Talk:Animal rescue group

Pages separate

The two pages should stay separate, as rescue groups typically work in conjunction with animal shelters, but they are not the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alienlovesong (talk • contribs) .

I agree, the two groups are different types of things that do the same thing in very different ways. It's sort of like the difference between Foster care and Orphanage. Trysha ^(talk) 03:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The following is an incorrect statement: "Rescue groups place all their rescues into foster homes as they do not have shelter facilities." Many rescue groups do have facilities and make use of both the facility and foster homes. And the facilities are not always kennels. Some facilities have 'home like' rooms that house the animals.

cat behind bars photo

I remove the 'cat behind bars' photo from the rescue group article as this gives the wrong impression. Rescue groups rarely if ever keep pets in cages like that. Animals are kept in a rescue group's foster homes are kept treated like household pets (although, they may be segregated) via baby gates and the like - Trysha ^(talk) 04:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

---

That makes sense; I wasn't aware of the distinction. I thought a rescue group made every effort to place the animals in foster homes, but kennel the animals while they're waiting to be placed?

If it would be more helpful, I have some photos of cats and dogs both who "have been rescued" and are normal household pets. Unless there's an objection, I'd like to upload one of those and put it on the Rescue Group page; I'm an animal lover, and want to help make it clear that it isn't just abandoned pit bulls that wind up in places like these, and that adopting a rescue animal can be as rewarding for the person as for the animal.

--ForrestCroce 18:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I added in an external link to a forum that discusses parrot/bird adoption - and at times adoption of other animals. (See "Forum and site discussing parrot rescue and adoption.") There is an extensive listing of parrot rescues on this forum. I wanted to make sure it was okay, and this is my first "talk" so I hope I'm doing this right.

HelloBaby 21:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Style

This article is full of style elements that abolutely do not belong into an encyclopedia in the present form. Some examples include "new, caring homes", "training, loving, playing", "Kirby is now about 15 years old and going strong. Like Kirby, all rescued pets are special.", "there may be a number of different things you can do to make the transition from life at a rescue group to a home much easier." Also, the present image is unnecessary IMO, and the link section mentions some rather irrelevant groups. --84.74.135.177 22:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed article accordingly; removed NPOV and Style tags. --84.74.135.177 22:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

External links

Have just removed this section as it was simply listing rescue websites. It would be great to get some encyclopedic links though - is there a good detailed history or examination of different cultural approaches or something? (Might give us good sources to flesh out the article too). -- `SiobhanHansa 05:38, September 4, 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this article is extremely prone to linkspam. We should keep an eye on it. --128.231.88.7 (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I oppose the inclusion of specific local rescue groups, out of the following reasons:

• There is no way that we could include every local rescue group that has a website in this article. Therefore, including a few is fundamentally unjust.
• There is no consensus on which to base the inclusion or exclusion of a specific organisation's website.
• Links that are of local significance at best do not belong into WP.

--128.231.88.7 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that specific sites shouldn't be listed in the text, but it is simply your opinion about what should be listed in the external site section. And after the 'edits' there are usually some sites still listed... only some sites are removed. It should be all or nothing... and it never is. Why do you think it is 'spam' to list non-profit sites that are simply trying to help animals? Sorry... this is your personal opinion getting in the way. Stop messing with the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.128.126 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's in our policies and guidelines. There are thousands of rescue organiztions, listing them is not the job of an encyclopedia, try something like dmoz. Links should provide further information about the subject of the article, not simply be resources related to the subject. -- SiobhanHansa 06:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

These are Empty words. You are inconsistent in your application of your rules. If you really believed what you are saying, you would remove the Parrot adoption link and the petsr.org link. These links are no different that the ones you removed. petsr.org is no different that petfinder and pets911 that you removed. They are general websites that let people find local adoption organizatons. The parrot organization is exactly the same as the local organizations you removed. Sorry. Quote all the policys you want... but you have a bias in applying them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.128.126 (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that external links are gone, which is fine, although there were several embedded in the text. I recently removed the names of local ARGs in the See also section that lacked articles, but in the interest of fairness and avoiding geographic bias, perhaps only international or national organizations should be included. The links to DELTA (Acton, California USA) or Our Pack (Los Gatos, California, USA) are particularly biased towards two towns in one state in the U.S., and both articles seem unduly promotional (DARE written by User:37Celcius who seems to specialize in writing promotional-sounding articles for marginally notable persons, family members, and herself.) If we can agree on clear standards for what should and should not be included, then questions about arbitrariness and fairness are moot. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)