Talk:American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

aspca have helped every person in every country exept for you

Controversy neutrality

Hello, Daysi from ASPCA again. Thanks Spintendo for implementing my last request. I'd like to make some suggestions regarding the Controversy section. From reading up on WP:NPOV, I believe sections with names like "controversy" or "criticism" are not preferred because they are not neutral. My overall thinking is to distribute the content to other relevant sections of the article, and I'll go one paragraph at a time to keep any discussions focused.

First, I suggest moving the paragraph on the the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus to the Legislation and litigation section.

I think this content is a natural fit here given the heading and that the paragraph deals with litigation.

I am curious what editors think, and if it makes sense I hope someone will make the change on my behalf. Because of my conflict of interest, I do not make any direct changes to the article. Thanks for reviewing! Daysiyeates (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Approved  Spintendo  03:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thanks very much! Daysiyeates (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Controversy requests continued

Hello, Daysi here again. Since this next request pertains to the Controversy section, I decided to keep it as a continuation of my previous request.

• I suggest moving the first paragraph of Controversy into the History section, since it is about specific events.

• The second paragraph seems to me like it is giving undue weight to a niche source, and is similar enough to the information in the first paragraph, which comes from more reliable sources, that I wonder if this paragraph should be removed?

If editors agree with these changes, that would take care of the Controversy section altogether and improve the article's neutrality. Happy to hear thoughts and discuss further. Thank you! Daysiyeates (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Declined If the intention is to move salient points regarding the organization into the History section so as to avoid casting a non-neutral spotlight upon it, then there are other sections which ought to be moved as well. Singling out the Controversy section—while a laudable goal, in that no section of text ought to be disproportionately mentioned—seems biased with the understanding that other sections are to be preserved on their own outside of History whilst Controversy is not. Regards,  Spintendo  03:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I think I understand your concern. I've been reading up on WP:BALANCE, and I still feel that the information in Controversy is creating bias in the article. If you think that section should stay there, would you consider adding in content from this USA Today article? It's from an outlet of similar prominence to CBS and came out at a similar time to the CBS report, and it includes analysis of the organization's budget from Charity Navigator. If you agree, I can suggest specific content if that is helpful.

Although I am not sure it is a reliable source, I also thought I'd share this BBB article, which goes into further detail about the State Humane Association of California's complaint. If this source is acceptable, I'd suggest adding it in, as well, per WP:BALANCE. Happy to hear any thoughts and continue discussing. Thanks! Daysiyeates (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@JSFarman and Rich Smith: tagging the two of you since you responded to my past requests. If you have any thoughts here, I'm interested in discussing how to improve the article's balance. Thanks! Daysiyeates (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Daysiyeates:.

I agree with Spintendo regarding balance; the controversy does not belong in the history section.

I did a brief edit on the section to limit it to the facts of the CBS report, and changed "discovered" to "reported." However, the section needs to be rewritten -- the controversy was not about the amount of money that the ASPCA spends directly on animals and animal welfare --- it was about the (costly) ads that led donors to believe that their contributions were used to fund and support local SPCAs, as opposed to the ASPCA.

I deleted most of the detail related to the State Humane Association of California's lawsuit. The sources used were far from reliable, and the filing does not appear to have generated any legitimate press. JSFarman (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@JSFarman: The changes you made look good, thanks for taking the time to go through everything. And I understand about not moving it. What do you think about the name, though? I saw in WP:NOCRIT that it's not preferred to have sections with names like "controversy". Since the content revolves around ads, what do you think about renaming it to "Advertising"? I'm open to hearing your thoughts. Thanks! Daysiyeates (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Daysiyeates, Glad you're open to hearing my thoughts. My thoughts are that you have misunderstood WP:NOCRIT and the section is appropriately titled "controversy". JSFarman (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)