Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

I've removed the Obama section

The plain reading of the PETA statement was that they were NOT shocked by the Obama/fly incident. They were surprised that the Media would THINK they were shocked. Even though they think that people shouldn't kill flies, they recognize that we're all flawed people and occasionally act out of instinct. (Except the Budda.)

This whole thing seems to have been added by a single-purpose account. Probably just to make PETA seem crazier than they are.APL (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be hard to do actually. I think this should not be removed. Safesler 00:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The section, as written, was completely false. It can't be put back without a major re-write. APL (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. No PETA activist would possibly be shocked by someone killing a fly. Whoever wrote a slander like this about PETA is definitely trying to make them look bad to the public. There are whole businesses which only exist to write such slander about any group and organization, person or politician in order to turn the public against whoever their target is. Richard Burman is one of those market strategists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaandpink (talk • contribs) 06:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Euthanasia charges section

Given that there were no convictions, is it time to shorten this section? That, together with the euthanasia-policy section, currently makes euthanasia appear to be the main issue in this article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through the article trying to tighten the writing (mostly moving unnecessary quotes and examples), and got it down from 84 kb to 65 kb. I've also tightened the euthanasia section. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You're doing a little too much a little too quickly and not giving detailed enough edit summaries (when you bother to give them at all). Instead of making other editors sift through all those edits to see what you're doing, could you tell us what you're removing each step of the way? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tightened the entire article. You can't give edit summaries that describe that in detail. The article had turned into a mess, and it was too long. It has now been tightened, but nothing significant has been removed. This has to be done periodically with this article, or it just grows and grows. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you made one big edit to the whole article and summarized it as "copyediting", you would have a point, and it would probably be easier to check, to boot. You made 40 edits with edit summaries ranging from nonspecific to nonexistent. I'm not disputing your changes (If I'm going to, I have a lot of diff checking ahead of me.). I'm disputing the way you made them. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 09:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not keep reverting my work. There was no significant content change. It was a long-overdue copy edit to tighten the writing, the need for which was discussed some time ago on talk. The version you're reverting to is a dog's breakfast. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

1. "No significant content change"? You threw 20% of the article away.
2. "Dog's breakfast" though it may be, it doesn't have 40 unexplained edits within the last day. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That tells you badly written the article was. It could lose another 20 percent without being harmed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to give detailed edit summaries when you're copy-editing, for obvious reasons. Read the article. You'll see it says essentially the same things, but is better written and also shorter. I haven't done yet, by the way; it still needs to be tightened some more, but that will do for now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:COPYEDIT and WP:ESL encourage you to give more detail to your edit summaries. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)}}

I don't think this section is too long - it is an important part of the article - to show all sides of PETA - otherwise this significant point may be missed by readers. Jack2uall (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit continuing

I'm about to go in and start fixing the refs. As that can be very fiddly, I'm going to put the "in use" box up to avoid edit conflicts. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please put a little thought into your edit summaries this time.… — NRen2k5^(TALK), 19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it just isn't possible to be as precise as you want, which is why I'm explaining here first. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not just wrong, that's ridiculous. Look, let's be completely open here. You're masking POV edits in your big "copy edits". I saw as much last night. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That is absolute nonsense, and I request that you cease this ABF. This is a much-needed copy edit. Please show me one of your major copy edits that provides detailed edit summaries along the way. I am not going to expand it by several hours and several hundred edits to accommodate you wanting to see a full description of the edit in each summary. Look at the diffs to see the edit, please. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn’t “ABF” until after looking through the diffs and finding some POV. And I don't make such big copyedits, but when I do copy-edit, I provide edit summaries as detailed as practical. If I didn’t, that wouldn’t make it right anyway. Intentional or not, I think that was an ad hominem: tu quoque on your part. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with SlimVirgin that the article about the euthanasia was too long and it did not explain why PETA is conducting euthanasias. When the emphasis is too much on this word euthanasia, which has been used against PETA by corporate strategists, then the article becomes strongly biased. I also suggest that Wiki should include in the article about PETA in general, that market psychologists have systematically tried to make PETA look bad to the public, because they are paid large sums of money from lobbyists of the fur and medical industry. The reason why PETA conducts euthanasia is because large numbers of animals they rescue are badly injured and sick. Those animals are suffering and prolonging their lives just prolongs their suffering. PETA do everything in their power to adopt healthy animals out to sanctuaries and people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaandpink (talk • contribs) 06:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pro-choice views

Another possible controversy surrounding PETA is that many of its leaders hold very pro-choice views, meaning that while they want to protect the smallest fly, they have no objections to eliminating human fetuses. [1] ADM (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's totally not relevant to the org. or its stated purpose. They also don't have a view about capital punishment although maybe their employees do. Can't mention every non-related issue unless they explain something about the topic. Bob98133 (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Another issue is that many PETA members don't brush their teeth after each meal. While they want to protect the smallest fly, they have no objections to letting human teeth decay. Shall I add a section? David Olivier (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the point being made is that PETA doesn't consider the Human animal worthy of the same rights as other species, which seems (perhaps onyl superficially?) to contradict it's purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.137.18 (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that PETA considers the human animal capable of defending itself whereas non-human animals are frequently unable to do so. Just as AARP doesn't campaign for children's rights, PETA doesn't campaign for human rights. That doesn't mean that people at AARP or PETA feel that children or humans don't deserve rights, it just isn't their mandate to campaign for them. Since these orgs are non-profit charities, they raise funds by promising supporters that they will follow a particular course of action which is often quite narrow but which dictates what issues they take a stand on. Bob98133 (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread is probably getting off topic, but I suspect that 24.200 was reacting to the sarcastic comment about tooth brushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course the pro-choice issue is completely relevant here - PETA compares animal cruelty to black slaves, the Jews in WWII and other "human" examples, they compare animal testing to "testing your children" - so why shouldn't we compare their passion about stopping the murdering of baby seals and other animals in front of its mother to the murdering of a human fetus inside of and by the mother? As for the comment that "maybe they think that banning abortion does very litte to decrease the abortion rates" well how about the fact that "just banning meat does very little to decrease the torturing of animal rates" Jack2uall (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

PETA does not take a stand on abortion, nor should they as an animal rights organization. MADD, AARP, AAA and other groups also tend to focus on their stated objectives and as far as I know take no position on abortion. PETA doesn't take a position on the Holocaust or slavery either, although they compare animal treatment to them, suspecting that most people find those practices abhorrent. What you suggest including in the PETA article could be better incorporated in the abortion or abortion rights articles where it might be relevant. Bob98133 (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Quotes to prove that PETA want to take away our right to own dogs:

Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.

John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist.

John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982, p. 15

As the surplus of cats and dogs {artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship--enjoyment at a distance.

Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Rights", Harper's, August 1988, p. 50. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.50 (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote one - dogs shouldn't be in leather nooses or chains - what part of this documents that PETA wants to take away the right to own dogs? By the way, where is the right to own dogs mentioned in law. I recall some guaranteed rights, but dog ownership is not among them.

Quote two - cat populations should be reduced and cats should be free from our dominance. What part of that states that PETA wants to take away some alleged right to own dogs?

Quote 3 - reducing surplus of companion animals would change their role. What part of that documents your claim?

Perhaps you are hung up with the ownership model for dogs, which I believe PETA opposes. Ownership of animals means that they are property which the owner can use as he likes, subject to a few laws about intentional cruelty. So just as I can take my old car to a junkyard to be destroyed, I can take my dog or cat to a vet to be killed. I think you miss the point, 205.212... PETA's arguments are for better treatment of dogs which is hard to obtain when they are being intentionally produced and also abandoned and killed by the millions. I might not agree with everything PETA says, but your citations do not justify your conclusion. They are original, and sloppy, research. Bob98133 (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Old discussion, but what part of "companion animals would be phased out" is unclear? This is not a controversial statement - PeTA is an abolitionist organisation, and it's sole goal is the freeing of animals from the dominion of man, and everything it does is an attempt at incrimental progress toward that goal. RayBarker (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It is original research OR to interpret that phrase as indicating that PETA/Newkirk wants to phase out all companion animals. She states that it might happen as surplus population is reduced, which is something PETA campaigns about, but she does not state that it is her or PETA's goal to do this. If you find a quote saying that, it might be relevant. Bob98133 (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me like you're deliberately misinterpreting the quote - I see no room for misunderstanding in "eventually companion animals would be phased out", but I don't really care enough about PeTA to get involved in an edit war about it(and the PeTA article seems to be a constant edit war). I can just reiterate that given the stated goal of Ingrid Newkirk and PeTA, which is the elimination of the use of animals in any role, the elimination of companion animals is a necessary consequence of that. It's implicit in the existence of the organisation itself, no OR required, and that quote is just an explicit expression of that. Personally I don't keep pets and don't care if they succeed in this aim worldwide tomorrow, but it's disingenuous to maintain that "companion animals would be phased out" can in any way mean "companion animals would be maintained at reduced numbers."

It would require much more strongly worded sources to imply that PeTA wants to exterminate Canis Canis (or indeed Bos primigenius) which is a claim I have seen made in rabid anti-PeTA diatribes, but the above quotes very strongly support the position that PeTA wishes to eliminate the posession of pets. RayBarker (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the statement by Ingrid Newkirk in the Penn and Teller video discussed more recently below is a relevant source. So far, the page quotes her rather minimally with respect to pets, but this merits a re-examination. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, strike that, to some extent. I've looked again at what Newkirk actually said there, and it would be OR to interpret what she said in this case, beyond what the lead of the page already says. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

fair enough. The current article covers it in passing anyway, I just took exception to Bob98133's interpretation above. RayBarker (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms from feminist and fat-acceptance movements

I know that many of PETA's more recent ad campaigns, such as ones where women are posed as caged animals, meat, etc. or where male PETA volunteers are fully clothed where women wear lettuce-leaf bikinis, have been criticized by feminists as misogynistic. In addition, PETA has come under fire from fat-acceptance and anti-eating-disorder activists for their more recent attempts to tie vegetarianism to weight loss and fat-shaming ad campaigns like the recent "Save the Whales" billboard that showed a large woman in a bikini and the subtext: "Lose the Blubber. Go Vegetarian."

However, there was nothing about this on the whole Wikipedia page, and I think that a section should be added since this is a fairly common criticism of PETA, enough that Ingrid Newkirk has responded to criticisms from both movements of PETA's ad campaigns. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds very appropriate to me. If you can provide links to sources, I'd be glad to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Right now it's late, but I'll find some sources tomorrow. It might take a while for me to dig up where Newkirk addresses criticism from feminists and fat-acceptance activists, but I can find the articles that show feminists/fat-acceptance activists taking aim at PETA. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Beggarsbanquet and Tryptofish, go ahead and add the information. But please also add that obesity is the number one killer in the USA leading to early heart attacks, strokes and cancer. So "loosing the blubber" is not that offensive compared to the fat itself being offensive to the body. I am a woman and I am overweight and I have no problem with PETA making ads like they do. Fat kills. And sex sells. Animals are suffering all over the world and something needs to be done about it. Saving animals is more important than protecting some touchy person's feelings. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaandpink (talk • contribs) 07:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Being a vegetarian or vegan doesn't equal losing weight. I've been a vegetarian for 4 years now and I've actually gained 60 lbs. You can over eat and become fat no matter if you eat meat or animal products or not.

To whom it may concern

This, followed by this: I love it! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoisted by your own petard! Bob98133 (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PETA image mass deletion nomination on Commons

Please take a look here; the concern is regarding whether valid permission was received for all images. postdlf (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive of this page somewhere ?

Just wondering if there is an archive of the discussion page somewhere. I realize I can look through previous edits, but wondering if there's another easier place to find it. I had a previous debate about the inclusion of information about Mary Beth Sweetland in the article, her dependence on insulin, and its relevance to PETAs position on animal testing, however I don't see it here now. It led to eventual inclusion in the article, but has since been scrubbed. 206.75.198.6 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

On the right hand side of this page across from the contents box, you should see an archive box w/11 archived pages. Bob98133 (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

doh figured it was that easy. thanks. 206.75.198.6 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the previous discussion about Mary Beth Sweetland's insulin use. I agreed earlier that it seemed tagged on, and left it out. Reviewing section now, I see mention of PETA employees participating in volunteer testing. One of the previous disagreements with inclusion of Mary Beth's diabetes was its proximity to the quote from Newkirk about animal testing, and how it isn't relevant. I still believe it is, and is certainly as relevant as including info about employees participating in animal testing. I'm going to think about it and see if I can't clean up the statement about volunteer testing as well, it seems tacked on as well. Perhaps both in a new paragraph would be the best fashion. Max.inglis (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You might try to find some example other than Mary Beth Sweetland. She hasn't worked for PETA for years. Recent google hits says she works for the humane society.Bob98133 (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes but she was the Director of Investigations at the time of that quote. We've had this argument before Bob, and you made that same point, looking back at the archive discussion. I left it out at the time because it felt tacked on, but since the paragraph is now written to include employee behaviour examples, mention of this fact in the same space is certainly relevant. When Mr VanValkenburg leaves PETA, will the mention of it stay with an addendum for its date? I tend to think so. Others have mentioned that her leaving may have been because she was breaking some PETA rule, but I tend to think it was probably because this quote came out, and it was revealed that Sweetland was insulin-dependent, and it became embarrassing when put in context with that statement. There are numerous notes that a criticism section is fraught with problems, and I agree, but we have to have leeway to include negative information and criticisms in appropriate places. This is a well-known, well documented criticism of PETA (that being the fact that the company made this broad reaching statement at the time when a Director - a senior-management position - was insulin-dependent.) Max.inglis (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Added link for opposing point of view

While I have nothing against PETA, WP policy insists on balance in providing various points of view (WP:POV). For this reason, I added a reference to a website (PETA Kills Animals) that contains specific alleged statistics concerning the euthanasia of unwanted pets conducted by PETA. This should satisfy those who feel that the article is biased in favor of PETA without defacing the descriptive content. David spector (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ a reliable source per WP:RS? It looks like a WP:SPS to me. Gabbe (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a reliable link. It is put up by a public relations firm, hired by a non-profit, paid for by industries that oppose PETA. See Center for Consumer Freedom. Bob98133 (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, CCF can be used to track down original sources since they only spout propaganda but loosely base it on facts. For example, the Peta-kills-animals part, which has to do with their euthanasia statistics, are available from a state of Virginia statistics website. No problem at all using reliable, verifiable sources such as those. CCF frequently twists facts and reports only what they want, so the original sources should be used anyhow. Bob98133 (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Bob. Yes, this is true, Richard Berman is the founder of the Center for Consumer Freedom. He gets paid for slander ads and articles against anyone who stands in the way of exploitation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaandpink (talk • contribs) 07:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Policy on euthanasia

This comment:

"It takes in feral cat colonies with diseases such as feline AIDS and leukemia, stray dogs, litters of parvo-infected puppies, and backyard dogs, and as such it would be unrealistic to operate a no-kill policy.[61]"

is referenced to a archive website as far as I can tell. The letter was contributed by someone without comment. At best, this comment should be described as a rebuttal from PETA, but in reality, it needs to have a better reference or it should be deleted.Desoto10 (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Peta Position on Pet Ownership (Guardianship)

Maybe I missed this in the article, but shouldn't there be a section on Peta's position on household pets? It is fairly clear from Peta statements and the statements of its leadership that they wish that the concept of "pets" never happened and that they wish for the population of pets to be reduced. However, I don't want to spend the time digging up the refs if somebody is just going to delete it. When people talk about PETA, the issue of pets always comes up, so we should cover it.Desoto10 (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've heard similar stuff before, and there may have been a mention of this before the article was trimmed back a few months ago. However, I'm not sure how that info would fit with People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Community_Animal_Project which is referenced content about programs that they have for pets. Bob98133 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, and I just don't know the answer. It clearly is a view held by people in the animal rights movement, but the question here is whether PETA actually has a stated position on it. Desoto, if there is reliable sourcing, I can promise you that I will resist efforts to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[2] C'mon, it only took 5 seconds on Google to find that. Yzak Jule (talk)

Yzak, thank you. It's so nice that you are suddenly helping out at so many of the pages I edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of the documents that hints at Peta's position, but you will notice that the only clear statement is that Peta thinks that pet ownership or guardianship should have never begun. It is less clear, although there are statements from Peta leadership that the eventual outcome of their pet-related projects should lead to pet ownership going away. I mean, if you read Peta's website and the comments from Peta leadership there is no doubt as to how they hate the concept of pets, and want to abolish the practice, but I have not found any direct statements from them to that effect (no big surprise there). Not that it matters to the article, but is there anyone here who disagrees with my conclusion about Peta and pets?Desoto10 (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I will also add a section on Peta's position on horses. The Peta website encourages an end to horse breeding, which, naturally means the end of horses, except for those in the wild. Again, if anybody thinks this is not true, please speak up. From the Peta website "factsheets":

Horse Woes PETA favors horse rescue and opposes horse breeding. Horses are often acquired frivolously and neglected or treated cruelly, and they end up lonely, bored, or overworked. Because many horses are boarded and spend much of their lives away from their guardian’s watchful eye, there is an enormous potential for abuse or neglect by uncaring or untrained stable personnel. Horse breeding has caused the same overpopulation problem that plagues dogs and cats, and sometimes “pet” horses end up at slaughterhouses. Once adopted, horses should never be sold or given away as it is virtually impossible to know where they will ultimately end up.

Desoto10 (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Desoto -I don't disagree with your conclusion, however reaching that conclusion is OR, I think. The ref that Yzak posted is pretty clear and it doesn't say that they are working to eliminate pets. The same with your conclusion about stopping horse breeding, which does not lead to an end to horses anymore than efforts to control human population (such as Zero Population Growth) are intended to lead to human extinction. I think Peta's point is that whatever animals do exist should be treated properly, and if that is not the case, they are against adding more animals to the mix. Bob98133 (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is clear from Peta statements that they want to end the ownership/guardianship of all animals, including pets, but I agree that the leap from their statements to this truth is OR. That is why I am bringing it up here, in hopes that reliable references can be found to support this. If they don't exist, that's the way it goes. I certainly have never heard Peta say that they want people to continue to own pets.169.230.82.109 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)forgot to signDesoto10 (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen video of Ingrid Newkirk in which she states "our goal is total animal liberation" (a direct quote, not paraphrasing) although I'm unclear how to reference that in wiki (It was in the episode of Penn & Teller's BS about PETA). I agree that many horses are lonely and bought on whim, but I also grew up in a rural area where horses were well cared for, seen daily, well taken care of, with large pastures to roam and run. Its not a black and white line that can be drawn, just like all other animal issues. Max.inglis (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the citation, from an old version of this page: <ref>[http://www.travelwebdir.com/video/video-l9ijLulwUTY.html Penn & Teller Bullshit!: PETA]</ref>. If you are confident of the accuracy of the quote, then by all means, please add it. (I kind of think I remember that too, but my memory here is not RS-quality.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

6:58 of that video in the link. Is a link to the video necessary, or just the citation indicating the show and episode? Max.inglis (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the reference URL does go to the video. No harm in adding the time at the end. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason that quote can't be right in the opening paragraph, after the mention of PETA's goals from the website? Max.inglis (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:Be bold, I'd say go for it. Editors who disagree can suggest other places on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The video link above didn't work for me; however, if this is from Penn and Teller I would automatically reject it since they are entertainers - comedians and magicians. This would be like using Jay Leno as source. If this is about a quote of Ingrid Newkirk's, find the original source and use it. Bob98133 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob, I would agree with you if Penn and Teller were being quoted or referenced for their views of the subject. But this is a case of quoting Ingrid Newkirk. It just happened that she provided her statement on that show, and, apparently, that was the original venue in which she said it. The show is the place where Newkirk's comment can be found and verified. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Its not a case of them quoting her, they show a video of her saying that exact quote. If I could use the direct link I would, but I'm unsure where it came from. They show a number of clips from the same video during the episode, it appears to be a recording of her speaking during a PETA event of some kind. I'm adding it in the previously mentioned location. Max.inglis (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I worded that vaguely. I meant we are quoting her, as opposed to us quoting Penn and Teller. But I agree with the edit you made. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My opinion: I saw a lot of Penn and Teller anti PETA commercials on YouTube, that's where I first saw these 2 men. 2 questions arise: Why would these comedians make that many anti PETA videos? Are they paid to do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaandpink (talk • contribs) 07:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The lack of a controversy section is startling.

PETA is a hotly contested organization and extremely fitting for a controversy section. I notice on this page it was posed by TripeFish or someone disregarded it. Perhaps instead of writing essays about the relevance of a monkey in a tube some actual important work is done to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.130.105 (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I trust you are not saying that I disregarded it? Anyway, how about including more material that addresses the controversy, section by section, as opposed to setting it aside in a separate section? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the article is coming along nicely, keeping POV stuff in check and including specific criticisms where applicable.Max.inglis (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Penn & Teller are bullshit

The quotation attributed to Ingrid Newkirk in the lead, reference #2, is widely quoted on the web, always attributed to a 2002 AR conference, but no record of the original quote seems to exist. A comedy show quoting someone is hardly a reliable reference. How about this gets reworded slightly to what Newkirk actually said. This link [3] is a PETA blog entry written by Newkirk dated Nov 11, 2008, so there should be no sourcing problem with it. In it she writes:

"And for those who think that we will never be able to achieve the dream of liberation from oppression, not just for human beings but for all beings, regardless of race or gender or species, I have just three words for you: Yes. We. Can."

So the text might change from: "Newkirk has said "our goal is total animal liberation."[2] to:

"Newkirk has said her dream is liberation from oppression for all beings."

The phrase "total animal liberation" isn't very clear to begin with, since it is presented in counterpoint to PETA's objectives as if it somehow stands apart from the stated objectives, and the sourcing stinks. I would think there might be consensus to replace it with a primary source saying essentially the same thing, but with an easily verifiable online reference. Bob98133 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding in the thread above was that the video record was of Newkirk actually saying the quote, on camera. If, on the other hand, it shows someone else saying that she had said that, then that's another matter entirely. In that case, it simply fails WP:V and should not appear on the page. But, as I said, my understanding is that we see and hear Newkirk actually saying those things herself. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you on that, Trypto, but how is someone supposed to know? The reference is to a video that isn't accessible. I'd even settle for a You Tube video of her saying it. If this is so well accepted, you'd think it would at least be on YouTube. I'm not arguing whether she said it or not, it does sound like something she'd say, but the Penn & Teller reference would be like using a clip of a notable person from a John Stewart Daily Show, which because of the nature of the source, may have been manipulated or misrepresented. Bob98133 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I'm keeping an open mind about this. But I do not believe that Penn & Teller do the kind of manipulating of quotations for comic effect that John Stewart does. My recollection of seeing the show a long time ago is that they presented clips of her talking, straight, and that they would not have needed to do any kind of manipulation to present her saying those words. But, as I said, I'm keeping an open mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqlF2rvcYIs&NR=1 2:37, not sure why that other link was broken, thats youtube directly. she said it, there's no question. Max.inglis (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

1) The Bull@#$% episode in question is publicly available on DVD. 2) Google respects copyrights, so one shouldn’t always expect to find notable clips from copyrighted works on YouTube. 3) This article is replete with media and citations sourced from PETA themselves. Where you see bias, I see balance. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 14:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I said above that I was keeping an open mind, but I think Max's link settles the issue. There is Newkirk, saying the words herself. End of story. I'm with Max and NRen on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nren - there was no question about balance or bias, just sourcing. I can't see the video online, but if the quote is there, fine. However, this leaves the door open to any comedian who happens to use a clip that might be pertinent to an article. Apparently, the clip in question was filmed at a conference, so it is really odd that it appears nowhere else but on a comedy show. Bob98133 (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob, I agree with what you’re saying about Bullshit not being a very good source due to the nature of the show. Conference minutes, for example, would be a much better source. My main point is that being unable to find the exact citation online is not all that important for a source. WP:V says that “anyone should be able to check the sources” but that “the principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries.” — NRen2k5^(TALK), 17:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist Threat/Controversy Section

PETA is one of the most controversial activist groups operating today. The group's contentious media campaigns, undercover operations, infamous advertising, and high profile demonstrations have made them perhaps the most infamous--and most polarizing--nonprofit organization there is. But are they terrorists? According to the US Department of Agriculture, they are now.[4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really? I honestly never saw anything

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

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

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

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

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

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

break

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

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

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

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

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

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

PETA = People eating tasty animals

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

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

Terrorist Organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

quoted stance on "pet keeping"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ingrid Newkirk's will

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK advertising standards

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

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

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

-

Criticism by UK Advertising Standards Authority over poster

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

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

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

POV template removed

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

Feminist criticism

The 'Conflicts with other activists' section should probably mention PETA's many conflicts with feminist organisations, who have repeatedly accused them of misogyny in their campaigns and advertising. I'm looking for mentions of this in reliable sources, which seem to be thin on the ground, but there are many, many blogs that discuss the subject: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11], amongst others. Robofish (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

updates =

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

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

Controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revisiting allegations of evidence fabrication

In the Profile > History section: after reviewing the main article on Silver Spring monkeys and cited sources, I object to the way these allegations are presented in the summary here -- not to mention how the first paragraph seems to give too much weight to so-called value of the research. As it was discussed before [12] Hubel is inherently biased as an animal researcher. I don't agree with supporters of Hubel as a source and I'm surprised that user:SV is the only editor who objected then. Even the title of his paper [13] is about researchers fighting against AR activists (!). Furthermore, the two sources listed at the monkey article in body text [14] & [15] are both from animal research outlets. I think we really need secondary (third-party) sources not invested with either side. By the way, I've also posted this in the talkpage for the SS-monkey article. PrBeacon (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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