User talk:PJBAllende

Welcome PJBAllende! Hello PJBAllende. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Sm8900, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page and someone will try to help. To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own personal sandbox] for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your userpage.

Please remember to: The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes  at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
 * Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

 Sincerely, Sm8900 (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)   [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sm8900&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی Sm8900 (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Hello User PJBAllende, I notice that you have made a significant number of edits on pages relating to greyhound racing. Your edits are heavily weighted in regard to the fact that every edit that you have completed is of an anti greyhound racing nature. This is not reflective to the relevant history sections and clearly constitutes a Conflict of interest. As the Director of Advocacy and Research for greyhound protection nonprofit GREY2K USA Worldwide, I suggest that you follow the guideline "COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead". Many thanks Pyeongchang (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Greyhound Racing
Hi PJBAllende, Thanks for your message, the reason for the reverted edits was the failing of the Avoiding bias. For example the industry in the United States has been running since May 1920 (102 years) and the vast majority of your edits within the article were recent, in terms of the 102 year history. The article went from being an independent historical section to a mass of recent newspaper articles criticising the industry. The articles must be free of bias and I think in your professional role Conflict of interest has to be considered. Because of COI, editors will only revert your edits. Have a look at the edit I summarised for the Greyhound Racing in Ireland, it as a short summary of recent criticism rather than multiple news stories that were added. Many thanks ApricotFoot (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi ApricotFoot, You’re very welcome, and thanks for your reply to me here. With respect to the United States, would you mind if I take a pass at adding more of the earlier history so that the page will not be lopsided from a chronological standpoint? While sometimes it is easier to find more recent sources, I agree that the history should be balanced in accounting for the entire century.
 * Similarly, well-sourced articles that draw attention to a welfare concern tend to be the most cited, but I am cognizant of including sources that address the many other aspects of the industry. And if there are multiple articles addressing the same theme, I will look to consolidate them so that certain themes aren’t repetitive and redundant. I would simply note that ignoring welfare altogether does not make an account independent, as omitting it altogether is a bias in itself.
 * I was hopeful much of the recent legislative history could be maintained as they are a summation of successes and failures with respect to continuing or stopping greyhound racing. I think it is useful for readers to have the opportunity to review these bills or ballot measures and draw their own conclusions.
 * I appreciate you drawing attention to COI and bias and that is a key consideration of mine now and moving forward. Ultimately my desire is to arrive at language that is satisfactory to everyone.
 * I would additionally draw attention to the fact that user Racingmanager has made extensive edits to greyhound racing pages that are biased in favor of the industry, and these have gone unchallenged. I do not desire to challenge them; I merely point this out to acknowledge that a restoration of some balance on these pages is warranted. The pages as they are now cover very little about any aspect of greyhound racing, and that’s a disservice to anyone looking to learn more about greyhound racing when they visit Wikipedia.
 * If there’s a way to do so, I’m happy to run proposed language by you before intending to publish. And thank you for your summary on the Ireland page, I will use this as a starting guide. Sincerely, PJBAllende (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, could you point out to me any particular edits that you think are biased in favor of the industry and I can have a look at neutralising them. Thanks ApricotFoot (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi ApricotFoot,
 * Thanks again for your assistance with this.
 * In general, the Greyhound racing page disregards welfare. Exposes like ‘A Culture of Cruelty’ in the US, BBC Panorama in the UK, RTE Investigates: Greyhounds Running for their Lives in Ireland and Four Corners: Making a Killing in Australia have shaped the debate in these countries, and have contributed to legislation being filed and parliamentary debates being held. The page ultimately does not address the issues raised in these documentaries, and the society-wide discussions that have followed them. I’ve provided a couple examples below of edits that either aren’t neutral or don’t paint the full picture, and the issues that there are with them:
 * 1. Animal rights and animal welfare groups have been critical of the welfare of greyhounds in the commercial racing industry for many years which has contributed to the reforms of the industries in recent years. A greyhound adoption movement spearheaded by kennel owners has arisen to assist retired racing dogs in finding homes as pets, with an estimated adoption rate of over 95% in the United States.
 * “Reforms” are referenced, but no examples are provided. If there are reforms mentioned, then the problems that needed reforms should be acknowledged and discussed.
 * It is not accurate to say that a greyhound adoption movement has been spearheaded by kennel owners, especially on a page that is supposed to encompass racing in all jurisdictions. There are industry-affiliated and independent adoption groups in the United States. Independent rescues and the Greyhound Trust, not kennel owners, home greyhounds in the United Kingdom. Independent rescues home the majority of greyhounds that are homed in Australia, Ireland and New Zealand. There is no known adoption occurring in Mexico and Vietnam.
 * It is unprofessional to provide a high “estimated adoption rate” for greyhounds in the US. The industry has admitted it does not compile statistics or release figures on adoption. It is also irresponsible to include a high estimate figure, when the adoption rate in other countries is substantially lower. The GBGB does provide an adoption rate in the UK, although its methodology is questionable. Adoption rates in Australia and Ireland are far lower. The GRI tracks industry-affiliated adoptions in Ireland but not by independent rescues. State bodies track industry-affiliated adoptions in Australia. They home a very minor percentage of the total greyhounds produced in Australia. The Australian and Irish greyhound industries are breeding far more dogs than can be homed.
 * 2. Generally, a greyhound's career will end between the ages of four and six – after the dog can no longer race, or possibly when it is no longer competitive. The best dogs are kept for breeding and there are industry-associated adoption groups and rescue groups that work to obtain retired racing greyhounds and place them as pets. In the United Kingdom, the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) has introduced measures to locate where racing greyhounds reside after they have retired from racing and as from 2017 records have been available to the public.
 * This paragraph and the entire page ignores that there are many greyhounds that don’t make it to the track altogether. For greyhounds that do make it to the track, the vast majority are retired by the age of four, if they do not sustain a career ending injury or fatality before then. The GBGB classifies greyhounds designated for breeding as retired, even though they are still providing a service to the industry. The implication here is that virtually all greyhounds are homed after racing when, as before, the UK provides figures with a methodology that is criticized. There are no figures provided in the US. Industry-affiliated groups home a tiny fraction of greyhounds produced in Australia and Ireland. The Australian and Irish greyhound industries are breeding far more dogs than can be homed.
 * The GBGB were forced to provide these figures, but their methodology is criticized. In addition to dogs that are designated for breeding, the GBGB considers greyhounds that are retained by their owner and trainer, rehomed by their owner or trainer, or transferred to independent racing as retired. The GBGB does not have a tracking system in place to monitor dogs that owners and trainers self-report as retained or rehomed by themselves. Greyhounds may be permissibly destroyed for economic reasons, because no home is found, because there is no viable option away from the racecourse, or because they are designated unsuitable for homing. This article omits this.
 * Finally, I would maintain that much of my contribution to the Greyhound racing in the United States page is a straightforward, down-the-middle recap of literature written by greyhound racing historians and journalists, as well as some recent history (in terms of public votes and bills filed). I would hope that much of this, or a version that is preferred by you but that addresses the same event, could be restored. If there are examples of instances in which you believe there are bias, please alert me to them and we can remove them or find language we can both agree upon. Simply deleting all of the language, including language that could not be considered controversial by an objective observer, would be unfortunate. People interested in greyhound racing are just left looking at a bare-boned page that could be much richer. Sincerely, PJBAllende (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)