Talk:Wayne Pacelle/Archive 1

Notability

I am relatively new to this, so bear with me. All of the statements made are anchored in neutral sources, and there should be no question on the notability issue. The head of an organization that enrolls one in every 30 Americans as a supporter. misericordia Misericordia 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on notability. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

---The head of an organization that misrepresents itself as enrolling one in every 30 Americans as a supporter would be more accurate terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.90.3 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing at all in this article about how many other animal rights activists object to many of his actions, including his endorsement and support of Michael Vick. There needs to be a controversy section discussing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.143.189 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality

This article is in pretty bad shape. I propose that it be listed as needing cleanup. --N-k, 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this page reads like an advertisement.—Preceding undated comment was added at 06:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

This page should have one of those notifications that it reads like a promotional bio or whatever. Sheesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.233.186 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

This article presents a disorganized picture of Pacelle as an uncontroversial figure, which is far from the case. It fails to mention the numerous statements he has made against hunting of any sort, and presents him incompletely as a mere animal-rights activist, when in fact he is an anti-hunting extremist. This article probably deserves an NPOV tag and needs significant revision. XINOPHXinoph|TALK]] He is not an anti hunting extremist.You people need to clean up your act.Denny60643 | talk

I think the article describes Pacelle rather benignly and neutrally. I believe that tagging him as an 'anti-hunting extremeist' would definately be a biased remark and NOT neutral at all.Mylittlezach (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I think that Pacelle IS middle-of-the-road as he has been called names like 'welfarist'.

Also, this article seems to have been vandalized (look at the two photos links: "Photo of Wayne Pacelle" goes to http://www.sexystewardessscans.com/nohotlinks.png and says "stop stealing bandwidth" - may I suggest that this is vandalism of this sight. MaynardClark (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Updates to Pacelle

This page has nothing on his controversial stances or laws that Pacelle supports that have long caused a lot of outrage, with multiple, multiple reputable news sources. One example of this would be his vote to kill all Michael Vick's pit bulls and his later appearance on radio with Vick to state Vick should also be allowed to adopt just after his jail stint. He has multiple controversial statements covered by outlets like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, affiliates local and national of all 3 networks and been the subject of several news shows both nationally and internationally. I will wait for a bit to see if there are any comments to this and start work on the page for stances both popular and unpopular and will request input through the talk page once completed. If there are any objections, please state what your objection may be and what a possible solution would be. The headline will be Criticisms and brief points with a known and reputable news source or where possible, links to Pacelle making statements himself, writer neutrality will be top priority. Thanks. Seola (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few concerns, Seola.

First off, a biographical page is not a platform for spotlighting and debating contentious issues. The page must not become a WP:COATRACK for criticism and bias, which your comments above are fairly dripping with.

Second, it must adhere to biographical standards for living persons, particularly WP:NPOV and WP:PUBLICFIGURE, without editorializing.

Third, sources must be credible: CNN news stories would be acceptable, but press releases and quotes from industry-funded front groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom will almost certainly be challenged and removed as WP:QS.

Fourth, quotes must be presented in context; a popular tactic of Pacelle's opponents is to present unfairly edited and out-of-context quotes. For example: "Wayne Pacelle says 'shoot a horse'", or using his "one generation and out" quote to falsely portray him as someone who wants to eliminate pet ownership.

Fifth, controversial issues should be presented as controversies -- meaning they have opponents and proponents -- and not simply as "causing a lot of outrage," which focuses exclusively on the opponents.

Sixth, news reports must not be retracted stories or uncorrected errors, such as the WSB-TV report that was fed to the station by CCF without fact-checking, and subsequently withdrawn by the station.

Finally, dedicated sections for criticism are discouraged on Wikipedia. I don't personally agree with that, but there may be opposition to creating a WP:POVFORK section.

Those concerns should be met with caution and fairness. There's a lot of misinformation and demagoguery out there, and we don't want to see that introduced into a factual article. JohnDopp (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pacelle's tenure as head of HSUS has been marked by more than one significant controversy involving the organization (opposition to No Kill initaitive in SF, allegedly misleading fundraising drives, urging the euthanization of animals, including puppies, seized in raids on dog-fighting rings, making Vick a HSUS spokesman, etc. ), none of which are even mentioned on this page. They should be. The facts about all of these are on the record. At the moment this article reads like it was written by his PR company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.1.93 (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those issues properly belong on the HSUS page, and you'll see that those issues have been covered in the "Specific Criticism" section. Some of the claims you raised, however, do not belong on Wikipedia at all: the "misleading fundraising" is a matter of opinion, and Vick has never been a spokesman for the HSUS. The policy of euthanizing fighting dogs is true, however, that policy was changed in 2008. JohnDopp (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor, JohnDopp, has been identified as having a conflict of interest on the HSUS talk page. Which means, of course, that he has a COI here as well. I've flagged this at the top of the page. Meanwhile, we have to be very wary of his remarks above. For instance, the notion that criticism of Pacelle should be addressed only on the HSUS article is just silly, and clearly an attempt to whitewash an important story. The Michael Vick situation has as much to do with Pacelle personally as it does with his organization - the man has chosen to lend credibility to one of the ugliest animal abusers in recent years. Pacelle has been photographed publicly standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Vick. He has toured the nation with Vick. He argued that Vick should be offered the opportunity to have a pet dog - and now this criminal has a new dog of his own. Even though the last dogs he had were often tortured to death.

Again, this information is relevant to Pacelle as a person. The following quotation is Pacelle talking about himself and Vick; it has nothing to do with the HSUS as an organization: “I have been around him a lot, and feel that he would do a good job as a pet owner.” Wikipedia readers deserve to know that Pacelle said this about a criminal who "personally had a hand in hanging three dogs with a nylon cord tied to a tree, drowning three other dogs in a 5-gallon bucket of water, and repeatedly slamming another dog onto the ground until it died, breaking its neck and back in the process." See: http://frankiethelawdog.com/category/dogs-in-the-news/

Of course a Wikipedia editor with a major conflict of interest would like to keep this disgusting biographical information off the Wayne Pacelle article. Luckily, this isn't his call to make. Moreover, allowing him to make this call damages Wikipedia: important factual information is important factual information. A full section on Michael Vick should be added here, making very specific reference to Pacelle's personal involvement with this animal abuser. There are lots of quotations and photographs. Let the facts speak for themselves. Maybe people will think that it's okay for the head of the biggest animal rights organization in America to coddle a monster who electrocuted dogs. In which case this compromised editor has nothing to fear. NaymanNoland (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and another thing: these comments by JohnDopp were made on the same day that a SPA (who sounds a lot like JohnDopp) made numerous radical edits to the HSUS article - again, carefully whitewashing criticism. It's possible that this new editor, AlexDawson62, is not JohnDopp himself. It's possible that he's a meat puppet; it's even possible that he's completely unconnected. But a sock puppet investigation is clearly warranted. NaymanNoland (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was summarily declared to have a COI because I have an opinion. That is precisely why I have not edited these articles and have simply added my comments and concerns to the discussion page. Furthermore, an editor who is so eager to add "disgusting biographical information" to the biography of a living person would appear to be harboring an agenda -- and a conflict of interest. JohnDopp (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to find it disgusting. You clearly don't. I would never suggest that we use that word - "disgusting" - in the article. Let readers form their own conclusions - perhaps they'll agree with you, that this is not disgusting. I'm simply suggesting that we lay out the facts. Okay, INSISTING that we lay out the facts. I'm happy to have someone else do that, if you like - atually, I'd prefer it. Any takers?NaymanNoland (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome a neutral editor and a factual approach. That means using reliable sources throughout instead of relying on blogs, reposts of CCF misinformation, and 30-year old miquotes; providing balance to the article and adhering to NPOV; separating opinion from verifiable fact; and respecting the sensitive nature of biographies of living persons, all of which have been subject to abuse on these pages. JohnDopp (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. But not to worry about the Michael Vick story: it doesn't rely on 30-year-old quotations. Or misquotations. All of the evidence is sitting right in front of our eyes: it's recent, and it's well documented. It should be presented with absolute neutrality: this is what Pacelle said; this is what he did. Yes, BLP is sensitive, and requires scrupulous accuracy. You won't have any issue with the quality of the sources: they're as respectable as it comes. NaymanNoland (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to the above: I genuinely would prefer not to write this myself. This is an encyclopedia, however, and SOMEBODY has to address this. Pacelle's involvement with Michael Vick is the single most public story that he and his organization have had to deal with in recent years. Nothing else comes close. In fact, as far as I can tell, nothing that Wayne Pacelle has ever done, personally, has caused this kind of public response. By all means deal with it professionally. But deal with it. NaymanNoland (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering tackling this. I will assume that a link to the video and audio of Pacelle's interview with Vick by his side will be sufficient for that portion. The question that needs addressing is how to title the header. In edit wars, I see editors complaining over the use of or demanding the use of both "criticisms" and "controversies" (usually with their own bias in mind). I prefer to head controversies, but if someone has a better idea for either format or header, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I will move forward with the header "Controversies" and begin with at least the Vick information. Once that is settled, I will bring up topics here to discuss before publishing them. Seola (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

@JumboBull415: thanks for your help. It's great that you included citations. However, I've changed some things to meet the requirements of our policies. The Charity Navigator information was not cited to a secondary source, so I removed it per WP:BLPPRIMARY. I've also removed the paragraph on Pacelle's views on hunting and pets, since it wasn't clear how this was supposed to be "criticism" and according to whom; as well as the section on the Ringling Bros. lawsuit, as the text did not explain what connection this had to Pacelle and as such was in violation of WP:COATRACK. I'm also restoring the sourced paragraph you seem to have accidentally removed. Thanks again for your contribution! FourViolas (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Wayne Pacelle. 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.hslf.org/ballot-initiatives/ballot_initiative_history.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901861.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/wayne-pacelle-of-humane-society-and-lisa-fletcher-of-wjla--new-washington-power-couple--are-engaged/2011/04/06/AFlsuZrC_blog.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010220807/http://www.nptimes.com:80/Dec05/npt1201_2.html to http://www.nptimes.com/Dec05/npt1201_2.html
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.niaf.org/events/gala_review_archive/gala_2008_review.asp

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) 00:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Block

Can an article be developed about Kitty Block, who inherited leadership of HSUS after Pacelle's resignation? She seems to be well-qualified for the interim (or long-term) leadership of the org. MaynardClark (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]