Talk:National Mill Dog Rescue

Present description is slanted and unfair

Is it possible to remove the entire page or at least the section entitled Controversy until I complete a new organizational description? The Controversy section overwhelms the page and represents one incident in an otherwise positive 15-year history. Much has been left out. I believe it was deliberately "selectively" written to show the organization in the worst possible light--part of the writer's strategy during her long and ugly campaign.

I have not worked with Wikipedia before and am finding it very difficult, but it is not right to let this remain on the site, so I would appreciate some help. Thank you. VerniceDaniel (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this takes up quite a bit of the article, but it seems to be both accurate and important information. It also seems to be the majority of the independent coverage of this organization - if you remove it, I'm not sure the article will meet notability guidelines. Better to leave it for now. You may also want to have a look at WP:COI. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. My rewrite cites a dozen independent sources, including the licensing/inspecting authority for the State of Colorado Dept of Agriculture. The conflict of interest is not mine to hold; it belongs to the individual who is likely responsible for the current article. Nearly all of my references were available in the public domain at the time the current article was published but are not included. I am trying to get my rewrite out of the Sandbox for review, but there is a glitch on that page. It asks me to copy the letters/figures in the security CAPTCHA box below the text, but there is no box, hence no content, and I am stuck there. I will appreciate any additional comments. 71.218.163.62 (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

There seem to be a few alleged negatives that need to be teased apart (facility conditions, veterinary paperwork, working with puppy mills to re-home their excess). The current paragraph about the the HuffPost article doesn't represent the source well ("questionable practices … among other things…") But glossing over all the controversies as the work of one disgruntled whistleblower isn't good either. It would be better to cover one issue at a time incrementally, instead of aiming for a full re-write. But maybe there aren't enough interested people for that iterative process to work? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)