Talk:Friends of Animals

Need Help Getting Page Up to Wikipedia Standards

Hello all,

I'm an employee of FoA, and would like assistance in ensuring the FoA page fits Wikipedia standards.

The most obvious is fulfilling the citations listed. I'm happy to do the footwork, but being unfamiliar with aspects of academia (and being new to Wikipedia as a contributor), i'm not entirely sure what is desired...so if someone wanted to select a citation, and walk me through the process of satisfying the need for it, i would be grateful. (And hopefully able to continue on my own for the remainder. =)

Secondly would be loading the page with more content about FoA that should be included in a resource like Wikipedia.

Thanks a bunch,

Dave Shishkoff (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of the 3 fact tags I added to the FOA page.

One claims that FOA "was instrumental in popularizing the animal rights movement." However you choose to define animal rights movement, this statement still needs a reference from a neutral source. Would the animal rights movement never have been popularized without FOA?

Another claims that "FoA began the modern spay/neuter movement" Does this mean that spay/neuter was unknown prior to 1957? Also needs a neutral reference. Surely if FOA began this movement it should be noted in histories, media, etc.

The 3rd claims that FOA is "associated with the international vegan movement." That doesn't really say much does it? What is the international vegan movement and what is FOA's association with it and some references to support this would be good. Clearly this association could not have begun until a dozen years after the movement started.

These fact tags can be replaced w/references to support the statements. If no such references exist, the statements should be modified to something that can be referenced or else removed.

Bob98133 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bob98133,

I guessed that some of these were the reasons for the request for citations.

Note that i didn't write any of these (i don't think!), and are not necessarily how i'd describe FoA. (Note: the 'o' in FoA is lower-case. Should this be referenced somewhere too? ;)

Should i attempt to find ways to validate these claims, or overhaul the piece?

Also, what might be some other sections and useful info to include about a group?

Thanks,

Dave Shishkoff (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dave, thanks for offering to help improve the page. What we need in the first instance are independent reliable sources who have written about Friends of Animals (e.g. newspapers) in order to show that it's notable enough for an article. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixing facts

Hey, Dave - I moved to a new section to see if your table of contents would work automatically - if it doesn't, I'll manually insert one.

Guess what? The O is probably uppercase. It's like some people write PeTA because their logo looks that way. I think that the lettered abbreviation for an organization is all upper case, but you might want to research that. If there is some rule about it being all caps then you have to go with that. I suppose you could put in a section about the logo being FoA, but that's not very encyclopedic.

I wouldn't worry about the fact tags. You could find a reference for each and replace the tag with the reference, but if you're going to overhaul the article anyhow you could probably do it all at once. The other way you can get rid of the fact tags is by modifying the text, so "FoA began the modern spay/neuter movement..." could be something "like FoA actively promotes spay/neuter ..." which could be referenced by a newspaper article about a spay/neuter mobile or offering free spay/neuter or whatever they do. If it's true that they began this, you would have to change to something like "Since 19xx, FoA has been actively promoting..." also with a reference that supports that. Saying that they "began" the spay/neuter movement implies that there is such a movement and that they were org who started it - I just kind of doubt that, which is why I put the fact tag on that one. If you claim to be first at anything, there's always going to be someone who will contest it. In the hamburger article, who made the first one has been under dispute for months.

Well, you're probably not going to like this, but why not look at the PETA page to see about what sections might be useful? You could also get some photos that your organization would be willing to properly license for Wiki to include, or a logo if you've got one.

Items like adding a logo, or providing a reference for a fact tag are pretty straight forward in terms of any possible conflict of interest, as would be correcting vandallism. If you decide to post other things, like campaigns, history or something like that, you'll have to be careful that it doesn't appear that you are simply promoting your org. You'll have to ask someone about that. On the greeting to your talk page there is a way to ask for help on your talk page. Times I've done this, I've gotten answers in minutes from other editors or admins or whoever they were. Have fun. Bob98133 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bob98133, i'm wondering where referencing ourselves is or isn't appropriate?

Of course, we have our obvious programs:

http://www.friendsofanimals.org/programs/spay-neuter/index.html

And there are various articles on the site on the subject. Would it be appropriate to link to this, as well as an external source referencing this? Since the article is about FoA, i would presume that people searching here would want direct info to FoA on the subject...? Of course, i could be mistaken. ;)

And thanks for your help!

Dave Shishkoff (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's always best if you can reference a neutral source, so for spay/neuter you'd want to find some media coverage of an event or something if you're making some claim about the service - biggest, most known in the country - or something like that. I would think if you just say that FoA has a spay/neuter program then reference that link above it would be OK. If you say they neuter 3000 animals a year, you'd want an external source to support that, or you'd want to make sure it says something like "they state that they neuter..." since the reference would only be internal. It will depend on the language you use. The link to the main page of the org is already there under External links - if other ELs are added, that one should stay on top - I think that is customary - so if someone reading the article wants to go to your website, it's pretty easy without sticking in other links. It's a drag to do, but it's worthwhile to read through the wiki policy pages about sources, external links, etc.

No problem with the help. This is a pretty friendly community despite the harsh reversions, shouting for references and edit wars. And we all hate the vandals and Colbert-induced edits. Bob98133 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bob, i'm working on digging up some more useful info for this, including a paragraph on the current president.

Is there now a page on Land Fish? =P Dave Shishkoff (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some resources

I've added a couple of references, though there are plenty more [1] that some useful content can be gleaned from. Hopefully, Dave, you will be able to use those I added to see the format we use. If you have problems with reference formatting, just let me know here or on my page and I can help you out. Rockpocket 04:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Very helpful, RP, thank you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, thanks for that! Will do my best to maintain this quality. Dave Shishkoff (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Updates

I'm working on a few updates for the page. I took out the links to the organization's twitter and facebook websites, as that is not typical practice for Wikipedia and it's easily found through the website. I also took out some very general categories (like ethics) that didn't really add to the understanding of this article. I added a new category of animal welfare organizations.

I noticed that the first paragraph seems to cut the org out of animal welfare but that just isn't so. Even the first activity, of providing low cost spaying and neutering for cats and dogs, concerns itself with animal welfare. I also noticed this comment about the founder: "Gary Francione writes that Herrington was one of the earliest members of the modern animal rights movement to recognize the difference between campaigning for rights and welfare." I'm going to edit this out because it doesn't relate so much to the work of the org as to the founder's opinion.

The description of the Wildlife Law Program has a bit too much opinion: "Animal activists often fail to fully utilize the array of local, state, federal and international environmental laws as a means to protect the rights of animals to live free from human interference. Environmental activists often utilize these laws, but do so to achieve broad environmental objectives that may not always protect the rights of free-living animals. The mission of the Wildlife Law Project is to utilize the law for a singular purpose: to ensure the right of all wildlife to live in an ecosystem free from human manipulation, exploitation, or abuse.." I'm going to trim it down and talk about some projects they have worked on.

It is now an international organization with some global influence, so I will add that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianknowledgelover (talk • contribs) 05:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)