Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Moore4jp (article contribs).

Can someone fix the spelling of Bill Maher's name?

It is in the list of members under Bill Mahar. I was going to change it but cannot due to the protected status of the article.

A "controversy and criticism" section is needed, to address multiple issues and events

These events include things like vandalizing homes post-katrina with messages like "animal murderer" https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2010/08/17/129251257/misrach

members being charged with animal cruelty for dumping dead animals http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8255324/ns/health-pet_health/t/peta-employees-charged-animal-cruelty/#.XFUDUlxKg2w

and Newkirk not believing in a right to life for animals: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ingrid-newkirk-quotes-peta-euthanasia/

It feels strange using a snopes link but for every legitimate criticism of peta, there is a made up story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.89.234.91 (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

PETA over stepping their bounds

If PETA just focuses on animals are treated properly than that would be fine but now a days they are clearly over stepping their bounds involving in everything related to animals. They literally killed the circus industry by harassing everything a circus does is violation of animal rights. Going after google for a tribute to Steve Irwin's (Crocodile Hunter) 57th birthday. Because of people like Steve Irwin regular people learn about different wild animals which is a good insight especially if you live in or go to areas that have those wild animals. It is a matter of life and death with a lot of the animals he and others have shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:112F:8068:358F:7E8F:C26C:3A82 (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

APOLOGIZE TO STEVE IRWIN!

apologize to steve irwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.28.16 (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Controversy

I definitely agree that there should be a dedicated controversy section on this page. They've had their fair share and it shouldn't be hidden in among the other information. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Tutelary (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted Wilbur. This article is quite in need of some work. There is quite a lot of puffery with regards to actions that PETA has taken, among other things, focus on things that have more than their weight in sources. The entire section in question (Criticism) is smaller than their "philosophy and activism" section which could be cut down quite a lot, removing the video game section all together, among other things. We need to evaluate which sections need more expansion, which sections should have axed altogether, and which sections can be rearranged/renamed to fit the overall spirit of Wikipedia policy. But I do not believe that the introduction of the criticism section is "redundant with other sections that cover topics such as legal work, " Or if it is, we need to simply move that to said criticism section, to ensure readers have proper flow of the article and are able to read preferred sections at will.Tutelary (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree as well, I have reverted the edits by Wilbur again, under threats of retaliation of course, in my opinion, this article is perhaps one of the most single sided article I have seen. Many cited sources are from PETA themselves and is a clear violation of policy.Jdmdk (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not exactly a violation of policy to -use- WP:PRIMARY sources in general, but they should only be used for: to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. which is obviously not happening with the current state of the article. In either case, there is a larger theme going on here with regards to the article. Wilbur, there is no second revert in the WP:BRD cycle. Please discuss your changes and arguments on the talk page, as I have implored you. As far as the Steve Irwin thing goes...I'm not sure it belongs in the WP:LEAD, but it does deserve to be in the article, given WP:RS. The lead itself reads a lot like a PR statement, and makes no attempt to summarize the rest of the article, as leads are intended to do. Tutelary (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The references added to support the existence of various PETA resources are straightforward and factual. The material added was concise and obviously pertains to an important aspect of this organization's work. Users with an obvious agenda against this organization are attempting to suppress important information about it while simultaneously placing undue and unbalanced emphasis on something as trivial as a single tweet. That certainly does not belong in the intro to this article. It is simply one minor example of what the final sentence of the intro covers. Also, users should not be removing material that is factual and accurately sourced. That is vandalism.Wilbur777 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Reading the article is surreal

You can tell that PETA's people have been over and over this article with a fine-toothed comb, trying to present it in as positive a light as possible. It's very weird seeing the terrible things they do bookended with all these excuses and "peta believes in a philosophy of" stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.161.116.7 (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

have to agree. saying that Wiki is clear on its no bias and factual citated comments requirements of an article with no personal opinions allowed. saying that this article is in major need of an overhaul to take out the clearly bias nature, especially emphasizing its accomplishments and down playing the controversies. it reads more as a sales slogan in current form than an encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.85.18 (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You have to understand that it isn't in Wikipedia's best interests to defame large organizations. Yes, the article is certainly notably biased, but that's not unique to just PETA. Wikipedia is edited by people, people can have very strong opinions. The goal of controversial pages should be to present all information and straightforward as possible, PETA is no stranger to controversy and a single tweet doesn't change that. 51.37.86.100 (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

In terms of overall emphasis, the article is still very much unbalanced in the direction of criticism of its subject matter--criticism and well-funded misinformation that originates with shadowy industry attack organizations such as the recently renamed Center for Organizational Research and Education. The purpose of a Wikipedia page is to provide information about a subject, not to criticize that subject and repeat misleading information that comes from its enemies.Wilbur777 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019

peta are assholes 2A00:23C4:130C:8D00:287D:CC54:A130:C285 (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tutelary (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

they terrorize animals

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/killing-animals-petas-open-secret_us_59e78243e4b0e60c4aa36711

have freezers full of dead cats but no food to give them, come on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.69.119 (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals#Euthanizing shelter animals seems to contain all that information already. PLease make your requests in the form of "Change x to y". NiciVampireHeart 12:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Why did they lock peta editing

Peta is a hipocritical pile of shit and should be destroyed. They fucked up and should take the consequences Adamadam1718 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Although I agree with the statement that "PeTa" is hypocritical, and as noted above by others that there should be a controversy page, as well as the fact that the entire page seems rather biased. Wikipedia is NOT the place for vandalism, instead its a place for neutral information that's been supported by sources. --Luna Delrey (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by "hypocritical" here. If you are referring to euthanasia, PETA makes its position in support of that under certain defined circumstances very clear. (See: https://www.peta.org/blog/euthanize/.) It is not "hypocritical" to act according to your stated positions. Also, it's obvious why this article needs to be protected when users on a talk page are writing things such as "Peta is a hipocritical [sic] pile of shit and should be destroyed." There is no place for that kind of foul, vehement, unhinged language on Wikipedia (or anywhere, really).Wilbur777 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

User:Wilbur777, you have not engaged in the talk page since April of 2016, when we last butted heads. Regardless, your contributions have issues with following Wikipedia policy. The whole article reads like PETA wrote it itself, and does not follow the npov of view policy, specifically WP:PROPORTION. This article frankly needs a lot of work, and generally over-emphasizes PETA's positions while downplaying and euphemizing the legitimate criticism that PETA has lodged at it. Tutelary (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with your assessment, and I believe it is completely biased and unduly influenced by industry propaganda. The article actually contains a disproportionate amount of criticism for a Wikipedia piece and completely distorts what the organization actually does on a daily basis. There has been a concerted attempt to define this group in negative terms based on issues such as euthanasia without an adequate understanding of the complex underlying issues. The methods of the enemies of groups such as PETA are very similar to those of Russian trolls. What they do is pick a few misleading "memes" and push them as relentlessly as they can (including in unwitting mainstream media) while actively attempting to obscure the big picture. Just for instance: Euthanasia services are a very small part of PETA's work, whereas vegan outreach is a HUGE part. Yet you and other hostile users don't even want the latter to be mentioned, which is ridiculous! And it completely distorts the reality that should be reflected in the contents of this article, which barely even begins to cover what the group actually does. Also, because PETA is radical and challenges conventional practices in our society (such as eating meat), it is very easy for people to be misled, since they aren't (yet) sympathetic and want to avert their eyes from what goes on in slaughterhouses, laboratories, etc., while claiming that those who call attention to such matters are "hypocritical" or otherwise "compromised" (i.e., shoot the messenger). I am hoping you are not malicious or an industry agent and have simply been misled by propaganda, because in that case, you might come around to the side of light.Wilbur777 (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

*breathes in* Excuse me, what? You're completely and totally missing and/or ignoring the point. PETA has come under fire for things they have actually done, not for things "trolls" accuse them of. Yes, the recent Steve Irwin debacle is somewhat notable for the degree of backlash PETA has received, but a more longstanding issue pertains to other things they've done; some of which are actually cited in links found in above discussions on this exact talk page. One of the most notable ones was kidnapping someone's dog, named Maya, seemingly for the sole purpose of euthanizing her. This isn't touching on the whole "PETA has killed 36k animals since '98" controversy most notably cited by PETAkillsanimals.com. Is this actually true? Frankly, I don't have the guts to wade through all the disturbing photographs I'd have to look at to do the necessary research; but you know what? I'm willing to have a discussion about it. I don't like PETA myself, but that's not because of their challenging the meat industry. That's also something I want to see changed. What I take issue with are questionable and hypocritical actions they've taken, and the rather haunting notion that, at some point in my childhood, my dog could have been taken from me and euthanized, and that this could have--and still can--happen to anyone's dog. At least, that's the conclusion I've come to based on the evidence I've seen and heard. I will not, however, pin that on trolls or bots or propaganda or what have you; and if you can prove that PETA hasn't actually done the terrible things they seemingly have done, I'll be downright elated. Until then, it's downright unethical for a website that touts itself as the internet's encyclopedia not to note the very real controversy and criticism surrounding PETA, just as it should note controversy and criticism of groups and people I do like and agree with. Also, who the hell DOESN'T want PETA's veganism campaigns to be mentioned here? That's a big part of what they do, ethical or not. I have no power here, so I can't tell you what to do or say; but I will note that you have an oddly defensive tone of voice here, and as a less-than-active user who has never heard of you before, that makes me question how credible your argument is. Just throwing that out there. --Please stop. (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The tragic incident you mention concerning the dog who was mistakenly euthanized is covered in this article. See the second paragraph of "Legal Proceedings" for details. The person who mistakenly took the dog was a volunteer, not a staff member, and was dismissed. Also, note the circumstances: "The trailer park's manager had contacted PETA after a group of residents moved out, leaving their dogs behind, which is why the workers were on the property." This was a tragic mistake on the part of a volunteer, but it is definitely an incident that trolls have seized upon and pushed in misleading ways to attack the group as a whole. The "PETA Kills" campaign is run and financed by a shadowy industry group that used to be called the Center for Consumer Freedom but now calls itself the Center for Organizational Research and Education. (It changes its name from time to time in order to fly under the radar screen, as it were.) This is exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about. This group is also dedicated to running misleading campaigns against the Humane Society, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, environmental groups, and so on. Here is an article about the group's activities in The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/peta-and-humane-society-attacked-by-reports--but-are-they-real/2012/02/27/gIQAZdR2dR_blog.html?utm_term=.667b13dc2d22. Also, here is a piece about this particular misleading campaign from Generation Progress: https://www.genprogress.org/peta-murders-animals-another-lie-from-the-center-for-consumer-deceptio/. And this is PETA's own statement on euthanasia: https://www.peta.org/blog/euthanize/. So you see, you have been influenced by the kind of propaganda I had mentioned. As to who doesn't want PETA's vegan campaigns to be mentioned, if you look at the history of this page, you will see that a new section on that topic was removed twice by two different users, including the one who started this particular discussion. And this article definitely does contain quite a bit of criticism of the group.Wilbur777 (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Right, couldn't find the bit about Maya because I couldn't find a "controversy" section, and the dog isn't named in the article. Regardless, even if "PETA Kills Animals" is all a hoax, there is no mention of it in the article. It is a real controversy that has affected a lot of peoples' view of PETA, so slander or otherwise, it should be mentioned here. Let us establish that there is controversy and link any articles necessary--I should think PKA may need one, and then we can have information on their history and activities there--and include what has been said about the matter and what data exists. Readers can form their own opinions given that. Also, it's worth noting that, even going on the sources you site, it is true that PETA has killed thousands of animals in the last 20 years. Even the PKA website itself provides a seemingly legitimate government document backing up that data (and if it's fake, it should be pretty easy to get these guys in jail for that sort of thing, right?). Far as I can tell, that's real. Now, is it ethical? That depends on your personal politics, whether you believe PKA's claims from their "PETA's Lame Defense" passage on their "Evidence" page, and whether you think it makes sense that every single one of those animals had to be put down. However, all claims made about the motivations for this euthanization from both parties should be listed in this article: PETA claims it only kills for humanity's sake, and PKA claims that it kills animals that could easily be rehomed. In short: there is data not listed on the page that's very much relevant. The controversy, valid or not, is real, so readers should be made aware of it. They can think for themselves from there. --Please stop. (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Issues

I would like to request that User:Geartooth clarify what specifically on this page should be addressed. The problem with blanket pronouncements about "issues" is that they can be interpreted in various ways. To move forward, we need something concrete to focus on. Could you please provide examples of passages that supposedly read like "advertisements" for this group? And could you please recommend how to establish certain facts without reference to sources such as PETA's extensive website? By my count, of the 231 references on this page, only 14 are to PETA.org pages (i.e., 6%). Is that unusual or problematic? For purposes of comparison, on the page for the Humane Society of the United States, of 271 references, 25 are to its homepage, which is a higher percentage (9%). Several references were added recently by me in a discussion of vegan outreach efforts. I did that because it seemed the best way to substantiate the existence of certain resources and to cover a very important aspect of this group's efforts that had previously been neglected on this page, whereas many topics of lesser importance were and are covered in much more detail. I am open to alternative approaches, as well as to input from users who are interested in constructive improvements to this page. Many thanks.Wilbur777 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll give you a list, in no particular order.

• The WP:LEAD, which is supposed to be an accurate summation of the entire article is composed nearly entirely of positive statements with regards to PETA. In order for it to be NPOV, it should include some criticism of PETA as well. For example, the average 81% euthanasia stat could be put in the lead, and that would start to make it swing towards NPOV, but it remains to be seen on whether or not that would be enough.
• The "undercover work" includes a lot of examples of 'investigations' that PETA has done, but most of them do not have a final conclusion, and sometimes even say that courts have dismissed the charges. Not every investigation that PETA does should be included, only those that meet their WP:DUE burden and have enough coverage in reliable sources.
• The vegan outreach section should be entirely removed, as it's based primarily on WP:PRIMARY sources--and you have edit warred its inclusion despite other users' objections. There is a means to gain WP:CONSENSUS, and no one editor owns the article.
• The video game section should be ultimately removed or cut down considerably.
• The "person of the year" distinction that PETA awards other people remains to be seen whether such an award is notable. I cannot find many reliable sources to attest to this. If it is considered notable, it should be included, but I cannot find sources for it other than from PETA's website itself.
• Under positions, Direct Action and the ALF, this section does not even mention the donation that PETA gave to ALF, even if they claim to have regretted it later. The entire language in this section is too favorable to PETA, and doesn't include core facts such as the donation.
• Under Neutering, euthanasia, backyard dogs, working animals, and pets, entire section should be removed, given its basis on WP:PRIMARY sourcing and engagement of original research.
• Under Autism and dairy products controversy, it should be made quite clear that there is not a link between autism and dairy products, and that PETA is issuing false statements.
• Under Wildlife conservation personalities, there should be mention of the newest Steve Irwin controversy given PETA's tweets.
• You also removed a user's suggestion on how to introduce more NPOV content into the article when you reverted them.

I believe once the above is finished, then we can examine this article having the tags removed. Otherwise, I feel they are appropriate as well. Tutelary (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

My stance is that entire sections are completely relying on primary sources that User:Tutelary had mentioned above, and that oddly there seems to be absolutely no mention of any Controversy aside from ones from 10 years ago. At this point looking at the article's history and User:Wilbur777's actions, I'm feeling a bit of COI going on here. Geartooth ^{The Pony Who Edits} 04:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The article should be cleaned and edited. A lot. Its too long, it has NPOV issues, etc. ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 11:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Some responses:

• The introduction to this article does contain criticism. The first sentence of the third paragraph focuses on controversy, and specific criticisms from Gary Francione and "feminists within the movement" are mentioned. I'm not persuaded that the Francione point deserves this prominence, but it's of interest that the group has been criticized for not being radical enough.
• The euthanasia figure is highly controversial and something that has been pushed relentlessly and in misleading ways by the Center for Organizational Research and Education. If included in the intro, it should have adequate context and perhaps be balanced with spaying and neutering figures.
• The "Undercover work" could be tightened up, but this is a very important part of what the group does on a regular basis and one of the most widely covered in mainstream media.
• I recently assessed the article and determined that "vegan outreach" was the most important topic not given adequate coverage. This is another central focus of the group, so it does not seem right, in terms of emphasis, to omit the topic. (And as another user notes above: "who the hell DOESN'T want PETA's veganism campaigns to be mentioned here? That's a big part of what they do.")
• The section I added was concise and factual. I endeavored to follow this guideline concerning primary sources: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
• If the primary sources are still deemed out of bounds, there should at least be an attempt to replace them with secondary sources instead of simply removing important information about the organization's activities.
• The new section also includes important information sourced to recent articles in Forbes. There are no grounds for removing this, and even if the section is removed for the time being, that passage should be moved elsewhere, such as under "Campaigns and consumer boycotts."
• The sections on video games and "person of the year" do not seem nearly as important and could potentially be whittled down or removed. (I have noticed, though, that the video games have been fairly widely discussed online.)
• The Community Animal Project is another very important part of the group's work. Instead of simply cutting this section, secondary sources should be identified to support at least some of this factual information, especially about spaying and neutering.
• In the dairy and autism section, the block quote seems overly long and to have undue weight.
• Also, footnote 187 to this section cites PETA.org, so this should be removed if other references to that site are removed. The site should not be cherry-picked for purposes of "criticism" if it cannot be cited to substantiate major efforts by this group.
• Under "Wildlife conservation personalities," there is, in fact, a discussion of the recent controversial tweet, and that tweet is cited in full.
• I removed those hidden messages because they weren't signed, used inappropriate language, mentioned unsupported rumors, and did not call for NPOV content but exclusively for "criticism." They seemed part of the recent vandalism of this page and violations of NPOV.
• There is actually a fair bit of discussion of more recent controversies, including euthanasia (which has its own section and is also highlighted under "Profile"), Holocaust analogies (2010), a soft pornography website (which may not actually exist?), shark/fisherman, dentist/lion, the dog who was mistakenly euthanized, the "monkey selfie" lawsuit, the previously mentioned autism link, and the Irwin tweet. And that's in addition to much more.
• I agree that the article could be trimmed. Here are a few additional suggestions: the soft pornography section, the undeveloped mention of a jallikattu ban under "PETA India," and the three paragraphs about Gary Francione at the end.

Wilbur777 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

as an editor who is unrelated to either side of either Peta’s Advocacy or industry lobbyists (I’m a Shanghai based interior architect and occasional contributor) I have looked at the article. I have not assessed it in terms of the content, but in terms of the quality of sources used. While I expected to find a great deal of primary sources used - this does not appear to be the case. Most of it is based on reliable journals. The article does adopt a generally sympathetic tone but this could just be because reliable sources generally come across as being supportive. I did find some main problems with it:

• firstly a lot of the sources are primarily based on secondary coverage and cite the secondary source. However they also often include a cite bundle, which reads: “for PETA’s view see...” or something of that nature. It can be reasonably argued that this is link spam. It’s not contributing a great deal to the context of the article and if it were it would be primary sourced information. This practice should be greatly reduced.

• secondly, some of it definitely is primary sourced.

• thirdly the contents of the article should be reviewed with regard to what their sources are actually about. If an secondary sourced and reliable article is about a botched campaign and happens to mention a part of their manefesto as part of the context of the article, then the source definitely shouldn’t be used to state a part of their manefesto as this would be unduly cherry picking. There’s a bit of that going on in the article to some degree.

in short it’s been well written and sourced by a decidedly sympathetic editor and could do with a more neutral editor checking over it with regard to the actual contents of the sources, but it probably doesn’t need a large scale overhaul. This can only really be done bit by bit, due to the way the material has been abundantly sourced, so it might take some time. To the editors coming to this talk page to decry the woes of the organization, you can probably help by analyzing individual sources rather than pointing fingers and stamping feet. Edaham (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2019

Change the whole article to the truth about how PETA kills all animals it "saves" from homes they were happy and healthy in, another good example might be when they released a bunch of lobsters into fresh water and they died 68.101.170.58 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

To point out the obvious, this is not true.Wilbur777 (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tutelary (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)