Talk:Farm Sanctuary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Farm Sanctuary is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 19 September 2006. The result of the discussion was keep and cleanup.

Contents

[edit] Copyvio

Do not revert to copyvio versions. --Davidstrauss 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and no copyvios, please

Hi folks. We need to keep this article NPOV and free from copvios, or it can't stay on the Wikipedia. Please read, understand, and follow these policies. WP:NPOV, WP:COPYVIO. It isn't about what Wikipedia editors and administrators agree or disagree with - it's about what is and isn't okay for an encyclopedia. -- Writtenonsand 16:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FarmSanctuary.JPG & Farm Sanctuary text

OTRS icon The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system; it is available here for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account.

Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2006091810010581

 

~Kylu (u|t)  22:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest

Editors from Farm Sanctuary should be sure they are editing in compliance with Wikipedias conflict of interest policy. SchmuckyTheCat 19:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Version of the article

Before this turns into a full scale revert war, let's discuss this article. I have to say I think it needs work. Natalie 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest

When editing animal rights and welfare Wiki pages, people who are obviously opposed to animal rights and welfare such as SchmuckyTheCat should be sure they are editing in compliance with Wikipedias conflict of interest policy. If this article needs work, we should work to change it, but if we are excluding pro-animal welfare editors then to be fair we should also exclude anti-animal welfare editors. Otherwise the article will not be fact based and without bias. That being said, I think this article needs to be expanded, but probably by someone without a strong pro or anti animal welfare agenda. Brooklyn5 21:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think in this case, both SchmuckyTheCat and User:Farm Sanctuary are getting really close to the WP:COI line. These editors really need to discuss things here before revert warring. Natalie 21:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Not so sure about STC, but User:FarmSanctury claims on his user page that he is an employee of Farm Sanctuary, and started by doing a wholesale revert of all the additions STC had made that showed the group in a somewhat less favorable light. People with a bias should not be restrained from editing articles, but people who show a definite conflict of interest should definitely not try to edit article where they have a vested interest (such as this one for User:Farm:Sanctuary.--Ramdrake 22:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree that User:Farm Sanctuary has been engaging inappropriately, and shows a less than complete understanding of how Wikipedia works (see his/her edit summaries). I have asked both FS and STC to come to the talk page instead of reverting each other constantly, but neither has responded yet. They may not be online. Natalie 22:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
And I think what you did is fine. However, I would appreciate the page not being reverted again until the talks have begun. I will not revert another time, as I would be breaking 3RR. I just hope poeple will realize this is the most up-to-date version and it should preferably remain until the discussions have begun. I wouldn't mind page protection if you feel it's necessary.--Ramdrake 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is my COI? Adding something negative is not a COI. Wikipedia isn't a platform for puff pieces. The WP:COI specifically says to PR people that their articles will be edited mercilessly, they have no control over it, and too bad don't go crying about it later. SchmuckyTheCat 23:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Brooklyn5 is another Farm Sanctuary employee/volunteer. So I'm not quite inclined to take accusations from them neutrally. SchmuckyTheCat 23:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome a rewrite of this article – but all the statements in it need to be factual and verifiable and it needs to be compiled by someone who is not against animal welfare. FarmSanctuary 01:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't get to choose who writes about you. BTW, I love animals. SchmuckyTheCat 01:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit warring

The edit warring has got to stop. Schmucky, Farm Sanctuary, and Brooklyn - all of you need to stop, now. If this keeps going I'm going to ask that this page be protected, so let's try to talk about this like adults. Natalie 02:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is already a request at wp:rfpp. And as I asked of some admins, removing sourced information, removing fake protected templates isn't edit warring, it's removing vandalism. SchmuckyTheCat 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Would people be open to opening an RfC on this? Or do we need more formal mediation? Natalie 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a little early to go to either. Farm Sanctuary employees need to learn about wikipedia policies about removing vandalism, faking admin templates, 3rr, and most importantly conflict of interest and article ownership. SchmuckyTheCat 02:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I think SchmuckyTheCat needs to learn about conflict of interest as well. He seems to have some sort of anti Farm Sanctuary agenda. Zachetti 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connection to ALF

I'm trying to find proper attribution for this but am unlikely to from home without using lexis.:

On June 4, 1986, a group calling itself the Farm Freedom Fighters (whose later actions were “claimed” by ALF) broke into an egg farm in Delaware, spray-painted “Animal Auschwitz” on barn walls, and stole at least 25 hens. Within six hours, the news media were provided with photographs, videotapes, and written accounts of the crime. Credit for this fast turnaround went to the then eight-week-old Farm Sanctuary, whose spokespersons proudly described break-in and theft as “the first direct farm animal liberation… in the United States” and “unfortunately illegal.” Michael W. Fox, then president of the Humane Society of the United States, hinted prophetically: “my intuition tells me there will be much more of this.”

He was quite right. Ten months later, 40 hens and 90 eggs were stolen from an East Smithfield, Pennsylvania farm. Again, buildings were defaced with graffiti; doors and locks were damaged. The following day, when 115 rabbits were stolen from a breeding farm in Milan, Pennsylvania, the ALF claimed direct responsibility. Farm Sanctuary was the media conduit in both cases, releasing video and photographs of the crime to interested media.

While the victimized farmers called the ALF burglars “outlaws and criminals,” Gene Bauston calmly told reporters that the stolen animals had been “rescued” from their formerly “brutal” circumstances. While no one said as much, it was widely assumed that Farm Sanctuary itself received the animals (which were, after all, stolen property), perhaps “adopting” them out to other “ethical” farmers later on.

SchmuckyTheCat 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war...

This is in response to a request at WP:RFPP. I've blocked User:SchmuckyTheCat for WP:3RR on this article for 48 hours. Only he has been blocked as he is the only one I've found to have reverted in excess of 3 times in a 24-hour period on this article--that is not, however, to say that there are not many disruptive editors involved in this edit war. I do not believe it to be severe enough to warrant protection, nor do I believe that protection would help to resolve any of these issues. I would highly encourage the editors here to seek a content WP:RFC and to avoid making controversial edits to this page without first discussing and reaching consensus. Should anyone believe my call here to be mistaken, please let me know. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I believe your call to have been mistaken. It looks very much as though users FarmSanctuary, Brookly5 and the anons are acting as meatpuppets in defense of Farm Sanctuary (the nick of the main reverter after STC should be a big hint). I don't think these editors will be able to arrive at a consensus anytime soon. RFPP and RFC may both be need to avoid this war from going on. By simply blocking STC, you gave the people of the opposite opinion free reign for two days to remodel the article into what they think it should be. I've myself corrected two points: one paragraph which was removed because the editor said the event referred to wasn't on the page it referred to (I read it, was satisfied it was still there basically word for word and reverted). A second paragraph was introduced, vaunting the merits of the FS philosophy. After reading the articly, I found that many claims in the added paragraph weren't made in the interview used as a source, thus I added a dubious tag. These are the kinds of issues STC is trying to correct, so I respectfully submit that a one-sided block really isn't the proper response in such a situation.--Ramdrake 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4th paragraph of intro

I put back the 4th paragraph in the intro, although even after reaqding the interview in reference, it doesn't seem to state many of the things that are claimed in the paragraph, thus the (dubious) flag.--Ramdrake 15:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] archive.org

Do not add archive.org previous copies of an article is still up on the web. The current version doesn't contain the relied upon content. This suggests that the content in question is wrong. Otherwise why would CCF remove it? CCF HATES Farm Sanctuary. They hate all these activist groups. THey would not have removed it without cause. This is not 'technical reasons', this is very obvious problem that casts doubt on the source's reliability. Nssdfdsfds 22:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

I've tried to remove NPOV while keeping content, please stop warring over this page. The talk page is mightier than the revert! -- febtalk 11:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OK' then, someone pleas explain me to me why the blurb aboiut the connecdtion between Farm Sauncaturay and domestic terrorism that nwas on the CCF page keepos getting deleted for specious reasons?--Ramdrake 14:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove or add anything to it, so it was not in the revision I was working with. If you want to add content, I highly reccomend you post it on the talk page first, that way other editors can contribute to it without causing an edit war -- febtalk 14:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's waht I posted several times, which was also nremoved several times. AFAIK, it is germanes and sourced:

According to the Center for Consumer Freedom, Farm Sanctuary's first media attention came after a June 4, 1986 incident at an egg farm in Delaware. Farm Sanctuary provided photographs, videotape and a written account to the press within six hours of the event. The Farm Freedom Fighters later claimed to be a cell of the Animal Liberation Front. Farm Sanctuary acted as the media contact for the Animal Liberation Front from 1986 to 1989.[1]

--Ramdrake 14:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions:

  • Remove "According....Freedom,"
    • Should be supported by Cite
  • Clarify WHAT the incident was
  • Clarify why them having photographs is significant
  • Explain who the "Farm Freedom Fighters" are, or link to their article.
  • explain why the Media Contact info is important
  • Move to History section isntead of Controversy
  • Try to find a non-archived source

-- febtalk 15:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I used "according to [blah blah]" because we referenced an activist site as a tertiary source. I'm sure they picked it up from the media but the media sources aren't what we are referencing to. I might be a little cautious about that, but I'm making sure our text puts the words where they came from. Doing a news search to 1986 media is on my to-do list.
them having photographs is significant when linked with the timeframe - six hours for something that occurred in the middle of the night. It links them as being the media contact in the fashion of "how": What does a media contact for an underground organization do? It gives the press the material necessary for news coverage.
It explains that Farm Freedom Fighters later claimed to be an ALF cell, and links to ALF.
Yes, it could be in the history section. I'd like to corroborate that point 1 with a secondary source first. But it is clear this was their first newsworthy event as an organization
SchmuckyTheCat 03:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The birds arrived at the organization's headquarters on Monday, Bauston said. Their liberators were "anonymous farm animal supporters," she said. Come on, talk turkey. Isn't liberation another word for theft? "We're really not sure if they were stolen. That may be one of the reasons the persons remained anonymous," Bauston said.
Farm Sanctuary is a nine-month-old group that Bauston said has 2,000 members nationwide. It first made headlines in June when Bauston became spokeswoman for another animal rights group that claimed to have raided a hen house on a farm near Dover and made off with 25 chickens from what the group termed "an animal Auschwitz." Those raiders, who called themselves the Farm Freedom Fighters, were never apprehended.
Elizabeth Hallowell, Cincinnati Inquirer, November, 1986
We now have a secondary source for the ALF/Farm Freedom Fighters section as well as the involvement in animal theft. It should be replaced and expanded on with this new source SchmuckyTheCat 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Llamas

Again, I'm disclosing that I work for Farm Sanctuary, and can verify that we do not currently house, nor have we ever housed, llamas. Nothing against llamas, but that reference should be deleted, given that it's innacurate. Can I make the deletion without violating COI? Fistfullotruth (talk) fistfullotruth —Preceding comment was added at 22:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed Llamas. [1] That edit added donkeys and llamas. Should donkeys be removed too? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Thank you. We currently house two donkeys at our California shelter and we now have a horse, Clyde, at our New York Shelter.Fistfullotruth (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] listed as terrorist group with gov't

Just listing the name of that report isn't enough to varify - how do we know you didn't make that up? I mean, there are clearly anti-animal people trolling this page and making nonsensical revisions. Please provide page,line or section references and a direct quote from that report before putting back that paragraph. GingerGin 22:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I listed that it appears in Appendix 1, where they appear after Farm Freedom Fighters. SchmuckyTheCat 22:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be correct, from a quick google search. In addition, i'd advise you refrain from calling other editors trolls, especially since if they actually were that would just be feeding them. No matter what you think of a wikipedia editor, you should not attack them -- febtalk 01:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was hardly attacking another editor. I didn't call anyone specific a troll and that reference was made in a note to a specific person, not as a post on a page that many people are likely to read. It's quite different to exercise my opinion when communicating in general terms to a specific person than it is to post insults on public pages or to the person directly. If you're going to count that as an attack, then you and all of your buddies are just as guilty. GingerGin 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, even if you do not name names, you are still assuming bad faith and attacking a fellow editor. Secondly, I do not have any wikibuddies. Last, wikipedia doesn't really have any room for opinion, unless it's concerning policy -- febtalk 06:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This information is now being removed by new user Vladivostock. [2]. Justify please. SchmuckyTheCat 16:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And by Winchester1962, who comes here to edit only this page.
Meanwhile, Vladivostock claims [3] to have been editing here for three years. SchmuckyTheCat 17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is lame. Along with the information about the organization's alleged terrosist links, the wiki page should contain information about Farm Sanctuary's mission, outreach campaigns and successes. How many people work there? What is the group's budget? Who are their supporters? How many animals live at the farm? Why does the organization advocate animal welfare? What special events do they hold? Let's get over the bickering and bullying, stop with the tit-for-tat subjective prose editing (if the group calls itself an animal welfare organization - that's what it is, regardless if you think it should be called "animal rights") and finish the page. NYMuckraker 23:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you! Zachetti 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Once we determine if any of our newly registered contributors here who seem to have taken an singular interest in Farm Sanctuary related topics have a WP:COI, I will unlock the page for editing. In the meantime, please read WP:V. All of that information could be added if it can be reliably sourced by a 3rd party source.--Isotope23 01:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there some reason "controversy" takes up half of the article, and this is made up mostly of an incorrect, decades old reference (the report actually lists this group under the heading of having claimed "acts of extremism," not "terrorism"), and a random quote from a chef?MichaelBrock 07:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The article stood as a puff piece written by their PR people for six months. Over a two day period I doubled the size but most of what I included is negative. It needs more practical and historical information as well, written neutrally. That isn't denied. Go to it. The controversial information is certainly notable. SchmuckyTheCat 22:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to disclose that my name is Tricia Barry, I work for Farm Sanctuary, and have documentation in the form of a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, from November 10, 1993, signed by Sheila F. Anthony, Assistant Attorney General, apologizing for incorrectly including Farm Sanctuary in an appendix to the cited report as an organization that "claim(s) to have perpetrated acts of extremism [in] the United States." I'm noting here my concerns and wish to change the content about this accusation on the Farm Sanctuary page under the Controversy section, but want to ensure full-disclosure to avoid any accusations of COI. The Departments of Justice and Agriculture issued corrected versions of this report with a cover letter explaining the circumstances of the resubmission to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House, as well as members of the public who requested copies of the report. Would editors be amenable to this edit as well as inclusion of a scanned copy of this letter as a citation to correct this erroneous information? We take accusations of terrorism and extremism very seriously, as I'm sure any organization would. Thank you. Fistfullotruth (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC) fistfullotruth

Can you scan the letter and publish it on the Farm Sanctuary website? It doesn't need to be linked to from elsewhere on the Farm Sanctuary pages, just so that a URL shows the scanned document. If so, then I'll put this on the Reliable Source noticeboard. I'd be inclined to remove it or make notice of the government's apology. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The letter can be found here: http://www.farmsanctuary.org/pdf/FS_letter.pdf. Let me know if you need anything else.Fistfullotruth (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Any chance this can be updated this week? Fistfullotruth (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

I'm unprotecting this as the WP:RFCU is not moving along all that quickly and I don't like leaving articles protected long term. I will however continue to monitor this article for WP:V and WP:NPOV and just as fair warning I may protect this again if I see POV pushing from either side.--Isotope23 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farm Sanctuary Kidz Club

Can anyone answer how/why this is in any way notable and belongs in the article? I pared out the original research and opinion from this. Unless there are reliable third party sources that have covered the Turtle Mountain/Farm Sanctuary partnership, this section should be removed.--Isotope23 talk 17:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foie Gras Ban Info Lacking Credible Reference

I removed the following info because it lacked a credible reference source:

In 2005, when Farm Sanctuary advocated a foie gras ban in Chicago, they asked Charlie Trotter, who had said he would no longer be serving the product in his restaurants, to join them. Trotter had previously stated "I just said, 'Enough is enough here. I can't really justify this. What I have seen, it's just inappropriate. There are too many great things to eat out there that I don't believe that any animal would have to go through that for our benefit." However, when Farm Sanctuary asked Trotter to sign a pledge stating he would never serve foie gras, he replied saying "These people are idiots. Understand my position: I have nothing to do with a group like that. I think they're pathetic."[2]

The reference for this paragraph was simply the wikipedia article on the Chicago Tribune. That is not a credible, or even relevant source to evidence that the aforementioned event involving Charlie Trotter even happened. Therefore, I don't think it belongs on the page unless a credible source is found to indicate that this event took place, and to source Mr. Trotter's quotes. Olephill2 15:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Go to the library and look up that date of the Chicago Tribune on microfiche then. There is nothing wrong with that source.SchmuckyTheCat


Yes, there is. You cannot reference another wikipedia article as a verifiable reference, especially one that doesn't even mention the information in question. You tell me to go to the library to locate the article? No, I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you. Offer a concrete source to the quote from Mr. Trotter or I don't see how it can stay. Olephill2 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

...Olephill... the reference is the newspaper. Not the article. Hence the date. That is the date the newspaper was printed. The reference isn't ideal, but it is acceptable --Lucid 18:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not objecting to the inclusion of the content, only the method in which it was referenced. I'd like to be able to provide a means for visitors to read the article themselves. I did a little research on Google and found a link to the article, posted on a third party site: Liver and Let Live. Perhaps this link could be included in the reference section? Olephill2 18:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the issue is that Chicago Tribune is wikilinked in the reference perhaps giving the impression it is the source when in fact the listed edition of the newspaper is the source... the wikilink is just incidental. If there is a link to the story online, it would probably be acceptable to externally link it in the ref.--Isotope23 talk 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the article is online is enough proof, linking to a site hosting it like that is probably not a good idea, as it is probably a blatant copyright violation. Offline sources are perfectly fine, although people may dislike them, as long as they're possible to reasonably check. It's probably better to leave it as a proper citation people can look up themselves than link it to a site that is almost certainly breaking copyright law by hosting it, not to mention it could be considered NPOV to link to a site like that as a source for something that's not directly related to it --Lucid 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


I removed the following info because it doesn't seem important. If every remark a celebrity makes about Farm Sanctuary deserves a spot on this page then it could just go on and on.

In 2005, when Farm Sanctuary advocated a foie gras ban in Chicago, they asked Charlie Trotter, who had said he would no longer be serving the product in his restaurants, to join them. Trotter had previously stated "I just said, 'Enough is enough here. I can't really justify this. What I have seen, it's just inappropriate. There are too many great things to eat out there that I don't believe that any animal would have to go through that for our benefit." However, when Farm Sanctuary asked Trotter to sign a pledge stating he would never serve foie gras, he replied saying "These people are idiots. Understand my position: I have nothing to do with a group like that. I think they're pathetic."[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliemaejellybean (talk • contribs) 04:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)