Talk:List of animal rights groups/Archive 1

Archive 1

Call for animal rights groups to do more on food labelling.....

This is a best contribution for ethical treating animal, the similar reason as GM food labelling for ethical treating human health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.165.215 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC) By doing so, people can monitor their diet on the quantity of the animal material they consumed for good ethical practices.

What about IFAW?

International Fund for Animal Welfare? They have or had a campaign to paint baby seals with a dye just before the start of the annual seal hunt to make their pelts worthless to would-be seal poachers.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.68.200 (talk) 2009-02-22T02:16:04 (UTC)

IFAW is on the List of animal welfare organizations because it more closely fits animal welfare than rights. Normal Op (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

HSUS is Animal Rights

I had added the HSUS to the this list, but it was reverted. I am strongly contesting this revert, and will re-instate, this time citations. First of all, on the HSUS page itself, it states (with multiple citations): "In 1986, the HSUS director of laboratory welfare, John McArdle, opined that "HSUS is definitely shifting in the direction of animal rights faster than anyone would realize from our literature". The HSUS fired McArdle shortly thereafter, as he alleged, for being an "animal rights activist." At about the same time, HSUS president John Hoyt stated that "This new philosophy [animal rights] has served as a catalyst in the shaping of out own philosophies, policies and goals."" It is also peppered with cited statements such as, "In early 2008, The HSUS re-organized its direct veterinary care work and its veterinary advocacy under a new entity, the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, formed through an alliance with the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR), a group of veterinarians that support the animal rights movement."

Furthermore, as a person who volunteers at and has been trained to work at zoos, I can tell you from personal experience that the HSUS is one of the Animal Rights groups we have to continually protect ourselves against (legally). Sadly, most people, including other zoo keepers, support the HSUS because they believe that it is the parent organization for their local animal shelters, which they are not. Wiedspread ignorance of that aside, consider that veterinary boards opposed Prop 2 in California (2008 election), while the HSUS was the leader in campaigning for it. For those of you who aren't familiar with the terms, veterinarians are almost always consider themselves animal welfare, not animal rights. If this was an animal welfare issue, then why oppose Prop 2? Lastly, I have sources that I plan to cite that note the close relationships between top HSUS officials (including Wayne Pacelle) and top members of PETA, as well as information about numerous former PETA employees that have been hired by the HSUS.

I don't want to start an edit war, but the HSUS makes sure that it's name is tied with local animal shelters (which they are not) and that they are distanced from not-so-popular groups such as PETA (with which they share close ties). The HSUS is essentially the right arm of PETA, and I would not be surprised if their employees and/or supporters troll Wiki to keep their name clean. When it comes to animal rights and animal welfare there is a lot of misinformation and NPOV issues on Wiki. Personally, I'm busy re-writing and promoting numerous lemur pages. Maybe when I'm done, I'll have time to help with this problem... although it will likely result in me getting labeled as someone who starts edit wars. Just remember NPOV and that Wiki is not the tool of one side or another. –Visionholder (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vision, you're right that Wiki needs to protect itself against one side or the other, and what you're doing here is promoting one side, even though I can see you're doing it in good faith, and sincerely believe your POV is correct. That's why we stick to reliable sources. The source you used is an animal researcher, vet, and dairy farmer, who obviously has his own views. We need multiple sources who have no dog in the fight, and who are preferably academics who have studied this area specifically, or a self-description from HSUS itself. As things stand, no reliable source that I have found calls them an AR group, the AR movement does not regard them as AR, they don't see themselves as AR, and none of the work they do or the language they use is that of AR. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Movements/Campaigns

I think the most recent changes in this by TomLovesCake are well-intentioned but just make the listings wordier without improving them. Wiki definition of movement indicates something larger than a campaign. Certainly repeating movement/campaign in the sub-heads then again in the sub-sub-heads is redundant. I would vote for reverting these changes. Bob98133 (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, pending a good explanation by Tom. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)