Talk:Farm Sanctuary

message: Do not revert to copyvio versions. --Davidstrauss 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: Hi folks. We need to keep this article NPOV and free from copvios, or it can't stay on the Wikipedia. Please read, understand, and follow these policies. WP:NPOV, WP:COPYVIO.  It isn't about what Wikipedia editors and administrators agree or disagree with - it's about what is and isn't okay for an encyclopedia. -- Writtenonsand 16:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and no copyvios, please 

message: Editors from Farm Sanctuary should be sure they are editing in compliance with Wikipedias conflict of interest policy. SchmuckyTheCat 19:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest

message: Before this turns into a full scale revert war, let's discuss this article. I have to say I think it needs work. Natalie 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version of the article 

message: When editing animal rights and welfare Wiki pages, people who are obviously opposed to animal rights and welfare such as SchmuckyTheCat should be sure they are editing in compliance with Wikipedias conflict of interest policy. If this article needs work, we should work to change it, but if we are excluding pro-animal welfare editors then to be fair we should also exclude anti-animal welfare editors. Otherwise the article will not be fact based and without bias. That being said, I think this article needs to be expanded, but probably by someone without a strong pro or anti animal welfare agenda. Brooklyn5 21:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in this case, both SchmuckyTheCat and User:Farm Sanctuary are getting really close to the WP:COI line. These editors really need to discuss things here before revert warring. Natalie 21:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so sure about STC, but User:FarmSanctury claims on his user page that he is an employee of Farm Sanctuary, and started by doing a wholesale revert of all the additions STC had made that showed the group in a somewhat less favorable light. People with a bias should not be restrained from editing articles, but people who show a definite conflict of interest should definitely not try to edit article where they have a vested interest (such as this one for User:Farm:Sanctuary.--Ramdrake 22:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree that User:Farm Sanctuary has been engaging inappropriately, and shows a less than complete understanding of how Wikipedia works (see his/her edit summaries). I have asked both FS and STC to come to the talk page instead of reverting each other constantly, but neither has responded yet. They may not be online. Natalie 22:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think what you did is fine. However, I would appreciate the page not being reverted again until the talks have begun. I will not revert another time, as I would be breaking 3RR. I just hope poeple will realize this is the most up-to-date version and it should preferably remain until the discussions have begun. I wouldn't mind page protection if you feel it's necessary.--Ramdrake 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't get to choose who writes about you. BTW, I love animals. SchmuckyTheCat 01:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest

message: The edit warring has got to stop. Schmucky, Farm Sanctuary, and Brooklyn - all of you need to stop, now. If this keeps going I'm going to ask that this page be protected, so let's try to talk about this like adults. Natalie 02:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a request at wp:rfpp.  And as I asked of some admins, removing sourced information, removing fake protected templates isn't edit warring, it's removing vandalism. SchmuckyTheCat 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would people be open to opening an RfC on this? Or do we need more formal mediation? Natalie 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a little early to go to either.  Farm Sanctuary employees need to learn about wikipedia policies about removing vandalism, faking admin templates, 3rr, and most importantly conflict of interest and article ownership. SchmuckyTheCat 02:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think SchmuckyTheCat needs to learn about conflict of interest as well. He seems to have some sort of anti Farm Sanctuary agenda. Zachetti 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit warring 

message: :I'm trying to find proper attribution for this but am unlikely to from home without using lexis.:
On June 4, 1986, a group calling itself the Farm Freedom Fighters (whose later actions were “claimed” by ALF) broke into an egg farm in Delaware, spray-painted “Animal Auschwitz” on barn walls, and stole at least 25 hens. Within six hours, the news media were provided with photographs, videotapes, and written accounts of the crime. Credit for this fast turnaround went to the then eight-week-old Farm Sanctuary, whose spokespersons proudly described break-in and theft as “the first direct farm animal liberation… in the United States” and “unfortunately illegal.” Michael W. Fox, then president of the Humane Society of the United States, hinted prophetically: “my intuition tells me there will be much more of this.”
He was quite right. Ten months later, 40 hens and 90 eggs were stolen from an East Smithfield, Pennsylvania farm. Again, buildings were defaced with graffiti; doors and locks were damaged. The following day, when 115 rabbits were stolen from a breeding farm in Milan, Pennsylvania, the ALF claimed direct responsibility. Farm Sanctuary was the media conduit in both cases, releasing video and photographs of the crime to interested media.
While the victimized farmers called the ALF burglars “outlaws and criminals,” Gene Bauston calmly told reporters that the stolen animals had been “rescued” from their formerly “brutal” circumstances. While no one said as much, it was widely assumed that Farm Sanctuary itself received the animals (which were, after all, stolen property), perhaps “adopting” them out to other “ethical” farmers later on. 
:SchmuckyTheCat 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Connection to ALF

message: This is in response to a request at WP:RFPP. I've blocked User:SchmuckyTheCat for WP:3RR on this article for 48 hours. Only he has been blocked as he is the only one I've found to have reverted in excess of 3 times in a 24-hour period on this article--that is not, however, to say that there are not many disruptive editors involved in this edit war. I do not believe it to be severe enough to warrant protection, nor do I believe that protection would help to resolve any of these issues. I would highly encourage the editors here to seek a content WP:RFC and to avoid making controversial edits to this page without first discussing and reaching consensus. Should anyone believe my call here to be mistaken, please let me know. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, I believe your call to have been mistaken. It looks very much as though users FarmSanctuary, Brookly5 and the anons are acting as meatpuppets in defense of Farm Sanctuary (the nick of the main reverter after STC should be a big hint). I don't think these editors will be able to arrive at a consensus anytime soon. RFPP and RFC may both be need to avoid this war from going on. By simply blocking STC, you gave the people of the opposite opinion free reign for two days to remodel the article into what they think it should be. I've myself corrected two points: one paragraph which was removed because the editor said the event referred to wasn't on the page it referred to (I read it, was satisfied it was still there basically word for word and reverted). A second paragraph was introduced, vaunting the merits of the FS philosophy. After reading the articly, I found that many claims in the added paragraph weren't made in the interview used as a source, thus I added a dubious tag. These are the kinds of issues STC is trying to correct, so I respectfully submit that a one-sided block really isn't the proper response in such a situation.--Ramdrake 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war... 

message: I put back the 4th paragraph in the intro, although even after reaqding the interview in reference, it doesn't seem to state many of the things that are claimed in the paragraph, thus the (dubious) flag.--Ramdrake 15:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4th paragraph of intro

message: Do not add archive.org previous copies of an article is still up on the web. The current version doesn't contain the relied upon content. This suggests that the content in question is wrong. Otherwise why would CCF remove it? CCF HATES Farm Sanctuary. They hate all these activist groups. THey would not have removed it without cause. This is not 'technical reasons', this is very obvious problem that casts doubt on the source's reliability. Nssdfdsfds 22:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archive.org 

message: Again, I'm disclosing that I work for Farm Sanctuary, and can verify that we do not currently house, nor have we ever housed, llamas.  Nothing against llamas, but that reference should be deleted, given that it's innacurate.  Can I make the deletion without violating COI? Fistfullotruth (talk) fistfullotruth  —Preceding comment was added at 22:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed Llamas.   That edit added donkeys and llamas.  Should donkeys be removed too? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Thank you. We currently house two donkeys at our California shelter and we now have a horse, Clyde, at our New York Shelter.Fistfullotruth (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Llamas

message: I'm unprotecting this as the WP:RFCU is not moving along all that quickly and I don't like leaving articles protected long term.  I will however continue to monitor this article for WP:V and WP:NPOV and just as fair warning I may protect this again if I see POV pushing from either side.--Isotope23 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: Can anyone answer how/why this is in any way notable and belongs in the article?  I pared out the original research and opinion from this.  Unless there are reliable third party sources that have covered the Turtle Mountain/Farm Sanctuary partnership, this section should be removed.--Isotope23 talk 17:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Farm Sanctuary Kidz Club

message: I removed the following info because it lacked a credible reference source:
In 2005, when Farm Sanctuary advocated a foie gras ban in Chicago, they asked Charlie Trotter, who had said he would no longer be serving the product in his restaurants, to join them. Trotter had previously stated "I just said, 'Enough is enough here. I can't really justify this. What I have seen, it's just inappropriate. There are too many great things to eat out there that I don't believe that any animal would have to go through that for our benefit." However, when Farm Sanctuary asked Trotter to sign a pledge stating he would never serve foie gras, he replied saying "These people are idiots. Understand my position: I have nothing to do with a group like that. I think they're pathetic."Chicago Tribune, "Liver and Let Live". 29 March 2005
The reference for this paragraph was simply the wikipedia article on the Chicago Tribune.  That is not a credible, or even relevant source to evidence that the aforementioned event involving Charlie Trotter even happened.  Therefore, I don't think it belongs on the page unless a credible source is found to indicate that this event took place, and to source Mr. Trotter's quotes.
Olephill2 15:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to the library and look up that date of the Chicago Tribune on microfiche then. There is nothing wrong with that source.SchmuckyTheCat
Yes, there is.  You cannot reference another wikipedia article as a verifiable reference, especially one that doesn't even mention the information in question.  You tell me to go to the library to locate the article?  No, I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you.  Offer a concrete source to the quote from Mr. Trotter or I don't see how it can stay.  Olephill2 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: ...Olephill... the reference is the newspaper. Not the article. Hence the date. That is the date the newspaper was printed. The reference isn't ideal, but it is acceptable --Lucid 18:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the issue is that Chicago Tribune is wikilinked in the reference perhaps giving the impression it is the source when in fact the listed edition of the newspaper is the source... the wikilink is just incidental.  If there is a link to the story online, it would probably be acceptable to externally link it in the ref.--Isotope23 talk 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that the article is online is enough proof, linking to a site hosting it like that is probably not a good idea, as it is probably a blatant copyright violation. Offline sources are perfectly fine, although people may dislike them, as long as they're possible to reasonably check. It's probably better to leave it as a proper citation people can look up themselves than link it to a site that is almost certainly breaking copyright law by hosting it, not to mention it could be considered NPOV to link to a site like that as a source for something that's not directly related to it --Lucid 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foie Gras Ban Info Lacking Credible Reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Farm Sanctuary. 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/20110925030151/http://www.animalacres.org:80/library/enewsletters/2011/FS_AA to http://www.animalacres.org/library/enewsletters/2011/FS_AA
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 21:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified