Talk:No-kill shelter

message: I've added the unbalanced tag after seeing that most of the affirmations in the article come from PETA, an avowed opponent of the no-kill shelter concept.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked through this and it's well balanced up to the criticism section, I think. The imbalance comes from there being so much in the criticism section and a lot of that from PETA. For starters, criticism could be changed to controversy. Or, some of the material in the criticism section could be incorporated into the article, like the PETA page. Maybe others can weigh in too so we can all work on something that doesn't get immediately reverted.Bob98133 (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking we might start by summarizing some of the criticism, rather than reporting at length on single cases of shelter neglect, as PETA seems to have done. But otherwise, you're right that it is fine until the criticism section.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not just PETA making those criticism. Look at the EL to Louisiana SPCA, which mentions limited admission/warehousing/poor quality of life. I don't think it's the criticism itself but the defensively phrased rebuttals (the "it's true but they are worse than us" tone) that makes the POV seems off. --Dodo bird (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree - its not just "no-kill" shelters that have poor conditions.  In my experience the argument could be made that there are more no-kill shelters that strive to maintain a higher-than-average quality of life for their animals than in "kill" shelters.  You can also check out the Edmonton Humane Society - a No-kill shelter with an open-admissions policy.  They regularly have representatives/staff/directors from other shelters and rescue organizations across the continent come visit to see their new facilities, learn about their behavioral and volunteer programs, etc. Opendestiny (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced tag 

message: I have looked at this organization's website , and the numbers stated are contracdicted in several places. In one place they claim 400-500 cats in residence, elsewhere they say, sometimes as many as 400, but on their website they only show about 25 animals available for adoption. Are the other 375 hidden? Not available for adoption? They claim 3000 adoptions per year, but offer no details. I am concerned that this shelter may be misrepresenting what they are doing - they certainly aren't transparent about their efforts.Bob98133 (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hermitage no-kill 

message: It's a summary of the cited definition. Why would I need a cite for that?--Dodo bird (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition in lead 

message: Please get over the idea that an entire community can "instantly" transform into a no-kill community. Even your shaky reference says "virtually instantly", whatever that might mean. If you read the previous section of the page you reference, it indicates that the process of change began in 2005 and they were no-kill by 2007. Sorry, that is a two-year transition, not instant. What instant says is that one minute they were kill, the next mintute they were not - no planning, no discussion, just shazaam, now we're no kill. Please revert this text back, or change it to reflect a more realistic version of events. If this change was so dramatic, there must be local media coverage of it. I would trust the local media a lot more than a no-kill advocacy web site which is bound to be POV, particularly since they are citing this as an example of their success. If you can't find something, I'll take a look when I have a chance. Bob98133 (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instant transition to no-kill 

message: Dodo - you keep reverting info that is not supported by the reference supplied. I went in and quoted from that reference with the correct info and you continue to revert it. Now you've supplied another reference, but left the one that disagrees with what you've written. Cmon - why not read the reference yourself before continuing to revert incorrect info? Bob98133 (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You replaced "By increasing that number by just a few percentage points, they belief that the problem of euthanasia of healthy cats and dogs can be solved" with "...if only someone stepped up to save their live, these animals could potentially make wonderful pets." What was that about. That sentence was sourced to the Maddie's Fund press release. And the two reference are consistent with each other. Why don't you try reading. --Dodo bird (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref re Maddie's Fund 

message: This article is full of uncited material to support no-kill. Rather than add a dozen or so fact tags, I think that the entire article should be gone over - either references should be supplied, or statements presented as facts should begin "According to no-kill advocates..."
For example: Under "Techniques Used..."
:This is among the most important techniques for a community to achieve its no-kill goals. A disproportionate amount of intact animals belong to poor people.
Who said it is most important. What evidence is there that poor people have intact animals?
:A very high number of cats killed at shelters are feral cats and/or offsprings of feral cats.
Says who? What is a "very high number"?
:No-Kill tends to attract more volunteers.
Says who? More volunteers than what? How about a reference? I think that anti-cancer groups have more volunteers than no-kill shelters.
:Taking a cue from libraries, no-kill shelters try to be open at times
Who says that no-kill shelers took a cue from libraries? This is nonsense and irrelevent.
As well, sections of this article are based entirely on press releases or blogs supporting or related to the organization being quoted, such as: 
:A number of communities in the United States have significantly increased their live-release rate and gotten closer to their no-kill goals with the help of Maddies.[3] According to Maddies Fund, in America only about 20% of pets are adopted while the rest are from breeders and other source. By increasing that number by just a few percentage points, they believe that the problem of euthanasia of healthy cats and dogs can be solved.[4][5]
This entire section is based on press releases from the organziation being discussed and/or blogs which claim to only represent the writer's opinion.
I know that this is a controversial subject, which is all the more reason for everything in it to be scrupulously referenced. I will go through this and add references to remove POV and ask your help in improving this article. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already presented as "according to maddies fund", so I don't see what the problem is. I added a ref where winograd says the same thing. --Dodo bird (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited POV material 

message: Bob, I don't understand why you reverted me. It's difficult to see any of my edits being objectionable except maybe the shifting of the subject from "no-kill shelter" to "no-kill". Surely you don't have to undo all my edits.--Dodo bird (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob 

message: You just don't get it, do you? The idea of the talk page is to discuss controversial changes, not to post some excuse then revert the changes. Ideally, other editors would also have input.
You've totally ignored the questions and comments above and proceeded to revert your inappropriate content.
For example, you changed the lead to this:
:No-kill is an animal sheltering philosophy which rejects euthanasia as a means of population control. Animals are only euthanized if they are too sick to be treated or too aggressive to be suitable for adoption. 
Look - this article is about no-Kill shelters, not about the No-Kill Philosophy, so you can't just change the lead to define something else - you've got to stick with the subject. There are many other POV edits that you have mad ethat should be discussed.
I am again reverting your text until these changes and POV matters are discussed on this page. Bob98133 (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dodo

message: Why not have an article on the No-kill philosophy per se and one on No-kill shelters?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. There is no point just renaming and moving this article when there are clearly differences between the philosophy and its implementation.Bob98133 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does "no-kill philosophy" really need its own article? I think it would make sense to have the first paragraph after the lead section be "No kill philosophy," and it could be split off into its own article if it gets too large and unwieldy. --Fullobeans (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that the "no-kill philosophy" is wider-ranging than just shelters. So, including it as a subtopic of No-kill shelter doesn't really sound appropriate to me. Conversely, because of the volume of material, it wouldn't make sense to make no-kill shelters a sub-topic of no-kill philosophy; it deserves its own article. That's why I think having two separate articles makes better sense.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense, and there seem to be plenty of references for "no-kill philosophy"; so, yes, I'd support starting a separate article. --Fullobeans (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I will work on restoring this article and creating and migrating some material to No-kill philosophy as soon as the renegade editor who refuses to discuss his changes appears to be done. I will post an explanation of any major changes to the talk page - once I do, please feel free to comment and edit. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No-kill shelter vs No-kill 

message: Would this article be the place to put a list of open-admission no-kill shelters?
: Could we have under US, a list of open-admission shelters who have achieved a 90% save rate?
I do not think any purpose is served by listing no-kill rescues that are not open admission.  There are a great many no-kill rescues, such as Best Friends, who do not accept all animals and this article would be just one long list of rescues, big and small, if they are all cited here.  However, people are often researching open-admission shelters that are no-kill.  There are only a handful in the States and there is nowhere online, that I have found, where they are listed.
: Can we agree that no-kill is defined by a 90% save rate, what Nathan Winograd calls the 90% Club?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoosierGal (talk • contribs) 06:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to the Article

message: Agree that failed attempts list is getting fairly long. I didn't really think about it when adding the one today. However, the US section does the same thing for currently operating no-kill shelters. I don't think that listing every shelter that closes for mismanagement is appropriate, however the no-kill ones that close for overcrowding, starvation, warehousing, etc. might be a different sotry since those reasons are ones disputed by both sides of this issue. Perhaps both sections (US and failed attempts) could be shortened which might provide more balance both for US and international. Good idea to discuss prior to major rewrite. Bob98133 (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:UNDUE 

message: Most of the citations for "facts" on this page seem to be blogs, op-ed, advocacy centers, and other non-WP:RS material. Astro$01 (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fairly contentious article. I don't object to advocacy organizations being cited to present or clarify their views, but I agree that other than these types of opinions or policy statements, facts should be supported by reliable sources. Bob98133 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:RS 

message: Hi all,  this page seems to have suffered from neglect, so I've started going thru and refreshing links, references, etc, modifying some POV language.  May take a while. Please discuss any issues you may have.  Cheers!   Bob98133 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleaning up