Talk:Wayne Pacelle

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)

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

---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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)