Talk:Humane Society of the United States/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Humane Society of the United States. 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

Reverts from links between HSUS and Animal Rights

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)

Contradiction

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)

Ask what WORK they do and what POLICIES they advocate and support? MaynardClark (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Censorship at its best

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)

Your example is demonstrably false. The tax information you refer to was simply moved to the section on the group's finances. The only source you cited was the FY2006 tax return of the Humane Society (itself a primary source). There was no indication in their own tax return that their taxes are any form of criticism, therefore it does not belong in the criticism section, but rather, in the section on finances. This was made clear in both my edit summaries and our discussion last night (which is posted below). The only criticism surrounding the tax information is your opinionated posting in the section below this one. That, as I also explained below, is just that, your opinion and has no more place in an encyclopedia article than my opinion does. Please stop these silly accusations of conspiracy. You don't know me, I don't know you and we shouldn't be making assumptions about one another's motives. For the record, I am an animal lover, pet owner (4 cats, 2 dogs, and a snake), agrarian ( I raise my own chickens, goats, and pigs and I make homemade cheeses and sausages.) I am an avid hunter (both bow and spear) and I go sport fishing (tarpon, sailfish, shark, marlin) whenever the opportunity arises. For the last time, I urge you to please review Wikipedia's stated policies and guidelines regarding verifiability, reliable sources, and neutral point of view. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:55, 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)

And with that, my reserves of good faith towards you have dried up. It is evident from your contribution history [1] that you are only here to promote some sort of agenda. Until you decide that you can contribute to the encyclopedia in a mature and thoughtful manner you should find another hobby. L0b0t (talk) 03:01, 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)

HSUS is removing any attempts to add anything that may be not be pro-HSUS

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)

The sources you have been adding link to sources with what appears to be a non-neutral point of view, and are not compatible with Wikipedia's policies. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR for more information. Thank you. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 05:38, 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)

I hope more facts do come soon, and if they are cited reliably, they will be accepted. Cheers, mate. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 05:49, 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)

Nuts... You caught me. My wiki-ninjas and I have been working tirelessly since 1654 to censor all the criticism that you, and only you, have about puppies and kitties and we would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you and those meddling kids. Seriously mate, you might want to visit your local hatter and see if he has one in your size. Either abide by the editorial standards here or don't edit the encyclopedia; the choice is yours. Cheers mate. L0b0t (talk) 07:08, 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)

See, It's not so hard to cite a source. I have moved that info up into the section about financing though. The info you added is just the budget, not a criticism. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 07:08, 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)

The Center for Consumer Freedom is issuing this ABC exposé of HSUS: ABC News Atlanta Exposé on HSUS Donations, along with the questions, "When you hear the words “Humane Society,” what’s the first thing that comes to mind? Is it a pet shelter where families can adopt unwanted dogs and cats? Or is it a super-rich animal rights lobbying group that runs absolutely no pet shelters, and gives less than 4 percent of its $100 million budget to those who do?". Asteriks (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2009 (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)

The person using the name "Wayne Pacelle" should change his or her user name

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)

This conversation belongs on a user talk page (where - incidentally - it has already been discussed at length), and not here. Rockpocket 01:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Animal rights vs. Animal welfare

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)

Hi Vision, you're posting about this in multiple places. If you want to continue, could you choose one page for the discussion? I'll copy below what I posted to you elsewhere.

Hi Vision, you're right that Wiki needs to protect itself against one side or the other, and what you're doing here is promoting one side, even though I can see you're doing it in good faith, and sincerely believe your POV is correct. That's why we stick to reliable sources. The source you used is an animal researcher, vet, and dairy farmer, who obviously has his own views. We need multiple sources who have no dog in the fight, and who are preferably academics who have studied this area specifically, or a self-description from HSUS itself. As things stand, no reliable source that I have found calls them an AR group, the AR movement does not regard them as AR, they don't see themselves as AR, and none of the work they do or the language they use is that of AR. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no shame in admitting my bias, since I do volunteer at zoos, making me a animal welfare supporter and opponent of animal rights organizations. (Which brings up the point that you should come clean about your own bias and connections, since you clearly oppose any obvious mention of the HSUS being associated with Animal rights, are very active in animal rights-based articles, and you were involved in adding material about primate research, which violated NPOV into Primate during its FAC.) However, allowing the predominant citing the HSUS's own web site and publications for support of their "animal welfare" stance, and your willingness to delete cited material that speaks in opposition demonstrates that violation of NPOV. The other side deserves a voice, and I don't consider using the ambiguity used consistently the HSUS as "neutral ground." As stated, the modification to the lead of this page, and all the List of animal rights groups and Template:Animal liberation changes you have reverted are supported by references used in the body of this article, not just the one I quoted. And let me state one more time, citing the HSUS's own website does not provide you the "multiple, reliable, and preferably disinterested sources" that you claim the other side needs. –Visionholder (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's in part because we all have biases and none of us can claim to be right, that we rely on sources. For a claim that goes directly against the organization's self-description, and against the language they use in all their statements, you would need multiple, reliable sources, preferably sources who actually work in this area (not vets or farmers who are players, but people who have studied the animal protection movement), or failing that, mainstream newspapers and other disinterested commentators. Please see WP:V and WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Essentially you're saying that publications by anyone who is legally defending themselves against the onslaught of animal rights groups cannot be used because they are "players." So the only "valid" sources, in your opinion, either come from the organization itself or from the media—which now-a-days is known for its blantant bias ("controversy sells!"), lack of investigative reporting, exclusive outside analysts (e.g. HSUS being exclusively consulted on all animal-related stories by CNN), and reporting that conforms with its financial backers? What you're doing is trying to paint people into a corner if they disagree with your animal rights views so that they can't publish anything about it on Wiki. You know... forget it. I'm going through WP:DRR. –Visionholder (talk) 21:50, 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)

Hi Visionholder,

HSUS has identified themselves as both, but if one looks at their actions, it's clearly not 'animal rights'. They are strong advocates of animal husbandry reform practices, which flies in the face of any rights-oriented activism, which would be to abolish their exploitation, not change the ways that they are exploited. (Thus reform vs abolition, and 'welfare' vs rights.) Rights reject reform, as reform does not equate, nor necessitate rights or abolition.

Visit their page on farm animals: [8] - the very first thing it says is 'animal welfare'. All the campaigns (cage-free eggs, a different kind of veal, etc) is for reforming the industry. None of it is demanding that animals deserve to be left alone as Hall would put it, or not treated as property a la Francione. These campaigns maintain the property status of animals, which is what rights works to end.

This is further evidenced here: [9] - HSUS is clearly more concerned about 'behavioral needs' than freedom.

What do you think? Also, read the section above, which i think outlines what 'animal rights' is, with more accuracy, rather than the mishmash that appears in much media.. Dave Shishkoff (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Before I state what I think, I want to openly state that I am biased in this arguement. I volunteer at zoos and conservation facilities, and I am a animal trainer. I am a self-professed animal welfare supporter and strongly opposed animal rights... especially since animals rights organizations threaten the existence organizations I volunteer at and hope to work for. However, I am not so biased that I will misrepresent information. In my opinion (and from my experiences), the HSUS does not do the same.

My first reaction to what you wrote is that you are only citing the HSUS. The HSUS can say anything it wants about itself. For example, Al-Qaeda could publish that it's an Islamic-based humanitarian group, but that wouldn't necessarily make it so. For the first link you provided, it focused on cage-free chickens. I lived in California during the vote over Proposition 2, and can tell you that what was printed about it for the public was very misleading. In the voter booklet that was sent out to voters, the HSUS wrote in support of the measure, passing it off as a way to help provide humane conditions for farm chickens. Veterinarian associations wrote in opposition, trying to point out that cage-free chickens harm themselves and are exposed to disease, while also noting that passing the proposition would not result in the conversion to cage-free enclosures, but the slaughter of the chickens. (That *is* a view endorsed by animal rights -- "better dead that in captivity.") If veterinarians are the fundamental animal welfare base, then why do they opposed the HSUS so consistently?

Here's what I have seen and had to face from my background: The HSUS tries to associate itself with animal shelters, both in the pictures it uses in its ads, and most obviously, through it's misleading name. (Talk to anyone on the street, and they'll tell you that the Humane Society of the United States is the parent organization of their local humane society. It's not!) The HSUS became much more visible and active once PETA tarnished its reputation a few years back with their euthanasia cover-up. Since then, the HSUS has used its money to influence to obtain exclusive interviewing rights on CNN (just look at who CNN always turns to on any animal-related story) and other news organizations, as well as lobby local, state, and federal government to support two-faced legislation like Prop 2.

Another great example similar to Prop 2 -- the efforts to require significantly more space for elephants in California. (And it's not just California--they're doing it everywhere. See this.) They make the argument that elephants in the wild roam many, many miles, therefore we need to provide significantly more space in captivity. (They fail to mention that elephants only roam when resources aren't abundant. In zoos, resources are abundant, so excessively large enclosures are not needed.) What's so deceiptful about this is that they push for legislation to mandate enclosure space that is specifically set to be larger than anything zoos can provide--even the San Diego Wild Animal Park! The point is not to give the elephants more space, but to prevent zoos from keeping elephants. And once you set a precedent for one type of animal, you can move on to another... like giraffes, zebras, etc... until zoos have no major attractions have to shut their doors. What happens when the elephant exhibits shut down? They are supposed to be shipped off to sanctuaries... except that many of the sanctuaries are also under attack for being too small, or could not accommodate so many animals. What would happen then? Simple! Euthanize them... which is the whole point. ("Better dead than in captivity.") What's particularly sickening about this is that many zoos have been trying to raise funds to improve and enlarge their exhibits, especially for elephants and other large animals. Each case I've been involved with had to contend with, directly or indirectly, with the HSUS and its attempts to shut the upgrades down. The upgrades were never large enough, so rather than donating millions to help the zoos do the best jobs possible, they spent millions on campaign ads and legal funds to fight the zoos. Still sound like a "animal welfare" group?

The biggest problems here are the two-faced nature of everything they do and how they can effectively control the press about themselves with their massive budget and strong influence. So citing the HSUS web site does not add creditability to the statements on Wiki about the HSUS being a "animal welfare" group. What's particularly sad is the widespread nature of the ignorance of these issues and the HSUS's connection to them. Sadly, I even know zoo keepers who financially support the HSUS because they just look at the pictures and read the headlines. Who wouldn't support better living conditions for animals?? I do! But I won't support the HSUS (or their lies) by allowing them to set precedents through their legal initiatives that ultimately set the legal ground work for a massive animal rights push.

As I said, I'm biased. But this comes from my experiences, and I have some sources. Maybe when I'm done working on the lemur pages I'm trying to completely re-write, then I'll make a move to clean up all the misinformation about animal rights, animal welfare, etc. on Wiki. But until then, I feel my source and the existing cited information on HSUS (Wiki) support my claim sufficiently. –Visionholder (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Visionholder, you would need to cite HSUS calling itself an AR group, or in some other way strongly implying it, or multiple reliable sources doing so. As things stand, you've produced one source, who is an animal researcher, vet, and former dairy farmer. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, as it states on About.com, "HSUS is multi-issue animal protection organization. Wayne Pacelle, CEO of HSUS, specifically avoids the term "animal rights," and prefers the term "animal protection."" So it's not going to be possible for me to quote the HSUS since they are trying to distance them from the term. (And just because they're distancing themselves from it doesn't mean they don't support it. PETA demonstrated that it was all about public appearnace, and when it tarnished its image, the HSUS--staffed by many of PETA's former members--stepped up to fill its role.) Furthermore, there is cited material in numerous places throughout the body of the HSUS article that support this, such as (to name a few):

[[10]]
John McArdle, quoted in Katie McCabe, "Who Will Live, Who Will Die," Washingtonian August 1986, p. 115, as cited in The Humane Society in the US: Its Not about Animal Shelters, Daniel Oliver
John Hoyt, quoted in Katie McCabe, "Katie McCabe Replies," Washingtonian October 1986, pp109-110, as cited in The Humane Society in the US: Its Not about Animal Shelters, Daniel Oliver

Refusing to allow people to cite publications in opposition violates WP:NPOV. –Visionholder (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think instead of going back and forth, you should just post your sources here, along with what they say if they're not online, and we can take it from there. But please choose one page for this discussion, as we've got a bit of a forest fire going here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

How about you just read this article and you'll see that there are numerous statements given with citations (3 of which are listed directly above in the short list) that confirm what I was trying to say in the summary sentence in the lead. Apparently my source, a veterinarian, doesn't matter because he would oppose any "animal welfare" group and "obviously has his own views." (Think about how irrational that statement is for a minute, since veterinarians support animal welfare at a minimum. Only a very rare handful ever go so far as to support animal rights.) –Visionholder (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

One common way to resolve disputes like this is for the person who wants to add material to post his sources on the talk page, with quotes where appropriate (particularly if the sources aren't online). That would be very helpful here.

Reliable sources who call HSUS an "animal rights" group, and what they say:

1.

2.

3.

And so on. Then we can see at a glance what the evidence is, rather than you arguing your POV and me arguing mine. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources:

Shapiro, Leland (2000). Applied Animal Ethics. Delmar. pp. 4, 47, 50, B-19. ISBN 0-8273-8494-7.
1. Page 4: "Michael Fox, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) vice-president, wrote in his book The Inhumane Society that "The life of an ant and that of my child should be graned equal consideration." – This is an animal rights view, not an animal welfare view. ("A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy". –Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA)
2. Page: B-19: "'HSUS-PETA Connections-The executive offices of The Humane Society of the United States are filled with officers with strong ties to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and its leaders: Wayne Pacelle, former national director of the Fund for Animals and friend of PETA founder Alex Pacheco... Rick Swain, former Managing Director of PETA is now vice president of Investigations for HSUS... John Kulberg, former president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, now heads the Wildlife Lands Trust of the HSUS... Marin Stephens, a self-proclaimed antivivisectionist who is married to animals rights attorney Jo Shosmith, heads the Lab Animals Section..." The page is too long to reproduce here. It's from the appendix of the book, and its source was the Americans for Medical Progress Educational Foundation.
3. Page 47: "Other organizations , such as the HSUS and AWI, originally asked for humane treatment and restraints on unnecessary usage of animals. Today, the HSUS describes its purpose as "promoting animals rights." The HSUS has established a loan program to provide both students and instructors with alternatives to classroom animal dissction and live animal experimentation." (This was written prior to Wayne Pacelle taking over as CEO in 2004. Pacelle has specifically tried to change the public image of the HSUS. "Wayne Pacelle, CEO of HSUS, specifically avoids the term "animal rights," and prefers the term "animal protection."" source)
4. Page 61: "An attempt to seek legal sanctions to act on behalf of animals. The Federal District Court, the United States Course of Appeals (May 1994), and the United States Supreme Court denied the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the HSUS, PETA, and other animals rights groups the right to assume guardianship over animals."
Americans for Medical Progress (AMP) - "For many of us, the names of national animal rights organizations - including the Humane Society of the United States, PETA, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and In Defense of Animals - are well known. Their websites and appeals for donations are designed to suggest to potential contributors that their donations would go to improve animal welfare. A closer examination into the activities and beliefs of these groups, and the way their dollars are really spent, is necessary for a complete understanding of their mission. These organizations - sometimes openly, sometimes behind the scenes - actively push an animal rights agenda. If you think your donation is going to fund shelters, animal rescue operations or animal care, be wary. It may instead be funneled into animal-rights-driven activities, some of which threatens biomedical research. Your dollars intended to help animals may be better spent if given to your local shelter or a group you feel confident embraces the principles of animal welfare, not the extreme animal rights philosophy."
ActivistCash.com - "In 1980, HSUS officially began to change its focus from animal welfare to animal rights. After a vote was taken at the group's San Francisco national conference, it was formally resolved that HSUS would "pursue on all fronts … the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals … within the full range of American life and culture.""
AnimalRightsZone.com - an animal rights web site that clearly endorses the HSUS

Not my sources, but provided by past users to support content:

"Wayne Pacelle is chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation's largest animal protection organization. ... In 1997 The Los Angeles Times labeled Pacelle as "one of America's most important animal rights activists."" source - Demonstrates that, despite what the HSUS is publicly considered, it has an animal rights activist as the CEO
John McArdle, quoted in Katie McCabe, "Who Will Live, Who Will Die," Washingtonian August 1986, p. 115, as cited in The Humane Society in the US: Its Not about Animal Shelters, Daniel Oliver
John Hoyt, quoted in Katie McCabe, "Katie McCabe Replies," Washingtonian October 1986, pp109-110, as cited in The Humane Society in the US: Its Not about Animal Shelters, Daniel Oliver

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)

Okay, thanks for posting these.

(a) Activistcash is not a reliable source; it's a website run by a consumer group, I forget the name, but they were set up as a lobby group opposed to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, PETA, and some other. They were promoting smoking, alcohol, and fast food.

(b) Ditto with animalrightszone, and any other special-interest website.

(c) The Katie McCabe article is, as I understand it, simply repeating material from an anti-AR book called Animal Scam.

(d) Americans for Medical Progress is a pro-testing group.

(e) Shapiro is an animal researcher/former dairy farmer.

Rather than using sources who themselves use animals, or who lobby for it, can you find mainstream newspapers, or scholarly books? HSUS takes on vested interests, and those people then try to undermine it. We need to use sources who not part of that dispute, as far as possible, or at least not such a direct part of it as the ones listed above. We need to use sources who clearly know the difference between animal welfare and animal rights, for a start; preferably sources who in some way specialize in this area. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And where are your sources? It seems like the vast majority of the sources on the main article cite HSUS publications. How is that not biased? Why can't the other side get their say in this article? When a topic is so hotly debated, sometimes neutral documents aren't going to exist. The best you can do in that case is present both sides and let the readers decide for themselves.

Another quick note: Shapiro is a veterinarian, teaches at a veterinary school, and supports animal welfare. (I know him personally.) He was a diary farmer, and I can't speak to his background in animal research, but I know he supports it (like most other veterinarians), as long as it is minimal, humane, and in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act and IACUC. He teaches a class in animal ethics, in which he explicitly refuses to imply that one side is right or wrong. He encourages his students to weigh the facts for themselves, consider what is important to them, and consider the philosophical implications of their views. Again, I know him personally, so please stop dismissing him as an "animal researcher."

One last time, where are your non-HSUS sources?

NOTE: This is my last reply for the day. I am waiting for Editor Assistance feedback to judge our actions and arguments. I had taken today and tomorrow off from work so I could work on (and hopefully finish) the huge Lemur re-write that I'm working on, but due to the poor timing of these reverts, I've wasted a day. Pardon me if I bow out for a while. I have a lot to do before I leave for my 3-month volunteer trip in Madagascar in October. –Visionholder (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

3rd opinion: All that I could say is that only high quality reliable sources should be used to support any statements or classifications in templates. If you cannot achieve consensus here (and achieving consensus involves give and take by all editors involved and may take some time), you could start an WP:RfC, with a suitably agreed neutral question, but this may not resolve anything. Personally, on a brief look at this article, I would remove all non-reliable sources, severely decrease the number of primary sources and perhaps the amount of content in the article. Certainly sections such as Recent history are rather long and not even arranged in chronological order. Anyone who has strong feelings about the issue of animal rights versus animal welfare should perhaps not edit the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's my fourth opinion (I came here from the Editor assistance page): I think it's clear that HSUS is an advocate group for animal welfare. Their policies seemed to be based on reducing animal suffering. As they don't advocate a right to life for animals (e.g. they do not demand vegetarianism, an outright ban on animal testing, no pets at all etc.), I personally think it's more of a stretch to describe them as an animal rights group. Howevever, the coherent definition of animal rights is disputed, and they describe themselves as an animals rights group, as do several other sources. I agree with slimvirgin's point that going against a self-description is inherently contentious. Given that other sources also describe them as such, I think it's OK to describe them as (something like) an animal rights and welfare advocacy organisation.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they do describe themselves as "animal rights," VK. I recall they use the term "animal protection," and the language of their literature is, as you say, very much geared toward animal welfare. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

One last reply to all of this, and then I'm done with the topic at least until I return from Madagascar in Janunary. (I am not considering this issue resolved. I consider this very much an open issue.) First, the Shapiro book is a perfectly valid source. It is used as a textbook in schools. Furthermore, SV's objections to its use hints strongly at his true position. Shapiro is a veterinarian, a dairy farmer, and supports animal research--all issues supported by animal welfare. If SlimVirgin and the HSUS were truly in support of animal welfare, there would be no conflict. In SV's own words, "Shapiro is an animal researcher/former dairy farmer." This is spoken as though Shapiro could not possibly support animal welfare, which is clearly false. (He also avoids the label of "veterinian", which is in itself highly suspicious.) There is nothing wrong with being an animal researcher or a dairy farmer if you support animal welfare (due to the AWA, IACUC, etc.), but there is a problem if you support animal rights.

Per Jezhotwells recommendations, I agree we need to "severely decrease the number of primary sources" -- HSUS documents are used almost exclusively and are clearly not neutral. Regarding the suggestion that "anyone who has strong feelings about the issue of animal rights versus animal welfare should perhaps not edit the article," would be a good one, except none of the literature is neutral and we would be very lucky to find someone who does not have any feelings on the issue. I also think this is impossible because one side has a dominant presence on Wiki under WikiProject:Animal Rights and has labeled this article part of their project scope... under High importance, which sounds odd since this is supposedly an "animal welfare", not "animal rights" group. (The project claims to support neutrality, but given that people like SV are members, I doubt that.) It's important to note that few if any sources will be neutral about the HSUS. The people who write about these topics will have feelings about these topics. Even our news media is no longer unbiased, and can easily be controlled by financial support.

Per VsevolodKrolikov, I disagree that "they don't advocate a right to life for animals (e.g. they do not demand vegetarianism, an outright ban on animal testing, no pets at all etc.)." Just because you don't openly advocate something doesn't mean you don't advocate something. Humans are known for their dishonesty and subtle manipulation. One way to fight something legally, if you can't win a head-on fight (which animal rights groups haven't been able to do), is to attack from a less extreme angle and chisel away at the system, set precedents, and slowly undermine it. Just look at how Creationists have changed over to Intelligent Design so that they can sneak their views into the classroom. The same can be said about the HSUS -- they continue to claim that conditions at research facilities and farms are not humane, and ignore existing legislation (such as the AWA, IACUC, etc.). In fact, I've never seen them even mention these major legislative acts in their campaigns, and they attack people who adhere to them. To put it simply, the HSUS needs to be judged by its actions, not its words. (And, sadly, to make those distinctions it takes a deep understanding of animal rights and animal welfare, something very few people have.) Citing only the HSUS and its supporters is not neutral. Both sides need a voice, even if they are known to oppose the HSUS. Otherwise the article is not neutral.

Lastly, I want to note that SV has refused to come clean about his connections to the HSUS. (I suspect he is either a financial supporter or an employee paid to troll these pages.) Secondly, SV has also not listed his sources, particularly ones that are reliable and not from the HSUS or its supporters. –Visionholder (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Visionholder, you have been honest in your personal opposition to HSUS. However, you are choosing the wrong forum to express it. Wikipedia is not a debating website about rights and wrongs. In particular, your sentiment that Just because you don't openly advocate something doesn't mean you don't advocate something. Humans are known for their dishonesty and subtle manipulation. is not an acceptable working principle for an encyclopaedia. It is not our role to insinuate. I would also ask you not to doubt the integrity of other editors without evidence; opposing someone's opinion is not the same as being corrupt.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sadly not being paid to "troll these pages," but as always I'm open to offers. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

5th opinion - Within the Wikipedia project, attempting to classify an organization (or person) when there are multiple views is one of the most difficult to arrive at consensus about. And here there are clearly multiple views as to how to categorize HSUS - not just among Wikipedia editors, but within the sources already cited in the article. So, we end up with the least common denominator, as here with an "animal advocacy" organization," a term which could encompass an animal rights organization, an animal welfare organization, a pro-animal lobbying group, and many other types of organizations, including an organization of pet shop owners). I think the point Visionholder makes about simply deferring to what an organization calls itself is a good one - obviously if Al-Queda called itself an Islamic-based humanitarian group, it wouldn't make it so - but here there is significant dispute over whether HSUS is animal rights group or an animal welfare group so the Al-Quaeda analogy doesn't really hold. To put things into perspective, Visionholder's comment made me go to the Al-Qaeda article to see what Wikipedia calls it, and sure enough, rather than acknowledging that it is a terrorist group (which I don't even think Al_Quaeda denies), Wikipedia calls them an Islamic fundemtalist group, or some similar fluff (I can only picture them as the analogue of fundamentalist Christians in the US, going to their mosque regularly to worship, voting Republican, opposing abortion and gun control, but never dreaming of killing anyone in their lives). Compared to that evasion, no classification disagreement about HSUS seems particularly meaningful. So I don't think using the least common denominator here - an animal advocacy organization - is necessarily problematic. And while I understand Visionholder's concern about the general public understanding the meaning of that term, I am pretty confident that 99% of readers wouldn't understand the nuances of the difference between "animal rights" and "animal welfare" either.

That said, I do think there are WP:NPOV issues with the article, especially in that none of this controversy or any other shows up until you scroll down a few pages to the "Criticism" section. Ideally, the (properly sourced) criticisms would be incorporated throughout the article in relevant places. But without the rewrite that would entail, at least the lead should summarize the significant controversy over whether this is an animal rights or animal wlefare orgnaization - not picking one or the other but noting the major groups that believe each one and (briefly) why. That would be consistent with WP:LEAD's comment that the lead should "summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." This controversy is noted in many of the cited sources, including the one that is used to support the term "animal advocacy organization in the first place.

The two paragraphs within the "Criticism" section starting with "HSUS President John Hoyt strongly condemned violence..." also seems problematic. Although this claims to be a "Criticism" section, the first paragraph essentially praises HSUS before we get to the criticsm it responds to in the 2nd paragraph. A more neutral approach within the context of this article as currently written and organized would seem to start with the criticism and then give the defense, or at least start with a brief statement that "Although HSUS President John Hoyt strongly condemmed violence in HSUS News in 1981, critics point out the link between HSUS staff members and individuals or organizations who commit illegal activities." and then continue with the criticism before giving the rest of the defense. Rlendog (talk) 01:43, 4 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)

With respect, both Dave and Visionholder, arguing on different "sides" here, are missing the point about Wikipedia's policies. We don't decide for ourselves whether a person or group is "animal rights." We go either by the group's self-description, or by the views of multiple reliable sources with no axe to grind. So far, no uninvolved reliable source has been produced that calls HSUS an "animal rights" group. Has HSUS ever self-identified as animal rights, either by using that expression, or by making a mission statement that falls unambiguously within that category? Dave, I saw you post elsewhere that they had, but I can't find it myself. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:37, 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)

The Shapiro book is not a reliable source for this. He is not an expert, he is not disinterested, he is using an unusual definition of "animal welfare" or "animal rights," and he seems to be a lone source. That's not enough for the lead, or indeed for anywhere else in the text. If you think there is a dispute about HSUS's description, please find some mainstream newspapers that discuss it, or something in the specialist or academic literature. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

another source for HSUS as animal rights organization

In The Journal of Neuroscience, September 16, 2009, v. 29 n. 37, p11417:

Although there has been a focus on primate research, "mainstream" animal rights organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States, openly oppose all types of animal research, calling it flawed, unnecessary, and unethical.

("We Must Face the Threats" by Dario L. Ringach1 and J. David Jentsch)

--132.216.47.6 (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

HSUS membership

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)

Vandalism in citations

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)

Ambiguity

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)

How's this? [11] This Sacramento Bee article isn't specifically about membership, but it is an explicit factual statement in a reliable, independent source that HSUS "has 11 million members". There are other news articles making similar statements if they would be helpful. -- JohnDopp (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Normally I'd say that's fine, but it seems that the society itself avoids making the same claim, instead it refers to "backed by", "supporters", "members and supporters" or "members and constituents", never just "members". --92.2.82.159 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's true, they've started qualifying the statement, likely in response to opposition group criticism. The problem is that the term is used in more than one context. It's used as a general category of "people who donate to the HSUS", and it's used in a more specific context to refer to "voting members", those members who contribute more than $25 annually and are in good standing. As I understand it, someone who donates $10 is a member, but not a "voting member". So they've been classed as "constituents" or "supporters" rather than "members" to avoid confusion with the "voting member" class.

Here's a petition from the HSUS to the Department of the Interior in which they use "members" in the more generic sense: "With over 11 million members, HSUS is the nation's largest animal protection organization." It's on Page 6. [12] -- JohnDopp (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the thing to do here is to use the predominant language of the society itself, it's apparent that they almost always refer to "11 million members and supporters", "11 million members and constituents" or similar and we can't ignore this in favor of the few sources that say otherwise. Is "constituent" clarified anywhere? Looking for myself, I am getting the strongest impression that "constituents" refers to people who have filled in "action alerts" and are then automatically signed up for email updates, i.e. the society refers to "pressure from constituent emails generated by an action alert" and people trying to unsubscribe from these emails are addressed as "constituents". --92.2.82.159 (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not defined anywhere on their website. I've got an email in to their spokespeople to see if they can point out something more precise. Since they use "members and constituents" and "members and supporters" interchangeably, with the same 11,000,000 figure, can we assume that they are synonymous in this context? -- JohnDopp (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems a reasonable assumption, otherwise using them so interchangeably would make little sense. -- 92.2.82.159 (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No response from the society? I suggest we remove the membership field from the infobox, as a membership figure doesn't appear to be available or likely forthcoming, and add something along the lines of 11 million members and supporters to the lede instead. I don't think we should refer to constituents unless we are able to define what the society means by that term. --92.2.82.159 (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- 92.2.82.159 (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

HumaneWatch

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)

Makes sense. I will restore John's version. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Tread a little more carefully. This isn’t about using CCF as a source, it’s about the existence of the site. While admittedly the material was very badly worked in, that doesn’t give you carte blanche to make blanket deletions with false justifications. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 21:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please cite only references that attempt to prove the text they refer to

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

^ Smith-Spark, Laura (August 24, 2007). "Brutal culture of US dog fighting". BBC News. Retrieved May 4, 2010.

Criticism section is too big

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)

I agree that the Alleged Connection to Radicals section should be removed or shortened significantly, since it's addressed convincingly by HSUS. Any criticism leveled only by CCF should be cut down and restricted to one section - this group is highly biased. The criticism that is also leveled by other groups should be transferred to their sections. The Charity Navigator criticism is important, for instance, and does not actually appear anywhere else. It should not be blanked. But yes: the CCF gets too large a platform here, especially for charges that have been refuted.NaymanNoland (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay - have removed that section. If there's a decision to reinstate it I think it should be no more than a couple of sentences. NaymanNoland (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Dueling PR

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)

HSUS and the federal lawsuits/RICO violations

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)

AR-HR is in fact a reliable source

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)

(UPDATE: Examining this, it may well be that the AR-HR consists of a single researcher. This does not invalidate the research: it's simply an accurate examination of HSUS documents, all of which are on the web and linked to the story. Wikipedia policy may require us to link to the original documents, to establish the reliability of the source. But this writer should be given proper attribution - the research is HER work.)NaymanNoland (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Nayman, I urge you to reevaluate those statements. AR-HR is not research: it is the personal blog of Erica Saunders, one that reposts hearsay from other blogs and comments on it. The statements within are not sourced or verified in any way. The author is not an expert and has no credentials that would support that designation. These references fall under WP:SPS and do not belong in a factual article. JohnDopp (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's an interesting issue. I've looked into her analysis of the documents, and I see no errors. Thus, if we're going to present these facts (and we should) we're in a bind. If we determine that this site is not an acceptable source, that means that somebody will have to present these findings by referring to the original HSUS documents, instead of to AR-HR. Easy enough to do - the documents are on the web - but then we'd by taking somebody else's analysis, and using it without attribution. Which is not acceptable. Meaning we somehow have to give credit to her as a source, even if we can't use her as a source. Complicated. NaymanNoland (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOR applies heavily here, particularly with respect to any conclusions (a nice way of saying "opinions") drawn from that documentation. However, there is no shortage of media coverage: the [LA Times], [NY Times], [Minneapolis Star Tribune], [NBC News], [Boston Globe], [Time], [USA Today], and many other outlets have weighed in on HSUS' finances and the mischaracterization of their purpose. I see no reason to rely on the interpretations and biased opinions of a blogger when there are multiple, independent, factual sources available. JohnDopp (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Let's quote those sources. But this isn't some kind of game: "my propaganda has better sources than your propaganda." It's an effort to present the truth. The allegation is that millions of dollars went missing - money that good people donated to help rescue animals during Hurricane Katrina. That allegation didn't just materialize out of thin air: it was serious enough that there was a legal investigation. Right? That investigation was never finished. It came to no conclusions: positive OR negative. It was cut off, for political reasons, before it could conclude. So, let's find out what happened.

If you have sources that can account for those missing millions - we're talking about somewhere in the range of $15 million - then let's see them. The best source that I can find is this one. It relies on available, sound documents. You have coverage from the LA Times or USA Today that addresses this? The millions of dollars alleged to have been collected but not spent on animals in distress? Then point to it. Yes, we can all find coverage of Berman and CCF and Humanewatch: there are slippery lobbyists out there, and respectable people who identify them as slippery lobbyists. That has nothing to do with this issue: the misappropriation of funds collected for Hurricane Katrina. Show us someone respectable who has accounted for that money. NaymanNoland (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The key word in each of your statements is "allegation". That's all it is: an allegation. The LA Attorney General did conduct an investigation into the disposition of the funds after CCF initiated a write-in campaign. The AG found nothing actionable and terminated the investigation. The "misappropriation of funds" remains an unproven allegation, and nothing more... just like the unproven allegations that "HSUS wants to kill your pets" or "vegans are conspiring to take over the world". JohnDopp (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Look. This is quite simply false: "The AG found nothing actionable and terminated the investigation." As I'm sure you're perfectly aware, the investigation was terminated before there were any findings, actionable or not. This is precisely the kind of verbal slipperiness that we expect of the CCF: you're implying that the investigation was COMPLETED, and found nothing. Which is false. The situation, as it sits, is this: as a result of a change in administration, the investigation was simply left hanging - it was left incomplete. Meaning that we have no idea whatsoever what happened to those funds. I'm not explaining this to you - I expect you know more about the HSUS than anybody here. I'm explaining this to the people you're hoping to deter from completing this article. NaymanNoland (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that the Red Cross has somebody on Wikipedia precisely like you: here to make sure that facts get turned into mere allegations and buried. I don't happen to be interested in the Red Cross, but I do know that they faced the same scrutiny after Katrina, and that it had nothing to do with a write-in campaign by the CCF. It had to do with exploiting a disaster to raise funds that were not then properly put to use. If I were to try to contribute to the Wikipedia article about the Red Cross, I'm fairly sure I'd run into their version of JohnDopp. And he too would be tripping over himself to explain why this piece in the Washington Post was inaccurate, or premature, or biased, or... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032501002.html NaymanNoland (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the relentless contempt and hostility, but my only concern is seeing that the facts are presented without slant and misinformation. The investigation WAS closed by the AG without any finding of misconduct. That's not verbal slipperiness, that's a fact that precisely states the situation without attempting to smear or glorify the subject of the investigation. It's not up to you to retry the case in the court of public opinion, and Wikipedia is not the place to push that agenda. And the HSUS is not the Red Cross, so let's try to stay on topic. If we want to discuss the "controversy" over HSUS' use of Katrina donations, point to a reliable source, identify the allegation (and state it as an unproven allegation), identify the outcome (investigation terminated), and provide additional references (e.g., HSUS' yearly accounting of Katrina efforts). Stick to the facts and keep your personal bias out of it. JohnDopp (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. "Closed" is a weasel word. It was ABORTED. At any rate, you're welcome. Meanwhile, since you think you deserve honor and respect and love, you might want to try contributing to one of the many articles on Wikipedia where you don't have a conflict of interest. A SPA with a COI isn't exactly a sterling citizen. NaymanNoland (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It was closed. That is not a weasel word. It is the status of the investigation. And where are you getting this SPA garbage from? You think it's reasonable to run around randomly accusing people you disagree with? I think I'm done "discussing" things with you, if that's the level of maturity you're going to bring to the table. JohnDopp (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

More propaganda from both CCF and HSUS

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)

Neutrality

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)

I think it would be truthfully fair that if there is no sourcing to the Humanewatch website, then there should be no sourcing to the HSUS website. Organizations have watchdog groups for a reason, mainly to balance them out, especially something as misrepresented as HSUS.Parks1997 (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2014 (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)

HumaneWatch as a source

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)

I find this agreeable. Parks1997 (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again

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.

From a neutral editor If I am looking at the correct edit[14], the editor was correct to remove it - it was an unsourced POV. (Will previous editor please sign their contribution.) DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Genesis Awards

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)

Rationale Section

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)

External links modified

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hsus.org/about_us/accomplishments/the_people_who_have_shaped_the_hsus/frank_mcmahon_the_investigator_who_took_a_bite_out_of_animal_lab_suppliers.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hsus.org/about_us/accomplishments/history/concentration_camp_for_pets.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic%3Bf%3D1%3Bt%3D016280
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140907060407/http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/watchdog_report.html to http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/watchdog_report.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150423025332/http://stlbeacon.org/ to https://www.stlbeacon.org/

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Support Also to note that it was created at the later title and remained so for 8 years before the definite article was appended in 2013. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-move cleanup

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)

[1] Smith-Spark, Laura (August 24, 2007). "Brutal culture of US dog fighting". BBC News. Retrieved May 4, 2010.

[1]

Reverts from links between HSUS and Animal Rights

Contradiction

Censorship at its best

HSUS is removing any attempts to add anything that may be not be pro-HSUS

Tags

The person using the name "Wayne Pacelle" should change his or her user name

Animal rights vs. Animal welfare

another source for HSUS as animal rights organization

HSUS membership

Vandalism in citations

Ambiguity

HumaneWatch

Please cite only references that attempt to prove the text they refer to

Criticism section is too big

Dueling PR

HSUS and the federal lawsuits/RICO violations

AR-HR is in fact a reliable source

More propaganda from both CCF and HSUS

Neutrality

HumaneWatch as a source

Here we go again

Genesis Awards

Rationale Section

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Requested move 7 June 2018

Post-move cleanup