Talk:California Assembly Bill 1634 (2007)

message: The article is extremely biased in favor of the bill.  e.g. "The opposition claims that such laws have the opposite effect, but use bad data to argue their point." and "Opposition claims that spay/neuter at 4 months creates unwanted dog aggression and has other undesirable side-effects, such as osteosarcoma, are based on studies that have been invalidated for faulty scientific method."  Also, in general, the tone is very biased.  Needs a NPOV pass.  Kjl 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on article bias

message: The claimed $250 million annual cost of California animal shelters has been repeated by supporters of the bill many times, but this figure is not based on the actual fiscal data nor on any sound estimating method.  The estimate was made by taking the annual costs for just one of California's 61 jurisdictions, and dividing this cost by the number of animals impounded there to derive a cost per animal.  This was then multiplied by the total number of animals impounded throughout the entire state, which also had to be estimated by extrapolation.  It also represents an unsound extrapolation from a high cost urban region to the entire state which has lower costs on average.   All in all, this represents an excessively large extrapolation and is an unscientific methodology for making the cost estimate for the entire state.  The evidence that the figure was derived this way is here http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Members/A40/CA-HealthyPetAct/CAStatsSummaryCost.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardog1 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the specific cost figure to the article, as a claim rather than an assertion of fact, along with a reference.  --Sardog1 12:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason why cost figure was deleted

message: I'm a little concerned about the fact that most of the references on this article are located within a few sites (Save Our Dogs and NAIA Online). Can someone try to diversify the references a bit? Zetawoof(ζ) 23:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference monoculture

message: Petlover1634  
I can take an afternoon and do a larger neutral description of this bill, with references that are not directing readers to propaganda sites (either pro or anti); it was my hope that subsequent edits would stick to the facts of the bill and stay neutral but that has not been the case. I would rather not have to take the time to do a larger neutral description, but if no one else is able to expand this in a neutral way without referencing propaganda sites, I can take the time to do it correctly, probably in mid to late Nov.
It is correct that for standard factual articles, changes should be discussed and agreed to in this area, but use of this site as a propoganda arm isn't appropriate and changes to that type of addition don't require much discussion. Thanks.  -- Petlover1634
: The content you keep erasing is factual and neutral.  When it is stated that certain organizations support or oppose the bill, then links to references demonstrating that they support or oppose the bill is appropriate and factual article content, not propaganda.  Likewise, if it is stated about supporters or opponents make claims re: the bill, then links to sites demonstrating these claims is factual, not propaganda.  After all, we are acknowledging that the claims were made, not that we all agree with the claims themselves.  
: As an example, it is an undisputed fact that AB 1634 supporters claim that shelter costs in California exceed $250 million a year and it is fair to state this in the article.  What is disputed is whether this is indeed the correct cost figure, since opponents claim that these cost figures come from an unsound extrapolation (see comments above under "Reason why cost figure was deleted").  So if this cost claim is made, it is fair to follow it with the claim that opponents make about it.  It is not correct to state that this is the factual cost figure without providing compelling evidence (e.g. official and referenced cost numbers from State Controller’s Office for the entire state).
: If you believe that certain content in the article you keep erasing is inappropriate, then please state on this page specifically what you believe is inappropriate and why.  Sweeping it all aside along with more than 30 references as "propaganda" is not specific nor helpful toward resolving this dispute. Sardog1 02:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In particular, reverting a version with references (albeit refs which still need some improvement) to a version with far fewer references is highly counterproductive. In particular, referring to a version which states (without citing sources) that "supporters in the media are almost universally volunteers, while opponents in the media are primarily paid for their appearances" is definitely not an "unbiased version". Please don't do it. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suitable article content

message: The article certainly needs more work, but I don't think that repeatedly reverting to an old version of the article is a step in the right direction. Zetawoof and sardog have asked that Petlover1634 work more collaboratively, so far to no avail. Dsurber 05:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: For those who haven't followed AB 1634, it's difficult to convey just how controversial the bill has been.  There is no issue before the California state legislature in 2007 that is more controversial.  The controversies surrounding the gay marriage bill and the 'death with dignity' bill don't even come close.   Long-time observers in the state Capital say they've never seen anything like it.  The fax machines of the 80 Assembly members were overwhelmed for weeks by public comment about AB 1634, and the Senate local government committee's fax machine reportedly broke down under the onslaught.  Staffers were so overwhelmed with the influx of letters, emails, and faxes that they not only couldn't read it all, they couldn't even count it all. 
A Wikipedia article that is a dry description of the bill without describing the key points of controversy would be grossly deficient.  Describing the points of controversy requires linking to references (citations) that themselves are partisan in nature, because there is no other way to describe the controversy while satisfying the core policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability.  This does not in anyway preclude having an article that has a NPOV.  I have not found a Wikipedia policy mandating that references (citations) themselves must take a NPOV.  I am seeing examples of articles where references (citations) do NOT take a NPOV.  This is to be expected when a controversial topic is described. --Sardog1 12:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AB 1634 -- A very controversial bill

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on AB 1634. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070825142157/http://www.dogplay.com:80/Articles/MyArticles/againstAB1634.html to http://www.dogplay.com/Articles/MyArticles/againstAB1634.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071129002400/http://www.noab1634.com/dox/CVMA%20Past%20Prez%20Hamil%20Against%20AB1634.pdf to http://www.noab1634.com/dox/CVMA%20Past%20Prez%20Hamil%20Against%20AB1634.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on AB 1634. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071129002400/http://www.doggonecalifornia.org/NAPWDAPosition.pdf to http://www.doggonecalifornia.org/NAPWDAPosition.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071129002358/http://www.noab1634.com/dox/Vet%20Repro%20Expert%20Against%20AB1634.pdf to http://www.noab1634.com/dox/Vet%20Repro%20Expert%20Against%20AB1634.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on AB 1634. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706182722/http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jul/12/dogs-and-cats-safe-from-knife/ to http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jul/12/dogs-and-cats-safe-from-knife/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209091538/http://spcamc.org/pdf/03-19-2007-life-saver.pdf to http://spcamc.org/pdf/03-19-2007-life-saver.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201091711/http://cfainc.org///exhibitors/alerts.html to http://www.cfainc.org/exhibitors/alerts.html#State
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209110019/http://www.carda.org/CARDA%20AB%201634%20Oppose%20v4.pdf to http://www.carda.org/CARDA%20AB%201634%20Oppose%20v4.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706215149/http://www.cops.cc/news/press_releases/public_opposition_to_ab_1634/ to http://www.cops.cc/news/press_releases/public_opposition_to_ab_1634/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102002948/http://www.caninesports.com:80/SpayNeuter.html to http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on AB 1634. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008020228/http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070423/news_1n23animals.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070423/news_1n23animals.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on AB 1634. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129002402/http://caninecompanions.org/national/pdf_files/CH%20Letter%20Opposing%20AB%201634%20ADI.pdf to http://caninecompanions.org/national/pdf_files/CH%20Letter%20Opposing%20AB%201634%20ADI.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129002401/http://www.caninecompanions.org/national/pdf_files/Letter%20Ted%20Rogahn%20contra%20ab1634.pdf to http://www.caninecompanions.org/national/pdf_files/Letter%20Ted%20Rogahn%20contra%20ab1634.pdf
*Added  tag to http://action.alleycat.org/c.mmL3KgN3LzH/b.853085/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?aid=8393
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified