This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think the article is well-written so far but I think we need to stay on topic though in some areas. They are an animal welfare group, NOT an animal rights group, PETA is the most prominent animal rights group so I'll use them as a base to go off of. The HSUS supports cage-free eggs, PETA does not support any eggs. The HSUS wants to improve the welfare of animals, PETA wants people to improve the welfare but in the end stop eating animals altogether. These are some more moderate stances on the issues.
7george7, you have deleted referenced verifiable material pertinent to the HSUS from their Wikipedia page without explanation. Please explain why you did this. The HSUS is a very prominent "animal rights" organization, and their own mission statement easily confirms this. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising for the HSUS, it is for sourced, verifiable, information about the HSUS. -- Animalresearcher 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear HSUS: Writing glowing self congratulatory essays taken directly from your promotional materials does not constitute a balanced wikipedia article. BTW, having the link to your web site at the end allows readers to view your side of the story without pasting your corporate report into the wiki. Get a clue!
The gushing one-sided praise of HSUS is nauseating. And I'm a vegetarian too... This article could use a bit more neutral tone. By the way, another criticism sometimes used against HSUS is that they're basically against all hunting, even in cases where it makes sense for herd management due to a lack of natural predators or where taxes on ammunition and hunting license fees help to fund conservation efforts. I'd like to see that discussed somewhere. Bouncey 03:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Somebody put somthing in here about how they trolled for donations on the premise that they actually were taking care of the dogs found at Mike Vick's property in Surry Va when in fact they do not run a single animal care shelter and do not have the dogs.
HSUS' self laudatory description is inaccurate. The are an ANIMAL RIGHTS organization and do not own or operate any animal shelters, despite their propaganda to the contrary. They are a 501(c) corporation with an annual budget of approximately $100 million, whose main functional is fund raising and lobbying for ANIMAL RIGHTS legislation. Their president, Wayne Pacelle, has said that they are going to create "the NRA of Animal Rights". Not ANIMAL WELFARE. Mike Spies ( talk) 23:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The HSUS is a partner of one of the largest animal sanctuaries in the US, The Cleveland Black Beauty Ranch in Murchison, Texas. The sanctuary is home to over 1,000 rescued animals. Laladah ( talk) 11:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laladah ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The Human Society of the United States is listed under List of animal welfare groups, however, it says here that they are pro animal rights. Are they pro animal rights or animal welfare? Ziiv ( talk) 05:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
While trying to add facts concerning HSUS that may not be pro-HSUS, I have encountered almost instant resistance when making a contribution to the article. Example: HSUS tax return information concerning employee compensation, as reported on the HSUS site, has been removed immediately from the site by someone claiming to be a non-biased contributor. And I mean immediately! As soon as it is posted it is removed. HSUS has proven that the truth must be stopped at all costs, even if it means Wiki must suffer. It is truly sad and inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The truth is you and Dodo police this Wiki page to ensure no negative facts are placed here. And once again the 2006 tax return information has been removed. And yes we do know you and what you are about. Let both sides of the facts be on this page. That is what makes Wiki what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, once again you respond instantly to any post here. You have shown once again how you police this page. And yes your good faith means nothing here because of your constant policing. If you truly don't have an agenda here, it is you that should seek another hobby. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I am upset how any facts concerning HSUS that are not pro-HSUS can be removed by their PR department Wiki watchers. The truth is the truth and the facts are facts. I have placed facts here with references but they are immediately removed. What is truly going on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry mate, I don't work for HSUS, please assume good faith. While I can't speak for the other editors that are reverting your contributions, I can point you towards our policies and guidelines. The source you are citing is a letter to the editor, an opinion piece, and I'm afraid that fails to pass muster with our requirements for verifiability and reliable sources. Cheers. L0b0t ( talk) 05:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
How can one assume good faith when you instantly remove additions to this article. It doesn't matter what YOUR agenda is here, it is about information and truth on Wiki. Let others share in their knowledge and make a difference. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 08:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry mate, but you have been watching every second as I make changes. You are not fooling anyone. You are what is known as a Special Interest Wiki Contributor...halting any facts that may be against your agenda. Although most of the article is written without citation and is written to be pro-HSUS, you have no problem with that. You have shown your true colors. We are not done here, more facts are coming soon. And don’t call me "mate"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 05:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, the facts are coming and you can tell Wayne Pacelle and your other colleagues all your Wiki and other actions have been recorded and posted on the web real-time. You see, the more you hide the truth the more you expose yourself. Your actions speak louder than words. For our safety and others, we report every action that you take. We shall see what you try to delete next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 06:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Uh... Sorry chum, the only time I have edited this article before tonight was in October 2006 with a minor copy edit [2], so I'm not really sure what you are talking about. I'm really more of a multiple interest wiki contributor; check out my edit history. No one is preventing you from editing the article but if you want your edits to remain, they must conform to the encyclopedia's (rather lax) policies and guidelines. Check out the standards for verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and assuming good faith. Cheers. L0b0t ( talk) 06:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow chum, just must be a coincidence that you have been watching this article and making changes immediately after they are posted. No worries chum, the public will see over the next few weeks how quickly HSUS fends off any negative comments here. And as far your editing history goes, I also can work with a team of Special Interest Wiki editors and make it appear I only "occasionally" make edits to this article. Thank you for your comment, it has been posted with all the rest. Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 06:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I do appreciate the Scooby Doo reference, which does show our age. You are quick in stopping anti-HSUS facts I will give you that. I might enjoy a pint with you if you were not an HSUS affiliate, we could discuss what it really means to care for animals. What you might not know: We are animal activists such as yourself. The only difference is we put our money, time, and efforts towards taking care of homeless animals. Though you may believe you are helping animals by supporting HSUS, you are not. The facts concerning HSUS has now become an internet campaign with new web sites thirsty to be indexed by Google. Make sure you are on the right side, mate. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 07:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The last HSUS FACT update was taken directly from the HSUS web site concerning salaries, benefits, and staff compensation. If you want a fact mate, there it is. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
While you and the HSUS may agree that over 26 million, yes million dollars is an acceptable amount for salaries and compensation, the donors and general public may disagree. And thank you so much for being part of this, your actions and comments are have been well received by many watchers. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
That is your opinion. You are welcome to it but it has no place in the encyclopedia. The only source you have cited is the FY2006 tax return for the Humane Society. That document in no way indicates the opinion you are advancing. Again, I urge you to read our policies for inclusion, in particular verifiability, reliable sources, and neutral point of view. Cheers. L0b0t ( talk) 07:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Trueanimalcaring, I was one of those to revert your addition. And no, I am not in the pockets of HSUS. Check the article history, I added in a fair amount of criticism myself. The thing with your addition is, you can't copy and paste large chunk of info into the article, there are copyright issues. You might also notice that some of the points being made are already in the article. Why don't you incorporate your info into those sections to give them more details(if appropriate). Also, you can't present what CCF said as fact. A "he said, she said" format is more neutral. As for the quick reaction to your edits, there's a watchlist feature that allows users to view recent changes for articles that they are keeping track of. Nothing strange there.-- Dodo bird ( talk) 10:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dodo, yes your pro-animal activism contributions are great in numbers and you have been very, very busy. Are your contributions one sided, yes. But that is what makes Wiki such a great value to educate others...it's about facts, all facts. If you remove facts and/or sway the tone of an article to be one sided you have done a great disservice to the reader. Please understand why Wiki is here. Also, over the next few weeks as more facts are posted please be clearer why you have deleted them instead of just “Not true”. A citation why they are not true may be a better route. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, get a grip on yourself. Michael Vick's fundraising issue? Added by me. [3] HSUS moving money around to make their fundraising numbers look good? Added by me. [4] AVMA criticism of their horse slaughter stance? Added by me. [5]. Take a deep breathe, relax, and try to read what we are saying. By the way, the salary info you added is still in the article, under the finance section.-- Dodo bird ( talk) 03:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dodo. Your tone does not need to be so harsh here; this is a forum to share knowledge and facts, not to vent against someone that may not share your opinion. Furthermore, the many Wiki visitors come seeking a non-biased wealth of information that is not influenced by emotion or agendas. Please keep this in mind so we all can make Wiki a better place.
After reviewing your numerous Wiki contributions and edits we did find a constant theme: You have been providing links and content that are not facts, simply point of views. By providing HSUS links and content you are sending the wrong message to Wiki visitors. HSUS is a political animal activist group which only at best can provide their point of view concerning certain topics. Please remember Dodo that this is a place for facts, not agendas. By removing these links you call it “vandalism”, which in fact it is allowing visitors to make educated choices without point of view influence. I do hope you understand and take this to heart. Please remove your emotions when attempting to help others find knowledge. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you again. Take care. Trueanimalcaring ( talk) 05:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Needless to say, I am adding (a brief mention of) the ABC News' Atlanta Exposé on HSUS Donations to the article. Asteriks ( talk) 13:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we can now remove the tags "Refimprove" and "Inappropriate Tone" from the article. First of all, it have a lot of references besides the self-published references. For the second tag I don't see any reason to mantain it. I will remove it. If I am wrong, sorry and and please restore it. Greetings. Akhran ( talk) 17:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It's pretty clear that the user of this name is violating the wikipedia policy concerning user names. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Real_names —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdaggett ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC) "It's pretty clear that the user of this name is violating the wikipedia policy concerning user names"? Would it also be appropriate that I stand before counsel to have my name legally changed? Since it appears you are the same person as Dodo bird I will not repeat myself too much again: MY BIRTH NAME IS WAYNE PACELLE. I will not change my name because it is the same of a HSUS CEO. Get over yourself Dodo bird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaynePacelle ( talk • contribs)
|
The latest lead fixes ( [6] and [7]) illustrate a continual disagreement over how to classify the HSUS— animal rights or animal welfare. When I made the first of the two changes, I cited a source that demonstrated that clearly indicated that the HSUS is now effectively an animal rights organization. I also did not feel it was out of line, since numerous statements are made in support of this throughout the article (with references). I even left left the original note about the HSUS claiming to be "animal welfare" and its references (2 of the 3 pointing to the HSUS web site, and 1 pointing to About.com). The latest edit, which removes this revised statement (that summarizes the article body), instead states that the HSUS is the "largest animal advocacy organization in the world." (cited) Although this is true to some degree, I feel it is intentionally ambiguous, and blurs the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare. (If read by the average person, who doesn't know the difference between animal rights and animal welfare, they would clearly get the impression that the HSUS supports anywhere from animal rights to animal welfare, paralleling their own views and feelings about "animal advocacy.") Although I like the new lead statement better, I feel the old statement needs to be re-inserted as the second sentence for the sake of clarity and to properly summarize the controversy that permeates the entire article. – Visionholder ( talk) 20:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Copied from Template_talk:Animal liberation#HSUS and Animal Rights:
I have noticed that the HSUS has been added and removed from this template several times, including once today. Often, the removals state that the organization is "animal welfare", despite that the HSUS article itself notes that the HSUS has become (over time) an animal rights organization. (Read the following sections: Rationale, Recent_history, and Criticism.) When I made the addition to this template, I also added the HSUS to the List of animal rights groups, citing a source. Although the template is named "Template:Animal liberation", and there is a slight distinction between "animal rights" and "animal liberation", the title of the template box reads "Animal Rights." For these reasons, I am reinstating the listing of the HSUS in this template. Please discuss this here before removing it again. – Visionholder ( talk) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Sources:
Not my sources, but provided by past users to support content:
I'm looking into getting some of the zoos I've volunteered at to send me sources as well, but that will take time. – Visionholder ( talk) 23:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh my, this has been a busy place! I feel i should comment as i am being responded to earlier on in this thread, and initiated the removal of HSUS on the Animal Liberation Template, which is titled 'Animal Rights'.
On the Discussion page, i've started a topic called Qualification for "Animal_Rights", where i outline what i think is a fair desciption of animal right, and how an organization qualifies to be considered as such.
One of these qualifications is that if an organization practices methods that compromise an animal rights position, then they cannot be considered animal rights. For example, a campaign asking for "bigger cages for chickens" is clearly an animal husbandry practice reform. Animal rights isn't about making exploited animals "more comfortable", just as a human rights organization wouldn't demand that people imprisoned for no reason deserve to have bigger jail cells. The human rights organization would demand that these people shouldn't be imprisoned at all, and so an animal rights position is that chickens should not be imprisoned or exploited at all. Animal rights parallels human rights, and demands the same thing.
Thus, asking for bigger cages contradicts an animal rights position.
If one can be called an animal rights advocate, yet act in ways which contradict this, then why give the term 'animal rights' any meaning at all? (Or the real question: why would one wish to be affiliated with animal rights when they don't actually believe it?)
On the template page, i listed several examples on the HSUS website, where they state that they are improving "animal welfare", and all the campaigns that fit under a standard "welfare" regime. This is simply what they're doing, and it contradicts an Animal Rights position.
If one follows this logic, than even the worst animal exploiters can call themselves 'animal rights', by simply calling themselves this.
Surely a higher standard than this can be found.
I suggest my Qualification for "Animal_Rights" topic be revisited. Just because some news story describes a group as 'animal rights' doesn't actually mean that they're animal rights - these types of errors occur regularly. There isn't very much argument on what constitutes actual animal rights, if a little critical thought it applied.
I realize Wikipedia's goal is to perpetuate the public mindset, not necessarily reality, or provide clarity. Maybe this can change? I'd rather read about the facts of an issue, than what the general public thinks or believes an issue to be. That's what the rest of the internet is for.... Dave Shishkoff ( talk) 20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Very briefly, I forgot to mention early that I am conceeding two points. I no longer wish to see the HSUS labeled as an animal rights group, like I had on my original edit, nor will I insist that it be included on the animal rights template, both per Wiki guidelines (only). However, I do still insist that the controvery be mentioned in the lead (per my 2nd edit), and that the Shapiro book be allowed as a reference. Those points I will not conceed. But, again, I'm not getting seriously involved in this until I get back from Madagascar in January. I've got a more important page to work on before I leave. Other editors are more than welcome to work on restoring neutrality in the article, and the quotes from the Shapiro book (with page numbers) are given above. – Visionholder ( talk) 04:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
In The Journal of Neuroscience, September 16, 2009, v. 29 n. 37, p11417:
("We Must Face the Threats" by Dario L. Ringach1 and J. David Jentsch)
-- 132.216.47.6 ( talk) 23:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
John: Please do me a favour and follow this link: http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/post/unpacking_the_hsus_gravy_train_2010_edition/. It explains in detail HSUS 2009 tax returns, using all of the numbers give in the tax return itself. If HSUS is lying on their tax returns, then they are commiting a federal crime. Therefore either HSUS has committed tax fraud, which is highly unlikely, or the membership numbers on their site are simple incorrect. 173.2.126.156 ( talk) 03:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous, I'm familiar with CCF's campaign to "shoot the messenger". CCF's conclusions are faulty and its numbers deliberately misleading -- CCF's purpose is to attack the credibility of bona fide charities. The distribution of the All Animals magazine is not equivalent with the membership of HSUS, as many members specifically request not to be contacted by HSUS, and not all membership donations include a mailing address. The charity's OFFICIAL REPORTS take precedence over the hearsay of CCF, and if you wish to make the point that CCF disputes their numbers, please do so in the Criticism section with appropriate verifiable references. JohnDopp ( talk) 03:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond John. I just have one question. Why is CCF a reliable source for HSUS budget, but not its membership?-- 173.2.126.156 ( talk) 03:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to add a little more info to the debate, please check out this document ( http://humanewatch.org/index.php/documents/detail/july_2010_hsus_direct-mail_fundraising_letter/) I realize that it comes from a CCF website, but please keep in mind that it is actually HSUS fundraising material, so I doubt that they are down playing their own numbers. Tell me if 1.2 million is a more fair number.-- 173.2.126.156 ( talk) 03:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe CCF is a credible source at all -- but that's irrelevant. Figures about an organization should come from authoritative, verifiable sources. The mailer from HSUS is small supporting evidence for a claim that HSUS numbers are inconsistent, but I'm more inclined to believe that there's an error in that mailer rather than in the official numbers repeatedly cited by HSUS to government agencies, charity watchdogs, and their members. Either way, it belongs under Criticism, and not in the infobox that lists the organization's official stats. JohnDopp ( talk) 03:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
But the same argument could be made for HSUS's own numbers. It has an interest in having a high membership, no? I would love it if you could provide a source for the 11 million figure other than HSUS own website.-- 173.2.126.156 ( talk) 04:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
A second corroborating reference from an independent charity evaluator is already in place on the article. And I maintain that the official source for an organization's membership comes from the organization itself. If those numbers are disputed, note that as a criticism, but I would hope that you can provide more persuasive evidence than an error on a fundraising mailer. JohnDopp ( talk) 04:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
John: I just took the time to glance at the guidestar page for HSUS ( http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/53-0225390/humane-society-united-states.aspx). The only place that I could find a reference to HSUS membership numbers was in the "Backround Statement" section, which merely quotes the "About Us: Overview" page from HSUS very own website( http://www.humanesociety.org/about/overview/). In other words, citing this source is just as bad as citing HSUS itself. If I'm wrong, please let me know. However, it certainly seems that another, completely independent source should be found in order to make this entry as accurate as possible. -- 173.2.126.156 ( talk) 04:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah! You are correct... I'll remove the redundant reference. I'm not sure where corroborating evidence is to be found, though: HSUS understandably does not publish its donor lists. Either you take them at their word, or you accuse them of falsifying their numbers. If the latter, that will require evidence. JohnDopp ( talk) 05:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
No Problem! Thanks.-- 173.2.126.156 ( talk) 02:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Some of the links for the sources cited on this page take you to unrelated pages on the website of the lobbying firm Consumer Freedom. For example, #117 is supposed to be about how the Louisiana Attorney General's investigation into HSUS ended in 2008. Instead, this is a link to a .pdf from this lobbying firm about the 7 things you didn't know about HSUS. It doesn't mention the investigation in Louisiana at all. Another link does the same thing. Somebody please find the actual links to the references where the information is sourced from and remove this vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.221.202 ( talk) 15:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism continues to be a serious problem with the entry, most recently in the form of edits by Parks 1997, who has among other thing attempted to assign a new IRS designation to the HSUS, used the weasel word "propaganda" in description of its activities, routinely cited claims by Humanewatch either redundantly or without third party verification or sources, imposed a POV bias in recasting the organization's position on the keeping of wild animals as pets, and overturned dozens of edits that were offered in the interests of improving the entry, in order to restore a highly biased version that places the Humanewatch perspective at the heart of the entry rather than in the criticisms section. There is plenty of space and opportunity for criticism of HSUS but not on these lines. Vetman ( talk) 08:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm just going to point out that the source currently used for the 11 million members figure fails verification. What that source actually says is "backed by 11 million Americans", an ambiguous statement, not an explicit membership figure. A source needs to be found that unequivocally says that this society has X members. -- 92.2.82.159 ( talk) 04:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I restored the paragraph on HumaneWatch . It’s a Center for Consumer Freedom project, so while not necessarily unbiased, it’s notable. — TheHerbalGerbil( TALK| STALK), 22:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph on HumaneWatch AGAIN. Content added was speculation completely devoid of factual content. PR firm blogs are not credible sources for information. HumaneWatch is neither notable nor credible. Clearly biased propaganda has no place in a Wikipedia article. Rhetorical questions have no place in a Wikipedia article.
Please do NOT restore this paragraph without consensus.
In its stead, I have added HumaneWatch.org to the list of CCF-run websites targeting HSUS. JohnDopp ( talk) 00:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Here I will list references that have little, if anything, to do with the text they refer to. I will then monitor this talk subject to check that more suitable references are substituted.-- Professionaleducator ( talk) 05:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
1. "Goodwin now serves as an expert witness against animal fighting, working with law enforcement officials throughout the country, and is an outspoken critic of extralegal tactics and violence in the name of animals." The reference cited, [1] quotes Goodwin but does not prove that sentence in any way, shape or form. It does not say he is an expert witness, does not show that he works with law enforcement officials, and does not contain any text leading the reader to think he criticizes extralegal tactics or violence in the name of animals. --05:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Professionaleducator ( talk)
Hi Professional, How do you feel about HSUS' page for Goodwin as a corroborating reference as to his status as an expert witness ("Goodwin regularly acts as an expert witness in criminal trials of accused animal fighters"), and his work with law enforcement ("Goodwin has assisted the FBI in a major public corruption investigation that targeted a Tennessee sheriff’s department")? JohnDopp ( talk) 05:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
References
At the moment most of the criticism is attributed to the misleadingly-named Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) a lobbying firm for industries actively engaged in animal abuse. Some of the content there is notable enough to be sourced to reliable third-parties, but we should not be using the CCF as a direct reference for criticism, in my opinion. El duderino ( talk) 06:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. There are far too many subcategories which only cite the CCF. Either create a single section entitled "criticism from the CCF", or remove some of the subcategories, as many are redundant / reflect a heavy amount of anti-HSUS bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.251.42 ( talk) 18:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
This entire article reads like a HSUS fundraising brochure that has been marked up by a meat packer, which I think may be exactly how it got to this state. Unfortunately, the only people who seem interested in correcting the biases have their own axe to grind. HSUS is not exactly a paragon of honesty -- they overtly exploit the confusion of their name with that of the local animal shelter ( http://www.humaneforpets.com/the-problem/). This article needs an end-to-end review. 70.162.137.241 ( talk) 16:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course, the group you cite is a front group for the Center for Consumer Freedom, aka HumaneWatch, aka Rick Berman, operating through a disgruntled ex-employee of the HSUS, Didi Culp. Neither Culp nor Berman are credible or reliable sources. I think that fact-wise, the current article is a reasonable balance of pro- and con- viewpoints. It could use a rewrite for style, though. JohnDopp ( talk) 06:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
3 years later, and this article is still a mess and still reads like a pr brochure. it's so bad I actually went to this talk page to see if there was a crap fest going on behind the scenes also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1502:8014:74C1:197:DA5A:28EE ( talk) 09:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I came here to the wikipedia page to find more info on the case against the HSUS (and the ASPCA, amongst others) that was filed in federal court. It appears that the HSUS is facing allegations under RICO statues on racketeering, obstruction of justice, malicious prosecution and other claims for a lawsuit it brought and lost against the Feld company. Given the fact that the ASPCA had to pay out $9.3 million for their part, and the HSUS is still under fire in the lawsuit, I believe the gravity of this situation warrants some information on it within the wikipedia article. Of course I really have no dog in this fight, but this article seems fairly skewed to me. This is old news and should probably be included. A quick search turned up the articles below with some info.
http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20120726/tables-turned-on-humane-society http://www.marketwatch.com/story/aspca-pays-93-million-in-landmark-ringling-bros-and-barnum-bailey-circus-settlement-2012-12-28
72.51.81.78 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor has gone through this article to carefully prune any criticism that is not directly linked to the Center for Consumer Freedom. The AR-HR for instance is in fact not a "personal blog." It is a respected organization, whose articles are printed in mainstream media, including the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Full disclosure: I have nothing whatsoever to do with them. I just get put out of joint, as do many people, when Humane Society of the United States tries to pretend that all of their critics are connected to one discredited organization. The AR-HR specifically points out that they do not receive any compensation or sponsorship from the Center for Consumer Freedom. Please do not remove properly sourced criticism. NaymanNoland ( talk) 08:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
This article isn't a soapbox for the Center for Freedom of Consumers, and it isn't an ad for HSUS. Nothing from CCF should be printed here without corroboration - they are not credible. It's just as bad as using Wikipedia as a peacock page for HSUS itself, which is also a serious problem here, especially after the most recent radical edit by a SPA. Please keep the article neutral. This page is being watched I hope by people interested in animal issues who are NOT connected to either CCF or HSUS. Both sides are going to keep making biased edits, and blanked sections will keep having to be restored. NaymanNoland ( talk) 09:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Can we get a professional that's not employed by humanewatch.org to clean up this article PLEASE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmursch ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Are there really that many references from HSUS site? The important ones are to financial resources and documents and policies as stated, and those seem legitimate. I look for news sources that are written by independent journalistS concerning HSUS's work. I think that the material sourced from HumaneWatch fails to meet wiki standards and would encourage those who wish to include such information to find neutral sources that have independently verified the information. We hardly can tell what methodology is used by HW for its polls, surveys, analysis, etc., and it doesn't really seem right to include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vetman ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Parks1997 has added material to the article that's sourced only to [13], a website with a fairly clear anti-HSUS bias. I think that using that site as the sole source for controversial information violates Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view. I think either a third source should be found, or perhaps material from the watchdog and the HSUS's website should be used to offset each other. I'm going to start by looking for sources for the claim in the lead, though I think in a case like this I may have a hard time of it. Oh, and I probably won't post here again until tomorrow, it's getting a bit late where I am. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Once again, someone employed by the Humane Society of the United States has carefully weeded out criticism. He could be connected to JohnDopp's website, which is basically the same thing - it's an organization whose sole purpose is to propagandize for the Humane Society. This SPA, Vetman, is about as neutral as Wayne Pacelle. I really don't have time to deal with this every single time it happens. And I shouldn't have to - can't some senior editor who is neutral keep an eye on this page? If a SPA makes fifty or so edits, chances are pretty good that he's a sock for either the HSUS or one of its propaganda arms. And this page is not an ad for these people. NaymanNoland ( talk) 02:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Nothing ever changes. This entire article is one giant Pro-HSUS propaganda piece. Every criticism ends with a sentence justifying their actions or vindicating HSUS. Every time someone edits the article to include anything that makes HSUS look bad, it is immediately edited in such a way as to remove any such criticism. Something needs to be done about this.
References to the Genesis Awards were recently removed, stating that the awards were discontinued. This is incorrect: the awards are still active, but they're now online rather than part of a physical event. Additional information and 2014 award recipients may be found on the HSUS website. JohnDopp ( talk) 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Doing some upkeep on this page, does anyone else think the rationale section should be merged with the history section? Since there is a lot of info there, I will leave it for now. Just want to solicit some input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessMaster39 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
The Humane Society of the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
The Humane Society of the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on The Humane Society of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/22738/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2008/11/vick_state_dogfighting_charges_statement_112508.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on The Humane Society of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the article ( closed by non-admin page mover) Kostas20142 ( talk) 17:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The Humane Society of the United States → Humane Society of the United States – Per WP:THE, and per WP:CONSISTENCY with Humane Society International and all other articles with "Humane Society" in their titles [15]. While HSUS, like literally millions of companies and other organizations, prefers a "The" stuck onto the front, and it's not unattested in sources, independent reliable sources frequently drop it, which means WP will too, as unnecessary over-stylization and promotional aggrandizement. A key indicator that a leading "The" is not an integral part of an organizational proper name (which it very rarely is for any name, other than for titles of published works, by convention) is when the "T" for it isn't in the organization's acronym/initialism (HSUS in this case; contrast TICA). So, this is just another "the American Civil Liberties Union" case. After the RM, the "The" instances in mid-sentence in the article should be reduced to "the", and in some cases can simply be removed as a redundant word. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I've done it in the article (along with over two hours of source citation repairing, MoS-related cleanup, and other fixes). There are still probably a lot of "The" instances in various other articles' references to HSUS. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think the article is well-written so far but I think we need to stay on topic though in some areas. They are an animal welfare group, NOT an animal rights group, PETA is the most prominent animal rights group so I'll use them as a base to go off of. The HSUS supports cage-free eggs, PETA does not support any eggs. The HSUS wants to improve the welfare of animals, PETA wants people to improve the welfare but in the end stop eating animals altogether. These are some more moderate stances on the issues.
7george7, you have deleted referenced verifiable material pertinent to the HSUS from their Wikipedia page without explanation. Please explain why you did this. The HSUS is a very prominent "animal rights" organization, and their own mission statement easily confirms this. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising for the HSUS, it is for sourced, verifiable, information about the HSUS. -- Animalresearcher 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear HSUS: Writing glowing self congratulatory essays taken directly from your promotional materials does not constitute a balanced wikipedia article. BTW, having the link to your web site at the end allows readers to view your side of the story without pasting your corporate report into the wiki. Get a clue!
The gushing one-sided praise of HSUS is nauseating. And I'm a vegetarian too... This article could use a bit more neutral tone. By the way, another criticism sometimes used against HSUS is that they're basically against all hunting, even in cases where it makes sense for herd management due to a lack of natural predators or where taxes on ammunition and hunting license fees help to fund conservation efforts. I'd like to see that discussed somewhere. Bouncey 03:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Somebody put somthing in here about how they trolled for donations on the premise that they actually were taking care of the dogs found at Mike Vick's property in Surry Va when in fact they do not run a single animal care shelter and do not have the dogs.
HSUS' self laudatory description is inaccurate. The are an ANIMAL RIGHTS organization and do not own or operate any animal shelters, despite their propaganda to the contrary. They are a 501(c) corporation with an annual budget of approximately $100 million, whose main functional is fund raising and lobbying for ANIMAL RIGHTS legislation. Their president, Wayne Pacelle, has said that they are going to create "the NRA of Animal Rights". Not ANIMAL WELFARE. Mike Spies ( talk) 23:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The HSUS is a partner of one of the largest animal sanctuaries in the US, The Cleveland Black Beauty Ranch in Murchison, Texas. The sanctuary is home to over 1,000 rescued animals. Laladah ( talk) 11:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laladah ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The Human Society of the United States is listed under List of animal welfare groups, however, it says here that they are pro animal rights. Are they pro animal rights or animal welfare? Ziiv ( talk) 05:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
While trying to add facts concerning HSUS that may not be pro-HSUS, I have encountered almost instant resistance when making a contribution to the article. Example: HSUS tax return information concerning employee compensation, as reported on the HSUS site, has been removed immediately from the site by someone claiming to be a non-biased contributor. And I mean immediately! As soon as it is posted it is removed. HSUS has proven that the truth must be stopped at all costs, even if it means Wiki must suffer. It is truly sad and inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The truth is you and Dodo police this Wiki page to ensure no negative facts are placed here. And once again the 2006 tax return information has been removed. And yes we do know you and what you are about. Let both sides of the facts be on this page. That is what makes Wiki what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, once again you respond instantly to any post here. You have shown once again how you police this page. And yes your good faith means nothing here because of your constant policing. If you truly don't have an agenda here, it is you that should seek another hobby. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I am upset how any facts concerning HSUS that are not pro-HSUS can be removed by their PR department Wiki watchers. The truth is the truth and the facts are facts. I have placed facts here with references but they are immediately removed. What is truly going on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry mate, I don't work for HSUS, please assume good faith. While I can't speak for the other editors that are reverting your contributions, I can point you towards our policies and guidelines. The source you are citing is a letter to the editor, an opinion piece, and I'm afraid that fails to pass muster with our requirements for verifiability and reliable sources. Cheers. L0b0t ( talk) 05:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
How can one assume good faith when you instantly remove additions to this article. It doesn't matter what YOUR agenda is here, it is about information and truth on Wiki. Let others share in their knowledge and make a difference. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 08:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry mate, but you have been watching every second as I make changes. You are not fooling anyone. You are what is known as a Special Interest Wiki Contributor...halting any facts that may be against your agenda. Although most of the article is written without citation and is written to be pro-HSUS, you have no problem with that. You have shown your true colors. We are not done here, more facts are coming soon. And don’t call me "mate"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 05:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, the facts are coming and you can tell Wayne Pacelle and your other colleagues all your Wiki and other actions have been recorded and posted on the web real-time. You see, the more you hide the truth the more you expose yourself. Your actions speak louder than words. For our safety and others, we report every action that you take. We shall see what you try to delete next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 06:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Uh... Sorry chum, the only time I have edited this article before tonight was in October 2006 with a minor copy edit [2], so I'm not really sure what you are talking about. I'm really more of a multiple interest wiki contributor; check out my edit history. No one is preventing you from editing the article but if you want your edits to remain, they must conform to the encyclopedia's (rather lax) policies and guidelines. Check out the standards for verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and assuming good faith. Cheers. L0b0t ( talk) 06:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow chum, just must be a coincidence that you have been watching this article and making changes immediately after they are posted. No worries chum, the public will see over the next few weeks how quickly HSUS fends off any negative comments here. And as far your editing history goes, I also can work with a team of Special Interest Wiki editors and make it appear I only "occasionally" make edits to this article. Thank you for your comment, it has been posted with all the rest. Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 06:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I do appreciate the Scooby Doo reference, which does show our age. You are quick in stopping anti-HSUS facts I will give you that. I might enjoy a pint with you if you were not an HSUS affiliate, we could discuss what it really means to care for animals. What you might not know: We are animal activists such as yourself. The only difference is we put our money, time, and efforts towards taking care of homeless animals. Though you may believe you are helping animals by supporting HSUS, you are not. The facts concerning HSUS has now become an internet campaign with new web sites thirsty to be indexed by Google. Make sure you are on the right side, mate. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 07:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The last HSUS FACT update was taken directly from the HSUS web site concerning salaries, benefits, and staff compensation. If you want a fact mate, there it is. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
While you and the HSUS may agree that over 26 million, yes million dollars is an acceptable amount for salaries and compensation, the donors and general public may disagree. And thank you so much for being part of this, your actions and comments are have been well received by many watchers. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
That is your opinion. You are welcome to it but it has no place in the encyclopedia. The only source you have cited is the FY2006 tax return for the Humane Society. That document in no way indicates the opinion you are advancing. Again, I urge you to read our policies for inclusion, in particular verifiability, reliable sources, and neutral point of view. Cheers. L0b0t ( talk) 07:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Trueanimalcaring, I was one of those to revert your addition. And no, I am not in the pockets of HSUS. Check the article history, I added in a fair amount of criticism myself. The thing with your addition is, you can't copy and paste large chunk of info into the article, there are copyright issues. You might also notice that some of the points being made are already in the article. Why don't you incorporate your info into those sections to give them more details(if appropriate). Also, you can't present what CCF said as fact. A "he said, she said" format is more neutral. As for the quick reaction to your edits, there's a watchlist feature that allows users to view recent changes for articles that they are keeping track of. Nothing strange there.-- Dodo bird ( talk) 10:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dodo, yes your pro-animal activism contributions are great in numbers and you have been very, very busy. Are your contributions one sided, yes. But that is what makes Wiki such a great value to educate others...it's about facts, all facts. If you remove facts and/or sway the tone of an article to be one sided you have done a great disservice to the reader. Please understand why Wiki is here. Also, over the next few weeks as more facts are posted please be clearer why you have deleted them instead of just “Not true”. A citation why they are not true may be a better route. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueanimalcaring ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, get a grip on yourself. Michael Vick's fundraising issue? Added by me. [3] HSUS moving money around to make their fundraising numbers look good? Added by me. [4] AVMA criticism of their horse slaughter stance? Added by me. [5]. Take a deep breathe, relax, and try to read what we are saying. By the way, the salary info you added is still in the article, under the finance section.-- Dodo bird ( talk) 03:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dodo. Your tone does not need to be so harsh here; this is a forum to share knowledge and facts, not to vent against someone that may not share your opinion. Furthermore, the many Wiki visitors come seeking a non-biased wealth of information that is not influenced by emotion or agendas. Please keep this in mind so we all can make Wiki a better place.
After reviewing your numerous Wiki contributions and edits we did find a constant theme: You have been providing links and content that are not facts, simply point of views. By providing HSUS links and content you are sending the wrong message to Wiki visitors. HSUS is a political animal activist group which only at best can provide their point of view concerning certain topics. Please remember Dodo that this is a place for facts, not agendas. By removing these links you call it “vandalism”, which in fact it is allowing visitors to make educated choices without point of view influence. I do hope you understand and take this to heart. Please remove your emotions when attempting to help others find knowledge. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you again. Take care. Trueanimalcaring ( talk) 05:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Needless to say, I am adding (a brief mention of) the ABC News' Atlanta Exposé on HSUS Donations to the article. Asteriks ( talk) 13:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we can now remove the tags "Refimprove" and "Inappropriate Tone" from the article. First of all, it have a lot of references besides the self-published references. For the second tag I don't see any reason to mantain it. I will remove it. If I am wrong, sorry and and please restore it. Greetings. Akhran ( talk) 17:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It's pretty clear that the user of this name is violating the wikipedia policy concerning user names. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Real_names —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdaggett ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC) "It's pretty clear that the user of this name is violating the wikipedia policy concerning user names"? Would it also be appropriate that I stand before counsel to have my name legally changed? Since it appears you are the same person as Dodo bird I will not repeat myself too much again: MY BIRTH NAME IS WAYNE PACELLE. I will not change my name because it is the same of a HSUS CEO. Get over yourself Dodo bird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaynePacelle ( talk • contribs)
|
The latest lead fixes ( [6] and [7]) illustrate a continual disagreement over how to classify the HSUS— animal rights or animal welfare. When I made the first of the two changes, I cited a source that demonstrated that clearly indicated that the HSUS is now effectively an animal rights organization. I also did not feel it was out of line, since numerous statements are made in support of this throughout the article (with references). I even left left the original note about the HSUS claiming to be "animal welfare" and its references (2 of the 3 pointing to the HSUS web site, and 1 pointing to About.com). The latest edit, which removes this revised statement (that summarizes the article body), instead states that the HSUS is the "largest animal advocacy organization in the world." (cited) Although this is true to some degree, I feel it is intentionally ambiguous, and blurs the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare. (If read by the average person, who doesn't know the difference between animal rights and animal welfare, they would clearly get the impression that the HSUS supports anywhere from animal rights to animal welfare, paralleling their own views and feelings about "animal advocacy.") Although I like the new lead statement better, I feel the old statement needs to be re-inserted as the second sentence for the sake of clarity and to properly summarize the controversy that permeates the entire article. – Visionholder ( talk) 20:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Copied from Template_talk:Animal liberation#HSUS and Animal Rights:
I have noticed that the HSUS has been added and removed from this template several times, including once today. Often, the removals state that the organization is "animal welfare", despite that the HSUS article itself notes that the HSUS has become (over time) an animal rights organization. (Read the following sections: Rationale, Recent_history, and Criticism.) When I made the addition to this template, I also added the HSUS to the List of animal rights groups, citing a source. Although the template is named "Template:Animal liberation", and there is a slight distinction between "animal rights" and "animal liberation", the title of the template box reads "Animal Rights." For these reasons, I am reinstating the listing of the HSUS in this template. Please discuss this here before removing it again. – Visionholder ( talk) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Sources:
Not my sources, but provided by past users to support content:
I'm looking into getting some of the zoos I've volunteered at to send me sources as well, but that will take time. – Visionholder ( talk) 23:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh my, this has been a busy place! I feel i should comment as i am being responded to earlier on in this thread, and initiated the removal of HSUS on the Animal Liberation Template, which is titled 'Animal Rights'.
On the Discussion page, i've started a topic called Qualification for "Animal_Rights", where i outline what i think is a fair desciption of animal right, and how an organization qualifies to be considered as such.
One of these qualifications is that if an organization practices methods that compromise an animal rights position, then they cannot be considered animal rights. For example, a campaign asking for "bigger cages for chickens" is clearly an animal husbandry practice reform. Animal rights isn't about making exploited animals "more comfortable", just as a human rights organization wouldn't demand that people imprisoned for no reason deserve to have bigger jail cells. The human rights organization would demand that these people shouldn't be imprisoned at all, and so an animal rights position is that chickens should not be imprisoned or exploited at all. Animal rights parallels human rights, and demands the same thing.
Thus, asking for bigger cages contradicts an animal rights position.
If one can be called an animal rights advocate, yet act in ways which contradict this, then why give the term 'animal rights' any meaning at all? (Or the real question: why would one wish to be affiliated with animal rights when they don't actually believe it?)
On the template page, i listed several examples on the HSUS website, where they state that they are improving "animal welfare", and all the campaigns that fit under a standard "welfare" regime. This is simply what they're doing, and it contradicts an Animal Rights position.
If one follows this logic, than even the worst animal exploiters can call themselves 'animal rights', by simply calling themselves this.
Surely a higher standard than this can be found.
I suggest my Qualification for "Animal_Rights" topic be revisited. Just because some news story describes a group as 'animal rights' doesn't actually mean that they're animal rights - these types of errors occur regularly. There isn't very much argument on what constitutes actual animal rights, if a little critical thought it applied.
I realize Wikipedia's goal is to perpetuate the public mindset, not necessarily reality, or provide clarity. Maybe this can change? I'd rather read about the facts of an issue, than what the general public thinks or believes an issue to be. That's what the rest of the internet is for.... Dave Shishkoff ( talk) 20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Very briefly, I forgot to mention early that I am conceeding two points. I no longer wish to see the HSUS labeled as an animal rights group, like I had on my original edit, nor will I insist that it be included on the animal rights template, both per Wiki guidelines (only). However, I do still insist that the controvery be mentioned in the lead (per my 2nd edit), and that the Shapiro book be allowed as a reference. Those points I will not conceed. But, again, I'm not getting seriously involved in this until I get back from Madagascar in January. I've got a more important page to work on before I leave. Other editors are more than welcome to work on restoring neutrality in the article, and the quotes from the Shapiro book (with page numbers) are given above. – Visionholder ( talk) 04:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
In The Journal of Neuroscience, September 16, 2009, v. 29 n. 37, p11417:
("We Must Face the Threats" by Dario L. Ringach1 and J. David Jentsch)
-- 132.216.47.6 ( talk) 23:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
John: Please do me a favour and follow this link: http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/post/unpacking_the_hsus_gravy_train_2010_edition/. It explains in detail HSUS 2009 tax returns, using all of the numbers give in the tax return itself. If HSUS is lying on their tax returns, then they are commiting a federal crime. Therefore either HSUS has committed tax fraud, which is highly unlikely, or the membership numbers on their site are simple incorrect. 173.2.126.156 ( talk) 03:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous, I'm familiar with CCF's campaign to "shoot the messenger". CCF's conclusions are faulty and its numbers deliberately misleading -- CCF's purpose is to attack the credibility of bona fide charities. The distribution of the All Animals magazine is not equivalent with the membership of HSUS, as many members specifically request not to be contacted by HSUS, and not all membership donations include a mailing address. The charity's OFFICIAL REPORTS take precedence over the hearsay of CCF, and if you wish to make the point that CCF disputes their numbers, please do so in the Criticism section with appropriate verifiable references. JohnDopp ( talk) 03:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond John. I just have one question. Why is CCF a reliable source for HSUS budget, but not its membership?-- 173.2.126.156 ( talk) 03:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to add a little more info to the debate, please check out this document ( http://humanewatch.org/index.php/documents/detail/july_2010_hsus_direct-mail_fundraising_letter/) I realize that it comes from a CCF website, but please keep in mind that it is actually HSUS fundraising material, so I doubt that they are down playing their own numbers. Tell me if 1.2 million is a more fair number.-- 173.2.126.156 ( talk) 03:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe CCF is a credible source at all -- but that's irrelevant. Figures about an organization should come from authoritative, verifiable sources. The mailer from HSUS is small supporting evidence for a claim that HSUS numbers are inconsistent, but I'm more inclined to believe that there's an error in that mailer rather than in the official numbers repeatedly cited by HSUS to government agencies, charity watchdogs, and their members. Either way, it belongs under Criticism, and not in the infobox that lists the organization's official stats. JohnDopp ( talk) 03:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
But the same argument could be made for HSUS's own numbers. It has an interest in having a high membership, no? I would love it if you could provide a source for the 11 million figure other than HSUS own website.-- 173.2.126.156 ( talk) 04:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
A second corroborating reference from an independent charity evaluator is already in place on the article. And I maintain that the official source for an organization's membership comes from the organization itself. If those numbers are disputed, note that as a criticism, but I would hope that you can provide more persuasive evidence than an error on a fundraising mailer. JohnDopp ( talk) 04:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
John: I just took the time to glance at the guidestar page for HSUS ( http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/53-0225390/humane-society-united-states.aspx). The only place that I could find a reference to HSUS membership numbers was in the "Backround Statement" section, which merely quotes the "About Us: Overview" page from HSUS very own website( http://www.humanesociety.org/about/overview/). In other words, citing this source is just as bad as citing HSUS itself. If I'm wrong, please let me know. However, it certainly seems that another, completely independent source should be found in order to make this entry as accurate as possible. -- 173.2.126.156 ( talk) 04:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah! You are correct... I'll remove the redundant reference. I'm not sure where corroborating evidence is to be found, though: HSUS understandably does not publish its donor lists. Either you take them at their word, or you accuse them of falsifying their numbers. If the latter, that will require evidence. JohnDopp ( talk) 05:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
No Problem! Thanks.-- 173.2.126.156 ( talk) 02:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Some of the links for the sources cited on this page take you to unrelated pages on the website of the lobbying firm Consumer Freedom. For example, #117 is supposed to be about how the Louisiana Attorney General's investigation into HSUS ended in 2008. Instead, this is a link to a .pdf from this lobbying firm about the 7 things you didn't know about HSUS. It doesn't mention the investigation in Louisiana at all. Another link does the same thing. Somebody please find the actual links to the references where the information is sourced from and remove this vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.221.202 ( talk) 15:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism continues to be a serious problem with the entry, most recently in the form of edits by Parks 1997, who has among other thing attempted to assign a new IRS designation to the HSUS, used the weasel word "propaganda" in description of its activities, routinely cited claims by Humanewatch either redundantly or without third party verification or sources, imposed a POV bias in recasting the organization's position on the keeping of wild animals as pets, and overturned dozens of edits that were offered in the interests of improving the entry, in order to restore a highly biased version that places the Humanewatch perspective at the heart of the entry rather than in the criticisms section. There is plenty of space and opportunity for criticism of HSUS but not on these lines. Vetman ( talk) 08:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm just going to point out that the source currently used for the 11 million members figure fails verification. What that source actually says is "backed by 11 million Americans", an ambiguous statement, not an explicit membership figure. A source needs to be found that unequivocally says that this society has X members. -- 92.2.82.159 ( talk) 04:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I restored the paragraph on HumaneWatch . It’s a Center for Consumer Freedom project, so while not necessarily unbiased, it’s notable. — TheHerbalGerbil( TALK| STALK), 22:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph on HumaneWatch AGAIN. Content added was speculation completely devoid of factual content. PR firm blogs are not credible sources for information. HumaneWatch is neither notable nor credible. Clearly biased propaganda has no place in a Wikipedia article. Rhetorical questions have no place in a Wikipedia article.
Please do NOT restore this paragraph without consensus.
In its stead, I have added HumaneWatch.org to the list of CCF-run websites targeting HSUS. JohnDopp ( talk) 00:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Here I will list references that have little, if anything, to do with the text they refer to. I will then monitor this talk subject to check that more suitable references are substituted.-- Professionaleducator ( talk) 05:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
1. "Goodwin now serves as an expert witness against animal fighting, working with law enforcement officials throughout the country, and is an outspoken critic of extralegal tactics and violence in the name of animals." The reference cited, [1] quotes Goodwin but does not prove that sentence in any way, shape or form. It does not say he is an expert witness, does not show that he works with law enforcement officials, and does not contain any text leading the reader to think he criticizes extralegal tactics or violence in the name of animals. --05:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Professionaleducator ( talk)
Hi Professional, How do you feel about HSUS' page for Goodwin as a corroborating reference as to his status as an expert witness ("Goodwin regularly acts as an expert witness in criminal trials of accused animal fighters"), and his work with law enforcement ("Goodwin has assisted the FBI in a major public corruption investigation that targeted a Tennessee sheriff’s department")? JohnDopp ( talk) 05:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
References
At the moment most of the criticism is attributed to the misleadingly-named Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) a lobbying firm for industries actively engaged in animal abuse. Some of the content there is notable enough to be sourced to reliable third-parties, but we should not be using the CCF as a direct reference for criticism, in my opinion. El duderino ( talk) 06:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. There are far too many subcategories which only cite the CCF. Either create a single section entitled "criticism from the CCF", or remove some of the subcategories, as many are redundant / reflect a heavy amount of anti-HSUS bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.251.42 ( talk) 18:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
This entire article reads like a HSUS fundraising brochure that has been marked up by a meat packer, which I think may be exactly how it got to this state. Unfortunately, the only people who seem interested in correcting the biases have their own axe to grind. HSUS is not exactly a paragon of honesty -- they overtly exploit the confusion of their name with that of the local animal shelter ( http://www.humaneforpets.com/the-problem/). This article needs an end-to-end review. 70.162.137.241 ( talk) 16:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course, the group you cite is a front group for the Center for Consumer Freedom, aka HumaneWatch, aka Rick Berman, operating through a disgruntled ex-employee of the HSUS, Didi Culp. Neither Culp nor Berman are credible or reliable sources. I think that fact-wise, the current article is a reasonable balance of pro- and con- viewpoints. It could use a rewrite for style, though. JohnDopp ( talk) 06:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
3 years later, and this article is still a mess and still reads like a pr brochure. it's so bad I actually went to this talk page to see if there was a crap fest going on behind the scenes also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1502:8014:74C1:197:DA5A:28EE ( talk) 09:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I came here to the wikipedia page to find more info on the case against the HSUS (and the ASPCA, amongst others) that was filed in federal court. It appears that the HSUS is facing allegations under RICO statues on racketeering, obstruction of justice, malicious prosecution and other claims for a lawsuit it brought and lost against the Feld company. Given the fact that the ASPCA had to pay out $9.3 million for their part, and the HSUS is still under fire in the lawsuit, I believe the gravity of this situation warrants some information on it within the wikipedia article. Of course I really have no dog in this fight, but this article seems fairly skewed to me. This is old news and should probably be included. A quick search turned up the articles below with some info.
http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20120726/tables-turned-on-humane-society http://www.marketwatch.com/story/aspca-pays-93-million-in-landmark-ringling-bros-and-barnum-bailey-circus-settlement-2012-12-28
72.51.81.78 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor has gone through this article to carefully prune any criticism that is not directly linked to the Center for Consumer Freedom. The AR-HR for instance is in fact not a "personal blog." It is a respected organization, whose articles are printed in mainstream media, including the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Full disclosure: I have nothing whatsoever to do with them. I just get put out of joint, as do many people, when Humane Society of the United States tries to pretend that all of their critics are connected to one discredited organization. The AR-HR specifically points out that they do not receive any compensation or sponsorship from the Center for Consumer Freedom. Please do not remove properly sourced criticism. NaymanNoland ( talk) 08:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
This article isn't a soapbox for the Center for Freedom of Consumers, and it isn't an ad for HSUS. Nothing from CCF should be printed here without corroboration - they are not credible. It's just as bad as using Wikipedia as a peacock page for HSUS itself, which is also a serious problem here, especially after the most recent radical edit by a SPA. Please keep the article neutral. This page is being watched I hope by people interested in animal issues who are NOT connected to either CCF or HSUS. Both sides are going to keep making biased edits, and blanked sections will keep having to be restored. NaymanNoland ( talk) 09:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Can we get a professional that's not employed by humanewatch.org to clean up this article PLEASE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmursch ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Are there really that many references from HSUS site? The important ones are to financial resources and documents and policies as stated, and those seem legitimate. I look for news sources that are written by independent journalistS concerning HSUS's work. I think that the material sourced from HumaneWatch fails to meet wiki standards and would encourage those who wish to include such information to find neutral sources that have independently verified the information. We hardly can tell what methodology is used by HW for its polls, surveys, analysis, etc., and it doesn't really seem right to include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vetman ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Parks1997 has added material to the article that's sourced only to [13], a website with a fairly clear anti-HSUS bias. I think that using that site as the sole source for controversial information violates Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view. I think either a third source should be found, or perhaps material from the watchdog and the HSUS's website should be used to offset each other. I'm going to start by looking for sources for the claim in the lead, though I think in a case like this I may have a hard time of it. Oh, and I probably won't post here again until tomorrow, it's getting a bit late where I am. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Once again, someone employed by the Humane Society of the United States has carefully weeded out criticism. He could be connected to JohnDopp's website, which is basically the same thing - it's an organization whose sole purpose is to propagandize for the Humane Society. This SPA, Vetman, is about as neutral as Wayne Pacelle. I really don't have time to deal with this every single time it happens. And I shouldn't have to - can't some senior editor who is neutral keep an eye on this page? If a SPA makes fifty or so edits, chances are pretty good that he's a sock for either the HSUS or one of its propaganda arms. And this page is not an ad for these people. NaymanNoland ( talk) 02:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Nothing ever changes. This entire article is one giant Pro-HSUS propaganda piece. Every criticism ends with a sentence justifying their actions or vindicating HSUS. Every time someone edits the article to include anything that makes HSUS look bad, it is immediately edited in such a way as to remove any such criticism. Something needs to be done about this.
References to the Genesis Awards were recently removed, stating that the awards were discontinued. This is incorrect: the awards are still active, but they're now online rather than part of a physical event. Additional information and 2014 award recipients may be found on the HSUS website. JohnDopp ( talk) 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Doing some upkeep on this page, does anyone else think the rationale section should be merged with the history section? Since there is a lot of info there, I will leave it for now. Just want to solicit some input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessMaster39 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
The Humane Society of the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
The Humane Society of the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on The Humane Society of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/22738/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2008/11/vick_state_dogfighting_charges_statement_112508.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on The Humane Society of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the article ( closed by non-admin page mover) Kostas20142 ( talk) 17:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The Humane Society of the United States → Humane Society of the United States – Per WP:THE, and per WP:CONSISTENCY with Humane Society International and all other articles with "Humane Society" in their titles [15]. While HSUS, like literally millions of companies and other organizations, prefers a "The" stuck onto the front, and it's not unattested in sources, independent reliable sources frequently drop it, which means WP will too, as unnecessary over-stylization and promotional aggrandizement. A key indicator that a leading "The" is not an integral part of an organizational proper name (which it very rarely is for any name, other than for titles of published works, by convention) is when the "T" for it isn't in the organization's acronym/initialism (HSUS in this case; contrast TICA). So, this is just another "the American Civil Liberties Union" case. After the RM, the "The" instances in mid-sentence in the article should be reduced to "the", and in some cases can simply be removed as a redundant word. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I've done it in the article (along with over two hours of source citation repairing, MoS-related cleanup, and other fixes). There are still probably a lot of "The" instances in various other articles' references to HSUS. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)