Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Template:Controversial groups

clarification requested

I didn't mark this in the body of the article yet, but the following sentence could use some rewriting:

"The group 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."

First of all, you can't operate a policy; you operate a facility. The phrase "it would be unrealistic" may be true from PETA's POV, but it seems like a judgment statement, not an encyclopedic fact. The phrase "as such," thrown not infrequently into vague writing to suggest unstated causation or a perceived necessary condition, is an adverbial phrase not really attached to anything (example of how it's supposed to work: "Jones is a vegan; as such, he eats no animal products of any kind," where the "such" refers clearly to what he is). The sentence quoted seems to mean: "The group takes in feral cat colonies (etc) and backyard dogs. Since it lacks the resources to provide these animals with medical care to alleviate their suffering or the extensive behavioral therapy to attempt to rehabilitate them, it cannot operate a no-kill facility." I only assume these as the reasons, since they're left unstated, as if it's obvious what and why it's "unrealistic." For instance, "backyard dogs" without obvious health problems I only assume to fall into the category of "high potential for euthanizing" because of behavioral issues.

Although I edit WP regularly, I came here to look up a fact and would prefer not to become involved in the article. But I hope someone will address this. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I think you make very good points. (And I can well understand the preference not to become involved, regrettable as that may be!) Anyway, I made an edit to the sentence, to try to fix those things. The information is sourced to the second of the references in the footnote at the end of that sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolina Biological add

Appreciate good faith addition of investigation into Carolina Biological. First problem was the date cited (1999), which is incorrect. Did some searching and this investigation apparently happened in 1990. Also, the source is essentially an editorial piece written by someone who has been directly affected by PETA's actions, so that really doesn't qualify as a NPOV. However, I am finding some news articles about the case and will add a graph back in shortly.Bob98133 (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember past talk about this, now at the bottom of Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 13. If you can rewrite that with better sourcing, that would be great, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My attempt at condensing a complex 4 year case is up. Please let me know if any issues!Bob98133 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Based on the third source, it seems to me to not be accurate to summarize the judge's findings that way—rather, the source seems to be saying that the judge cleared the company on all charges. Is that correct? If so, it seems wrong to present the sensationalistic description of wriggling, or the apparently thrown out USDA charges, this way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm....well, I tried to find the least sensationalist way of describing what was on the tapes, as reported in the newspapers and on ABC News. There's no disputing there were moving cats on the tape. The question was whether or not they were alive. And the judge ruled they weren't (that's the first line of the 3rd source). Do you think it would be better to add that the judge agreed with the testimony describing movement as part of the embalming process? Or that all animal cruelty charges were dropped, including the embalming of live cats? I THINK that third soucre is saying all the charges were dropped (it's implied, but not said directly), and Carolina Biological issued a PR statement saying they were, although I don't want to use that as a source. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CAROLINA+BIOLOGICAL+SUPPLY+COMPANY+ANNOUNCES+IT+HAS+BEEN+CLEARED+OF...-a015244449 This really was a confusing case to wade thru. Bob98133 (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Before seeing your reply here, I made a WP:BOLD revision, so please take a look at that. I agree with you that we shouldn't/needn't cite the PR press release, but I also agree that the source seems to indicate that all charges, including but not limited to the embalming, were thrown out. The first sentence of the third source sounds like a "hook", but I read that source as going on to say that all charges were rejected, not just the dramatic one. Anyway, please see what you think of my revision. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks! Bob98133 (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, and thank you for doing the research! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Position on working dogs

The source provided originally to support the statement that PETA was against all working dogs (http://www.peta.org/issues/Companion-Animals/doing-whats-best-for-our-companion-animals.aspx) just didn't hold up. Maybe there's a source out there that supports that statement, but that isn't it. So I replaced the two sentences with one, backed up by an interview with a PETA VP. The search and rescue part isn't tackled in that interview (neither was it in that factsheet, again poor source for original wording), although she does mention a program with a police department, which I could add if maybe we could confirm that from another source. Let me know if it works and/or if you have any suggestions for better wording. Bob98133 (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I support the change you made (aside from a very minor wording tweak that I just made). This is rather strange: I clearly remember when the source you replaced (linked just above) was added to the page, and, at that time, PETA said on their website what this page previously attributed to them: that, among other things, they disapproved of things like using animals to search for injured people etc. It appears that PETA subsequently changed what they say about it. And therefore, we need to correspondingly update what we report here. (I wonder: could Wikipedia have influenced them to change what they say? Pity that there are no diffs of their website.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my wordiness, Tryptofish. Who knows. That was a 2009 article I cited, so there could very well be something out there that says they don't support working dogs. But the source that was originally cited just didn't say that. Maybe it was, indeed, "updated" recently. :)Bob98133 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Change in NC charges

I eliminated the littering charge phrase altogether since the charges were dropped {see: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-court-of-appeals/1224997.html). Littering seems irrelevant to the bigger picture in this case, but if consensus deems I add a sentence back in about the initial conviction for littering and subsequent dismissal of same, I'm happy to do so. Bob98133 (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How is there not a "Controversy" section here?

A simple Google search, or "paying attention", will show the countless threats of violence and death that this organization has committed. Why is none of this in the article? 65.211.179.9 (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Because Peta constantly gets their members to so overwhelm the editing of this site it really is just a commercial for them now. They actually promote arson on animal testing labs, and violence to researchers. They are nothing but terrorists with good PR people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.102.132 (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In the years I've been watching/editing this page, honestly, I've not felt "overwhelmed" by anyone from either "side." There are several editors on this site who have worked very hard to keep this page as NPOV as possible, and there are sections on this page that deal with criticism of PETA, so we'd be more than willing and pleased to entertain any additions either of you would like to propose. Please keep in mind that accusations as those you have made above will need verifiable sources. Bob98133 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Just so those who are new to this page know, this question gets asked repeatedly. For the most recent previous discussion, please see Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 15#Proposing separate section for criticism. Personally, I've had a few occasions where I did, indeed, feel overwhelmed. Unfortunately, there seems to be a never-ending supply of editors who drop by, ask the question asked above, and then never follow through. If you really want to help, and not just complain, Bob is absolutely right: you have to make the effort to source and explain the edits you propose to make. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is controversy here, yet it is censored by someone with high priviliges in Wikipedia. The main page can no longer be edited by common users. I'll be back... --71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)