Talk:National Animal Interest Alliance

Prop 2 claims
There were some claims about Proposition 2 which weren't sourced. One of them I put a "Citation needed" on, but there was one claiming that it made chickens less healthy that I just plain removed. If you look at the health and food safety section of the main article, you can see that it's at least unclear that prop 2 had any negative effects on health. Xodarap00 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Question of sources
More secondary sources are needed for content related to some of the issues of disagreement between NAIA and other organizations, such as the Humane Society and PETA, and their claims about each otherParkwells (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC).

Dr. Christianne Schelling
She is the author of her website, Declawing.com, and has included unsourced content about the status of declawing and other measures in nations around the world. Not only does she not include sources for the information, but this is a marketing and order site for sale of her own design for cat scratching posts and boxes. This disqualifies it from being an RS/Reliable Source for this purpose. Editors need to look for articles in mainstream media or academic journals. I intend to delete this source and the content that was derived from it.Parkwells (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on National Animal Interest Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.naiaonline.org/NAIA_opposes_prop2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Contributor connection
Hi there. It appears that a majority of this article along with the article of NAIA's founder (Patti strand) was written by one account, and the language used is very similar to that of the NAIA website. I'm inclined to believe someone in connection with the organization is responsible for the article and might not be neutral. Review and editing from outside sources needed. Lincolndow (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that editor Dodynamic is affiliated with this organization. This user's sole contribution is to this article and the Patti Strand article, which he/she created. The language used (accusing every other editor of being an 'animal rights extremist') is also similar to the language used on the organization's website. Noonehatesorangejuice (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Animal rights extremists constant hijacking article
Previous editor Lincolndow has a clear bias towards animal rights groups which conflicts with animal welfare pages like this page of National Animal Interest Alliance. Editors history can be reviewed and taken into consideration for false claims previously stated. This page needs to be protected against animal rights extremists from spreading false claims or misinformation. Dodynamic (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

My personal opinions are entirely irrelevant so long as edits are constructive, truthful, and following guidelines. Any edits I make contain appropriate citations. Wikipedia isn't a platform to spread an agenda nor should this article be used as a promotion for NAIA or any other organization. Because there's been no vandalism by me or anyone else, there's no need for semi-protection. Lincolndow (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal opinions are entirely relevant if you wish to spread misinformation and you do not write from a Neutral_point_of_view. By not following the wikipedia guidelines being untruthful, and deconstructive does merit edits to be reviewed carefully. My contributions are not to spread an agenda rather but provide accurate and sound information from reliable sources as I have done on all articles. On the otherhand by the type rhetoric it seems that these type of edits you have a close connection with the agenda of animal rights extremists which try to delegitimize the accountable and accurate information contributed by many sources. Although I am still learning to use wikipedia fully I will seek to improve this article by adding more citations and unbiased sources but I continue to reinforce that this page needs to be protected against animal rights extremists because misinformation affects society the same way fake news does. Dodynamic (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for promoting any organization. The current introduction more accurately conveys the organization's mission and is correctly cited with neutral sources. I've reverted the edits done by editor Dodynamic, who given his/her edit history is obviously affiliated with the organization (this user also created the entry for Patti Strand, founder of the NAIA) and should refrain from further editing this page. Noonehatesorangejuice (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

One of the 5 pillars within Wikipedia's fundamental principals is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view. The user Noonehatesorangejuice has edited pages about Circuses, Pain in Fish and Bow Hunting among others which are all animal related. It is more than clear that this user is affiliated with an animal rights organization that does not share the same point of view as the NAIA. He/she is consitantly harrasing and trying to discredit accurate contributions by neutral sources which is why I insist this page should be protected or at least this user Noonehatesorangejuice should refrain from editing and hijacking this page altogether. . Dodynamic (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Knock it off. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit request to make this article less of a PR piece
This article is basically a PR piece for the National Animal Interest Alliance (see == Contributor connection ==, this article was created and is patrolled by someone likely affiliated with the organization). I propose some changes to the intro to make it less biased and more in line with what the organization is actually about. - A sentence to show who is behind the organization. "Board members include furriers, hunters, vivisectionists and animal breeders. " - A sentence clarifying that the National Animal Interest Alliance is classified as a front organization by the Center for Media and Democracy. "The group is classified as a front organization by the Center for Media and Democracy. "


 * . It might be OK to state "Bob Torres asserts that NAIA board members include furriers, hunters, vivisectionists, and animal breeders" if his opinion were notable somehow, but we don't just parrot someone's assertions in Wikipedia's narrative voice. As for the second citation, that's a Wiki that anyone who registers for an account can edit, and as such it is not considered a reliable source that we can cite. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not really relevant if Bob Torres is notable though, because it's not an opinion, it's a factual statement, also backed up by other sources. Three cited sources for a factual statement seems more than adequate to include it. Noonehatesorangejuice (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A couple of obscure books by authors with an agenda, both of which are basically tertiary sources? At least one of them has a lot of citations; it would be best to dig into those rather than cite the book itself. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Animal Interest Alliance. 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/20100614133347/http://lawlib.lclark.edu/podcast/?p=400 to http://lawlib.lclark.edu/podcast/?p=400
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101121205453/http://cfainc.org/exhibitors/CA-SB250-bill-analysis.pdf to http://www.cfainc.org/exhibitors/CA-SB250-bill-analysis.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=903
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922093939/http://furcommission.com/news/newsF02z.htm to http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsF02z.htm

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) 03:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Animal Interest Alliance. 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/20100725142750/http://www.peta.org/feat-abc_campaign.asp to http://www.peta.org/feat-abc_campaign.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121004101/http://www.hastings.gov.uk/animal_welfare/ to http://www.hastings.gov.uk/animal_welfare/

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) 09:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)