Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from PETA Asia-Pacific was copied or moved into PETA with this edit on July 30, 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | On 23 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to PETA. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 |
Insulin, POV tag |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Euthanasia
Why is there nothing in the Controversies about Peta's allegedly high rate of euthanasia at shelters, which seems to have been going on for years. Even on its own site it says 'about half' of animals it rescues are euthanized. 2A04:CEC0:1000:8DE4:0:5B:15B3:D401 (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- By the time the Controversies section begins, the controversy over its euthanasia practices has already been covered extensively in the article. So perhaps there's no need to cover it all over again? Perhaps some of the detail covered earlier could be broken out and covered in the Controversies section so that it's at least mentioned there. Largoplazo (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think whatever controversies that PETA has been involved in should be covered exclusively in the Controversies section in order to maintain cohesion. In addition I also feel it would be worth adding a section to Controversies about the time that PETA stole a 9 year old girl's dog and killed it. The case is briefly mentioned in the larger Euthanasia section, but it could use additional focus for it's impact on the public's perception of the organization.
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-for-taking-girls-dog-putting-it-down
- https://time.com/4127919/virginia-family-dog-euthanized-peta/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9tWoFiFX4s ← security camera footage of the crime Cat-with-the-'tism (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not clarify the neutrality of this BS. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- We do not clarify anything, we repat what RS (youtube is not an RS) say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- then isn't that euthanasia RS? mostly true on Snopes. more general article I will put a link here. mostly a cover up Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Read wp:rs, a claim is not an RS, and RS (reliable source) is the source that makes the claim. Nor are we covering anything up. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- So is the killing of a pet chihuahua by PETA RS? No, it's not a claim.
- https://time.com/4127919/virginia-family-dog-euthanized-peta/ Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- If there's word "claim" in this article, this isn't RS. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Read what wp:rs means. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- If there's word "claim" in this article, this isn't RS. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Read wp:rs, a claim is not an RS, and RS (reliable source) is the source that makes the claim. Nor are we covering anything up. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- then isn't that euthanasia RS? mostly true on Snopes. more general article I will put a link here. mostly a cover up Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- We do not clarify anything, we repat what RS (youtube is not an RS) say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not clarify the neutrality of this BS. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- As someone who's expanded a larger portion of the Controversies list, @Largoplazo's right: I was having trouble figuring out where to put the information, as it could also fall into the Positions section. I've tried (since your post) to split the information so PETA's justification is under Positions, but the actual numbers and some info on the chihuahua incident are placed under Controversies. The new problem is that the chihuahua incident also qualifies as falling under Legal Proceedings, so I'm not really sure how best to split the chihuahua information, specifically. Taurterus (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
A really similar question (RS aside) what do people want us to add? Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Vegan SJWs are big. They have their own biased point of view. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Vegan does not even appear in the source, so do you have any RS that says that this case has anything to do with Vegans? Otherwise, it will fail wp:v, so we can't add that line (and read wp:or). Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, but PETA-bribed person. Just close already. Stop convincing me. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- So unless anyone can actually suggest an edit they wish to be made backed by RS this looks like a violation of wp:forum and should be closed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- I dont know what Lellyhatesanimals is on about, but I think the ideas discussed earlier on in this thread should be implemented by the proper authorities. Cat-with-the-'tism (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- We already do. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Can we please just agree that this article needs more coverage of the horrible stuff PETA has done? Meowo45 (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- We already do. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I dont know what Lellyhatesanimals is on about, but I think the ideas discussed earlier on in this thread should be implemented by the proper authorities. Cat-with-the-'tism (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Vegan does not even appear in the source, so do you have any RS that says that this case has anything to do with Vegans? Otherwise, it will fail wp:v, so we can't add that line (and read wp:or). Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-neutral lead
I've added a POV tag on the article's lead because it fails to mention any of the organization's gross controversies or the allegations of counterproductive measures such as the mass application of euthanasia. If added they should be complemented with achievements of the organization. I am not aware of any myself. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- What do you suggest? Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am not knowledgable on the organization, though I still believe its wide criticism should be included somehow in the lead. Regular editors on this article will probably be able to come off with better suggestions. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- I updated the lede with this. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am not knowledgable on the organization, though I still believe its wide criticism should be included somehow in the lead. Regular editors on this article will probably be able to come off with better suggestions. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 23 July 2023
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 19:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals → PETA – Per WP:COMMONNAME as shown in this Ngram ("People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" is too long for Ngrams, so, when broken down into "People for the Ethical Treatment" and "Ethical Treatment of Animals", the two segments coincide with each other, confirming they're part of the same phrase). It's already a primary redirect. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- UNsure what the last part is all about, but yes PETA seems fine. Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: An Ngrams technicality. Don't worry about it. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment You can't go by that Ngram. For example, I clicked the button to see Google Books results for 2018–2019. The first ten results are:
- Being Peta: Living with Leukaemia
- Joe Peta's Tour Guide Presents a 2019 Masters Preview
- Peta, a Magic Cat
- Advanced Software Technologies for Post-Peta Scale Computing``
- a book by Peta Carlin
- a book by Peta Stapleton
- a book by Peta Dunstan
- a book by Peta Mathias
- a book by Peta-Gay McClure
- a book by Peta Credlin
- An important consideration is whether there are references to this organization as PETA that appear without having, at some point, used the full name. Largoplazo (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Largoplazo: Sources mentioning PETA solely by acronym are legion. Here are some:
- I think this validates the Ngram well enough. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Largoplazo: Also note: Ngrams are case-sensitive, book searches aren't. That's why you got false positives. Ngrams doesn't count them. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Let's walk through the steps. Recognizability: both names are recognizable. Naturalness: people are used to the short form. Precision: The short form potentially conflicts with a lot of other topics even though it's currently an active redirect. Concision: the shorter title is more concise, but also less precise. Consistency: Most organisations aren't known by their acronym, but some are (NASA, UNICEF). At the end of the day, you can make arguments for both titles - I simply prefer the official one. SportingFlyer T·C 15:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. The second issue that needs to be considered regards WP:AT § Avoid ambiguous abbreviations and MOS:ACROTITLE, which state that they should only be used in a page name
if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject
(as cited in the latter guideline, that is why NASA is where it is now, but CIA remains a primary redirect to Central Intelligence Agency). Regardless of any search engine test so far because of a WP:RECENTISM bias, the case was not made in the previous RM in 2014, and I am still not currently convinced. We still have topics listed on the Peta dab page that also use the "PETA" abbreviation or acronym. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC) - Support. Subject is clear WP:PTOPIC for the PETA acronym and is its WP:COMMONNAME. C.f. FBI and CIA which are 3 letter acronyms and thus necessarily less unique by an order of magnitude. WPscatter t/c 17:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Zzyzx11. My reasons from the 2014 RM still reflect my thinking now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per stated reasons above. Unless an acronym has near-universal use, the expanded name should be used as the title. -- Netoholic @ 19:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support per argument. —theMainLogan (t•c) 09:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Slight Oppose: While there are sources that do use PETA exclusively, there are also some that use both:
- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/16/world/asia/hellofresh-thai-coconut-milk-monkeys.html
- https://apnews.com/article/c80d207bd7574db492d090d5b5ebba11
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2023/03/29/elephant-rides-cruelty-tourism/
- https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2023-07-18/gladiator-2-peta-letter-animals-ridley-scott-pedro-pascal
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2023/07/21/pork-smithfield-exports-clenbuterol/
- https://apnews.com/article/science-business-pennsylvania-animal-cruelty-people-for-the-ethical-treatment-of-animals-215ad0a211f604aaf4528836f9676c2c
- If pressed to decide, I would say we should favor it being concise and in line with official use. — Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support. It is in the same class as NASA, NATO, OPEC, YMCA, UNICEF,
FBI, and CIAin terms of being known by its acronym. WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY all support this move. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Both FBI and CIA are redirects. Both have the full name as the article title. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 15:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- So they are. My mistake. I think those should probably be moved as well. But there are still plenty of other examples of organizations that use acronyms as the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- There isn't much ambiguity with most of those. PETA does, especially since it's also a name. However, I still think the strongest argument so far is that many sources still opt to spell out the entire name, which is how the organization seemingly prefers it. It seems common to spell out the name, "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" and then refer to it as PETA from then onwards. Other articles may have the acronym as the title, but their having it does not necessarily mean all articles need to follow it, since this is something that we have to discuss on a case by case basis. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Spelling out acronyms in full is the usual, expected norm. The existence of article without the full name is the unusual part that proves the acronym's popularity. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- There isn't much ambiguity with most of those. PETA does, especially since it's also a name. However, I still think the strongest argument so far is that many sources still opt to spell out the entire name, which is how the organization seemingly prefers it. It seems common to spell out the name, "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" and then refer to it as PETA from then onwards. Other articles may have the acronym as the title, but their having it does not necessarily mean all articles need to follow it, since this is something that we have to discuss on a case by case basis. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- So they are. My mistake. I think those should probably be moved as well. But there are still plenty of other examples of organizations that use acronyms as the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Both the FBI and CIA are three-letter acronyms, while both NASA and PETA are four-lettered. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- JTTF is four letters. JTTF redirects to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces page. Is there a policy or something that establishes a letter amount as reasoning for name changes? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 15:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- 4 letter acronyms are less likely to require disambiguation than 3 letter acronyms. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe. Aside from the JTTF, there is Defense Threat Reduction Agency, General Data Protection Regulation, Dynamic random-access memory (The RAM article also spells out the full name, and Drug Abuse Resistance Education. I wouldn't say there is a strong precedent, however, that convinces me we should apply this to PETA, which is also an actual name. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- 4 letter acronyms are less likely to require disambiguation than 3 letter acronyms. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- JTTF is four letters. JTTF redirects to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces page. Is there a policy or something that establishes a letter amount as reasoning for name changes? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 15:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Both FBI and CIA are redirects. Both have the full name as the article title. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 15:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
"Controversial" in lead sentence
I've removed "controversial" from the first sentence of the article twice, and User:Ltbdl has twice restored it.
My reason for removing it is that, while it's true, it isn't a primary, defining characterization of the organization. It isn't notable for being controversial. Ltbdl's reply on the second reversion was honestly, how does it *not* define it? and bonus: whenever someone edits this article they are alerted to this being a controversial topic
.
It doesn't define it insofar as, as I noted in my first edit summary, the controversy around it is ... not what defines it or the reason it's a notable subject
. Further, many, many subjects are controversial. Imagine opening sentences like "Facebook is a controvesial online social media and social networking service ..." or, at Sinéad O'Connor, "Sinéad Marie Bernadette O'Connor (8 December 1966 – 26 July 2023) was a controversial Irish singer, songwriter, and activist ...". These subjects are associated with controversy, but being controversial isn't what they are. PETA is no different, and it isn't an article's job to alert anybody to anything. We don't do trigger warnings. It seemes to me a WP:NPOV problem, expressing a value judgement.
What do others think about this? Largoplazo (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would disagree, in fact courting controversy is one of its main tactics. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
the controversy around it is ... not what defines it or the reason it's a notable subject
- well, that's where we disagree. ltbdl (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think that it is controversial, and that it seeks controversy in a way that is a defining characteristic, and that these things are well supported by sources. That said, looking at recent edits, the word "controversial" is rather clumsy in the lead sentence, and I'd prefer to say it in a subsequent sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Peta is weird
Peta. Why would you save animals and kill them? It's not okay! Taylor8282830320 (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class organization articles
- High-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- B-Class Virginia articles
- Mid-importance Virginia articles
- WikiProject Virginia articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Animal rights articles
- Top-importance Animal rights articles
- WikiProject Animal rights articles
- B-Class Veganism and Vegetarianism articles
- High-importance Veganism and Vegetarianism articles
- WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism articles