This entire exchange has basically been "yes they are people", "no they aren't", "yes they are". You haven't provided evidence that animals are people, you've simply linked to articles that say some people believe animals are people. Which sure, there are, but that doesn't leave room for any response other than "I don't agree".

There is one good thing I got out of one of your links however:

Other theorists attempt to demarcate between degrees of personhood. For example, Peter Singer's two-tiered account distinguishes between basic sentience and the higher standard of self-consciousness which constitutes personhood. Wynn Schwartz has offered a Paradigm Case Formulation of Persons as a format allowing judges to identify qualities of personhood in different entities. Julian Friedland has advanced a seven-tiered account based on cognitive capacity and linguistic mastery. Amanda Stoel suggested that rights should be granted based on a scale of degrees of personhood, allowing entities currently denied any right to be recognized some rights, but not as many.

This makes much more sense to me than just insisting animals are people. Dolphins might deserve some rights, maybe apes deserve some rights, but cows don't.