Talk:People Animals Nature

European Greens?

People-Animals-Nature is not a member according to the list of members in the European Greens charter. Kaihsu (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed - they are only member of Euro Animal 7 C-Kobold (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

People-Animals-Nature in USA

PAN is also a US-based group. People, Animals, Nature, Inc., Naperville, Illinois, or Henderson, Nevada, has been run by Debbie Coultis for 25.5 years. Their focus is on animal assisted therapy, as expressed in their mission statement:

PAN's primary mission is to improve the safety and quality of clinical practice in the field of animal assisted therapy. In a wider context, PAN disseminates information about the vital linkages between human health and development and contact with animals and nature.

PAN wishes to enhance human health, family life and education by advocating a better integration of animals and natural settings into the human experience. To achieve this vision, PAN brings together people of diverse backgrounds who are willing to embrace a more integrative view of education, therapy, and the optimal conditions for human development.

The statement by PAN President Debbie Coultis relates to goals of an online university related to PAN's goals, not unlike those already established by the Humane Society of the United States and its HSI, Humane Society University.

I am founder, president, and CEO. I have served in this capacity since 1995 without salary. PAN is funding phase one of an online university that will cross borders, languages, and disciplines initiative. Our website is down to update the platform for a teaching mode. I have a large social media presence on Facebook, linkedIn, Google Plus and a few other platforms. Volunteers are needed in all areas. Response to date for this initiative has been limited mostly to "how much will you pay me?" The answer is zero dollars, but great networking and learning opportunity.

The two organizations' logos are different, and they appear NOT to be associated in any identifiable way.MaynardClark (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

References

We need more about the ideology and the aschievements

What has the party aschieved, which reforms, what has changed in the politics and for the animals since the entrance, and so on?--90.235.38.108 (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to limit the number of ideologies in the infobox

Should we limit the infobox to the party's key/main ideologies, which I propose as: environmentalism, animal rights and animal welfare. Helper201 (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

As the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article's key information I propose we limit the amount of ideologies to only its main/key ones, those being environmentalism, animal rights and animal welfare. Ecofeminism and progressivism I think we should remove from the infobox. They are still mentioned and cited in the main body and should remain so, but I think 3 ideologies is enough for the infobox and the aforementioned 3 seem to be the party’s key ones. Helper201 (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Agree — The ideology section isn't the place to attempt to list all the positions of a party in all conceivable social issues, but only the most notable characteristics of each party which differentiate them from the others. But, by the way, don't you think the Left Bloc article has essentially the same problem? It lists five ideologies, two of which are eco-socialism and feminism, which I also believe are unnecessary and should probably be removed. LongLivePortugal (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Comment — Thanks for the reply LongLivePortugal. In regards to Left Bloc, yeah, I'd probably agree. However, with that party I think it’s a bit harder to determine its main ideologies compared to this one. With that party I'd advocate removing feminism and Euroscepticism from the infobox and keeping democratic socialism, left-wing populism, and eco-socialism. The ideologies of feminism and Euroscepticism would also need writing up into the "Ideology and position" section of that article and their respective citations being moved there as well before being removed from the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Helper201: For the Left Bloc, I would rather remove eco-socialism and feminism, and I can explain why, but we probably shouldn't be discussing that here. Would you like to open an RfC on that party's talk page, so we could debate it there? LongLivePortugal (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  @LongLivePortugal: I may do soon but I'm sorting out a few other things at the moment. Helper201 (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Disagree Ecofeminism should stay there. It's a distinct political ideology, and we have two sources that directly attach that label to this party. On top of that, it looks like a critical component of their "people, animals, nature" credo. On the other hand, animal rights and animal welfare and barely differentiable and only one should remain in the infobox. Progressivism is more of a political alignment and can safely be removed, as that bit is already covered by the "political position" field. We should remove "animal welfare" and "progressivism". Keep "ecofeminism", "animal rights", and "environmentalism". AlexEng^(TALK) 02:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with your adapted proposal — You're right, 'animal rights' and 'animal welfare' are basically the same thing; we only need one of them. LongLivePortugal (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Comment I can agree to compromise to this. Helper201 (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Helper201: please edit your RfC statement to a brief, neutrally worded question per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Your argument for why or why not a certain change should be made does not belong in the RfC statement. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  @AlexEng: how's that? Helper201 (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Helper201: perfect. You can add the previous content as another signed statement underneath the RfC statement, or in a separate section if you so choose. The bot transcludes only the RfC statement to WP:RFC/A, which is why we want neutral statements to appear there. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)