Talk:Animal Defenders International

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Update tag[edit]

Needs updating to give further information about their pursuit of lifting the ban. Some extra information can be obtained from the sources already used. --Jon186 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibly useful source, an article produced by someone legally representing ADI: Remove the charity gag --Jon186 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Primate Day[edit]

Something should be said about International Primate Day, established by ADI in 2005, explaining why they chose 1st September to celebrate it. Vasconicus (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing NPOV dispute tag[edit]

I'm removing the tag per Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. Macedonian (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and primary sources[edit]

OK, I did my best to improve this train-wreck of an article. There was a vast amount of weasel words and a distinctly non-neutral POV. This article desperately needs sources that aren't so intimately connected with the subject of the article itself, I don't think I've ever seen a page that's as guilty of having too many primary sources as this one. Also, I'm very tempted to remove the sections on Chipperfield and Cawley unless they get some references very soon, as this is potentially libelous material if left unsourced. Please, please can someone with some neutral sources come along and help out? Pascal (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The circuses have a different view, obviously. This is a link to their point of view, and, amongst other things, questionsmethods used by ADI, and the lifestyle of its director of ADI, also asking questions as to how its income is spent. I presume it's not libellous, or they'd have been sued. Sasha (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]