Jump to content

Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taylor8282830320 (talk | contribs) at 22:17, 27 September 2023 (→‎Peta is weird: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 26, 2006Peer reviewReviewed

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipedia does not clarify the neutrality of this BS. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do not clarify anything, we repat what RS (youtube is not an RS) say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If there's word "claim" in this article, this isn't RS. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read what wp:rs means. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

A really similar question (RS aside) what do people want us to add? Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan SJWs are big. They have their own biased point of view. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, but PETA-bribed person. Just close already. Stop convincing me. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
We already do. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
agreed Cat-with-the-'tism (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What do you suggest? Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I updated the lede with this. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • UNsure what the last part is all about, but yes PETA seems fine. Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: An Ngrams technicality. Don't worry about it. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
4 letter acronyms are less likely to require disambiguation than 3 letter acronyms. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"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)[reply]

I would disagree, in fact courting controversy is one of its main tactics. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Peta is weird

Peta. Why would you save animals and kill them? It's not okay! Taylor8282830320 (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals&oldid=1177515738"