Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Terrorist Threat/Controversy Section

PETA is one of the most controversial activist groups operating today. The group's contentious media campaigns, undercover operations, infamous advertising, and high profile demonstrations have made them perhaps the most infamous--and most polarizing--nonprofit organization there is. But are they terrorists? According to the US Department of Agriculture, they are now.[1]

So why no controversy section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.66.246 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I read that comment with a lot of interest (see also: Talk:Animal Liberation Front). The source is, itself, obviously one with POV problems. It actually never mentions the Agriculture department (which doesn't determine terrorist status anyway), and only indicates that PETA has donated money to other groups that have been described as terrorist. Now, having said that about what is wrong with the source (and, for a responsible encyclopedia, that's important), I do think, especially if we can find corroborating sourcing (I'm going to look), that this page should prominently report if PETA has contributed financially to those other groups. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem with this, however, I think it is important to distinguish whether PETA donated money before or after a person or organization was "declared" terrorist. For example, donating money to provide legal defense funds for someone accused of a crime does not indicate support of the person or his/her views but is simply an exercise of rights in the United States (or else the entire public defender program could be accused of supporting crime.) Someone accused of a crime in the US is considered innocent, so whatever the charges, donating to that person's legal defense in no way indicates support for any crime they may later be convicted of. If PETA donated money or otherwise supported someone or an organization after it was declared a terrorist person or organization, that would certainly be notable. Similarly, it is not a crime or in any way a terrorist activity to support or hire someone who may have been found guilty of a crime but has repaid his/her debt to society through the penal system or through restitution. Accusing an organization of terrorism based on donations for legal counsel prior to conviction (or even for appeal) is the type of sleazy attack regularly orchestrated by the Center for Consumer Freedom. Bob98133 (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

But that’s not what PETA did here. PETA donated to groups that were already long known to be terrorists, and they were complicit in an act of arson (their legal aid for his criminal trial was begun before he even committed the crime). You’re just parroting the PETA spokesperson on the program. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the focus of the article was on an interview/debate on a FOX News program, so it should be easy enough to source from the program itself. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can reference that PETA donated money to groups after they were officially designated as terrorists, go for it. If PETA was complicit in arson, and this is referenced, why weren't they charged? I feel certain they would be. I'm not quoting any PETA line, just the laws of the US. Legal defense, or appeal of a conviction, is a legal right. Donating to legal defense says nothing whatsoever about an accused's guilt or views. I'm not sure who you're talking about, but legal fees are not considered support or complicity in a crime. Bob98133 (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, editors are not conducting a legal trial here. The matter before us is not some sort of passing of judgment on what PETA has done, but rather reporting—accurately—what PETA has done. An action does not have to be unlawful in order to be encyclopedic. If PETA has provided financial support to other notable groups, that is appropriate to include in the page. If PETA has not done so, then obviously we should not include it. Determining whether or not they have done so depends upon reliable sourcing. The source provided at the top of this talk section is not, by itself, reliable. Whether other, reliable, sources exist remains to be seen. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Trypto. But support without proof or knowledge of activities has no encyclopedic value either unless it is strongly qualified. Otherwise Tiger Woods' supporters risk being labeled as endorsing extramarital affairs, or Bernie Madoff investors risk being accused of supporting a ponzi scheme, etc. Intent and knowledge are not just legal requirements, but must be considered prior to posting even referenced derogatory material or the addition is POV. If we are considering something like "PETA has donated money to individuals or organizations known to be terrorist at the time of the donations..." and can reference it, fine. But to reliably source that PETA donated money to an organization or individual later identified to be terrorist is POV since they had no way of knowing that their recipient would later be so designated. That is the sort of reporting done by Center for Consumer Freedom and what makes them an unreliable source. Let's see how the references work out. I have no problem with the addition if it is properly referenced provided it is qualified if there is any uncertainty about terrorist affiliations prior to PETA's support. I have not seen reliable references, but I have heard that bin Ladin was involved in business dealings with American oil men - if so, are they all terrorists? Bob98133 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Sources first. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and did you hear about those business dealings at bin Laden family#Alleged business connections of the Bush and bin Laden families? :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

First off lets be blunt about this. We're talking about Rod Coronado, and PETA's gift of money both to his defence fund, his family and him directly via "loans" which were never expected to be repaid. So for the sake of arguement, if ALF was noted in a 1993 report to the US congress as an organization which "claimed to have perpetrated acts of extremism in the United States", and PETA gave money to that organization or its members after that point (1996 I believe, their tax records for that year will indicate) is that enough of a link? Is it reasonable to think that PETA knew the goals and ambitions of ALF at that point? Max.inglis (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Max - it's not blunt, it's inclusive. I had no idea that Coronado was the subject of this discussion, since PETA has been repeatedly accused of similar actions. Do you have some reference that loans were made to Coronado's family and that they were not expected to be repaid? Not just a prosecution attorney saying this, but perhaps a piece of paper from PETA directly saying this? The Rod Coronado wiki article says that he was convicted in 1995. If a donation to his legal support is noted on PETA's 1996 taxes, it would likely be for money spent in 1995. No, that's not enough of a link, unless you have good references. Sounds like OR to me. Bob98133 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well folks, I've looked, and it seems to me that what can be reliably sourced is already on the page, in the section about support for the ALF. If there's something I've missed (very possible) that needs to be added to that section, I'm all ears, but I have a feeling that we've been arguing about material that is already included on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? I honestly never saw anything

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/peta-terrorists-usda-form/2374/comment-page-1/

Relating to this as I read through and felt the entire article had very much a Pro-PETA feel for it.

Plus even if it's not what the government should be doing (with or without evidence or whatever, in my opinion PETA is a terrorist threat and extremist) there should be a section about it becoming legally a terrorist threat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.66.246 (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What, specifically, would you suggest? I looked at the link you provided, and it's not really a reliable source, and I can't find any working links from it to any page belonging to the USDA. I agree with you that the page suffers from a pro-PETA POV, but we cannot say that it is "legally a terrorist threat" without evidence of that legal determination. I would, however, like to know what other editors would think about revising the lead, where it puts the issue in terms of what one Senator said, to instead reflect what the main text says about PETA's financial support of ALF. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that site is a WP:RS either. I'm not sure I know how to find PETA tax returns for 1995 or 1996 since I live in Canada, but perhaps an enterprising US resident knows how. I've seen images of the return, with notes for payments to the Rod Coronado Support Fund (which is probably for legal defense) and also to Rod Coronado's father, which was marked as a loan, but indicated (through heresay mind you, not verifiable) that it was not given as a loan and not expected to be repaid, certainly not WP:RS anyway. Max.inglis (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Max, that there is a shortage of reliable references about this. The existing text describes this situation as much as can be verified to date. Apparently, we are also discussing a single incident over 15 years ago, so its current relevance might also be questioned. If PETA continues to support terrorism, current documents should be available, including their IRS 990 forms which would have to list these donations. My opinion about this could easily change if some new reliable refs were found. Bob98133 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

break

It seems to me that, unless other sourcing shows up, the issue has been pretty much exhausted. However, I want to bring up again something that went by quickly just above. I'm sympathetic to the concern raised by the IP editor, that the issue seems to be downplayed in the way the page currently reads. The information is there, but it seems to be downplayed. Where this strikes me the most is in the lead. The current wording tends to give the impression that criticism of PETA with respect to its interactions with these other groups rests upon it being the "spokesgroup" for them, as raised by one individual Senator. Of course, this is one of those instances where that Senator is really one specific example of multiple critics, and, on the one hand, we cannot say "critics say..." without sourcing, so it is better to quote and source a specific critic, but, on the other hand, this is definitely not just a case of a single Senator being concerned about the issue, plus, there is actually more sourced information for PETA repeatedly supplying financial support than for it actually being just a spokesgroup (cf: Animal Liberation Press Office).

So, I propose modifying the third paragraph of the lead, to shift the wording more towards summarizing what the main text currently says about financial activities. Recognizing that editors feel strongly about such changes, I'm floating the idea in this talk, first. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing first! What you say makes sense, but I looked at some other articles that might be controversial and it seems that those have been done differently. National Rifle Association, Center for Consumer Freedom and a couple of others, and mostly they do not mention specific criticisms or counter points of view in the lead. I wonder why it's appropriate for this article? It hasn't really stood out to me since PETA is such a magnet for criticism, but I think developing that more in the lead might off balance things. Bob98133 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for thanking me! :-) Of course, that's why I discuss it here first. Well, I've got to say that I'm appalled by those two pages you linked to, which seem to me to have very POV lead sections. But that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. What I think is that WP:Lead section does state very clearly (in its own lead!) that the lead section should contain "including any notable controversies", and this page (as well as comparable AR-related pages such as Animal Liberation Front) already does. So this seems to me to be not so much a question of whether to include criticisms, but rather of how best to include them, per NPOV. My take is that the suggestion I made is reasonable in that regard, is helpful in addressing the POV concerns that multiple editors perennially raise, and is better-sourced and more accurate than what the page has now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Go for it. Always a pleasure to work things out, and know the policies, before the %$#@ hits the fan! Bob98133 (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! And amen to that! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

PETA = People eating tasty animals

I suggest, instead of redirecting PETA to you-know-where, this page should be used as a disambiguation page to differenciate between People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and People eating tasty animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.45.55.114 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that people looking for the other page will get lost when they find this one. But I'm adding a see also. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrorist Organization

Is there anywhere that we can add that members of the Canadian government are considering classing PETA as a terrorist organization because of its "criminal behaviour to impose a political agenda on each and every other citizen of Canada" source, or is it not relevant? RA0808 (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, it is a reliable source, and worth adding to the article. However, based on what the source says, it would not be accurate to describe it (yet) as an actual policy consideration by the government, but rather as a characterization by one MP. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Love it. Puts the whole terrorist thing in perspective. Bob98133 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad you think so! I wasn't sure what the reaction would be, but I do think the way I wrote the sentence is NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it in Tryptofish, I wasn't sure how I was going to phrase the sentence. Additionally, I've added a link to the "Pie Incident" section of the article on the Fisheries Minister. If anyone disagrees with my, feel free to remove it. RA0808 (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The link is good. (And Bob, there are other perspectives on "the whole terrorist thing", it should be noted, just that this particular one was a very petty one.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Trypto, but this one puts into perspective that terrorism is pretty poorly-defined when it can range from killing thousands of people (9/11) to a pie in the face. Bob98133 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we both agree on that. I just thought I'd point it out. Cheers, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

PETA is not a terrorist organization. Terrorism is when someone makes death threats and deliberately sets things up in order to kill or injure people. I also include animals in this: Terrorism is when people set things up in order to deliberately injure or kill animals. PETA is very careful with their activism. They believe in peace and love and in not harming any living being. This needs to be made clear to the public on Wiki as an addition to the statement that the charges against PETA had been revoked. Another important fact for the public to read is that AETA, Animal Enterprises Terrosism Act, established during the last year of the Bush Administration, squeezed in when nobody was paying attention in Washington D.C., is a law that is going against the Jefferson constitution and against civil rights. Under this law people who throw pie in the face can be detained without a court order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaandpink (talk • contribs) 06:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ingrid Newkirk's will

http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html

I include it on this page as it's on the PETA website. Otherwise, I would have included it on Ingrid Newkirk's website. I think a link to it as well as multiple references could be pulled from it.

Jebrady03 (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying here, Jebrady. Do you think the terms of her will should be included in this article or in the Ingrid Newkirk article. Why? What references can be pulled from this? Bob98133 (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's just another publicity stunt obviously. I'm pretty sure her requests break a number of laws about the handling of human remains. I'm not sure its inclusion is appropriate.Max.inglis (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I’d say this is appropriate for the Ingrid Newkirk article but not here. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 18:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what an amazing woman. Thank you so much for posting this link to her will. I would have never seen it if it was not posted here. I am very deeply impressed with her, more than ever now. Yes, I sure believe that the link should be posted in the main article. She is super and she has a huge sense of humor as well. Her life is fully dedicated to the animals and she truly walks her talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaandpink (talk • contribs) 08:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

UK advertising standards

I removed the following text from the campaigns section. It is good content, well-referenced, but was mis-placed and too long. Sounds to me like a mention of this might fit in Graphic pamphlets section, maybe if that section were renamed Graphic materials, or something like that. Bob98133 (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It does strike me as relevant and notable, just a matter of some simple copyediting to make it slightly shorter. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a shortened version of it to that section. I didn't take it on myself to rename the section to "Graphic materials", but I'd have no objection to doing so (or maybe "Graphic pamphlets and posters"?). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

-

Criticism by UK Advertising Standards Authority over poster

- In February 2010 the Advertising Standards Authority banned the use of a poster featuring one of the people jailed for the death of Baby P. The poster had appeared in Haringey, where Baby P had lived and had featured the photograph of Steven Barker with the text "Steven Barker: Animal Abuser, Baby Abuser, Rapist. People who are violent towards animals rarely stop there." A complaint had been made about the poster using "offensive and distressing" shock tactics. PETA claimed that the poster was to prevent such events happening again, but the ASA stated that PETA "should not cause fear or distress without good reason", noting that the death of Baby P had been a very high-profile case that had been extensively covered and that the photo and text had been used merely to attract attention.

not sure if WP should really say "ban" (legal connotation) since the ASA has no legal jurisdiction. As a self-regulatory industry group, they "cannot interpret or enforce legislation" says the ASA(UK) page. 68.184.142.22 (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "ruled against", which seems to me to be consistent with ASA(UK). Does that take care of it? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

POV template removed

I have removed the POV tag from the top of the page. I think that there has been real progress in improving the page over recent months, and so I no longer consider the tag to be needed. There have been a number of content improvements, and these have been discussed in the talk above. In addition, the Unnecessary Fuss image has been deleted; although that occurred as a result of a file deletion, it ended up satisfying a POV concern as well. In my opinion, the page is now fairly balanced, and the edits that have made it so appear to be stable so far. In the event that these improvements might be reversed or "compensated for", I might decide to put the tag back. Thank you to the editors who have worked together on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Feminist criticism

The 'Conflicts with other activists' section should probably mention PETA's many conflicts with feminist organisations, who have repeatedly accused them of misogyny in their campaigns and advertising. I'm looking for mentions of this in reliable sources, which seem to be thin on the ground, but there are many, many blogs that discuss the subject: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8], amongst others. Robofish (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What you say is true, but I wonder if it is appropriate to include in this article. Gun activists, hunting activists, pure-breed dog activists, and other activists all have problems with PETA, but it seems like their criticism is more a way of promoting their own activism than attacking PETA - same as PETA butting in to other issues to promote their agenda. If there are some scholarly refs to support this, I'd be more inclined to agree to including it, but with just blog refs, I think not unless it can be related to PETA's stated goals. Otherwise it's a media tactic on both sides. Bob98133 (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I agree with both of you. The feminist issue seems like a particularly interesting one, in that, unlike hunting etc., it's not immediately obvious as an issue related to PETA, but it clearly needs to be sourced more rigorously. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the 3rd link is from N.O.W which seems notable enough (and written by communications director). But I agree it needs secondary WP:RS. PrBeacon (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

updates =

this article needs to be current on what peta's done recently and it should include the mike tyson and pidgeon racing activity.

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tv_mike_tyson_pigeons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.32.209 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

What do the Catholic League, the Ant-Defamation League, the NAACP, radical feminists, evangelicals, fat people and lesbians have in common? They have all been offended by PETA! I think it would be appropriate to add a controversies section listing these by type.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What is controversial about the border fence or the girl-girl make out tour? They are listed but without any apparent criticism. I think that this section is kind of a waste of space. This article always grows too large because of rather pointless additions like these. Bob98133 (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings. I object to the way the material was added without prior discussion, and with inadequate edit summaries, and at a minimum, it needs a huge amount of basic copyediting. I also think it goes against past consensus to format it as a separate controversies section, essentially a criticisms section, and furthermore, there are plenty of controversies associated with the material in other sections, so this format tends to trivialize the discussion. On the other hand, to answer Bob's question, I think it is pretty obvious who criticized those campaigns, and why. But I agree with Bob that the page can degenerate into a trivia list if we devote so much space to such stuff. So, what I would suggest doing is to not simply revert the whole thing, but to move it back to a page organization more like what it was before, and to keep brief mentions of the added material, but in a more succinct fashion and in the course of covering the main topics, rather than as a pulled-out section. For one example, issues about food and perceived sexism or body weight prejudice can be mentioned in the existing section on fast foods. I'll take a stab at this myself when I have the time, which I don't today. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Bob - "If the Border Patrol Doesn't Get You, the Chicken and Burgers Will -- Go Vegan." That doesn't sound a bit inappropriate given that its directed at people literally at risk for thier lives? I can't quite find an organization or periodical that stated its offense but it certainly was on blogs. FOX news had an item on the live lesbian make out section, but for reasons other the lesbian bloggers I found.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

One other thing -- this page definitely needs a controversies page. Its activities have created numerous controversies regarding the groups use of sexual, racial, religious and other imagery; these debates have often overshadowed and obscured the actual animal-rights aspect in any given incident. Take the "Save the Whales" ad -- much more comment was raised about how this insults fat people that was devoted to the supposed benefits of vegetarianism. PETA propensity for offending people in the course of their animal advocacy campaigns needs to be addressed.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

First off, I agree with Trypto that this section was added without discussion and is contrary to the results of previous discussions. Dudeman - vague references to blogs are not references. Since this page is already controversial, inserting all these "controversies" without substantiation just aggravates things. Frequently those objecting to PETA or any other controversial organization are simply pushing their own agendas (just like PETA does). I think that this section should be removed and the info, if appropriate and referenced, be added to the sections to which it applies. Bob98133 (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. And let's please note that I am definitely no defender of PETA, nor am I arguing that the material, the information that PETA offends people, should be completely deleted from the page, but rather that it should be presented in a more encyclopedic way. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. PETA offends everyone at some time or other, and this should be included, but devoting a section to it is less worthwhile and encyclopedic than using these sources as references to point out that PETA uses controversy as a tactic to promote their point of view; which the refs would support and which is an interesting facet of this org that I don't think is currently stated in the article, although it is implied. I think putting this info in that type of format, plus including whatever of it seems worthwhile in appropriate sections, would be a better presentation and less likely to be a magnet for vandals. Bob98133 (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made an edit as described above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to review the entire thing, but it looks good. Bob98133 (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

quoted stance on "pet keeping"

source: http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp

Note the first sentence: "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed."

This is blatant opposition to pet keeping of all kinds and at every level, a stance of PeTA's which most people are unaware of.

Jebrady03 (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see previous discussion higher up on this page about this. We have been unable to find a reliable reference that states that PETA is blatantly opposed to keeping pets. The quote above talks about breeding. Bob98133 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I disagree with you and agree with Jebrady03. I think a plain reading of the sentence quoted (I have yet to go back to the source, however) is that PETA is saying very clearly that they believe the practice of humans having pets should never have existed. Assuming the sourcing holds up, I think that is absolutely clear, and absolutely needs to be reflected prominently in the article. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been distracted at some other pages for a few days, but now, I have come back and checked the sourcing. It absolutely holds up: it is PETA's own statements, at their own website. And it's about as notable as notable can get. I thank Jebrady03 for finding this information, and, personally, I'm embarrassed that it has taken so long for this page to find and add this information. I have added the information to the page, as a brief addition to the lead, and a section lower on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to the further addition made by Crum. I note that it gets a little verbose, and the argument that it was POV, when it's PETA's own words, strikes me as a little silly, but I have no objection. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree with such a prominent inclusion of this info. The website makes a past conditional statement and the current edit treats it as a statement of policy. the statement does not support that PETA is opposed to anyone having companion animals, it is stating that they wished that situation had not occurred. It is still OR to phrase it as it is now phrased. Bob98133 (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean by "past conditional statement"? As far as I can tell, it still represents PETA's position at this time. Do you mean that PETA is saying that they wish pet ownership had not occurred in the first place, as opposed to wanting to undo its existence as a program to be pursued now? I think that, by quoting PETA rather thoroughly, and not paraphrasing what they said, the added material does convey the nuances that PETA intends. It is clear that their policy does not include setting pets free, and that their position is, indeed, one of wishing that the situation had not occurred in the first place. An isolated blanket statement that "PETA is opposed to anyone having companion animals", as you say, would indeed be misleading, but omitting the information about what they do say would be just as misleading. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I re-read the lead, trying to see it from Bob's perspective, and it occurred to me that the juxtaposition of the new material with the quote from Ingrid Newkirk might, perhaps, have been the problem. It quoted what PETA says about pets, but then directly followed it with a statement about "total liberation". I can appreciate that that was misleading, so I moved the quote to make it more of a general statement of long-term objectives, followed then by the specifics, thus removing that juxtaposition. Does that help? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree with how it's presented in the lead section. The issue is obviously more of a philosophical question they are raising, even somewhat rhetorical, since they admit that it is not realistic or practical to abolish pet ownership. And the lead should reflect whats in the body of the article (and represent it in due weight), not just what the anti-PETA crowd wants to highlight disingenously. PrBeacon (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors are neither a crowd nor disingenuous. And there were subsequent edits to that part, after the talk above but before the recent reversions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Tightening

Just giving a heads-up that I'd like to go in soon and do one of my periodic sweeps for overlinking, over-referencing, over-quoting, and general wordiness. If anything of substance is removed, I'll move it here. Otherwise it will just be general tightening. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've not looked at this page for a while but I'm concerned to see some of the old attitudes have re-emerged, namely PETA-bashing instead of editing in a disinterested way. :) The stuff about a tofu cream pie being an act of terrorism, for example, and a PETA employee using insulin. If we're going to add every single detail we can find with Google searches that we think makes PETA look bad, then we'll also have to add every single detail we can find about the acts of alleged animal cruetly PETA uncovers, and we'd shortly need our own servers to host it all. Please let's stick to the most notable cases and incidents. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Insulin

I've removed the issue of the PETA employee taking insulin. [9] Every time this has been raised it's been rejected to the best of my knowledge as OR, not to mention somewhat below the belt. It also begs the key question as to whether insulin could only have been made available via animal testing. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Our discussion of it decided it was appropriate the most recent time. It was the previous time too, but got edited out later without discussion. It was included in reference to Newkirk stating being against all animal testing, despite the "at the time" director of investigations was insulin-dependent. It is relevant, your removal suggests POV frankly. Max.inglis (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

While we wait on the edits concerning the lead, I am now going to move on to other sections, and I will start here first. I can see both sides in the talk about insulin here. SV makes some very good points about being careful about BLP issues, and about the flimsy sourcing of the deleted passage, and Max also makes some very good points about the need to discuss this material, and about the need to address this notable matter for POV balance. I've looked at this carefully, and I cannot support restoring the passage with the sourcing that it had previously: a Zoominfo profile of MaryBeth Sweetland (which seems to me to be a gotcha way to source her diabetes), and an article from Glamour Magazine (which is difficult to track without a web link and seems a marginal source in any case). I've looked into better sourcing, and I've found these: [10], an article by Sweetland herself about the issue; [11] (scroll down slightly), a book section written by Ingrid Newkirk, which goes into some more detail including a contrast between human and non-human insulin (more on that below); and [12], a source for the statement that PETA has been criticized for this issue. About that third source, yes, it clearly has a strong POV (as indeed do the other two sources), but its purpose would be to provide WP:V for the claim that this is a criticism that has been covered by secondary sources. There are lots of Google hits for such criticism, so it's notable, not trivial, but this one seems to me to be more RS than letters to the editor and such.

Let me suggest that editors who are unfamiliar with the science of this issue take a look at Insulin#Discovery and characterization. Please note how Charles Herbert Best's experiments first discovering insulin were done by way of highly invasive procedures on dogs. The first insulin treatments used in patients came from non-human animals, as did the insulin first used by Ms. Sweetland. My point about that is to give context to what the sources from Sweetland and Newkirk say, so that we can discuss them knowledgeably. I fully agree that we need to write whatever we add back to the page in a way that does not take cheap shots, but I also insist that we not leave it out entirely, and of course I'm happy to discuss how to word it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the change you made. It's not clear why she says it's superior - probably because animals weren't used - but that's a minor point. Bob98133 (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bob. Seeing your comment here, I made another edit to clarify what she says in the source about why it's superior. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As I recall the discussion prior to this one, the idea of dropping the Sweetland criticism was rejected since it can be referenced. I agreed with the version inserted around that time since I thought it was fairly NPOV. As time goes on, and since Sweetland hasn't worked for PETA for years, it does seem fairly irrelevant. If the underlying accusation of hypocrisy is valid, you would think there would be many more current examples that could be referenced. Bob98133 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you about that version. I'm going to change it back to that, because I think that it was better-referenced than the recent changes are. As for a more recent example, well, that would be nice, but we have the sources that we have. And there is nothing inherently wrong with reporting something from the recent past. After all, we report a great deal about the Taub incident (rightly so), even though present-day scientists would likely argue that Taub is no longer even remotely representative. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no comparison between mentioning one lobbyist's criticism of the personal life of one PETA employee 17 years ago with a major PETA undercover investigation that shocked the research community, led to a police raid, an arrest, and new legislation/amendments to protect animals. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Kathleen Marquardt

This is the kind of thing that makes this look like an attack page:

Kathleen Marquardt, vice-president of the American Policy Center, accused PETA's former director of Investigations and research, Mary Beth Sweetland, of hypocrisy in 1993 for having used insulin derived from animals to control her diabetes. Sweetland responded that she controls her condition with a vegan diet and exercise, and uses synthetic human insulin.

A right-wing lobbyist wrongly accused a PETA staff member 17 years ago of using animal-derived insulin to control her diabetes. It strikes me as absurd to mention this, per UNDUE, common sense, and decent writing. Does anyone mind if I remove it again? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Instead of removing it, how about changing it back to what it was before you changed the wording to be this way? --Tryptofish (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And please also respond to the discussion under #Insulin, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, it was not wrongly accusing. Sourced to Sweetland herself, she was using animal-derived insulin at that time. Right-wing or left-wing is not really the point in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the relevance to PETA of an employee using insulin if she needs it to save her life. Or taking any other drug. Where people have a choice (a drug tested on animals versus one not tested on animals, for example), they are indeed hypocrites if they use the former. But where there is no choice, because the pharmaceutical industry tests everything on animals, accusations of hypocrisy are unfair. And in any event this is about one person, not the group, and it was a very long time ago.

I agree that right-wing/left-wing is irrelevant, but that the critic is a lobbyist is directly relevant. PETA is attacking vested interests involving billion-dollar industries. We need to bear that in mind so that the retaliation for that—and in particular the attack tone—doesn't seep into our article. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather see an argument based on what the sources say, than on your personal opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not hypocritical if she had no other choice. Remember, our sources don't always have the same high standards of neutral, objective journalism. Their job is to sell a story, ours is not. Also there may be some concern over violations of BLP policy. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Our job is not to pass judgment on whether sources are hypocrites or not. Our job is to report what the sources have said. As for "some concerns" about BLP, the passage is sourced to what the LP herself has said very publicly and proudly about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some confusion about this, the animal-derived forms of insulin that were used in the past really were derived from animals. They were not synthesized in a lab, but were extracted from the pancreases of cows and pigs that had been slaughtered. In contrast, synthetic human insulin, branded commercially as "Humulin" by the Eli Lily Company, is produced in a laboratory using recombinant DNA methods and the known amino acid sequence of human insulin. I've simply been trying to make sure that we use wording that is accurate when describing the two forms here, and I realize that not all editors will be familiar with that background. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Since we are reporting what Sweetland said, I prefer to use her terminology, which is "animal based". Crum375 (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, I would suggest a verbatim quote, in quotation marks, instead of a paraphrase. What you are calling "her terminology" is not really the specific expression of a source, in the sense of being something where there is a nuance of the words chosen, and that nuance is essential to conveying the source's intended meaning, which would be lost if we use slightly different words. A verbatim quote, not longer than what we have now, would be superior to a paraphrase that is actually unhelpful to our readers' understanding. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed

I've removed this again, because I'm not seeing a consensus to include it. Does anyone other than Tryptofish want to see it in the article, and if so can you explain the reasoning? Also if yes, it's not about animal testing, so which section should it be in?

Kathleen Marquardt, vice-president of the American Policy Center, accused PETA's former Director of Investigations and Research, Mary Beth Sweetland, of hypocrisy in 1993 for having used insulin derived from pigs and cows to control her diabetes. Sweetland responded that she controls her condition with a vegan diet and exercise, and uses Humulin (synthetic human insulin), which she says helped her regain the muscle mass she lost when on animal-based insulin."

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone here other than Tryptofish explained their reasoning, other than I don't like it.? Has anyone here other than Tryptofish discussed their concerns in talk before unilaterally reverting other editors' edits?

Actually, there are now 2 sections about animal testing, which maybe should be combined. I've explained above the relationship between animal research and the use of pig and cattle insulin; I don't see much point in parsing a distinction between medications tested on animals and medications obtained from animals, at least any distinction from an animal rights perspective. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Animal testing is not just about medications; in fact, most of it is not. And there is only one section about PETA's position on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If it goes anywhere it should go into a criticism section at the very bottom of the article. Since PETA was and is criticized almost constantly by various politicians and media there should definitively be a section devoted to it (as with Monsanto and every other controversial organization), otherwise you end up with people dumping criticism all over the article and it just looks very bad and biased. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me like 99.236... agrees that criticism needs to be present on the page, as long as we, in effect, stick to NPOV so as not to be an attack page. As for a separate criticism section, this has been a perennial subject in this talk, and consensus has been that it is better not to have such a section, but instead, to present both sides to each section as it occurs.

So, in response to SV's question about "anyone here other than Tryptofish", I've tried to discuss with SV some concerns I have about that in her talk, but I do not see anyone here other than SV taking a position of deleting the passage. The other editors who have been active here recently have previously taken part in discussing the passage and taken part in modifying its wording, so it seems to me that, if they had wanted to argue for completely deleting it, they would already have done so, and they haven't.

In response to what SV has said here now: Yes, animal testing is not only about medical applications, and it includes military testing as well, which is in a separate section that could possibly be merged into this one. But a significant part of it is about medical applications, including the very issue (Silver Spring) upon which PETA was founded, and also including the medical use of insulin. If this (insulin) were an instance in which groups like activistcash were the only ones discussing the issue, then there might be a case that it would not be encyclopedic to include it. But that's not true. According to the sources cited, it's something that Mary Beth Sweetland and Ingrid Newkirk have written about, very proudly and not at all defensively. They weren't simply saying the lobbying groups are unfair and here is how we rebut them, but they were saying Mary Beth Sweetland is in-your-face proud of what she has discovered about how to deal with diabetes. I'm increasingly getting the feeling that some editors are arguing that we cannot cite (well-sourced, in context, and not cherry-picked) what PETA says, because what PETA says somehow reflects badly on them. That's not for editors to judge. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any remaining rationale for leaving the passage deleted. And, for that matter, it would make sense to move the military testing paragraph into this section as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I correct that there are no objections to my argument here? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Throwing tofu cream pies = terrorism

I haven't removed the tofu cream pie, but I find it so silly. It's not at all notable, and was added next to the Anna Wintour thing, which really was notable. Does anyone have strong objections to my removing it?

In January 2010, PETA threw a tofu cream pie in the face of Canadian Fisheries Minister, Gail Shea, as part of its protest against the annual Canadian seal hunt; Canadian MP Gerry Byrne described it as "acting as a terrorist organization".

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. How many people have been killed this year by tofu cream pie throwing? Has anyone thrown a tofu cream pie at emself in a crowded bus, for instance, as a way to create massive creamshed and tofurrize the population? If so, the reference to such acts as tofurrism should remain. David Olivier (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You may be right that the dangers are wildly underestimated. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm now going through the article to adjust the flow. I'm sorry, I had to remove the tofu cream pie. It makes us look as though we want to produce a quotefarm of anti-PETA material, no matter how silly. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Commenting now on this point, I guess I have to begin by stipulating to the fact that it's pretty hard to treat this as anything other than laughable. But, after all the joking, let's consider whether it should be put back. If one follows the link to the Gail Shea BLP, the incident does appear to be a notable event. I do not see anything other than editor OR to justify a claim that it is more or less notable than the event with Anna Wintour. Please take a look at the discussion at Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 13#Terrorist Organization. Understandably, in light of the long history of page vandalism, editors may reflexively see the pie thing as an attempt to insert the PETA are terrorists claim into the page, but that is not what this is at all. Read soberly, it really does, as another editor said, put "the whole terrorist thing in perspective". I'm saying this with a smile, but I'm saying we ought to put it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days, and no one seems to be objecting, so I added a shorter version of it back to the page. I've lost track of when the version quoted above was added, but what I put back is shorter, and is what the page said just before the recent round of reverts started. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, Trypto. Short version is good. It says as much about Shea as it does about PETA. I only think it is more notable than the Wintour thing because it is an elected official calling PETA terrorists, not an individual, even a noted magazine editor. Bob98133 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, thank you. I appreciate working together in this way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm removed this. We can't add everything that everybody says about PETA, no matter how silly, and adding that throwing a cream pie is an act of terrorism is absurd. It would have to be a significantly better source. What is the point of using it? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Slimvirgin - I think that this incident, which I agree is silly, puts the accusations of PETA terrorism into perspective, since those,too, are silly. The fact that an elected official considers an attack with a cream pie to be terrorism is notable if only because of how loosely that word is used. Trypto's version is pretty NPOV. I haven't checked his source, but there was a lot of media coverage both about this incident and the official's accusations of terrorism. As I mentioned above, if Anna Wintour accused PETA of terrorism, I would agree with you, since her individual POV is not notable; but federally elected Canadian official, even if misguided, should carry some weight. Bob98133 (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add a few things to what Bob just said. As I understand it, there are two objections to the material I added back, two reasons for reverting it. One is that it is "silly", and the other is that the source is insufficient. It comes as news to me that "silliness" is a criterion for inclusion or non-inclusion of material, but if we are going to delete everything on this page that some editors regard as silly, then I can nominate an awful lot of what we quote PETA as saying. As for the source, it is the Toronto Sun, a mainstream newspaper. What's the problem with that? And finally, I want to note an asymmetry in the editing and discussion here. The moment I make an edit with which SV disagrees, she reverts it. When SV makes an edit with which I disagree, I take it here to talk, and I engaged patiently in talk before adding the material back. I would appreciate a little more talk before reversion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

SV just recently removed the claim citing objections - odd thing to do, since claim was there to begin and it was her removal of it that drew objections. I just reverted pending discussion. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 19:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Length

I have it down from 74 kilobytes, 5736 words, and 135 refs to 58 kilobytes, 4283 words, and 98 refs. Will continue later. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting allegations of evidence fabrication

In the Profile > History section: after reviewing the main article on Silver Spring monkeys and cited sources, I object to the way these allegations are presented in the summary here -- not to mention how the first paragraph seems to give too much weight to so-called value of the research. As it was discussed before [13] Hubel is inherently biased as an animal researcher. I don't agree with supporters of Hubel as a source and I'm surprised that user:SV is the only editor who objected then. Even the title of his paper [14] is about researchers fighting against AR activists (!). Furthermore, the two sources listed at the monkey article in body text [15] & [16] are both from animal research outlets. I think we really need secondary (third-party) sources not invested with either side. By the way, I've also posted this in the talkpage for the SS-monkey article. PrBeacon (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You make such a big deal out of Hubel being a researcher and having a title of his paper that carries a POV. Of course he has a POV, but it does not follow that this page does, simply because he is cited here. Would you seriously argue that sources from PETA do not have POVs? It is worthwhile that, in the source cited here, Hubel was speaking as president of the Society for Neuroscience, a professional organization that represents a very large number of scientists, and therefore, his allegations, whether true or not, represent the views of a sizable population of stakeholders in the subject matter of this page—just as PETA's views, whether true or not, should be and are presented here. The page, as currently written, does not take a side as to whether the allegations are true, but presents them neutrally. In other words, it does not say that PETA fabricated evidence, but rather that PETA was accused of fabricating evidence. And the page hardly gives too much weight to the "so-called" value of the research. Now having said that, I actually have no objection to adding sourcing from third parties. What, specifically, would you propose to add? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the whole article.
Just this section.
And I don't see how it's "such a big deal" to raise an objection -- simply because I'm disagreeing with you, among others. Frankly it's an odd & somewhat dismissive reply to what some of us see as a legitimate concern.
          Besides, Hubel wasn't president when his paper was published. Thus you're assuming he's speaking (as former president) with the authority of his organization which is not necessarily true. And as SV rightly pointed out before, Hubel is not a direct party to the lab case, whereas PETA is. Furthermore we have no source for Hubel's claims of "strong suspicion" (p.7) other than his vested interest in animal research and his confrontational stance against animal rightists.
          So, as it stands this section seems to be unbalanced -- the intervention is presented and countered with research value, then we have the allegations of evidence tampering. If the mention of tampering stays, then we should qualify the value of research with a counterclaim. PrBeacon (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But the wording is neutral as to the accuracy of Hubel's accusation, and you appear not to have a third-party source to cite. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say i had a secondary source and I dont think the onus is on me to produce one. I'm simply questioning the validity of Hubel as a source for the tampering. Futhermore, the line in question reads "Some scientists..." when in fact it is only Hubel. Just because someone makes the accusation doesn't mean WP must include it. So I'm replacing the Hubel reference with a cite tag.PrBeacon (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I accept your point about it being just Hubel, as sourced. However, it was illogical of you to delete the source as "biased", which is what you said in your edit summary, or because you feel, as you say here, that the accusations may be incorrect. The source is not cited to claim that PETA actually fabricated evidence. The source is cited to document that Hubel made the accusation that they did, and it is clearly verifiable that Hubel made this accusation. Strictly speaking, Wikipedia's standard for including information is verifiability rather than truth, and it is of interest and relevance that this accusation was made. We don't hold PETA to the standard that what they say must be true or we cannot include it on this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Try to contain your scorn. Just because an edit seems 'illogical' to you doesn't make it so. You cite WP:verifiability as though it backs up your position. It doesn't -- precisely because of Hubel's lack of NPOV. "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with 'No original research' and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three." PrBeacon (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't being scornful, and I certainly don't need to be lectured about policy. I was saying, very correctly, that Hubel's accusation does not need to be correct in order to be encyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure you were, you've been dismissive from the start. And yes apparently you do need to be reminded of the threefold guideline. Or are you intentionally ignoring the NPOV part? PrBeacon (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Wikipedia has to be NPOV. Sources do not. If you want to insist, wrongly, that we cannot cite any sources that have POVs, then we cannot cite PETA as a source anywhere in the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not what i said. And we already know what you think. Perhaps you can wait for other editors to contribute to the discussion. PrBeacon (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To repeat: to delete the source on the grounds that Hubel has a POV is not valid. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. Repeating it doesn't make it right, or even 'very correct'. You keep bringing up PETA as a comparable source. Yet they are primary. Hubel is not. And apparently you prefer to bully the argument rather than wait for others to weigh in. I think it's time for admin action. PrBeacon (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to have impartial, third-party sources. I might as well put it right out in the open that I think bias against the animal researchers is an even bigger problem than bias for them. For example, the article talks about PETA's "investigations". Next thing you know, we'll be talking about the ELF's actions as "missions".... — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 06:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point. "Investigations" is POV. Would "activities" or "work" be better word choices for the section header? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue of which side has more bias for/against is open to your own interpretation. Taking the example given of "investigation" -- it may seem loaded to you because of its legal connotations, but it seems ambiguous enough to me: "as, the investigations of the philosopher and the mathematician; the investigations of the judge, the moralist." I also note that the section's summary of the legal proceedings is incomplete/inaccurate. The Supreme Court ruled in PETA's favor and returned the case to Louisiana for trial. This article only mentions that the SC rejected custody claims.PrBeacon (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed that allegation. I removed it a long time ago but didn't realize it had been restored. This was added ages ago to various articles by a former editor who was an animal researcher, and who was keen to discredit PETA. It's a misuse of primary source material. If we want to add anything about that we need to find a secondary source who cites a primary source, and not just randomly pick an animal researcher who has no direct knowledge of the situation, who's opposed to PETA, but who counts as a primary source because he's a player in the general debate. The Washington Post was the lead newspaper on this case, so if a fabrication allegation was made, they'll have it in one of their stories. They can be found in the Post's archives on its website. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary reply, about recent edits in general and not only that one. You'll see that I've restored the POV tag to the page, but, in fact, I'm quite hopeful that we can work out these issues in a positive way without too much drama. In fact, I think many of SV's edits the past two days have been very good and helpful. It's going to take me a little time to bring together the parts of the edit history that are relevant, so I'll explain in detail as I do so, and I'll refrain from any further reversion until we've discussed it in this talk. I would urge editors to look carefully at talk over the past several months here, and not simply dismiss it. We don't get anywhere when we regard one another as pro- and anti-PETA crowds. As for the Hubel thing, it seems to me to be appropriate to include statements from critics, although I also think the secondary source point is a worthwhile one. As for the lead, it's something that quite a few thoughtful editors, not just me, not just "drive-bys", have worked on, and, while I myself would like to see some tightening of it, I'm not happy with such a full rollback, for several reasons. For one, sourcing the last section to Seantor Imhofe is very weak compared with the more recent version, for, in fact, some of the same reasons that editors have expressed concerns about David Hubel as a source. Also, there is quite a history going into the discussion of pets in the lead. The most recent wording strikes me, personally, as having become too wordy by way of compromise, but, as discussed previously, there are compelling reasons to include it some of it in the lead, particularly if we are careful to source it directly to PETA themselves and not take anything out of context. But, as I say, I'm pretty confident we can work together to sort this out. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for an alternative to Hubel: I followed SV's advice about looking back through the Washington Post's archives, and an alternative presented itself that I think may work better. I suggest leaving Hubel out, and, instead, citing this [17], to support a statement that there were accusations of fabrication in both directions. In my opinion, it's important to acknowledge that scientists had concerns about the veracity of what Pacheco reported, regardless of whether those concerns were correct or incorrect, and this may be a way to report that in a more properly NPOV way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Good find. I added it here. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Newkirk interview

I can't get this to work anymore. Is it okay for everyone else? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Working fine for me. Crum375 (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Audio works OK for me. Bob98133 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I must need to download an update to something. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Archives, bot

Could someone more adept at coding than me please adjust this talkpage's archive tags at the top? Ideally the two boxes would be combined and appear to the right of the TOC box. Btw, I'm changing the 'age' field to 30days. PrBeacon (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As you saying you'd prefer the search function not to be associated with the talk header? My preference would be to keep it there because it's more prominent than having it only in the archive box, though I'm not hugely bothered either way. Thanks for fixing the number of days. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Imo, the talk header is fine as is. I meant the two boxes with archive icons. We only need one. I would prefer the second one to stay since it takes up otherwise-wasted space next to TOC. But that means combining parameters from the first (non-header) box, a task which I'm unfamiliar with at the moment. PrBeacon (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do that, sorry. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the repetitive search-box icons, so now we just have the one. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually we only have the one within the talkpageheader, now. I'm restoring the second box so it appears level with the TOC -- i'm hoping it gives another reminder to check archives first. PrBeacon (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Some threads from around the beginning of the calendar year got deleted but not archived, so it would be good to bring those back. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If the bot was archiving it's unlikely it missed anything, but you can add them manually to the archives just to make sure. It won't mess up what the bot does, if that's a concern. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive note: those discussions mentioned above &earlier were not properly archived but have now been restored in #13. PrBeacon (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Tag

Does anyone else feel this should have the POV tag on it? It was added by an anon a year ago. [18] Tryptofish reverted when anyone tried to remove it, but finally removed it herself in March this year, but with the words, "In the event that these improvements might be reversed or "compensated for", I might decide to put the tag back," which I feel isn't really an appropriate use of the tag. [19] And indeed she has now restored it without explanation. [20]

We're not supposed to engage in drive-by tagging, or to use tags as bartering chips. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. Tryptofish did leave an explanation above, which I missed. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. Yes, I did explain, and I have also said that I am planning to explain in more detail, point by point, as we go along. Please understand, the page has been relatively quiet for several months with the content that is only now being changed, but there was a lot of agreement and little or no objection until a few days ago. The changes over the past few days have in some ways been excellent and in some ways have disregarded talk here over the past few months. These changes are so many, so fast, that it is difficult for anyone to go through them quickly and take it all in. So the process of examining them and responding where necessary will have to be deliberate, and that is what is going to happen. There is a talk section, probably now archived, where I said that I removed the POV tag because of what appeared at the time to have been consensus over edits that had been made up to that point. See? The POV tag had been here a very long time, over a year, and I removed it, myself. I also made very clear my reasons for removing it, and said explicitly that if those reasons were to be undone, the tag would come back. The page was stable in that form until a few days ago. I'm very happy that we are discussing the changes now in this talk, and I especially thank SV for making careful lists of some of the issues most likely to require some give-and-take. As seen above, that approach has already been very fruitful with respect to the Hubel/fabrication issue, and I am very confident that, as we work through this, we can continue to find good solutions with which we will all be happy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Trypto, if editors added tags on articles they disagreed with, all contentious articles on WP would be permanently tagged, because there will never be a version which satisfies everyone. If you want to improve the article, then keep trying to find the right balance, but to slap on a tag as soon as you don't get your way is WP:POINTy, and doesn't help anything. The right way to improve the article is by collaboratively searching how best to present what the sources say, not by disfiguring the article when your view is rejected. Crum375 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum, you are mischaracterizing. If you have a problem with the existence, use, or appearance of the template, take it up at WT:NPOV. I don't know about other editors, but I did not add it back because I disagree with something. I did it because I genuinely believe that there are POV issues. A case can be made that your removal without having addressed the concerns that I raised in this talk was out-of-policy. You imply that I am not collaboratively searching for the best sources? Please reconcile that claim with the sourcing I just provided in the Hubel-related thread. And please do not write about me as though I were some kind of vandal. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Trypto, I did not say or imply you are a vandal. I am sure your motivation is good, but your method is wrong. If you truly want to improve the article, you don't need to disfigure it. All you need do is to keep working collaboratively to modify the contents to your way of thinking. The act of slapping on the template is essentially telling the others: I'll mess up this article unless I get my way! Consider that contentious articles will never completely satisfy everyone, so if everyone behaved like you, we'd have these disfiguring templates everywhere. Crum375 (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If everyone behaved like me, we would have a lot of careful, responsible editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

But even careful, responsible editors can become better editors. Crum375 (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sure you will. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully both of us. :) Crum375 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]

At the moment I'm undecided about the flag. Personally I think PETA is so controversial (and understandably so, given their confrontational tactics) that any fair portrayal here will be automatically viewed as pro-PETA by some while anti-PETA by others. I'm no expert but I also think there is often some misperception about neutrality and balance, especially on different scales -- single incidents, small campaigns, historical patterns, overall direction(s). Even a quick review of the talkpage discussions at WP:NPOV (38 archives and counting) reveals the wide variety of opinions as to what we collectively see as middle ground.
      On a side note, is there an official way to stamp the article as contentious? I've looked through the templates but found nothing appropriate. I'm thinking something like the Controversial [21] tag applied to talk pages. I could be mistaken but this might actually (1) add to discussion of divisive topics and (2) reduce vandalism. PrBeacon (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I've restored an earlier lead as the one I found on the article really isn't good. It was:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an animal rights organization based in Norfolk, Virginia, USA. With two million members and supporters worldwide, it claims the status of the largest animal rights group in the world. Ingrid Newkirk is its international president.

Founded in 1980, the organization is a nonprofit, tax exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation with 187 employees, funded almost entirely by its members. Newkirk has said "our goal is total animal liberation." According to its website, PETA focuses on four core issues: factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment. Their website also says of the ownership of pets: "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of 'pet keeping'—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as 'pets'—never existed", and attributes pet ownership to a "selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them", while not endorsing "set[ing] them free". PETA also campaigns against the killing of animals regarded as pests, the abuse of backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, bullfighting, hunting, and fishing. It aims to inform the public through advertisements, undercover investigations, animal rescue, and lobbying. Its slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."

The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. It has also been criticized for providing financial support to persons associated with the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The last point about providing financial support needs in-text attribution, so I've restored that. The long section about pets is odd and OR. PETA doesn't focus that much on pets, so there's no reason our lead should. And it's completely inappropriate to have a quote cited to Penn and Teller in the lead.

The two leads side by side:

Old

Current

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an animal rights organization based in Norfolk, Virginia, USA. With two million members and supporters worldwide, it claims the status of the largest animal rights group in the world. Ingrid Newkirk is its international president. Founded in 1980, the organization is a nonprofit, tax exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation with 187 employees, funded almost entirely by its members. Newkirk has said "our goal is total animal liberation." According to its website, PETA focuses on four core issues: factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment. Their website also says of the ownership of pets: "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of 'pet keeping'—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as 'pets'—never existed", and attributes pet ownership to a "selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them", while not endorsing "set[ing] them free". PETA also campaigns against the killing of animals regarded as pests, the abuse of backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, bullfighting, hunting, and fishing. It aims to inform the public through advertisements, undercover investigations, animal rescue, and lobbying. Its slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. It has also been criticized for providing financial support to persons associated with the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an animal rights organization based in Norfolk, Virginia. With two million members and supporters worldwide, it says it is the largest animal rights group in the world. Ingrid Newkirk is its international president. Founded in 1980, the organization is a nonprofit, tax exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation with 187 employees, funded almost entirely by its members. It focuses on four core issues: factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment, and also campaigns against fishing, the killing of animals regarded as pests, the keeping of chained backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, and bullfighting. It aims to inform the public through advertisements, undercover investigations, animal rescue, and lobbying. Its slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. It was also criticized in 2005 by Oklahoma senator Jim Inhofe, who said it had acted as a "spokesgroup" for the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, after those groups were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Last lead paragraph

There's so much to work through, so I'm going to start with something that I think may be an easy place to start. I'd like to consider the last paragraph of the lead, the part currently with Senator Imhofe and so forth, and just focus on that for the moment. Let me draw attention to this edit that I made [22], which accounts for much of the difference between the two versions of that particular paragraph shown just above. The change centers on replacing the allegation by the Senator that PETA was a spokesgroup, with the criticisms of PETA for providing financial support. This edit was made only after a considerable amount of discussion in talk, and with what appeared at the time to have good consensus and no objections. Here is a combined diff of that discussion, with the most directly relevant part coming at the end, below the "break": [23]. It was difficult for me to track this discussion down, because it appears that it was deleted from this talk page, but never archived, which is, to say the least, unfortunate. Anyway, I think there were very good reasons for the edit, and I see no good reason for having reverted that particular paragraph back to what it had been before. Let's note that there is really very hazy evidence as to whether PETA was actually a spokesgroup, whereas the financial relationships are, even now, discussed in detail and well-sourced within the body of the page; these points are discussed more extensively in the earlier talk. Please attend to how the previous talk was very careful about accuracy, and very cordial. My hope is that we can agree now that this particular paragraph needs to be fixed again. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive note: those discussions mentioned above were not properly archived but have now been restored in #13. PrBeacon (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I can only see you and Bob discussing this in the section you linked to, if I'm looking at the right part of it. My own perspective is that we need in-text attribution and a specific charge for any serious allegation. Can you suggest some high-quality attribution if not Inhofe, and a more specific charge? Writing from memory there were only two such donations: to Coronado, and another to ELF that Newkirk said was a mistake, but the paragraph as written made it sound like a daily occurrence. This is why I'd like some more specificity. Here are the paragraphs side by side for comparison:

Without in-text attribution (money)

With in-text attribution (spokesgroup)

The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. It has also been criticized for providing financial support to persons associated with the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. It was also criticized in 2005 by Senator Jim Inhofe, who said it had acted as a spokesgroup for the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, after those groups were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Inhofe mentions money too, so we could use him as a source for both. I removed the part about PETA doing this "after those groups were listed in a draft planning document" because the source we used (the Rood article) doesn't mention PETA or say anything about one thing happening after another. I've just looked around for more specific secondary sources, but I couldn't find anything. Suggestion to be going along with:

The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. It was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, who said PETA had given money to Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front activists, and had acted as a spokesgroup for them.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

On the page now, we have references 40, 41, and 42, which seem to go to the financing. I have low enthusiasm for placing it only on Imhofe, for similar reasons to those raised by some editors about Hubel. He's just one critic out of many, and probably not a good example to single out for the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that when you read the sources, it's hard to find anything specific. It's mostly guilt by association, activistcash.com etc. If we're going to accuse them of something serious in the lead, we need the names of reliable sources and specific allegations. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Are we looking at different sources? Reference 40 (I'm referring to the numbering in the reference list of the page) is a secondary source, a newspaper, reporting on PETA's own financial records. Reference 41 does not have a link to click, but it appears to be an official judicial document. Reference 42 is material from the Congressional Record. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Under reference 40, I see an undated article (but before 2003) by Stefan C. Friedman in the New York Post [24] citing activistcash.com (CCF). If these allegations are correct, they'll have been dealt with by more serious sources. We can't base a serious allegation in the lead on the word of a hostile lobby group, just as we wouldn't use PETA in the lead of the CCF article. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(I'm still scratching my head about "I can only see you and Bob discussing this", but, anyway...) I've been searching through Google news archives, and this is what I see. There is the Friedman article in the NY Post linked just above. It does indeed refer to information from CCF which, I agree, appears to be a biased primary source (that's CCF, not the Post, I mean). However, I think the newspaper, the Post, qualifies as a secondary RS. What the Post reports is that a person from the CCF "produced a tax return from" PETA, "[i]n congressional testimony" before what appears to be the same committee chaired by Senator Imhofe. What I think is that, if all we had were a claim on CCF's website that they knew that PETA had donated the money to E/ALF or E/ALF-associated persons, then I would agree that it fails RS. But what we have is a secondary newspaper reporting that these accusations are contained in a document, a PETA tax return, that was admitted as an exhibit in Congressional testimony. This, I think, takes it out of the realm of being "sourced to" CCF. There are also references 41 and 42, which tend to support the information further. I also found this [25], an article from the Christian Science Monitor, which I think is a pretty solid secondary source. It discusses the same allegations by CCF, and goes on to report responses to those allegations from a person representing PETA, who "insists that PETA maintains no affiliation with ALF or its sister organization, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF)", but who "did not deny" the financial donations. This I think brings it to the point of satisfying Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, insofar as supporting the claim that they were criticized for giving this money. What do you think? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If the Post is citing activistcash, and they are talking about tax returns that Inhofe has, then we should (and do) use Inhofe as he's the most authoritative source. We should then back up the use of him with a high-quality secondary source that reported his claims. The Post is not a high-quality secondary source. Look, if these claims were specific and serious, they'll have been reported clearly by responsible news organizations, and we should find and use those reports. If they're not specific and serious, they won't have been reported in that way, and that should tell us something. I'm concerned that after several years of these claims being in the article we still don't have very clear, very good secondary sources.

The CSM article is again sourced to the activistcash people. That's a lobby group that represents the fast food, tobacco, and alcohol industries. They've taken on PETA and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, among others. We can't use them as a source, just as we can't use PETA as a source on activistcash. And the CSM claim is the same as the Inhofe claim anyway: same money, same allegations, same tax returns, and we already use Inhofe. So I'm not really sure where you're going with this. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I already answered that. The CSM is not sourcing to CCF when they report that PETA, when asked, did not deny the accusations. I know the Post is a tabloid, but is there a policy basis for saying that they are not acceptable as a secondary source? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

They're a bad source for serious allegations, yes. I posted the BLP paragraph about this earlier. But I'm making a more fundamental point than that. Activistcash's source is the tax return material. Inhofe has that. He made a statement about it, and we cite him in the lead. We then give more details of the payments in the body of the article. So we have the material, and we have a better source (Inhofe, a senator) than activistcash or the Post. That leaves me unsure of what your point is. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, my overall point is that I support going back to the other version of the paragraph, as shown in your two versions above, albeit with some possible improvement of the sourcing. This is a matter of comparing two versions of a single sentence. Again, let's take this point-by-point. One of the things attributed to Imhofe is his statement about PETA being a spokesgroup. According to the article in the Christian Science Monitor, which I hope we can agree is a reliable source, they say a PETA spokesperson denied any "affiliation" with ALF, which I would understand to be a denial that PETA would speak for them. Therefore, despite Imhofe's accusation, I would argue that it would be best for us not to repeat that accusation in the lead, since it had been, on the record, denied. On the other hand, the same article from the Christian Science Monitor repeats the information about money that was in the NY Post, and reports that PETA did not deny it. You say that the Post (presumably unlike the Monitor) is "a bad source for serious allegations", but I do not really understand why they are "bad", beyond editors' personal opinions, and anyway, their allegations have been taken up by the Monitor. Furthermore, reading closely, we are not using the Post article to source serious accusations, so much as to source that these allegations were made based upon verifiable documents that were entered into the record before Congress. Therefore, I think the statement that PETA has been criticized for the financial giving is sourced to multiple secondary sources, and we would at no point be citing Activistcash directly. Given credible sourcing that PETA has not denied it, I think it's correct to report it in the lead. Then there's the point about naming Imhofe as the critic. Here, it may be something to which I, as someone who has grown up in the U.S., may be particularly sensitive. Imhofe is a very conservative Republican. If he were the only person who had ever made these criticisms, then maybe we would have to attribute the criticisms to him specifically. But of course, he is not. Citing him, particularly in the lead, has the unintended side-effect of implying that he has been the only critic. Critics across a wide swath of political positions have expressed such criticism. Making it sound like just one politician from one specific political stance ends up becoming undue. Taking these points together, I would argue for the wording of the other sentence, adding the sourcing from the Monitor. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Spokesgroup: Inhofe took this from PETA itself, which he cites if you look at the source.

2. The activistcash, New York Post, and CSM all cite the same tax records, which is what Inhofe based his investigation on. It is Chinese whispers. Someone got hold of them, activistcash issues press releases, Inhofe picked up on it. The same claims, the same payments, the same source material. Not multiple sources. One source (tax records). One investigation (Inhofe's committee). That's partly why we cite him. The other reason is he's the only serious source who went on the record that I'm aware of. The rest are lobby groups and press releases. If PETA has been engaged in serious issues like this, the W/Post will have reported on them; their archives are always the best bet for PETA stories.

3. If someone other than Inhofe looked into this, or if there were payments he didn't look into and others did, we can expand the in-text attribution. But at the moment you're looking at sources that are mirroring each other, and making the mistakes of thinking that means there are lots of them. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

1. But the Monitor makes clear that PETA disputed this characterization. Was Imhofe actually saying that PETA themselves said that PETA was a spokesgroup for ALF, which seems very unlikely? Or was he referring to PETA's use of the word in a denial, and using it himself for the accusation? That said, if editors really want to include the spokesgroup allegation as part of the language, I won't object.

2. Activistcash, the Post, the Monitor, and Imhofe all ultimately use the same source material (a PETA tax return): yes, we agree on that. If, for argument's sake, we accept that this is Chinese whispers (a rather racially ugly phrase, I think), then why are we citing Imhofe? My understanding is that the sources subsequent to Activistcash were not acting simply on the basis of an Activistcash press release, but on the PETA tax return itself. The Post reports that the tax return, not a press release, was entered into evidence at the Congressional hearing. The Monitor, which is, I think, a solid journalistic source, would not simply "mirror" something they read elsewhere, and they report that they asked a PETA spokesperson for a response to it, and she did not deny it. This is not "mirroring" a press release. If anything, Imhofe was mirroring more than the Monitor did. I think it's a false premise to say that the Washington Post is the only reliable source we can use; there are plenty of reasons why they may have decided not to cover a particular story, including the possibility that they concluded that other sources had already covered it and they had nothing more to add. Has there been a story in the Washington Post saying that the tax return was false? It's still misleading to make it sound like this one Senator from this one political position is the only person who has criticized PETA for this; a Google search brings up plenty of editorials that are neither lobby groups nor press releases. There's an important distinction: we don't want to cite everything out there on the web as a source for an allegation, I agree, but the statement is that PETA "has been criticized" as opposed to "has been accused". The combination of Imhofe's name with the word "criticized" has the effect of implying that PETA has very few critics, and just one politician is a critic on this issue. This is misleading.

3. Similarly, I'm not saying there are lots of different sources that have provided documentation of PETA making the financial gifts. I'm saying that there are sufficient secondary sources to justify reporting the accusation of the financial gifts. And I'm saying that there are "lots of" critics, so it is misleading to make it sound like there is only one critic. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

the lead should represent what's in body text

I don't see any of this issue discussed in the article's body text. I think it should be developed within an existing section or subsection, after finding additional sources of course -- I agree with SV that both The Post and CSM are basing their (weak) reporting of it on the same source. And if we're going to financially link PETA with terrorists, we need to be very careful in the lead. Criminal lawyers (ie, lawyers representing accused criminals) are not criminals themselves -- despite what Liz Cheney & others say about civil liberties. Likewise, paying (part of) the lawyer's fees is not a crime. I can see it being qualified by context in the article's body, but not in the lead as it reads now -- that wouldn't stand up to peer review. This seems like another case of alleged guilt by association. PrBeacon (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you say in the heading of this sub-thread. As for the lead as a whole, I'm taking it one section at a time. This is just the first. I'm not advocating that we say that PETA committed a crime. I'm saying that we should say that they were criticized. As you say correctly, paying part of a lawyer's fee is not a crime. But it is something that can draw criticism. As for the body text, there is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals#On direct action and the ALF. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I should have been more specific: the body text does not mention Inhofe or the congressional hearings, though I do see one footnote reference to the senator's evidence. I agree with your earlier objection to mentioning Inhofe by name in the lead, but for different reasons: undue weight, regardless of his partisanship. Politicians don't have the same standards for reliable sources (or neutrality) that we do -- neither do newspapers, for that matter. And as to what I mean about the criminal implications: criticism of their alleged ties to terrorist organizations can be misleading if not carefully worded. PrBeacon (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a secondary source and PETA's rebuttal as the source reported it. [26] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

PrB, your point is well-taken about partisanship, now that I think about it. I'm glad that you came to the same bottom-line conclusion about mentioning Imhofe by name as I did. That may now be the remaining unresolved issue about that paragraph. I do not think that it is resolved by adding his title as committee chair, which is informational but does not really remedy the concerns. I have further added the Monitor source as it reports what PETA said. I hope that addition is accepted, because the wording is inaccurate without it, for reasons that I have explained at length. Beyond that, I'm very open to making sure the wording is not misleading with respect to allegations of ties to illegal organizations. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the Coronado support was 1994-5, the donation to ELF was 2000 (later claimed to be a clerical error), and the U.S. govt document listing them as terrorists was 2002. So the earlier wording about PETA supporting ELF and ALF "after those groups were listed" was in fact incorrect. (SV mentions it above and has removed it.) PrBeacon (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Did not deny

The source [27] talks only about one ELF donation not being denied. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this in talk instead of reverting. The source is indeed a bit weasly in its wording: it says explicitly that the person from PETA did not deny that one ELF donation, and then it goes on to say that PETA did make other donations without specifying whether PETA did or did not deny them, while implying that if PETA had denied them it would have been noted. I've modified the wording in hopes of correcting anything that was misleading. I still would argue that we could leave out the specificity of Inhofe, or move his mention by name down into the main text. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me further that it may be helpful to acknowledge what PrB mentioned above, that the donations made by PETA were for the purpose of helping with defense costs, and as such, were legal. To the best of my knowledge, there has never really been a serious claim by any critic that PETA's donations were actually unlawful, but rather that they were subjectively objectionable. It would be helpful to insert the word "legally" before "donated money", except that we cannot in the current wording, because we would be saying that Inhofe said it, which is inaccurate. I think that this is yet another reason to remove Inhofe, by name, from the lead (if not from the text farther down). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No one has suggested they were illegal. Inhofe does need to stay. The main sources mention him, and we need in-text attribution just as they do; it would be odd that the key documents sprang from Inhofe's looking into this (via activistcash) but we didn't mention him. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the "did not deny" language is you're suggesting there was something wrong with the payment. See WP:SAY. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this very carefully, and I do agree now that there is a valid argument in favor of mentioning Inhofe by name in order to have in-text substantiation for serious accusations. (Parenthetically, such an argument probably also applied with respect to David Hubel. After all, falsifying evidence is a more serious accusation than providing help to pay for a defendant's defense.) But anyway, it seems clear that we will be at an impasse if we continue to argue the point, so I'm going to try to solve this by re-thinking the wording to account for concerns on all sides.

• In doing this, I noticed that the current language ("was further criticized") is in the passive voice. It becomes easier to fix the things about which editors disagree, as well as just being better style, to put it in the active voice.
• The language I propose starts with "Critics including U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe". I think this satisfies the reasons for including him by name, while at the same time also satisfying the equally valid concerns about it being misleading and undue to make it sound like he was the only such critic.
• I accept the argument about "did not deny" and SAY. At the same time, it gets problematic to leave out the "did not deny" in the context of multiple accusations, some of which were denied while others were not. If we include an accusation that was denied, we need to say that it was denied, but then we can have a problem if something else was not denied when the wording makes it sound like everything was denied.
• There is no need to have every criticism in the lead, and it would be best to concentrate on those for which there is the most factual support. When we get down to it, the accusation that PETA does not deny is something specific: that they donated money to help pay the costs of legal defense for certain persons. Based on all the sources, there is really no disputing by anyone that PETA did this. The accusation that they were a spokesgroup was denied and it is hard to argue that it was ever more than a rumor. It is perfectly reasonable to say that PETA denies any links to ELF and ALF and that they do not support violence, and there is no dissonance between saying that explicitly while reporting the criticism for paying for defense costs.

Taking all these points together, I am hopeful that wording can be crafted that we can all be satisfied with. I'm going to BOLDly make a try at that. If it doesn't work, I remain happy to discuss. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I did, and I agree with your further tweaks. I sure hope we are done with this point! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'm fine with it. I'd like to let it sink in for a day or two without committing to it, but so far it looks good. Thanks for adding it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Good! The longer I'm here, the more I become convinced that taking a day or two is frequently the best way to find a solution to seemingly challenging disagreements. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Middle lead paragraph: pet ownership

I'd like to turn next to the other material that was deleted from this paragraph. The discussion about it was at quoted stance on "pet keeping", now archived. I made the first edit adding some of the material: [28]. Then another editor expanded the passage: [29]. I accepted that this addition might help with context and NPOV, although I also feel that, strictly from the point of view of good writing style, it tended to fill all available space, like an ideal gas. Subsequently, I made some minor fixes, and then a larger correction, intended to avoid a misleading juxtaposition with the "liberation" quote: [30].

I want to explain why I think this material should be included on the page, and how it should be included. First, there is no issue of sourcing, as it comes entirely from PETA's own website. It is important to include it, for much the same reason as it is important to include the material from Ingrid Newkirk's speech: it accurately situates PETA as an animal rights organization, not an animal welfare one, and provides a philosophical context for their programs, in their own words. I really do understand the concerns that have been expressed about what critics of PETA might want to highlight or about creating the misimpression that PETA would confiscate people's pets. But that is not the point. PETA does not feel that the material reflects badly on them, because they themselves put it out there on their website. And I am entirely supportive of presenting it in a way that makes clear the fact that this is not an upcoming agenda item, but rather, a question of philosophy. Indeed, that is the point. It is an important part of PETA's underlying rationale, and addresses a matter of broad public interest.

Originally, I felt that this material needed to be in the lead, and perhaps it still should be. However, depending on how we end up deciding to write about the video, above, it may be possible to address underlying principles in sufficient detail in the lead that way, and instead place this material in the main text. The section on "On neutering, backyard dogs, and pets" already refers a little vaguely to what PETA says, in the second paragraph. (The first paragraph of that section reads like an animal welfare organization.) Perhaps we will decide to incorporate some of PETA's text into a rewrite of that section, instead of the lead, depending on what the lead becomes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Trypto - it seems to me that the section "On neutering, backyard dogs, and pets" already covers this in a pretty balanced way. A lot of what PETA does sounds like animal welfare - from the fast food campaigns to the pet stuff. I don't think they deny supporting animal welfare as long as they aim for animal liberation - which seems like a tricky balancing act, but it's what they claim. Rewriting this to make it more animal rights would make their other pet programs (dog houses, dog fighting, etc.) not make sense, since they'd be fighting against owning dogs, not just fighting them or leaving them out in the cold. As well, I think re-adding the pet position to the lead off-balances the lead, since their positions that are stated in the lead are mostly general. If they are expanded, it is in the text. If you have ideas that address these concerns, and better explain PETA's positions, that would be great; but if it's mostly moving things around, I'd be opposed. Bob98133 (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please let me clarify. I didn't mean at all to move material out of the "pets" section into the lead, in the sense of making that section shorter. Nor am I talking about deleting any of the material in that section about their programs. And I agree that we should not write anything contradictory; as I said, it is important to distinguish between short-term reforms and overall philosophy. My concern is that the latter, the philosophy, is being left out. Of course, this will change for the better when we fix the part of the lead dealing with the Newkirk speech and its relation to views of critics from within the AR movement. So I want to see what we do with that before I fully decide about this issue. But in the "pets" section, I think we can do more to quote from PETA verbatim, instead of trying to paraphrase what they said, in that paraphrasing can make it sound like we are trying to modify what they actually said themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I just didn't understand what you were doing. I saw a link to a new video by Newkirk [31] on the PETA blog. I have a slow connection so I could only see parts of it, but it seems like it's her outlining PETA's philosophy, or why they do what they do, so that might be useful since it is current. It's a drag that it's a video but maybe they have the text online somewhere. Bob98133 (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see what comes of #Lead: PETA's position in relation to other AR groups, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

With the new edits to the lead, this is no longer an issue for me, with respect to the lead. We now situate PETA within the AR movement in the lead, which I think removes any reason to linger on pets there as well. As I mentioned above, I think it would be a good idea, in the main text, to paraphrase PETA's website a little less, in favor of direct quotes, but this does not seem to be a big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead: PETA's position in relation to other AR groups

I see the quote of Newkirk stating "our goal is total animal liberation" is gone as well. It was in place, in to balance the publicly stated goals you've left in. Max.inglis (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It was sourced to Penn and Teller. I replaced it with something that's better sourced, where she says PETA is here to hold the radical line. The article does make clear that the goal is animal liberation. That's what an animal rights group is about. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a very good example of where things are going fast, only to need to be slowed down. Although the source was a website with the full video of a Penn and Teller episode, the quote was sourced, verifiably, to Ingrid Newkirk. It's nothing that Penn and Teller said. Just play the video to the indicated time point, and she says the words, clearly, herself, and there is absolutely no reason to think her words were altered or taken out of context. And this was discussed at length in this talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We can surely source is to something other than Penn and Teller. Also, that section does make that clear already so it's a little repetitive. One of the problems I have with the article is the amount of repetition and the number of quotes (not so bad at the moment). SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other source for that quote, but its video of her saying that exact line, and believe it needs to be in the introduction to contrast the publicly-stated goals. It was discussed at length previously as Trypto said. Max.inglis (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't contrast with the publicly stated goals. They are an animal rights group and believe that animals should not be property. That's what animal liberation means. I'm not sure I see the point of pulling out any more quotes as soundbites, unless they're surprising or particularly informative in some way. We do need to cut down on the repetition in this article, and the labouring of the obvious. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it being discussed at length. I can see only this, with Bob objecting to it. I also just watched that part of Penn and Teller, and it's clearly inappropriate in every regard as a source, esp something related to a BLP. Not that only, but whoever first add it missed out the rest of what she said, which we already have in the article as PETA's motto. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a video (from Penn & Teller) of a video (from PETA event). So far the only info I can find about the proper source is a 2002 Animal Rights conference. Idk, seems sketchy to use P&T since they are not the actual source.PrBeacon (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's also a copyright violation unless Penn & Teller (or whoever owns it) posted it themselves. But even ignoring that issue it's wildly inappropriate as a source, with its f***ing this and that. And most importantly all Newkirk is doing is reiterating the PETA motto—whoever added the quote to this article unfortunately left out most of it where she simply repeats the motto.

I don't know how many different ways there are to say that PETA is an animal rights/animal liberation group. That means no eating them, no owning them, no wearing them, no experimenting on them, no keeping them on farms, as pets, in labs, in circuses etc etc etc. We have a few editors here who keep breathlessly wanting to add some extra factoid that always boils down to that same issue: "And then Newkirk said people shouldn't buy purebred dogs who can't breathe properly because they've been selected to have big eyes and tiny nostrils. Oh. My. God. She's evil!! Make sure it goes in the lead!!" SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving now to this issue, this is the next matter that I feel needs to be discussed. I share Max's concern about deleting the quotation. In my opinion, there are two issues that need to be discussed: the Ingrid Newkirk quote discussed here, and the opinions by PETA about pet ownership, to which I will come back after we discuss the first issue.

First, let's get one thing out of the way, about the few breathless editors. I, for one, am breathing just fine, thank you. Please, let's stay away from making disparaging comments about other editors' supposed motivations, and focus instead on the merits (or lack) of the edits themselves. I'm sure the people saying these things would not like it if the tables were turned. OK, then, I think there are two issues to examine with regard to the appropriateness (or not) of including the Newkirk quote.

If the sourcing were OK, is it appropriate to include the content? I notice how Max said there was a contrast between the quote and PETA's publicly-stated goals, and SV disagreed. I think you are both correct, but seeing different aspects of the question. SV is absolutely correct that, as an animal rights organization, there is nothing surprising about Newkirk saying that their ultimate (although not short-term) goal would be total liberation. Basically, that is what makes AR thinking AR, what distinguishes it from animal welfare. Thus, there is a POV inherent in supposing that it is somehow a negative reflection on PETA for them to say it. Some people would consider it a negative, but others, including PETA themselves, consider it a foundation of what they believe. Therefore, it is not POV to simply report that this is what PETA believes, regardless of what editors here might think of it. But Max is also on to something about that apparent contrast. What the page quotes now is what PETA has said are their practical goals in the short term. It's entirely appropriate for the lead to include that, and no one is arguing to delete it. But look at the way it sounds on our page right now. There are 4 core issues: factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment, and then there is also fishing, the killing of animals regarded as pests, the keeping of chained backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, and bullfighting. Is there anything on that list that animal welfare advocates would disagree with? (Yes, if the page said that these things were to be banned in their entireties, but no if, as it seems to imply, they only need to be modified to remove cruelty.) As written by Wikipedia, PETA sounds almost like an animal welfare organization, albeit a dramatic and confrontational one. The part of their slogan that says "are not ours" alludes to ownership issues that do indeed differentiate animal rights from animal welfare, but our current lead soft-pedals that. It's inaccurate, and is actually misrepresenting PETA. Obviously, this is not intentional, but it comes from the fact that PETA's immediate goals are things they consider to be attainable in the foreseeable future. As I said, it's appropriate to report that, but I would argue that it is inappropriate to omit mention of PETA's underlying philosophy or principles. That's why the explicit inclusion of animal liberation, not as a short-term political agenda, but as what Newkirk herself said, as an ultimate goal, is simply presenting PETA accurately and fairly, and we need to do it.

Is the sourcing OK? First, let us note that it is Ingrid Newkirk herself saying it. That's important. If it were Penn Gillette putting his words into PETA's mouth, I'd oppose including it, but it isn't. There is no reason to question that this is what she said. It's entirely verifiable by viewing the video, and there is nothing surprising about her saying such a thing. So is it unacceptable to have the video come from a Penn and Teller episode? No, not if it is Ingrid Newkirk, not Penn and Teller, whom we are quoting. The fact that Penn and Teller are not, themselves, reliable sources for characterizing PETA, does not make Ingrid Newkirk's own words invalid. The facts that Penn and Teller make jokes and use four-letter words are beside the point. It happens that there is verifiable proof that these words are Newkirk's, and it happens that this is the available way to link to them. Perhaps there would be a copyright issue if we were to upload and post the video on-Wiki, but there is no copyright issue (at least for us) if we have a reference citation that directs readers to the website where the video resides. It makes good sense to include the citation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that she was talking about anonymous, drive-by editors. Anyway, you make a valid point about properly representing both philosophical and pragmatic issues. It's just odd that the 'total animal liberation' quote is so hard to pin down to a secondary source. Still I stand by my earlier point, Penn&Teller is a faulty source to me only because it's video within a video -- if Newkirk had appeared on the P&T show, then they would be the source. But they're not. PrBeacon (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead makes clear that PETA is an AR group when it says: "Its slogan is 'animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.'" That marks it out as animal rights/liberation. Far from soft-pedalling it, it's right there in the first paragraph. Some editors have wanted to pull out certain implications of that to make PETA and Newkirk look bad (and we should bear in mind that this article is about PETA, not Newkirk), which is why Penn and Teller used that as a scare quote. But Wikipedia is not like Penn and Teller. We don't want to add anything that implies: "expect Ingrid to burst into your home soon with her gang of tofu-cream-pie-armed thugs, to liberate Cyril, your Auntie Mildred's beloved Pekinese." :)

As for copyright, we're not allowed to link to copyright violations. This is a frequent source of frustration when using YouTube as a source. I don't agree with the restriction myself, but it's made clear on several pages e.g. the "restrictions on linking" section of WP:EL. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, another point that's worth bearing in mind (and this is why using quotes out of context is not a good idea) is that often when Newkirk says these things, she's at AR conferences specifically addressing the complaints of AR activists that PETA has gone soft and is, as Tryptofish says, more of an animal welfare group. There's often a rousing speech that reaffirms PETA's political position, namely that it is indeed AR/AL, even though it's willing to work with animal-using industries. We should therefore be cautious about pulling out points made in speeches like this, addressed at specific audiences for specific reasons, as stand-alone quotes.

Perhaps before discussing this single quote any further, we could make an effort to find it in a reliable source, then we can decide whether it's appropriate for the article, and if so where to place it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think WP:RS says anything about ease of access to a source. We don't often question citations to paid scientific journals do we? For someone to check this they'd have to have watch the show on showtime/etc or purchase the DVD of that season. That's no different from having to purchase a scientific journal, paper or online. I think when I sourced it originally, I said it was P&T, Season X Episode X Time X:XX. If we want to keep youtube out of the picture, we can, however with youtube's ubiquitousness these days, everyone assumes if its not there we can't access it.

And given your statements above, how she said it to appease the AR people, I think that makes it MORE important to include it, if she's presenting a different face publicly to the general public and to people who most of us would consider radical. Max.inglis (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Penn and Teller are not a reliable source for anything, much less a living person, so please find a record of Newkirk saying or writing this elsewhere. I've started looking myself through some AR books. Perhaps you could do the same, then if we find it and its context we can decide whether to use it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't P&T, its her, Ingrid Newkirk, saying those exact words. This isn't their opinion, or them commenting on her saying it. I understand your desire to keep un-sourced information off the page, I agree WP:RS is crucial, but I don't understand how you can be arguing the source. This isn't video trickery, or clever editing, or anything. You can't rely on ad hominem attacks on the people hosting the show. Think of it this way, lets say she appeared on a talk show hosted by someone inflammatory and crazy, say Bill O'Reilly. Would anything she said there be rendered invalid by the fact that it was hosted by someone whose opinion your disagree with drastically and has a history of attempting to distort facts? (I'm making assumptions here - I live on the right of centre, and I think he's crazy, and I'm making assumptions about you being on the left of centre, apologies if thats inaccurate) I'm going to re-insert the quote in the profile section, since I think that is a more appropriate place for it (it didn't exist the first time I inserted it, which is why I put it in the heading section.)

I appreciate the other quote, but I'm not sure the public knows what "the radical line" is, and "Our goal is total animal liberation" is much clearer. I've asked for clarification on the WP:RS page from some more experienced editors on ease of access to source, but I stand by my assertion that its valid, sourced, and relevant. Max.inglis (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Max, I'm concerned about your involvement here. You've made only 96 edits to articles and 168 overall since 2006. Thirty-five of those edits have been to PETA and its talk page, which is a large percentage, and most if not all of those edits have been about adding criticism of living persons. Your fourth edit, for example, was to suggest we point out that a named PETA employee uses insulin. We have a policy called Biographies of living persons, which says we have to be extra careful when writing about living people, and regardless of that we don't use WP as a platform to attack people or groups. Adding criticism is fine, indeed necessary, but when an article or editor is overly focused on that aspect it becomes problematic. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

AgreedGreggydude (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

More ad hominems? I did very few edits in my first times at Wikipedia, because I was cautious unlike many editors. You yourself mention "the talk page" because I read, discuss, and then edit. I've only made 2 or 3 edits directly to the PETA page itself I think, the aforementioned insulin quote (which I see you've removed as well) and this quote from PETA. I've recently begun editing in earnest, and I edit what I know about (video games, Oil Industry, Animal Rights, Canadian Music). This quote is sourced, relevant, and valid, and I've struck down all your arguments against it, so I can only assume at this point its because you dislike the quote for its content, are a PETA supporter, and don't want it here. I was happy to win this with logic, but it appears that won't be enough in this case. I won't get to adding it succinctly today because I'm re-writing the article on the tragically hip, so maybe before that some others can chime in (again) with their opinion about this.

The thing about insulin was relevant too, but we'll have that argument again later I'm sure. Max.inglis (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

PrB, I realize that the reference was to other editors, not to me, but that does not matter. SV (I infer from past talk that Greggydude was agreeing with Max, despite the indenting), I have said to you before that I want you to comment on my edits, not on me personally, and we have made some very good progress recently in that regard. But it's not like it applies uniquely to me. I am very dismayed to see what you said here, directed at Max. I agree with Max, you disagree, but the number or locations of an editor's edits have no relevance to the merits or demerits of the edits, and that is policy. If comments about editors continue to be a distraction from the actual edits, I will make an issue of it.

Now as for the Penn and Teller sourcing, it seems to me that the criticisms of it, following my explanation of why the sourcing is valid, have likewise been nothing but ad hominems against them. It is what Newkirk said, not what they said, and it only makes her or PETA look bad if one believes that AR is bad. It doesn't lose validity if she said it as part of a pep talk. It does give substance to the very vague reference to ownership in the motto. The issue isn't that PETA does not adopt an AR position; it is that Wikipedia needs to accurately present PETA's public position, not bowdlerize it. If anyone has concerns about linking to the video on copyright grounds (which I still do not buy), we can leave the link out, and just source it to a speech by Ingrid Newkirk, giving the date and place. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I don't appreciate what looks like a threat. If you want to make an issue out of something, please do, but do it now. I see your approach here as very anti-PETA. You're encouraging single-issue accounts, accounts with very few edits, accounts that use Penn and Teller as a source; accounts that add quotes from a living person out of context. None of this is good, and it should be discouraged, no matter how much you may agree with the POV. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My approach here is strictly NPOV. Accounts with few edits are still legitimate accounts, and editors may choose to concentrate in areas of interest without being denigrated as SPAs. If editors cannot make their case based on the content of edits, their cases are not strengthened by mischaracterizing the intentions of those with whom they disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Video

And here's another source for the same speech! [32]. There is no issue about Penn and Teller, and there is no issue about copyright. It is her speech in full. The quote about total liberation comes at the very end, and she states very clearly that this is something fundamental to what PETA wants to do. It is posted as a film prepared by PETA, released without copyright restrictions, and is labeled as such explicitly at the end. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wicked thanks Trypt, like I said I didn't have time today to try to find another source for it. 26:20 is the time when she says it. Max.inglis (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to know where she was saying this, and when, but she's clearly addressing the issue of slow reform, so it could go in the profile or in the section about conflicts with other activists, because it addresses those issues. The quote is:

Reforms move a society very importantly from A to B, from B to C, from C to D. It's very hard to take a nation or a world that is built on seeing animals as nothing more than handburgers, handbags, cheap burglar alarms, tools for research, and move them from A to Z. But as we keep whittling away, we will move them finally from R to Z. There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders "what's this with all these reforms?", you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitative purpose.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, thats where I had intended to place it. Max.inglis (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Good to see a better source. However I have to say, for the record if nothing else, that it's disappointing to see how this subthread devolved in a similar manner i've seen in previous threads. Questioning an editor's contributions is a legitimate form of debate. WP:Npa "..when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." I also don't appreciate how the concern over a P&T video being substandard as a source (ie, b/c it's video within video) was dismissed as "nothing but ad hominems against them." Max brought up the example of Newkirk appearing on O'Reilly -- as if she had appeared on the Penn & Teller show. She didn't. So that's a false analogy. Anyway, i never objected to the quote, just the source. PrBeacon (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Which section, Max: profile or the conflicts with other AR activists? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your point about it highlighting her relationship with other AR activists might mean that section is the best place for it. It may even be seen by some as a positive point, because they may think PETA isn't radical enough, however I think the distinction needs to be there for clarification to the public. Max.inglis (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean the Conflict section, so I'll add something about it there. It's a good video, so many thanks to Tryptofish for finding it. We should be able to use it in a few other sections too, though it would be good to know where and when it happened so we have a full citation. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Max, I've added it here. It fits well into that section. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Handburgers and hambags. Wouldn't surprise me, mind you. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, all, for finding it. I'm still concerned about the placement of the quote, as though burying the lead. Something that stands out to me is that Newkirk says very clearly as she leads up to the quoted passage that she is distinguishing between PETA's short-term goals and PETA's ultimate principles, and that PETA considers it to be very important to be clear about the latter, to speak it clearly, to not try to hide it. So I ask, why present it as a debate between PETA and Gary Francione, when it is clearly much more than that? It belongs in the lead. Describing PETA as standing only for its short-term goals misrepresents it. Ingrid Newkirk says very clearly that she intends the liberation statement to be something that should be said conspicuously. Making the lead read like it's virtually an animal welfare organization is inaccurate and wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose moving it or repeating it. She said it as part of a complex debate within the AR movement about AR versus new welfarism. It was addressed specifically at that point during an AR conference. To use it out of context would be misleading. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: (and please note that I make suggestions here in talk instead of editing the page when I suspect there still may be differences that need to be discussed). At this time, the first paragraph of the lead says: "Its slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." I propose changing that to "Newkirk has said, "Our goal is total animal liberation and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose." That goes beyond having Wikipedia parrot the slogan, which remains alongside in the summary box anyway, and presents an accurate representation of what Newkirk said, in a way that I hope addresses all concerns that have been raised. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is about PETA and the lead mentions their slogan, not Newkirk's expansion of it to address one specific issue, per above. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to consider that more carefully. It makes little sense to me to put the motto in the first paragraph, and to repeat the exact same thing right alongside it in the infobox. Having it in the infobox is enough. Newkirk was clearly talking about PETA and directing her comments to a general audience, not as part of an internal quasi-academic debate. In her speech, she addresses people from industry who may be in the audience and who are hostile to PETA, as well as people who may be new to the AR movement and just beginning to learn about veganism. I wouldn't be pushing this if she had presented what she said as a specialized comment, but I listened carefully to her entire speech, and she makes it clear that this is something fundamental to what PETA is about. Wikipedia should not be deciding on PETA's behalf to downplay something that PETA says is fundamental. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Trypto, even if you are right that Newkirk's address in that video accurately represents PETA's position, taking just a piece out of it would selectively highlight that piece, thereby pushing one aspect over others. The only way to properly understand the significance of her words is when they are placed in context of the entire speech, or major parts of it. Obviously such a long quote wouldn't fit or make sense in the lead, and the latter in any case should focus on PETA as an organization and its official mission statement. Crum375 (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I understand what you are saying, but I don't see what would be out of context about it. She introduces that part of her speech by saying that it is extremely simple. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That speech is effectively a primary source. If we pick one piece out of it, we are selectively highlighting it over others. We are also picking this speech instead of numerous others that probably exist, again selectively highlighting one aspect. All of these would violate both NPOV and NOR. Crum375 (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think i do like it in the intro, it flows nicely, from the stated goals into the quote, as long as the whole last line as that quote is used. Here what I think it should look like.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an American animal rights organization based in Norfolk, Virginia, led by Ingrid Newkirk, its international president. With two million members and supporters, it says it is the largest animal rights group in the world. Newkirk has stated "Our goal is total animal liberation and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose."

I like the quote there, because it is a well balanced quotation from her, and frankly I think pretty NPOV. I think its inclusion is warranted to highlight the radical thinking of PETA, but it also fully describes their values in a good way, which are paraphrased into the slogan. I think included just "Our goal is total animal liberation" could be seen as POV, because it highlights the radical aspect of that quote without putting it into context. I don't agree that a long quote in the intro is out of place, because it sums up nicely both the good and bad about PETA (your personal POV notwithstanding obviously) Max.inglis (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Max. Wording it that way was what I intended, but maybe had failed to make clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see this as an example of selective quoting, which violates NPOV. The only way to present parts of contentious quotes is if there is talk page consensus that the entire context is preserved, and in this case that partial quote seems clearly out of context to me. Crum375 (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

T, I feel it would be selective quoting, because in the sentences before it she makes clear that she's answering her critics' concern about her reform stance, namely that PETA often looks as though it is not in favour of total animal liberation. To use one part of her point but not the rest of it would be misleading. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty seeing how it would fit into the lead. Whenever Newkirk says things like that, it's always in response to the criticism that PETA isn't radical enough. They are seen within large sections of the AR movement (whether most of it is hard to tell, but a great deal of it) as very conservative, a media-savvy version of the RSPCA. Whenever faced with that criticism, Newkirk affirms "we are here to hold the radical line," or "our feet are on the ground, but our heads are in the sky" etc. It's difficult to portray that debate succinctly in the lead, and to use one of those quotes out of context would give a false impression of the group. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing that when Crum refers to out of context, that context is what Slim is describing. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) I can understand that there may be circumstances where Newkirk does that (respond to critics within AR), but, first, that doesn't change the fact that she is correcting what she considers to be a misunderstanding (as opposed to saying something insincerely to placate critics), and, second, listening to this speech, she makes it very clear that she is not just doing that, but speaking to a broader audience, and PETA edited and released that film for that purpose. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the way to approach this is to add the AR criticism to the lead that PETA is not radical enough, then have Newkirk's affirmation in there. I'll look around to see who best represents that criticism, and see if we can write it up fairly but succinctly. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good approach! Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a couple of days to read around a bit. Francione is probably the source to use because he's a law professor, so I may just stick with him, but I'd like to see if I can broaden it out a little too. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Please take your time. It's so much better to work slowly and come up with thoughtful solutions that we can all agree on, as you just did here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Video, part 2

I tried to make an edit along those lines [33], which apparently did not work for everyone. Are we still going to pursue this approach? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I understood SV's concerns about the length and repetitiveness [34], and made an edit trying to correct that [35]. Crum then reverted that, saying that it lacked context [36]. I don't understand that, because the context that we have discussed here, response to criticisms from within the AR movement, was there. What kind of context was missing? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, she is making lots of points to explain PETA's rationale and motivations. For you to take one small part and to highlight it, while suppressing the rest, violates NPOV. Either include the entire speech, to provide the full context, or none of it. Crum375 (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. Surely, if we cite a book, we don't reproduce the whole book to provide "context". As for "lots of points", what relevant points were missing? My understanding of the discussion above is that the context was the criticism from within the AR movement, and that was right there, referenced to Gary Francione. Was there also another context? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is simple. If you cite a book, and pick one quote from it, and other editors consider it out of context or otherwise not represetative of the entire work, it would violate NPOV for you to use that quote. In this case, Newkirk is presenting a detailed description of her and PETA's motivations and positions. By taking just the one quote, you are emphasizing one piece while suppressing all the others. If you want readers to see the speech, you can provide it in its entirety, and let them judge which part is most important, or representative of the whole. Crum375 (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's so simple, you should be able to answer my question: Was there also another context? I keep asking you why the context of Francione's criticism was incomplete, and you keep failing to answer. Speaking in generalities about "other editors [who] consider it out of context or otherwise not representative" does not address the issue, as such editors are expected to be able to articulate why they feel that way. Newkirk seems to make it pretty clear in her speech that she considers it to be a statement that stands on its own, not something that needs to be accompanied by qualifications. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Newkirk seems to make it pretty clear in her speech that she considers it to be a statement that stands on its own": Perhaps that seems clear to you, but not to me. What's clear to me is that she lists many points, providing the motivations and rationale of her organization. If we pick a single soundbite out of it, there would need to be consensus among editors that this soundbite is representative, or most important, of her speech. In my opinion, this part is not the most important, and not representative, and by focusing on it we are distorting her message and violating NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain that when I said that it seems pretty clear to me, I was basing that on what she said: "There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders "what's this with all these reforms?", you can hear us clearly." It's the climax of her speech. It's not some brief aside somewhere in the middle of the speech, taken out of context. And you still have not answered my question. You say "this part is not the most important": in what way, specifically? And "not representative": in what way, specifically? The edit you reverted indicated clearly that the context was the kind of criticism that Francione made: what else, specifically, was the context that was missing? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion: How about (1) going back to the longer version of the quote [37], in hopes of providing that elusive "context", and also (2) deleting the the last sentence of the first paragraph, which states the motto, since the motto is also right alongside in the infobox, in order to remove the repetitiveness to which SV correctly objected? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In reply to both your messages, I don't believe that the "long" quote is any better. As I see it, Newkirk delivers a long speech laying out PETA's agenda and motivations. To pick just a small piece out of it would imply that the editors here have consensually agreed that it represents the whole, in some way. I don't see how that quote does that — it is tiny part of the whole, and not at all representative in my view. Crum375 (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's only a reply to my second message. And that speaks volumes: you are clearly unable to articulate why the quote is unrepresentative. Of course you can't. It is representative. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone says A, B, C, ... and Z, and you pick X and claim X represents all items from A to Z, the burden is on you to convince others that it is so, not the other way around. When I listen to her speech, as I noted above, she makes many varied points about her and PETA's motivations and agenda. You want to squeeze them all into this one soundbite, and I just don't see it as representative. Crum375 (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've explained why it is representative. And it isn't just an X in a progression from A to Z. It's Newkirk's summing up of her entire speech, according to her, not to me. You, on the other hand, have not explained why it is not representative. Since I am not reverting your deletion of the material, and we are both discussing it in this talk, it is not a case where the burden is only on me. You keep saying that you do not see it as representative, but you are essentially admitting that you cannot explain what about it makes it unrepresentative. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If Newkirk had literally said at the end of her speech, "and here is the summary of what I have said here: X", then I could buy it. But nowhere do I hear her saying those words, and thus there is no obvious summary. You seem to believe that the onus is on me to explain why forcing a long speech with many points into a short soundbite is wrong. I think that, more logically, you need to convince me that that one soundbite is representative of a long speech. It's easy: list all her points, one by one, and show how each of them is included or covered in the soundbite. If you can't do that, then it's not representative. Crum375 (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Video, part 3

The way you are flopping around like a trout on a fishhook to avoid actually explaining why it is unrepresentative, it would seem easier if you would just explain why this particular quote is unrepresentative. But I can see that we are not going to get anywhere unless I humor your request to do it your way. So, herewith, courtesy of Tryptofish, is CliffsNotes for Crum:

• She opens the speech by stressing the paramount importance of being kind. She then says: "The animal rights movement is all about being honest in our dealings with others, or it should be. Not just saying what's expedient, or comfortable, or convenient." She then criticizes fishing and hunting, and goes into a discussion of why eating meat is unhealthful and uncosmetic. She goes on to define "our movement" as being an animal rights movement, one that extends rights from just humans to all animals, comparing the treatment of animals to slavery and the Holocaust.
• She then talks about looking back on the present day from the future, and viewing how animal treatment is full of injustices in the present day, framing these injustices in terms of rights and the lack of freedom. "The greatest respect for them is just to leave them alone."
• Discussion of how PETA does "outrageous things", making a "spectacle" of oneself, need to attract press attention.
• Lengthy passage criticizing the use of animals for food. Advocacy of veganism, not vegetarianism.
• Discussion of humans "trashing" the planet, describing animals as coequal with, if not in some ways superior to, humans.
• Criticism of medical research on animals to cure ailments caused by eating animals. Animals in nature do not have diseases. Descriptions of some amazing animal abilities.
• Discussion of compassion for animals: need to extend to animals the same concerns we have for our children.
• Criticism of animal mistreatment by scientists. Criticism of industrial farms.
• "It is our opposition who are the terrorists." "Rights movement never go away", they get stronger over history.
• Discussion of Galludet College (I think I misspelled it; it's a college for the deaf community), compares protests by deaf students to the right of animals to rise up if they could.
• I'll describe the last 7-8 minutes of the speech in particular detail, because that's where the quote is. She starts by telling activists not to become discouraged. Importance of what just one person can do. "Please, don't ever be afraid of seeming radical. All the best people in history have been radical." Call to be vegan. Joke about vegetarianism by G.B. Shaw; vegan food today is good. Account about how she became vegan.
• She calls on advocates to change the law if they can, change education if they can. "If you haven't read Peter Singer's Animal Liberation, please read it and buy a copy for a friend. Everything we must do, we must pass along. Please read Charles Paterson's Eternal Treblinka and put a copy in a library somewhere." Call for pet spaying.
• "Please don't be depressed, don't dwell on the big picture, because that's more than any sensitive person can ever endure. Remember all we've achieved in history, all the changes we've made in a very small time of animal rights activity. Even animal welfare is little more than 100 years old." Dog drownings in London, Draize test, U.S. animal welfare legislation, Taub conviction, other PETA legal victories.
• "The achievement of reform shows that, while we have our heads in the clouds, that we have high ideals and we will not back away from them, we have our feet firmly planted in the ground. Reforms move a society, very importantly, from A to B, from B to C, from C to D. It's very hard to take a nation or a world that is bent on seeing animals as nothing more than hamburgers, handbags, cheap labor, tools for research, and move them from A to Z, but as we keep whittling away, we will move them finally from R to Z. There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about what's all this with all these reforms, you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation, and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose." This point is followed by prolonged applause. When she says "total animal liberation", she pauses very emphatically on the word "total". She goes on to welcome all kinds of people to the movement. "Let's be glad that each one of us is doing something, anything, to achieve animal liberation." Encourages using PETA as a "resource", notes that nothing is copyrighted. Invites to come to PETA's booth. Thanks audience, is happy to see so many in the room. Applause.

I think that it is absolutely clear that the passage, "Our goal is total animal liberation", is representative of the speech as a whole, is a clear statement of PETA's long-term agenda, long-term goal. It is not cherry-picked, nor is it out of context. The idea of animal liberation is a consistent theme throughout the speech. I think I have done a very careful job of presenting Newkirk's speech, but if anyone notices anything that I have missed, I'm listening. If anyone thinks they can point to some way in which the quote is not representative, I'm listening there too. Actually, I think the context is as much about encouraging activists not to be daunted as it is a response to critics like Francione, but I have no objection to placing it as a response to the latter. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your Cliff's Notes, that's very useful. So can you please explain to me how "our goal is total animal liberation" is a summary of, or equivalent to, for example, "animal testing by scientists", "the need for compassion", "the call for veganism", "criticism of factory farms"?

Even if you find some correlation or connection between the subjects, can you accept that there is not a one-to-one relationship between them (and many of the others) and "total animal liberation"? And if you agree they are not one-to-one, can you see why someone would object, based on NPOV, to extracting "total liberation" and ignoring the many other points she raises at the same time? Crum375 (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. If it had been the case that I were "ignoring the many other points" and so forth, then I would indeed be concerned about NPOV. But I'm not doing that at all. (I'm not exactly sure what you mean, specifically, about a "one-to-one relationship", but it seems to me that the test should be whether or not the total liberation phrase is representative of those others, as opposed to being word-for-word the same thing.) But I'm definitely not ignoring all the other points. So, to the points that you listed, all of them are framed in her speech as being derived specifically from the belief that animals have rights, and particularly, the right to liberty. Listen to the entirety of what she says in the speech. She does not, for example, criticize factory farms for failing to enact welfarist protections for the animals, such as the improvements devised by Temple Grandin. She never says anything like it's OK to eat meat if we just would treat farm animals more humanely. Nowhere does Newkirk discuss anything in those terms. Instead, she makes it absolutely clear in every one of those cases that the animals should not be in those farms at all. That's what she says for each of those points you listed, in every case. The animals should not be there at all. In other words, not at all surprisingly, she advocates an animal rights position. There's nothing particularly remarkable about this. According to Newkirk, there is an underlying way of understanding these various situations, expressed by Peter Singer among others, and she cites that explicitly, that provides the rationale for why PETA takes the stands that it does, on lab testing, on compassion, on veganism, on farming, and on everything else in her speech. Please, look over the "CliffsNotes" and see if there is any theme that goes against that. Look back at the video of her speech and see if there is anything I overlooked that goes against that. There isn't. You see, what I've been doing throughout this thread is to object to extracting part of what PETA says about themselves and ignoring another important part. At present, the page lead focuses only on PETA's short-term goals, and ignores their stated philosophical underpinning, what Newkirk explicitly calls "no hidden agenda", "you can hear us clearly", "Our goal is...". When the subject of a page publicly states their goal, it seems to me to be POV to refuse to allow it in the article. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you made me listen to the entire video again, beginning to end, to be sure I wasn't missing something. And I listened to it carefully, with your points in mind, trying to see if "total animal liberation" is in fact the main underlying theme. But having fresh recollection of all her points, it seems to me that she makes many note-worthy soundbites, of which "total liberation" is only a minor one. In fact she makes frequent references to pets, imploring people to spay/neuter their pets, or joking about cat ownership. But while she asks her audience to stop eating chicken or drinking milk, nowhere does she ask that they get rid of their pets. One would think that if her message were "total liberation", she would be adamantly against "enslaving animals" in people's homes, yet she makes no mention of that and if anything, seems to support it. So "total liberation" as somehow being a main theme does not make sense.

But listening to her speech, the themes I do hear are "kindness to animals" ("The three most important things we can do"), "animal rights" (with emphasis on reducing animal suffering), "veganism" (as opposed to just vegetarianism), and giving animals "respect". To shoehorn all the points she makes into "total liberation" is a distortion, in no way representative of the many other points she makes. In fact, she herself does summarize her entire speech into three words, which are "kindness, kindness and kindness".

I suggest you, or any other interested editor, listen to the entire speech as I did, point by point, and see how many of those points can be classified as "total animal liberation" vs. the other topics. I think her own three word summary is best, if a soundbite is needed. Crum375 (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I did listen to the entire speech for the second time, point-by-point, in order to write the summary that I wrote above. And I'm glad that you did too, and I would encourage other editors to do so also, as you recommend. I honestly do not hear what she said in the same way that you did. Let's go through each of your points.

As for "kindness, kindness, and kindness", I have no particular objection to including that in the page, if it's what you want. However, my concern is not about having a "soundbite" (the page has many of those already), but with having an explanation of what PETA says is the reasoning behind their positions (and of course it's better to have an exact quote than to paraphrase, but not for the purpose of simply having a soundbite). Kindness is also the main underlying principle of animal welfare, and, as you yourself say, animal rights is a major theme of her speech, as of course one would expect it to have been. To argue that Newkirk's application of kindness is one of saying it's OK to use animals for human purposes, just so long as we do it kindly, virtually the definition of animal welfare, is to make the same argument that some critics, such as Gary Francione, have made, that PETA is really a "new welfarist" organization, a position that PETA rejects. It is absolutely clear that Newkirk is not using the word kindness in that manner. She is using it to describe, as kind, the worldview of, for example, Peter Singer, whose book Animal Liberation she explicitly recommends. If we force onto our article the interpretation of the word kindness that Francione and other critics employ, without giving PETA's rebuttal of it, we are unfairly misrepresenting what Newkirk actually said, in a POV way.

You also listed, along with kindness and animal rights, the themes of veganism and respect. Again, those themes are presented by Newkirk in the manner of rights=kindness, rather than welfare=kindness. She does not take the position, in her very lengthy discussion of veganism, that people should be vegans simply because it is better tasting or more healthful, although she does say those things. She is not speaking as an advocate of gourmet dining here. She is advocating the idea that people do not have the right to use animals as sources of food. Likewise, when she discussed respect, it is not in the context of treating farm animals and other animals used for human purposes with respect. It is in the context of the very detailed part of her speech where she describes in utopian terms the way animals live in the wild, away from humans, free of disease and conflict, and displaying remarkable abilities. She is, explicitly, saying that she wants to see a planet in which animals live in nature and people leave them alone, not a planet where people use animals but use them in kindly ways.

The other idea in the speech that you point out is that of pet ownership, and I am starting to realize that this may be where you and I are both looking at the same words and yet seeing them differently. To start, let's acknowledge what PETA actually says about pet ownership on their website, which is linked and discussed elsewhere in this talk. They draw a clear distinction, in that they believe that, ultimately, the world would be better without any pets at all, but, for the time being, it would do more harm than good to abruptly stop all pet ownership, and "liberate" all pets in the sense of immediately setting them all free. When Newkirk uses the word liberation, she is not using it in that meaning of the word. She is using it in the way that she explains when she talks about reforms and about the progression from A to Z. When she jokes about cats, she is making an affectionate observation about cats' behavior in order to make a comment about how to get press coverage. When she talks about spaying and neutering, she says that there cannot be a no-kill movement before there is a no-birth movement. Partly, that's a defense of PETA's support of euthanasia, but also, a no-birth situation would mean that, after a generation, there would be no more pets. It's vitally important here to understand what Newkirk says about A to Z. An eventual world in which there are no pets would be Z. Newkirk says clearly that we are not at Z yet, and so she does not advocate the setting free of pets as part of K, L, M, N.

What I'm saying is that "total animal liberation" is like Z in that progression, according to Newkirk. And I'm saying that only writing about what PETA considers to be K, L, M, N, is not accurate, and risks imposing Gary Francione et al's POV on the page. The present version of the lead does a good job of presenting only part of the story. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll start from the end: I am not focusing here on the entire page, but only on how, if at all, to summarize Newkirk's long speech in an NPOV manner.

Now let me address the pet ownership issue. What I mentioned is the contrast between the way she implores her audience to stop eating chicken and drinking milk, and her apparent support of pet ownership. If she truly felt that pets needed to be "liberated", even if not immediately by everyone, why not just say it? She asks for vegetarians to become vegans, even though she knows it won't happen overnight, so why not ask the pet owners to stop buying pets? Note that I am not saying "why not ask them to release their pets into the wild", which is clearly not practical. If she, and PETA, truly considered "total animal liberation" a key theme, I would think she would at least mention, at least obliquely, that people should stop buying new pets, at least the sympathetic ones in her audience, but I heard nothing to this effect. On the contrary, her affectionate reference to the cat, though made in connection with the news media, was clearly an indication that she (and presumably PETA) considers it normal and acceptable to own cats as pets. So it's clear to me that, based on this speech, neither she nor PETA are focused on "total animal liberation", though they may pay it lip service.

Now regarding the kindness issue, you are using your assumptions about her core beliefs, such as the difference between animal welfare and animal rights, to decide that when she says "kindness", she doesn't just mean "be nice to them", but "set them free". That is not what she says, and we shouldn't make assumptions like that.

Bottom line: it's a long speech, with many points, which in my view center on kindness to animals, despite that being a "welfarist" theme. To take the "total liberation" bit and try to present it as the underlying PETA or Newkirk theme would violate NOR and NPOV. If that speech is to be quoted, it should be quoted in its entirety, or not all, unless there is wide agreement by editors that some key portions reasonably represent the rest. Crum375 (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

First, thank you for engaging with the sources instead of arguing about burden of proof. To your bottom line, I think both of us are trying to adhere to NOR and NPOV, but we each see the content differently.

About pet ownership, you say "I would think she would at least mention, at least obliquely, that people should stop buying new pets". Instead of either of us speculating about what she would or would not say, let's look at the sources. I agree with you that she does not say exactly that in this speech. However, it does not follow that she believes it acceptable to own pets (absence of proof not being proof of absence, and all that). The fact that she speaks affectionately about cats means only that she has affection for cats, not for cat ownership. In the HBO documentary about Newkirk (which is linked in the Further Reading section of her bio page), she says that she, personally, does not own any pets/companion animals, and considers that to be a consequence of her beliefs about animal rights. We can also look at what PETA's website, reference 49 on this page, says about the matter: "Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world." They also describe pet ownership as "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as "surplus." This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to." That's not a call to "set them free", true enough, but it's also not an endorsement of pet ownership beyond rescue from shelters and pounds. There's a big difference between what you call "normal and acceptable" and what PETA calls a "selfish desire". "Total liberation", as Newkirk uses the phrase, does not mean "setting them free" today. In the speech, Newkirk talks about the A to Z progression. Owning pets from shelters is somewhere in the middle of that alphabet, while total liberation is Z. As I said earlier, she is, explicitly, saying that she wants to see a planet in which animals live in nature and people leave them alone.

So, despite what you said, I am not using any assumptions to argue that "kindness" means "set them free", because I'm not saying that. Neither am I saying that it means "be nice to them". I don't accept either of those two interpretations that you offer, because the sources don't support it. I'm saying that "kindness" as used in the sources means, according to the sources, a short-term strategy of rescuing animals from pounds, and ultimately, "no hidden agenda", a "goal" of "total animal liberation". You say that Newkirk "may pay it lip service" when she refers to total liberation. I consider that to be contrary to the sourced facts, and actually POV. Francione et al. do argue that PETA only pays lip service to animal liberation, but PETA rejects that charge. We should not impose Francione et al's POV on the page. And make no mistake about it, it's imposing a POV to present the A to Z progression that Newkirk lays out, as ending somewhere in the middle of the alphabet. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Newkirk says many things and makes many points in her speech. You seem to think they are all consistent with "eventual total liberation", because you are combining her speech with other sources to help you interpret her words and meanings. But doing this type of combination of sources to arrive at a new conclusion (in this case that Newkirk's main theme is "total liberation") violates WP:SYN. On the pet issue for example, you are ignoring my point of contrasting the way she implores her audience to go vegan and swear off dairy products, while being totally mum on the pet buying issue, and even joking affectionately about cat ownership. If, as you say, her main theme is "total liberation", why not say what you say she believes? By mentioning spaying/neutering and laughing about a pet cat, she is clearly sending a message that pet ownership is OK, as long as you neuter/spay. So as I see it, this, as well as many of her other points which seem to be focused on kindness to animals, is not part of a clear theme of "total liberation". If you only listen to this speech, without synthesizing other bits from other sources, her message is mostly "be kind to animals" and "don't eat or wear them". And yes, towards the end, she gets excited and says "our goal is total liberation", but when taking in the entire speech, I don't see that statement as representative of all the rest. Crum375 (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. I'm not doing SYNTH at all. Rather, you are starting to do what you earlier incorrectly accused me of: cherry picking some parts of the sourced material while disregarding others. In your previous post, you asked me where the sourcing was for certain aspects of PETA's views on this, and I answered you. No SYNTH about it. I don't mean to ignore the contrast you suggested between how she talks more forcefully about some things than others; rather, I trust it is a function of where she sees the various issues along the progression from A to Z that she describes. In contrast, you are focusing on some things that she says, such as the cat joke, and interpreting them in contradiction of the remainder of her speech and in contradiction of all the other sources. She does not, in fact, joke about cat ownership, but about cat behavior. She does not speak directly about ownership of pets here, but she has in other sources, and you are arguing that her lack of comment in this instance means something she and PETA repudiate elsewhere. She is not saying simply that "pet ownership is OK, as long as you neuter/spay". She and PETA also say very clearly that one must only obtain pets from shelters or pounds, not from pet stores or breeders, that it is selfish of humans to want to own pets and to control what pets do (when they can, for example, urinate). You are arguing that they never said that and would repudiate that, which contradicts the sources. In fact, there is also the campaign in which they compared the Westminster Dog Show to Nazi eugenics. You have no sourcing for your claim that PETA says "pet ownership is OK, as long as you neuter/spay". And frankly, I think it's rather patronizing to describe her statement at the end of her speech as "she gets excited". Actually listening to what she says, it is a considered expression of what she considers to be at the heart of what PETA stands for, "no hidden agenda", regardless of whether Wikipedia editors might agree or disagree with what she says. I think her statement about total liberation is consistent with all the many other things she says in her speech, not because of any SYNTH, but because she herself says so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Video, part 4

Well, it seems obvious that while we are both watching the same video, we come away with very different impressions. You seem to see her espousing a "total animal liberation" theme, and you see everything she says as supporting that concept, while I see her main theme as "be kind to animals" and "don't eat and wear them", with most of her points promoting that agenda. The only place where we converge is the short segment near the end, where she says "our goal is total animal liberation."

I see you as relying on other sources, which don't mention this speech, to form your opinion of what she means in this speech, which is classical WP:SYN. You see me as relying excessively on my common sense, perhaps violating WP:OR, when I consider her urging her supporters to avoid meat and dairy, while making affectionate remarks about pet cats, and never mentioning that pet ownership should be avoided, as an indication that "animal liberation" is not high on her priority list.

But I guess we both must use our knowledge and common sense to interpret what she says, to extract her main theme. And obviously we end up with different results. Since we don't have a reliable secondary source reviewing this speech and pulling out the essence for us, the only way we may do it ourselves as WP editors is if there is wide agreement among us as to what that theme is, so we can focus on a short quote representing it. You prefer "total liberation", while I prefer "be kind" and "don't eat and wear" — fairly different themes. So unless we can agree on a common theme, or how to neutrally weight the various sub-themes, we can't quote just part of the speech, or else we'd be violating NPOV and NOR. Crum375 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Crum, even before I read your comment here, I also was thinking about how this is becoming something where each of us is looking at the same source material but seeing it differently. Yes, that's clearly true. Perhaps other editors will examine the source carefully and help us out, although I fear we have long since passed the point of tl;dr. Otherwise, I think we just have to continue discussing this, carefully examining the facts and the logic. (Where you describe my position as thinking that you rely excessively on common sense, please don't imply that only you, and not I, have common sense. I trust that you did not actually mean it that way.)

So I'm going to try to carefully and rigorously examine our arguments here. First, let's please remember that I began this discussion with the purpose of making the lead accurately reflect PETA's philosophy, and not just its short-term objectives, which I believe is a shortcoming now. My purpose was not to write a summary of Newkirk's speech. Rather, I believe that the speech is a reliable and useful source for what Newkirk has said about PETA's philosophy. You have expressed concern that the way in which I (and others) have proposed to cite the source is flawed, by quoting the "total liberation" passage in a way that does not accurately reflect the rest of the source. That is where the issue of a quote that "represents the whole speech" comes into play, not from me saying that the lead should for some reason summarize the speech. If, hypothetically, Newkirk had said this first part of my speech is about PETA's present-day programs, and the second part of my speech is about our underlying belief systems, it would be more clear, but, with the source that we actually have, you are concerned that the "total liberation" quote is misleading, while I believe that it is accurate and representative. If, in fact, part of her speech is, according to her (not me), about the underlying belief systems, then it really would not matter for our present purposes whether or not the entire speech were about those belief systems. So the issue is not whether the quote is somehow a précis of the rest of the speech, but whether it is a reliable source for PETA's underlying beliefs, and whether it is accurate (as I believe), or contradicted by other parts of the speech (as you believe).

I also have not claimed that "total liberation" is, as you said, "high on her priority list". High or low on such a list would be a matter of what PETA would or would not do in the near future. I'm not proposing that at all. Sourced to this same speech, Newkirk describes at length how she sees the animal rights movement as existing on a progression from A to Z. My concern is that the lead fails to acknowledge the last part of that alphabet, in a way that skews the lead to reflect the criticisms of Francione et al., which PETA refutes. If there are ways to make the proposed edit clearer about the concept that "our goal is total animal liberation" does not mean that it's their goal for tomorrow, I'm very receptive to fixing that.

But you have argued, instead, that the quote about that goal is not properly cited, in that other parts of the speech show that it does not mean what it appears to mean when quoted in isolation. That's a valid point to examine, and you asked me to provide a point-by-point summary of the entire speech so that we could examine that list and see if any parts of it contradict my proposed use of the quote. I did, and I argued that the speech (regardless of editors' personal opinions about PETA's positions) is internally consistent in a way that there is nothing unrepresentative about citing the quote as a statement by Newkirk of PETA's beliefs. Not a statement by Newkirk of PETA's short-term programs, or of every single thing that PETA does, but of PETA's beliefs. In fact, Newkirk says that about it herself, in a plain reading of what she said, and a plain listening to how she said it.

We've discussed whether there are other things in the speech that contradict the liberation quote. You have argued that the place where that occurs is in the subject of pet ownership. As far as I can tell, that is the only issue where you have argued that the speech indicates that liberation is not PETA's belief system. You have cited two passages in the speech, the cat joke, and the discussion of neutering. In the cat joke, Newkirk does not say anything about pet ownership or the setting free of pets. She makes a joke about cat behavior to explain how PETA seeks press coverage. Any inference about PETA's beliefs about human ownership of animals from that joke cannot be based on what Newkirk says at that point in the speech, only that she indicates affection for cats. She does not actually say anything about ownership there, one way or the other. You have argued that, if she disapproved of ownership, she would have said so at that point, so since she did not say it, she must approve. In the discussion of neutering, Newkirk discusses in some detail PETA's support for rescuing animals from shelters and pounds, and PETA's support for neutering. She implicitly defends PETA's use of euthanasia, and argues for a "no birth" movement for pets. Nowhere does she say that PETA supports having companion animals being born to be pets. You have, again, argued that, if she disapproved of ownership, she would have said so at that point, so since she did not say it, she must approve. I've argued that this is guesswork, attributing an affirmative view to the absence of a statement either way, and contradicted by things Newkirk has said on other occasions, and things said on PETA's website. You have replied that my argument is SYNTH, because I cited other sources (Newkirk and PETA, however, not other persons or groups) to answer your questions in this talk. However, I am not in any way making any synthesis of my own. I have simply pointed out in this talk that Newkirk and PETA have spoken to the points that Newkirk chose not to address explicitly in this speech, and that what Newkirk and PETA have said contradicts your interpretation of the silences in her speech. You say that I am doing SYNTH, but you have not really demonstrated how I supposedly do so, only that I drew your attention to other reliable sources that contradict your arguments in this talk.

On the other hand, your arguments in this talk depend upon imposing an interpretation on what Newkirk did not say, and dismissing other sources where she or PETA do speak to the issue. You have offered two reasons to discount the liberation quote: that Newkirk was only paying "lip service" to the concept, and that she said it only because she became "excited". To me, it seems obvious that your argument does not derive from the source. There is nothing that is actually sourced to indicate that other parts of the speech contradict the part about liberation. Based on the source, there is no reason to claim that Newkirk's statement of PETA's philosophy is not, in fact, a reliable source for PETA's philosophy. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Trypto, we can debate this issue back and forth until the cows come home (or are liberated :)), but it's not going to change some simple facts. Newkirk's speech, though reliable, is a primary source, since she is talking about her own and PETA's beliefs and plans, i.e. she is involved in the "work" she is presenting. As a primary source, we need to treat this very carefully, and use it "descriptively" and not selectively. This means that we can either quote all of it, or parts of it if we have wide consensus that the quoted pieces fairly represent the rest. In this case, there is a clear difference of interpretation between us. You see the speech focused on "total liberation", while I see the major focus as "kindness" and "no eating, wearing and testing." I understand your rationale, and hopefully you can see mine. Given that we do perceive this differently, I see the following options: a) find a secondary source which does the interpretation, analysis and possible quoting for us; b) present the entire speech; or c) only say that she gave a speech on whatever date, and provide a link to it. By the way, I believe that speech is actually excerpted, so we don't even know what the complete one was, and who did the selection of the presented parts, which adds another unknown variable as far as thematic weighting. If you see another option, let me know. Crum375 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that each of us has been listening carefully to the other, and that each of us wishes that this could have come to consensus a lot sooner. I think that both of us agree that your option (b) would not really work on the page, and that option (c) would not add very much (and the source is already cited lower on the page anyway). I'd welcome a secondary source per option (a) if anyone has it, and I would add that, rather than a secondary source specifically about the speech, which seems unlikely, I would welcome a secondary source for what I actually said I was trying to source: PETA's fundamental belief systems, situated within the animal rights movement, as opposed to PETA's short- or intermediate-term practical goals.

You point out that the speech appears excerpted. I'm not sure that it's been abridged, but obviously there are images inserted throughout the video. However, a screen at the end of the video states that the video was released by PETA themselves, so I would assume that PETA did the editing, and that they would not have done so in a way that would misrepresent anything Newkirk said. As for it being a primary source, I want to point to other threads on this talk page, where other editors argue that we should be careful about using primary sources for what critics of PETA say, but they defend using primary sources when the source is PETA themselves, so I think this source is entirely RS as to what Newkirk says about PETA. It's only a question of how we quote the source when we cite it, not whether the source itself is reliable or appropriate.

You ask about other options. Of course, a good thing about Wikipedia is that an obvious one exists: the consensus process. As much as I, too, wish this talk were not going on as long as it has been, I'm happy to keep trying. I'm happy to continue to discuss this with you—or with anyone else—until we can work it out, and I intend to do so, and then to move on to discussing the other issues about this page. And clearly, I am quite willing to refrain from making any actual edits to the page that are contested by other editors, until consensus has been achieved.

As I have said above, the issue is whether the quote is an accurate representation of PETA's beliefs, rather than whether it is an accurate précis of the rest of the speech. I think that I have shown that Newkirk was saying it in the context in which I and other editors have proposed to quote it. I think that I have shown that it is not SYNTH to cite it in this way. I think that I have shown that it is not correct to argue that Newkirk was only paying "lip service", or saying it because she was "excited". I think I have shown that the fact that she makes a joke about cat behavior in the context of discussing PETA's relations with the press, and the fact that she discusses PETA's positions on neutering of pets, does not logically mean that she endorsed pet ownership without explicitly saying so, and therefore does not contradict the many, many other times in the speech where she situates the idea of liberation as the culmination of the A to Z progression of the animal rights movement that she describes. And I think that I have argued clearly that the lead needs to acknowledge what Newkirk and/or PETA say about PETA's position within the animal rights movement, or else the lead falls into the POV of some of PETA's critics within that movement. For you to say that you understand but just do not agree is not enough. You need either to explain convincingly why you disagree, or acknowledge where you accept the arguments that I have made here. That's how consensus works, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that a PETA-released video (or any material) is a reliable source for WP purposes, although if it's about PETA and their views, as this one is, it would be primary. And as I noted above, primary sources have to be handled with care, so as not to selectively either overemphasize or downplay parts of it, which could sway the NPOV balance or change the meaning or thrust of the complete work. In this situation, you feel that you've made a "convincing case" that your interpretation that "total liberation" is the main underlying theme, is correct, while you find my own case that the theme is "kindness" and "don't eat, wear or test", not convincing. Needless to say, I see the situation and the "convincing" aspect exactly opposite, or else I'd be sharing your view. So the bottom line is that we have a difference of opinion, and as I noted above, to be able to quote only one part of a primary source requires a broad consensus, which we don't have at the moment. Crum375 (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Where we agree: that it is critical here to determine whether the proposed edit is an adequate representation of PETA's positions, or whether it somehow is over- or under-emphasizing something so as to misrepresent it, and that you and I see it oppositely.

Where we disagree: You continue to frame the debate as being about the "main underlying theme" of the speech, whereas I see it as being about whether the quote reflects PETA's position (ie, not whether it is somehow a précis of the rest of the speech). I've explained why I make that distinction, and you have not explained why you disagree with it. Before making the conclusion that I believe that I've made my case convincingly, I've gone into great detail to explain my case, and to refute point-by-point your criticisms of it. You have stated repeatedly that your opinion is opposite to mine, but you have not really refuted the points that I have made, either the specific arguments I've made supporting my position, or the refutations I've made of yours. You cannot simply veto an edit with which you disagree by chalking it up to I say to-may-to and you say to-mah-to, but you must demonstrate that your reasons for disagreeing with it are correct, and that my reasons for supporting it are incorrect. Failing that, we must conclude that I am correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not "vetoing" an edit. I am saying that we are not allowed to pick and choose one piece out of a long speech, which is a primary source, to emphasize one part it while downplaying the others. As I mentioned to you above, I re-listened to that entire long speech with your proposed "theme" of "total liberation" in mind, and could not see it as representative of the vast majority of her material. Instead, I heard her emphasize over and over her key theme of "kindness", along with "don't eat, wear or test". I know you disagree, but I suspect that most reasonable listeners would agree with me. The point is that you want to take a very detailed primary source and pick and highlight one piece out of it, perhaps one percent of the total, which you believe is her "theme". I disagree with that choice, and believe that choosing that non-representative one percent vs. the 99 others would violate NPOV and NOR. Crum375 (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Then, instead of continuing to ignore what I said about the difference between a "theme" and a correct representation of the source, and instead of implying that you are reasonable and I am not, why don't you actually deal with the specifics of the argument? You still believe that she was just paying "lip service"? You still believe that she just said it because she was "excited"? You still believe that PETA is essentially an animal welfare organization? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's worth bearing in mind that the modern AR movement isn't even 40 years old, and the line between animal rights/animal liberation and animal welfare isn't always sharp. Anyone wanting to understand Newkirk should watch the documentary about her, I am an Animal. [38] You can see there how she straddles the boundaries. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

When I cited that documentary, Crum said it was SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I would see that as a good source, so long as we don't pick and choose what to highlight in a way that might be inappropriate. That might be the objection, though I'm guessing. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to guess: [39]. Not at all. (Glad you corrected that crucial word!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't see where it says citing I am an Animal would be SYN. What we need to make sure is that we're citing it fairly, so we need to fully understand Newkirk, and also to remember that Newkirk isn't PETA, not entirely. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That was where I cited it. No SYN there. Of course it's a good source for what Newkirk herself thinks. (Subsequent diffs for the SYN claim.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But that (about SYN) is just an aside. My larger points stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Video, part 5

Just suggesting this in talk, not doing it yet. I'm looking forward to the academic summary discussed just below, but I'm also concerned about this talk seeming to have moved on to other issues. So, for now, I want to raise the following possibility, which, to my understanding, now answers all of the concerns that have been discussed so far:

1. Delete the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, the one about the motto. It is exactly duplicated right alongside, in the box, and deleting it removes the concern that the quote below would be redundant with this paragraph.

2. Add the following as a last paragraph of the lead:

PETA has also been criticized within the animal rights movement, for working in ways that only result in incremental change.[6] In speaking about PETA's long-term goals, Newkirk has replied to these charges: "There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders what's this with all these reforms?, you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitative purpose."[7]

Ref 6 could be the recent book by Francione (just below in this talk), and Ref 7 would be the video of Newkirk's speech.

Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like WP:OR and WP:SYN to me. You say, "Newkirk has replied to these charges", but we would need a secondary source which tells us that she was replying to "those charges", or any charges, in her speech. Crum375 (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I have to admit my main source for that has been SlimVirgin, in this talk. SV? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I still AGF that SlimVirgin was actually basing on sources (with which I just happen to not be familiar myself, and which haven't been identified here) when she said in this talk that Newkirk was making her statement about total liberation as a response to critics such as Francione, and not simply as an exhortation to the audience to not be discouraged. But, until that gets clarified, I have to agree with Crum that it would be SYNTH and OR to assume that without sourcing.

So, until such time as that gets cleared up, I suggest postponing that approach. My primary concern remains that the lead should report PETA's stated position on long-term goals and philosophy, and not only their short-term practical agenda. So I propose that we do this as follows:

1. Delete the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, the one about the motto. It is exactly duplicated right alongside, in the box.

2. Replace it with this sentence:

In speaking about PETA's long-term goals, Newkirk has said: "There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders what's this with all these reforms?, you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitative purpose."

It would be referenced to the video of Newkirk's speech.

I think that all the concerns that have been raised in this talk so far have been answered. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would still consider that OR, unless backed up by a secondary source, since you are analyzing and extracting material from her primary speech. If that speech is to be reduced to only a few soundbites, I'd like to see more emphasis on her other points, such as kindness to animals. The way this quote is presented, it makes it seem like her focus is on AR, while the speech in its entirety shows her main theme is kindness (it all comes down to three words). Crum375 (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

From just below, in the next section, I wrote: "As for secondary sources that point to the passage in Newkirk's speech about total animal liberation as being an important theme of PETA's position (and I thought there wouldn't be any!), there are multiple news reports that do so: [40]*, [41]*, [42], [43], [44], *the starred ones are pay for full text, but abstracted at [45]. Some of those also confirm the venue and date of her speech in the video, which I added to the page." I think that covers it, for secondary sources that support summarizing the speech in this way. Do you have secondary sources that covered the speech, and summarized it as being about kindness? And anyway, this isn't really about summarizing her speech so much as summarizing her description of PETA's long-term goals. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those newspaper articles, but none of them makes the point you are making about PETA's long term goals, and none of them quotes the part you are quoting, so it's still OR. Crum375 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Look again, please. They all quote that passage, and many of them refer to that particular speech on that particular day. Newkirk herself says that she is talking about long-term goals: remember the A to Z thing? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please be specific. Can you please point to one secondary source which quotes the same quote as you, and makes the same point about PETA's long term goals? Crum375 (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sure, that's easy. I cite 5 sources above. All five of them specifically quote Ingrid Newkirk as saying the phrase in question. None of them quotes her phrase about "kindness, kindness, kindness" that you said was the key point of her speech. (I don't think there are any secondary sources that do, are there?) The third one, in the order they are listed above, specifically identifies the quote as coming from the speech in the video, giving the venue and date. The other four quote her without naming the venue and date. The third and the fourth explicitly use the "goal" language, while the fifth instead says "pursuit" and the first says "seeks". It's actually a direct quote of Newkirk and not SYNTH to say "goal", since she says "our goal is...". And I cannot imagine her discussion of the A to Z progression as being anything other than a discussion of short-term and long-term.

But if the words "long-term" make you uneasy, I have no objection at all to leaving them out, and just saying "PETA's goals". In fact, I would have no objection to leaving out "In speaking about PETA's long-term goals," completely, and just starting with "Newkirk has said:". Also, (either in addition or instead) I would have no objection to shortening the quote, by leaving out "There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders what's this with all these reforms?, you can hear us clearly.", and just starting with "Our goal is...". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, so let me try again. Can you point to one (only) secondary source which uses the quotes you want and explains how it relates to PETA's long term goals? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, please correct me if I misunderstand what you mean. I think that you are saying that you want to limit any edit to something that can be entirely contained within a single secondary source, so as to avoid any possibility whatsoever of SYNTH, and to source any such edit to that one source. I'm willing to answer the question that way, directly, and to work with you to edit this on your terms, but I want to make it clear that I think that you are mistaken in the way that you are applying this. I'm quite willing to cooperate with you on that, even though I think that you are mistaken.

So, the source I'm going to suggest is [46]. I would cite that as the secondary source, and also cite the video of Newkirk's speech as a primary source. I would limit the edit to:

Newkirk has said: "If anybody wonders about what's this with all these reforms, you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation."

And I would put it at the end of the first paragraph of the lead, after the sentence about the motto, which would not need to be deleted because this part of the quote is not redundant with the motto.

I'm not saying that I think that this is the only, or even the best, way to edit it, let's be clear, and I remain open to other alternatives as well. I'm saying only that I am perfectly willing to do it this way, if that is a way to get consensus with you. I do not buy the argument that we can only cite one secondary source, or that citing more than one would, in itself, constitute SYNTH. But this is a secondary source that provides the quote exactly, sources it to the speech on that date, and situates it as goals in the way that I argue the lead ought to address. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have heard no objection here, and I am not aware of any that has not already been answered. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

To repeat: I have heard no objection here, and I am not aware of any that has not already been answered. One cannot simply revert my edit without a reason. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of reply here, I will ask once more. Does anyone have an objection to this, that has not already been answered? I'm happy to continue to discuss any concerns, but I think that all concerns that have been raised so far have been answered. If any editors are not willing to justify why they object to the edit, they should not simply revert it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is about interpreting Newkirk's long speech to that animal rights conference, I would object to emphasizing one part over any other, unless we can all agree that it's non-contentious. She did two things in that speech: she emphasized kindness throughout (animal welfare), and she ended by saying that she favours animal liberation (animal rights). That reflects the essential tension of PETA's position, and we can't add one to the lead and not the other. If we want to mention it at all, we need to find reliable secondary sources, academic ones if available or at least high-quality, who discuss the tension. As I said earlier, I have several on my book shelves, but they're from the 1990s, and I was hoping to find something more up-to-date. I apologize for having been slow to do that.

The bottom line is that where there is disagreement about how to interpret a primary source, we should use a secondary source, per NOR. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying here; I was beginning to feel a little lonely. I think this is about more than just interpreting her speech, and I think the lead already covers the welfare side of the issue, which is what I am seeking to re-balance, but I agree with all of the other points you make here, and I have said so above. But I think that every point you make has already been answered just above, hasn't it? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm losing track. :) Does the lead even mention welfare? The first sentence says it's an AR group. The second sentence says it's an AR group. The third sentence gives its motto, which is an AR motto (animals are not "ours" i.e. are not property). The second paragraph also makes clear that it's AR, because it campaigns against factory farming, animal testing, animals in entertainment etc. And the third paragraph strongly implies that it's AR too. No mention of animal welfare. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Which means that if we were to use that Newkirk video, it should be to point out the "kindness" aspect which seems to permeate it ("the three most important things we can do"). Crum375 (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Video, part 6

Personally I would not object to having a final lead paragraph that read something like this (which is basically just picking up from the section about criticism from within the movement):

The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. It was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe for having given grants several years earlier to Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists charged with offenses including arson. PETA responded that it has no involvement in ALF or ELF actions, and that it does not support violence. PETA has also been criticized from within the animal rights movement for not being radical enough. Animal rights advocate Gary Francione, professor of law at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, calls PETA the "new welfarists," arguing they have become an animal welfare group because they work with industries to achieve incremental reform. Newkirk responded in 2002: "If anybody wonders 'what's this with all these reforms?', you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose."

Problems are:

• We're interpreting primary sources.
• They're a little out of date (Francione in 1996, Newkirk in 2002), though I have no reason to believe positions have changed since then.
• We repeat the PETA slogan at the end, though I feel to leave it out would be to quote out of context.

But from my own perspective it would work, though if we insert it I'd like to be able to switch to more up-to-date secondary sourcing if we find it in the future. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this gets at the "tension" PETA has between animal welfare and rights. The Newkirk speech, though longish, does a good job of showing it. She focuses on "kindness" for much of the speech (i.e. welfare), while providing that token lip service about "liberation" (i.e. rights) at the very end. But while we have a few low grade secondary sources highlighting the "liberation" bit, we have none at the moment to present the tension aspect. And for us to do it ourselves, given that it's a primary source, would be tricky at best. I don't feel that picking out just the final liberation bit would be representative of the speech, or of PETA's views in general. Crum375 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I very much support Slim Virgin's version. I'd also make the following points, by way of suggesting a few minor improvements, and suggesting how to address the concerns that have been raised:

• Since Francione's name is wikilinked, I'd be inclined to leave out his university affiliation, in the interest of succinctness. (We can always put it in the section about conflicts with other AR groups, if it isn't there already.)
• In order to have a more recent source for Francione, I would suggest citing, instead, his 2008 book that I link in the next talk thread, immediately below here, where he makes the same point.
• I disagree with how Crum analyzes the secondary sources for Newkirk's speech (and I thought I had already explained this clearly just above). If you look above, there were multiple news reports (albeit no scholarly studies of which I am aware that discuss the speech in any form) that point to the passage quoted here as being a highlight of the speech, and of PETA's broad goals. Per Crum's earlier request to have a single secondary source, I suggested this [47]], which I think we can cite along with the (primary) video of the speech. It's from a mainstream newspaper in the geographic location where the speech was made, reporting on the speech. It highlights the quoted passage, sources it to the speech, and situates it as a distinction from PETA's short-term agenda.
• In contrast, I've looked for secondary sources that, instead or in addition, highlight the "kindness, kindness, kindness" quote from the speech, and I don't think there are any. It would be SYNTH for us to pick out that quote the way Crum appears to suggest.
• As for what the lead covers now, I would argue that it really (inadvertently) buys into Francione's criticism. The first paragraph of the lead says PETA is an animal rights group, without elaborating on why, and quotes the motto, but Francione would say the motto ends up being an animal welfare motto. The second paragraph summarizes in detail what Newkirk called "all these reforms", without indicating how they are not simply concerns that are also shared by animal welfare groups. Those "four core issues" are issues for animal welfare groups as well. With the additional wording SV proposes and I support, the lead, finally, situates PETA within the animal rights movement. This is the heart of what I have been concerned about from the start. Without further secondary sourcing, we cannot say explicitly that there is a "tension" between the AR and AW aspects of what PETA does, but we can provide the information in the form proposed here, and readers can infer it for themselves.
• If we are worried about being redundant with the motto in the first paragraph, I would not object to deleting the motto sentence from that paragraph, since the motto is repeated right alongside in the box. But I don't think that's necessary either.
• An additional benefit about SV's approach is that it rounds out the last lead paragraph, presenting criticism from a range of sources and points of view. If we can do something like this, my concern about "critics" plural in the Inhofe part will be pretty much fixed, without needing to say "critics" there.

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, it would be WP:SYN to take a comment from one source, and then create or imply a "reply" from another source, as that would create an apparent "discourse" for which there is no single supporting secondary source. So if Francione says PETA is welfarist, we can't take a speech which is 90% welfarist (i.e. proving him right), and pluck a tiny "rights" sound bite out of it to create a "response". The way I see it, for this kind of give-and-take we need a single secondary source making that entire point for us, we can't synthesize it out of disparate pieces on our own. Crum375 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is another word choice, instead of "Newkirk responded..." that we could use. I partly agree with you that Newkirk never says explicitly that she is responding to Francione. However, she does seem to be saying explicitly that she is responding to those people who ask "what's with all these reforms?". I don't think it's SYNTH to equate Francione's concerns with concerns about "all these reforms"; it's just common sense, like a simple arithmetic calculation. Maybe we should say something like "Newkirk addressed these kinds of concerns in 2002, saying that..." --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There's little doubt that she's responding to Francione et al (he's the academic leader of the abolitionist position), but we could say instead:

Animal rights advocate Gary Francione, professor of law at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, calls PETA the "new welfarists," arguing that they have become an animal welfare group because they work with industries to achieve incremental reform. Newkirk clarified PETA's position in 2002: "If anybody wonders 'what's this with all these reforms?', you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation, and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose."

I would like to retain who Francione is, as we do with Inhofe, because he's is a senior academic and a key critic. I think it's important to make that clear. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If we do use this, I'd also like to add square brackets: "not ours to experiment [on]," if no one minds, just to tidy the grammar. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like all of the editors who have recently talked here have been logged in since this was proposed, and I no longer see any objections being raised. Unless there are any such objections, I would say that we should go ahead and make this edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still unhappy that we are leaving out the bulk of that speech which focuses on kindness and thus "welfare", which effectively bolsters Francione's argument. But I will accept this edit for now, pending a better source explaining PETA's "tension" between animal rights and welfare. Crum375 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll insert it in that case. I'd also like to improve it if we ever get round to finding secondary academic sources who discuss it (i.e. not Francione, who's a primary source, as is Newkirk), so I see this as something of a holding edit. But it could take forever to find those sources, so I'm thinking it's better than nothing for the foreseeable future. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone very much! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Another break

Where there's disagreement about how to interpret primary sources or which parts to highlight we should turn to secondary sources. I have a few academic books here mentioning how PETA is perceived by other parts of the AR movement (which as I recall is what we want the extra lead sentence to be about). The only reason I haven't already added something is that they're not the most up-to-date books, and I've not found the time to look for something more recent. I'll try to take a look over the next few days, and perhaps others can do the same. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate having some additional eyes on this, particularly if a "third" way might break the deadlock. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

By way of making what I said immediately above a little more specific (amid so much tl;dr), what I would see as a good approach is what we were discussing directly above the section break labeled #Video, part 2. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started making my own try at looking for some sources that might help. With respect to more recent sources for criticisms of PETA for being too welfarist, there is this 2008 book by Gary Francione: [48]. If you enter "PETA" in the search box at the left of the screen in that link, and then go to the link on page 110 of the book, there is a relevant section. As for secondary sources that point to the passage in Newkirk's speech about total animal liberation as being an important theme of PETA's position (and I thought there wouldn't be any!), there are multiple news reports that do so: [49]*, [50]*, [51], [52], [53], *the starred ones are pay for full text, but abstracted at [54]. Some of those also confirm the venue and date of her speech in the video, which I added to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What I was hoping to find were academics who give an overview. Francione is an academic, but he's a primary source here because he's the one making the claims. As I said earlier, I have a few on my shelves that we can use if all else fails, but they're from the 1990s. I don't think we can use newspapers to give an overview of the academic debate, unless it's a particularly good article. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are good points. About the newspapers, I think we would simply cite the video of the speech itself, and not necessarily any paper; my reason for pointing them out is Crum's concern that we didn't have secondary sources that treat the part of the speech where Newkirk talks about "total animal liberation" as being an important theme of the speech. Clearly, there are multiple secondary sources that agree with my point that Newkirk's quote is very significant, not just something she said as "lip service" or because she "got excited" (Crum's words). As for independent academic sources, that's fine, as you know more about those than I do. If it turns out that a good overview quote is not there, we could perhaps use Francione as a source for the criticism, and Newkirk as a source for PETA's response to the criticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Source request: violent offenses (Lead)

Sorry if we've discussed this before, but if we did I forget how it concluded. It's about this sentence in the lead:

Critics including U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe further said in 2005 that PETA had donated money to the legal defense of Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists accused of violent offenses.

Which is the source that talks about "ALF and ELF activists accused of violent offenses"? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, welcome to tl;dr. The source for the information pertaining to that is the Christian Science Monitor article cited in that paragraph. The wording that you quote is yours [55]! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at that diff, I was fixing writing that someone else added (and I didn't write "violence offenses"). What does the source say? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is the source, it doesn't say anything about "violent activists." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish, it was you who added this on May 1. [56] Can you say what your source was? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I added the original information. You changed the wording to the wording that you quoted above. That source says "In addition, Rodney Coronado, an ELF activist who was convicted of burning down an animal-research lab at Michigan State University eight years ago, received $42,200 from PETA for his legal defense", among other things. I'm not married to the words "violent offenses". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there really any question as to whether ALF and ELF use violence? It's not saying bodily violence against people. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It implies physical violence. Best to find a high-quality source and stick to what they say. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with the changes to the page. For what it's worth, the source is high quality, and I would think that burning a building down is physically violent, but I'm not looking to argue about the definition of violence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I find this wording clumsy, which is why I changed it. I'd like to change it back unless there are strong objections. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I object, because we previously discussed at great length the need to indicate, per WP:UNDUE, that Inhofe was only one of many critics, not the only one. That gets buried in the wording that I changed back. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we list here who the critics were, with sources, apart from Inhofe and activistcash.com? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussed in the past. Let's put it on the list of things to do, after all the other things that are on that list already. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if we could discuss it now, because I was never entirely convinced before that there was anyone beyond Inhofe and activistcash, and it's something you want to mention in the lead: "critics including ..." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And I'd appreciate settling the many things that I have raised concerns about, including the lead, since you made a very large number of changes in late April. I've been very patient about discussing them in this talk, and have refrained from making edits if I think anyone else might object, until the discussion has reached consensus. If you are in a hurry, you can go back through past talk and find where I linked to a search that I did. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

T, you want the lead to emphasize "critics," and you've reverted a copy edit that improved the writing because you felt it no longer emphasized "critics." But it was never clear from the sources whether there were multiple critics. So I think we should return the lead to Inhofe alone, which is how it stood for years until you changed it recently, or you should produce sources showing clearly that this wasn't just activistcash and Inhofe. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't try to read my mind as to what I want. This issue has already been discussed. If you take it upon yourself to unilaterally revert it, you will be undoing previous consensus, which you can find in previous talk here. At that time, I provided search results indicating that the criticism had been made by numerous sources, so it's not like there was no evidence for multiple critics. The page has stood with that paragraph as it recently was for several weeks, without anyone getting upset about that, so if you just noticed this concern now, you can discuss it patiently, as I have been doing with so many other concerns. I'm not objecting to discussing sources, just to the demand to do it right now. It isn't an emergency. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How about: "charged with offenses including arson"? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? The next sentence talks about PETA denying violence, and, without this, it's not immediately clear why they would have denied it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I take it there are no objections. Yes? --Tryptofish (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I take it there are no objections. Yes? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources for "critics"

I think the last paragraph of the lead may currently be inaccurate or poorly sourced, partly because it say "critics" when it seems this was Senator Inhofe and activistcash.com, a fast-food lobby group, and partly because we leave out that others felt the criticism was absurd (e.g. Senator Lautenberg). So I think we need at least to list here who the critics were, plus the sources (preferably secondary sources) and what they say. This is for the sentence saying PETA was criticized for donating money to the legal defense of ALF and ELF activists.

• Senator Inhofe. Secondary source is Inhofe cited by CNN: "Inhofe said there was "a growing network of support for extremists like ELF and ALF," and he singled out People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for giving money to members of both groups." [57] Primary source is the statement Inhofe made to the hearings he held. [58]

Who else? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

All I could find was [59][60] ... I vaguely remember the incident the first article was talking about from five years ago when the FBI made noise about "investigating" PETA because of the donations. Nothing ever came of it. --B (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's misleading to say 'critics.' The sourcing all boils down to CCF/activistcash. And I still think mentioning Imhofe by name in the lead gives the criticism undue weight. He is not mentioned in the body text at all -- as I said before, the lead should represent what's in the body, so for Imhofe to be included in the lead I think you first need at least a few sentences on his senate report/quasi-investigation, including his reliance on info from the fast food lobby. PrBeacon (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that if we don't mention Inhofe by name in the lead, we're left with no one, because he's currently the only source of the criticism that I can find (apart from activistcash). It might be a better idea to say something about him in the body of the article. We can discuss his links to the fast-food lobby if we find reliable sources that discuss it in relation to PETA. I'll take a look around. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been taking a closer look at this, and I'd like to made a couple of points:

• I was very surprised to see this question come up, in light of [61], [62], [63], and [64]. It occurs to me that my edit summary [65] unintentionally sounded like I was accusing another editor of writing clumsily. If so, I apologize, and let's just leave it at that.
• B mentions the FBI investigations. I agree that those have not led to more recent sources. That's because they were concerned with whether PETA was criminally involved with ALF/ELF in some way. I've consistently opposed putting that in the lead, because it so very much lacks substantiation. Instead, I have consistently argued that we should only address PETA's financial contributions to legal defense in the lead. There is nothing unlawful about giving money to help pay for a defendant's legal costs. And there really is no dispute about the fact that PETA did make these contributions. PETA confirms it, in the sources. So the facts are not disputed this way. Instead, the critics are concerned with whether what PETA did was right or wrong, and it makes sense to report this criticism, followed by PETA's response, in this lead.
• I want to draw what I think is an important distinction. Here, we are talking about "critics". To me, that means parties that have made criticisms, as in saying that they disapprove of PETA donating money to the legal defenses of ALF/ELF people. That's not at all the same thing as "investigators", as in parties (such as investigative reporters) who looked into the facts and uncovered new information that we might cite as sources. (Analogy: in other edits today, I criticized some things about the new Wikipedia interface, so that makes me a "critic", but I hardly qualify as an investigator of Wiki software development, or as a reliable source to cite about it!) So, we are talking here about whether it satisfies WP:UNDUE to imply that Sen. Inhofe is the sole "critic" of PETA in this regard, or whether he is one amongst others.
• Understanding it that way, I can add these search results to the ones B shows above: [66], which includes multiple editorials making criticisms, and [67], which includes books by people who criticize PETA for this. The point is not that these are investigators. Indeed, they are pretty much all echoing Inhofe, who echoed ActivistCash. And it's not that they are reliable sources that we should cite. It's just that they prove that the number of critics is greater than one. And it's not that they do not have POVs. Critics, almost by definition, will have a POV. Bottom line: Inhofe is not even close to being the single, only, critic.
• I agree with something that PrB said here and also said in earlier talk. There's an UNDUE issue with making it sound like Inhofe is the only critic, given his political position and, yes, POV. Not all critics share the rest of his well-known positions, and we should not imply that PETA's critics all share a particular ideology, because they do not. Thus, it seems to me to make good sense to describe this as "critics, including Inhofe".
• I'm fine with bringing him and other Senators into the main text. But we need to be careful to quote them per the sources. Sen. Lautenberg did not say that the accusations that PETA contributed money to legal defenses were "absurd". He and Sen. Jeffords (per the CNN source) criticized the Republican-led Senate Committee's attention to ALF and ELF, rather than to right-wing and foreign groups. They are not quoted as commenting on PETA at all.

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

List of critics, with sources

T, before getting into detailed discussions, could we please just list the critics, with sources? I started above with Inhofe, and gave a primary and secondary source for his views. Could you briefly list here who else is included in "critics", together with explicit sources? That way we can quickly see who we're dealing with. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is for the sentence in the lead:

Critics, including U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe, further said in 2005 that PETA had donated money to the legal defense of Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists.

1. Senator Jim Inhofe. The secondary source is Inhofe cited by CNN: "Inhofe said there was "a growing network of support for extremists like ELF and ALF," and he singled out People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for giving money to members of both groups." [68] The primary source is the statement Inhofe made to the hearings he held. [69]

Discussion about sources

I thought I answered that just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't clear. Could you please just list the critics here -- number one, number two, and so on -- together with a secondary source naming them? That way, we can quickly see who we're dealing with. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It was very clear, if one actually reads it. I did not bother to read carefully what other editors said is not a well-reasoned argument for editing a particular way. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not very clear -- I see two links to Google news-archive searches -- and there's no reason to be tool-ish about SV's legitimate request. You yourself admit (several times) to WP:TLDR. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no justification for calling me "tool-ish". And my comment above is not at all tl;dr, however much the rest of this talk might be. You found those links (one with news editorials, the other with books), and you can certainly read what I said about them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I described your sarcastic response -- intentionally mischaracterizing another editor's request for specific sources with I did not bother to read carefully what other editors said.. And your continued refusal to actually list other sources (rather than simply giving a google list & asking others to do the work) is becoming more suspect. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I commented rather mildly on the argument, not the person. And it seems to me that other editors are bending over backwards not to acknowledge what I actually said about those sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Making lead match the sources

As Inhofe is the only critic we've identified so far who discusses grants to the ALF/ELF, I've changed the lead back to reflect that:

The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. It was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe for having given grants several years earlier to Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists. PETA responded that it has no involvement in ALF or ELF actions, and that it does not support violence.

• Sources: For Inhofe's allegations, see Statement of Senator James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, May 18, 2005; also see the 2001 PETA tax return referenced by Inhofe. For PETA's response, see Frieden, Terry. FBI, ATF address domestic terrorism, CNN, May 19, 2005.

It may even be a little UNDUE to mention it in the lead at all, but we can leave it for now. If there are other critics saying the same thing, we can expand the sentence to include them, but we need to be very specific so that it's not hand-waving or weasel wording. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to the way this was done, making the edit without proposing it first in this talk and waiting for reactions, as I have consistently been doing, and ignoring my objections to doing it. I have explained those objections, clearly. Other editors are pretending that I have not, framing this pretending in the form of asking for a one-by-one list of sources, when I provided sources in a different form than that and explained very clearly why, and then pretending that I did not respond to the request for sources, while ignoring the arguments that I made for responding in the way that I did. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources for "critics", refactored

I'm repeating here the response I gave a few days ago, with one refactoring: where before I had two links to source searches on Google, I now have a (needlessly) long list of the individual sources for those who complain about having to click through (fourth bullet point). If you disagree with my arguments, fine, but please do not pretend that I have not made them. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been taking a closer look at this, and I'd like to made a couple of points:

• I was very surprised to see this question come up, in light of [70], [71], [72], and [73]. It occurs to me that my edit summary [74] unintentionally sounded like I was accusing another editor of writing clumsily. If so, I apologize, and let's just leave it at that.
• B mentions the FBI investigations. I agree that those have not led to more recent sources. That's because they were concerned with whether PETA was criminally involved with ALF/ELF in some way. I've consistently opposed putting that in the lead, because it so very much lacks substantiation. Instead, I have consistently argued that we should only address PETA's financial contributions to legal defense in the lead. There is nothing unlawful about giving money to help pay for a defendant's legal costs. And there really is no dispute about the fact that PETA did make these contributions. PETA confirms it, in the sources. So the facts are not disputed this way. Instead, the critics are concerned with whether what PETA did was right or wrong, and it makes sense to report this criticism, followed by PETA's response, in this lead.
• I want to draw what I think is an important distinction. Here, we are talking about "critics". To me, that means parties that have made criticisms, as in saying that they disapprove of PETA donating money to the legal defenses of ALF/ELF people. That's not at all the same thing as "investigators", as in parties (such as investigative reporters) who looked into the facts and uncovered new information that we might cite as sources. (Analogy: in other edits today, I criticized some things about the new Wikipedia interface, so that makes me a "critic", but I hardly qualify as an investigator of Wiki software development, or as a reliable source to cite about it!) So, we are talking here about whether it satisfies WP:UNDUE to imply that Sen. Inhofe is the sole "critic" of PETA in this regard, or whether he is one amongst others.
• Understanding it that way, I can add these search results to the ones B shows above: modified [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]. The point is not that these are investigators. Indeed, they are pretty much all echoing Inhofe, who echoed ActivistCash. And it's not that they are reliable sources that we should cite. It's just that they prove that the number of critics is greater than one. And it's not that they do not have POVs. Critics, almost by definition, will have a POV. Bottom line: Inhofe is not even close to being the single, only, critic.
• I agree with something that PrB said here and also said in earlier talk. There's an UNDUE issue with making it sound like Inhofe is the only critic, given his political position and, yes, POV. Not all critics share the rest of his well-known positions, and we should not imply that PETA's critics all share a particular ideology, because they do not. Thus, it seems to me to make good sense to describe this as "critics, including Inhofe".
• I'm fine with bringing him and other Senators into the main text. But we need to be careful to quote them per the sources. Sen. Lautenberg did not say that the accusations that PETA contributed money to legal defenses were "absurd". He and Sen. Jeffords (per the CNN source) criticized the Republican-led Senate Committee's attention to ALF and ELF, rather than to right-wing and foreign groups. They are not quoted as commenting on PETA at all.

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please just list the names of the critics in the section above, so that we can see who they are. We can't have any more weasel words, especially not in the lead. Once we have a clear list that's easy to scan, then we can discuss how to present them. Again, this is for the sentence in the lead saying PETA was criticized for giving grants to ELF and ALF activists (one in 2001, and two in or around 1996). SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why repost your earlier response, Trypto? idk, seems counterproductive here. you say you want acknowledgment -- ok, I get the point about multiple critics. But no one complained about having to 'click through' etc, and your long list on individual links doesn't really make it easier to see the individual critics. The first few that I checked were all books. Anyone can write a book critical of a subject, that doesn't elevate them to the position of critic -- despite your analogy. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. Anybody can write a book, but to have one published (as opposed to self publishing) probably ought to "elevate them to the position of critic". — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 11:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Getting a book published is not the litmus test that you're implying, not these days anyway. Is Sarah Palin a reliable critic of the media because she got a book published? -PrBeacon (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Reliable critic"? — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 17:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

To you both, asking to just have a list of names, as opposed to a list of links that you can click to see names, does indeed sound to me like a complaint about having to click through. How come no one thinks that it's weasel words to say, in the sentence just before the one we are discussing here, "The organization has been criticized..."? And as for the remarkable suggestion that someone who writes and publishes a book criticizing the subject does not qualify as a critic, well, do you have any sources for that claim? It seems to me that neither of you are really responding to the arguments that I have made, no matter how many times I repeat them. Could it be that you do not have any valid counter-arguments? --Tryptofish (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea that's the way to go, since dismissing your opposition as invalid has worked so well for you in the past. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, so it's fine for you, but not for him? Seriously?! — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 11:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Where did I call his argument(s) invalid? And you're the last person who should be crying hypocrisy. -PrBeacon (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, I thought this discussion was about critics who you and SV refuse to acknowledge. Silly me. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 17:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you didn't read it carefully. What else is new. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have very patiently explained and justified my reasoning, while you have not done so. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

T, you've been asked a very simple question, and instead of replying you're repeatedly posting links to make us search for the material ourselves. You are the one who wants the sentence: "Critics, including U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe, further said in 2005 that PETA had donated money to the legal defense of Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists." Therefore please name the "critics" here with secondary sources, so we can see it's not just Inhofe. The onus is on you to tell us who these critics are. Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So:

1. Senator Jim Inhofe. Primary source; secondary source.
2.
3.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

2. [102].

3. [103].

I've repeatedly provided the answer to the question you ask here, and have explained very clearly. You are repeatedly pretending that I have not. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And I would like to know how you respond to my explanations. I made six (6) bullet points. Please state here whether you agree or disagree with them, and if you disagree, why:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

--Tryptofish (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you won't post the names for us, we have to assume there aren't any apart from Inhofe. The onus is on you to tell us who they are. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

But I have posted them. In great numbers. And I've provided thoughtful explanation of why I argue it in the way that I have. Which you are refusing to acknowledge, or to refute. Do you at least understand the distinction between a critic and an investigator? Actually, you are arguing to put wording on the page to indicate that Inhofe is the only critic. The onus is just as much on you to provide secondary sourcing to demonstrate that independent sources have evaluated the sources that I posted, and determined, somehow, that Inhofe is, nonetheless, the only critic. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait, now you want secondary analysis of your sources? Maybe on re-reading that you will see how unreasonable you're being. You claim to be patient, thoughtful, justified, etc, while painting others here as negligent and even stupid? Your snarky question "Do you at least understand the distinction..." is crossing the line. And then you wonder why we don't want to respond right away, if at all? Get a grip, dude. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your comment is just one long personal attack. The fact that you "don't want to respond right away, if at all" is exactly the problem. I respond, and actually explain. I have explained the distinction between investigation and criticism. In return, I get name-calling, and pretending to not be aware of what I have said. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I said we, as in other editors besides yourself. Apparently you can't see that your debate tactics are the problem, others not responding is a symptom. Anyone can see how your overly long posts seem to dominate this talkpage. You get belligerent and petty when someone disagrees with you, defensive and huffy when I call you out on your patronizing insults. Stop playing the victim card, it's not working. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not true, and commenting on me rather than on content. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is true, though perhaps not as harshly as it seems in writing. And I think it's fair to comment on an editor's incivility (including my own) when it gets in the way of discussing content disputes. Anyway, I'm glad it's been resolved but perhaps you & Herbal can reflect on why others see your posts in this light. Feel free to take it to my talkpage. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Herbal for the support. I no longer see this as an issue, since we have added Francione to the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Comic book

I noticed the addition of an image of a purported comic book cover, and its subsequent reversion by Bob. I fully agree with Bob's reversion, and the image caption was clearly POV. However, I have a question: is the image authentic, that is, from an actual campaign by PETA? If not, it clearly has no place here, but if so, it may, perhaps, be worth including (with a neutral caption) if in fact it truthfully illustrates a "graphic campaign". Just asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It could be included in the section about those comics, in the "Particular media campaigns" section, subsection "Your Daddy Kills Animals!" SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you guys know how to deal with this. I looked up the image details and the editor who placed it in this article claims that he created this and has placed it in public domain. Obviously, this is not true, so the comic book cover image should be deleted (although it might be eligible as some type of fair use). I think that the image was in the article at one time but may have been removed for questionable copyright. In any event, the image did originate with PETA, so if the copyright issue is resolved, then it could be included as SV suggests. Bob98133 (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Material that originates with PETA is all released into the public domain, so unless this image has special copyright status, we should be able to use it. We just need to provide a link to the image on the PETA site; add the OTRS ticket from one of the other PETA images; then add the right tag. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

SV, PETA says that, but it's only true for some materials that they create. For example, celebrity photos may be owned by the celeb or the photographer and licensed to PETA for specific use and/or a specific time frame. I once tried to find out the copyright status of one of their celebrity images for use on Wiki and was told that it was copyrighted by the photographer, but that PETA had permission to use it, but it wasn't public domain. On their website [104] they say "PETA encourages visitors to its Web sites to spread the animal rights message by copying and downloading Web site content for personal, noncommercial use." - otherwise written consent is required. The PETA web page says that it is copyrighted at the bottom. I'm not sure how this fits with the process you suggested, but I find the whole thing really confusing. Bob98133 (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like, perhaps, this is a matter of a legitimate image that was uploaded to Wikipedia in the wrong way. It might just be best to upload the file to Commons (not locally), with the appropriate tag indicating that PETA, and not that editor, was the author, and the other information that SV listed. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise against uploading to the Commons, as material regularly goes missing from there for no clear reason. I usually tag images with "Keeplocal" or "NoCommons" to make sure we have a local copy in case the Commons one goes awol. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that it isn't my intention to argue about this (of all things!), but I just want to point out some things I think I understand about Commons files. I think guidelines encourage putting images at Commons rather than locally, unless they are fair-use, which is not the case here. I saw what happened with the disappearing files mentioned here, and it was because of issues about incorrect tagging for copyright status, not really for mysterious reasons. I've never had problems with files at Commons, so long as one follows instructions. Also, you can watchlist files at Commons, and set your preferences to be automatically e-mailed if anything happens on your watchlist, so you don't need to watch there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, I realize we're not arguing. :) I've had a lot of problems with images disappearing from Commons, including perfectly innocuous ones, and corresponding problems with images that clearly aren't PD being allowed to stay there for years, so I'm a bit wary of the anarchy (or so it appears). I didn't know about the email thing in preferences; that certainly helps. Usually the first I notice is when red links appear in articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

Hey guys... There's been some pretty powerful criticism of PETA in the past, yet any note of this seems to be missing... Would you like me to create a controversy section? Have a good one, yoman82 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like you to read and engage in the talk above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes In fact I would last time I heard Norfolk PETA kills 84% of its dogs and cats, for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.233.69 (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Military testing

One of the edits I then made: [105]. I realize that we have consensus, later, to not including the Sweetland/insulin part, but this is something else, the military testing part (admittedly, not as big a matter of contention in this talk, but something still appropriate to discuss). Reverted three times: [106], [107], [108]. Then slipped back out again: [109]. I've read all of those edit summaries, and I do not see anything substantive that replies to the discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Insofar as I can tell, the latest flurry of edits deleted the military testing paragraph in its entirety (unless I missed it somewhere), so that makes this matter moot. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Carolina Biological Supply Company

I remember asking for a secondary source for this years ago, and as we still don't have one, I've removed it. Can we have something showing this was notable? The current source is something called the National Animal Interest Alliance, a business/agricultural lobby group. [110]

PETA was criticized in 1999 regarding undercover film it took inside the Carolina Biological Supply Company, which appeared to show wriggling cats being embalmed alive. An anatomist argued that the wriggling was the effect formalin has on freshly dead muscle tissue, and showed a video of the same writhing in a cat known to be dead; the case against the company was dismissed.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Just noting so we can keep track: another editor has restored the passage, with the same source. As we work through the other issues already raised, I'd be happy to look into alternative sourcing, but since the concern about this source is its primary source status, not really it's basic verifiability, I would suggest not reverting any further until we have discussed it properly. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is POV with the current sourcing. Since this refers to a court case, there must be reliable sources. If those can't be found, I think this content should be reverted. Bob98133 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of looking for better sources, and I invite more editors to join me in actually doing so. I don't think that the section is written in a particularly POV way, and if we delete everything that is sourced to a POV source, we would have to delete everything that is sourced to PETA. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, except that PETA is a reliable source for stating their own positions. I'll look for a better source when I have time. Bob98133 (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As are critics for stating their own positions. But good, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Somehow this ended up back in the article, so I've removed it again. Please do not restore unless we have a secondary source. It's currently sourced to an agricultural lobby group. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going back through this talk and noticed "somehow"; see above for how ("another editor" [111], "I would suggest [to that other editor] not reverting any further until we have discussed it properly.") --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)