Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

New section regarding shelter euths

Wangleetodd and Tryptofish, regarding the recent addition, would suggest that sources other than Consumer Freedom be used? They have a clear agenda, much as PETA does. Controversial on both ends of that spectrum. Bob98133 (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I noticed that too. I have decided to be neutral about whether they are a valid source or not, for the moment. I want to see how this discussion plays out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I’m against using CCF as a source, but I don’t have a problem with at least provisionally using documents on their servers as sources. For example, PetaKillsAnimals.pdf is supposedly not an original document created by the CCF, but rather a collection of government documents obtained by them. If it’s such a big deal, then one of the Americans among us should submit requests to the governments for the same data to confirm it. I wouldn’t call this original research any more than, say, contacting a university to obtain the text of a scholarly work cited as has been done millions of times on Wikipedia…. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 10:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair point. And I'm going to rant expand on it quite a bit further. In the past, I've encouraged IP editors to become autoconfirmed accounts, and to work with us to add sourced material to the page. I meant it. It wasn't just a platitude or a blow-off. So when Wangleetodd made some edits, I decided to fix up things like grammar and format, but I didn't edit war with anyone, either about adding the material or deleting it, and I'm starting out neutral about the sources. Although the stuff about counting editors as just one is silly and not worth discussing, the simple truth is that, historically, this page has been dominated by editors with a pro-PETA POV. So we can have a long, caressing section sourced to Gary Francione, but not only can we never source anything to the Center for Consumer Freedom, we cannot even cite David Hubel, a Nobel laureate, for goodness sake! We have to make the terrorism concerns sound like they only come from an extreme right wing Republican senator, even though the criticisms are much more mainstream than that. We have pages like Britches. I'm not saying that PetaKillsAnimals is a reliable source, and I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying that I want to see editors on both sides of the debate really think through their arguments, not falling back on what was decided a long time ago, and let's find out which arguments are the soundest. Maybe consensus can change, maybe not. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually the idea of treating multiple PETA associates as one is not too far from policy. See WP:MEATPUPPET. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 10:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Should the same apply to multiple Republican Party associates? HiLo48 (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, that's what we're still discussing? Anyway, I agree with the editor who asked for a citation for the number of animals killed. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't you use these as a source for the numbers: VDACS: Online Animal Reporting: PETA (2006) VDACS: Online Animal Reporting: PETA (2010) etc. Slsh (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Shelter euthanasia numbers - not even CCF/petakillsanimals.com supports them?

In the article it says like this: "According to PETA's own official report, PETA put to death nearly every dog, cat, and other pet it took in for adoption in 2006. Out of 3,061 companion animals PETA took in during that year, 2,981 were killed and only 12 were adopted", sourcing to consumerfreedom.com website. However, the documents presumably referred do not seem to be supporting those numbers. If you look at reporting year 2006, there is "Total" column listing 9637 animals, and "Euthanized" column listing 2981 animals. Right? Or am I seeing things?

Slsh (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced accusations should be removed from this page

Case in point: "PETA practices killing animals shortly after they come in the door (or inside a cargo van in North Carolina), without any good-faith effort to find adoptive homes for animals or provide necessary long-term veterinary care" says verifications needed. This is a high-visibility article, and accusations such as that one should be either sourced properly or removed. I would think it would be hard to find a neutral, reliable source saying that there is even no good-faith effort in what PETA does. If there is a source like that, it should be definitely mentioned in the text also. Slsh (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Been thinking about this, because the CCF connection comes up from time to time, and suggest that if it must be used, then it should be in context as in, "CCF, which is funded by the restaurant and tobacco industries, has a history of challenging PETA's actions and claims that..." Even the CCF Wiki page does a better job of sourcing this issue. Bob98133 (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed that and edited the section for it to appear a bit more neutral. Slsh (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In my opinion, these further edits are an improvement, while I also think that the addition of the section about the shelter killings to the page is an improvement over the way the page had been before. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Needs controversy section ASAP

This article on PETA looks like one huge advertisement board. It's all structured to put Peta in a positive light in ALL matters. The fact that's it's only got 3 major points ( History + Philosophy and activism + Position within the animal rights movement ) and no Controversy section should ring a huge bell. Ranging from the mockery of certain stars and accusation relating to holocaust victims and all the way to accusations of supporting and financing home terrorist groups, it's all structured to break the points into small manageable pieces which are very carefully masked inside bigger paragraphs that manage to turn the whole critical idea into a positive and remarkable action on behalf of PETA. The article needs a clear well defined controversy section in which all the issues that have been paraded in the mass media shall be properly detailed. Like let's see making fun of Mario bashing turtles, Gaga's meat dress, Peta beying upset about some cape made of spider silk(today 21 01 12 on yahoo news), news article in telegraph.co.uk ' Peta under fire over claim that it kills most animals left at its US headquarters ' , also ' PETA Mocks Florida Shark Attack Victim ' , and also ' PETA Mocks National Infertility Week ' , and of course ' PETA condemns brutal Battlefield 3 video-game digital rat stabbing '. Plus there are others which i haven't heard off. If there's one last responsible editor left on this side of Widipedia, please take into consideration that most important and respectable articles on Wikipedia have a well defined and structured controversy sections. There's just no other way aroudn it with such a complex subject; mixing stuff like it currently is, is just misleading to say the least. So with the risk of repeating mysef: it's not about the lack (even if only partial) of controversy subjects, it's mostly about the fact that the already small number of controversies area very well and intentionally hidden in a sea of text that praises Peta. [from User:Choice777 ].

Please read the notes at the top of this section, especially the bit that says "This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected..." In its current form your request cannot be accepted, or even really considered. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

@Choice777: If the topics have decent sources, they should be in the article. Considering them one at a time:

• Mario & turtles - already in article in section "Campaigns and consumer boycotts"
• Gagas meat dress - not in article
• Cape made of silk - not in article
• US HQ killings - already in article in section "Killing of shelter animals"
• Shark victim - not in article
• National Infertility Week - not in article
• Battlefield 3 - not in article

So, there may be five topics that are not yet in the article. But not every single press release from PETA (or isolated responses) needs to be in the article; so if the missing topics have multiple sources that discuss it in a prominent way, by all means, they should be in the article. The spider-silk article, you say, only happened today, so it is a bit soon to be in the article. I'll spend a minute looking for sources on the others. --Noleander (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

After researching the topics (see below) it appears that nearly all of them are press releases that were issued by Peta, for publicity reasons, and they all got some minor coverage, but not major coverage. I suppose that Peta issues several press releases each month. The general question is: Should this article list every single press release that Peta issues? Or only those that get major media coverage? The WP policy "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article" at WP:NNC says that bits of an information in an article do not have to be "notable" in the WP sense, so one could argue that this article could include a list/catalog of all Peta press releases that are described by reliable sources. I wouldn't object to inclusion of minor press releases, provided that (1) there was some kind of public response (positive or negative); and (2) reliable secondary sources are available that describe the press release & response (i.e. the responses themselves are not sufficient sources). --Noleander (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think those would be excellent criteria. I agree with your assessment of the individual items below; I would support adding a sentence for the Gaga meat dress and the Shark attack.--Trystan (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I added that material. --Noleander (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow..look at all the ripples i've caused. Good ! I like the truth to be more visible and outlined for all to see. :D Choice777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

Gaga meat dress

Peta issued a two-paragraph press release the day after Lady Gaga wore the dress: [1], and several minor news outlets reported on the press release. But it died out very quickly, with very little lasting or significant news coverage. Not sure if it is substantial enough for its own section/paragraph in this article: maybe a sentence? --Noleander (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A sentence has been added to the article. --Noleander (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Silk cape

It looks like Peta has a formal policy statement objecting to all silk used for any clothing: [2]. That is broader than a single "spider silk cape" incident. So that appears to be a major policy position that should be mentioned in the article. --Noleander (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I created a new section in the article here covering Peta's position on clothing/silk/fur. The section is small now, and should be enlarged. Note that there is also a section on anti-fur activism by the Asian affiliate of Peta, but that latter section is focused on actions of the Asia affiliate, rather than a summary of the positions of the US HQ. --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Shark attack

In late Sept 2011, Peta issued a press release that described a planned billboard which showed a shark biting a human leg, with the title "Payback is hell; go vegan". It appears that the ad was never actually placed on a billboard. After the press release, many news outlets reported that a recent shark attack victim was outraged (the press release was soon after a Florida fisherman was bitten by a shark), e.g. Fox News: [3]. Borderline: could go in the article. As far as I can tell, there was never a formal Peta position, nor an actual billboard: more of a shock-effect press release to get publicity (and it worked). --Noleander (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A sentence has been added to the article. --Noleander (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

National Infertility Week

Peta, in April 2011, briefly had a press release on their web site, objecting to spaying/neutering pets. The press release related the practice to National Infertility Week and reportedly said ""Human overpopulation is crowding out animal life on the planet..." [4] and " In honor of National Infertility Week (April 24 – 30), PETA will give one free vasectomy to a man who has recently had his companion dog or cat neutered. " [5] There was quite a bit of response in blogs, particularly from persons involved in IVF, etc. But the press release was transient, and I cannot find any major news sources that described the press release in any significant way. If someone can find more/better sources, it could go in the article. --Noleander (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Battlefield 3

In early November 2011, a German affiliate of Peta reportedly issued a statement objecting to an animal-killing episode in the game Battlefield 3. Several gaming blogs reported on the criticism by Peta. This appears to be very minor: it was not the Peta HQ; and no major news sources (that I can find) reported on it. Nor is there any lasting significance. Unless more/better sources are found, probably not sufficient for inclusion in the article. --Noleander (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)