Jump to content

Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Some interesting studies

http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html#1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.52.221 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That web site does not appear to be a reliable source. The specific article you cited is also really dated - 2002. If there are good sources for the information you want to post, find those. However, it might be more appropriate on the vegetarianism page, than the PETA page. Bob98133 (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

PetaKillsAnimals.com

It's a website, that has viable information that in fact says they are hypocrites. Maybe this should be included? or Someone should make it's own article?

Yeyosmoka21

Sounds very neutral. Why don't you go start up the article? Not a bad idea. Turtlescrubber 02:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You know I was just kidding, right? :)Turtlescrubber 20:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha! If had been drinking coffee, my keyboard would now be soaked. Neutral?? It is a site ran by the Center for Consumer Freedom!!
The entire site focuses on the fact that PETA supports euthanasia, and indeed puts many animals down. With the many hundreds of thousands of domestic animals that are poorly homed, living wild, homed but not taken care of properly due to lack of money, lack of time, or just not knowing any better, it isn't surprising that they put animals down.
Also, the site edges on libel with titles such as 'PETA Leader Wants to Blow Stuff Up' and 'PETA Supports Arson. Do You?'. If you wish to discuss this site, I would do so on the CCF page, as an individual article would, I am 99% certain, be deleted.-Localzuk(talk) 07:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but PETA isn't exactly blameless with campaigns like "Your Daddy Kills Animals" and "Your Mommy Kills Animals". Talk about libelous.--Ramdrake 14:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That isn't libelling anyone, it is an exaggeration of the truth. Saying 'PETA Leader Wants to Blow Stuff up' is libel, unless she specifically has said that she wants to blow stuff up. It is aimed at an individual. And 'PETA supports arson' is also libel as it is aimed at an organisation without any real evidence to support it. Put it this way, if I said 'Ramdrake wants to blow stuff up' without proper reasoning and referencing (and by this I mean something more than making sweeping claims by taking speeches or comments out of context), that would be libel.-Localzuk(talk) 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, if "Daddy" doesn't hunt, or fish, or do any of this stuff, that's not an exaggeration, it's downright false. Then, it would be libel, or slander (not sure which is more appropriate). I'm not arguing the merits of a libel cause; I'm just saying that some of PETA's actions use the same tactics that coming from others, would be qualified as libel or slander.--Ramdrake 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not a targetted campaign as it doesn't cover a specific individual - who is 'Daddy'? Also, there is sufficient evidence to say that most 'daddy's' do kill animals, by supporting the various animal killing industries that exist (meat, medicine, donating to cancer research companies, cosmetics etc...). So, as I said, it is an exaggeration. Also, libel relates to a published item, slander is spoken. PETA's behaviour, whilst sometimes a bit below the belt, does not constitute libel - else they would be sued six ways from Sunday. Suing the CCF for libel would be pointless the CCF has far more funds available than PETA, and as such the battle would damage PETA more than leaving it be.-Localzuk(talk) 16:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not arguing that it is true libel in the legal sense. However, if you mean to say that I'm a killer because I eat meat, or support medical research done on animals in cases where there is clearly no alternative then again it is gross exaggeration and misrepresentation, as I have never directly killed an animal. I just wanted to stress that the tactics behind such headlines as "PETA supports arson" or "PETA kills animals" are basically pretty much the same as those that led PETA to headline "You Daddy Kills Animals", regardless of whether or not they fall in the same legally actionable category of declarations, which they don't. I hope I cleared up any misunderstanding there.--Ramdrake 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
You can't make that arbitrary decision though. Whilst the tactics are similar, we are discussing whether the site deserves an article on Wikipedia and that should come down to verifiability, neutrality, how well known the site is and the legality of the content. I would say that it fails all 4 of those.-Localzuk(talk) 07:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The site is no more unfair than PETA. 75.2.218.106 17:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Exactly. PETA is certainly just as far, if not farther, from center than CCF. If you state that the CCF lacks enough credibility to include any mention of it in this article, then maybe we should mention in the article that PETA's statements and statistics can't be taken seriously either because they also lack a lot of credibility. - Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


im sorry but did you just say that by taking medicine i am killing animals. shit i better stop taking my insulin shots.Grinchsmate (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite right. Most insulin these days is manufactured without using animals so you can take double doses!Bob98133 (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
oh good. i was worried that by being alive i may have been hurting poor wittle bunny wabbits. seriously do you have any idea how absolutly stupid peta is, i mean its worse than scientology. i would understand if it was just a big joke by the organisers to make a little cash but as far as i can tell they are seriousGrinchsmate (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, PLEASE include the link to petakillsanimals.com!! There is an anti-PETA court trial going on (since 2007), and if an organization decides to go the juridical way, it should be mentioned! -andy 78.51.75.153 (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it is not a reliable source in any way shape or form, so should not be included. It would violate WP:V, WP:RS and WP:EL.-Localzuk(talk) 16:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think petakillsanimals should at least be mentioned as a notable critic of PETA. They have a billboard in Times Square. Also, their website has documented criticism of PETA which could possibly be added to this article by checking their sources directly and then citing them. 24.114.252.234 (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Localuzk, we can talk about whether adding petakillsanimals would violate WP:V or WP:RS, but it seems silly to say it would violate WP:EL. They are a notable critic of PETA who have a billboard in Times Square. The fact that you made this argument frankly makes me wonder how intellectually honest you can be about an issue you feel strongly about. Personally I just found out about petakillsanimals and I find them interesting. I don't consider myself for or against PETA, although I against their position that all animal testing is bad. 24.114.252.234 (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

While CCF attempts to makes those who attack its clients look bad, they only reproduce and reprint information obtained from other sources with their POV slant. All of the information about PETA on petakillsanimals is available on legitimate websites, without the innuendoes, speculation and POV promoted by CCF. (For example, statistics about all the shelter deaths refered to by the site's title are available from the state of Virginia.) Please try to remember that this organization was paid for and set up by Philip Morris tobacco to deflect anti-tobacco lawsuits and decreasing tobacco use[www.consumerdeception.com]. They have continued with this agenda which now encompasses unions, fast food, meat, alcohol use, pay-day loans, etc., or any other industry willing to pay for attacks on its detractors. If an editor wants to post information obtained at a CCF website, such as petakillsanimals, it would have to be cited to the orignal source, since it is hard to tell what spin CCF has put on the information or who has paid them to do so.Bob98133 (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

POV

This "article" (or perhaps PETA PR Press Release) is incredibly POV. Is this a Wikipedia bias? Or do the PETA Nazis patrol this article and delete any content that doesn't fit their POV? There isn't even a "Criticism" section even though honest people know that it exists... I'm going to put a POV tag on the article, please do not start a revert war, I don't want to have to file an arbitration complaint.

It has been suggested above that a "Criticism" section attracts vandalism. Well those are the breaks for having an article that does not risk being accused of POV, of glossing over "Criticism", an article that avoids the reality that "Criticism" exists.

The fact is "Criticism" does exist, and an unbiased article doesn't try to hide it withing a body of POV PR-style writing. This whole article comes off as no more than an extension of the PETA web site or much of their promotional material. I'm not against PETA, but this whole article is so obviously POV.

Proxy User (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is every few paragraphs in the article (starting in the lead), with topics including them euthanizing animals, to giving money to arsonists, to minimizing The Holocaust... a far cry for a PR sheet. Maybe it's true that POV pushers prefer a vandalism (I mean, Criticism) section, in the same way that other POV pushers want a different vandalism (I mean Praise) section, but on one article on my watchlist, this devolved into no less than 6 sections, Including "Criticism", "Responses to Criticism", "Rebuttals to Responses of Criticism", "Praise", "Responses to Praise", "Rebuttals to Responses of Praise", (and so on) and generally made the article unreadable in the end. In addition, it makes the article *less* readable in some ways, because a praise/criticism section is then possibly taken totally out of context. Perhaps, if there are praises/criticisms that you aren't seeing in the article, you could find sources and add them in? Ronabop (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying that those who want a "Criticism" are all "vandals"? Or is it that an organized "Criticism" section tends to have more impact on readers than having it all spread out, and that fits your POV? It is almost a standard format for Wikipedia articles where there is "Criticism" that is has its own section. Why should this article be different unless you wish to sweep "Criticism" under the rug (so to speak), and make it appear as though there is no "Criticism"? The current format without a "Criticism" section is not only out of sinc with other Wikipedia articles, it is devicive, or has the appearance of deviciveness. That some may abuse a "Criticism" sections does not mean there should not be one. Regardless of the glaring lack of a "Criticism" section, the article as it is is wildly POV Proxy User (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I was not equating those who contribute to "Criticism" with vandals, or "Praises" with vandals, but that those sections tend to get slammed by vandals. Or is it that an organized "Criticism" section tends to have more impact on readers than having it all spread out, and that fits your POV. Yes, my general editor POV is that we should not organize articles to support a Criticism section, or a Praise section. We are not a dumping ground for opinions, blogs, and editorials. It is almost a standard format for Wikipedia articles where there is "Criticism" that is has its own section --nope. Actually, for many of the more contentious articles, we don't. Intelligent_Design, God, Abortion, The Holocaust, Adolf_Hitler,Jews, Republican_Party_(United_States), Jesus etc., we don't. Current social critique ranks a few levels lower in WP than cited historians, and scholarly study. When that level of critique and study has passed muster, sure, we add in sections and articles like (to address one topic) Historicity_of_Jesus, Jesus-myth_hypothesis, Life-death-rebirth_deity, but adding a sub-section to the Jesus article like Jesus:Criticism? Not Gonna Happen, unless the content is scholarly, substantial, reliable, and informative. Now, seeing those articles as templates, there might be hope for a Controversy about PETA sub-article, but only if such an article merited its own space, because it was overloading the main PETA article. For that to happen, such an article would have to be not about criticism, but the controversy over the criticism. Anyways... if you have sources not in the article, new topics to introduce, new sources which might overload the article, to where it needed it's own article, that's one thing, but to demand an article to be re-structured is another. Ronabop (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is merit for a "Controversy about PETA" article that could draw this topic away from the main article. But that supports my idea that most controversy should be isolated in a section and not spread out over the whole article (as if to disperse it in a POV way, to minimize). Thus, this section becomes an article. I don't care if policing is an issue because of vandals, that's irrelevant to how the article should be formed. There is "Criticism". The "Criticism" is fairly well defined. Such well defined substance should have a section. Without a "Criticism" section, the article is clearly POV. This is not in alignment with Wikipedia theology of unbiased critique. Proxy User (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really contributing with this comment here, but it is really amazing how people don't recognize their own POV. I guess an article on PETA would draw an emotional response, but still, please try and recognize "PETA is evil" is not a NPOV comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.223.249 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is sometimes hard to recognize what is POV, but can you please explain how "PETA is evil" is NPOV? Who exactly decides what organizations are evil? And how evil do they have to be to be called evil and have it not be POV? What if those making the accusation are equally evil? Maybe if they're both evil it cancels out? I appreciate that you realize that you weren't really contributing with your comment. If you have something else not to contribute, please do so.Bob98133 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Jesus Christ Bob, you owe the anon above an apology. Before you ask people not to contribute to the project, make sure your own reading comprehension is up to snuff. Reread the anon comment above and then see how much of an ass you made out of yourself. 96.231.105.2 (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Bob, I've noticed you make another strange comment like this about "patent nonsense". It would be better to read comments more carefully before responding to them. 137.122.200.15 (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, not me. Thank you very much for pointing this out so I can improve. Bob98133 (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This article makes PETA look like saints. I put a neutrality tag on the article, but some PETA dude put it down. User:Thewritingwriter17 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC).
I removed your POV tag because there has been a lot of discussion about POV on this page. Numerous editors have been working to integrate criticism into the text and to keep it balanced. Since it is about PETA it seems reasonable that their positions be stated which may seem POV but they are clearly written to explain PETA's POV rather than to support or condemn it. There are many instances where opposing views or other POVs are presented. A controversy section has been added and removed several times with various rationales. Because the page is controversial and subject to a lot of vandalism, it makes sense to discuss what in particular you find unacceptible POV and how you would change it with references to support the changes. I don't think that this page makes PETA look like saints, but I'm not all that religious. How do you think it does that and what should be changed? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

PETA and Euthanasia

I have a Newsweek ref [1].

I believe it to be a relevant item. Is there any objections? --WikiCats (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What did you want to do with it? Most of the information in it is incorporated into the article already, I think. It's a fine reference if there is material you want to add that isn't in the article. Please use the direct link to Newsweek, though, and not one through some forum.Bob98133 (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be strong objection to a reliable source. --WikiCats (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The objection isn't to the source. It's that the information is already in the article. Djk3 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There are criticisms peppered throughout the article (enough to represent a pretty good NPOV), however, I think they should be consolidated into one section. Furthermore, even as a person who generally opposes PETA and without remorse eats animals, I think petakillsanimals.com skewers information and doesn't represent a reliable source. If someone feels inclined to mention the euthanasia, they should mention the reasons why the numbers are relatively high. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias to be cleansed from this sentence: "Among the bodies in the dumpster were a cat and two of her kittens...". The current rules of English only afford the status of dead body to deceased humans. When PETA convinces Webster's and Brittannica, then they can get away with putting that wording in a wikipedia article. Until then, this statement should read "carcasses," "remains," or some other correct and unemotional term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.207.172 (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WPFood

This article was mistakenly tagged because it has the Poultry Farming category attached to it. Could some one please locate the source and delete it. Sorry about the error. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New outrage

Just heard on Bill O' Reilly's show tonight that PETA is encouraging, as HE put it, "encouraging YOUR kids to have SEX". It's on his show, which is on FOX News right now.65.173.104.138 (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bill just DID indicate that they're a bunch of nuts. Both FOX News and Bill O' Rielly would have this on their websites real shortly. 65.173.104.138 (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, not a news source, so while his opinion may be interesting, it is of no value as a source. If PETA has a new "outrage" I'm sure it's featured prominently on the PETA web page - I just looked and it is - so there is no reason to place any value on O'Reilly's opinion when the original source is readily available. If there is referenced material from a responsible individual or organization working on the issues of teen sex or pet overpopulation, their opinions might be reasonable to include in the article, but otherwise O'Reilly's opinions are best suited for inclusion on his wiki page. Bob98133 (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "NewkirkFree" :
    • [[Ingrid Newkirk|Newkirk, Ingrid]]. ''Free the Animals''. Lantern Books, 2000. ISBN 1-930051-22-0
    • Newkirk, Ingrid. ''Free the Animals''. Lantern, 2000.
  • "about" :
    • [http://www.peta.org/about/ "About Peta"], retrieved July 10, 2006.
    • [http://www.peta.org/about About PETA]
  • "Sideris" :
    • Sideris, Lisa et al. [http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/40_1/40_1Roots.shtml "Roots of Concern with Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Ethics"], Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, ILAR Journal V40(1) 1999.
    • Sideris, Lisa; McCarthy, Charles & Smith, David H. [http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/40_1/40_1Roots.shtml "Roots of Concern with Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Ethics"], ''Bioethics of Laboratory Animal Research'', Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR) Journal V40 (1) 1999.

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hunting Cultures (someone erased this the first time I posted it. you know who you are. do not do it again)

I have never been able to find any information on how PETA views cultures (past and present) who depend upon hunting and fishing to survive. To say that such activities are wrong is basically an outright insult to many people in the world today who would DIE if they could not eat animals. In particular are many inuit groups in alaska and canada, who's enviroment is not capable of sustaining any significant variety of wild or cultivated plants (that humans have been living in such enviroments for so long is proof that vegetarianism is not necessarily as natural as some think it is). Also are groups such as the "primitive" tribes still surviving in parts of South America, Africa, and Australia, who simply do not wish to have anything to do with westerners ways of life. Come to think of it, without modern agricultural technology, complete vegetarianism would be almost impossible in most of the earth. How does PETA view people who either don't have access to, or don't wish to utilise technology that would allow them to be vegetarians? I think they forget that a good portion of the world's hunters and fishers are not "sportsmen". Similarly, the fur industry is not the same thing as a man wearing fur or leather from an animal he killed himself and also ate. What would a PETA activist say to an indian on a reservation who is wearing a buckskin coat he made himself? would he say "shame on you for being self-reliant and for not jumping on the industrial band wagon of buying commercial cotton clothing!"? Most PETA acivists are too busy anthropomorphizing animals to take these things into consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.204.22 (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the history of this talk page, you will see that the editor who removed this section gave you a valid reason why it was deleted. Talk page guidelines state: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Your addition doesn't meet any of the "How to use article talk pages" suggestions, so it was appropriately removed. Leena (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that the article does not mention this perspective at all. I did not make this clear in my post. sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.157.99.142 (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Newkirk quote on AIDS needs a reliable source

I added a Citequote tag to the quote attributed to Ingrid Newkirk in the Position on animal testing section, which Ramdrake removed. This quote is inflammatory enough that it needs a more neutral source than the one provided, which is a press release from an organization with an openly stated agenda against PETA ("Patient Advocates Against PETA") and does not mention when or where Newkirk is supposed to have said it. Ramdrake says this is "a known quote, reported by a news agency." If so, please add that citation. Until then, I have put the tag back. Epistaxis (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are some links you can peruse: [2] [3][4]

The quote seems to come from the September 1989 issue of Vogue where Ingrid Newkirk was interviewed.[5]. Hope that settles it.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find that quote mentioned anywhere in your first two links, but some Googling turned up several other secondary sources that refer to an article in the same issue of Vogue cited in your third link. I replaced the citation with one that seems slightly more reliable, and filled in the rest of the verbatim quote from there. I suppose it would be ideal if someone could track down page 542 of the September 1989 issue of Vogue and double-check, so we could just cite that directly, but this is a big improvement. Epistaxis (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Penn & Teller as a source

"My concern using Penn & Teller for a reference for anything is that it really leaves the door open to Jay Leno's monologue to become criticism. This same material is pretty well covered and referenced in the Philosophy and activism section. I'm not questioning that it is true, just that there surely must be better examples to use."

Penn & Teller is the source that came to mind, for me, since they're the ones who are most famous for bringing it up; not necessarily because they are the best source. -- LightSpectra (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, LightSpectra, but based on this, I guess that Pamela Anderson would be a good source for info about factory farming, KFC or fur, since she documents her statements and is far better known than Penn & Teller. Bob98133 (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
HAHA PWNED !!!
Sure, provided that (a) it's culturally relevant to the article, and (b) you specifically note that it's Anderson bringing it up. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Error

Link number 9 does not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.118.105 (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I searched the source site and didn't find the article there. I would like to propose a replacement of that link, with a more appropriate and timely one from Newsweek. Any objections to this? Leena (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Fixed as above. Leena (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the criticism?

Where is the criticism? This is ludicrous! Have PETA never done anything wrong? Have they never been criticised? Where is the criticism? [feb 2009] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.204.120.60 (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You can not tell me that for a activist group that is criticized repeatedly by hundreds of organizations and government officials, that the criticism section is only one paragraph long. Right now the artical smacks of a PR piece on the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.254.246 (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

First, look at the other sections on the page (instead of only the criticism section). You'll see that disputes and criticism are sprinkled throughout the entire article where appropriate. Second, look at the long list of archived talk pages. You'll see that many people have accused this article of being either "too positive" or "too negative", the difference is usually their own opinion about the org. The article is/has been edited by hundreds of people who are well-aware of PETA talking-points and PETA critics. The article is quite balanced, despite partisan editors from both sides. Do you have any new criticism to add to the article? Leena (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
A general Criticism & Hypocracies section would be more prefurred. If Greenpeace gets it's own criticism page, PETA gets one too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


We have some pretty big neutrality issues here I think. The criticism is woven through the article to dilute it, not to make the article more cohesive. Almost every other controversial wikipedia article has a criticism section or page. I think we should do like the Scientology page, and make a seperate PETA criticism page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfmanjess12 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the archives. This has been gone over and over. Because almost everything PETA does is criticized by someone, when it is separated the article ends up far more fragmented. Concensus was to incorporate the criticism where it fits as long as it is from a valid source and referenced. Bob98133 (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


Absolutely wrong. This is obviously an attempt to dilute criticism throughout the article. Should be changed.

Why not state at the very beginning that it is a controversial organization without going into details, Peta is, factually, quite argued over, and therefore contraversial. This immediately establishes that there are conflicting opinions over them. 129.107.81.12 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The article does not label PETA a "controversial organization" due to Wikipedia's policies regarding verifiability and neutral point of view. Labeling groups or individuals tends to say more about the person applying the label than it does the person labeled. Instead of making up a biased tag to apply to PETA, that article follows the advice of the style guide and uses the principle of show, don't tell. --Allen3 talk 23:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A complete and total propaganda piece. Any criticism that is spread about is quickly neutralized. I'm surprised they don't link to this page in their brochures.Cs302b (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please document your accusations with specific examples so that the article can be improved. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Heya Bob. How about your posts.. which are entirely devoted to the animal rights articles. I agree with your ideas, don't kill them for fun, don't use them as testing devices.. all that.. but seriously.. people like you make the movement a JOKE. Here's a reference for ya.. This whole article compared to any other article that has a criticism section. How about just putting in a criticism section and let it go from there. I won't edit a damn thing elsewhere and won't rant off like a non-encyclopedic section. Cs302b (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


Oh for god's sake!!!! I haven't edited here in pretty much 2 years because of this sort of nonsense. Please for the love of god read some guidelines and policies. The ones about Criticism sections being by their very nature non-neutral. By spreading the information out, where it is relevant, it provides a balanced article. One without constant edit warring also. Even reading through the archives from this page would provide you with the hours of discussion on this issue. A criticism section is a poor idea on any article! Don't refer to other articles on here, as they themselves may be a poor article!
And for those of you who don't understand the point of all this? This article is not here to provide a soapbox for people who don't like PETA to shout. It is a place to provide a neutral and balanced set of information about them. This includes criticism and counter arguments to that criticism.
Just another point. If a criticism section is included, how can counters to that criticism be presented? A 'Responses to criticism' section? Then what? Someone criticises their response, so we have a 'Criticism of responses to criticism' section? See? Makes no sense! -Localzuk(talk) 11:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows well cited criticism sections. Deal with it. Cs302b (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Don’t feed the troll. — NRen2k5(TALK), 20:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia discourages criticism sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing "Criticism" Details?

The last time I saw this page it had a very large Criticism section. One of the topics included Peta's disposal of cats in dumpsters. Was this topic removed, or was this added to the body of the article?

  • NOTE

The Criticism section had a picture of the dead cats.

Thanks!, L337*P4wn 04:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This article hasn't had a criticism section for a long time — from well before the dumpster incident, as I recall — because they're not recommended. Positive and negative aspects of a person or group should be woven throughout the narrative, wherever possible, for the sake of balance. SlimVirgin talk|edits 07:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK! Thank you!

-L337*P4wn 19:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I get a cite on that "criticism section[s]... [are] not recommended." ? Cs302b (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


Oh, for example, check democracy, has a very well done CRITICISM section. Cs302b (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the archive. It is all in there, in vast detail.-Localzuk(talk) 16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Letter to Ben and Jerry

Letter shoud be added..!!

WATERBURY, Vt. -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent a letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, cofounders of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., urging them to replace cow's milk they use in their ice cream products with human breast milk, according to a statement recently released by a PETA spokeswoman.

"PETA's request comes in the wake of news reports that a Swiss restaurant owner will begin purchasing breast milk from nursing mothers and substituting breast milk for 75 percent of the cow's milk in the food he serves," the statement says.

PETA officials say a move to human breast milk would lessen the suffering of dairy cows and their babies on factory farms and benefit human health.

"The fact that human adults consume huge quantities of dairy products made from milk that was meant for a baby cow just doesn't make sense," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "Everyone knows that 'the breast is best,' so Ben & Jerry's could do consumers and cows a big favor by making the switch to breast milk."

"We applaud PETA's novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother's milk is best used for her child," said a spokesperson for Ben and Jerry's.

Read PETA's letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield


No need for the letter to be reproduced either in the article or the talk page (that's what hyperlinks are for). This could be mentioned in a sentence or two under Dairy campaigns if it was properly referenced.Bob98133 (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Properly Referenced: http://www.wptz.com/news/17539127/detail.html . I would write it in myself, but I can't get over the irony in the letter. The letter states that all mammals only produce milk while pregnant/shortly afterwards, and that cow's "exhausted bodies are turned into hamburgers or ground up for soup." Thus, isn't it suggesting that instead of impregnating cows, we impregnate women for the same purpose? I would not make any citations of this article from a NPOV. Mjf3719 (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't think that the letter is a sincere suggestion. Djk3 (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I added a short note with ref to the Dairy Campaign section. Whether it is sincere or NPOV, it is just another part of a PETA campaign, so I put that "PETA claims" and also put B&J's reply. I don't think Mjf's conclusion that PETA thinks women should be impregnated for this has much basis, unless PETA said that somewhere. Bob98133 (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it has no basis - just an observation on my part. I do not intend that my comments are actually what they meant. Thanks Bob.Mjf3719 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that articles require a neutral point of view. Trying to downplay the fact that it is in fact eco-terrorism is pretty clearly apologetic towards PETA. Besides, links to "direct action"? That doesn't even make sense. -- LightSpectra (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That material has already been integrated into the Support for direct action section which has existed for some time. I do not believe that there is documentation to show that PETA supports ecoterrorism although they are frequently accused of it. Bob98133 (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't care what you believe. The section should appropriately be titled, "Links to Terrorism", as the section is about how PETA is accused of supporting terrorists financially (such as Rod Coronado). What you're saying is that we should be easy on PETA because of whatever reason, but that's a direct violation of the NPOV policy. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
You're right. Never mind beliefs. Show me the references that PETA supports ecoterorism.Bob98133 (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Check the section in question. PETA has donated several thousand dollars to ecoterrorists like Coronado. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
No one is being "easy" on PETA, there is plenty of negative content in the article. Being so eager to have more of it isn't exactly in line with NPOV either. Even Rod Coronado's article doesn't label him a terrorist and as you know, it's best to avoid those kind of terms (see WP:TERRORIST). Leena (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
If the article doesn't list Coronado as a terrorist, it most certainly should. As I understand it, the terms are only to be avoided when they're used somewhat ambiguously; however, in this case, we're speaking of accusations of terrorism, so you're removing the words from other peoples' mouthes. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The accusations, including quotes with the word "terror" in them, are already in the article. Leena (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
And the section should be called "links to terrorism" since that's what the accusation is about. "Links to direct action" sounds like some politically correct jargon you'd find in a kid's almanac. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
You have read direct action, right? The term is not something PETA (or any of the editors here) made up. What you're trying to do with the article is very clearly biased. I hope you'll reconsider. Leena (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
LightSpectra, I care as much about your opinion as you do about my beliefs. Please cite references for your intended changes. This is the second time I've asked for references which you've failed to supply.Bob98133 (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I already told you, the references are already in the section. Sources #35-40. -- LightSpectra (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I was asking for references for what you are suggesting, not existing references for the article. The existing references were supplied by editors interested in a balanced article, not ones with any agenda, so I wonder why all of them felt OK with the existing text, but you are unable to understand their reasoning. Citing a list of references instead of references to support your point is not at all useful. Please cite individual references, with page numbers or quotations from reliable sources to support your ill-advised changes. I'm also sorry, but I don't recall you mentioning any numbered references before, but since Wiki isn't a restaurant take-out menu, you'll have to do better than a list of numbers. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You've already decided that my recommended change is some kind of fanatical ridiculousness, so I don't see the point of debating anymore. The accusations that PETA have fiscally supported eco-terrorists are well-sourced within the article, and only a deluded man would deny it. I'm merely saying the section header should be altered to reflect that: since the section is about PETA's links to terrorists such as Rod Coronado and the ALF, the heading should appropriately be called "links to terrorism". You have provided nothing to suggest that this is a flawed train of thought, other than by what I must assume is playing dumb. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Reference 35 - Ingrid Newkirk discussing slaves in the US South. So this reference has nothing to do with your alleged point.
Reference 36 - In the US, everyone is entitled to a legal defence, a person is presumed not guilty until proven otherwise. It is not a crime to support one's legal rights to a defence, even if the person is later convicted. An unpaid loan just means that it was improperly secured, it doesn't indicate support for the borrower.
Reference 37 - PETA alleged to have donated money to a 501(C)3, one of whose directors is linked to ALF. Sorry, the donation would have to be confirmed and it would have to be shown that the donation to the group was specifically to support the illegal activities of Vlasak, who has never been charged with terrorism.
Reference 38 - Again, donating money to a support fund for legal defence is not a criminal or terrorist act. The text says the money was given prior to any terrorist related charges being filed against Harper. I gave money for Nixon's re-election - does that mean I'm linked to Watergate as a supporter?
Reference 39 - explained, entire transaction took place prior to terror label for organization
Refernce 40 - again, an alleged donation for what sounds like legal defence
This is specifically why I asked for references to support your point of view. The references you gave do NOT support your view that there is a PETA link to terrorism. Therefore your flawed train of thought is totally derailed. You keep saying things are well-sourced, but when challenged to produce a source you come up with sources that do not support your argument. No wonder you're done debating, you weren't doing very well at it. Bob98133 (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Reference #35: The founder of PETA claiming that "no movement for social change has ever succeeded without 'the militarism component'"; about the Animal Liberation Front, she writes: "Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out." This is taken straight from the article. Right there, she is claiming that an eco-terrorist organization is, more or less, 'doing what they must'.
The other references: As I said, we're talking about accusations of supporting terrorism. I'm not particularly interested in your charming rebuttals. The fact that PETA is attacked for supporting a terrorist organization is very significant to the article, and thus the subheader should appropriately be "connections to terrorism". This does not infallibly mean that it's true, obviously, but that's what the subheading is about. -- LightSpectra (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
So now you're saying "accusations" of, or "connections" to terrorism. Earlier you were arguing for Links to Terrorism. Your interpretation of Ref #35 is OR. The article clearly states that PETA is attacked for various reasons - that doesn't make the reasons true simply because there has been an attack. Frequently, details of the attack are referenced leaving the reader to review the reference and decide for himself. Since the existing references do not support your position, please supply references which do, my third request.
If I understand you correctly, there is no need for a subhead to be "true"? Why don't we compromise then, and call this section Tap Dancing on the Moon? Bob98133 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
One, what's the difference between "links" and "connections" with terrorism? Two, your replies show that you're still misunderstanding what I propose. The section is about how PETA is accused of being connected with eco-terrorist organizations, or in other words, the section is about "links to terrorism". Now, perhaps these five sources are wrong in associating PETA with the ALF and Rod Coronado. That is up for the reader to decide.
"If I understand you correctly, there is no need for a subhead to be "true"? Why don't we compromise then, and call this section Tap Dancing on the Moon?"
I'm not exactly sure what you're going on about, here, but the subhead is the subject of the section. The section is about PETA being connected with terrorists. Thus, the relevant title would be, "connections [or links] to terrorism". -- LightSpectra (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi LS, we have to take a neutral point of view about PETA. That means we can't call anyone "terrorists," but can only say, "Reliable source X referred to PETA as linked to terrorism because ..." But if we say "linked to terrorism" in a subhead, we're not attributing it, which would imply that it's what Wikipedia believes, and that wouldn't be neutral. SlimVirgin talk|edits 01:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Naming the subhead "links to terrorism" does not imply that this is Wikipedia's view. It means that the section is about how PETA is alleged to have connections to terrorism. Or, are you implying that a "criticism" section in any person's article means that Wikipedia does not like that person? -- LightSpectra (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC).
First, we're not supposed to have criticism sections; rather, criticism and praise should be woven throughout the article in the most neutral way possible. But supposing an article does have a criticism section — it would not be biased to call it "criticism," but it would be biased to choose what one side has said and highlight it by naming the section after it.
Imagine an article about you, and imagine too that a published source had said you were dishonest. Would it be neutral for us to call that subsection "Liar"? SlimVirgin talk|edits 20:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Just calling it "liar" wouldn't make sense. If the section were titled something like "dishonesty", yes, that wouldn't be inherently biased. -- LightSpectra (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment added into TOC

I need a valid reason of why peta, an extemist violent group contains no critisism section, while non-violent protest group such as greenpeace contains such a section!!!!!!!!! absolutely unacceptable. ps, saying that critisism is mixed in with other sections is much less effective thus no good at getting info out there! comment added by 70.50.184.19 (talk)

The valid reason is that you have no valid references that PETA is "an extremist violent group". If you do, supply them. Before you do, please learn how to edit Wiki so that you don't place your comments in the Table of Contents. Thanks. Good luck!!!!!!!!!!! 13:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

They Aren't Fish, They're "Sea Kittens"

Please change every instance of the word "Fish" to "Sea Kittens" as this is what PETA says they are per the PETA website. If PETA says they are "Sea Kittens" then their page should reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Its9001captain (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, 9001captain - please don't remove robot added signatures - it lets the rest of us know who made the edit. Better yet, add 4 ~s at the end of your talk entry and it will automatically add your signature. As to your suggestion, it would be more appropriate to add this item somewhere in the campaign content, with a reference, since this is part of yet another PETA campaign. Changing all instances of "fish" to "sea kitten" would otherwise be confusing. Since PETA is always coming out with stuff like this, it's a pretty minor item compared to their ongoing campaigns, so I'm not sure how much it would add to the article.
If you feel the "sea kitten" name is really that worthy, it might be best for you to consider including it in the fish or fishing articles in their controversy sections or as content opposed to fishing. As long as you reference it well and it adds to the article, that would be fine. Bob98133 (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I think he was joking, guys. (Momus (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
I think they know he was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

Why isn't there a section on the controversies of Peta? It's not like they're not out there. They *have* been called eco-terrorists, after all. 129.107.81.12 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question is has been answered repeatedly in the sections above and in this talk pages archives. --Allen3 talk 23:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


There is a pretty high number of people who feel a controversy section is warranted perhaps it is time to request arbitration. I see no reason for PETA to get special treatment vs any other subject. Also while we are on the subject a lot of these posts come from the same IPs I suspect we have sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on here.


Before we reinvent the criticism section, perhaps we can review what has been said by other editors. Much of the current discussion is simply repetition. Please see archives: Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/archive10#Add_major_criticisms_for_PETA, Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/archive10#Controversy, Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/archive10#Biased_Removal_of_Criticism, Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/archive9#.27Response_to_criticism_of_euthanasia.27_section, Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/archive9#Criticisms.3F, Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/archive8#Criticism_section.3F, Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/archive7#Criticism,Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/archive7#Criticism_Section, Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/archive5#Criticism_section
Bob98133 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and if you look at all of those archives, and the fact that it does keep on being mentioned, then the general overwhelming consensus is that a critisism section is required. And it is. There seems to be a couple of controlling people who have dedicated themselves to keeping it off on this article specificly. There should be a section and arbitration IS needed on this. There seems to be a definate "keep the critisism away" group of a handfull of people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.134.213.230 (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Please look up the meaning of consensus since you've got it wrong, and add your comments at the END of the talk section, not the middle. Perhaps you could sign your posts, too. Bob98133 (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. It seems like the comment about consensus is pretty clear in its meaning, which you seem to have failed to address. Plus Mr Bob, you didn't really add anything of value to the conversation. Please refrain from any emotional outbursts, even if you've tried to hide them. The statment about the meaning of consensus being wrong shows an underlying agression and an undertone of desperatly looking for aomething to attack the poster for without addressing the point that was made. That was very 'activist' of you. I agree though that arbitration is needed once and for all to extinguish any bias that Bob98133 and other similar posters have, maybe even me included. The result of that should define the action taken on this page, not half arsed attempts at flaming other posters. I have followed your post and posted in the middle of a talk section as I feel it was needed to be said after your comment, just as you seemed to also feel it was also neccessary to do whilst also complaining about it. Please comment with a valid reason not to add a section or to counter a comment, I'm assuming you'll attack this post as well, that's a given, however please also try and add value to the conversation. Danno81 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm an editor who has not been part of this conversation, but I feel the need to be fair and step in here to say that the comments directly above mine actually appear to apply to the poster much more than they seem to apply to their intended target. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It's entirely intended to be directed at Bob98133 and others but it's hard not to sound personal when you're trying to make a point about someone else being personal. Everyone can read what we all put and make their own minds up about it all. My overall point was that it didn't deal with the topic and we need arbitration and to avoid such outbursts, although sometimes it takes a war to prevent a war, or something. I still think we need arbitration on this and there appears to be people that do not want that as they fear the outcome may be that a controversy section is indeed deemed worthy of the article. My personal preference is that we have one, but if it's decided otherwise then that's fine. Remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy. If we could keep the discussion on these topics or of others relevant to the article from now on that would be good. If no one else requests this arbitration then I will as this will not be resolved by simple discussion and will continue to be brought up again and again. Danno81 (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sorry if I don't understand concensus. Please explain rather than attribute some dark purpose to my comment. I don't care if there is a controversy section or not. There used to be and it was a mess. If you want to put it back, go for it, just use acceptible references. Did the part about editors not signing posts and adding new comments in the middle have a darker purpose? Bob98133 (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bob, sorry if I misunderstood your intentions, I've just seen too much bias about this subject and I wanted to force it down the correct path, it just happened to be you that I picked out, but I may have applied an incorrect meaning to what you said and if I did I'm sorry. These articles are difficult as they deal with already heated topics and I was trying to be forceful to move this discussion to the next level to finally get this resolved. If there is a controversy setion then it will have to be well managed I agree and everyone would need to try their best not to create an edit war, just be factual about it. Danno81 (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it still seems most of the people complaining about the section are affiliated with PETA, including some of these posts coming from the IP address of their headquarters. While most of the others show in their profiles that they are supporters. Wikipedia is not majority rule by a single group who has an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.188.139 (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, 98.. How do you know that PETA's IP address is used for some posts? If that's true, I agree with you entirely as it would be a conflict of interest. PETA claims to have 2 million members though, so it's probably reasonable that some of them might edit the article. I really don't care too much what is said in the discussion, or whose side people are on, as long as it is a reasonable, thoughtful and respectful discussion about the article and how to make it better and more balanced and until a concensus is agreed on; or sometimes a compromise. Bob98133 (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


Well I am going to take a stab at creating a separate criticism page. Almost all the resistance here is coming from PETA either directly or indirectly, and I think at this point getting a fair and balanced page is out of the question. The procedures for deleting a page that has already been made will build a consensus one way or the other. However I think it will start to involve people who are not so personally invested in the issue, and we can see where things stand then. As things stand now anything remotely critical of PETA gets such a soft touch it makes me ill. Look at all this talk about it, it is not going to stop until something is done to stop this complete whitewashing of the organization. I would like to add that reaching a consensus is not actually accomplished by three shills for the organization declaring that one has been reached. It should be finished in a couple of days, and I will be requesting an immediate lock on the article so you guys will not just be able to delete it every 5 minutes like you have done in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfmanjess12 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Based upon past experience with this article, I would recommend you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's core content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) before investing too much effort into your stated plan of action. Unless your additions comply with these policies you are likely to be disappointed with the response you receive when you request the "immediate lock" on the article. It should also be noted that properly sourced criticisms have always been welcome in this article, denunciations however have seen less favorable treatment. --Allen3 talk 23:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention that Wolfmanjess12's proposal is the exact definition of a POV forkand as such is grounds for almost certain deletion. Also, locking an article does not prevent its deletion, for that matter.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


"Articles whose subject is a POV

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. Criticism sections should be preferably integrated into other sections within an article rather than being spun out, as our NPOV policy states that opinions should not be considered separately from each other."


While they do not prefer a criticism section it applies here because PETA represents a point of view, or at least this is how I read it, I still do not believe this article is neutral, and honestly I am not sure it can be. It is the same the Scientology nonsense, and this appears to be how a very similar disagreement was resolved with that article.

PETA recently rebuked Obama for swatting a fly on TV. This seems like a strong candidate for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.207.172 (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I heard about this incident, but I don't understand what is notable or controversial about it. PETA is forever rebuking someone for something. We certainly don't want to list them all and I'm not sure a section on rebukes would add anything. Besides PETA's rebuke has the lifespan of a fly and will be forgotten within days. Bob98133 (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

3.5 Religious Compassion Paragraph

I think this fact should be added to the Religious Compassion paragraph to deny Jesus was a vegetarian, in spite of what PETA states. All 4 Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John write about the miracle of Feeding the multitude, also known as the loaves and fishes miracle. That is where Jesus fed many people with only 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish and had enough left over to fill several baskets. I doubt if a vegetarian would feed a great many people with fish, enough people to be written about in all 4 gospels. I'd add the link if I could. PETA is just an extremist organization whose methods probably turn off more people than they encourage. Animals can be used, but, they must never be abused.204.80.61.110 (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Bennett Turk

What you suggest is already in the article. It says that PETA makes this argument and critics object to it. Except the part that PETA turns off more people than they encourage - you'd need a reference for that.Bob98133 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Parodies/Cultural Impact

It might be interesting to note that P.E.T.A is parodied in the game World of Warcraft, where there is a group called D.E.H.T.A (Druids for the Ethical and Humane Treatment of Animals). Players will be attacked by D.E.H.T.A members if they kill an in-game animal. http://www.wowwiki.com/D.E.H.T.A. User:af_fox —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC).

I think that was in an earlier version with the South Park and Penn & Teller info but was removed as not being all that well known. You almost have to take a number to parody Peta, so it's probably not all that useful including them all. The People Eating... reference is a bit more well-known, but has its own section in Domain Name Disputes. Bob98133 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

contextual description

Hi, XMattingly - not a big deal, but it seems like the writing and context would be just as strong without the famously/infamously. I thought using the word infamously sounded odd, since it is an adverb modifying "threw" (same story with famously) but if you think it's better, no problem.

The other change you made to "including purported hypocrisy by PETA spokespeople." changing purported to reported, I think might require a reference. Purported means "giving the appearance of" and "reported" means to give an account of. If you use reported then the hypocrisy should be noted in a reference where it was reported. Purported fits better I think. I'll leave it up to you, just wanted to explain why I'd reverted them. Bob98133 (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me if I'm not using this talk back page properly. Guess I'm not aware of it that much, and only ran across this through a Google search. I try to be pretty judicious about any editing I do on Wikipedia, and the thing I look for is that information in an article is projected as accurately as possible. There is actually a world of difference between the phrasing of words I changed. "Infamous" is notoriety for a bad deed (ie. FDR: "a day that will live in infamy"), "famous" would suggest something that should be celebrated (ie. "famous/celebrity"). In the context of social norms, most people would find someone throwing an animal carcass on a table in a public restaurant to be highly offensive. On purported/reported: "Purported" suggests something as made up, "reported" alludes to a representation of facts. You would have to see the Penn & Teller: Bullshit episode: it's readily available through a Google search. They made their case by researching publicly available information, such as their tax records or a higher-up's use of insulin (which contains animal products). Thanks for sharing, --XMattingly (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Error/Vandalism on this page

Someone has edited this page stating that the coporation PETA are 'pathetic faggots' etc. insulting them and removing the real article

Ah, so the whole article has been vandalised, and it seems like several parties are arguing over PETA and their actions. I am pretty sure this isnt the real article, could a wikipedia admin please take a look at this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.112.66 (talk • contribs) 11:10, January 21, 2009 (UTC)

The page move vandalism has been reverted and the article protected to prevent further instances of this type of vandalism. --Allen3 talk 11:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Spelling

I just happened to come across this article in my wiki browsing. I noticed that there are several instances where both American spellings and British/Canadian spellings co-exist within the article. Is there a guideline for these types of spelling differences? It seems to me that if the organization exists in the United States, then the spelling should follow American spellings throughout the article (e.g. organization) rather than British/Canadian spellings (e.g. organisation).

Sms231 (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should follow American spelling, Sms. Not that it really matters, but it does matter that it's at least consistent, so feel free to change it if you have time. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Jargon section

PETA has a jargon, composed largely of parody terms. Some of the most notable PETA neologisms are:

  • Fur hags: Women who wear fur coats, especially those who show them off at formal events.
  • Kentucky Fried Cruelty: Parody of Kentucky Fried Chicken.
  • Lettuce Ladies: Female volunteers who wear lettuce skirts and brassieres at special events to promote vegetarianism.
  • Murder King: Parody of Burger King.
  • Sea kittens: Fish. Coined in an attempt to arouse sympathy for the plight of game fish.

I removed the preceding info because it was unsourced and did not assert the importance of the terms listed. It was also formatted like a trivia section, although that can always be fixed. Three of these terms are from the group's campaigns that are covered elsewhere in the article. The others (sea kittens and fur hags) would need to have had some impact on the world outside of PETA or at least have some specific notability to warrant a separate section. Unless the usage of such terms is itself notable? Thompsontough (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen some of these terms in media, so I would think references are available, however it would make more sense for this info to be included in various sections of the article if it is notable. It is a bit odd as a "jargon" section. Bob98133 (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
That was my thinking, but I figured I'd take a CYA approach in case anyone objected or there was something I wasn't aware of. Thompsontough (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sea Kittens section

The sea kittens section should be removed. It's non-encyclopedic, probably violated BLP re. Spears mention, is undue weight and adds little to the article. The mention in the School name change section seems sufficient, although it should have a reference - I've heard about it so I'm sure there's a reference for it besides PETA web site. Bob98133 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the schools name change section should actually be merged into the Sea Kittens section. It'll be more relevant once the background behind the term "Sea Kitten" is explained. In regards to your above suggestions;
BLP: It's a quote from PETA
Undue Weight: This is the biggest name change campaign PETA have undertaken as of yet
adds little to the article: If it is felt that a Name changes section is warranted, then as the biggest name change campaign to date, it is worthy of inclusion
Although I do agree my entry may need some expanding/formatting changes i.e. the quote template etc. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan that the subject is appropriate to this article, but I also agree with Bob that the Spears etc. material gets off-point, so I'm taking a stab at a modified wording. See what you think about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm cool with that, do you wanna consider merging in the "schools" section also? Ryan4314 (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually, yes, that makes sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Nice job ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly improved, but the problem with this is that "sea kittens" is not asking anyone for a name change, whereas the school has been asked. PETA has been involved in the discusison of changing "pet" to "guardian" which is similar to the sea kitten thing, only huge compared to it. It's a change in terminology, not a name change. Sea kitten fit better in the now deleted jargon section. I agree it should stay, along with the school info, but the name change has to do with the school, not with the broad category of fish. Bob98133 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Hopefully, the merge with schools takes care of that concern, as you said. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, "Save the Sea Kittens" is a campaign and it's under the Other campaigns section. It's also a campaign to have the name changed to Sea Kittens, I think it fits pretty well where it is. The names changes sections isn't called "requests for name changes", also the people section also doesn't feature PETA requesting a name change. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone's requested the deletion of the redirect to Sea Kitten. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, we need a reference for, "In January 2009, PETA asked a school named Spearfish High School to change its name to Sea Kitten High School. In a letter to Steve Morford, principal of Spearfish High School, PETA said that the new name would "reflect the gentle nature of its current marine namesake." Morford did not share his feelings about PETA, but said that he would not take the request seriously". The link that is in there now doesn't work. 98.204.240.195 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What is controversial - How to fix?

Starting a new topic since the Controversies section is dated, out of temporal order and derailed. There has been a lot of talk about how a controversy section is needed. Perhaps those in favor of including a controversy section could review previous discussion about this and then state what should be included in that section with references so that it can be intelligently discussed. If there are so many controversies, it should be no problem to discuss them individually prior to inclusion in the article. Please restrict the conversation to improving the article. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's best not to have a separate criticism/controversies section in that article like this, because it would become a magnet for POV pushing. The criticisms are currently woven throughout the article, which is considered best practice. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and get some links and sources together so we can discuss them and agree what needs to be added. I think the whole article is always going to be a magnet for POV. Editors just need to be sharp about new additions to keep the page reflective of the truth without bias rather. Danno81 (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading back through some old comments, I suspect the primary uncovered "controversy" is the debate over the appropriateness/correctness of PETA's core values. While I would not characterize PETA as a fringe group, the animal rights movement is also not dominate in most western societies (if PETA's views were dominate there would be no need for an advocacy group). If my suspicions are correct then the constant requests by new accounts and anons for controversies to be added accompanied by an inability of any of these individuals to explains which controversies are not already incorporated in the article then the requests would just be part of societies debate about the views expressed by PETA.
This of course leaves the question of "what to do?" As an encyclopedia it is clearly appropriate for Wikipedia to document what PETA believes. The article however is not an appropriate location to debate the correctness of these beliefs. Danno81 appears to be correct that specific new events should be added as the occur but there is no way to satisfy all the partisans who happen upon the article and notice that the article does not fully comply with their views. --Allen3 talk 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes throughout article

Another editor put a tag on the page (now deleted), questioning whether the quotes throughout the article are needed. I think that is a good point. The numerous offset quotes, although visually attractive, make the page look a little like a brochure for PETA, and subtly skew NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This article entry has quotes everywhere. The profile can be summed up in one simple paragraph. It doesn't need 2 additional paragraphs of quotes. SallyFord (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Specifically with respect to the "campaigning" section, two questions. First, might we want to delete the quote from I.B. Singer? If I understand correctly, it is something he wrote that was subsequently quoted by PETA, but he did not, himself, say it on behalf of PETA, and so it may not be important enough to show with such prominence. (Also it looks a little odd, unintentionally, to be apposing the quotes from him and from Foxman, as if it were a Jewish debate, which of course it is not.) The second is about the boxed quote from Newkirk at the end of the section. Does it really need to be set off as a quote in a box, as opposed to simply incorporating it into the text of that paragraph? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I recently made edits consistent with what I said just above. The edits I made, as well as the edit of the Silver Spring monkey photo first made by another editor, have been reverted by yet another editor, with the comment in the edit summary to see talk. I made my edits only after waiting following my comment above, and seeing no objections made. In contrast, I have looked here for an explanation of the reversion of my edits, and I guess it hasn't been written yet, because I don't see it. The specific issues in all of this are as follows. Another editor, before me, noted correctly that the monkey image is redundant with another monkey image lower on the page, and it also appears in multiple other pages. Those that I know of are Silver Spring Monkeys, where it is obviously appropriate, and to which this page conspicuously links, and the page on Ingrid Newkirk. Given that it is graphic, inflammatory, and potentially POV, why does it need to be here too? Then, there is the Newkirk quote at the bottom of the campaigns section. I did not delete any of it, but just moved it out of the box and into the body of the text. What's the problem? Several editors have agreed that the article has too many displayed quotes. Similarly, I removed the display quotes by Foxman and Singer, not least because the exact same quotes appear in the text too. Again, I see no good reason for restoring them as display quotes duplicating those in the text. Finally the editor reverted my deletion of "Jewish" as descriptions of Singer and of the ADL. I think that, by saying the unnecessary, those descriptors come across (unintentionally, I assume) as anti-semitic. Why revert? Please do explain. The appearance of the page has come to look too much like a brochure for PETA. I have recently in this talk defended other editors against claims that the page is controlled by editors who have a pro-PETA agenda, but this reversion seems to give the critics some credence. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The Silver Spring monkeys case created PETA, and it was the Washington Post's publication of the images that made the case notable, so it would be obtuse of us not to include one of the images here. As for the quote formatting, it's intended to break up the text to make it easier on the eye for readers. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. (I feel like I'm talking with you on two pages simultaneously!) Do we really need both images of the monkeys? Would one of them do? In my opinion, there is too much of the quote formatting to serve the purpose of making it easier on the eye. It is over the top. I think other editors think so too, so I'd appreciate hearing some discussion of that. And finally, does anyone object to my deleting again those two instances of the word "Jewish"? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
When you refer to the two images, there is only one in the article that I can see. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. 1. History section. 2. Undercover investigations section. (And for me, this is good night until tomorrow.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I've edited the part that repeated "Jewish." The point was to show that it was the Jewish community that was arguing about this among themselves, both for and against. And there is only one image of a Silver Spring monkey on the page, in the history section.SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the edits about "Jewish," which I think are very thoughtful, and helpful in avoiding potential misunderstandings. About the monkeys, I take your point that these are two different laboratories, my mistake (actually, I never said they were both from Silver Spring). However, I stand by the larger point, that it seems like two very similar photos in the same page, where the Silver Spring photo also appears in multiple other pages, easily linked to, and so it seems to me like overkill. I've thought about your point about not being "obtuse," and I agree that it is important for this page to cover the Silver Spring events for that reason, but I do not believe that it follows that we also need to illustrate them. And I continue to have my already-stated concerns that there are still too many display quotes in the campaigning section, aesthetics of page layout notwithstanding. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing that because we have an image of Ingrid Newkirk on her bio, we ought not to have one here; or because we have an image of Jimbo in his bio, we ought not to have one on the article about Wikipedia. Have I understood that right? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
No, not exactly. I probably would question if there were multiple similar photos of Jimbo on the WP page. And I think that this case here is different, in that the images are graphic in a way that a bio image is not, and one of them is "above the fold." Please note that I am bringing this issue up in the context of a larger discussion about shortening the article, and I see it as a potentially helpful suggestion of further ways we might tighten the page up. And in no way would I advocate shortening the text about the Silver Spring events. (And I continue to have my already-stated concerns that there are still too many display quotes in the campaigning section, aesthetics of page layout notwithstanding.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It was the Silver Spring images that made the case. As I said, it would be obtuse of us not to tell the story properly; the images were an integral part of it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
In that case, how necessary is the other image, the one lower on the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with removing Silver Spring photo. This isn't "obtuse" at all. We already have a major section explaining Silver Spring on this page and then an additional page on top of that - the story is properly told without a photo. This article is becoming a picture book. Why have the photo twice? Also keeping the first quote in the profile (before History) is unnecessary. The profile has two paragraphs and a quote that basically says the same message. The 2 paragraphs and quote (before History) can easily be summarized into one paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talk • contribs) 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that comment, and suspect that it represents current consensus better than does keeping the page as it is. However, I want to suggest a variation on deleting the Silver Spring photo. In fact, I am rather persuaded by the argument that, if we are going to have one monkey photo, then it should be the Silver Spring one, because of its "iconic" status in establishing the origin of the subject (PETA) of this page. So, instead, I recommend deleting the image of the Covance laboratories monkey lower on this page. It is absolutely clear that we don't need both. (Maybe if this were a page on "monkey restraint," then it would be encyclopedic to illustrate two different methods of restraint, but here, all it does is shout "See? See?" at the reader.) As for the Silver Spring image, we could retain it, but reduce its pixel size slightly. I'm not saying to miniaturize it into obscurity, just make it a little more proportional with layout (particularly if the quote that was above it ends up being restored). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Continuing what I just said above, I'd like to suggest the following steps:

  • Delete the image of the Covance labs monkey (see above).
  • Slightly reduce pixel size of the Silver Springs monkey photo (see above).
  • In the "Campaigning" section, make the Holocaust Campaign image slightly larger, for layout balance, but if and only if the following is also done:
  • In that same section, delete the display quotes from Foxman and Singer, because they are also present identically in the text. It is completely unreasonable to display them too.
  • Also in that section, move the Newkirk quote out of the quote-box, and into the text, because, again, it seems to shout at the reader. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Any objections? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. Please discuss if you disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Campaigns

That would be a good place to start shortening the article. I have no problem with this being shorter, although breaking out a PETA Campaigns article was also suggested. I'd prefer careful editing of this article rather than dividing it into two. Bob98133 (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that a campaigns page would be a bad idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm willing to go in later and substantially tighten the campaigns section. We don't need to mention every campaign PETA ever had. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've shortened the campaign section to give only key examples, which has reduced the page from 100 kilobytes to 84; 50 without footnotes, which is within the norm for an organization like this. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Was any criteria other than personal preference used to determine which items were cut and which where kept? The reason I ask is that I noticed events such as PETA's well known dispute with People Eating Tasty Animals were cut because they seemed "very trivial" despite being documented with multiple third-party sources yet multiple campaigns such as video games and whistleblower hotline that are sourced exclusively to PETA controlled websites and lack any type of third-party press coverage were left in the article. --Allen3 talk 09:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I can see that particular item being deleted since the entire People Eating Tasty Animals article is about that case, it was a long time ago, and it is not notable except as a domain-name dispute, which is not a normal or typical activity for this organization. I agree that other sourcing should be more neutral, however just because the domain name dispute was well referenced does not make it more worthy of inclusion. Thanks to SlimVirgin this article has been shortened to a reasonable size. Bob98133 (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy to remove the video and hotline things too. I left them only because I assumed others might want to keep them. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mary Beth Sweetland

This page shows that she's working for In Defence of Animals [6] in 2007. I'm sure she hasn't worked at PETA at least since then. I checked this out a long time ago, but can't find the source now. Bob98133 (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so she's a former VP of PETA [7], but she was using insulin while working still for PETA regardless of why she left. It's still relevant.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. That's fine and verifiable. I wasn't objecting to referenced stuff, just that she apparently no longer works there. Google hits on her almost disappear after early 2007, so she must have left some time around then since before that she was on lots of PETA press releases. As i recall, when I last looked into this, she claimed that her insulin wasn't animal derived - I think most of it is synthetic these days - but nonetheless it was animal tested and her quote explains her rationale. Bob98133 (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

IMHO, the article contains a strong pro-PETA bias. For example, all over the "Profile" section ( which is a whopping 10 pages- do we really need that much detail ?) Criticisms are usually just given one small paragraph, but the rebuttals to them ( see Campaigning section and the holocaust campaign) feature twice to three times as much content and more quotations.

Also, numerous PETA-campaign posters are reproduced over the page- do we really need "propaganda" in here or could we just limit ourselves to the most important ( 1 or maybe 2) posters and link the rest ? 84.161.46.35 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am one of the editors who has been concerned about this too (see "Quotes throughout article," above). There are editors who feel strongly on both sides of the question, and it is important to try to have consensus for any changes. It would be helpful, if you want to, to provide specific suggestions of what you would want to change, so that we can discuss them specifically. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I only counted 3 PETA posters used to illustrate particular PETA campaigns, and I don't see that they are propoganda, in the same way that showing a movie poster isn't an ad for the movie. They are used to illustrate the text. I'm not sure what 84.161.. means by a whopping ten pages. I agree with Tryptofish that it would be more helpful if you were specific in your examples. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to underline what Bob said, it may be useful to shorten some material from the page (I'm not sure what), but before doing so, it is important to specify and discuss what in particular that would be. I'm prompted to point this out, only because a tag at the top of the page, indicating that it may be too long and have too many display quotes, has been removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

DEA investigation

I have removed the information about the DEA investigation, as I cannot find any outcome of that investigation, and as the article is pretty long, it serves no real value to the subject matter overall.-Localzuk(talk) 12:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree. I looked for a reference for an outcome of this, but couldn't find anything. Bob98133 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/Archive_11&oldid=1142774215"