Talk:The Livestock Conservancy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article The Livestock Conservancy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 23, 2012.

Breed list[edit]

I've created a category called ALBC Conservation Priority Breeds to designate articles on breeds which are on the conservation priority list, but it seems like somehow this article should designate what priority any particular breed has. Maybe a list of breeds in each category? However, if this were to be done, maybe an article called ALBC Conservation Priority List should be created to contain information on the list. Hampshire2004 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Lists generally are kept on a different page and referenced in the main article. To see how this is done both ways, look at the Llama article I have been working on. One list is still in the main article and the other is referenced. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:American Livestock Breeds Conservancy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Nice article that obviously represents a lot of work.

GA review (see here for criteria)

No disamb. links.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I have made minor copy edits directly on the article. Please take our any spaces in front of the footnotes.
    "was incorporated during a meeting in Vermont." -that is impossible. Only the Secretary of State can incorporate. You probably mean "was founded during a meeting in Vermont, following its incorporation."
    "while monitoring the status of its listed breeds and others in the intervening time." -> "while monitoring the status of endangered breeds between surveys."
    "Traditions' collaborative" - is this a possessive?
    "For this conference, they partner " -> "For this conference, it partners" ??
    What does "This support from the ALBC helped the horses to become recognized and registrable with the Colonial Spanish registry.[20]" mean? Horses that are not from Santa Cruz?
    I'm not sure how to better explain this. The Colonial Spanish Horse registry registers horses from several different populations of horses across the United States, all descended from the same stock but having evolved into different breeds over the past 300 or so years. In order to be recognized by the registry, populations of horses have to be shown to meet the criteria - DNA testing, Spanish-type physical characteristics, etc. The ALBC helped to prove the Spanish ancestry of the Santa Cruz horses, so that they can now be registered with the Colonial Spanish Horse registry. "Colonial Spanish Horse" is linked further up in the paragraph that this sentence is in, because many of the breeds that the ALBC helps are Spanish strains.
    Run on sentence: "In December 1987, the ALBC performed one of its first breed rescues when it removed a viable population of Santa Cruz sheep off Santa Cruz Island where they were in danger of being eradicated by a nature conservancy working to save indiginous vegetation."
    "plans are underway for a satellite herds to be established soon." - see WP:RELTIME
    So far I haven't been able to find an update on this (the article was published in June 2010), so I just changed it to say "As of June 2010...".
    "to re-create a breed registry for the Red Wattle Hog" - what happened to the old one?
    I've expanded this paragraph to give a bit more background. Is it enough or too much?
    "at 4,275 birds of all breeds."->"at 4,275 turkeys of all breeds." ??
    "blind taste test among nine breeds"->"blind taste test of nine breeds" ??
    All of the above have been addressed, except where otherwise noted.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Fn 7 is dead.
    Fixed. It was just missing a letter :)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I suggest you add an infobox to the article.
    Done.
    Should you include the latin scientific names for horses, asses, etc. in parenthesis?
    I don't think this is really necessary. Readers know what pigs, cows, horses, etc are, and since they are coming to the article to learn about the ALBC, rather than the animals, I think that including Latin names would just be a distraction.
    How is the ALBC funded?
    Added.
    How is its Board of Directors selected?
    I'm assuming by its membership, but I can't find any sources that give this information.
    Are there publications other than the CPL?
    There are the books mentioned in the History and mission section ("The organization has written or published over a dozen books..."), plus the heritage breed definitions mentioned in the various animal sections. Do I need to go into more detail on these?
    Have they been involved with any genome mapping projects?
    They do a lot of work with DNA testing of various breeds to determine relationships between breeds, as is described in the various animal sections. However, I can't find any mention of them working with full-scale genome mapping projects, like the Horse Genome Project for example.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    File:Barbados Blackbelly.JPG has an improper template. VSU is not the federal government.
    Replaced
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am placing the article on hold. Racepacket (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I have addressed all of the comments above. Thank you very much for your review - you pointed out some deficient areas that I hadn't even noticed! Dana boomer (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and fixed the coverage of the incorporation date with a reference to the Vermont Secretary of State records. The organization probably held planning meetings before the incorporation papers were drafted. According to the GreenPlanet article, the papers were signed at the Agriculture Office on 3/16 and, according to state records, were filed on the same date with the Secretary of State to make 3/16 its official date of incorporation. The organization then held another meeting after the incorporation to adopt bylaws, etc. Good work. Congratulations. Racepacket (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks again for the review! Dana boomer (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Santa cruz sheep[edit]

Hi Dana, these two sources might be helpful for the section on Santa Cruz sheep. It was The Nature Conservancy who wanted them gone, not "a" nature conservancy. Sources on the issue that might augment what you have are peer-reviewed journal articles here and here. The National Park Service has further info on the history of sheep stuff here. That source says the Nature Conservancy got rid of cattle, didn't mention the feral sheep thing. There are some other news sources that state the organization led the effort to remove the sheep, here but for FA, not sure if they are good enough because they have a POV. Anyway, if this is helpful use it, but if not, no sweat. Montanabw(talk) 19:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. I've changed it to "the nature conservancy" instead of "a nature conservancy" - think I just misread the sources. Although the sources are quite interesting (although the farm sanctuary one is a bit hyperbolic, no?), I don't think I'm going to add more information on the breed at this point. My thought was that, to avoid the article becoming 100kb long, I would try to focus as much as possible on what the organization did to help various breeds, rather than on what happened to the breeds before the ALBC intervened. If you think this is a rather narrow-view approach let me know - it's the first organization article I've worked on and so I'm just kind of making it up as I go along. Also, if there was a specific piece of information that you were thinking to include, please let me know, as I just glanced through the sources above. Thanks for coming in with good sources to back up the info, though...always appreciated, at least by me :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Works for me! I just didn't know how far down the rabbit hole you'd be required to go to "prove" the organization was involved, so found as much as possible. Montanabw(talk) 21:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

First impressions per FAC[edit]

Dana boomer asked me to take a look at this article before nominating it at FAC. My overwhelming impression is that this would fail on 1b, comprehensiveness. We're told in passing that the ALBC is a non-profit organization, but that's about it. The rest of the article tells us what the ALBC does, not what it is, how it's run, how many members it has, employees, turnover, funding ... Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on a few of your points. In the History and mission section there is information on its funding, employees, board of directors and how many members it has. In that same section there is information that the organization is one that attempts to preserve rare livestock breeds through programs that assist breeders, enthusiasts and breed registries. I know the information is not extensive, but I'm not sure exactly what other details you would be interested in. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by turnover? Or "what it is"? Could you please expand? Definitely not trying to badger you, just curious as to what information exactly you would be looking for. As I think I said on your talk page, this is my first potential FAC on an organization, so I'm rather unsure as to what information exactly is needed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to badger away, even I recognise that I'm not always right. I guess it's the article's balance that's bothering me, along with the rather muddy History and mission section. Is this an article about the ALBC or about what the ALBC does? Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess I'm not seeing much of a difference between the two...the ALBC only exists because of what it does. I think it's also mainly a result of the sources - there's not much out there on the behind the curtains work of the organization (funding, employees, etc), as the sources tend to focus almost exclusively on the programs that the ALBC runs, their heritage animal definitions, etc. I just found a source for their tax filings over the past 10 years (well, 1998-2009), so I'll try to add a bit of that information in a bit, but I don't think it's going to add much. I'm having a hard time finding information about the rest of it though (funding, employees, etc), so I'm hoping that you have specific questions that I could try to answer. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It's the structure of the article that's bothering me. OK, there are 19 directors, but how are they chosen? Who's in charge? Most of the article is about the Conservation Priority List, which in my opinion ought to be a separate article, with a summary here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. I guess I would argue that the majority of the "Conservation Priority List" section is not actually about the CPL, but about programs that the ALBC has undertaken in support of the animals listed on the CPL, past and present. Perhaps that argues for a re-structuring of the article, then. The way I see it, the first, introductory, paragraph of the section is about the CPL, and then the first sentence to paragraph of each animal section. Then, the rest of each animal section (generally the majority of the section) is about the various programs, which are only tangentially related to the CPL. So, for instance, out of four paragraphs in the poultry section, only one is actually about the CPL. The rest are mostly about the chicken breeding program and the heritage turkey definition. What would your thoughts be on a possible restructuring of the article? As for the directors, I have searched high and low for how the directors are chosen, but haven't been able to find that. I would put money on the possibility that they are chosen by the membership at the annual meeting, but that's OR based on the practices of every non-profit of which I have been a member. As far as who's in charge, I'm not quite understanding your meaning. The executive director is technically in charge of the day-to-day running of the organization, but he is chosen by the board of directors and serves pretty much at their convenience (depending on his contract). Or did you mean the names of the specific people on the board of directors and the name of the executive director? That information is easily available and added, I just thought it might be TMI.
If you don't want to spend a ton of time working on this, I understand - I know you are much more interested in weird English history then American livestock organizations! However, I really appreciate your opinion on this and other articles, so I would love to hear any additional thoughts you have. Dana boomer (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason for you to presume what my interests may be given all the help I have offered to many articles on American horses and horse breeds, and even weird American history. I wish you luck with your article, but my opinion is that it's way off base for article nominally about an organisation. Take that as you will. Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
My apologies if my presumptions were offensive - I much appreciate the help you have offered me in the past, and I found the Donner Party article fascinating. I agree with what you said on my talk page about this being the downside of reviewing - two sides having positions that are for the most part mutually exclusive. Do you have an opinion that you would wish to share about a restructuring of the article along the lines above - a brief section about the CPL and then a more extensive section about various programs that the ALBC runs? Or possibly separate sections about their heritage breed definitions (which are groundbreaking in the livestock conservation world) and individual breed programs? My concern is that financial information and more details on the board of directors will add another paragraph or two at most (unless I'm missing something, which is completely possible), and taking out a lot of the information on the programs/CPL would gut the article. Besides this, the CPL is what the ALBC is best known for, so I thought it prudent to focus more on this, although I was apparently mistaken in thinking that everyone else would agree with this focus :) No worries if you don't want to help more on this; thanks for your help and opinions so far, Dana boomer (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Nothing for you to apologise for, I was just being a bit tetchy. As it happens I do like weird. Let me think about this again. Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Just checking to see if you've had a chance to think about this some more - or if you're still interested in it. I've been considering redesigning the article so the breed programs are in one section and the CPL stuff in another, but don't want to make major changes and then have others go "no, that made it much worse!" :) As you've probably seen, I added some information on the financial data. I've also done additional searches in several databases, but have come up with nothing more on the governance aspect. Any more thoughts you have would be appreciated, Dana boomer (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that Ealdgyth is spot on with her comments below. Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

FAC thoughts...[edit]

I'd suggest moving a lot of the CPL into its own article and doing a summary style section here, as right now the CPL overwhelms the information on the actual organization. Here's some more on the organization:

  • I can't see what new information this contains?
  • I can't see the full version of this. Will ask for a full copy of it at the reference desk tomorrow.
  • Still trying to get this.
  • Received the full version, and have added a tidbit.
  • I don't even see the organization mentioned in this?
  • Looks like there is some good info on the San Clemente - I'll work on adding it tomorrow.
  • I've added in a bit on the San Clemente, as well as information on the ALBC semen bank program that I found in another ref.
  • I'm not seeing any new information here?
  • Will take a closer look at this tomorrow.
  • I've gone through these and didn't find anything all that exciting. Mostly they just repeat the same information (date founded, basics of what they do), give brief quotes by the director (killing off livestock breeds is bad, diversity is good) or describe a breed that is on the CPL (the ALBC considered this breed to be threatened). If there's something specific I've missed, please let me know.
  • Ended up requested a couple of the articles (before I posted the above) and between the two found another tidbit, which I have now added.
  • Looks like there might be a couple of little tidbits here - will work on them tomorrow.
  • Added in a couple of tidbits.
  • Has some good information on the Wilbur-Cruce horses, and I'll add in some more tomorrow. I don't really want to get too in depth on each individual breed, though, or else it'll turn into a list of breed summaries instead of an article about the organization.
  • Upon a closer look, I don't really see anything in the article that is pertinent to the organization and not already in the article.
  • Not seeing what new information this adds? The only mention of the AMBC is a two word mention of the fact that the rancher being profiled was "interested in" it.

I'll do a bit more poking on the article also... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll do work along the lines above tomorrow, including at the very least splitting the CPL into its own section, if not its own article. I still think that once the CPL and breed programs are separated, the CPL won't need it's own article - but it's also possible that I'll be proved wrong :) Dana boomer (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I've done some major reorganization in the article, as well as adding in some new references (both some of the above and a couple that I found - take a look and see what you think. The CPL information at this point only takes up three paragraphs; not sure if ya'll still think this is too long? I'll keep playing, but this is just a heads up that most of the major work is done for now. Dana boomer (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Another question would be if you can think of any better images to use. I just keep adding in images of various rare breeds when the text gets to wall-ish, but I keep thinking there's some cool concept that could be illustrated that I'm missing. Any ideas? Dana boomer (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm just lurking, but my comment is that the CPL doesn't need its own article at this point, the section seems to cover it. I don't think the piece is too long as it sits. For images, are there any charts or graphs that might be useful? Other than the critters, that's all I could think of. Montanabw(talk) 17:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not a case of being too long but of losing focus. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess I'm just still not seeing how three paragraphs on what is probably the most recognized and important program of the organization (and the one that pretty much all of the other programs are based on or aimed towards) is "losing focus". And I'm not seeing how three paragraphs could be a good basis for another article, especially since I'm not sure what else could be added to that article to expand it into a decent article and I hate creating new stubs that aren't likely to get any larger. Dana boomer (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Sorry for the slow follow up. I've gone through all of the links above and found a few more tidbits to add. If there were other pieces that you were thinking should be in the article could you please point them out, as I am obviously being very dense :) Thanks for all of your help so far, Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, nothing jumped terribly at me... remember I was on the road when I added these so I didn't have as much ability to finely comb things. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet more pre-FAC comments[edit]

Okay, speaking as someone who has very limited knowledge of both American agriculture/animal husbandry AND how on earth these sorts of articles are supposed to be organized...I too would love to have more detail on the behind-the-curtain workings of the organization, although those may or may not be available. Some more specific thoughts (which may or may not be possible to act on):

  • Potentially we could split "Organization" from "History"
  • Hmmm. I think this would make the beginning of the article look rather choppy, as the "history" is basically the first paragraph of this section, and the "organization" is the second two paragraphs. I could probably be persuaded otherwise, though, if others didn't think it would be too chopped up. I did do some reorganizing in this section, though, to get the historical information and the organizational information more organized. - DB
  • Personally I would like to see a few more background sentences regarding why the organization was founded, although that's probably because I'm more interested in history than animal breeding programs. What is a "heritage breed"? (this gets detailed more later). Is it the same as the "rare" breeds mentioned in the lead, or is it a subsection thereof? I'm also surprised that scientists would really be involved in living history sites - the few of those that I've been to are more focused on period dress and historical exhibits, and mostly just use "regular" animals.
  • I've added a bit to the background information, and asked Steven Walling if he has further information in his sources. On the subject of heritage vs. rare breeds: Technically, heritage breeds have different definitions depending on which organization you're talking to, although colloquially "heritage breed" and "rare breed" are often used interchangeably. In general, they're two different things, although heritage breeds are often also rare breeds. Basically, a rare breed is any breed with a population below a set number in a given geographic area. A heritage breed is one that was traditionally raised in a given geographic area, and are often good for more than one thing (cattle that are fairly good for both meat and milk, though not stellar at either, while being well-acclimated to the heat and humidity of the southern US but not good with the cold found in the northern midwest, for example). So, if you have a mass-produced commercial breed that has for some reason fallen out of favor and population numbers have dropped, it has become rare, but it's most likely not considered "heritage". If the population of a "heritage breed" rises above the set number in a given geographic area, it will then not be a "rare breed". Most heritage breeds are also rare breeds, though, because they tend to be raised in small flocks by farmers looking for multi-purpose animals. The majority of livestock animals (especially those raised for food) in developed countries are going to be just a few breeds that have been specifically developed for a specific use (most milk, most meat, leanest meat, whatever), therefore, by definition, all heritage breeds are going to have very low numbers compared to these few "super-breeds". However, I think that this discussion probably belongs more in the Rare breed (agriculture) article and possibly a Heritage breed article (although I note that "Heritage species" redirects to the rare breed article, while Heritage turkey is its own article...interesting). I realize this is probably tl;dr, but it's a fascinating subject (for me at least...!)
  • On the subject of living history sites, Colonial Williamsburg is famous for using period-accurate breeds, and participating in/hosting breeding programs and scientific study of the breeds in its program. I don't know if Old Sturbridge Village (one of the sites that spurred the creation of the ALBC) still uses period-accurate breeds, and I can't find that information on their website, but they apparently did at one point. - DB
  • Given that Rare Breeds Canada does not currently have an article, perhaps add a sentence or two on its relationship with ALBC? Also, does ALBC have any relations with other rare-breeds organizations worldwide?
  • I've now created a stub for Rare Breeds Canada, so that part is done. I haven't been able to find any sources detailing the relationship between the two organizations, although I have come across more mentions that they do work together. I'm not sure what this entails though - probably sharing breeding stock to prevent inbreeding, sharing population numbers, etc., but I'm not completely sure. I haven't been able to find information on partnerships/relationships with other organization internationally, although I'm sure they exist. - DB
  • Do we know why the name changed?
  • I haven't been able to find anything about why the name was changed. Lots of sources say that it was changed, but not why this happened. - DB
  • "It was the first United States organization focused on preserving rare breeds of livestock and promoting genetic diversity among livestock breeds" - saying that it was the first implies there have since been others. Is that the case? If so, can we elaborate?
  • Well, there are organizations like the SVF Foundation and the National Animal Germplasm Program mentioned later in the article, but these are more concerned with preserving genetic material in case the animals go extinct (or approach a bottleneck in the breed, with only a few breeding animals and a high risk for inbreeding) and then need to be recreated/jumpstarted by the previously preserved genetic material. The ALBC, on the other hand, works with improving the status of breeds now by trying to increasing interest in heritage breeds, both specific to certain breeds through their work with various breed organizations and in general through their heritage marketing programs focused on various groups (turkeys, cattle, etc). I've also found minor mentions of organization such as the Society for the Preservation of Poultry Antiquities, but this (and any others that might exist, I'm sure there are a few) are really kitchen-table organizations when compared to the size and reach of the ALBC. It is, and I think always has been the driving force in rare breed/heritage livestock preservation in the United States. However, I have not been able to find a source that explicitly states this, so I have had to depend on the user gathering this through the presentation of information in the article. If you have a better way to present this, though, I'm all ears. - DB
  • Could you find a source for a phrase likes "...and remains the preeminent organization in the field"? NM
  • Found a source for a similar phrasing and added. - DB
  • What kind of publications does it sell?
  • I've added a sentence on this. - DB
  • "The ALBC is funded by grants, sales of publications and promotional materials, membership dues and public donations.[1] As of the 1998 fiscal year, the ALBC claimed slightly over US$308,000 in income, coming mainly from public donations and membership dues, but also including service revenue, investment income and sales of goods" - these two sentences don't seem to correlate.
  • Well, I added "according to its literature" in front of the first sentence, as this is how the ALBC claims they are funded. As to the correlation, I think that the 2009 financial data, with income coming from "donations, grants and service revenue, but also including investment income." is probably more relevant. According to the financials, membership dues fall under a combination of "service revenue" and "contribution, gifts, grants and other similar revenue" for tax purposes. I'm not sure exactly how purchases are being recorded...perhaps since they're being purchased from a non-profit they're tax deductible and as such as seen as "donations"? So, basically, I've tried to change it to show that the first sentence is what the ALBC says and the rest is what is actually on the financials, but if it needs more work, please let me know! - DB
  • You mentioned earlier on this talk page that there is an executive person - why not mention that in the article?
  • Do you mean by name or just in general? If the first, why name just the executive director and no-one else? If the second, why is it notable that the organization has an executive director? - DB
  • The second, and I would argue that it provides more information on the organization's governance. NM
  • Fair enough. Added. - DB
  • What's a germplasm? What's SVF?
  • I've reworded this sentence to link germplasm (genetic material) and explain more about what the SVF Foundation does (I'm not sure what the SVF stands for, though). Is more needed? - DB
  • "In cases where the US government has been unwilling or unable to conserve rare livestock" - why?
  • This sentence was added by another editor (User:Steven Walling). I have dropped a note on his talk page asking him to elaborate, as I don't have access to this source. - DB

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I've started responding above - more shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Update - OK, I think that's it for me tonight. More work tomorrow. Dana boomer (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I haven't been real involved with this article at all, mostly just a lurker, but I've made a few little copyedits that might help organization and flow. Nothing major (other than adding a founding date for RBST, which predated ALBC), and if anything not helpful or made things worse, no problem reverting me or slapping me upside the head and telling me to fix my own mess! (smile) Montanabw(talk) 18:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Couple replies:
  • The passage "In cases where the US government has been unwilling or unable to conserve rare livestock" comes from 479-480 of the book cited, and it includes several lengthy paragraphs about the advantages and drawbacks of the USDA's work in this area with comparison to the work of ALBC and other organizations. In particular, the two pages refer in detail to the government's support for development of gene mapping and germplasm storage, but the failure to support other methods of preservation and in some cases international agreements, such as not ratifying the Convention on Biological Diversity accord. It ends by saying, "Fortunately, private nonprofit organizations such as the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy and Rare Breeds Canada have been able to rescue some of these stocks."
  • As for the SVF, I actually have some sources and material prepared for an article. If it would help contextualize things for the push to FA status here, I can write it up in more publishable form soon.
Let me know if you need anything else, Steven Walling • talk
Nikki, how much do you think should be added re: the first point? I think a couple more sentences might be appropriate, just to show how vital the work is that the ALBC is doing. However (and this has been a concern since I began working on the article), I don't want this to sound like a puff piece for the ALBC, and so I'm trying to stay away from degrading other organizations while playing up the ALBC. My main problem in this is finding sources that have anything bad or even neutral to say about the ALBC - I actually haven't found ANY, despite a focused effort and a lot of searching.
Steven, an article (even a short one) on the SVF Foundation would be great! I also just started a stub on Rare Breeds Canada, so if you have anything in your sources that could be used to add to that article, it would also be very helpful. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Two to three sentences, depending on what exactly is in the source - I think mentioning what the USDA does that ALBC doesn't would be good. That accord sounds interesting, but probably outside the scope of this article. Definitely get what you're saying about avoiding peacockry. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Ended up adding a bit more than two sentences - see the new paragraph at the beginning of the General programs section. I'm hoping it doesn't sound too peacocky in favor of the ALBC. The source is actually much more opinionated, and maintains a fairly derogatory attitude toward the USDA/US government in general for their lack of participation in live animal preservation. This source, however, and the other mentions of the ALBC that I've come across in the past couple of months, all continue to add to the impression I get that this organization does nothing wrong - they maintain good relationships with everyone. Despite searching for negative material on them, I found nothing...just praise upon praise. Rather interesting, really...even with the best organizations you can usually find someone that they've upset. Dana boomer (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Guess you've picked a popular topic :-). I'm not sure "quest" is the best word to use, but otherwise that new paragraph looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

See also?[edit]

Are there any links that could be added to a See also section? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not that I can think of, did you have any in mind? Oftentimes really well-written and comprehensive articles don't include such a section. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Important update[edit]

It looks like the ALBC has officially changed its name to "The Livestock Conservancy" and changed its website to livestockconservancy.org. (I found out via their newsletter.) In addition to the necessary updates to this FA, I bet there are many other articles that refer to the ALBC or to its website that will need updating. Steven Walling • talk 06:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw their recent newsletter announcing the change, but haven't yet had the time to move the article and make the necessary changes. Is there any way we could use AWB or something similar to search for articles that mention ALBC and change it to TLC? This article needs to be moved and all direct references to the name changed, at the very least. They've also released the 2013 changes to the CPL, so those numbers need to be updated. This is on my list of things to do, but it may be a bit before I get to it, so if anyone else wants to jump in on the name changes they are more than welcome. Dana boomer (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I took a stab at updating this article. I think I got all the uses of ALBC, generally changing to use of "Conservancy", "the organization", or simply "it". I also updated the logo. Next up may be updating all the links and references. Thankfully it looks like albc-usa.org redirects to the new website, so until we fix these all it hopefully won't give readers dead links... Another thing to do is change Category:ALBC Conservation Priority Breeds, which will be a pain since we can't move a category. Steven Walling • talk 00:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Can't you just quietly create a new category and depopulate the old one? Eventually it gets tossed if empty. If someone creates drama then just go to CfD. Montanabw(talk) 20:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I think that's the way to go. It should be no big deal. Steven Walling • talk 05:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Why not just submit it for renaming at WP:CfD in the normal way? The only problem I can see with that is choosing a suitable name, since Category:Livestock Conservancy Conservation Priority Breeds has a faintly tautological ring to it. What about Category:Conservation Priority Breeds of the Livestock Conservancy? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that this probably falls under the speedy renaming criteria over at CfD, so it may be able to go through that process... I like JLAN's proposed category title. Dana boomer (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Whatever is easiest and least drama. No one here disagrees with the need, sometimes posting at CfD attracts trolls. I like to try a quiet approach, but this isn't my article, so just saying... and if Steven thinks it's OK to depopulate, you shouldn't get chewed for doing it, but if a move is easier, I'd say go with what works. Montanabw(talk) 22:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Endangered[edit]

It is inappropriate to remove the word "endangered" from this article, as it is in the organization's mission statement and and a formal definition from the European Environment Agency shows that it is a word widely used to describe certain rare breeds. (There is a distinction between a rare breed and an endangered one). Please do not keep removing this phrasing. Yes, endangered redirects to endangered species and we all agree here that breeds and species are different things. But per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH, we do not go around removing words that are sourced and verifiable from articles just because we have a disagreement about their meaning. Montanabw(talk) 23:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Besides the organization itself and the EU, see Janet Dohner's Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds published in 2001 by Yale University Press. "Endangered breed" is perfectly correct and in common use. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Livestock Conservancy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)