Talk:Humane Society of the United States

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.

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 [1], 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)

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)

Tags

I think we can now remove the tags "Refimprove" and "Inappropriate Tone" from the article. First of all, it have a lot of references besides the self-published references. For the second tag I don't see any reason to mantain it. I will remove it. If I am wrong, sorry and and please restore it. Greetings. Akhran (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2008 (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)