Talk:Petland

Comment

Before I started my first article on the name "Petland", I only saw articles with very little information. I figured I'd just make two articles with that name, since both companies are unaffiliated. If you have any suggestions on how to improve this article (including its citations and wording) so that it's in a neutral point of view, please let me know and I'll make some changes. Sjkop123 (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

After reading this article I was concerned over the reasoning Sjkop123 created this article. I did some research on Petland and found many things including what the HSUS believes and also other pieces concerning their charity work, community service, fund drives, etc. With all this why has Sjkop123 left out these facts and paid very close attention to HSUS criticism? Good question. Since the bulk of the user’s work was criticism and has a fascination with Petland contributions, I believe this article may be an attempt to discredit this company. Sjkop123 offers their opinion and not facts by the agenda-driven contribution.

To better educate Sjkop123:

• Your reference to the HSUS site only provides an opinion, not facts. I did not find any facts such as dates, USDA facts, or any facts of that manner. The video and content HSUS provided did not offer any true facts and was not a journalistic attempt to tell both sides of a story. All content was one-sided and agenda-driven.
• HSUS is not a government agency or court of law. Only a court of law proves wrong doing in a situation.
• If one focuses their work on criticism, others will find their work not valid and an attempt to offer only opinion and agenda-driven content

I do hope this helps Sjkop123 better understand Wiki policies and article purposes. I will try my best to make this a true Wiki article and offer facts, not opinions.

--Charleso43 (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Charleso43: I don't see any reason to think that this is anything other than a very incomplete article, so WP:AGF. If you think it needs more balance then please do add it to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ahunt: I agree Ahunt that this is an unbalanced article. I am concerned you find it acceptable for a user to compose a one sided article such as this. Why is this? If you found the article unbalanced why did you not correct the issue or mark the article for quick deletion? All and all a very strange response from you. I appreciate you taking your time for this feedback but question your reasoning. In the future if you find articles unbalanced please take the time to correct instead of asking others to do it for you. Wiki users will appreciate your contributions more so if you do. Doing so shows you are a true contributor and not in favor of agenda-driven articles. Better yet you prove you offer unbalanced and insightful articles. Please remember to make Wiki a place of balanced and factual content so all may learn from this great site. Thank you for the advice and I will make this article comply with Wiki standards. I hope you will remember to do the same. Thank you again. -- Charleso43 (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I deleted the Criticism section and changed it to Legal Issues. Hope this helps. Sjkop123 (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Sjkop123: Why are you still attacking this organization? I will ask again what are your intentions here? You offer only negative content which does not promote a balanced article. Why is this allowed? If you are angry or have an agenda please post your thoughts on blogs or other outlets other than Wiki. This is a place for balanced contributions for others to learn. Please understand the purpose of Wiki and follow the guidelines to proper contributions. If you have any questions please read through the Wiki guidelines to better understand. If we all work together, we can all make Wiki a better place. Please help us do this. Thank you for responding. --Charleso43 (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed section of negative issues

Thanks. My apologies to everyone for any criticisms based on this corporation of pet stores, which is why I removed it from this article.

Oh, and I just found out that Aquarium Adventures is now owned by Petland. Sjkop123 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement

Reads like an advertisement. Section on animal welfare seems to be cherry-picking the few positive news articles about Petland while ignoring the numerous negative ones. Not to mention the statement that "many" locations offer only rescue animals is sourced to a newspaper article about a single location.

Until this can be rewritten, it needs to be flagged for lack of objectibity. 2601:441:8101:680:4CEF:DD27:5067:25F3 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Added NPOV tag. I have no issue with Petland's side being told here, but with the amount of negative publicity regarding this one retailer's puppy sourcing practices, there definitely needs to be something about it in this article. 2601:441:8101:680:4CEF:DD27:5067:25F3 (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)