Talk:Best Friends Animal Society/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edit warring

Unless you people want to continue reverting to your favourite version for the rest of your wikipedia life, please start discussing the issue here. Please also read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.--Dodo bird (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Whitewash edits by self-interested parties

My last post contained verifiable, current references. Articles of incorporation are public domain, which is one of the most reliable sources. That being said my last post was hasty as it was incomplete. I will complete my research and then repost. As a note, I have no affilition with the dogpress; I simply have an interest in the history of the organization and have spent much time reading and researching the topic.

There is an ethical dilemma with employee's editing their company's wikipedia pages. Doing so leaves a stain of bias on the content. Given that Best Friends is a 501c, it is crucial that the information on this page is impartial. The public bases their donation decisions on this information. They will expect Best Friends material to be partial, but not wikipedia. We must take our responsibility as wikipedia editors serious and provide a balanced and truthful viewpoint of the organization.

Layla2008 (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

I've posted this also to WP:COIN#Best Friends Animal Society. If the separate assertions are true, the editors on both sides of this dispute have an undisclosed conflict of interest.

As to the content: based on an initial skim, I agree that Layla2008 appears to have an axe to grind and is bringing in a lot of original research. But nevertheless some members' background in The Process Church is perfectly openly described at the Best Friends Animal Society's own website (see the bios for Francis Battista and Faith Maloney, and the whole account Before Best Friends whose last two section describe the transition from Foundation to Best Friends). If it were neutrally phrased and not synthesised into a hostile Shock horror! Horrible cult! backstory, I can't see why such prior history shouldn't be mentioned. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not original information

It is my intention to create a neutral section. None of this information is original; Countless newspapers throughout the 60s and 70s have quotes and even pictures supporting the post that was undone. A google search reveals the same. From the beginning, I have striven to keep my posts on this subject unbiased. It is my intent to post most of my research to the Process Church and Foundation Faith pages; then provide a synopsis for the Best Friends page for relevance. I do not intend to sensationalize this information as many writers have done over the years. And I may mention that Michael Mountain himself is quoted in Labyrinth13 to say, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a d.mn," about people writing about the Process as long as it is factual. That is what I intend to do. The proverbial ax you saw me grind is with employees attempting to whitewash what I believe to be a fascinating dimension to the organization.

Layla2008 (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to month's old, original posting that was on the site, to put it back to what it was originally. According to media law, three decades'-old information, which was questionable at the time in the books it was published in, can be considered libelous. CatDogLover (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not repost. It is unverifiable. A controversial book is not documentation, neither is what is posted on the Dog Press. The incorporation of Best Friends lists two names, not the number of names you have listed. Again, do not repost.CatDogLover (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is unverifiable.

Which bits? I agree about some of the sources, but you're also removing material that is openly available at the Best Friends website. Inclusion of detailed biographical background of founders is an arguable area, but I don't see the need to expunge their names completely and call them "a group of animal lovers". Compare Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, etc. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Best Friends at present is still a religion motivated organization? If not, there is no need to go into such detail regarding their religious history (see WP:NPOV#Undue weight), Just a brief mention with a link to the Process Church article would suffice. --Dodo bird (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed!

(Looking at some of the material written on this elsewhere, I suspect that this is all about people who don't like Best Friends' current policies using past controversial affiliations as a stick to beat them with). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Best Friends still has religious overtones (many religious references in the Best Friends Magazine) as well as quite recently research about how religions treat animals. In addition there's the philosophy of sparking a "Kindness Revolution" through kindness to animals. None of it is earthshocking I find and if phrased properly should provide a nice background to the creativity of these folks. Simply put though, Best Friends was started as a religious group in the 60s. The same people that were the leaders of the Process and founders of The Foundation are still leaders at BF. The old guard, so to speak, and some of their children, still hold positions of authority, and the hierarchy between the founders still seems to exist to this day in day to day operations, as evidenced by the houses some are assigned on the sanctuary for example. Also, the directors are paid employees which is somewhat unorthodox for a 501c. Again, nothing earthshocking but just to provide you as editors with some background. I think BF's colorful history is an interesting dimension, and I wanted to present it as such. So much has been written about it in a "shocking" kind of way; I wanted for once to state it factually. Although the newspaper articles about the Process often had horrible titles, several of them were quite positive, describing the Process members, including some of the founders by name, as polite, gracious, and soft-spoken. All things to be proud of. It is my impression that the founders have become gunshy because this material has been used as a stick indeed. I think it would be warranted to give the story its proper weight, the good with the bad so to speak. It was my impression CatDogLover jumped the gun seeing my posts and dismissed me as a BF critic. I am, in fact, involved in animal rescue, and appreciate BF's work. But I feel that the nervousness about their past is misplaced, and hiding the truth does more damage than good. Sorry for the long post. When I have a rewrite I will post it here for discussion so everyone can have a say. Layla2008 (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've added a brief intro [1] explaining the origin in The Foundation and Process Church. As Dodo bird says, I think that's as deep as it needs to go at the moment.

The whole thing needs a rewrite anyway: Googling, I find much of it comes verbatim from the Best Friends FAQ. So perhaps the religious/spiritual angle - following the Golden Rule, and interest in a religious basis for kindness to animals [2] - could be mentioned in a Philosophy section alongside the more nuts-and-bolts stuff such as the No Kill stance. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice balanced job, Godonofcartoon. Thanks for taking the helm.CatDogLover (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The article still places Best Friends Animal Society in the category of "religious organizations established in the 1960s". Although there is some history of having been a religious organization, it is no longer and I'm taking that out. Canadianknowledgelover (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

References for ex-Processeans in Best Friends Board of Directors

Bainbridge's Satan's Power is not controversial, he is a well-respected sociologist and author who has published countless books. Apart from Satan's Power, he also describes The Process in a 1991 book, The Sociology of Religions. You will find his story there almost verbatim mymics Best Friends own book about Xtul, and IMHO provides a neutral view of the Process Church. With regard to only 2 people being on the incorporation, for one there are four if you include the last two name filings, Jonathan de Peyer, Michael Mountain, Celeste Fripp and Christopher Fripp. Given your vehimence, I will provide my references:

Hugh Mountain (Michael, Father Aaron): Guilt Cult Exposed, San Antonio Express, 11/21/1966, Satan Worshippers are turning away, The Billings Gazette, 11/15/1974, and the BF website itself.

Jonathan de Peyer (Gabriel, Father Christian, and married to the late Mary Ann de Grimston, cofounder of the Process): Devil Worshippers, They Believe in Presence of Satan--and Christ, Eleanor Blau, Wisconsin State Journal, 8/28/1971

Christopher de Peyer (Raphael, Father Lucius) - passed away -: New Counterculture Church Breaks from Processeans, Florence Morning News, 6/1/1974 (with picture for same story in Foundation Church Rises From Counterculture Base, Winona Daily News, 05/31/1974); Raphael de Peyer is also listed as Rev for the Foundation Faith in Religious Requirements & Practices of Certain Selected Groups, by the Dept of Defense, 1993-1998.

Francis Alfred Battista: Per his own account on the BF website, and also quoted as the Director of the Foundation Faith of God in Religions Pose Problems for Sky Harbor Airport Security, Casa Grande Dispatch, 7/30/1979

Faith Malony: Per her own account on the BF website, as well as her photograph showing in the Process Magazine.

Christopher Fripp (Father John): is depicted in the Processean Magazine, the Death Issue, 1974, and quoted in Church Suite over book on Manson, Daily Review, 11/6/1971

Paul Eckhoff: mentioned by Michael Mountain in the Before Best Friends story on the BF website.

Additionally, Father Cyrus Mejia is mentioned and depicted in the Process Magazine; his wife Anne Mejia recounts her story on the BF website, with a picture of her and Vivian Ebbs, who was Cat Manager for many years at Best Friends as evidenced by the Best Friends Magazine.

Layla2008 (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

New Information

I would like to be able to add some new information based on the latest work of the organization and the campaigns. The latest section is titled Work After Katrina (2005-2006), so I think some new info is due. Unless anyone has any objection, I will begin work on a new section in a couple of days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdd120 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sanctuary info edit by anonymous user

Anonymous user 108.5.224.57 recently added some info about the sanctuary, which was reverted by AuthorAuthor, stating that it is "advert material added by new IP user and sourced by the subject of the Wiki article" and asking that it not be re-added.

The content of the edit was: "It houses nearly 2,000 animals, including dogs, cats, birds, pigs, rabbits, horses, and other wildlife. These animals come to the sanctuary from all over the country, and whether they have been ill, neglected, or abused, they are all considered homeless. The peace and tranquility of the canyon allows these animals to recover from past experiences, and heal emotionally, physically, and psychologically. The sanctuary is divided up into certain areas based on the animal, with spots such as "Dogtown," "Horse Haven," and "Parrot Garden." There is even an "Angels Rest" area that acts as a cemetery for animals, complete with monthly blessings, memorial services, and stone placements." The reference given was this link to the organization's website: [3]

I think there is useful material from this edit that can be added to the article, perhaps without the emotion implied in the original edit. It can be discouraging to people who may be new to Wikipedia to revert everything they have added. My thoughts are to select suitable info for placement into the article - such as the number of animals typically at the sanctuary, species, and the sections of the sanctuary. I see no issue with these factual details that would add to the article.

Canadianknowledgelover (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Church of the Final Judgment

The reference to the Church of the Final Judgment should be moved to this talk page until a better source can be found. The reference does not mention the church anywhere: Glen, Samantha (2001). Best Friends: The True Story of the World's Most Beloved Animal Sanctuary. Kensington. ISBN 978-1-57566-735-5. Clintoncimring (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Clintoncimring

Here is a piece in the words of founders of Best Friends Animal Society about their involvement in the Process Church. This is published on the organization's own site. It is their role in the early years when they were Processeans. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)