This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
There are no citations from independent sources, i.e. ones not directly linked to subject. In fact, the whole thing reads like PR fluff. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I see the tag has been removed without adequate explanation, nor any addressing of the issues highlighted above. The only cited sources are inextricably linked to the subject herself, which is hardly acceptable. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could find some more sources, then, Nick, because there are plenty around. If you see anything that you feel might be inaccurate, please point it out, and I'll look around for a secondary source. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs) 00:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Well not by me but I am working ont he article and a fluff piece is to be avoided at all costs esp as she is marginally notable. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, the page is as self-evidently poorly sourced and inherently biased. I find your accusation of "drive-by tagging" bizarre, given that I have already pointed why the article should be tagged. Obviously I touched a raw nerve somewhere.... Nick Cooper (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
What raw nerve would that be? My point is that you tagged the article weeks ago, then didn't contribute any further. If you're going to tag, you need to stick around to help sort out what you think the problem is. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs) 01:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly some examples of POV would be useful, I have no agenda here but I do want an uncontested NPOV article so if you can let us know what the specific problems are we can address them, and if you are unhappy with the refs or EL stuff you should remove what you are unhappy with, eg unreliable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, that seems a strange attitude about "how things should be done". I stumbled across this page accidentally (as one is apt to do on Wikipedia) last month, and while having no particular interest in the subject or her work, noted the poor quality of the sourcing and tagged it appopriately. As it stood, it seemed about as neutral as having the one on Tony Blair based solely on sourcing to the Labour Party or other closely-linked organisations. One would presume that editors who are more familiar with and interested in the subject and her work will be in a better position to find more reliable sources - both online and in other media - than someone like myself, who isn't. That nobody has either done so, or even responded to my first comment above does not seem to justify removing the tag.
As to the page as it stands now, I would make the following observations:
The generic link to the Vegetarian and Vegan Society does not substantiate the claim that the subject was a co-founder of that organisation. Googling on their site specifically only seems to produce numerous links to her being described as a founder of Viva.
The new material relating to "Britches" links to what seems to be a blog site, while a cursory Google does not substantiate the claim that the subject wrote the "text" for the PETA film.
While the previous overambitious claim that the subject "successfully campaigned for the banning of kangaroo meat in the UK" has now been modified, the current text still seems to be misleading in light of the fact that kangaroo meat is still available in the UK (quite legally, it seems), e.g. , , , etc. One would also note the statement from the Australian High Commission claiming inaccuracies in Viva's claims. That said, one would presume that this particular subject would have attracted some mainstream media attention that would be far more suitable for sourcing than the interested parties (on both sides) themselves.
The first link to savethekangaroo.com does not substantiate the claim that the subject "successfully persuaded David Beckham and Michael Owen to stop using (kangaroo skin) shoes", merely that Adidas make shoes with this type of leather; I have neither the time nor the inclination to sit through the video. Given the media attention the Beckham in particular gets, surely there is a reliable third party source for this?
Overall this does not strike me as much of an "improvement", and the sources used remain distrubingly one-sided. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Nick, if you want to improve those areas of the article, by all means do. A two-minute search on Google returns these pages  on Beckham and kangaroo boots, for example. All I was asking is that the page be worked on, rather than tagged and left. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs) 17:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Two years later, and I note that most of my above criticisms have remained unaddressed, specifically:
The blog citation for the "Britches" piece is now a dead link, which I am therefore deleting. There is no mention of Gellatley on Britches (monkey).
The claim that the export trade in kangaroo meat, "has now stopped entirely" remains demonstrably false in light of the following links: , , . It is notable that the first two are companies that I cited previously, which are clearly still in business. I am replacing the false claim of cessation with text and citations accurately reflecting the actual situation (this is to say nothing of David Haye's reported consumption). It should be noted that this section was very poorly constructed, with the time-line of events very muddled, which I have also addressed.
There is still no reliable third-party reference for the claim that Gellatley, "successfully persuaded David Beckham and Michael Owen to stop using (kangaroo skin) shoes." The cited Viva page no longer mentions either Beckham or Owen (if it ever did), so I am deleting it. Of the three links claimed by SlimVirgin above, the last two are now dead. The first is Gellatley's own site, which seems to only detail correlation, rather than causality, i.e. that at one point Beckham stopped using the boots, but not that it was actually due to her campaign.
I could also add that the current text about the Greenscene magazine seems to be lacking the detail that it now seems to be defunct, or that it was only a quarterly  that Gellatley herself acknowledged was merely "a low circulation magazine produced principally for educational purposes" . Nick Cooper (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)