Talk:People Animals Nature

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Portugal Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Portugal To-do: edit history watch purge Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo. Improve key articles to Good article Portugal Lisbon Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box). Requests See Requested articles Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list Environment Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Animal rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

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)[reply]

Euro Animal 7 C-Kobold (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

PAN is also a US-based group. People, Animals, Nature, Inc.,

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

Discussion

• @
  RfC statement. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

  @

  WP:RFC/A, which is why we want neutral statements to appear there. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]