nation's history, the national destiny of the United States has been understood in antimilitaristic, libertarian terms.
 * p. 42 (1985 edition)

Disputed

 * Influence can persuade, but power can compel.
 * This has been cited as being from Politics Among Nations in ¿«Armas de convicción masiva»? American Studies durante la guerra fría: el casa Español (2010) by Francisco Javier Rodríguez Jiménez, p. 1, but has not been located in any English editions of the work and may be a back-translation or paraphrase of a statement within a Spanish edition.

title: Hans Morgenthau


text:
Corpse Bride

Corpse Bride is a 2005 American-British stop-motion animation musical dark comedy animated film by Tim Burton. It is about a young man who, stressed by his upcoming wedding, goes for a walk to clear his head. When he returns, he's married to a corpse…
 * Directed by Mike Johnson and Tim Burton. Written by John August, Pamela Pettler, and Caroline Thompson.

There's been a grave misunderstanding.(taglines)

Victor Van Dort

 * Victoria, t-tomorrow, we are to be... [struggles to say "married"] mmmm...mmmm...mmmm... [Victoria: "Married"?] Yes. Ha. m-m-married.
 * You should've seen him with fur.
 * Sir, I beg you to help. It means so much to me...us.
 * I've got a...I've got a dwarf, and I'm not afraid to use him!
 * [trying to practice his vows] With this hand, I will cup your... [unconsciously holds hands before his chest in a suggestive manner, and is then horrified] Oh goodness, no. With this candle, I will...I will... [loses confidence] I will set your mother on fire. [looking at the flowers Victoria gave him, and begins to have confidence] With this hand, I will lift your sorrows. Your cup will never be empty, for I will be your wine. Ah, Mrs. Everglot. You look ravishing this evening. What's that, Mr. Everglot? Call you "dad"? If you insist, sir. With this candle, I will light your way in darkness. With this ring, I ask you to be mine.
 * [to the corpse of Scraps] Play dead...Oh, sorry.
 * I'm already reeling, Mother. Shouldn't Victoria Everglot be marrying a lord or something?
 * I-I-I do apologize, Miss Everglot. How rude of me to...Well...Excuse me.
 * Please, there's been a mistake! I'm not dead!
 * Mother never approved of Scraps jumping up like this. But then again, she never approved of anything.

Emily

 * If I touch a burning candle, I can feel no pain. If you cut me with a knife, it's still the same. And I know her heart is beating, and I know that I am dead; yet the pain here that I feel, try and tell me it's not real, and it seems that I still have a tear to shed.
 * Isn't the view beautiful? It takes my breath away. Well, it would if I had any
 * We need to go up. Upstairs? To visit the land of the living.
 * I've spent so long in the darkness, I'd almost forgotten how beautiful the moonlight is.
 * [after her hand escapes her arm and dances up Victor's arm] Pardon my enthusiasm.
 * If I touch a burning candle I can feel no pain. In the ice or in the sun it's all the same. And I feel my heart is aching, though it doesn't beat it's breaking. Yet the pain here that I feel...try and tell me it's not real. And I know that I am dead. It seems that I still have some tears to shed.
 * Or perhaps he does belong with her, Little Miss Living, with her rosy cheeks and beating heart.
 * I was a bride. My dreams were taken from me. Well now...now I've stolen them from someone else. I love you, Victor. But you are not mine.

Finis Everglot

 * [to Victor] Out of the way, you ninny!
 * There's an eye in me soup.
 * [repeated line] Fetch me musket!

Maudeline Everglot

 * Will the mortification never cease? It will be YEARS before we can show ourselves in public again!

Pastor Galswells

 * ENOUGH! This wedding cannot take place until he is properly prepared! [to Victor] Young man, learn your vows.
 * What in heaven's name? Who could that be at this hour? [opens door] Miss Everglot? What are you doing here? You should be at home, prostrate with grief!
 * [after hearing about Victor and the Corpse Bride] Hmm. I believe I know the thing to do. Come with me. [snuffs out his candle by hand]
 * [about Victoria] She's speaking in tongues. Of unholy alliances! Her mind has come undone, I fear.
 * I now pronounce you man and wife.
 * [in front of a crowd of skeletons] Begone, ye demons from Hell! Back to the void from whence you came! You shall not enter here! Back! BACK!!!

Bonejangles

 * What a story it is. A tragic tale of romance, passion, and a murder most foul!
 * [his eye rolls to the other side of his head] Hit it, boys. ["Remains of the Day" plays]
 * Hey! Hold on there! I love a woman with meat on her bones. Heh heh heh heh heh!

Elder Gutknecht

 * Why go up there when people are dying to get down here?
 * I have it. A Ukrainian Haunting Spell! Just the thing for these quick trips.
 * Dearly beloved, and departed, we are gathered here today to join this man and this corpse in marriage.
 * Victor would have to give up the life he had forever. He would have to repeat his vows in the Land of the Living, and drink from the Wine of Ages. This would stop his heart forever. Only then would he be free to give it to you.

Maggot

 * If I hadn't just been sitting in it, I would say that you've lost your mind!
 * [pushing out the Corpse Bride's eye so he can look for Victor] I'll keep an eye out for him. [spots Victor] There he goes! There he goes! He's-He's getting away! Quick! Quick, after him!
 * [to a villager] You don't know me, but I used to live in your dead mother.

Town Crier

 * HEAR YE, HEAR YE! 10 MINUETS TO GO TILL VAN DORT'S WEDDING REHEARSAL!
 * HEAR YE, HEAR YE! REHEARSAL IN RUINS AS VAN DORT BOY CAUSES CHAOS! [sees Victor, and makes it a point to let him know] FISHY FIANCÈ COULD BE CANNED! EVERGLOTS ALL "FIRED UP" AS VAN DORT DISASTER RUINS REHEARSAL!
 * HEAR YE, HEAR YE! VICTOR VAN DORT SEEN THIS NIGHT ON THE BRIDGE IN THE ARMS OF A MYSTERY WOMAN! THE DARK-HAIRED TEMPTRESS AND MASTER VAN DORT SLIPPED AWAY INTO THE NIGHT! And now the weather: scattered showers...
 * VICTOR VAN DORT ELOPES WITH CORPSE! HEARTBROKEN BRIDE TO WED WEALTHY NEWCOMER!
 * In other news...THE DEAD WALK THE EARTH!!!

Dialogue

 * Victoria: Oh, Hildegarde...what if Victor and I... [gasps] I don't like each other?
 * Maudeline: Humph! As if that has anything to do with marriage. Do you suppose your father and I like each other?
 * Victoria: Surely you must, a little?
 * Maudeline and Finis: [look at each other in disgust] Of course not!
 * Maudeline: Get those corsets laced properly. I can hear you speak without gasping.

 * Town Crier: VICTOR VAN DORT ELOPES WITH CORPSE! HEARTBROKEN BRIDE TO WED WEALTHY NEWCOMER!
 * Nell Van Dort: Wealthy newcomer? It cannot be!
 * William Van Dort: Did he say "corpse"?
 * Nell Van Dort: Oh, don't be ridiculous. What corpse would marry our Victor?

 * Maudeline: [as the dead ran rampant] They must be from your side of the family!
 * Finis: Certainly not! If my Grandfather Everglot could see this, he'd be turning in his grave!
 * Grandfather: [booming] Finis! [they turn to see a skeleton who looks just like the portrait of Finis's grandfather, who says politely] Where do you keep the spirits? [shaking his goblet gently]
 * [After a short pause, Finis and Maudeline scream in terror and run into their room]

 * Pastor Galswells: [yelling] Begone, ye demons from Hell! Back to the void from whence you came! You shall not enter here! Back! Back!
 * Skeleton: Keep it down, we're in a church.

 * Emily: [recognizes Barkis] You.
 * Lord Barkis: Emily?!
 * Emily: YOU!
 * Lord Barkis: But...I left you.
 * Emily: For dead.
 * [The crowd gasps]

 * Lord Barkis: Touche, my dear.
 * Emily: [glares at him] Get out.
 * Lord Barkis: Oh, I'm leaving. [laughs evilly, then picks up the Wine of Ages] But first, a toast to Emily. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride. Tell me, my dear, can a heart still break once it's stopped beating? Hmm? [laughs evilly one last time]
 * Maggot: Let me at him! Let me at him! [Elder Gutknecht holds him back with his finger] No, don't-don't hold me back!
 * Elder Gutknecht: [to angry corpses] Wait! We must abide by their rules! We are amongst the living.
 * Lord Barkis: Well said. [drinks the Wine of Ages and dies]
 * Maggot: [amusing smile] Not anymore!
 * [Barkis is turned into a corpse as his face's color changes to blue]
 * Elder Gutknecht: Yup, you're right. He's all yours.
 * [The corpses laugh diabolically as they surround Barkis and drag him to the underworld]
 * Mrs. Plum: New arrival. [closes the door]

Taglines

 * Rising to the occasion.
 * There's been a grave misunderstanding...
 * Can a heart still break once it's stopped beating?

Cast

 * Johnny Depp as Victor Van Dort
 * Helena Bonham Carter as Emily
 * Emily Watson as Victoria Everglot
 * Tracey Ullman as Nell Van Dort
 * Paul Whitehouse as William Van Dort
 * Joanna Lumley as Lady Maudeline Everglot
 * Albert Finney as Lord Finis Everglot
 * Richard E. Grant as Lord Barkis Bittern
 * Christopher Lee as Pastor Gallswells
 * Michael Gough as Elder Gutknecht

title: Corpse Bride


text:
Shashi Tharoor

Shashi Tharoor (Malayalam: ശശി തരൂര്; Born 9 March 1956 in London) is an Indian politician, author, journalist, and a former diplomat who is currently serving as Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha from Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala since 2009. He also currently serves as Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology.

Quotes

 * To speak of Hindu fundamentalism, is a contradiction in terms, since Hinduism is a religion without fundamentals. To be an Indian Hindu is to be part of an elusive dream all share, a dream that fills our minds with sounds, words, flavours from many sources that we cannot easily identify.
 * The Elephant, the Tiger and the Cellphone. p. 64.

 * Every Hindu may not be conscious of the finer points of his faith, but he has been raised in the tradition of its assumptions and doctrines, even when these have not been explained to him. His Hinduism may be a Hinduism of habit rather than a Hinduism of learning, but it is a lived Hinduism for all that.
 * Why I Am a Hindu (2018), p. 59.

 * I do not look to history to absolve my country of the need to do things right today. Rather I seek to understand the wrongs of yesterday, both to grasp what has brought us to our present reality and to understand the past for itself. The past is not necessarily a guide to the future, but it does partly help explain the present. One cannot, as I have written elsewhere, take revenge upon history; history is its own revenge.
 * Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India

2000s

 * 2000-2004

 * No Indian nationalist leader ever needed to say: We have created India; now all we need to do is to create Indians.
 * Rediff News, "Who is an Indian?", Available Online, April 6, 2000

 * We all have multiple identities in India; we are all minorities in India. Our heterogeneity is definitional.
 * The Hindu, "License to Be Himself", April 1, 2001

 * Pluralist India must, by definition, tolerate plural expressions of its many identities.
 * The Hindu, "After the Dust is Settled", April 15, 2001

 * India shaped my mind, anchored my identity, influenced my beliefs, and made me who I am. ... India matters to me and I would like to matter to India.
 * The Hindu, "The Shashi Tharoor column: A departure, fictionally", Sunday, September 16, 2001 Available Online

 * I was not blinded by faith, but the encounter was indeed astonishing at several levels. In our private talk, Sai Baba uttered insights about my family and myself that he could not possibly have known....He waved his hand in the air and opened his palm. In it nestled a gold ring with nine embedded stones, a navratan. He slipped it on my finger, remarking, "See how well it fits. Even a goldsmith would have needed to measure your finger."
 * The Hindu, "Reality - Spiritual and Virtual", Nov 10, 2002 Available Online.

 * "It was as if he had heard what I wanted," she said. But a skilled magician can do that, and it would be wrong to see Sai Baba as a conjurer. He has channeled the hopes and energies of his followers into constructive directions, both spiritual and philanthropic.
 * The Hindu, "Reality - Spiritual and Virtual", Nov 10, 2002 Available Online.

 * The only possible idea of India is that of a nation greater than the sum of its parts.
 * The Hindu, "Strengthening Indianness ", Sunday, Jan 19, 2003, Available Online

 * What is most important to me is Jawaharlal Nehru's idea of India, India as a pluralist society and polity, an idea which is central to India’s survival, which has held now in the four decades after his death and which is all the more in need of defending.
 * Edited transcript of remarks, 11/13/03 Books for Breakfast, "Nehru: The Invention of India" Available Online

 * India is not, as people keep calling it, an underdeveloped country, but rather, in the context of its history and cultural heritage, a highly developed one in an advanced state of decay.
 * World Policy Journal, "Reflections", Volume XXI, No 2, Summer 2004 Available Online. Also in Bookless In Baghdad (2005), Penguin Books India, p. 27.

 * In building an Indian nation that takes account of the country's true Hindu heritage, we have to return to the pluralism of the national movement.
 * The Hindu, "1947, first-hand ", Sunday, Aug 15, 2004 Available Online

 * The memories of the first Independence Day may have faded, but the power of that magical moment must never be forgotten.
 * The Hindu, "1947, first-hand ", Sunday, Aug 15, 2004 Available Online

 * 2005-2009

 * Does NRI (Non-Resident Indian) stand for Not Really Indian or Never Relinquished India? I believe a little of both!
 * Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 27, No. 3, 371-390 (2005)DOI: 10.1177/0163443705051749, © 2005 SAGE Publications, "Creating immigrant identities in cybernetic space: examples from a non-resident Indian website, Available Online

 * Indian nationalism is the nationalism of an idea, the idea of an ever-ever land, emerging from an ancient civilization, shaped by a shared history, sustained by pluralist democracy.
 * The 125th Anniversary Jubilee Lecture, St. Stephen's College, Delhi, November 12 2005, "India: from Midnight to the Millennium and Beyond" Available Online

 * The pluralism and the linguistic diversity of India is something of which we can truly be proud.
 * The Hindu, "Things that happen only in India", Sunday, Aug 13, 2006 Available Online

 * The pluralism and the linguistic diversity of India is something of which we can truly be proud.
 * The Hindu, "Things that happen only in India", Sunday, Aug 13, 2006 Available Online

The Great Indian Novel (1989)

 * Book by Shashi Tharoor: "The Great Indian Novel", ISBN 0140120491

 * This is my story of the India I know, with its biases, selections, omissions, distortions, all mine.... Every Indian must for ever carry with him, in his head and heart, his own history of India.

 * The British are the only people in history crass enough to have made revolutionaries out of Americans.

 * Basic truth about the colonies, Heaslop. Any time there's trouble, you can put it down to books. Too many of the wrong ideas getting into the heads of the wrong sorts of people. If ever the Empire comes to ruin, Heaslop, mark my words, the British publisher will be to blame.

 * The vehicles of human politics seem to run off course, but the site of the accident turns out to have been the intended destination.

 * India has been born and reborn scores of times, and it will be reborn again. India is forever, and India is forever being made.

 * Bureaucracy is simultaneously the most crippling of Indian diseases and the highest of Indian art forms.

 * Like India herself, I am at home in hovels and palaces, Ganapathi, I trundle in bullock-carts and propel myself into space, I read the vedas and quote the laws of cricket. I move to the strains of a morning raga in perfect evening dress.

 * The British had the gall to call Robert Clive 'Clive of India' as if he belonged to the country, when all he really did was to ensure that much of the country belonged to him.

 * How easily we Indians see the several sides to every question! That is what makes us such good bureaucrats, and such poor totalitarians. They say the new international organizations set up by the wonderfully optimistic (if oxymoronic) United Nations are full of highly successful Indian officials with quick, subtle minds and mellifluous tongues, for ever able to understand every global crisis from the point of view of each and every one of the contending parties. That is why they do so well, Ganapathi, in any situation that calls for an instinctive awareness of the subjectivity of truth, the relativity of judgement and the impossibility of action.

 * Dissent, is like a Gurkha’s ‘khukri’, once it emerges form its sheath it must draw blood before it can be put away again.

 * On Gandhi: Don’t ever forget, that we were not lead by a saint with his head in clouds, but by a master tactician with his feet on the ground.

 * On "Priya Duryodhani": She was a slight frail girl, with a thin tapering face like kernel of a mango and dark-brown eyebrows that nearly joined together over high-ridged nose, giving her to look of a desiccated school teacher at an age when she was barely old enough to enroll at school. She had dark and lustrous eyes. They shone from that finished face like blazing gems on a fading backcloth, flashing, questioning.

 * There is, in short no end to the story of life. There are merely pauses. The end is the arbitrary intervention of the teller, but there can be no finality about the choice. Today’s end is, after all tomorrow’s beginning.

 * The instinctive Indian sense that nothing begins and nothing ends. We are all living in an eternal present in which what was and what will be is contained in what is, or to put it in a more contemporary idiom, that life is a series of sequel to history.

 * A philosopher is a lover of wisdom, not of knowledge, which for all its great uses ultimately suffers from the crippling effect of ephemerality. All knowledge is transient, linked to the world around it and subject to change as the world changes, whereas wisdom, true wisdom is eternal, immutable. To be philosophical one must love wisdom for its own sake, accept its permanent validity and yet its perpetual irrelevance. It is the fate of the wise to understand the process of history and yet never to shape it.

 * We Indians, Arjun, are so good at respecting outward forms while ignoring the substance. We took the forms of parliamentary democracy, preserved them, put them on pedestal and paid them due obeisance. But we ignored the basic fact that parliamentary democracy can only work if those who run it are constantly responsive to needs of the people and if parliamentarians are qualified enough to legislate. Neither condition was fulfilled in India for long. Today most people are simply aware of their own irrelevance to the process. They see themselves standing helplessly on the margins while professional politicians and unprofessional politicians combine to run the country to the ground.

 * We Indians are notoriously good at being resigned to our lot. Our fatalism goes beyond, even if it springs from, the Hindu acceptance of the world as it is ordained to be. I must tell you a little story - a marvellous fable from our puranas that illustrates our resilience and self-absorption in the face of circumstances. A man is pursued by a tiger. He runs fast, but his panting heart tells him that he cannot run much longer. He sees a tree. Relief! He accelerates and gets to it in one last despairing stride. He climbs the tree. The tiger snarls below him, but he feels that he has at last escaped its snapping jaws...

 * But no - what’s this? The branch on which he is sitting is weak. That is not all: wood-mice are gnawing away at it: before long they will eat through it and it will snap and fall. The branch sags down over a well. Aha! Escape! Perhaps our hero can swim ? But the well is dry and there are snakes writhing and hissing on its bed. As the branch bends lower, he perceives a solitary blade of grass on wall of well. On top of the blade of grass gleams a drop of honey. What is our hero to do? What action does our puranic man quintessential Indian, take in the situation? He bends with the branch and licks up the honey.... What did you expect? Some neat solution to the problem? The tiger changes its mind and goes away? Amitabh Bachchan leaps to the rescue? Don’t be silly. One strength of Indian mind is that it knows some problems cannot be resolved and it learns to make best of them. That is the Indian answer to the insuperable difficulty. One does not fight against that by which one is certain to be overwhelmed; but one finds the best way, for oneself, to live with it. This is our national aesthetic. Without it, india as we know it could not survive.

"The Shashi Tharoor column: The creation of India," 2001
The Hindu, "The Shashi Tharoor column: The creation of India ", Sunday, August 19, 2001, Available Online

 * Our founding fathers wrote a constitution for a dream. We have given passports to their ideals.

 * India imposes no procrustean exactions on its citizens: you can be many things and one thing.

 * In India we celebrate the commonality of major differences; we are a land of belonging rather than of blood.

 * Ultimately, what matters in determining the validity of a nation is the will of its inhabitants to live and strive together.

Nehru: The Invention of India
Book by Shashi Tharoor: "Nehru: The Invention of India", ISBN 155970697X.

 * If India had a Latin version of the American motto E Pluribus Unum, it would be E Pluribus Pluribum.

 * If America is a melting pot, then to me India is a thali -- a collection of sumptuous dishes in different bowls. Each may not mix with the next, but they combine on your palate to produce a satisfying repast.

2010s

 * Extra judicial killings are not acceptable in a society of law.
 * On the 2019 Hyderabad gang rape : "Hyderabad Rape Murder", The Times of India, 7 December 2019

2020s

 * Secularism as principle and practice is in danger, but I do not see it falling anytime soon: India embodies tolerance and pluralism in its very essence, and I do not believe that forces of hatred can permanently overcome our fundamental secularism.
 * As quoted in "Secularism as principle and practice in India is in ‘danger’: Shashi Tharoor", The Indian Express, November 1, 2020.

 * When you ask, rightly, why is today's Muslim feeling offended when Ghazni or Ghori are denounced, the answer is because it is instrumentalised to demonise them today.
 * Partition, split of the nationalist movement didn’t happen over ideology or geography. It happened on one key question – is religion the determinant of our nationhood.
 * In India, history was pressed into the nation-building project. There was a desire to allay over some unpleasant details, the destruction of temples, some of the horrors that happened while stressing on the commonalities that also featured throughout the ages.
 * Quoted from "History of invaders being used to demonise Indian Muslims, says Shashi Tharoor | India Today Conclave 2021", India Today, October 9, 2021. See also
 * I don’t go by my caste, creed, or religion. My works speak for me.
 * Quoted from 15 Culture Quotes on Accepting Unity in Diversity, Business Apac
 * No government has the right to inject religion into questions of citizenship. Citizenship is a privilege of people of all religions, all castes, all languages, if you're Indian.
 * Quoted from "Dr Shashi Tharoor | MP - Loksabha | Head On | Prudent | 030524", Prudent Media Goa, May 3, 2024. See also
 * "...It seems to me that this allegation should have been seriously investigated. And it is not too late. Because on such an important matter, the nation has every right to know what really happened..." He further said, "The matter is extremely serious. Our concern is that when the LoP points to something which is an allegation that has been in the public domain for some time and which featured in a book by the former IG of police, Mushrif, who said that the bullets found in Karkare's body could not have been fired by the Ajmal Kasab and that it could have been fired by a police revolver, it seems to me that this allegation should have been seriously investigated. And it is not too late. Because on such an important matter, the nation has every right to know what really happened...We are not saying that the allegation is definitely true. We are saying it should be investigated."
 * Tharoor on the 2008 Mumbai attacks, May 6, 2024 ANI

Quotes on Tharoor

 * Shashi Tharoor will be just a puppet in the hand of Sonia Gandhi family, who will be the real driver.
 * Tom Vadakkan on Tharoor’s election bid as Congress President.

title: Shashi Tharoor


text:
Khojaly Massacre

The Khojaly Massacre was the killing of hundreds of ethnic Azerbaijani civilians by Armenians from the town of Khojaly on 25 February 1992 during the Nagorno-Karabakh War.

Sourced

 * About 1,000 of Khojaly`s 10,000 people were massacred by the Armenian Army in Tuesdays attack. Azerbaijani television showed truckloads of corpses being evacuated from the Khocaly area.
 * Washington Times. — 2 March 1992

 * Before Khojali, the Azerbaijanis thought that they were joking with us, they thought that the Armenians were people who could not raise their hand against the civilian population. We were able to break that stereotype.
 * Current president of Armenia and 1992 war lord Serzh Sarkisian's interview (Thomas de Waal, "Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war", New York & London: New York University Press, 2003, pp. 169-172)

 * The event in Khojaly was organized by the political opponents to force my resignation. I found it doubtful that the Armenians would have allowed the Azerbaijanis to collect the bodies had the allegations of a massacre been true.
 * Ayaz Mutallibov, Ethnic Cleansing in Progress: War in Nagorno Karabakh

 * The city and its inhabitants were deliberately sacrificed to the political goal – to prevent the People Front of Azerbaijan from coming to power.
 * Arif Yunusov, Azerbaijani human rights advocate. Azerbaijani newspaper “Zerkalo”, July 1992

 * I am well aware of who had the Khojaly tragedy on their conscience. And it was not the Armenian side.
 * Yakup Mammadov, chairman of the Supreme Council of Azerbaijan. Newspaper “Ogonjok”, N 14-15, 1992

 * The tragedy was realized by the authorities of Azerbaijan, and concretely – somebody of those high standing.
 * Tamerlan Karaev, former Chairman of the Supreme Council of Azerbaijan. Newspaper “Moukhalifat”, April 28, 1992

 * January events of 1990 in Baku and events in Khojalu were the handwork of the same people.
 * Vagif Huseynov, former Minister of National Security of Azerbaijan. V. B. Haruthunyan, Events in Nagorno-Karabakh, Chronics, part 4, Yerevan, 1994, p. 120

 * In reality, the Khojali tragedy is one of the greatest human atrocities of the 20th century. Every effort must be made to seek the world community's unbiased and resolute position regarding this genocide.
 * Heydar Aliyev, Azerbaijan International (7.1) Spring 1999.

title: Khojaly Massacre