Talk:Primarily Primates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Primarily Primates is part of WikiProject Primates, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use primate resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Article in need of massive overhaul (note: Overhaul completed June 9 2007)

I just want to let other editors know that I will be working on this article over the next few weeks. The article became a place for some parties to the recent dispute to air their allegations against Wally Swett and Friends of Animals. I removed what I could justify removing and added appropriate citation tags to what remained. Still, most of the text needs to be removed and/or rewritten.

What is sad is that the current article doesn't document the full history of PPI. For a long time PPI was a model sanctuary. In fact, PPI & PETA once were on very good terms and cooperated to rescue primates housed in horrific conditions. The recent adversarial struggle would make it seem that PPI has been a cesspool from day one. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you read the various lengthy articles in Texas newspapers, you'll see that the story of what happened to PPI is a common one. Over the years PPI became overwhelmed by taking in too many animals, most of whom had nowhere else to go. Advancing age and a personal crisis dimished Swett's ability to stay on top of the needs of the sanctuary. Mix in some ex-employees with legitimate concerns, add some opportunism, stir violently and you have to cocktail of hard feelings that was the recent conflict.

My goal is to do the sanctuary justice by crafting a balanced article. I plan to document the founding of the PPI, it's early history, it's descent into problems and legal issues and the eventual resolution of those issues. Any help I can get from other editors would be appreciated. remember to keep things as NPOV as possible.LiPollis 19:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I wrote this Nycdi and I have made a number of improvements, cut out some unsourced stuff and tried to add in as much sourcing as we could find. The article still needs work in a couple of areas, most notably a new section on the founding and early hisotry would be in order. The section entitled : Update October 28, 2006 really needs some judicious trimming and sourcing of the alleged facts. It's possible that the entire section should be chopped since most of those issues are covered elsewhere. If anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd like to hear them so we can build a consensus. Thanks!LiPollis 16:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I just clipped that whole section out 6 months or so ago. Since then myself and Nycdi have tried to keep the article NPOV. We both understand that there are several sides to this story and I have included that information under the section entitled 2 Origin of the dispute. That section has the most lucid overview of the dispute I've seen and helps the reader to see that the dispute is rooted in the issue of control over a large amount of money set aside for the care of the animals sent to the facility from Ohio State. G.R.A.S.P.'s analysis is included because they are one of the few advocacy groups that would not benefit financially from any of the possible outcomes.LiPollis (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thwarting Vandalism to this Article

Other contributors and I have strived to make non-biased edits to this article in order to present the work and history of Primarily Primates animal sanctuary with a neutral point of view. Fueled by recent disputes among animal advocacy groups regarding the sanctuary's management, vandals have repeatedly added non-neutral and inflammatory edits to this article, obviously in an attempt to sway readers to a certain viewpoint rather than present facts and a balanced account of events. These vandals have reinstated their biased edits even after Bots have removed such, for being "dubious information." This article will be scrutinized regularly by myself and others I hope to enlist, with the goal of keeping this article fair and objective, and to undo the work of vandals. Contributors interested in joining my efforts are welcome to engage in a dialogue on this Talk Page about any changes you would like to make to this article. Thank you. nycdi (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History section

It would be good to include a history of the sanctuary rather than have the article focus entirely on the dispute. I've so far not managed to find any good sources for this, but I'll continue looking. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)