Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Add major criticisms for PETA

I respectfully suggest the incorporation of a criticisms section, just because a particular section attracts vandals does not mean that the article should be altered to appease the wiki vandals. The article needs a central criticism section as this is almost the defacto standard for articles on controversial subjects/groups and inserting criticism throughout the article presents significant NPOV problems since it functionally dilutes criticism. Presentation does matter 138.26.140.149 (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read Biased Removal of Criticism at the bottom of this page.Bob98133 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I did, and I still respectfully disagree, a criticism section does serve as a magnet for, pardon the pun, criticism and revisions, but the lack of one does bias the article, even inadvertently. I guess a better way of describing my point is that while you mention that the seperate section does not work by encouraging vandalism, I think the current format presents NPOV problems, so one problem has been reduced at the cost of introducing another. 138.26.140.149 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Peta kills 3/4 of the animals they supposedly "save." 2. PETA supports "total animal liberation," which essentially means the outlawing of animals as pets, entertainment (circuses), farm use, and even seeing eye dogs for the blind. 3. PETA does not denounce the use of violence, including fire bombing research laboratories 4. Opposes the use of animals for drug testing for medications such as vaccines, medication, insulin, etc Intranetusa 02:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, IntranetUSA - all this has been gone over before in this article. Details of PETA's euthanasia statistics are in the Community Animal Project Section. No references exist for your point #2, since it is simply wrong. I think PETA might support breeding bans for pets, be against breeding animals for fighting, in favor of spay/neuter, but they also have entire website about how to take care of pets,etc. They constantly support Cirque du Soleil, so they are not against circuses. Farm use? You mean they are against growing vegetables? Odd position for a bunch of vegetarians. Seeing eye dogs - what are they doing naked demos in front of blind people or something? The sections in the article about PETA policies and campaigns talk about what they do. Point #3 - I think some PETA people may have made statements over the years about violence, but the only statements I've seen from PETA have been against violence, including fire-bombing. If you have a reliable reference for this, supply it. Simply employing someone prior to that person committing a crime or paying the legal costs for someone accused of a crime do not constitute supporting the crime. #4 PETA's position on using animals to test products, drugs, etc. is very clearly stated in the Undercover Investigations section. There is no point lumping these items together in a Criticisms section. Please read the article carefully and you'll see that what you're suggesting has already been covered. Thanks Bob98133 15:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The above paragraph is incorrect. They DO oppose pet ownership, and if that were exposed, PETA would be out of business tomorrow. They are NOT a "humane" organization. They believe in "animal rights" and oppose domestication of animals. Just look at the quotes of the truly deranged founder Ingrid Newkirk. She makes no bones about it.--2 March 2008 Susan Nunes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.60.145 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Susan, obviously your agenda is "to expose" PETA and "put them out of business." You are welcome to pursue that agenda in whatever ways might be legal and appropriate, but the Wiki discussion page is not such a place. If you can document and supply reliable references for your statements you are welcome to edit the article, but repeating your beliefs without substantiation on this page is a waste of time. Just some questions though, if PETA does not believe in people having pets, why did Newkirk write four or five books about things you can do with your cats and dog parties and other domestic animal related issues? Why do they run a spay/neuter clinic? Why do they provide free dog houses and straw to dogs living outdoors in Virginia and North Carolina? Why does PETA have an entire web site [1] devoted to helping companion animals? And, is being "truly deranged" the oppostie of being "falsely deranged"? You are welcome to reply to my talk page User_talk:Bob98133. Bob98133 (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet, almost EVERY OTHER ARTICLE on the site has a section devoted to criticism! Amazing! Why do readers of this particular article have to hunt when any other article presents them in easy-to-find form? 24.31.249.138 22:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This whole wikipedia website is extremely biased. There are always huge criticisms for every organization or person that even leans to the Right, but there aren't any for even the most extreme groups on the Left. For example, Dennis Prager, conservative talk show host, who always tells his listeners that he believes that there are just as many dumb people on the Left that there are on the Right, and the Left has their equal share of good people, has a criticism section (actually titled philosophies (!!) as if these are his main issues he talks about) that has all these stupid, no-big-deal issues in it. Check out Michael Moore. absolutely nothing. You can't tell me that Dennis Prager is virtually infinitely more deserving of criticism than Michael Moore. The other funny thing about this article is that the only criticism it delivers to PETA is from people or organizations that are even farther left of center, as if the credibility of any criticism coming from the Right is only fractional to the credibility of the attacks from the far Left. -Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Bob98133, you either missed or ignored Intrantusa's point. PETA supports Cirque du Soleil BECAUSE they have no animals. So, yes, animals as entertainment (circuses) is out. When Intrantusa said "outlawing of animals as farm use," s/he obviously didn't mean vegetables. Your argument against the idea of PETA opposing seeing eye-dogs doesn't even make sense. And PETA could easily be anti-pet and still have a website telling people who DO have pets how to take care of them. ButteredToast 05:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a major criticism section in this article and all it served to do was attract vandalism. so criticisms were incorporated into the article. I don't know why animal rights is assumed to be Left politically. Is abusing animals something that only the Right does? The statement that PETA kills 3/4 of animals they save makes no sense and is unsupported. PETA claims to have saved hundreds of thousands of animals from cosmetic testing - did they then kill those animals? Show me some current reference that states that PETA wants to outlaw pets. As far as I know, PETA does denounce the use of violence - can someone point out an instance of violence that PETA as an organization has supported? IntranetUSA obviously has some problems with PETA, so it would be up to that person to document and reference what he believes to be true. This has been up for weeks and no documentation has been forthcoming.Bob98133 13:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There are other ways to impede vandalism besides getting rid of the Criticism section.

Even if there is no proof that PETA has supported violent animal liberation groups or killed animals (not that I'm convinced that proof doesn't exist), it's definitely notable that PETA has been publically accused of such things on numerous occasions by decidedly notable people and organizations. And as you've said, this has only been up for a few weeks.

Additionally, I'm not sure why we would need a current reference that states that PETA wants to outlaw pets. There's no statute of limitations for criticism. The Laugh Factory Incident isn't omitted from Micheal Richards's article simply because he made a public apology. ButteredToast 14:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all of these criticisms are already in the article with extensive citations. Just worded differently. I don't know how I missed that. So, I guess the only real dispute here is whether or not this stuff should be organized under a Criticisms section. I think it should be.ButteredToast 15:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE NEEDS THE CRITISMS OF PETA LIKE MOST OTHER ARTICLES DO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.31.65 (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. There used to be a criticisms section that was a magnet for vandalism. The criticisms were incorporated into various sections which seems to have reduced vandalism without compromising the information, so I'd say leave it alone. I don't agree with anonymous comment above that most Wiki articles need a criticism of PETA in them. Bob98133 14:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bob on this. I've come to feel a "Criticism" section isn't very useful for the goals of the project and instead should be dispersed throughout an article with the relevant topics. First, I think a section devoted to negativity--which is always the most interesting since people are naturally drawn to conflict--ends up the only thing that is read since most people feel they know all there is to know about a topic. Second, I think criticism worked into the relevant parts of the article encourage people to actually read it. I think that's a better model than the one prevalent on WP right now. --David Shankbone 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bob and David. Adding a "criticism" section would reduce the quality of the article and become a contentious pov dumping ground. As they are on the majority of controversial wiki articles. Turtlescrubber 00:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think NOT adding a lenghty 'Major Criticism' section would not be in the best interests of readers trying to get a balanced and in-depth view of what PETA is and what it stands for. As for the outlawing of animals as pets thing (rumor, myth, or not) this would actually seem a far less compassionate concern for an animals well being- as humans know how to provide shelter and decent food for their pets. Of course animals that are currently house pets would not know how to survive in the wilderness when they are unadapted. This is all stuff that the out-of-mainstream PETA organization has no clear or responsible approaches to. RRM MBA (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize that the aforementioned Criticism section may have drawn intense vandalism, but I have to second the original poster's sentiments: working criticism into the article subtly is, at its most effective, subversive (doesn't Wiki have policy against weasel words?) and, at worst, utterly ineffective to the point that the casual reader cannot so much as detect it whilst reading it. The idea driving criticism is to offer a counterpoint to a primary viewpoint presented. Just because PETA-fanatics may regularly spam this article to keep it skewed to representing a bias doesn't mean that Wiki should cave to their antics—the purpose of a respectible reference document is to offer, if not as neutral a point of view as is possible, at least two opposing viewpoints such that the reader may gain an understanding of both sides of a particular issue. Reading the article as is, it seems purely uncritical of PETA, which, given the organization's history, is unacceptable. Wiki shouldn't be moulding its standards to suit the whims of abrasively vocal groups simply because of how abrasively vocal they are. It sets a bad precedent that will be difficult to stem once other similar groups witness how well these tactics work on Wiki—would it be acceptable to erase or heavily whitewash several articles on the Protestant Reformation simply because a group of fanatic Catholics got together and persistently vandalized the articles? I came to Wiki looking for information on PETA's past controversies and instead got a PETA pamphlet. If Wiki is to maintain any sort of respectible position as a source of reference, this must be remedied. SumeragiNoOnmyouji (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The vast majority of the vandalism in the criticism section was anti-PETA, and it was pure vandalism, not referenced criticism. This has been discussed several times, even without going to the archives. If you are looking for criticism, perhaps you should be looking at a site other than Wikipedia since I do not believe that criticism is the intended function of this site. In this case, you are clearly approaching the topic with your own POV (that it is unacceptible in that it doesn't present criticisms that you believe). As you point out, there is no shortage of criticism of PETA, so any web search should find plenty. Bob98133 (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So Bob,what you are basically saying is that because a bunch of anti-PETA vandals messed with the criticisms section, we should get rid of it and disperse such criticisms all over the article. They may as well be pro-PETA vandals doing this, because they achieved the riddance of a valid section that helped keeping things balanced - this is what Wikipedia is about. As for looking for the information on the web yourself... well, you could say that about any article, and do away with Wikipedia entirely, could you not ? :) Marsipan (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Marsipan - I think the discussion above supports not having a separate Criticism section. I don't think that the article is necessarily unbalanced for not having that section since opposing views are included and referenced elsewhere. Part of the problem might be that PETA pisses off everyone, including me, with some things they do; and they do so many things that the criticism section ends up debating things that are discussed elsewhere in the article, so why not put them alongside the contentious content? Otherwise, in addition to all the vandalism, the Criticism section grows larger and larger until it assumes undue weight and we're back where we started. That's kind of my understanding about why the section was removed and the criticism moved to the appropriate topic sections, but I'm certainly open to trying some other way to include that info - but stand by for the vandals and edit wars (I agree with you that those shouldn't determine content, but I'm OK using a format that discourages them).Bob98133 (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob- I respectfully disagree. I added and you deleted it-- an academic reference critical of PeTA....?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnand thegolden (talk • contribs) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Time-line sourcing/Citations tag

Why are there other sources in the timeline? I thought it was all supposed to be sourced by the four cites in the title? Should I remove them as duplicates? Should I add fact tags to the ones without secondary sources? Or both? I honestly don't know what is sourced and what isn't. Turtlescrubber 00:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be time to decide about the future of that section once and for all. Personally, I feel that it has caused more trouble than it is worth and should probably be deleted. The key information is either already in the article or could be moved to the relevant sections but as it stands it is a giant troll magnet. What do other people think?-Localzuk^(talk) 10:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you calling me a troll? Not very civil at all. Maybe if the section was sourced in a half-way suitable manner there wouldn't be so many "trolls" concerned about citations. "Citation trolls" are the worst. Turtlescrubber 17:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I am saying that the section is a magnet for trolls (a cursory glance at the history of that section brings up people putting unsourced information in there regularly). It doesn't add much to the article as a section, so should it be there? -Localzuk^(talk) 19:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't mind it being there if the "sourcing" method is changed. However, if the method is not changed then it should probably be deleted. Turtlescrubber 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links clean-up

Okay, rather than being silly and edit warring over these, I'll just bring this here. So, as of my writing, these are the links which are being discussed:

1. PETA's website
2. PETA's page at Network for Good
3. Revelations — The Official Clive Barker Resource Read PETA and Clive's 1997 Open Letter...
4. Excerpts from a talk in Washington DC by Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA - Speaking Up for the Animals PART 1
5. Excerpts from a talk in Washington DC by Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA - Speaking Up for the Animals PART 2
6. Excerpts from a talk in Washington DC by Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA - Speaking Up for the Animals PART 3
7. No Kill Now!, a no-kill philosophy animal advocacy group opposed to PETA's broad support of euthanasia
8. Craft, Nikki. "PeTA: Where Only Women Are Treated Like Meat"
9. PETA Kills Animals PETA criticism site
10. ConsumerFreedom.com, a U.S. lobby group which actively campaigns against PETA.
11. Vegetarians Are Evil PETA criticism and satire site.
12. I Heart Paws — Beware of the Bad Apples an informative article from personal experience opposing PETA's beliefs on Pit Bull breeds and other pets
13. "PETA's Appeal for Jewish Community Support 'The Height of Chutzpah'", Anti-Defamation League.

Now, I think everyone can agree that (1) and (2) should be clearly kept. However, lets go through the other ones.

(3) - This is an "open letter" by Clive Barker and PETA to a number of newspapers, that calls on them to start publishing animal deaths in the obituaries. However, this has no context in this article -- a "Clive Barker" is never mentioned, nor is this letter ever discussed in the article. In fact, Clive Barker's article doesn't mention this as even being signifigant. I removed this item because the article gives it no context, something required by WP:EL, and the statements made by PETA are already covered in other respects in the article itself.

(4) - (6)' - These are three parts of a speech given by Ingrid Newkirk, edited by someone, and posted on Youtube. They have no attribution, so their copyright status is highly dubious. This alone is grounds to remove them. However, they are also never given any context. Is this an important speech? Are the views in this speech novel, or atypical of PETA? Did this speech garner some reaction which would merit including it? Apparently, the answers to all of these are no. This speech is never mentioned in the article, nor are the views explained to be in any way atypical of PETA. There appears to be nothing unique about this speech. As such, it's simply a statement of a number of things PETA believes -- but, these should, and indeed mostly are, covered in the article -- and will certainly be covered in an FA-class version of this. This is specifically what should be avoided by external linking guidelines.

(7) and (9) - these are sites critical of PETA's stance on euthanasia. They explains why, and how, they oppose PETA's policies. However, this is not relevant for an article about PETA -- is "no kill now" or "PETA kills animals" prominent memberd of this community? Do they have some special viewpoints which are not discussed in the large section about PETA and euthanasia? Again, apparently not. These add nothing to the page which is not already discussed in the section, or at the linked no-kill movement article. Again, per guidelines they should not be included.

(8) - I actually feel that this should not be in an FA-class article, but since there is a dearth of discussion about the topics covered right now in the article, and it's by a recognized authority, I could definitely see this being retained; perhaps even in the future.

(10) - this is a general site which lobbies against a variety of different groups, including PETA. However, their site is not specifically related to PETA, and the article already both links an article about them, at Center for Consumer Freedom and cites a news story about them as well. This link add nothing which is not already included in the article -- however, of these links, this is the one I can most see retaining; but, since it is not specifically about PETA, I am having a hard time still.

(11) - this is a PETA satire and criticism cite. However, this site is never mentioned in the article, nor is there any context given. The satire group mentioned, People Eating Tasty Animals, is not the same as this one, and is already wikilinked. However, this link is never given any context, or included in the article in any way.

(12) - this is an article written by Christina Harvey about why she opposes PETA's policies on certain dog breeds. However, the article already explains PETA's policies, and the opposition to them. The question which remains is "why is this important"? I honestly don't know. This appears to just be a non-notable person, who is not an expert on the subject, nor of any particular interest or qualifications, writing about how she likes her dogs in a blog about pit bulls. This is specifically prohibited by guidelines, as Ms Harvey is not a recognized authority on the topic.

(13) - this should be the most clear-cut. It's a press release by the Anti Defamation League which denounces PETA. However, you already cite this in the article! There's no need to include it as an external link, since it's already been entirely covered, and reference.

Anyways, those are just my thoughts on the issue. --Haemo 21:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused: you're arguing the exclusion of some links because the subject matter is already discussed in the article, and some others because the subject matter is not broached in the article. I see both types of argument as mutually contradictory: regardless of actual policy (I'm just discussing this as a matter of logic), if some links should be excluded because the subject matter is discussed in the article, the fact that the subject matter of a certain link isn't discussed in the article (i.e. the opposite reason) shouldn't yield the same result (i.e. exclusion from the external links section).--Ramdrake 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it more simply; things not discussed in the article should not be included, since they have no relevance. Things covered in the article should not be included, if they do not add anything which is already there. What should be included is material which is relevant to the article, and discussed, but cannot be included. For instance, if I was writing an article about Martin Luther King, and I discussed his speeches, I would include some of his speeches that were talked about as external links. This is explained in the guidelines, and I thought I made the distinction clear above. Apparently not. --Haemo 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Then, since we mention that PETA has many detractors, shouldn't we include some of them in the external links? While I can side with some of your points, deleting all the ELs you mention leaves only a couple of pro-PETA links in the section. This was already discussed some time ago, and the consensus was that some sort of equilibrium should be sought between ELs praising and those criticizing PETA. Do you think we can trim down the list while preserving such an equilibrium? If we can do that, I'll remove my objection.--Ramdrake 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand where you're coming from. As I mentioned above, I think the Nikki Craft article is a good one, especially given the lack of content on this page about the subject; so, that's a criticism. This would give us 3 links; PETA's main site, a critical article, and a neutral article about their philanthropic practices. The Center for Consumer Freedom link might also be good to keep, but I think 3 is good. --Haemo 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The CCF link I can live without, but I'd like the "No kill now" site link to also stay, as I feel it addresses a very serious criticism of PETA, namely its rather stringent pro-euthanasia stance, where it diverges even from most other animal rights organizations. Think we can agree on this? If you want to add another pro-PETA link for balance (like 2-2-1), please go ahead and pick one you feel is most relevant.--Ramdrake 22:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care about "balance", either way -- but I would prefer a site that is either recognized as authoritative or is mentioned in the article. I'll go ahead and trim the section now; feel free to add that site, or another one, when you've decided what you want to use there. --Haemo 22:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Okay, so I used my journal privileges and did some digging to clean up the trivia section. So, we have the "timeline" and the "see also" section to fix.

Honestly, I don't see why you need a timeline to begin with -- shouldn't any and all notable event be in the "history" section? -- so I think I'll just deal with the "see also". Honestly, right now, I don't see what the problem is. You could, perhaps, add some more -- but just remember, only add things which are not already Wikilinked in the article. --Haemo 23:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As suggested by Localzuk above, should we delete the timeline section? I am not opposed to that move.Turtlescrubber 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just kill it, IMO. All of the important information should be covered in the "history" section; the rest is basically contentious trivia. --Haemo 23:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

PetaKillsAnimals.com

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

Yeyosmoka21

Sounds very neutral. Why don't you go start up the article? Not a bad idea. Turtlescrubber 02:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You know I was just kidding, right? :)Turtlescrubber 20:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha! If had been drinking coffee, my keyboard would now be soaked. Neutral?? It is a site ran by the Center for Consumer Freedom!!

The entire site focuses on the fact that PETA supports euthanasia, and indeed puts many animals down. With the many hundreds of thousands of domestic animals that are poorly homed, living wild, homed but not taken care of properly due to lack of money, lack of time, or just not knowing any better, it isn't surprising that they put animals down.

Also, the site edges on libel with titles such as 'PETA Leader Wants to Blow Stuff Up' and 'PETA Supports Arson. Do You?'. If you wish to discuss this site, I would do so on the CCF page, as an individual article would, I am 99% certain, be deleted.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but PETA isn't exactly blameless with campaigns like "Your Daddy Kills Animals" and "Your Mommy Kills Animals". Talk about libelous.--Ramdrake 14:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That isn't libelling anyone, it is an exaggeration of the truth. Saying 'PETA Leader Wants to Blow Stuff up' is libel, unless she specifically has said that she wants to blow stuff up. It is aimed at an individual. And 'PETA supports arson' is also libel as it is aimed at an organisation without any real evidence to support it. Put it this way, if I said 'Ramdrake wants to blow stuff up' without proper reasoning and referencing (and by this I mean something more than making sweeping claims by taking speeches or comments out of context), that would be libel.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if "Daddy" doesn't hunt, or fish, or do any of this stuff, that's not an exaggeration, it's downright false. Then, it would be libel, or slander (not sure which is more appropriate). I'm not arguing the merits of a libel cause; I'm just saying that some of PETA's actions use the same tactics that coming from others, would be qualified as libel or slander.--Ramdrake 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a targetted campaign as it doesn't cover a specific individual - who is 'Daddy'? Also, there is sufficient evidence to say that most 'daddy's' do kill animals, by supporting the various animal killing industries that exist (meat, medicine, donating to cancer research companies, cosmetics etc...). So, as I said, it is an exaggeration. Also, libel relates to a published item, slander is spoken. PETA's behaviour, whilst sometimes a bit below the belt, does not constitute libel - else they would be sued six ways from Sunday. Suing the CCF for libel would be pointless the CCF has far more funds available than PETA, and as such the battle would damage PETA more than leaving it be.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not arguing that it is true libel in the legal sense. However, if you mean to say that I'm a killer because I eat meat, or support medical research done on animals in cases where there is clearly no alternative then again it is gross exaggeration and misrepresentation, as I have never directly killed an animal. I just wanted to stress that the tactics behind such headlines as "PETA supports arson" or "PETA kills animals" are basically pretty much the same as those that led PETA to headline "You Daddy Kills Animals", regardless of whether or not they fall in the same legally actionable category of declarations, which they don't. I hope I cleared up any misunderstanding there.--Ramdrake 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't make that arbitrary decision though. Whilst the tactics are similar, we are discussing whether the site deserves an article on Wikipedia and that should come down to verifiability, neutrality, how well known the site is and the legality of the content. I would say that it fails all 4 of those.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Not quite right. Most insulin these days is manufactured without using animals so you can take double doses!Bob98133 (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

oh good. i was worried that by being alive i may have been hurting poor wittle bunny wabbits. seriously do you have any idea how absolutly stupid peta is, i mean its worse than scientology. i would understand if it was just a big joke by the organisers to make a little cash but as far as i can tell they are seriousGrinchsmate (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael Vick

Details of the Michael Vick trial needs to be added PETA has/is victimising a person convicted of no crime

The Michael Vick case has not yet gone to trial, so there would be nothing to add. The process is that a Grand Jury met, reviewed evidence and decided that there was enough evidence to likely get a conviction, so Vick was indicted (charged with a crime). Vick was arraigned (brought before a judge to plead). He claims that he is not guilty, although a co-defendant admitted guilt. There was sufficient evidence for the grand jury to believe that Vick fought dogs and beat, hung and electrocuted dogs. There is no doubt that a large number of dogs, many with previous injuries from fighting, were removed from property owned by Vick. Bodies of dead dogs were also removed from the property. The evidence will be presented at trial and a jury will decide if Vick is guilty of the charges against him. Do you think that the Nike, Inc page and the Reebok and the NFL pages should also be accused of victimizing Vick, since their suspension of his endorsements have cost Vick millions of dollars, even though he is not yet convicted? How exactly has PETA victimized Vick? I certainly wouldn't want to victimize an innocent person, but on the other hand, I'm not hiring Michael Vick as a dogsitter. The Vick secton was removed but because Wiki generally doesn't report day-to-day details of an ongoing case - just larger issues.Bob98133 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just go to the PETA home page they have strated a presure campaign to have Vicks endorsment and NFL contract suspended. There latest campaign see link http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/afalcons_vick_2 asks for "help today to urge the league to treat the allegations against Vick with the seriousness that they deserve and suspend him without pay immediately."

OK. So why is that worthy of inclusion in the Wiki article? I didn't look at the page, but I bet there are lots of other pages on the PETA website - do we want a separate section for every thing they are for or against? How is asking people to help support your POV victimizing? Nike dumped Vick's merchandise - so aren't they the ones victimizing Vick? PETA never had a contract with him. Please sign your comments. Thanks. Bob98133 13:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just a case of trial by media. PETA have already decided on his guilt and have used a pressure campaign with Nike to have Vicks merchandising deals suspended. This case should be on the page because it is very high profile. Will PETA apologise if Vick is found innocent?

158.234.250.71 15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PETA can decide if someone is guilty or not - it doesn't affect their legal status. Nike decided to dump Vick merchandise. Trading card companies and other businesses such as Reebok also dropped Vick. Why do you claim that Nike caved in to pressure from PETA? Do you have some documentation for this? Why not just put all this in the Michael Vick article where it belongs? There already is some discussion of this controversy there. Or put it in the dog fighting article? Or the Nike article? The PETA article is already controversial and details of another high profile campaign doesn't really add to this article - it just adds to the controversy.Bob98133 16:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalized

This article has been heavily vandalized. I'm going to put up a semi-lock for vandalism until someone with more expertise can make the appropriate changes.Cmsr. Jackdaw 15:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And why so? Because the majority of people in the United States think PETA is a buch of loonies fighting for no cause while we animal-eaters are out fighting for real causes like freedom and democracy while they cry cause we kill pigs and other stupid animals. 74.70.155.206 11:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do you realise how childish you sound? ...perhaps you would be best not editing on Wikipedia till you remain impartial, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid editorial. -- Librarianofages 11:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Are only impartial people intelligent enough to make edits? I'd say that nobody is impartial. That's why we have arguments on the discussion sections of all these articles. -Brad
• Whoa, there, User#74.70.155.206. Vegetarians hate PETA too, you know. ButteredToast 05:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Brad is spot on. Librarianofages sums up the sort of snooty users that make wikipedia unbearable sometimes. --81.155.255.195 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose i'll take that as a compliment. -- Librarianofages (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be careful, as you are clearly outnumbered on this issue. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but consensus is pretty important. Using a snarky comment instead of a reasoned response will not help your case. You already clearly violated Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, and WP:CIVIL which is what got you insulted in the first place. Just because they violated it doesn't mean you get to. As I have to assume good faith, I will assume you didn't know any better. Please refrain from calling people names in the future. (Just in case you're wondering, I'm not criticizing the anon because, if you leave them alone, they usually just go away.)

-- trlkly 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural influences and context section

This section now states:

These positions often face opposition from commentators and academics who hold differing political and cultural views. Matt Stone and Trey Parker have lampooned PETA in a number of the episodes of their cartoon South Park, including Douche and Turd; making the claim that PETA cares more about animals than humans. In addition, the duo Penn & Teller, known for their association with libertarianism, attacked PETA in a 2004 episode of their television show Bullshit! over a number of issues, including purported hypocrisy by PETA spokespeople and leaders.

I think that "commentators and academics" should be changed to "cartoonists and comedians" since that is who are used as examples. Otherwise it would need a citation about who these cultural "commentators and academics" are.Bob98133 18:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

CrimiNality

PETA has been banned in Texas for harassing children with their "your dad kills" campaign. 75.2.223.253 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Got a reference for this? Was the first amendment repealed in TX? Bob98133 13:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It was in an LA Times editorial by columnist Daniel Berchevsky. And last time I checked, harassing children was not a protected right. 75.3.231.89 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a full citation? Unfortunately the LA Times online search and archive search are unable to locate the piece you are referring to without additional information. --Allen3 ^talk 06:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is patent non-sense. I saw the Texas Tech campus chapter of those hippies creating a ruckus at KFC about 3 months ago. And, for the record, I support their right to do so. Pygmypony 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please cite the patent number for the nonsense? Or at least cite some verifiable source. The point is not whether you support someone's rights but rather if the information you'd like included in the article is appropriate and verifiable. Bob98133 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood pygmy's point. Turtlescrubber 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do none of you guys know that PETA is considered a terrorist organization by the government? The First Amendment doesn't cover pouring paint on people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.205.205 (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why VA?

Any reason why they are HQed in Virginia? just curious.

Arthurian Legend 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that having an HQ in Virginia places this large lobbying organization closer to Washington DC, thus cutting travel costs for lobby excursions, protests, etc. RRM MBA (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Campaigning section

"Many of the campaigns bear fruit for PETA. Burger King,[49] McDonalds,[50] Wendy's,[51] Petco,[52] and in 2006, after talks with PETA, Polo Ralph Lauren announced that it would no longer use fur in any of its lines.[53]"

McDonalds used fur?? I don't know what they convinced Bk, McD etc to do, but it ought to be made clear that they weren't in the furburger business 84.67.176.2 16:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No criticism section on main page?

It seems strange to me that an article on a group like PETA, a group which aims to create controversy to further its cause, has no section for legitimate criticism on the article page. While I recognize that such a section could be, in some circumstances, a sort of 'open season' for heckling the group, it also seems to me that the article might seem a bit biased without one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.118.117.141 (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As has been repeated discussed in this talk page's archives, separating praise and criticism not only has the effect of creating the 'open season' mentioned but also removes the background and context needed to fully understand individual quanta of criticism or praise. --Allen3 ^talk 17:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Should there be a "controversy" section that cites PETA's supposed killing of animals? Sites like [2], [3], [4], and [5] cite PETA's "hypocritical" stance on animals ("better dead than fed") and seem legit... First page of Google. I didn't even bother to check for anything else; it was just that easy to find.

An IP kept adding stuff about it, but it was reverted, due (in my opinion) more to wording than anything. Your thoughts? --_{King of the Wontons} | _{lol wut?} | _{Oh noes! Vandals!} 20:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, why did the controversy section get removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.252.38 (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The CCF is not a reliable source, and therefore the first 2 links you provide are not suitable as sources.

Other than that, there is a section regarding this already present... It just isn't called 'controversy'.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is Bias towards PETA and there criticism and controversy needs to be put up since this artice making PETA look like Angels in fact there bad as the meat industry (irony)

None of you people have any say in what is credible.

I don't find CNN credible, should I remove all those CNN references? 72.187.112.172 (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Profile

Your version: In 2005 PETA killed over 90% of animals it had brought in. 14,419 animals killed by PETA since 1998

My change: In 2005, PETA killed over 90% of the companion animals surrendered to it - 14,419 animals since 1998.

Turtlescrubber - I get your point - despite the inferior source - you want this information included, but don't you think it's a bit redundant to start by saying PETA killed... then end the sentence by saying killed by PETA? Can you document that PETA brought all of these animals in? My understanding of their operation is that a lot of the animals that they get, and maybe kill, are animals that are brought in to them. But if they killed an animal, it would have had to have been surrendered to them, or they couldn't have killed it, which was my point in using that phrase - it's more concise when you're talking about shelters who get animals by owner surrender or if they bring in strays or municipal impounds. I don't think that PETA takes in, or otherwise gets any farm animals or exotic animals in their shelter, so these numbers are basically about cats and dogs, maybe with the occasional rabbit. Bob98133 03:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the source for Turtlescrubber's entry and found that it only repesented a very small part of the information about PETA reported by Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services - who were the original source. I thought it was best to quote to original source than the website of an organization not known for its credibility. The source did not back up the numbers presented by Turtlescrubber - in fact, they seemed to indicate that PETA's euthanasia rate is far below most shelters in the state. This info might be better in a different part of the article, but since it was constantly reverted in the Profile section, I left it there.

Here are the raw numbers (since you have to repeatedly search the VDACS database the get them:

Statewide: 2004 Total surrendered 241,234, RTO 33,883 RTO= 14%

Statewide: 2005 292,488 animals received, 38,484 RTO = 13% RTO

PETA 2004: total intake = 10298, RTO = 7643 RTO= 74%

PETA 2005: surrendered total 9960, RTO 7795 RTO= 78%

The euthanasia stats were arrived at in the same manner. Bob98133 16:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What's going on here? I have no idea. Did I revert your edit at some point in the past? Turtlescrubber 04:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If this has anything to do with the october 3rd edit than you need to start reading edit summaries. There was no content dispute (with me) but someones edit screwed up the entire reference section (check the page history). I did a blanket revert back to a good version (in terms of the reference section) of the page. I in know way cared about the content of the edits only that they screwed up all of the references. Please try to look a bit more closely. Turtlescrubber 04:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

PETA's stand on euthanasia

(for those coming here from the WP:NOR talk page, the following section refers chiefly to this section, which is continuously being taken out and added back in, and its nature, whether or not OR, is being debated):

According to numbers filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, in 2005 PETA killed over 90% of animals surrendered to it.

There seems to be conflicting information about PETA and euthanasia. If they are both "right" (i.e. conflicting sources)then something should probably be said about that, as one could easily site two portions of this article (which are not even discussing controversy directly, as in citing a support and criticism section) and as it stands it is rather confuseing. Both of these sections have citations, though the second section has more.

Profile: While PETA has been accused of killing a large percentage of the animals surendered to them, state statistics compiled by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services show a vastly different picture. In 2004, of 10298 received by PETA, over 74% were reclaimed by their owners. In 2005, out of 9960 animals surrendered, 78% were returned to owners. During these same time periods, the overall statewide rates of return to owners were 14% and 13%.

Similarly, PETA’s rate of euthanasia was considerably less than the state average. In 2004 and 2005, all Virginia shelters euthanized 43% of the animals entering their shelters – a total of 231,258 animals. During these same time periods, PETA euthanized 22% in 2004 and 19% in 2005 – a total of 4385 animals, less than 2% of the pets killed by shelters in Virginia during this time frame. [8]

Policy on euthanasia: PETA is against the no kill movement and euthanizes the majority of animals that are given to them.[65][66]. It recommends euthanasia for animals, for certain breeds of animals (e.g. pit bull terriers)[67] and in certain situations for unwanted animals in shelters: for example, for those living for long periods in cramped cages.[68][69]

I do not know nearly enough about this subject to reconcile this myself, though hopefully someone more knowledgeable can clarify it. Oniamien 04:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The 8 one has a completely irrelevant statistic in there (the 2% of total). I think perhaps the issue is also about "state average". Is PETA's result in total the same as the virginia one? Is there any reason why virginia's result should trump the total across all states one as per the other source I believe it was. PETA seems to be a small player in pet shelters anyhow (compared to the proper dedicated organisations like RSPCA etc), so perhaps in virginia it's even smaller. NathanLee 17:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, things work pretty much this way: most of the animals PETA takes in are for sterilization. These are later "reclaimed by owner", so any real statistics on the percentage of animals really surrendered to PETA which are later euthanized by them should not include the "reclaimed by owner" number in either the numerator or the denominator of the fraction. If you do that, you'll see that the euthanasia rate suddenly jumps to 80-90%, significantly higher than state average. Hope this explanation makes sense.--Ramdrake 17:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence you keep reinserting from Center for Consumer Freedom is not accurate. It states the number of animals "PETA had brought in." That has to be the number entering the shelter - I would think that's what "brought in" means - whether they were returned to the owner for whatever reason. It seems that the state decides how these statistics are kept and presented. What evidence do you have that these animals returned to their owners were animals taken in for sterilization? It doesn't seem very clear, and certainly does not yield the 90% kill rate. It this information even relevant in the Profile section? Like someone said, the shelter operation is tiny compared to other shelters or the state, so maybe the whole thing should be removed? Bob98133 01:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ramdrake. Ones that are in for sterilisation or returned to owners are not valid in the "what percentage of abandoned/lost etc animals end up alive after PETA has been involved". That's like counting people that go into a shop to browse but don't buy anything in "percentage of happy customers" (to be a customer you have to buy something first). You can't claim credit for finding a home for an animal that's already got a home. So the G column matches "reclaimed by owners". So then you get number in = 2225 (they don't break down strays etc.. does that indicate they don't do any pick up?). Where did they go: adopted = 312, euthanized = 1911, transferred = 1. That's 14% found homes and lived, 86% killed, <1% transferred. Looks like they don't keep any alive over the new year either: 0 on hand. One might suggest that's why they don't adopt many out: they kill them as they get in. After all: it's hard for someone to adopt any animals from a place that keeps 0 on hand at any time unless you happen to catch 'em between coming in the door and getting the injection.

So in response to your question about evidence about sterilization vs returned to owners: those aren't related, but column G "others" (and listed in the handwritten note) matches the "reclaimed part" (one extra cat appeared in the stats though??). NathanLee 18:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As for 2002 from [6] stats were: 2,298 killed out of 2680 total = 86% killed.

2001: 2686 total, killed: 1994 = 74% killed

2000: 2654 total, killed 2029 = 76% killed

1999: 1771 total, killed 1328 = 75% killed

1998: 941 total, killed 685 killed = 73% killed

So that's how the figures look for 1998-2002. So I think that 90% for 2005 is most likely correct looking at how these figures are going. Nearly there by 2002. NathanLee 18:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

From the computer read out ones:

2005: 2138 total, killed 1946 (and 2 died?): 91% killed. Note: 7815 were dropped off for sterlisation, but only 7795 returned. Maybe some died or were transferred.

2004: 2657 total, killed 2278 : 86% killed.

So that's where the 90 % comes from. NathanLee 18:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that a qualifier needs to be attached to the sentence to clarify that it is a particular state's figures for PETA, not PETA in total (unless they only operate in one state). NathanLee 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Something like according to numbers PETA filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture? I'd agree with that.--Ramdrake 19:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole conversation is an exercise in original research. Please try to find a published, reliable source that accounts for your calculations. How is digging up numbers, coming up with a formula for calculations and doing the calculations not original research? If someone has to ask "where did the 90% come from", after looking at your sourcing, well then your text doesn't match your source.Turtlescrubber 20:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look up WP:NOR, you will find that merely adding up numbers like everyone (or nearly everyone) can do isn't OR. Furthermore, this stance has been advanced by someone else already (petakillsanimals), and although this source could be considered unreliable and thus biased, its numbers can be verified independently through the VDACS website, for which I provided the link. I also specified that we are looking at "animals surrendered" (which anybody can see, and which is also in line with the comment that line G represents animals other than surrendered). The source gives you the number to do the calculation yourself, and merely doing the calculation is not original research by any stretch of the imagination. Alternatively, we could just give the numbers of animals surrendered and animals euthanized, but the conclusion would be the same.--Ramdrake 20:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is original research as you are making a selection as to what numbers you are comparing. If I cared to play with the numbers a bit I could come up with a much different percentage. This is original research. Turtlescrubber 20:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a column labelled "Surrendered by owner" and a column labelled "Euthanized". saying that the "euthanized" number represents over 90% of the "surrendered by owner" number (actually 92,4% for the 2005 year) is strictly descriptive and not original research.--Ramdrake 20:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this isn't the first time this argument has come up, would you care to submit this to an RfC?--Ramdrake 20:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the "others" category? Turtlescrubber 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The others category obviously means something else than surrendered by owner, or else it would be counted in that column. The petakillsanimals reference says it's animals taken in for sterilization and reclaimed by owner. Whether or not one chooses to believe they were actually taken in for sterilization, the fact that the column labelled "reclaimed by owner" is almost the same number as the one for "others" means that whatever "other" reason the people who brought them in had, they took the animal back, so it is possible it was taken in for sterilization, but it is undeniable these animals weren't left with PETA for them to find families for (as they were reclaimed by owner). All of this is just basic logic, all of which anyone could deduce. It's not research, and certainly not original.--Ramdrake 21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thus, at a minimum, out of 9960 animals PETA took in, 7795 were reclaimed by owner, (which means PETA didn't have to try to place them), thus PETA was left to decide of the fate of (9960-7795=) 2165 animals, out of which 1946 were euthanized, or (1946/2165=) 89,9% at a minimum. None of this requires specialist knowledge to assess (it's basic math), thus it can't be considere OR as per WP:NOR.

Sorry, it's totally original research. The basic math aside, you are using the categories on the page in a haphazard manner as you don't even know exactly what they mean. Really, just guessing as to the intent of the categories is original research and should really be done by an expert. You may think you know exactly what the "reclaimed by owner" but you don't know for sure. I would say that this needs to be left up to the experts and what your are doing is easily classifiable as original research. Turtlescrubber 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the good people on the talk page of WP:NOR to drop by and give their opinion. Please don't take it personnally if I don't agree with your assessment of the situation. I don't think you need an expert to figure out what the columns mean.--Ramdrake 22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't take it personally. This is just a simple content dispute. If I am wrong (which is always a strong possibility) then I'll put your section back in myself. Turtlescrubber 22:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If you will read the entire document you will see that column G (others) requires an annotation. And if you will look at the copies of the submitted forms, you will see that they specifically say (e.g.) "Animals taken in for sterilization and held until reclaimed by owner." I will leave it to others to argue whether doing the math with the rest is OR, but there's no excuse for the claim that we have to interpret what column G means. Mangoe 23:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view: this whole debate is original research. There is too much uncertainty about what these figures really mean. Essentially, if you want to say Peta is a good/bad organisation because of its approach to putting down animals, then you need a reliable source (not pro/con activist source) that has said so. This has the potential to be defamatory of the organisation so it seems only fair that the view is impeccably sourced. It is the analysis, and that analysis is not a simple extrapolation, but needs to be a proper interpretation of the figures. Just because the figures are from a reliable source (are they?) does not mean you can build a statement on top of them, especially if, to use the tortuous phrase from policy, you are seeking to advance a position. Spenny 07:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Another outside view: You are free to add whatever numbers you can reliably source into the article (although relevance is a matter for consensus), provided you describe those numbers exactly as your source describes them. You are not free to draw any conclusion from them, unless that conclusion comes also from the source. Claiming the conclusion is "obvious" does not help; if it is obvious, then the reader can figure it out on her own. The potential for defamation cited by Spenny also indicates that even greater care is required here than might be acceptable in other articles. Eaglizard 09:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested that a phrasing along th lines of "out of xxxx animals surrendered to them in 2005, PETA euthanized yyyy". Would that be more factual and less OR?--Ramdrake 12:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole line of argument is suspect. Basically, you need a reliable source (and petakillsanimals surely does not qualify) that says "Peta has had its ethical stance brought into question. Amongst its inconsistent approach, they have been shown to be overly enthusiastic to put down animals." If you cannot find such a source, then the whole section is suspect. If you can, then there is no need to worry about these figures. The trouble with the figures is that they are just that, and as I see below, the veracity of the figures is in question. If there is a good source, then it may be reasonable to add in the figures to spice up the presentation, assuming they are consistent with the main argument. Spenny 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's try again

Even as it stands the contested section is a jumbled mess. But if the numbers are to be presented (much less argued to mean something) we need to deal with the conspicuous irregularity of PETA's numbers. That "other" column which constitutes the overwhelming majority of animals passing into PETA's doors is a problem if not explained, because that column hardly figures for anyone else. In 2005, for example, PETA listed 7815 "other", versus 9843 for all humane societies. It's misleading to talk about the aggregate numbers without accounting for that huge number.

If you believe that the documents from petakillsanimals are auhtentic copies of PETA's submitted forms, then all is explained: the vast majority of the animals PETA handled were there strictly for spaying or neutering. Very few of the other agencies are doing that, so it would make sense to compare their numbers excluding these. We could also put a number on the size of their spay/neuter program.

The question of course is whether this is OR. Well, we could sort of cite petakillsanimals. Or we could just remove all the numbers, since there's no way to present them accurately without engaging in this "research". I have a big problem with how it is presented now, because it manages to be polemic in both directions at once. We could just note that they provided a human society in Norfolk, and that they had this spay/neuter program (giving the actual number if we're willing to trust petakillsanimals). The implication that they are just like the SPCA carries a moral judgement that they ought not to be like them, which is a big NPOV issue. Mangoe 14:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The actual forms that PETA submitted are online at the VDACS database, so there doesn't seem to be any point in referencing petakillsanimals since that source is obviously POV. However, the numbers referenced for 2004-2005 were somehow used as a reference for numbers going back to 1998. I agree that the numbers can just be left out. But since PETA's euthanasia policy is already detailed in the Community Animal Project section, why would it also appear in the Profile section since animal sheltering seems to be a very small part of anything that PETA does. The numbers are really small and also confusing, so why not leave these numbers out as Mangoe says? If this info can be quantified or would improve the Community Animal Project section, it could be added there or just left out.Bob98133 14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The argument you're referring to has been made, by petakillsanimals, a site openly critical of PETA. However, as it can be construed as biased site (with potentially biased information), inclusion of the argument was refused (when based solely on the petakillsanimals source), on the basis that they might be using possibly biased info. However, that info is independently verifiable on the VDACS website, therefore authenticated. Thus, should we discount reporting the argument, (when we can independently verify the data upon which it's based), solely based on the fact that the argument is being advanced by one of PETA's detractors, when we know the argument is based on valid data, which can be obtained independently?--Ramdrake 15:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that this amounts to OR since the VDACS database only presents raw data, so you can come up with a whole bunch of statistics depending what you want to emphasize. Plus, the info that was up on the page earlier had data for 2004-2005 but then presented some number from 1998, so it wasn't really properly referenced. I just question if having these numbers on the page makes any sense. The point that PETA kills animals is made in the Community Animals section. If PETA only takes in about 2000 animals per year, that makes it a tiny shelter since many take in over 30,000 year. Also it's really a small part of what PETA does, so I also wonder why it would be at the top of the article. Bob98133 18:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Made a change to clarify and qualify the statement. How's that? change made NathanLee 22:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber: this is the place you give feedback on the edit as requested (see the "How's that?" section above). Revert is not a substitute for discussion and is against the recommendations on dispute avoidance. The edit was in there, someone chopped it out, I've addressed (I think) any complaint anyone has raised above. Correct me via discussion if that's not the case. "How it plays out in discussion" isn't a justification for a revert if you've added nothing new. Dejavu. NathanLee 19:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, watch your manners. You did not discuss anything on this page. Do not lecture me on anything. I was in on this conversation from the beginning but am letting the discussion play out on the page without my interference. You want feedback? You added that to the intro. You didn't discuss anything on this page. You didn't look for consensus. Another edit has already reverted your edit. I have added way more to this discussion than you have so keep your condescending two days later editing style to yourself. Turtlescrubber 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And if you are going to quote someone, get it right. It's common courtesy. Please look that up. Turtlescrubber 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about Primarily Primates, Inc.

A section about Peta's dispute with Friends of Animals and Primarily Primates, Inc. is necessary. Here are a few quick links. http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/october/open-letter-to-mary-.html http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/october/ppis-response-to-pet.html I'm new to this Wiki thing so I'll let someone with a bit more experience write the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxmatt (talk • contribs) 02:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Matt. This should be added. Turtlescrubber 02:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine to add something about PPI, but since PPI is a division of Friends of Animals, it would have to be sourced from someplace reliable and not involved.Bob98133 12:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That too. Turtlescrubber 19:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Membership

http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=10328 - in the letter at the bottom of this PETA page, it says that they have 1.8 million members. I don't think it needs a reference since it's just what PETA is claiming. They also didn't make an announcement about it that I saw, it's just mentioned in this letter. Just wanted to explain why I was making the change. If someone thinks it needs a reference in the article, either put it in or let me know and I will. Thanks. Bob98133 15:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a question for PETA's founder?

I will be interviewing Ingrid Newkirk on Tuesday, November 13. Leave questions on my Talk page. --David Shankbone 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that not "Original Research" ? 65.163.112.205 (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of Communist/Marxist/Socialist ties

I've heard accusations that PETA has ties or is a front organisation for the communist party. Anybody else seen any sources claiming or supporting this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.215.78.126 (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that someone may have accused PETA of this, but it doesn't make any sense to include accusations even if they are referenced. If there were some statement to this effect by PETA that would be different. Since the group is pretty controversial, they've probably been accused of lots of things but that doesn't make them true. If you find references for this, please post them to this discussion. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this right?

"appeared to show monkeys being hit, tormented, and humiliated." How do you humiliate a semi-intelligent animal? I thought only humans could be humiliated. --Simpsons fan 66 00:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Humiliation = Etymology: Late Latin humiliatus, past participle of humiliare, from Latin humilis low. To reduce to a lower position in one's own eyes or others' eyes. While related to the word "humble," it is possible for one to be humiliated and not humbled. -- Librarianofages (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit POVy, never mind anthropomorphic, to suggest a non-human "appeared to be "being... humiliated". I would suggested leaving it as "hit and tormented" would be better. Rockpocket 00:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, why is it anthropomorphic? It is a fact that animals do have feelings, so what is the problem here? Speciesism me thinks. -- Librarianofages (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Really? Which animal told you about his or her "feelings" of humiliation? Rockpocket 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You've obviously never had a pet. -- Librarianofages (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had a companion animal (pet is specieist, non?), but it never expressed to me how it felt "reduced to a lower position in its own eyes". Maybe it just felt it couldn't open up to me though. God knows what it told its monkey therapist. Rockpocket 03:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

More likely you treated him so well that he never had to learn the concept of humiliation. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

More seriously, I think it's perfectly possible to humiliate an animal, in the sense of "reduce to a lower position in its own eyes or in someone else's eyes." That's exactly what technicians did when they wrote the word "crap" on the forehead of a monkey in a lab. And when they forced a baboon they had just brain-damaged to stand drooling in front of the camera, while they mimicked him asking animal rights activists to please come and rescue him. That behavior reinforces the idea of animals-as-things, and therefore does very precisely reduce them to a lower position, at least in the eyes of anyone so inclined or anyone not thinking clearly. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well I agree with all this, but it's been blown a bit out of proportion, I agree with Rockpockets suggestion for change, however I only disagreed with his reasoning. I agree with the change for style and economy of words, the sentence looks a little sluggish with the addition of "humiliated". What do you think Slim? -- Librarianofages (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In not really too bothered either way, especially if humiliation is meant as reference to the motive of the technician, as SV suggests, rather than the precise emotional state of the animals (which we simply can't know, irrespective of how much we wish to interpret.) I would propose what those technicians have done is humiliate themselves, rather than humiliate the animals. The animal isn't lower in our eyes for that appalling behaviour, the people abusing them are. Rockpocket 04:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The danger with the behavior is that the animal may be reduced in the eyes of people who watch it. So the people watching someone write "crap" on an animal go on themselves to write it on another one, and so on. The word "humiliation" connotes an element of publicity and damage to the subject, not just an internal emotional state (though such a state may well accompany the public damage.)

As for using the word in the article, I'm not that bothered, so long as removing it doesn't dilute the sentence too much. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Your Mommy Kills Animals co.jpg

Image:Your Mommy Kills Animals co.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Campaigning" confusion

Can someone who knows more about this article clean this up: "Many of the campaigns bear fruit for PETA. Burger King, McDonalds, Wendy's, Petco, and in 2006, after talks with PETA, Polo Ralph Lauren announced that it would no longer use fur in any of its lines." It doesn't ever say what Burger King et al. did, it just cuts to Ralph Lauren stopping fur usage. I know there are links to the stories, but a brief synopsis here is important, as some of the links appear to be dead or require a subscription. Surfbruddah. 155.188.247.6 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

HBO Documentary

The HBO Documentary I Am An Animal stated that PETA does indeed support terrorists like ALF, Earth First!, Elf, and that the FBI has infiltrated PETA, and that in the founder's will, she is to be dismembered and barbequed. Can this be stated under anything about PETA in this article ? The documentary aired yesterday and today, CST. 65.163.112.205 05:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of this is already explained at Ingrid Newkirk. Rockpocket 08:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

I believe that in its present condition, this article portrays its subject in a far too positive light. It really ought to be made more neutral, perhaps by damning/criticising some of PETA's obviously wrong/evil mentalities/actions. 91.108.214.229 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a tenuous handle on what NPOV means. "made more neutral, perhaps by damning/criticising some of PETA's obviously wrong/evil mentalities/actions" -LOL. Turtlescrubber 17:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I, however concur with "User: 91.108.214.229". These animal rights freaks are invariably depicted as noble, and well above the carviverous mass of the rest of us, in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioform 1234 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be too much trouble for you to cite references? Your comments are very POV - I've seen animal rights people depicted in various ways on Wiki, but not "invariably" (means always, without exception) as "freaks" or "noble" or in any relation to "the carniverous mass". If you can document these implied accusations, please do. Thanks Bob98133 17:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[scoff] I don't *need* to justify myself.

Nor should you. However, if you want to post material to Wiki you will have to document it, since your opinion is unjustified.Bob98133 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Making vague criticisms about PETA isn't going to help the article if you think its too positive-POV. Find reliable sources for facts and include them in neutral language in the appropriate section, and help contribute to the wiki, instead of lurking! Max.inglis (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue of NPOV with this article is the structure. It is structured so that criticism of PETA is concealed/diluted, and the body of criticism against PETA is presented in that light. I still would push for a central section combining the criticism to help address the NPOV issue. 138.26.140.149 (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Questionable reference #107

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204753,00.html PETA: Sacrifice Human, Not Animal Life for Medical Research, July 20, 2006 By Steven Milloy

The reference above is used in support of statements in the Animal Testing section of this article. This source is an OpEd, not a news article, by a clearly biased, and paid, source Steven Milloy. PETA's support of stem cell use is fine, but I think the rest of the ph, including the recent attempt to clear it up, be deleted. Thoughts? Thanks.Bob98133 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Insulin Use

Is there a reason the animal testing section doesn't contain a reference to MaryBeth Sweetland's insulin-dependence? There's an article here http://www.goveg.com/diabetes_controlled.asp written by her downplaying her use of animal-based insulins which might prove a good reasonably un-biased quote (all the links to quotes I could find from her were all inflammatory and on anti-PETA sites). Given PETA's stated policies on animal testing, this seems like a pretty important fact, because without animal-harvested and animal-tested insulins, she'd would have died at age 25 when she became insulin-dependent.

Actually I just re-read the article, and right after the quote from Newkirk about them opposing a cure for AIDS based on animal testing would be the perfect place for it. Max.inglis (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

MaryBeth Sweetland has not worked for PETA for sometime, so not sure how a quote about her insulin use would be relevant to PETA article. Bob98133 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Because at the time of that quote (2005) one of the VPs of PETA, and close confidante of hers was dependent on medication derived from animals and animal testing, and the quote clearly says that she wouldn't support something that saved lives if it was based on animal testing. You can pretty reasonably extrapolate this to mean that if Sweetland had AIDS, she (Newkirk) would prefer she didn't take a medication derived from animal testing, and therefore die. This is a very clear and repeated criticism of Newkirk and PETA, and previous discussions have specified that criticisms should be mixed into the article. I think inclusion here is appropriate.Max.inglis (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Using this logic, it would be correct to quote Carl Rove about Bush's current policies? Sweetland, speaking as a VP of PETA, seems reasonable to include; but claiming any relationship between her and Newkirk or PETA, other than employee/boss (now both ex)seems like a stretch. Newkirk might speak for herself and PETA, but it isn't reasonable to assume that she is speaking for all the hundreds of employees of the organization unless she specifically indicated this. Why not come up with something new or current that makes the same point, or was this an isolated case? Bob98133 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well bob: we have quotes from ingrid newkirk scattered throughout the article. Are they relevant to Peta? I certainly think that if a high ranking official in an organisation is probably relevant, just like for a CEO or board member with respect to a company. NathanLee (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just reread that section - position on animal testing - and it really looks like the info about Sweetland is inappropriately tacked onto a paragraph about AIDS. She is also cited as Director of Research and Rescue - which was not correct even based on the reference provided. Personally, I don't see that the info about Sweetland has any place in this article, but even if it does, it currently is in the wrong place. Does this article need a section on PETA employees who wear leather shoes or do other things that PETA says are wrong?Bob98133 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if its in the wrong place, where to put it then? You yourself have numerous times posted that a criticism section is a target for vandalism, so where else to put mention of a very specific and well-known criticism of PETA? Placing it directly after a quote from Newkirk about not accepting cures that would save lives if based on animal testing seems like the perfect place for it - since its an animal-based and animal-tested cure. The section is titled "Position on Animal Testing", perhaps a seperate paragraph? It was made in very neutral language, and included a quote from MBS herself, as well as a link to her article about reducing her dependence on animal-based insulin. Max.inglis (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why anything an ex-employee did or does has anything to do with the organization's position about animal testing. For all we know, Sweetland was fired for taking insulin or violating some PETA rule. If Newkirk was taking insulin, you're right, it would fit. If Sweetland still worked there - sure. But since this is entirely in the past and not directly attributable to anyone setting policy at PETA, it seems out of place. I didn't mean that the entire position on animal testing is out of place - that's fine - and if there is current or relevant examples (such as Newkirk's quote) I have no problem with those. Including Sweetland just says "someone who used to work at PETA didn't agree" which isn't really wiki worthy info.Bob98133 (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we separate it from the AIDS comment then? The section is titled animal testing, yet you think the fact that an ex-VP (all the docs I could find show her as director, research and rescue, but perhaps thats out of date) of PETA owes her continued living to the existence of a product derived from animal testing isn't relevant? Any reasonable person can assume that Newkirk, at the time the quote was made, knew MBS was insulin-dependent, yet the quote was still made. From the quote given, the organization, by definition, (Newkirk, being the head of said organization, gets to make up the policies) doesn't support her continued living. This isn't a choice she was making (although I guess it is, the choice would be to allow herself to die), it was a fact about her existence. I would put this sort of thing in a "criticism" section, but we know where that gets us - vandalism by anonymous. The fact was added in neutral language and included links to her own article downplaying her dependence on animal-based testing, and included a quote from her giving justification. It could possibly be made into a separate paragraph to remove it from direct reference to Newkirk's quotation. Max.inglis (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Max - I understand what you're saying. Quotes from Newkirk are certainly relevent. She is the founder and current president of the organization. If you feel that it somehow adds to the article to include that a former employee used insulin that may have been derived from animals (although I believe that Mary Beth Sweetland claimed that her insulin, and most insulin these days, is not derived from animals)or developed or tested with animals, then include it, but it should be stated that Sweetland no longer works for PETA. However, this is the same logic that paid lobbyists use to attack PETA - that they once gave money for the legal defence of someone who was later convicted of a crime, and whose affiliations were later ruled illegal. So PETA once employed someone who may have disagreed with Newkirk about her position. If a McDonald's employee (even a VP) uses drugs, even though it is against company policy, is that newsworthy or deserving mention in condemning McDonalds in an encyclopedia article? PETA can be criticized for many things but I just think this one is a stretch.Bob98133 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well everything I've read about the relationship between MBS and newkirk was "close friend" and "confidante" - to say that you wouldn't support animal testing if it leads to a cure for AIDS when your close friend's living depends on a drug originally derived from animal testing seems hypocritical. I'm not a big fan of animal testing but I'm also not a big fan of lots of people dying either - which is probably why I feel so strongly that this should be in here. It's another example of PETA valuing the lives of animals over people - not to say there aren't lots of people who shouldn't be valued over animals, or that animal testing is by any means right in every situation (testing makeup and vanity things on animals drives me nuts) but when it saves lives on the scale of these examples (a cure for AIDS would be astronomical, as was the cure for diabetes in its time). Humulin is what MBS uses now from her own account, but her assertion that its "more appropriate for the human animal" is of course ignoring the fact that without the original animal testing and derivative insulins, humulin wouldn't exist. That being said, I'm not happy with the wording having re-read it. It does seem tacked on, and I think I can find a clearer way to include that information, keeping its tone as neutral as possible, and relevant. Max.inglis (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I read an interview with the guy who did the HBO movie about Newkirk and he said that she doesn't have any friends, and I tend to believe that. She has lots and lots of employees, including a half dozen or more Vice Presidents. If you can add the Sweetland stuff back in so it makes sense - fine, but it seems with so many employees there ought to be something more current and relevent. I think if Sweetland was a "close friend" with Newkirk then she wouldn't have a similar job for In Defense of Animals[7] now (unless she just wanted her Wiki info moved to that page :)Bob98133 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not an example of Peta valuing the lives of animals over those of humans, it's an example of Peta valuing neither over either... for you see, the cure of aids as a result of animals testing would kill many more non-human animals in one year than humans at the hands of the aids virus probably in the entire next century... so I can't see how you say that. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well according to avert.org, an organization dedicated to worldwide AIDS reduction, 2.1 million people died from AIDS in 2007 alone. I would be surprised if the research for an AIDS cure reached that number over the span of its entire research cycle (assuming a cure is ever found). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max.inglis (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Biased Removal of Criticism

The removal of the criticism section has been addressed by several people saying, "Oh, but we spread it throughout the article." However, I noticed much of the heinous and horrible acts committed by PETA have been completely erased from the article. This smells too much like PETA members and advocates wanting to shine better light on themselves. Not to mention that most organizations listed on Wikipedia have criticism sections. Why should PETA, a horribly unethical organization, be exempt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.123.37.228 (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section was removed since it simply served as a magnet for vandalism and for posting unsubstantiated, POV, material, such as "horribly unethical" or "heinous acts" without citing anything other than personal opinion. Bob98133 (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bob here - though I'm not crazy about PETA, you need facts and quotes to backup your opinion. If you have something you would like to point out or have proof they've done, and links to credible sources, include them in a neutral fashion and it shouldn't get edited out. Max.inglis (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Then just lock the frickin' article after putting in a reasonable criticism section. Open it for a few days, keep the ones that are reasonable, and lock it. For God's sake. PETA is the most unethical of all organizations. Maybe we should all just make a separate article for PETA's criticisms? That's what they did for the Michael Moore article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.205.205 (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please, keep it civil here. Personally, I feel a criticism section is needed, as per those present in many other articles concerning controversial topics. We should NOT make a separate article for criticism, as that is unnecessary, goes against protocol, and is unmistakably biased against PETA. But the absence of a criticism section is clearly biased for PETA. We need to find the middle ground, and put in a reasonable critical section backed up with sources and such. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 01:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say to integrate the criticism into the article. There is no need for a special section if critical viewpoints are present in the article's main text. As noted above, criticism section devolve into pov dumping grounds. I am not against critical viewpoints being put into the article but I am against them having a section. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree w/Turtlescrubber. What's the point of trying something that has already failed? In the past, the criticism section was a constant source of fights and revisions. Criticism can be incorporated in the article, as it is in some places.Bob98133 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the issue is that the current structure, without comment or reference to content, causes NPOV problems since it has the effect of minimizing criticism of an admittedly controversial topic and group. I think that throwing up our hands and declaring failure does a disservice to the wiki, but am leery of boldly adding a controversy/ central criticism section; however, I do think that the current structure represents a significant point of view problem and causes the article to "read" as a promotional as opposed to a balance encyclopedic entry. If wiki vandalism is sufficient to cause this change, irrespective of the point of view of the vandals, rearranging this article in its current format does an article like this a disservice. There are multiple other techniques such as locking that would be entirely appropriate to resolve the vandalism without NPOV issues. 138.26.140.149 (talk)

Weblinks

I cant find any valuable informations at "PETA's page at Network for Good" What is the use of this link? --Arcy (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It does seem pretty general and pointless. Maybe if it was in the article referencing finances or something, but I'd say remove it. Bob98133 (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

POV

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

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

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

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

Criticism is every few paragraphs in the article (starting in the lead), with topics including them euthanizing animals, to giving money to arsonists, to minimizing The Holocaust... a far cry for a PR sheet. Maybe it's true that POV pushers prefer a vandalism (I mean, Criticism) section, in the same way that other POV pushers want a different vandalism (I mean Praise) section, but on one article on my watchlist, this devolved into no less than 6 sections, Including "Criticism", "Responses to Criticism", "Rebuttals to Responses of Criticism", "Praise", "Responses to Praise", "Rebuttals to Responses of Praise", (and so on) and generally made the article unreadable in the end. In addition, it makes the article *less* readable in some ways, because a praise/criticism section is then possibly taken totally out of context. Perhaps, if there are praises/criticisms that you aren't seeing in the article, you could find sources and add them in? Ronabop (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that those who want a "Criticism" are all "vandals"? Or is it that an organized "Criticism" section tends to have more impact on readers than having it all spread out, and that fits your POV? It is almost a standard format for Wikipedia articles where there is "Criticism" that is has its own section. Why should this article be different unless you wish to sweep "Criticism" under the rug (so to speak), and make it appear as though there is no "Criticism"? The current format without a "Criticism" section is not only out of sinc with other Wikipedia articles, it is devicive, or has the appearance of deviciveness. That some may abuse a "Criticism" sections does not mean there should not be one. Regardless of the glaring lack of a "Criticism" section, the article as it is is wildly POV Proxy User (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not equating those who contribute to "Criticism" with vandals, or "Praises" with vandals, but that those sections tend to get slammed by vandals. Or is it that an organized "Criticism" section tends to have more impact on readers than having it all spread out, and that fits your POV. Yes, my general editor POV is that we should not organize articles to support a Criticism section, or a Praise section. We are not a dumping ground for opinions, blogs, and editorials. It is almost a standard format for Wikipedia articles where there is "Criticism" that is has its own section --nope. Actually, for many of the more contentious articles, we don't. Intelligent_Design, God, Abortion, The Holocaust, Adolf_Hitler,Jews, Republican_Party_(United_States), Jesus etc., we don't. Current social critique ranks a few levels lower in WP than cited historians, and scholarly study. When that level of critique and study has passed muster, sure, we add in sections and articles like (to address one topic) Historicity_of_Jesus, Jesus-myth_hypothesis, Life-death-rebirth_deity, but adding a sub-section to the Jesus article like Jesus:Criticism? Not Gonna Happen, unless the content is scholarly, substantial, reliable, and informative. Now, seeing those articles as templates, there might be hope for a Controversy about PETA sub-article, but only if such an article merited its own space, because it was overloading the main PETA article. For that to happen, such an article would have to be not about criticism, but the controversy over the criticism. Anyways... if you have sources not in the article, new topics to introduce, new sources which might overload the article, to where it needed it's own article, that's one thing, but to demand an article to be re-structured is another. Ronabop (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is merit for a "Controversy about PETA" article that could draw this topic away from the main article. But that supports my idea that most controversy should be isolated in a section and not spread out over the whole article (as if to disperse it in a POV way, to minimize). Thus, this section becomes an article. I don't care if policing is an issue because of vandals, that's irrelevant to how the article should be formed. There is "Criticism". The "Criticism" is fairly well defined. Such well defined substance should have a section. Without a "Criticism" section, the article is clearly POV. This is not in alignment with Wikipedia theology of unbiased critique. Proxy User (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I agree that it is sometimes hard to recognize what is POV, but can you please explain how "PETA is evil" is NPOV? Who exactly decides what organizations are evil? And how evil do they have to be to be called evil and have it not be POV? What if those making the accusation are equally evil? Maybe if they're both evil it cancels out? I appreciate that you realize that you weren't really contributing with your comment. If you have something else not to contribute, please do so.Bob98133 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Bob, you owe the anon above an apology. Before you ask people not to contribute to the project, make sure your own reading comprehension is up to snuff. Reread the anon comment above and then see how much of an ass you made out of yourself. 96.231.105.2 (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Why got the imgage "File:Your Mommy Kills Animals co.jpg, used in article Your Mommy Kills Animals deleted? Who deleted it?. --Arcy (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

probably because it is a copyrighted image, and the fair use rationalle was not accepted. Bytebear (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I can verify that the image was deleted because it did not have a proper fair use rationale. It was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#I7, and the bot tagged the article due to WP:NFCC#10c. The rationale always was lacking. The image could be undeleted or even re-uploaded if it had a proper fair use rationale.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Image Dimensions contributed by PeTA - Image:Holocaust_plate.png

Why has the image Image:Holocaust_plate.png contributed by PeTA such a litte dimension? The PeTA-Posters must have been much more readable --Arcy (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the rules regarding using copyrighted material on Wikipedia. Bytebear (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problems

Some editors seem to be trying to turn this into an attack page. I ask all good-faith editors to look at the animal testing section:

In 2005, a coalition of advocates for AIDS patients launched a campaign assailing PETA for its opposition to using animals to test possible AIDS drugs and calling on PETA's celebrity supporters to account for their high-profile role in what they described as "hindering the search for a cure to AIDS."[109] PETA vice-president Dan Mathews responded that: "AIDS is an easy disease to avoid, but our government squanders millions on duplicative animal tests, rather than issue frank warnings, especially to young people." Dr. Genevieve Clavreul, the coalition's organizer, expressed concern that in order to find an AIDS vaccine "We are going to have to go to an animal model to do it and I don’t want to have to be fighting every five minutes against PETA."[110] In a letter, the Patient Advocates Against PETA, observed that PETA President Ingrid Newkirk made a statement that even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, "we'd be against it."[109] The Director of Research and Rescue of PETA at that time, Marybeth Sweetland,[111] is an insulin-dependent diabetic,[112] and has defended her use of the animal products (insulin) by saying she needs her life to defend the lives of animals.[113]

In 2006, Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority ruled that PETA misrepresented both animal testing and the science behind animal experiments, ordering it to stop making the misleading claims and rewrite one of its publications. PETA had claimed that “nearly 3 million sensitive animals—monkeys, rabbits, mice and others—are killed in the UK each year in painful experiments” and that “animal experiments are crude and unreliable.” The ASA ruled that animals used in laboratories may suffer in experiments, but that PETA had failed to document that nearly 3 million died “as a result of painful experiments.”[114]

PETA supports embryonic stem cell research because it has "the potential to end the vast majority of animal testing".[115] However, their position has been criticised as being contradictory to their belief all species are equal, since it puts one animal species (humans) to be "preferentially sacrificed to save another"; i.e. that PETA exalts "animal life in trivial ways, while simultaneously devaluing human life to the point where it’s worthless."[115] The response is that whilst animals can suffer pain in experiments, embryos can't.

No one could possibly call this section neutral. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While this section seems to be quite critical of PETA, it seems properly and reliably referenced. In order for it to fail NPOV, it would need to misrepresent a significant viewpoint about the subject. The fact that this section is openly critical (with its criticism sourced) does not make it violate NPOV. Neutrality does not mean lack of criticism; it means that all significant viewpoints are expressed.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, except that it barely addresses PETA's viewpoint. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you mean that PETA's position in this part of the debate should be expanded upon, I agree.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with PETA's viewpoint is that they are fundamentalists and thus have a very narrow viewpoint (e.g. "all animal testing is evil regardless of the reasons for the testing" which is mentioned via newkirk's quote).

I don't see anything that suggests this is biased (it is referenced, doesn't use emotive language). SlimVirgin: do you mean upon reading it that any reasonable person would most likely be appalled at the stance PETA takes on these things? That doesn't make it something we need to chop out, it just means PETA has a questionable set of values when applied to the real world. It also mentions an important tactic that PETA has been called on a number of times: misleading advertising and hindering medical advancement. NathanLee (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Nathan - I saw your note after making some changes to this section. I tried to present their view, as they present it, and left in documented criticism. It really didn't make much sense for PETA's position on animal testing to be entirely against their psoition on animal testing. I've left the misleading advertsing reference - that was documented; but the hindering scientific progress was from a press release, so I added a fact tag. I'm sure they've been accused of that so someone should find a reference for it easily, but at least it should be from a scientific source. I don't think it matters if PETA's position is nuts or not, since this page and this section in particular, is about their position, it should at least be stated. I think you exaggerate when you say "any reasonable person would most likely be appalled at the stance PETA takes on these things" - maybe most would, maybe not even most, but both sides should at least be presented or all those reasonable people will only be getting one side of the story. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nathan, it doesn't matter what people might think about PETA's position. This article is about them, and so we need to give it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

More Information On Rumors About PETA Being On Terrorist Watch List

I'd like to see more information about the rumors that PETA was/is on the Terrorist Watch List. --4.224.84.90 (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe on the rumors page? This article should stick to items that can be referenced. Even just being on a terrorist watch list wouldn't be that appropriate an addition unless they were watched doing some terrorism and there would be references for that if it happened.Bob98133 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fbi.gov/SEARCH: Domestic Terrorists and/or Single Issue Terrorists: PETA. 65.173.105.118 (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Does that help ?! 65.173.105.118 (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

conflicts w/other activists

To me including the info from the secretary/activist/former employee makes the whole section less strong. The other criticisms are from recognized groups or spokespeople whereas this one sounds like a disgruntled employee. I think there is justification for keeping it or getting rid of it, but I think the article reads better without it.Bob98133 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Pro PETA

This article is pro-PETA, hardly anything criticising them. Typical liberal, far left loony crap, as Bill O'Reilly would state. 205.240.144.195 (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Fix it or delete it. 205.240.144.195 (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your demands, we'll get right on it. Not. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia which everyone can edit. If you think something is missing, please add it, ensuring that you follow the rules regarding verifiability, reliability, neutrality, and remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a soapbox. Thanks. (I've copied this to the user talk page as well)-Localzuk^(talk) 16:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

ECO-Terrorists

Is PETA eco-terrorists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiketsu (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't. Bob98133 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No but they do have connections to them. Bytebear (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

All the documented stuff I've seen dated back years and years ago to before ELF or ALF were considered terrorists. I think maybe they agree on some things, but I think "connections" implies something more formal like working together on projects which I don't think happens at all. There are probably supporters of PETA who also support ELF or ALF but that doesn't mean the organizations have connections.Bob98133 (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The article, as it stands, discusses the connections in a way that implies them. That seems appropriate since the connections themselves are implied and not official. Micahmedia (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes section corrupt?

The notes section appears to be corrupted from item number 75 on. Doesn't display properly on Firefox or MSIE and displays coding in the article. I'm new to wiki markup, so I'm sure what the issue is. Micahmedia (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure! Micahmedia (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Animal Research War

A single-issue account has been spamming articles with a cite to this book since September, and never any page numbers, so there's no indication that there's anything in it relevant to the sentences he adds it after. Please don't restore it without a page number, and then only if it says something another source doesn't already say. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So that's why you reverted the information containing numerous extra links rather than just that one link? I really don't see how you/Crum375 have issue with this one link when there are a tonne of links in the article (and others) that reference books, without any page number or further information. E.g.

• "Newkirk, Ingrid. Free the Animals. Lantern Books, 2000. ISBN 1-930051-22-0" - no page numbers.
• Schwartz, Jeffrey M. and Begley, Sharon. The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force, Regan Books, 2002 - no page numbers either

Given that there are now a handful of sources that also support it, there shouldn't be a big issue.

That's not to mention your insistence that any organisation that is hostile to PETA or its tactics is not able to be quoted, yet PETA is assumed to be worthy of quoting in every animal article on wikipedia. NathanLee (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nathan, if you can provide context, relevant quote and page number in the body of the article for that book, and it turns out to be pertinent, then it can be included. We can't just mention a book name in the lead, that is being spammed without proper justification. If you'd like to add page numbers and quotes from the other books you mention, that would be very helpful. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Crum, are you ready to apply this rule to other pageless refs and remove them also from the article for consistency's sake? I'm counting at least four references which are pageless.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, the issue with that book is that someone was spamming it into various articles to promote it, not to use it as a source. We actually have no idea what it says, and I don't know why Nathan keeps adding it back because I'm sure he's never looked at it. If there are any other books lacking page numbers, let me know in case I have them here. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 16:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If this particular instance for the Crum375/SlimVirgin tag-team collective NEEDS a page number: then by all means remove JUST that reference (and I'd expect you'd apply this to other book references and their material I've listed above and in other articles that have them too). You're taking out a handful of other references and the valid criticism that there are links to domestic terrorist groups.

I don't have that book you've taken issue with, so I can't comment on it (like most of the off-web materials referenced in this article). Any of the books referenced with page numbers could just as easily be made up entirely. NathanLee (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nathan. I think it's up to the editor posting a reference to do so properly, not demand that others fix it if they disagree. As I recall, it is improper Wiki procedure to cite a reference, like a book, without having reviewed it, so there should be no question about this reference being removed, since you do not have the book you referenced. Rather than viewing this collaborative editing as organized oppostion to your view, it might be more productive to consider it an ongoing process to improve the quality of the articles. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

At least one of the other articles didn't mention what it was being used as a source for, and the others were "me too" sources. Not every single point can go in the lead anyway, which already covers the main points of criticism, so please add anything that really is an issue elsewhere in the text (but please read the sources first to make sure they're not just saying "me too"). SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 16:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bob: I didn't put the ref in, I was just placing it back in as the people removing it were not being consistent and had not read it either. Presumably since the person putting the reference in thought it was relevent.

You are admitting to revert warring to restore a source you know nothing about, when several editors (on both "sides) have been removing it as spam from a number of articles since it was added by an SPA in September. That is not productive editing. I had hoped you had stopped this way of interacting. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So fine: chop THAT reference out. I've said that numerous times. But then the reason for taking the text out changes from "not the right page number cited" to "duplicate of information".

I don't see anything in the lead that provides the information that the chopped out sentences have in them. Perhaps the reference to ALF/ELF is automatically "FBI domestic terror list" and "misuse of funds" but that would require the user to have existing knowledge of those organisations, the situation etc to even begin to make that determination.

Where is the information about:

a) links with FBI listed domestic terror organisations

b) misuse of funds

SlimVirgin says we have a source for those: Where? There's the quote from a senator which doesn't cover those. Of course not every point can go in the lead, but this is less than a sentence worth of info and two valid points of criticism which have many references.NathanLee (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The alleged link to the "terrorist" groups is the Senator complaining about the relationship. It is already there, and he is a better source than the websites and opinion pieces you were adding. The misuse of funds thing is related to that, and is dealt with in the text using better sources. You seem to be editing the lead without having read the article or the sources you are using. And there is no need to add four sources for every point, especially when they are very poor sources (e.g. opinion pieces on websites). SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he's saying that there are links to groups he thinks have committed terrorist acts. The comment I put in was about the FBI classification of organisations as domestic terrorist groups and links from PETA to them. To determine that that is misuse of funds is a derived thing. Most normal people would think that using funds to help people who firebomb or destroy research labs is misuse of funds, but PETA has never said that it was misuse of funds to sponsor the legal fees of a terrorist. The reason the sources are there (opinion pieces in newspapers or otherwise.. Why a senator's opinion counts more than one published in a newspaper) is for exactly the reason that you would complain that they need references. Well, there are about 4 for each of the two points you keep removing. Do you dispute that the articles/opinion pieces match the two simple points? The number of them needed is because of the exceptionally strict standards you and crum375 apply to any move of the article away from a PETA promotional sheet. Seems I should ask you permission before editing anything whatsoever on the page: is that correct? Please SlimVirgin, may I edit the page to put my many referenced small amount of content without you and Crum375 tag team reverting? NathanLee (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnote #7

http://www.masskilling.com/ seems like spamdexing to me... --Vesal (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that link was changed or dropped. I changed the link in the article to a PETA website with the coreect video on it.Bob98133 (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

British government

With all the talk of PETA being viewed as "extremist" in the U.S., something that might be worth noting in the article, if there's an appropriate space, is that the British government seems not to take that view.

In 2004, a British Home Office minister was asked in the House of Commons whether the government had made contact with animal rights groups. The response was:

"Home Office Ministers have not made any visits to extremist groups involved in the harassment and intimidation of individuals or companies licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

"Home Office Ministers are, however, willing to meet groups prepared to engage in reasoned debate and discussion about the use of animals in scientific procedures, whatever their point of view, provided they do not support extremist activity. Ministers have, therefore, met groups involved with the protection of animals, such as the RSPCA, as well as groups opposed to animal experimentation, such as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, the National Anti-Vivisection Society, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Uncaged Campaigns, Animal Aid and Naturewatch, and organisations seeking humane alternatives to animal experiments, such as the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments." [8]

SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Objective

This article was not objective at all. It failed to state critisisms of PETA and disputes against PETA. Not only that, another blaring omission is not having more information about their connections to eco-terrorism and sponsoring such acts. I expect more neaurality from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.168.195.109 (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion pages and revise your expectations. Wiki is a collaborative effort and if you can make a postive contribution to the article by adding properly referenced material, please do. I don't think omissions blare - might want to check that.Bob98133 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

www.fbi.gov

Go to this site, click on the SEARCH icon, type in it:Single Issue Terrorists and/or Domestic Terrorists, and you'll see under these Eco-Terrorists: Earth First!, Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, and of course PETA. Been there, seen it. This should be stated. Is that WP:OR or not? 205.240.144.214 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been told to do this a few times, I've done it, and I still have not seen anything like what you're describing. I'm skeptical that this page exists. If PETA was explicitly identified as a terrorist organization, it would not have 501(c)(3) status, or any official status at all. Give me an actual link to an FBI web page that I can look at. Vague directions that are supposed to show me to some vaguely described page are not going to cut it for whatever you're arguing for (which is what, by the way?). Djk3 (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that probably originates here: Washington Post: FBI Papers Show Terror Inquiries Into PETA; Other Groups Tracked. The FBI later (sorta) denied it. While PETA denies links to violent activist groups, some continue to suspect them. Addendum: Here is a FOIA file on PETA that contains intimations of links with ALF. The FBI has certainly called SHAC a terrorist group, and although many PETA members probably act with or sympathize with SHAC, PETA denies the link. -- Tom Ketchum 23:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What link? Bob98133 (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A link between SHAC (a group they have labelled "terrorist") and PETA, which supported SHAC and co-protested for a while, but stopped when SHAC people started (e.g.) firebombing businessmen. -- Tom Ketchum 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice finds, with those links. I looked through the FOIA release and it didn't seem like anything as serious as what the Washington Post article was suggesting. It didn't seem to indicate any particular investigation; it just looked like some miscellaneous notes. I wonder what else has been released, and if it's online. Djk3 (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom,when I asked "What link?" it was in reference to PETA denying the link between PETA and SHAC. If no link exists, except possible overlapping membership or sympathies as you say, the phrasing of your sentence "PETA denies the link" implies that such a link exists. Other than apparently inconclusive investigations to determine this, there is no reference to support it.Bob98133 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry -- I would never say such a thing in the article, because of the confusion you cite. There are citations of PETA disavowing SHAC (see the SHAC article). That is what I was referring to.[ This quote: "With such deep pockets Peta is able to disburse millions of dollars every year across a global network of interest groups, including the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), which opposes animal experiments on scientific grounds and whose members (95 per cent of whom do not have medical degrees) have well docu mented links with Shac and other militant animal rights groups." makes the link -- it is from The Guardian (UK). It is quite a good read and might inform this article. -- Tom Ketchum 19:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at that. Yeah, that's not much of a link. It would be like saying PETA supports child molestation because they donated money to a church group some of whose officials were convicted of that crime. Bob98133 (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but the "war on terror" has brought us much worse nonsense -- see Global Relief Foundation. -- Tom Ketchum 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Other campaigns" section

I have a different problem with this article -- the lengthy section on "Other campaigns". It's really a laundry list, and few of them add anything encyclopedic to the article - it is more like a brag list. I think this should be cut down, or perhaps moved into a separate article. -- Tom Ketchum 18:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree about some of these. I don't think a separate article would make sense, but shortening and consolidating might. For example, some of these are ongoing campaigns (anti-fur, circus, vegetarian) but others are either part of some other campaign or something that happened to be in the news (like Michael Vick).Bob98133 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Apocalypse

What would happen to PETA, other related "Eco-orgs" IF we got nailed by a asteroid (got one incomming in 10-30 years, called Apophis) or some major disaster takes out this planet? 205.240.144.214 (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)