Talk:American Veterinary Medical Association

Regarding information about critics of the AVMA

Dear Edwardian,

In regard to your page edit of Dec. 6 2005, I'd like to suggest revision but want to discuss with you first in the hope of avoiding any offense or misunderstanding. I'm glad you raised the issue that some groups oppose the positions of the AVMA. I think that point of view is a good addition to the page, and makes the page more complete. I hope you will consider that your edit as stated may be seen as inflammatory, however, and I am proposing what I hope is a more neutral statement. Please let me know how this strikes you, as a replacement for the last sentence in the main section of the page:

"The AVMA indicates that it lobbies for animal friendly legislation, within a framework that supports the use of animals for human purposes (e.g., food, fiber, research, companionship). A number of animal rights advocates and organizations, whose views on animal use differ, are critical of the AVMA’s position on a number of animal welfare issues."

I'm not at all against the information you added being included on the AVMA page; as I said above, I think it is valuable and I'm glad you added it. My concern is only that it should be presented in a more neutral fashion.

With neutrality in mind, I hope you will also consider that the link you added to the New York Times advertisement is highly inflammatory in this context. Perhaps on another page (such as "Ad campaigns of animal rights organizations") it would be appropriate (i.e., seen as simply factual rather than highly biased regarding the subject at hand) but not in this context. I hope you can understand my removing that from the page, even as we discuss making the other change I propose above.

Thanks for your interest in getting this information right. I look forward to working with you on it.

Regards,

AVMA OME 21:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and I appreciate that you made me aware of your concerns. Let me preface my comments by stating that I am not a member of the AVMA or AVAR, nor am I an animal rights advocate. Although I don't see anything non-neutral or inflammatory in the current wording, I am OK with your suggested change (i.e. removing specific mention of AVAR). However, the link to the press release is a direct reference for the assertion that the AVMA has critics and, as such, needs to stay. Moving it to the non-existent Ad campaigns of animal rights organizations would be unwarranted forking and dropping it entirely would leave the statement unreferenced. I'll update the article with your suggestion, and move the link to the References section. Let's see what else we can do to expand this article. Edwardian 04:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I place a reference for the actual article rather than the press release. Edwardian 05:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Edwardian, Thanks for your thoughtful suggestions. Your changes are for the most part useful improvements; thanks for making them. I have changed the header on this discussion page because it did not describe the thread as I started it. Please feel free to start your own discussion of the NYT advertisement if you wish.

Thanks again, AVMA OME 208.23.133.2 15:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)