Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

1 2 3

Timeline

Why is Peta protected from critical views????????????????????

Lobot, why did you remove all that material from the timeline? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything removed from that cut and paste list is already covered in greater detail elsewhere in the article. That list is the last (I think) piece of really bad writing left in the article. The source for the kosher slaughter blurb is misquoted. If you want to put things back in that's one thing but by just blindly reverting you also replaced a lot of typos I fixed.L0b0t 03:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material below from the time line is already in the article .

PETA's undercover investigation of a primate laboratory in Silver Spring, Maryland, resulted in the first conviction of a research scientist on charges of animal cruelty (overturned on appeal), the first suspension of federal research funds for alleged cruelty, and the first animal-rights related case to be heard by the United States Supreme Court. (See Silver Spring monkeys.)
released video footage shot at the University of Pennsylvania head-injury laboratory, showing the alleged treatment of primates there. The Secretary of Health and Human Services subsequently cut off all funding to the laboratory and the experiments were stopped.
exposed the alleged beating of orangutans by Las Vegas entertainer Bobby Berosini, who used the primates in a nightclub act. His captive-bred wildlife permit was suspended by the U.S. Department of the Interior, and his show closed. Four years later, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously ruled in PETA’s favor and overturned a Las Vegas jury’s $3.2 million defamation award to Berosini.
released video of shechita (kosher slaughter) at the AgriProcessors slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa allegedly showing cattle appearing to survive for minutes after slaughter with their tracheae and esophagi dangling from their throats and some of them even standing up with their throats slit. [1] A subsequent USDA investigation found that AgriProcessors had "engaged in acts of inhumane slaughter" while the agency's inspectors were playing computer games and sleeping on the job. [2]

How would you say the USDA report is being misquoted? Jean-Philippe 05:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The report does not say anywhere in it that Agriprocessors "engaged in acts of inhumane slaughter while the agency's inspectors were playing computer games and sleeping on the job". Those were 2 different sections of the report edited together and taken out of context. PETA's own website says this instead:"AgriProcessors—the largest glatt kosher slaughterhouse in the world—repeatedly violated provisions of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) while federal inspectors looked on and did nothing.".L0b0t 10:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Websites critical of PETA --> Center for Consumer Freedom

We don't need 4 links to it. Before someone say there's a number of link to PETA websites, remember that this article is about PETA and to provide information relevant to PETA. CCF is relevant to PETA as a notable critic, but this isn't CCF article. Unless you can demonstrate those websites as independant from CCF, please don't link to them anymore. Thank you. Jean-Philippe 05:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's POV.....why is there no heading of criticisms??????????

The criticisms have been worked into the body of the article.L0b0t 03:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

Well, in the few weeks I've been away this article has seen much improvement (and considerable argument). However it now has a major problem in that it is 62Kb in size! That is double the recommended page size on WP:SIZE. We need to maybe split the article into 2. How about a page with the contents of the rather large timeline on? Also, the reference section contains a lot of duplicate references (I refer to 'Notes' and 'References' as the references section). I will have a go at tracking down the duplicates and fixing them. Another section that would be possible to split would be the 'Some PETA campaigns' section as this could work as its own article. What do people think?-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we delete the timeline altogether. With the exception of a couple blurbs it is nothing but a cut and paste from the british PETA website. Some of it is redundant and covered in greater detail in other parts of the main article anyway.

I don't support that idea. If it is sourced, it should be included. So long as it is written in such a way as to indicate its source (if it is sourced to a PETA site) then it should be here. -Localzuk ^(talk) 16:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of articles are bigger than the recommended size. It's just a recommendation. Don't worry about it.

If the timeline is kept, it needs to be expanded so it's not just a cut and paste from their website. The first google result for "peta timeline" finds a critic's POV with some other events we should list for neutrality. — Omegatron 16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I am going to worry about it. 62Kb + the extra overhead of a wikipage brings the page to around 70k. That is a very large page and on a dialup line will take a while to load. Also, for readability's sake it is far too long! Guidelines shouldn't just be brushed aside, they should be read and understood - that is why they are guidelines.

I have heard many complaints about the timeline but have seen very little actual change being made to it by those who are making the complaints. If you want to expand it, do so but add sources.-Localzuk ^(talk) 17:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to edit the list but a certain editor just reverts anything she considers to be anti-PETA.L0b0t 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the guidelines thing, we should consider it, altough the modem concern is largely irrelevant. I don't think the images are included in that size count. The section used to be adequate when it was just a short list on the top of the article, but now a lot of the stuff is already covered and redundant as l0b0t said. It might be better to split the list into a new article or simply archive it. We shouldn't rush it, article size isn't a reason to move or delete a contensious section, and we don't know if it is yet. Jean-Philippe 19:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that I have actually downloaded the complete page, it comes to a total of 780Kb. That, on a 56K modem would take 2.5minutes to download... True, most of it is files that are re-used by other pages on WP but if we can reduce the page size down, every little helps! I personally think that we should split the timeline and the peta campaigns off into their own articles and focus on more general info here.-Localzuk ^(talk) 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't cut content out of our articles to make them easier for modem users to download. That's absurd, considering the images alone are more than 200 KB. If you're on a limited modem connection, set your default thumbnail size to small, use low-bandwidth skins, etc.

Wikipedia:Article_size clearly says "There is no need for haste", and "certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information."

Of course, whether this article is actually valid and useful is also subject to debate... We've tried updating the timeline and POV pushers find a reason to revert it, no matter how well sourced. — Omegatron 20:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we all try and focus on what I am suggesting! I am suggesting that we split the article. This is not deleting, removing or any such thing. It is following the guideline regarding improving readability.

As over half the worlds users still use 56k modems, I think it is a perfectly good thing to think about them using the site. Why become elitist? I am not making these suggestions as I am on a slow connection (I have a connection that most businesses would be envious of) but instead by thinking about other peoples POV's - which it is evident on this talk page that people here are finding hard to do.-Localzuk ^(talk) 11:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline and PETA campaigns would fit nicely into a sub-article I think. Jean-Philippe 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Edit Come to think of it, the article would see quite bare without the section about PETA's campaign. I suggest we leave that in and move only the timeline. Edit #2Hehe, I dunno. You're right in that the article is quite long when inluding the article main body, the campaigns and the timeline. SlimVirgin did a good job with the rewrite, it's relatively small AFAIK but packs a lot of information. We could move both of them to their sub-articles after all. Jean-Philippe 19:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Websites critical of PETA?

Why is the list of links headed 'Websites critical of Peta'? Surely it should be slightly more wide ranging than that and be something such as 'Organisations critical of Peta' or 'Critics of Peta'?

Also, we do not need links to the following:

PETATV.com
www.peta2.org
PETAKids.com
PETA Kills Animals
ActivistCash.com

My reasons for thinking these should be removed are:

The peta sites are subsites of the main Peta organisation. They are part of a huge network of sites so why these specific ones? The main site(s) only should be kept (ie. peta.org, peta.org.uk).
The activist cash/peta kills animals for the same reason - both the sites are part of the CCF group of sites and are accessible from the main ccf website. We should choose one of their sites to link to not as many as possible.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?-Localzuk ^(talk) 13:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we curtail the number of PETA sites, then I don't mind linking just to CCF instead of the current 3 CCF-related sites.--Ramdrake 13:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't matter if there are more PETA sites though. Each site that is linked to should be based on its own merits and not on numbers of links. The sites I list above do not deserve to be on here simply because they do not provide anything additional to the page as they are all accessible through their respective organisations main pages. Please try and leave your bias at the door when editing articles as it will save an awful large amount of time and effort.-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of bias. I just happen to think that the number of links for each of the two major positions should roughly balance in order to achieve some kind of neutrality to the article. Also, please assume good faith and remain civil. I could have explained all this to you if you'd just asked.--Ramdrake 14:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been civil and I have assumed good faith. I am asking all editors to leave bias at the door, not just you. You stated that you would have no problem removing half of the links if the other half were removed based on your view that it should be balanced by number. This is not the purpose of my request and shows your bias. An article can be unbiased and neutral without having an equal number of links for and against a subject. Please don't wikilawyer, as it appears to me, even looking at it from a good faith view, you are trying to do.-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we omit the mentions of "pro" and "anti" altogether. We rename it external links and bundle them together. This way we'll have decent guidelines to adhere to. As it is now, people completely ignore those criterias even tough I added a comment with a link to them in it :(

Localzuk, if you've seen the peta site list before you'd see there was some 30 sites some days ago. I shrinked it quite a bit, but nobody touched it since except for that link to CCF critic.. Anyway, I'm ditching them all now except for a link to PETA which is relevant, appropriate and notable. Mandrake, if balance is you're main concern, wouldn't merging the two together and let them adhere to guidelines solve the problem? No more room for such an obvious editor bias and no more making websites notable solely of it being a critic of something notable. Jean-Philippe 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe, I'm happy as long as the same criteria are applied on both viewpoints. I'd buy that. --Ramdrake 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed most links, and since we already had a CCF article I linked to that instead. 2 sites were CCF's, I removed that as they are already listed in their article. I removed the news site, as it had no claim to notability or an opposing point of view. Also, I couldn't find any information as to who operate the website. I removed the forum, very much like the news site, notability is an issue as well as an opposing point of view. I think that's it. I left in the no-kill "advocy group", but I'd really like someone to try and identify the operators of the website. I tried quite hard and all I could find was the address at the end of the page, but maybe I missed something. "Advocacy group" is too vague for my taste.

If you revert me on some of those links which are critical of PETA, please remember to identify WHO they are and explain their opposing point of view as per guidelines. (eg.:they oppose something and propose something else instead.). Thanks. Jean-Philippe 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the reorganization, but I would really like to keep the No-Kill site - but that's my POV. :) --Ramdrake 12:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, in a way. Just would like someone else to try and find who they are 'is all. Anyway, my description of CCF was changed to "PETA's anti-consumer agenda". It's unnecesarly inflammatory. That's what they claim. Saying their argument is for "consumer choice" is decent enough, but making the jump to saying they are right about PETA is another thing. It's akin to saying "CCF oppose PETA because it's a radical terrorist organization and must be stopped at all cost", just because that's what CCF said. No, I don't think they said that, in so many words, but it's to illustrate my point. Jean-Philippe 18:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with your objections, but I have some of my own: saying that PETA is for consumer choice in my opinion ignores the fact that they want to push people into a vegan diet, into not owning pets, and a number of other things. Thus, I have a problem calling them "pro-consumer choice", while I accept that saying they are anti-consumer is maybe pushing the envelope the other way. Can you think of another alternative? I'd like something that's acceptable to both POVs.--Ramdrake 19:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not very good with words, I didn't want to imply PETA as pro-consumer choice. PETA agenda is animal rights, CCF claim this restrict consumer choice as a result. Anyway, I don't mind anti-consumerism to be used as CCF position, but if do we gotta make it sure to read something like claims that PETA is "anti-consumer". I prefer my version better, 'cause using the word "claim" seem detrimental as opposed to using CCF own words. It's minor, as long as we don't give credance to any pov I'm ok with it Jean-Philippe 20:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal responsability doesn't seem to me to be an opposite point of view to PETA's animal rights agenda. Like, CCF oppose smoker legislation and it would be appropriate there. Maybe that part about the "right to eat, drink and enjoy themselves etc..." Heck it's npov enough and I'm starting to feel silly arguing about that. Cause the only reason we have that link in the first place is to provide reader with an opposite pov. At least it's the only acceptable use of it under guidelines. Enough wikilawering for now =P Jean-Philippe 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe, I don't think we're arguing at all on this. I think we're both trying to find a mutually acceptable wording, and it seems to work fine for me so far. Are you saying the "personal responsibility" bit doesn't oppose PETA enough (I may misunderstand)? I personnally don't think we have to depict the CCF and PETA as two diametrally opposite factions. They may be at odds, but I think the opposition is more circumstancial than anything else.--Ramdrake 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, personal responsability doesn't address the issue at hand with PETA. At least, it doesn't if personal responsability implies what it does. It's the right of people to choose what is good for them without interference from the state, right? This doesn't seem to apply to PETA's agenda of pushing for animal rights. It's not what's good for people but what's good for the animal. It clash with CCF, who lobby against anyone who would try to restrict "consumer choice/freedom", an inevitable consequence of animal gaining increasing protection under the law. Jean-Philippe 02:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIDs section, the quote and the reference.

Hi, I see I've been reverted on that. I think there's confusion on the part Melanie Hunter of csnews about the ad campaign. Why? First of all, the reference I gave [7] quote a PETA representative as saying Ingrid was misquoted on that aid quote. Second, the news clipping of csnews [8] is essentialy a CCF press release. CCF has advantage in harboring the confusion, which is basicly what their ads is all about, confusion. PETA would never run an ad they wouldn't approve off, particularly about a quote they deny. See section 25 about the aids quote above. Jean-Philippe 19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case I'm not clear enough, what I meant is that the section was claiming PETA ran the ad, while I changed it to saying CCF ran the ad which is more more likely and that's what I referenced.Jean-Philippe 19:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe, if you look at the date on both references, you will see that the CCF campaign occured in Washington DC in Februrary 2004, whereas the PETA campaign is reported in May 2006, again in the Washington DC area (why Washington?). The difference in dates tell me these are likely two separate but opposing events although I'm open to suggestions.--Ramdrake 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe that for one second. Like I said, PETA wouldn't run an ad about something they deny, at least I don't think they would. No sane person would, but that's original research on my part, isn't it? Mmm.. here's what I found. This is a letter to the editor from PETA to CSNnews. [9]. At the end of the article there is "(Editor’s Note: A correction was published on the above referenced news article.)" So, I was unable to find that corrected article using their search engine, unfortunately. Let me know if you'll object reverting back to what I added yesterday. Thanks. Jean-Philippe 20:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found the corrected article [10]. From the looks of it, we might be better off still using this reference, so we could also also incorporate PETA's version on the quote thing. "Even if animal experiments did result in a cure for AIDS, of which there is no chance, I'd be against it on moral grounds." I dunno, what do you think? Jean-Philippe 20:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd buy the complete quote, with the appropriate background info as per the article you just put in reference. Excellent research job, BTW!

Well, I corrected that the best way I know how but feel free to edit mercilessly :P Jean-Philippe 20:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCF external link description

Personally I have no problem with the phrasing "while promoting consumer choice", given that PETA promotes a restrictive Vegan diet. I think that "trying to promote personal responsibility" makes it sound like PETA is not, which would make it POV. But if the first choice is objectionable, just saying CCF is opposed to PETA and letting the interested reader learn more by following the links is acceptable too, IMO. Crum375 01:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crum375 on this. Adding 'while trying to promote personal responsibility' is not acceptable because it is POV, implies that PETA don't do this etc... Leave it as 'CCF oppose PETA'. An interested reader can find out more by exploring their site.-Localzuk ^(talk) 12:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Localzuk, the reason I don't want external links to be introduced into the article without an opposite point of view, is that it's the only guideline permitting links to critics (Wikipedia:External Link). New editors will invariably ignore those guidelines in the future if we don't provide a good template and introduce new links based solely on them being anti-peta sites. It's what been happening before, just check the discussion here or the archives.

Anyway, promoting consumer choice was my idea from the start, I just didn't like the idea of giving credence to them be letting it go in without either quotes or "a claims to". But I agree that PETA animal rights agenda restricting consumer choice is an obvious result, so I don't think those quotes are necessary anymore. Mandrake, I believe, also don't have a problem with the sentence as long as there's no quotes. Jean-Philippe 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruelty to animals

Needs compare and contrast with "traditional" cruelty-prevention organizations like ASPCA. PETA goes way beyond enforcing 'human use' ethics to a 'no-use' stand. Without saying whether this is a good stance to take, the article should still tell the reader how this is different from traditional anti-cruelty movements.

Nearly everyone is against cruelty, especially pet-owners and people who ride horses. There is even an 'ethical code' among many hunters, like "Take a clean shot, always finish off the animal so it doesn't suffer, never kill more than you plan to eat".

Many people draw the line at (non-mammalian) fish. Some even think they are doing a good deed by fishing rather than hunting or ranching (so they're not slaughtering mammals).

Is there any way to compare and contrast the ethical views of PETA with other (traditional?) ethical views, without creating an NPOV violation? --Uncle Ed 14:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, first and foremost, I would suggest you read up on the difference between an "animal rights" and an "animal welfare" movement. Also, this article is about PETA, its goals and its campaigns. Maybe if you want to dwell on the differences of ethics between an animal welfare movement (such as ASPCA or HSUS) and an animal rights movement (such as PETA or ALF), that may be deserving of its own article. --Ramdrake 14:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was hoping to read about the difference right here at Wikipedia. Would you like to help me develop this worthy aspect? It could be a section of either animal welfare or animal rights. If it gets too big, we can split it off to Animal welfare and animal rights (see also race and intelligence. --Uncle Ed 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not in agreement with the sentence you inserted. There are no such things as "traditional" animal welfare organizations. There are animal welfare organizations, and animal welfare groups. That the two are different goes without saying. So yes, PETA contrasts with say the HSUS, but has affinities with the ALF. But all that is beside the point of what PETA does. It is just belaboring a matter of definition. I don't think it's appropriate in this article.--Ramdrake 16:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, you'd be engaging in original research contrasting animal rights and welfare here or on either of those pages. You'll have to start a separate article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is PETA radical?

John Philip: Why did you instantly take out the word 'radical' when refering to PETA? By definition, they are a radical group becasue their agenda is radical, their methods are radical and most of all their pholosphy is radical. Look up the word 'radical' and try to avoid an edit war. DocEss 19:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jean-Philippe"

Why did you put a message on my talk page and then one here too? Now I have to answer again o.O Since you just copy-pasted I'll do the same :)

"It's like I said in my edit summary, you tried to introduce your pov by inserting a weasel word into the article. Be real, PETA is as mainstream as it gets, else it wouldn't have the broad support it has and be classified as a non-profit under the law. Don't try and patronize me by telling me not to start an edit war and then immediately reverting yourself. Jean-Philippe 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"

The notion that PETA is radical is pretty fringe-y. As I said in my summary, if we call any non-centrist group "radical," the word is going to be useless. IronDuke 20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's better. Let us discuss. The Concise Oxford English dictionary that I have here says that radical (in this regard I must assume political, right?) is defined as 'advocating thorough reform; holding extreme political views; revolutionary.' Now how does advocating that nobody eats, wears, rides or tests animals not claissify as thorough reform? Explain it to us all, all non-1 million PETA members, who love a good steak? Go.DocEss 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By your definition, Republicans could be tagged as radicals, as could Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, etc. For WP purposes, we don't define what is and is not radical -- POV terms like that are rarely used, and AFAIK always cited when they are used. And I'm not a PETA member or affiliated with any animal rights group in any way, FWIW. I'm just interested in the topic. IronDuke 20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only definition I have is the one I qoted and I didn't write it - Oxford dictionary people wrote it. And, no, repuclicans or any of those yankee groups yopu mentioned would not be included in this definition by any means --- thorough going reform, revolution, extreme views? I don't think so (except perhaps the greens). Now, back to the point: please tell me how PETA, advocating that nobody eats, wears, rides or tests animals, not claissify as thorough reform?DocEss 20:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You previously linked to many more definitions than "thorough reform." That is not a WP definition of radical, I promise you. IronDuke 20:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Stating that " blah blah is not a WP definition of blah blah, I promise you" is not very clever on two fronts. Firstly, what Wikpedia and its sister projects state is up for debate and editing (whih is the whoile point of it!). Secondly, you assurance is misplaced and flat wrong. Ya. The Wiktionary definition is: "Thorough going or fundamental." Looky here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/radical. Silly rabbit - look before you leap.DocEss 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I wasn't cleverer. As I say, there are many definitions of "Radical." One definition I've seen here is "atomic or molecular species with unpaired electrons on an otherwise open shell configuration." Does PETA fit that? But seriously, if you're trying to argue that "fundamental" things are radical, you'll have your work cut out for you slapping the word "radical" on everything at WP that is fundamental or "thorough-going." But ask around, get some more opinions. Maybe your definition will win the day. IronDuke 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness gracious be sensible. It is a radical movement that advocates that everyone should wear green everyday, or that scientists not be allowed to vote, or that vegetarians should be made into soylent green or that people should not eat animals. Logic dictates that relevant definition of radical be applied to PETA. Now, let us ask around, since you were unable to axplain why PETA's advocating that nobody eats, wears, rides or tests animals should not be classified as thorough reform, as extreme political view or as revolutionary. How do we start a vote thingy?DocEss 20:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do it by starting one, plain and simple :P But in any case WP doesn't have votes per se, only means be which discussion is furthered or consensus is identified. A vote that as been initiated as a mean to achieve consensus can be simply ignored, afaik. Jean-Philippe 21:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start one. IronDuke 21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've discussed similar issues when using 'terrorist' with regards to the ALF. We cannot simply call PETA 'radical' or the ALF 'terrorists'. We can say 'xyz think that PETA are radical'.-Localzuk ^(talk) 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're just avoiding the issue. It's hard to assume good faith here, since my last comment got answered by a nazi comparison as well as what I consider personal attacks. Radical in this context is a weasel word. While I wholeheartily agree with you on the question as weither or not PETA endgame agenda advocate a radical shift from current societal norm, it doesn't change the fact that the means by which those are achieved aren't. Advertisement campaigns and peaceful demonstrations don't appear to me radical to me, but I've got a bias toward PETA. Anyway, it's my pov, and all that is fairly beside the point since I'm pretty sure Wikipedia editors don't get to pass this kind of judgment in their articles. Jean-Philippe 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm judging nothing. I am merely stating that radical is the proper word. Please stay on target here while we figure out the word 'radical', ya?DocEss 21:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Question: Should PETA be characterized as a "radical" organization?

Oppose It is not for us to make such designations and even if it were, PETA would fail that test, being relatively mainstream. IronDuke 21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The definition of the word radical is defined in the Concise Oxford English dictionary as 'advocating thorough reform; holding extreme political views; revolutionary.' PETA advocates that nobody eats, wears, rides or tests animals --- that classifies as thorough reform, extremism and revolutionary.DocEss 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Giving animals rights is pretty extreme. Heck, if you beleive that rights and responsibilities must balance, then giving animals rights is downright loopy, as that would require domesticating all animals. After all, you have to make all those nasty, evil meat eating predators become vegans as well, otherwise they're above the law... scot 21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion seems to me to be ongoing, so there's really no rush to have a vote as of yet. Jean-Philippe 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "vote," in the sense that it is non-binding. EssDoc requested it, and I think it can give us a sense of where we are right now in the discussion. That doesn't mean the discussion is over, however the straw poll goes. IronDuke 21:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it. Non-binding is not an issue. Knowledge. Let us have an agressive debate here. Thuper thtuff.DocEss 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We both agree on what a vote on WP is, no question there. I'm just saying we'll be giving DocEss the wrong idea here, that a vote can be used as as mean to achieve consensus. Jean-Philippe 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Their philosophy is marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional [11] and therefore clearly "radical". Their activities, however, should not be called "radical" unless they include acts of civil disobedience or vandalism (like throwing red paint on mink coat to ruin it, or breaking into a lab to release the animals) - or if PETA itself advocates such actions. --Uncle Ed 21:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want to mislead users with "radical", any more than we want them misled by attempts to blur the distinction between "animal welfare" (we love our pets) and "animal rights" (we abstain from ownership or use). --Uncle Ed 21:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree To meet NPOV guidelines, of course, we should provide a reference of someone who says it's "radical". Hmmm... but who should we pick? Let's see... picking a name completely at random.... How about its founder and president, Ingrid Newkirk? “Probably everything we do is a publicity stunt ... we are not here to gather members, to please, to placate, to make friends. We're here to hold the radical line.” (USA Today, September 3, 1991) — Omegatron 02:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me happy. JoshuaZ 02:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's cited and sourced, no objection whatsoever. --Ramdrake 17:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the article a while ago. It was removed, of course... — Omegatron 18:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As well it should have been. Being cited and sourced is well and good, but WP isn't a list of quotes (or a list of whatever you can copy-paste from an attack site where your quotes came from). Proper context is primordial, such as the "even if animal research resulted in a cure for aids, we'd be against it", which we used in section about the aids research "coalition" [12]. Jean-Philippe 19:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad people would rather delete information than add proper context. — Omegatron 20:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes isn't information. Jean-Philippe 20:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

View that PETA is "radical" in some way

Steven Milloy (who is notable enough to have a wikipedia article) wrote:

...the bulk of TeachKind's educational efforts are actually crafted so as to make children believe that everyday behaviors, such as eating a diet that contains meat or animal products, are unmistakably, unequivocally acts of animal cruelty.

He refers to:

... PETA's own radical, catch-all definition of what constitutes "animal cruelty." [13]

This is in the context of Milloy's explanation of how animal cruelty traditionally has meant torture but has been expanded by PETA. --Uncle Ed 14:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can quote that Steven Milloy (insert reason for notability) has "a radical definition of what constitutes "animal cruelty".--Ramdrake 14:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I'm not saying that Milloy has a radical definition. Milloy is saying that PETA has a "radical definition". Anyway, I've taken off the {{inuse}} tag so revert if you want. But I was hoping we could collaborate a bit. --Uncle Ed 15:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radical = POV

Why did no-one take note of what I said a few minutes ago? We cannot use the word radical unless it is referenced and cited as someone/some group saying this! It is against the POV policy if we do. Regardless of the outcome of any such straw poll or discussion on the meaning of radical we cannot use it. The fact that there is so much disagreement on it shows it is a POV statement!-Localzuk ^(talk) 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do a web search for "peta" and "radical" and see what you find. Here's just one example: http://fishing.about.com/od/fishermensside/a/aa052905peta_2.htm scot 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which bring us back to my initial summary describing the introduction of radical as a weasel word. If you would like to include this editorial be example, you should improve it as per the suggestion on Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. It would read something along of the line of Ronnie Garrison, in an editorial for about.com about freshwater fishing, called PETA's agenda "radical and ridiculous". Jean-Philippe 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that party X called PETA 'radical' or almost any other adjective, if it's properly sourced and otherwise relevant. You cannot just say, while describing PETA, that it is radical, as that would be WP:POV. WP itself must remain neutral and not use negative or positive adjectives or opinions itself about a subject. Crum375 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slight disagreement, if an organization is commonly called "radical" and self-identified as "radical" it would probably be ok to call it radical. But I agree, we need a citation from an RS. If we could find a major newspaper calling them radical, like the NYT, I would probably be fine with calling them radical with just a citation and considering that NPOV. In any event, this is not something that can be decided by a straw poll. JoshuaZ 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radical is a loaded, pejorative term. Organizations identifying themself as such are rare and they don't use it lightly. PETA isn't one of them. Jean-Philippe 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My tuppence' worth: "radical" is also a matter of degree and comparison, IMHO. If PETA were to call itself an "animal welfare group", I'd call them radicals. They stand out from other animal welfare groups (ASPCA' HSUS) in their views. However, compared to other "animal rights groups" (ALF, ELF), they are relatively tame, almost "mainstream". To me, it very much depends on what you compare it with. In conclusion, as an animal rights group, I don't consider PETA radical.--Ramdrake 23:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So this once again all confirms what I said. We should only include it if it is in the format of 'According toFred blogs/GiantGroup Peta is a radical group' - anything else is POV and weasel wordy.-Localzuk ^(talk) 23:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking here, but if we are doing the USA article, for instance, should we say that it has been called 'the great devil' by some party X? How big or notable should party X be for it to be cited at all? Do we include that info in a special section of 'enemies of the US'? Do we also include other parties that praise the US and call it land of our dreams or whatever? Are all these adjectives absolutely needed? And where do they go? I ask it in the context of another article as I think that the answers should be standard and consistent across WP, and stepping back may help (at least me) gain perspective. Crum375 23:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the measure of when a group is relevant is one that needs to be discussed in each case. For example, if a small, relatively unknown group were to call Peta radical, I would argue it is irrelevant. If it were someone like 'Animal Aid' or the like then it would be pertinent. Likewise in the USA, if it were a country or a large terrorist group calling the USA 'the devil' then it would be included but if it were '6 guys in a pub who call themselves 'the new police or something then it wouldn't be.-Localzuk ^(talk) 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds logical to me. Crum375 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do these radicals want?

We need to highlight the connection between PETA and the larger current of which it as part:

The deep ecology and the animal rights movements are helping to change consciousness, away from human-centeredness and the automatic assumptions of "resource rights" to exploit wildlife and the natural world. Both movements pose major threats to the continuation of industrial capitalist society and the status quo. [14]

Is this just some crackpot POV, or a verifiable school of thought? What's the connection between PETA's campaigning and, say, radical environmentalism, Environmentalism or the Environmental movement? --Uncle Ed 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's just a crackpot--we do need to stop the continuation of industrial capitalist society and the status quo ;) Beyond that, PETA isn't really radical in terms of the animal right's movement. They're very tame. Radical would be ALF or the Justice Department. The Ungovernable Force 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PETA is not even slightly radical within the movement. On the contrary, it is regarded as staid and middle of the road. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons

Source	Quote
PETA: Cruel and Unusual Murray and Osorio Op-Ed in Human Events by Iain Murray and Ivan Osorio January 18, 2006	In 1983, PETA President Ingrid Newkirk wrote these amazing words in a Washington Post article: “Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.” This disturbing statement well illustrates PETA’s twisted worldview. According to PETA, animal “rights” derive from the moral equivalence between man and animal. Advocates are perfectly serious when they argue that just as we do not experiment on or eat babies, neither should we experiment on or eat animals.
A timeline of reaction Opposition to animal research has a long history - and none of it is glorious. by Stuart Derbyshire	US director of PETA Ingrid Newkirk put it more bluntly in 1983 when she asserted 'animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all mammals'. She is also famous for stating, 'Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses'.

PETA opponents Murry and Osorio say this quote illustrates Newkirk's views. Derbyshire said she was "famous" for saying it. What do PETA's supporters say is the context of this quote? --Uncle Ed 19:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe, the article quotes Newkirk's 'rat is a boy' statement. Why not the 'Billions chickens slaughtered' statement? Why are they different? Crum375 20:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not, but WP isn't a list of quotes. One is good enough to illustrate a point (in this case, peta's president view). Where do we draw the line? Jean-Philippe 20:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that we shouldn't have a list of, say, 10 quotes, or even 5 may be too much. But 2 or 3 are still OK as long as they are not redundant and as long as they are important to illustrate Newkirk's and PETA's views. I think both the Rat and the Chickens are in that category. Crum375 20:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There's entire lists of controversial statement by Ingrid [15] and plenty of pov pusher waiting at the corner for an excuse to include as many of them as they can. This article is about PETA, and as easy as it might be for them to attack PETA through it's president, it only detracts from the subject of the article. Jean-Philippe 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one am not a POV-pusher, and I agree with you that too many quotes are unnecessary. I do think that Newkirk and PETA are intimately related, and her public statements are representative of the views of the organization as a whole. I think the Chickens quote is very important to help understand Newkirk's as well as PETA's views. In a way, that quote is clearer to the average reader than the Rat quote. I think both are famous and needed. Not having them will detract from the quality and utility of the article. Crum375 20:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a matter of attacking PETA through its president. It's more a matter of contrasting PETA's views with other views. Our readers would like to know where PETA stands on the issues it addresses, and its president's statements are pertinent. If PETA (through Newkirk) compares people to chicken or rats, that's relevant.

PETA takes the perspective that humans and animals are on the same 'level' ethically or morally, and the article should not conceal this. The article should not praise PETA for its stand; nor should it condemn them for its stand. It should merely describe what it stands for as clearly as possible.

I for one would like to know whether PETA intends to bring humans down or animals up as it aims to bring them into the same "moral community". --Uncle Ed 21:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now realize that the Chickens statement appears also later in the article. I think one appearance is enough. I leave it to others to decide which one to leave in. My own inclination is to leave in the later one, as there it appears after quotes from Jews who imply support of that view, making it seem more WP:NPOV and less anti-Semitic. Crum375 21:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article should definitely not be a list of quotes. Each quote should be worked into the text to mean something. Otherwise, this belongs in Wikiquote.--Ramdrake 23:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, you appear to be here to push a POV rather than write an article. The article states clearly in several places that PETA is an animal rights organization, not animal welfare. It says that PETA opposes any form of "use" of animals, or any sense of animals being property. It says that PETA supports the ALF. It says that PETA's president believes that rats, dogs, pigs, and humans are all mammals, and therefore all feel pain, and the point of her saying that is as part of the argument that all pain is morally relevant, and equally so, which is a central tenet of the animal rights movement.

These are not radical ideas within the animal rights movement. On the contrary, they are perfectly standard, and the article makes clear that PETA is part of the animal rights movement. Therefore, I'm unclear about the point of saying that in a thousand different ways. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, SV. I'm not trying to start a fight. I think I'll go out and put more seed in my bird feeder now. See ya. :-)--Uncle Ed 01:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuance

Someone has tried to separate out some of the criticism from the first few sections again. The whole point of writing it the way I did is so that criticism and praise are intertwined throughout the article, each explaining the other, rather than having two pro- and anti POV magnets. Please don't keep trying to create sections that are entirely positive or entirely negative. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." — Jimbo Wales. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slimvirgin, it makes more sense to put "Campaigns" and "Some campaigns" together. There's also no reason not to give "Holocaust on your plate" it's own heading. You say you don't want to have criticisms separate but that's not what you're reverting. It looks like your trying to hide the "Holocaust on your plate" information by denying it a heading even though it has more material than many of the sections in the article. Are you a member of PETA? If not, I can't understand the reason behind your edit since it looks like you are trying to hide the "Holocaust" information by denying it a header. If the Lettuce lady campaign gets it's own header there's no reason for "Holocaust on a Plate" not to since it's PETA's most notorious campaign. 68.100.120.34 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's because it was an important campaign that I had it in the main section. The "Other campaigns" section is a remnant from before the rewrite, and in it, I left the unimportant campaigns. Any significant criticism and praise should be incorporated into the main part of the text. Please don't assume people are trying to "hide" things. I am trying to ensure that a good article is written. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you say, please, which IP addresses and accounts you're editing Wikipedia as? It's getting hard to follow your edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Someone is using petakillsanimals.com as a source. Before doing so again, could that person say who is behind petakillsanimals? Please see WP:V and WP:RS. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the site, and from previous reading (I can't find the exact cite though), I am fairly sure this site is backed by the CCF. The "PETA kills animals" billboard campaign was funded by the CCF.--Ramdrake 14:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obviously run by the CCF. "The Center for Consumer Freedom values your privacy." — Omegatron 02:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Picture

The picture of the two women in lettuce bikinis is on the page twice. Is that really neccessary? BlueWiz7 18:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Actually, no it's not, thanks for noticing and removing one of them. Keep two pictures of the guy though ;) Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 20:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PETP

Any idea on putting the "counter spoof (critisism)" against PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants? Its the same as the Meat Ball Spagetti creator as a counter for creationism. 69.158.18.101

If you want to start a new article on this (PETP) site, you may do so. However, I don't think the PETA article is the right place for it. --Ramdrake 23:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So now the PETA article is not an appropriate place to mention parodies of PETA? — Omegatron 07:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say there's a question of notability and relevance involved. We're already mentioning People Eating Tasty Animal in our timeline by example, thanks to it's domain name dispute with PETA. Dunno the guidelines exactly. Did you at least look at their (non-fonctioning) website? [16] Maybe it's just me, but I think it downright suck, for lack of a better word ^^ Anyway, when it get's it's own article, I guess that's when we'll discuss it again :P Jean-Philippe 07:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the issue boils down to a question of verifiability via reliable sources. The domain name dispute with People Eating Tasty Animals is documented by multiple non-trivial news stories in the main stream and technical press. PETP, on the other hand, is documented on a personal website hosted by a free web hosting service. It seems fairly clear as to which of these meets the Wikipedia guidelines and policies as to article content. --Allen3 ^talk 10:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penn & Teller opposition

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7562800910863882593 206.156.242.36 14:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call that more of an expose than opposition...they seemed to be pretty diligent about citing sources and laying out facts. Quite entertaining, too, especially the chickens eating the KFC... scot 15:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

Someone has been constantly removing important information and twisting meaning of sentences. I'm not going to list them all since it's a waste of time, but some examples are; from "almost exclusively by the contributions of its stated one million" to "and funded by its members". Not true [17]. "The organization has been criticized for some of its campaigns, for the actions of some of its employees regarding their treatment of animals" was changed to "PETA has been criticized for its campaigns, for the actions of its employees," obviously an attempt at introducing his POV into the article by removing important adjectives. The example list 2 employee out of almost 200!

Obviously no research or care was put with those edits, but someone who's way more experienced than me reminded me that "misguided or ill-considered" edits aren't considered vandalism. He told me to discuss it here on the talk page. So hum yay, I don't see why those edits are necessary, let alone justifiable. Jean-Philippe 21:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the problem being that there are so many of them it's hard to straigthen everything short of a full revert. Considering the intricateness of the edit and the inappropriateness of most of it, I would support a revert.--Ramdrake 22:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the verge of requesting semi-protection. The anon editing on this page is becoming very disruptive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. You guys are so wedded to your own POV that even a relatively content-neutral edit gets called "POV"!. This WP:LEAD does not use summary style, is full of weasel words, and is simply written poorly. Here is a change-by-change explanation:

"funded almost exclusively by the contributions of its stated one million members" -> "is funded by its members" -- simplification. If you think the lead needs to say "1 million members", then say that. PETA is member-funded (rather than, e.g. foundation- or government-funded) - can't see how this is POV;

Yes, we want to add that it has a million members. This is a good way to do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"affiliated offices in Canada, France, UK, Germany, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, and Taiwan." -> "affiliated offices in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere." -- clear violation of summary style to list these in the lead -- a long list adds nothing to the point that PETA is a global organization. Also a simplifying NPOV edit;

It has nothing to do with summary style, and anyway, summary style is not policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the killing of animals regarded as pests" -> "pest control" -- this is what its wiki-linked to! The killing of animals regarded as pests is a long-winded way of saying pest control, and its spelled out in the article. Again, summary style!!

Pest control is a POV way of putting it. They are not pests as a matter of fact, but of opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"aims to inform the public of its position through" -> "activities include" -- "aims to inform the public" ?? what an awkward piece of double-speak. What is advertising other than public influence/information. Is there any chance of misunderstanding in the shorter, pithier wording??

Well, no, it tries to inform the public. It rarely succeeds. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"criticized for some of its campaigns, for the actions of some of its employees" -- "some of", "some of" -- clear weasel words. Virtually all of PETA's campaigns have been criticized, but that's not the point. "Some of" is a useless weasel phrase, and isn't needed. Again, the meaning does not change;

It has not been criticized for all its campaigns or for the actions of all its employees. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only change that could be argued is the identification in the LEAD of ALF as a terrorist org. It has been so designated, and we include that in the lead for many, many other orgs, so it seems appropriate here, as it is important to the summary style. So, don't just revert -- try to read the change and then read WP:LEAD and then take a writing class. Not every copyedit is a challenge to your sacred POV. -- 207.118.2.207 23:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about the ALF. This intro is perfectly consistent with WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your changes alright. It's not copyedit, it's removal of information and POV pushing excused by twisting a policy's intent. I'm no wikilawyer, but I'd call this gaming the system. Jean-Philippe 03:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:207.118.2.207 is Gnetwerker (talk · contribs), who is trolling because I blocked his most recent sockpuppet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALF

Could people please stop trying to add information about the ALF to the lead about PETA? You wouldn't add details about PETA to the introduction of ALF. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem at all with your current version, in fact I think it's better not to get into ALF details in the lead. But if the reference to 'Terrorist' is mentioned, the mitigating factors belong there too. Crum375 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's only the ALF that says it's non-violent and takes every precaution etc etc, so the mitigation would be a POV magnet for someone else wanting to "correct" it. Best to leave both points for discussion in the ALF article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Crum375 03:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the detail about Singer's Treblinka quote having been spoken by one of his characters into a footnote, because that's a detail about Singer, not PETA. The important point is that it's a very famous quote and is attributed to Singer, because he wrote it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Employees

Someone added that they have 100 employees using this as a source, but I can't see where it says 100. All I can see is an entry in the table on the right saying 101-500, which is an odd way to give the figure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It used to say "almost 200". Someone (anon IP) added {{fact}} to it, so I researched it and the best I found was that source and that 101-500 range, so I changed it to "over 100" and removed the {{fact}}. Crum375 11:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply the most reliable estimate currently available. Maybe I'm the one who added it earlier, I remember researching it. Talk about a coincidence, I was currently browing another of their entry in my search for an headcount for Physicians_Committee_for_Responsible_Medicine. Anyway I was reading their (PETA) 2005 irs report about an hour ago looking exactly for that, but now I can't access it anymore, I get redirected to justgive.org in some browser cache mixup. Jean-Philippe 04:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay what I was referring to was [GuideStar.org], it's the people who justgive.org and network for good borrow their content from. It's the site you have to go to consult irs form records, but you need to be registered. Anyway, doesn't really help much I guess. Jean-Philippe 05:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall seeing 200 somewhere, but now I can't find it again. I'll take another look around later. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this financial report [18], they have 187 paid staff members. Also, according to [19], 53% of them earn between 14.5K and 28K. BigDT 14:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job o/ Jean-Philippe 21:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work finding the source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust on your Plate

Why did someone delete the heading for "Holocaust on your Plate"? This is a prominent campaign and there's enough material for a subsection. 172.210.202.216 04:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject, I've reorganized the section 3 paragraphs into 2. See the diff for all the changes, but the thing worth mentioning here is that I've removed an editorial comment.. I hesitated a bit cause I figured I'd be accused of silencing criticism, but I felt it really had no weight as compared to what the ADL did, and didn't add anything new while making the paragraph longer. Anyway, feel free to re-insert it if you feel it add something the ADL doesn't already cover. Jean-Philippe 10:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see which comment you removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay I know, I was hoping the diff would be clearer. Its -- Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute wrote in The San Francisco Chronicle that: "Making odious moral equivalencies between animal husbandry and the worst crimes against humans has become a PETA trademark." -- Also worth of note is that I've removed a reference to Singer grandson supporting the campaign since it didn't seem appropriate/pov. Jean-Philippe 10:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe removed the following sourced material:

Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute wrote in The San Francisco Chronicle that: "Making odious moral equivalencies between animal husbandry and the worst crimes against humans has become a PETA trademark."^[1]

and

The Anti-Defamation League urged animal-rights groups to avoid holocaust comparisons, saying that "the issue should stand on its own merits, rather than rely on inappropriate comparisons that only serve to trivialize the suffering of the six million Jews and others who died at the hands of the Nazis."^[2]

There is no justifiable reason to remove the above. It is sourced material and the first part shows that it's not just the ADL that found the campaign outrageous. Please stop silencing crticism and removing material you think hurts PETA. 85.159.88.60 17:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I don't see why you copy pasted the first one, I already did ^.^

I think the reason I gave is perfectly valid, it's the same criticsm as that of the Anti-Defamation League, an editorial comment which has no weight compared to the reprimand of the ADL. The second portion I deleted is a no-brainer, it's simply not about peta. Check the reference. [20] Jean-Philippe 22:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone created a content fork [21] using old material which is already under discussion here [22]. I've created a temporary redirect and left a message on the editor's talk page hoping he will come and discuss it here. I think the creation was innapropriate since it used contested material. I'm also against it since it seemed to fit in nicely with the article's narration, but it's really a subject open for discussion. It's a long article so it's reasonable to fork some of the content I suppose, altough I'd say mainspace material shouldn't be. Jean-Philippe 00:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there is enough information for this article to be split out, with a brief precis here. This would also set the scene for articles about other well-known campaign ("I'd rather etc...") to have their own articles. - brenneman ^{L} 05:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be spun off into its own article. Several other articles point to Holocaust on your Plate, redirecting them here does not help wikipedia readers since they have to search through the article to look for the Holocaust on your Plate content. Farnsworth J. 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the current moment, there is neither:

Any article text in PETA about the holocaust comparison; nor,
Any article text in Holocaust on your plate (which is now just a redirect to PETA

What is the consensus of editors here? Should Wikipedia have any information about this campaign? --Uncle Ed 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should. It would be biased to not cover it. — Omegatron 18:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are three paragraphs about the Holocaust comparison. Why do you say there are none? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry! I missed it, because I was looking in the TOC instead of using my browser's Find command. There's actually much more info on the HoyP campaign than I'd care to read. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I will now delete the section I added.... --Uncle Ed 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And ... self-revert done. --Uncle Ed 18:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion with Slim on two other pages, I think the best thing to do would also be the hardest: create a spin-off article on Animal rights and the Holocaust. This would combine material from PETA#Campaigns as well as from Animal_rights#Animal_rights_and_the_Holocaust.

It's easier to propose this than to do it, so don't hold your breath. When I have a spare hour or so, I might try it. Until then, it goes on my to-do list.

Thanks to all for creative collaboration. Wikipedia works best when we help each other in good faith! :-) --Uncle Ed 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've started it, so good luck! Animal rights and the Holocaust SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a link from the PETA article to Animal rights and the Holocaust? Otherwise, what's the point in having an offshoot article nobody can find? Nrets 01:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the Holocaust on your Plate campaign is important enough to have its own section in the PETA article, particularly since other, less important campaigns like the "Lettuce ladies", have their own sections. Farnsworth J. 04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the Lettuce Ladies aren't important that they have their own subsection in "Some PETA campaigns" and aren't one of the issues that's discussed as part of the main text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus was vegetarian section

Given that Jesus was not a vegetarian, and that it is so stated even in the reference site for that section, I would remove the entire section, or rephrase the title and contents. If someone thinks differently, please speak up. Crum375 01:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to rephrase it, assuming that site is the only source for the 'campaign', I would say that "PETA believes that Christian values of compassion extend to all living creatures and are inconsistent with cruelty to animals." Anything beyond that walks a slippery slope of POV-ness and arguments. Crum375 02:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we bring up Saint Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals? --Uncle Ed 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from DocEss (talk · contribs)

"Animals only have the right to be tasty"

THAT is the POV of billions of people. Any alteration in the belief is, by definition, radical. There was certainly no consensus the PETA's being radical is questioned. They are radical because their pholiosphy is radical. Why do people assume radical is negative? Lech Welesa was a radical! He was a radical because he called for the end of communism - a wholesale change for Poland. Marks & Engels were radicals because they called for the onset of communism. Anyone wanting wholsesale change at a fundamental level is a radical. It is a simple statement of fact, not an insult, just as a anyone who doesn't want whoelsale change is called a conservative. DocEss 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your message from my Talk page to here, as I think it is not a personal issue. My own response is as follows: I consider the adjective 'radical' as an expression of opinion, and possibly a pejorative. As such, I think for WP to remain neutral it should only include such an adjective if it is used or preferred by the subject of the article. Unless this is shown to be the case here, I would refrain from using it. Also, I suspect that having a million supporting members means you are not unique in your views, if that is one of your definitions. Crum375 20:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I think adding "X has been called Y by Z" is OK, assuming that it is relevant to the article about X, Z is notable and important, and the source is reliable. Crum375 20:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But PETA defines itself as radical according to Newkirk (We're here to hold the radical line). Radical is NOT perjorative it is just a major deviation from normalcy.L0b0t 02:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the assumption of non-trolling, or for the benefit of others otherwise: even if Newkirk said that, that doesn't necessarily mean that she considers PETA as a whole a 'radical organization'. Also, a lot of people, maybe most, would consider being described 'a major deviant from normal' as offensive. Crum375 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inferring offense in something doesn't make that something less true. Newkirk did say that, it used to be in the article. You are correct in that I don't know if she considers PETA radical, but just as I can't speak for Newkirk, neither can you speak for 3 billion something people. What do mean by non-trolling?L0b0t 03:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I speak for no one but myself, but I try my best to follow WP guidelines and rules. Assuming for the moment that there are 3 billion people who hold an opinion that is counter to PETA, and even consider PETA radical, still does not allow WP to call it radical. For all we know there may be another billion people who consider its views very reasonable. In fact, for almost a billion Hindus eating animals is against their religious beliefs and there may be lots more non-Hindus with similar views. But even if there were only a few such believers, I would still consider the adjective 'radical' a pejorative, and WP cannot label an organization or person as such unless it is totally undisputed or the subject clearly prefers that label. To my knowledge this is not the case here. Crum375 13:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry when I mentioned speaking for billions I was reffering to your comment about most people finding radical an offensive term. As for the Indians, what about their use of work animals, if PETA gets their panties in a knot over a little circus they better stay away from the subcontinent, talk about beating elephants. BTW most Hindus are not vegetarian they just don't eat beef, some of the best chicken, lamb and seafood dishes I've had were in India. The vegetarian Krsna sect is not Hindu it is inspired by some Hindu teachings. There are about 900 million Hindus worldwide not a billion in India. I'm sorry you find the word radical offensive, there are many things that offend me as well; MTV, young people, SUVs, rock and or roll music ;) I guess we will both have to suck it up and drive on.L0b0t 14:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a correction, only 30% of Hindu are vegetarian according to this. Of course it's still almost as many people as the total popluation of the US. My point is that vegeterianism (and related respect for all life forms) is not radical or extreme, and fairly common in the sub-continent. Crum375 17:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask, once again, what the purpose of this debate is? If Newkirk says 'Peta is a radical organisation' then it could be included as such: According to Ingrid Newkirk, PETA is a radical organisation. However, if she does not say that, making any assumptions further than what she said is not allowed as it is OR and POV. Stating anything about 'x billion people oppose PETA and hold a view that they are radical' is not acceptable unless you can find a reliable, verifiable source for it. Any assumptions, no matter how obvious you think they are, are simply not welcome in any Wikipedia article. -Localzuk ^(talk) 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is so troubling about the word radical that everyone spits the bit when he hears it and rears up against it? It is neither a positive word nor a negative one and has nothing to do with popularity. The word only describes the relative amount of change that the group desires. Look, let us stick to dictionary definitions of words so that we may use them correctly. Anybody's opinion about radical's or even any word's meaning is wholly irrelevant. In this regard, Lech Welesa (sp?) was a radical because he called for wholesale, fundamental change, the end of communism in Poland. Lenin was a radical because he called for wholesale, fundamental change, the beginning of communism in Russia. The introduction of the gutta percha golf ball was radical. The inventions of the motor car and aeroplane were radical. Mastery of fire was radical. I can list dozens of radical things and people and still not be offering any value judgements. Similarly, PETA is radical because it calls for wholeseale, fundamental change. The definition of the word radical from the Concise Oxford English dictionary is: 'advocating thorough reform; holding extreme political views; revolutionary.' PETA advocates that nobody eats, wears, rides or tests animals --- that classifies as thorough reform, extremism and revolutionary. No value judgement, no assessment, no analysis, no emotion --- just a raw definition. Simple story that you needlessly complicate with emotion. I submit y'allll are lacking in essential fatty acids and proteins from not eating enough Bambi, Nemo and Fido.DocEss 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. If you were in India you would be less inclined to call PETA 'radical'. Crum375 17:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm Ya, I guess you're right. If I were an Indian and someone started advocating we eat ole Bessy, then I'd be a radical and PETA-like thoughts would be the norm. So, from the standpoint of being a global orgaisation, PETA is likewise radical. You see? Your counterpoint only serves to support the PETA=radical argument. Radicalism is a matter of distance from the norm.DocEss 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following your logic as to why PETA would be radical in India, where similar views are held by 30% of Hindus. In any case, as Localzuk mentioned above, WP cannot declare anyone or anything radical unless it is properly sourced and undisputed. I don't see that here. Crum375 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand --- I said anyone advocating a burgers and t-bone policy in India would be a radical, in India. Why? Because doing so would be advocating a wholesale, fundamental change for Hindus in India. Now, anyone advocating that nobody anywhere eats, wears, rides or tests animals is a radical (notwithstanding the fact the Hindus might agree). You miss the point: it is a matter of how much change is being advocated, and PETA advocates so much change that they are radicals by definition. Sourced? Fine - I'll have someone publish an article and I'll get back to you.DocEss 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand WP policies: after your friend publishes the said article, assuming it is accepted for publication in a prominent and respectable journal, all we would be able to say is "PETA has been called radical by X". We still would not be able to just say: "PETA is a radical organization" as that would be WP expressing its own POV which is not neutral. Crum375 18:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crum you are missing the point completely. Radical is a neutral word that you for some reason are INFERRING to be POV or anti-PETA. As an aside if 1/3 of the worlds Hindu population is vegetarian then 2/3 are not veg. so by definition most Hindus are not vegetarian. Thirty percent of Hindus is still about 28,444,215 less than the population of the United States. How did you correct me?L0b0t 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected myself, not you, that only 30% of Hindus are strict vegeterian, not all as I implied. And radical means 'extreme' - it can be viewed as a pejorative. In any case, as it is disputed, it must be supported by reliable sources. Crum375 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Crum, I too quickly assumed you were talking at me. No worries.L0b0t 23:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DocESS, do you understand that using a word such as radical must come with a citation and be used in a style such as those shown? We cannot state PETA is radical, nor can we say that al qaeda are terrorists, hezbolla are freedom fighters/terrorists etc... This discussion is not going anywhere and I think it should end, unless it changes to a discussion about actually adding a citation such as those types suggested.-Localzuk ^(talk) 09:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Localzuk, did you even read the Al-Qaeda article before you posted that last? We do call Al-Qaeda RADICAL. This seems to be a problem for leftists more so than for centrists or conservatives, the need to give equal weight to all opinions without regard for facts. While I tend to think this is done to provide a feeling of fairness or impartiality, in many cases it makes one look naive and unlettered. Yes, I agree we should cite sources for adjectives but not because some readers or editors don't fully understand the English language or because someone might feel bad if their pet cause is called radical. The idea of a heliocentric world was so radical at the time that it took the church 400 years to admit it. The germ theory of disease was very radical in a time when people thought illness was caused by bad smells. I have often found that those who get the most upset when their world view, philosophy, beliefs are challenged are the ones whose ideas rest on the shakiest intellectual foundation.L0b0t 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bring personal beliefs into this argument! I have not stated whether I want it included or not, what my views on calling PETA radical or not, or whether I think it is a good or bad word to use. My statement has been simple. We cannot include the term 'radical' without a reference stating who says they are. With regards the use of 'radical' in the Al Qaeda article, you can expect me to remove that use of the word when I get a chance and post this exact same argument on the talk page there. Please keep your personal views on the 'intellectual foundation' of philosophy/beliefs/views to yourself as it is not wanted here. We want facts and facts only. Why can't you accept that we should not be using a word such as 'radical' to describe any group? I personally think that the idea of building new roads all over the UK is radical, or the sending of troops to iraq to back up our existing troops is radical, or believing that eating meat is ok is radical. These are personal beliefs and as such have no place here. I use them only as examples to show that everyone has different views and as such we must avoid using words that can be construed as giving Wikipedia an opinion on a matter as per WP:POV, WP:NOR and WP:V.

That is exactly my point. We should not bring personal beliefs into this argument, one of those being the personal belief that the word "radical" is pejorative. Argument should be backed up with fact not solipsism or emotion. Fact: PETA advocates not using our animal friends for anything, not food, not scientific modeling, nor fashion. Fact: the majority of the English speaking world (This is the English WP.)does not endorse PETA's viewpoint. Therefore PETA is radical in that they advocate a wholesale change from the status quo. That is neither good nor bad just a descriptive adjective. If someone INFERS some sort of insult from that then they need to consult a dictionary and grow up. Of course personal views on the intellectual underpinnings of our arguments are welcome here, this is a discussion page, that's why we have discussion pages. As for those things you listed that you believe to be radical they are not they are the status quo and you are the radical for advocating change. THAT'S NOT A BAD THING!

Our neutrality policy prohibits us from directly labeling any group or person as 'radical'. We may rely on a reliable source stating that the group is radical, but in even that case we can only say 'X has been called radical by Y', not 'X is radical'. And BTW, lots of people, in India and in the rest of the world, read English, and the English WP is meant to be read by everyone, not just people in English speaking countries, or reflecting the views of English speakers. In any case, neutrality applies world wide by definition. Crum375 16:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I don't know what happened there, but somehow I managed to wipe half the page instead of posting my actual response... Anyhow...

What I did say was that the term radical comes with various different meaning ranging from 'extremist' to 'revolutionary'. This leads to the idea that different people will interpret the word differently, thereby making it a useless word. To use it would be to give Wikipedia an opinion (as stated before).

I also stated that personal opinions should only be included in the talk page to forward an investigation into an issue. Your comment regarding thinking 'leftists' etc... do not come under this and are not appropriate. See the guidelines on this. (Bah! That response was nowhere near as good as my one which vanished and took the page with it.)-Localzuk ^(talk) 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Localzuk is trying to tell us that we cannot use adjectives to describe groups or causes. I hope he understands that I'm now going to go delete all adjectives regarding PETA and animal rights and all of these movements whether these adjectives are postiive or negative or neutral.DocEss 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making such a WP:POINT, especially when you have just indicated you plan to do so, would be inadvisable. Rockpocket 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again I must point out that other people's misinterpretation or inference of offense is a personal problem for those people, not for the rest of the English speaking (or reading) world. We should not be dumbing down our language just to accommodate some people's misunderstanding of language. The adjective "RADICAL" is not pejorative if someone INFERS that it is that is that person's problem, suck it up and drive on.L0b0t 18:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so here are 2 dictionary definitions of the word extremist: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative" and revolutionary: markedly new or introducing radical change; "a revolutionary discovery"; "radical political views". So that means, that using the definitions set out in a dictionary (princeton wordnet, ie. go to google and search for 'define:radical'). That means that the word is completely open to interpretation and using it in an article is a bad idea. -Localzuk ^(talk) 20:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is any of the above open to interpretation? All of the examples you listed mean a marked difference from the status quo. What is "bad" or POV about that? If anyone can find anything pejorative from Localzuk's suggestion here [23] I would love to hear about it.L0b0t 21:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those definitions are pejorative. Note also, the context the term is used is used by the reader to interpret its definition. On its own, the word "radical" can have a number of interpretations; used in a good sentence its meaning can, and should, be prefectly clear. Rockpocket 21:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe - PETA wants to radically alter the social contract between man and beast. Or how about - PETA feels a radical improvement in planetary wellbeing would arise from a global shift to a vegan lifestyle. I don't know, I'm sure someone can compose a more artful sentence than I.L0b0t 23:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you have a link to that 'contract' we can reference it. I wonder who the signatories were. Crum375 00:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but I still contend that a group advocating a radical departure from 10,000 plus years of domestication and animal husbandry is a radical group and that implies no value judgment at all.L0b0t 01:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are still missing the point. The guidelines and rules regarding words such as 'terrorist' and 'radical' are there to prevent things from occuring such as revert warring, articles becoming POV and giving wikipedia an opinion. If we state that 'x is radical' that is a judgement by wikipedia and should not be made. We must use it in the way stated 'according to y, x is radical'. The term radical is used to describe extremist organisations (hence that definition above) and as such gives unfair weight to a negative POV. This is simply against WP:NPOV as it is an opinion of a group. Please either drop this (as it obviously is not wanted by a selection of users on here, so you won't get consensus) or use a different word which doesn't have negative connotations. What about using 'revolutionary'? I would also be against that for the exact same reason (although it would be portraying them in a positive light instead). The terms revolutionary, extremist and radical all, according to the dictionary, mean the same thing. However, as stated they do not have the same connotations as each other.-Localzuk ^(talk) 08:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning, I just don't agree with it. If a reader infers something from a word that is a personal issue for that reader and they need to consult a dictionary and stop being so damn sensitive. Stating "x is radical" is NOT a value judgment. If someone INFERS a value judgment then they need to brush up on their reading comprehension skills. Revolutionary, extremist, and radical are NOT negative terms, they are neutral terms. Frankly I don't care if the word is in the article, I have never tried to put it in. I'm just very worried at the lack of basic English skills shown by many editors of WP and I don't think wikilawyering or policy wonking should be used to excuse terrible writting.

Criticisms section?

Why is this article exempt of a proper "criticisms" section? Other controversial topics seem to have them, NRA for example... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. It 's always better to weave praise and criticism throughout the article, rather than creating separate sections that turn into POV magnets. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"... it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." — Jimbo Wales. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY is it better to have criticsm weaved into the article rather than as a section in its own right? Please explain.DocEss 20:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because praise and criticism sections become magnets for trolls and POV pushers. With a criticism section, people will just keep turning up, slapping any old piece of negative stuff they find on Google, with no attempt to evaluate it or place it in context. Ensuring that both praise and criticism are woven into the text produces a more nuanced and three-dimensional piece of writing that's almost certainly closer to reality, because not black-and-white. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that certainly serves the agenda of someone who'd like everyone to read the whole article instead of focussing on criticisms, thereby absorbing and hopefully sympathising with the author's viewpoint and its popularity with his cohorts. If this was an article about something with which you disagreed or were negatively pre-disposed, then I surmise you'd just love to have a big 'ol cricism section, wouldn't you? I can see through your agenda. Nonetheless, this PETA/Animal Rights/Animal Welfare/Animal Saute/Vivisection/Rodeo issue has a massive amount of criticsm to it, as you can plainly see. I think it would be wise to create exactly that - a critism section where the issues can be illuminated and dealt with professionally. Just admit it to yourself that criticism here is pervasive and that the endless, fruitless editing and reverting will continue no matter where the criticisms are written. You are wrong to believe 'it is always better to scatter them'; indeed, it would be better for all involved if the criticisms were deposited in one, whole, controllable place that can be more easily edited and re-edited than to force editors to scan through already verbose prose. Unless you have an agenda, of course. [I mean that this idea should apply to whatever article, not justy this one.] Also, I think you should perhaps become a less intractable and bend a little.DocEss 20:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't see through my "agenda." Whenever possible I try to incorporate criticism and praise into articles, regardless of my personal views. It's harder to write like that, and it isn't always possible, but I do it whenever I can. The "endless, fruitless editing and reverting" has been going on ever since this article existed, including when it had a criticism section, because people like you come along and want to turn it into an attack page. You want a big POV magnet so you can easily add attacks without having to write properly. That's why it's being resisted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no desire to attack anything (except stupidity, of course), especially the impresssive amount of work you've put into this very well written material, which is deeply sourced and organised. You get an A or A- for all that. But you fail to see that your beloved cause has detractors and it is blatantly obvious to the casual observer that this article is clearly focussed on forwarding its beliefs; so you get an F for objectivity. Hey - I am only here to expose the truth, aren't you? The truth is simple here: massive criticism exists - it is logical, legitimate, pervasive, common, and not at all unreasonable. Your vigourous attempts to repress it are silly and unworthy of someone with your obvious intelligence. Now --- impress me and let's get this cricism section done right. Don't worry about POV Magnets or all that other Wiki garble - let's just get on with it.DocEss 20:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But there is in fact an enormous amount of criticism in this article. It's just doesn't have a big illuminated sign pointing to it, and that's a good thing, because the world isn't black-and-white. PETA isn't the big, bad bogeyman you think it is, and it's not pure as the driven snow either, as many of its supporters think it is. This nuanced article reflects the situation quite well, in my view. An organization with one million paying supporters around the world can claim to have pretty broad support, and the various celebrity supporters and financers show that it's a fairly mainstream group. Within the animal-rights movement, PETA is regarded by many as moderate and mainstream, to the great annoyance of many activists, in fact. So things are not as simple as you think. And it is not my "beloved cause." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see both sides. I like the idea, in fact, I'm going to put that on the todo for the NRA article - remove but disperse. And if I was pushing my agenda, I'd be adding this article to this. But alas, I'm just trying to make things better everywhere, and at first look (correct - I did not read the entire article) I didn't just see the section. Thanks SlimVirgin. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Why has all the critism and sites linking to and from both pro and anti-peta sites been removed?

I think this article needs a Neutrality Dispute tag asap.

Kjones1985 08:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed myself that the external links had gone. I have no idea why they were removed, but someone may have felt there were too many or they were unreliable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the article has been pushed in light of PETA in general. In the euthansia policy it makes it sounds like PETA only euthanizes only unhealthy and unadoptable animals when in fact some of the animals recovered from the crime scene were puppies and kittens. I think it is unacceptable to determine if all links are not a "valid source". The article is clearly in favor of making PETA look like a goody two shoes when there is some conversial issues with it.

Kjones1985 14:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article made clear when I last looked that PETA doesn't have a no-kill policy and euthanizes for a number of reasons. You have no way of knowing whether the puppies and kittens were healthy or whether they could be rehomed. Kittens for example often have illnesses that are highly infectious and hard to control, or they may have been feral. The coverage didn't say so there's no point in speculating. As for the links, as I said, I have no idea why they were removed. Links do have to be reliable to some extent, even when listed only as external links. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source citing that the kittens euthanize were in fact healthy and adoptable. why not write about the felony charges against them such as "obtaining property under false pretenses"?

my proof: http://www.wvec.com/news/investigates/stories/wvec_inv_070805_peta_update.8842799c.html

" Ahoskie police only had one of the dead animals tested. While the results did not show what caused its death, Sgt. Jeremy Roberts said the report shows the dog was fine. "That was a perfectly healthy six to eight-month-old puppy and the only physical problem with the dog was that it had fleas," he said.

Tissue samples are now being tested to determine whether the dog had been poisoned. "

do I need to prove my point further?

Kjones1985 00:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me or does it seem like my fact is being ignored? Obviously the article needs to be restructured as it gives a postive viewpoint of PETA. Truthfully, the article looks like it was written by a professional. I'm wondering what type of professional would take the time? Prephaps an employee of PETA who knows it can recruit through wikipedia? I've seen their tactics on the PETA2 message boards and thats to censor and erase any and all critism of their organzation. Can you please give access to registered users to edit it?

Kjones1985 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what your point is. The article states that PETA does not operate a no-kill policy. It believes that pets are better off being euthanized in certain circumstances e.g. if they're likely to spend months in cramped cages in shelters. It makes no secret of having this as a policy.

The article also says PETA was criticized in 2005 when police found PETA employees dumping euthanized animals in a dumpster. PETA condemned it and two employees were charged. The case has not gone to court and so no one knows what the circumstances were. What, exactly, do you want to add to this (and please produce a reliable source for whatever it is)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PETA is actually against no-kill shelters and neuter/release programs. They are also against pets, of course. ;-) — Omegatron 07:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust on your Plate heading

Yes, and the Holocaust on your Plate campaign is important enough to have its own section in the PETA article, particularly since other, less important campaigns like the "Lettuce ladies", have their own sections. Farnsworth J. 04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's because the Lettuce Ladies aren't important that they have their own subsection in "Some PETA campaigns" and aren't one of the issues that's discussed as part of the main text. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, if the Holocaust on your Plate campaign is, as you say, more important than the Lettuce Ladies then it shouldn't be less visible by not having a heading and a mention in the table of contents. It looks like we're hiding it under a generic label (Campaigns) rather than recognizing it as being important. We should either change the “Campaigns” heading to read “Holocaust on your Plate and other campaigns” or create a “Holocaust on your Plate” subsection. If you're concerned that this would not give it more prominence then the Lettuce Ladies then we should list it first. Farnsworth J 16:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to keep the article in narrative form rather that list form. Everyone who comes to this article as a new editor wants to add their own pet opinion or theory or criticism under a header as a separate section, because that's the easiest way to write. The Holocaust on your plate" exhibition is discussed in the main campaigning section as an example of one of their hard-hitting campaigns. What is the benefit of separating it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do separate it out, it will go under the "Other campaigns" section at the end, and another controversial campaign will take its place in the main discussion, so if your aim is to draw attention to it, you're going about it the wrong way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit is to wikipedia readers as a) it appears in the table of contents so it's easier to find b) it is possible for other articles (such as Holocaust (disambiguation)) to link directly to the section rather than just linking to the PETA article as a whole leaving readers to hunt for the Holocaust on your Plate reference. 72.60.227.118 01:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For more information about that topic, it's best to link to Animal rights and the Holocaust, not here (an article that will be developed over the next couple of weeks). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Holocaust on your Plate" material should be under its own heading

Support

Farnsworth J 00:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose This article is far too big as it is. Perhaps we could have an article for large, notable, or successful campaigns. Which is better, one bloated article or a series of smaller articles linking back and forth? L0b0t 02:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal isn't to lengthen the article but just to add a header to existing material. Farnsworth J 04:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. I am of the opinion however that the article needs to be trimmed down a great deal. Maybe splitting off the campaigns would be a good place to start. L0b0t 05:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article's too long and splitting the list of campaigns off would be a good idea. The disadvantage is that the new page will look like a PETA ad. My own preference would be to remove the list of campaigns and just link to PETA's site where they can explain for themselves what they do. But either way, having the list here makes the page too long. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Slim 100% --C civiero 07:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

In my mind Holocaust on your Plate is a significant PETA campaign and should be dealt with fully in its own article. What should be in this article should only be a summary of that campaign. One or two sentences about the overall message and significance of the campaign, and (if applicable) a few more sentences about the signficance of the campaign to PETA as a whole. Commentary, criticism, or support of this campaign which has no wider significance on PETA as a whole, should only be dealt with in that article. If significant campaigns are to get subsections (===Campaign===) in this article, then yes it should get one. If there are so many (as it appears to me at first glance) that such would be cumbersome, perhaps they should only be listed, or better yet in a table. It certainly appears that there are a few dozen campaigns at this level of significance for PETA, which could create an unmanageable table of contents if each recieved such treatment. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Issues

Alright, a few problems here:

-The criticisms section is gone. Some people are attempting to justify this by arguing that the criticisms "should be weaved into the article" instead of having their own section. I have issues with that. Firstly, a number of criticisms which used to appear on this page are gone. They seem to have been deleted rather than moved. Secondly, the absense of a criticisms section only makes it more difficult to find such content. As a result of this recent "reformatting", the article reads like an advertisment for PETA.

-The links to anti-PETA sites are gone. I'll re-add a few and see how long they last.

-Most of this article seems copy-and-pasted from PETA websites.

I think it would be appropriate to have a POV tag on this article. --C civiero 04:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like I'm in way over my head here. The article is long and confusing and criticisms are buried. This article was much better a few weeks ago, it should be reverted. If not, throw on a POV tag. --C civiero 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the criticisms being weaved in - they are going to stay like that. IIRC, Jimbo Wales stated that this is how it should be done, rather than splitting the article as it is difficult to discuss an issue if it is spread out.

Please feel free to add back in criticisms that have vanished, in the correct place with verifiable, reliable sources.

A lot of the information is sourced to PETA websites, and is allowed to be as under the guidelines mentioned above.

We have discussed the 'anti-peta' links in detail, and some were removed under the above guidelines and policies due to them not adding anything to the article. The links section is not meant to be a section to advertise pro and anti websites, it is supposed to be to link to useful sites that add something to the article.-Localzuk ^(talk) 12:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism should definitely be "weaved into the article". Criticism sections are bad, as Jimbo himself once stated. Removing all criticism from the article, of course, is even worse. — Omegatron 07:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of controversial articles have "criticisms" sections. "Weaving in" the criticisms only hides them from a anyone who isn't looking hard for them. I find it very hypocritical that many of the contributors here dismiss the idea of a proper criticisms section for PETA, but have no problems with the state of the animal testing article. Here are a few other examples:

-KFC has a "controversy" section, which FEATURES CRITICISMS FROM PETA

-There is an Ethics of eating meat aritcle, half of which CONSISTS OF CRITICISMS FROM VEGETARIANS.

-The Fur clothing article includes a "criticisms" section, which mentions campaigns made BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS.

This is ridiculous and amazingly hypocritical. The "animal rights" related articles are in terrible shape because a handful of hippies hijacked wikipedia and won't allow any valid criticisms of their stance to show. I have presenting a good, solid argument, citing precedents to show why a "criticisms" section should be included. PETA should not be exempted from the standards applied to other articles. --C civiero 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lots of articles have Criticism or Controversy sections, but good articles generally don't. To be neutral, you have to present the information in a neutral way. Please read Wikipedia:Criticism.

Oh, and, generally, there are more than two sides to every issue. You might want to look into that. — Omegatron 23:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why "criticism" and "controversy" sections would contribute to POV, but the criticisms that are buried in this article are greatly foreshadowed by copy-and-pasted PETA propaganda. --C civiero 02:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So add more. — Omegatron 12:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! - adding more will likely result in a revert war and a 3rr warning from the high priestess of tofu and her vegan minnions. Nevertheless, I have gone through dozens of controversial and other articles here in Wiki and have decided quite the opposite: controversy sections are far superior to weaves and even a good article becomes a better article when so contstructed. Let's get to the meat of the issue. Firstly, I can read throught those articles (let us take a film for an example) and learn what the film is about and who was in it and who created it, etetera. Then I can read about secondary things like how much money it made, the impact it had on specific groups, and the short-lived or perhaps long term cultural impact it had locally or even globally. Then I can read about what the press thought, whether good, indifferent, bad or just descriptive. Then I can read about any conroversy the film generated; sections like this contain everthying I need to know about how and why a controversy existed and the criticims that are germane. Having a section like this allows me to quickly find out about the relevant controversy without having to read throught the whole article. I realise that, of course, if I had an agenda to recruit people to my cause I'd certainly want the opposite: I'd want to make them read everything about my cause and I'd hope that my inflammatroy rhetoric, photos and biased viewpoints would ring a bell in the reader and he'd sympathise with my ideas. I'd also want to make it difficult for dissenters to makes edits, keep track of all that work and maintin a proper perspective regaring controversy & criticism --- better to hide it where it can be surreptitiously de-clawed. Worse, controversy & criticism sections might just contain too much common sense and force the reader to scoff at the cause! In the case of PETA and animal (so-called)rights, all this is indubitably the case. I don't want to leave any meat on the bone here: what we want here is to BE encycloepedic by describing the truth, which involves laying it out so that all sides to a story receive proper attention. Wow - when common sense is a headwind, your cause is fruitless. DocEss 17:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article REALLY SHOULD HAVE A POV TAG. If you skim through this talk page, its obvious that the POV IS DISPUTED. --C civiero 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dumpster Bin Incident

I feel that the description (and space) committed to this incident is not quite neutral, and should be trimmed down significantly.

Unless we find proof that this is official policy of PETA (or at least tolerated) the dumping was a misconduct of some employees, and not really representative of the organization (and therefore inappropriate for an article like this). By the same token one could list every personal misbehaviour of any company's/organization's employees, and use it as an argument against them. Not quite fair, and definitely not NPOV. It doesn't matter much that this event actually happened, and that it is well documented. What matters is whether its representative of their policy, and I find no evidence for that. --Frescard 16:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether personal misconduct or not, it does reflect on PETA as it is a work-related misconduct while the employees were carrying out PETA-mandated work. So I am of the opinion it is indeed quite relevant.--Ramdrake 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the detail of the incident is fine - it covers all areas of the issue. However, as it is not a major aspect of PETA, I do not think there should be images - especially not 2 of them. -Localzuk ^(talk) 16:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed one of the images for the above reason. I think the first one is more representative of it than the second.-Localzuk ^(talk) 16:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's "work-related", but the question is, was this an independent decision of some employees, or was is approved or condoned by PETA? --Frescard 16:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If something is not part of their official policy, but they do it anyway, it is obviously relevant to the article, even moreso than the official policies that they do follow. These were two PETA employees using a PETA-registered van, picking up animals during typical work hours from shelters who believed that PETA would find them a new home, killing them and dumping them around 5 PM on a Wednesday afternoon. This was something that had been done repeatedly in the area in many different dumpsters (about 20 animals each) for more than a year (mostly on Wednesdays) before someone was caught in the act, and prevented these euthanasias from being reported to the county's Animal Control Officer (which already logs a very high percentage for this organization). In the van was a well-organized portable "death toolbox" and a digital camera with pictures of animals before and after euthanasia. After the incident, one worker was suspended, but the other was still employed by PETA.

Seems pretty damn relevant to me, and seems like it was encouraged or at least tolerated by PETA. But none of this really matters; their guilt or cooperation with PETA is not for you or I to decide; we just have to report on it neutrally as a common criticism of the organization. — Omegatron 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section takes up very little of the article in size and actual relevance to the article as a whole. Including 2 images is pointless as it only needs one. As it stands, it looks cluttered. -Localzuk ^(talk) 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason that smaller sections should have fewer pictures. Can you cite any kind of guideline, policy, or style guide that says so? Even if there was, PETA's most prominent criticism is a little more important than one of their many campaigns. Beyond that, the first picture was commonly shown in the news as a representative photo of the incident, and the second picture directly relates to the commonly-referenced text about a vet's testimony. — Omegatron 18:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just the number of pictures that matter, but also whether they illustrate a point. What does a picture of two dead kittens illustrate? How dead kittens look like?

The main reason for those pictures is to stir up emotions, and that's not what an encyclopedia is for. If they would contain pictures of the offenders the space they take up might be ok (not sure about the legal implications though), but including pictures to rouse emotions is not what Wikipedia articles are for. --Frescard 18:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then the monkey in a tube goes, the Unnecessary Fuss image goes, the lettuce ladies go, the naked rather than fur goes, Phan Thị Kim Phúc, Nguyen Ngoc Loan, and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima need their images removed...

Just because an image could provoke an emotional reaction doesn't mean it can't be included in the encyclopedia. The picture serves as photographic evidence of Proctor's claims, helping readers decide for themselves whether to believe him or not. — Omegatron 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures do indeed arouse emotion; they arouse disgust at the hypocrisy of that arrogant, pontifcating and illogical organisation, PETA. Hubris! - somebody could have eaten that dog but they just threw it away. What a shameful display of waste.DocEss 18:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey in a tube illustrates the point that PETA is using emotionally charges images to gain support. The campaign pictures obviously illustrate their campaigns. The war pictures are not there to raise emotions (even if they may do so in the process) but those specific ones have pretty much reached iconic status, and that's why they have their own pages. --Frescard 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and why they were the first to come to my mind. So you think that the use of one of those images in the article on Strategic bombing unfairly biases the article? That's silly. Our purpose here is to document fact.

One of the major points of the incident, and one of the charges against the two, was obtaining the animals under the false pretense that PETA was putting them up for adoption. As reported in several news articles, Proctor gives an example of a family of healthy cats he gave to them, paraphrasing the PETA workers as saying "my, what beautiful animals. We will have absolutely no trouble finding homes for these" The cats were found killed within a few hours, as attested to by the photograph. — Omegatron 18:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I first came across this paragraph I hadn't been familiar with the incident, and just judging by the images and write-up it pretty much looked like anti-PETA propaganda to me, attacking those two employees as a strawman. Only after I did some research myself did I start to have suspicions that PETA might have somehow tolerated or supposed this behaviour after all. Not everybody will do that though. The article itself should be as objective as possible, so that people "on the fence" will not write it off as obvious propaganda.

Instead of posting pictures that will only further that initial suspicion I would suggest to put more (referenced) facts into the article itself, to demonstrate the kind of involvement PETA has in this incident (like the fact that only one of the offenders was fired, and the letter PETA wrote in response). Steeping down to the same irrational methods PETA is employing (by using emotionally charges pictures) you will just make readers ignore your point altogether, since it'll be viewed as biased. --Frescard 19:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to add all the other information from my above summary, but gotta spend 3-4x as long finding the best references and writing them up for the article. :-)

I don't think the images are as detrimental as you suppose, and it's not our job to manipulate readers' emotions in either direction, anyway. They can read what they want, and dismiss what they want. We present the facts as neutrally as possible, and the reader decides what they think. — Omegatron 23:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the photograph of the kittens, Image:PETA_dumpster_incident_cat_with_kittens.jpg, if you click on the source link and then on the second link they direct you to, that image appears to have been taken by the police, not the journalist, so we can claim PD, I believe, as it's USG property. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)\[reply]

I wrote to the site owner last night before uploading them, but haven't gotten a response yet. The cats are definitely law enforcement photos though.[24][25] Thanks for pointing that out. — Omegatron 23:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this typical? PETA radicals kill some pets (not animals, pets) and throw them in a dumpster and half a dozen people here rush to exclude it from the article. Some of the arguments?

-It's propaganda intended to provoke an emotional response.

What about the tube monkey, guy with the dog, Newkirk with the rooster, unnecessary fuss, etc.?

-It's the actions of a few people and not the policy of PETA.

Regardless of whether PETA has some official document which says "we like to kill kittens and throw them in dumpsters", some employees did just that and it wasn't the first time. It is certainly relevant to this article. I wonder how long it will last, given that *GASP* it ACTUALLY MAKES PETA LOOK BAD. The pictures need to be there to help balance the POV of the article. --C civiero 23:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And after we've added all the details they say are still needed to show a non-strawman connection with PETA, they'll say it makes the article too big and want to fork it out to its own. :-) — Omegatron 23:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to consider is how often, in Wikipedia and elsewhere, (potentially) isolated examples of animal abuse by individuals in the animal testing world is held up, by PETA and others, as examples of systematic abuse by the industry. I see strong parallels here with this section in the HLS article:

In 1997, film secretly recorded inside HLS in the UK by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) showed serious breaches of animal-protection laws, including a beagle puppy being held up by the scruff of the neck and repeatedly punched in the face, and animals being taunted. The investigation led to the company's Home Office licence being revoked in April 1997 for six months. At the time, the company's shares stood at £1.13: within three years they were worth 2.5 pence. Huntingdon officials claimed, in their defence, that these breaches were isolated cases and that the staff responsible were sacked and prosecuted.

Is this "really representative of the organization" anymore than PETA and the animal dumping? Who really knows, and its not our place to decide. Personally i think there is nothing wrong with both incidents being reported, but lets try and be consistant. Rockpocket 00:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that, too. Agreed completely. — Omegatron 00:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that some people here don't like using consumerfreedom.com as a source (and I don't really either), but this is dated June 2nd 2006, which is a lot more recent than the stuff in this article: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3045. Apparently, they were also charged with obtaining property through false pretenses. Is this worth mentioning in the article? --C civiero 02:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the article already. — Omegatron 12:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

PETA-registered van^[3]
during typical work hours^[3]
from shelters who believed that PETA would find them a new home^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]
killing them and dumping them around 5 PM on a Wednesday afternoon.^[3]
had been done repeatedly in the area in many different dumpsters^[4]
(about 20 animals each)^[4][26]
- when caught, they had dumped 18, and started to drive off with 13 still in the van^[4]
for more than a year (18 month period)^[4]
(mostly on Wednesdays) ^[4]
prevented these euthanasias from being reported to the county's Animal Control Officer^[4]
(which already logs a very high percentage for this organization). ^[8]^[9]
In the van was a well-organized portable "death ~~toolbox~~ tackle box"^[10]^[11]
digital camera with pictures of animals before and after euthanasia
- "a digital camera with pictures of living and dead animals and vials of substances later determined to be drugs used to euthanize animals."^[12]
After the incident, one worker was suspended, but the other was still employed by PETA.
- "PETA said it has suspended Hinkle, but not Cook, who worked as Hinkle’s assistant. Newkirk called Hinkle “the Mother Teresa of animals. She’s a very kind, decent person.”"^[13]
$35,500 bond on a combined 62 felony counts of animal cruelty and eight misdemeanor counts each of illegal disposal of dead animals. An additional charge of illegal trespassing was filed June 17 against both individuals.^[3]

Phew! — Omegatron 00:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a big list against the two employess, but the connection to PETA is still circumstantial.

Compare this case with what happened in Abu Ghraib. You could check off nearly every item for that situation as well. Does that mean the Army supported or tolerated it? Some say they did, some say they didn't. And there was even more evidence available there...

So - since it's not really up for us to make judgements like that (that's what courts are for), I still feel assigning blame is a bit early.

But actually - I don't really care anymore. I'm not gonna waste any more time trying to balance this article. If you guys want to get into an edit war with the PETA supporters, once they show up, go for it. I don't... --Frescard 02:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a big list against the two employess, but the connection to PETA is still circumstantial.

Yep.

I still feel assigning blame is a bit early.

Good thing we're not assigning blame, then.

If you guys want to get into an edit war with the PETA supporters, once they show up, go for it. I don't...

I don't, either. It's tiring. — Omegatron 12:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Language

I just like to run every edit that I make by everyone. I'm deleting a few words because they screw up the neutrality of the article:

1.)"PETA was nevertheless criticized by the OPRR for having edited the film in a misleading way"

-Deleted the word "nevertheless", served only to make the article POV.

2.)"has been criticized...for the actions of some of its employees regarding their treatment of animals"

-Deleted "for the actions of some of its employees". The wording was just an attempt to direct responsibility away from PETA. --C civiero 23:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit. — Omegatron 23:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3)"By 1989, PETA had persuaded nearly 500 companies to go "cruelty-free".

-replaced "go 'cruelty-free'" with "abandon such practices". --C civiero 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Timeline

The "timeline" section has almost no citations to support claims, and consists almost exclusively of points intended to promote PETA. I have been told numerous times that any claims I make must be backed by citations, yet it appears I would not be held to such standards if my contributions were in support of PETA. The timeline section also exponentially extends an already overly-long article. It's messy, POV, long, and pointless. It should be deleted, but it won't be. Forgive me for not "assuming good faith", but it's pretty hard to do so when its blatantly obvious that I'm being shut down because my views and contributions differ from the veterans here. I can't "assume good faith", when nothing that myself or User:DocEss contribute will ever make the final cut (interesting that we happen to differ from the majority here). --C civiero 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would separate your comment into two parts, the issue of neutrality the issue of proper sourcing. I think you are correct that the title should probably be modified to 'Timeline of important PETA achievements', with clarification just below that the importance is from PETA's own perspective. Then it makes sense for the reader to see how, over time, they achieve (what they consider) concrete results. For your second point of proper sourcing, since several sources are provided, I would ask if you could possibly name a single timeline event that is currently unsourced. Do it one at a time, as that would be easier to tackle. If no appropriate source is found, nuke the item and you'll have majority support. Then repeat for all others you feel are unsourced. But please do it one at a time. Thanks, Crum375 20:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your recommendation to deal unsourced material, I must disagree with the need to create a timeline of events PETA thinks are important. The timeline should instead receive the same treatment as the previous criticisms section and be blended into existing sections were appropriate or become the start for new sections when needed. The primary reasons for this are to help demonstrate the impact of various PETA campaigns and activities, reduce unneeded repetition, and to place events into proper context. Integrating the timeline into the article proper will also help prevent its use as a surrogate criticism, praise, or trivia section. --Allen3 ^talk 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, however there is the problem that if some of the information is expanded upon and removed from the section it will no longer be a timeline... So whilst this, long and difficult process, is done what do you suggest we do with the information that hasn't been integrated?-Localzuk ^(talk) 22:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference SmithHolocaust was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Press Release "Animal Rights Group Should Take the Lead of PETA and Stop Using Holocaust Imagery", ADL Website, August 2, 2005.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e "Dumpster dog deemed healthy" — Cal Bryant, Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald, June 29, 2005
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g "Dumping cases are similar" — Cal Bryant, Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald, June 29, 2005
^ "PETA looks bad after two arrests" — Gene Mueller, The Washington Times, June 22, 2005
^ CNN transcript of Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
^ Movement Watch Special Edition, Summer 2006 — Friends of Animals
^ Online Animal Reporting 2005, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
^ Charts of euthanasia counts for 1998-2005 available from nokillnow.com and petakillsanimals.com
^ "Drug tests are back" — Thadd White, Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald, July 20, 2005
^ Shocking New Crime-Scene Photos — petakillsanimals.com
^ "Judge Keeps PETA Animal Killers On A Tight Leash" — CCF
^ "PETA: Cruel and Unusual" — Iain Murray and Ivan Osorio, January 18, 2006

[SmithHolocaust-1] Cite error: The named reference SmithHolocaust was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[ADL3-2] Press Release "Animal Rights Group Should Take the Lead of PETA and Stop Using Holocaust Imagery", ADL Website, August 2, 2005.

[dumpster_dog-3] "Dumpster dog deemed healthy" — Cal Bryant, Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald, June 29, 2005

[dumping_similar-4] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g "Dumping cases are similar" — Cal Bryant, Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald, June 29, 2005

[5] "PETA looks bad after two arrests" — Gene Mueller, The Washington Times, June 22, 2005

[6] CNN transcript of Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

[7] Movement Watch Special Edition, Summer 2006 — Friends of Animals

[8] Online Animal Reporting 2005, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

[9] Charts of euthanasia counts for 1998-2005 available from nokillnow.com and petakillsanimals.com

[10] "Drug tests are back" — Thadd White, Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald, July 20, 2005

[11] Shocking New Crime-Scene Photos — petakillsanimals.com

[12] "Judge Keeps PETA Animal Killers On A Tight Leash" — CCF

[13] "PETA: Cruel and Unusual" — Iain Murray and Ivan Osorio, January 18, 2006

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]