Talk:House Rabbit Society

Fair use rationale for Image:Hrs.jpg

Image:Hrs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How are these valid references?

• Marinell Harriman, House Rabbit Handbook: How to Live with an Urban Rabbit (Alameda: Drollery Press, 1985).
• Susan Davis and Margo DeMello, Stories Rabbits Tell: A Natural and Cultural History of a Misunderstood Creature (New York: Lantern Press, 2003).
• Audrey Pavia (2003). Rabbits for Dummies. New York: Wiley. pp. 63, 234. ISBN 0-7645-0861-X.

I fail to see how the three books listed above are in any way relevant to the article. They don't appear to be published by the society, nor are they about the society itself. If they are to be referenced (and I'd like to see discussion before they are re-inserted) then the Amazon links need to be removed. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from http://www.wisconsinhrs.org/Care%20Guidelines.htm:

Finally, The House Rabbit Handbook, 4rd ed., written by HRS founder Marinell Harriman, is filled with practical information on living with a house rabbit.

The book is an excellent reference and was also prominently advertised as the officially endorsed publication by the HRS. I think it's a similar story for the second book. The third book is also used as a reference by the article apparently. A "For Dummies" reference might not be ideal, but I don't see a particular reason to remove it.

I'm really not sure what your issue is with these references. I'm reinserting the books, changing Amazon links to standard ISBN links. --Morn (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

At best they are further reading. What do they actually have to do with the society itself and how do they help reference the material in the article? This is not an article about rabbits, or keeping rabbits, it is about an organisation. If they don't do that they should be deleted. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I must agree with Simple Bob that the references are not tied to any particular fact in the article (an inline citation would be helpful.) A review of the House Rabbit Handbook left me with no real information about the organization, it was all about rabbit care Truthsleuther (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

They are commercial advertisements and should be removed from an encyclopedia. 96.31.237.2 (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC) The books give great insight into the values of the the House Rabbit Society. Harriman's is considered the first text on keeping the rabbit indoors, and the second is a simple text on rabbits in culture and history. They are as relevant as mentioning Julia Child wrote a cookbook called Mastering the Art of French Cooking. Jakamatsu (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)jakamatsu

Controversy section

I removed some content unrelated to the House Rabbit Society so I wanted to address it here. The content and references I removed dealt solely with Heifer International and its mission, including support by politicians and celebrities. That information is irrelevant to this article. This article should only state that the House Rabbit Society opposes the Heifer International's stance on rabbits as food, not all the POV advertisement for Heifer International. 72Dino (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Dino72 wrote: "I removed some content unrelated to the House Rabbit Society". Actually, the entire section of the established article was removed without any discussion. While I agree with your assessment the original author had a somewhat overly glowing praise for the Heifer charity, it is an overreaction to simply delete the well cited article. I have read the cited references and they all appear to be factual. With respect to your question of relevancy, the article and citations speak for themselves. Starting with the House Rabbit Societies activist stance singling out the Heifer charity, it is totally relevant to address the polemic aspect including the charities widespread support. That is why it is under the fitting heading of controversey. If you can show the citations are exaggerated or not accurate, then I could support removing these facts. As it stands, the article appears factual and relevant to the subject matter. (Truthsleuther (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)).

Recent edits have improved the section, but stating that celebrities like Oprah and Bono as well as presidents endorse Heifer International is both irrelevant and adds a non-neutral tone to the section. Either that goes or we need to bring in a third opinion. I would also be happy to discuss here instead of edit summaries. 72Dino (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't make threats on discussion pages -- a civil discourse is preffered. Unfortunately my disability prevents me from typing as fast as you would like since you have been typing on my personlal talk page while I am discussing. The citations provided by the original author appear to be factual. The fact that Oprah supports the charity and the House Rabbit Society opposes it is a good part of what makes this a controversey. A biased POV would only portray one side of or sheild the controvesrsey. It is in fact a controversey and the author properly titled it as such. The Wikipage is not a PR page for the House Rabbit Society and it is acceptable for it to have controversial information as much as it may have information on the benevolent rescue work that is done. As long as it is factual and encyclopedic. Truthsleuther (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Thank you for discussing the section here. Bringing in a third opinion was not meant as a threat, it is merely the next step in dispute resolution. I did not remove the entire section. I deleted content that was not relevant to the subject of this article. I am not debating the validity of the references, just that bringing them in seems (at least to me) to bring in a bias to the article. Controversial information is certainly acceptable as long as it is encyclopedic. I do not believe the section is currently encyclopedic, although you have greatly improved it. I would prefer that it read as follows:

The House Rabbit Society opposes Heifer International, a non-profit organization that assists starving humans by giving families in third world nations a trio of rabbits to be used to provide a sustainable source of protein. [2] [3][4] The House Rabbit Society is against the use of rabbits as food for humans. [8]

I think that is a more neutral approach because it simply states the rabbit-related issue of each organization, but that's why it may be helpful to have another editor opine on the wording. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, aside from wholesale edits without discussion, it is equally inappropriate to requests third opinion before discussion or providing time for other editors to discuss. Wikipedia requires patience. I think a week is minimally appropriate. What do you think is an appropriate time? (Truthsleuther (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)).

Sorry about the edit conflict. I first posted to the talk page on November 17, almost a week ago. I think that was sufficient time for a response and is pretty common on Wikipedia. However, it does not seem to matter because we are still not in agreement as to the wording. If you think our discussion here will help then I will remove the third opinion request. Let me know. 72Dino (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly support the more neutral approach proposed above and have already copyedited the article to reflect that. Furthermore I don't think this is controversy as such and therefore the item should either be retitled or simply integrated into the article--Bob Re-born (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the last edit and wording proposed by Bob Re-born as being a neutral approach . Certainly including the presidential and celebrity aspect is much needed in the article when written in such neutral tone. (Truthsleuther (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)).

I don't understand how presidential and celebrity endorsements make the wording more neutral. To me it seems that because Oprah supports Heifer International then the organization must be better than HRS. I think the endorsements in this article are irrelevant (they are fine at the HI article). However, I will not revert. Perhaps another editor will. 72Dino (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

One cannot make assumptions. The presidential and celebrity support would appear to be simply factual. A value could be ascertained from that association that is either positive OR negative and thereby neutral. That is, if one does not believe a rabbit should be fed to a starving person, one may have a lower opinion of Bono or other public figure.I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this and not completely hacking that authors submission. Although it needed several edits, I would love to see the rest of this article have as many works cited as this section. Truthsleuther (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian. It appears that your dispute has ended, so I am going to remove your 3O request from the request list at the Third Opinion project. If it flares back up again, you might want to consider going to the Dispute Resolution noticeboard since there are now more than two editors involved in the discussion, but I hope that the current compromise holds and let me compliment you for working this dispute out civilly. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this matter is resolved and I thank the editors for using this forum to distill the article down to facts sans flourishes. Truthsleuther (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I (ParshallEclipse) removed the Controversy section as there has never been a controversy with Heifer International, nor any statement about Heifer International made by House Rabbit Society, and the article cited makes no reference to Heifer International. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParshallEclipse (talk • contribs) 23:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Controversy controversy

Based on the article history and this talk page, the controversy section seems as controversial as the controversy itself. I removed the section for the following reasons:

• The section doesn't explain why it is controversial;
• The sources don't mention that House Rabbit Society campaigned against Heifer International. I checked on the Internet and didn't find a single source about it.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk page or your talk page (please notify me about it if you chose the latter). Thank you. TheMillionRabbit 06:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well that's one opinion, but one person doesn't constitute consensus for removal so let's wait to see what others say. --Bob Re-born (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)