Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Some interesting studies

http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html#1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.52.221 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That web site does not appear to be a reliable source. The specific article you cited is also really dated - 2002. If there are good sources for the information you want to post, find those. However, it might be more appropriate on the vegetarianism page, than the PETA page. Bob98133 (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

PetaKillsAnimals.com

It's a website, that has viable information that in fact says they are hypocrites. Maybe this should be included? or Someone should make it's own article?

Yeyosmoka21

Sounds very neutral. Why don't you go start up the article? Not a bad idea. Turtlescrubber 02:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You know I was just kidding, right? :)Turtlescrubber 20:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha! If had been drinking coffee, my keyboard would now be soaked. Neutral?? It is a site ran by the Center for Consumer Freedom!!

The entire site focuses on the fact that PETA supports euthanasia, and indeed puts many animals down. With the many hundreds of thousands of domestic animals that are poorly homed, living wild, homed but not taken care of properly due to lack of money, lack of time, or just not knowing any better, it isn't surprising that they put animals down.

Also, the site edges on libel with titles such as 'PETA Leader Wants to Blow Stuff Up' and 'PETA Supports Arson. Do You?'. If you wish to discuss this site, I would do so on the CCF page, as an individual article would, I am 99% certain, be deleted.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but PETA isn't exactly blameless with campaigns like "Your Daddy Kills Animals" and "Your Mommy Kills Animals". Talk about libelous.--Ramdrake 14:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That isn't libelling anyone, it is an exaggeration of the truth. Saying 'PETA Leader Wants to Blow Stuff up' is libel, unless she specifically has said that she wants to blow stuff up. It is aimed at an individual. And 'PETA supports arson' is also libel as it is aimed at an organisation without any real evidence to support it. Put it this way, if I said 'Ramdrake wants to blow stuff up' without proper reasoning and referencing (and by this I mean something more than making sweeping claims by taking speeches or comments out of context), that would be libel.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if "Daddy" doesn't hunt, or fish, or do any of this stuff, that's not an exaggeration, it's downright false. Then, it would be libel, or slander (not sure which is more appropriate). I'm not arguing the merits of a libel cause; I'm just saying that some of PETA's actions use the same tactics that coming from others, would be qualified as libel or slander.--Ramdrake 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a targetted campaign as it doesn't cover a specific individual - who is 'Daddy'? Also, there is sufficient evidence to say that most 'daddy's' do kill animals, by supporting the various animal killing industries that exist (meat, medicine, donating to cancer research companies, cosmetics etc...). So, as I said, it is an exaggeration. Also, libel relates to a published item, slander is spoken. PETA's behaviour, whilst sometimes a bit below the belt, does not constitute libel - else they would be sued six ways from Sunday. Suing the CCF for libel would be pointless the CCF has far more funds available than PETA, and as such the battle would damage PETA more than leaving it be.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not arguing that it is true libel in the legal sense. However, if you mean to say that I'm a killer because I eat meat, or support medical research done on animals in cases where there is clearly no alternative then again it is gross exaggeration and misrepresentation, as I have never directly killed an animal. I just wanted to stress that the tactics behind such headlines as "PETA supports arson" or "PETA kills animals" are basically pretty much the same as those that led PETA to headline "You Daddy Kills Animals", regardless of whether or not they fall in the same legally actionable category of declarations, which they don't. I hope I cleared up any misunderstanding there.--Ramdrake 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't make that arbitrary decision though. Whilst the tactics are similar, we are discussing whether the site deserves an article on Wikipedia and that should come down to verifiability, neutrality, how well known the site is and the legality of the content. I would say that it fails all 4 of those.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The site is no more unfair than PETA. 75.2.218.106 17:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. PETA is certainly just as far, if not farther, from center than CCF. If you state that the CCF lacks enough credibility to include any mention of it in this article, then maybe we should mention in the article that PETA's statements and statistics can't be taken seriously either because they also lack a lot of credibility. - Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

im sorry but did you just say that by taking medicine i am killing animals. shit i better stop taking my insulin shots.Grinchsmate (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite right. Most insulin these days is manufactured without using animals so you can take double doses!Bob98133 (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

oh good. i was worried that by being alive i may have been hurting poor wittle bunny wabbits. seriously do you have any idea how absolutly stupid peta is, i mean its worse than scientology. i would understand if it was just a big joke by the organisers to make a little cash but as far as i can tell they are seriousGrinchsmate (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, PLEASE include the link to petakillsanimals.com!! There is an anti-PETA court trial going on (since 2007), and if an organization decides to go the juridical way, it should be mentioned! -andy 78.51.75.153 (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not a reliable source in any way shape or form, so should not be included. It would violate WP:V, WP:RS and WP:EL.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think petakillsanimals should at least be mentioned as a notable critic of PETA. They have a billboard in Times Square. Also, their website has documented criticism of PETA which could possibly be added to this article by checking their sources directly and then citing them. 24.114.252.234 (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Localuzk, we can talk about whether adding petakillsanimals would violate WP:V or WP:RS, but it seems silly to say it would violate WP:EL. They are a notable critic of PETA who have a billboard in Times Square. The fact that you made this argument frankly makes me wonder how intellectually honest you can be about an issue you feel strongly about. Personally I just found out about petakillsanimals and I find them interesting. I don't consider myself for or against PETA, although I against their position that all animal testing is bad. 24.114.252.234 (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

While CCF attempts to makes those who attack its clients look bad, they only reproduce and reprint information obtained from other sources with their POV slant. All of the information about PETA on petakillsanimals is available on legitimate websites, without the innuendoes, speculation and POV promoted by CCF. (For example, statistics about all the shelter deaths refered to by the site's title are available from the state of Virginia.) Please try to remember that this organization was paid for and set up by Philip Morris tobacco to deflect anti-tobacco lawsuits and decreasing tobacco use[www.consumerdeception.com]. They have continued with this agenda which now encompasses unions, fast food, meat, alcohol use, pay-day loans, etc., or any other industry willing to pay for attacks on its detractors. If an editor wants to post information obtained at a CCF website, such as petakillsanimals, it would have to be cited to the orignal source, since it is hard to tell what spin CCF has put on the information or who has paid them to do so.Bob98133 (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

POV

This "article" (or perhaps PETA PR Press Release) is incredibly POV. Is this a Wikipedia bias? Or do the PETA Nazis patrol this article and delete any content that doesn't fit their POV? There isn't even a "Criticism" section even though honest people know that it exists... I'm going to put a POV tag on the article, please do not start a revert war, I don't want to have to file an arbitration complaint.

It has been suggested above that a "Criticism" section attracts vandalism. Well those are the breaks for having an article that does not risk being accused of POV, of glossing over "Criticism", an article that avoids the reality that "Criticism" exists.

The fact is "Criticism" does exist, and an unbiased article doesn't try to hide it withing a body of POV PR-style writing. This whole article comes off as no more than an extension of the PETA web site or much of their promotional material. I'm not against PETA, but this whole article is so obviously POV.

Proxy User (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is every few paragraphs in the article (starting in the lead), with topics including them euthanizing animals, to giving money to arsonists, to minimizing The Holocaust... a far cry for a PR sheet. Maybe it's true that POV pushers prefer a vandalism (I mean, Criticism) section, in the same way that other POV pushers want a different vandalism (I mean Praise) section, but on one article on my watchlist, this devolved into no less than 6 sections, Including "Criticism", "Responses to Criticism", "Rebuttals to Responses of Criticism", "Praise", "Responses to Praise", "Rebuttals to Responses of Praise", (and so on) and generally made the article unreadable in the end. In addition, it makes the article *less* readable in some ways, because a praise/criticism section is then possibly taken totally out of context. Perhaps, if there are praises/criticisms that you aren't seeing in the article, you could find sources and add them in? Ronabop (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that those who want a "Criticism" are all "vandals"? Or is it that an organized "Criticism" section tends to have more impact on readers than having it all spread out, and that fits your POV? It is almost a standard format for Wikipedia articles where there is "Criticism" that is has its own section. Why should this article be different unless you wish to sweep "Criticism" under the rug (so to speak), and make it appear as though there is no "Criticism"? The current format without a "Criticism" section is not only out of sinc with other Wikipedia articles, it is devicive, or has the appearance of deviciveness. That some may abuse a "Criticism" sections does not mean there should not be one. Regardless of the glaring lack of a "Criticism" section, the article as it is is wildly POV Proxy User (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not equating those who contribute to "Criticism" with vandals, or "Praises" with vandals, but that those sections tend to get slammed by vandals. Or is it that an organized "Criticism" section tends to have more impact on readers than having it all spread out, and that fits your POV. Yes, my general editor POV is that we should not organize articles to support a Criticism section, or a Praise section. We are not a dumping ground for opinions, blogs, and editorials. It is almost a standard format for Wikipedia articles where there is "Criticism" that is has its own section --nope. Actually, for many of the more contentious articles, we don't. Intelligent_Design, God, Abortion, The Holocaust, Adolf_Hitler,Jews, Republican_Party_(United_States), Jesus etc., we don't. Current social critique ranks a few levels lower in WP than cited historians, and scholarly study. When that level of critique and study has passed muster, sure, we add in sections and articles like (to address one topic) Historicity_of_Jesus, Jesus-myth_hypothesis, Life-death-rebirth_deity, but adding a sub-section to the Jesus article like Jesus:Criticism? Not Gonna Happen, unless the content is scholarly, substantial, reliable, and informative. Now, seeing those articles as templates, there might be hope for a Controversy about PETA sub-article, but only if such an article merited its own space, because it was overloading the main PETA article. For that to happen, such an article would have to be not about criticism, but the controversy over the criticism. Anyways... if you have sources not in the article, new topics to introduce, new sources which might overload the article, to where it needed it's own article, that's one thing, but to demand an article to be re-structured is another. Ronabop (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is merit for a "Controversy about PETA" article that could draw this topic away from the main article. But that supports my idea that most controversy should be isolated in a section and not spread out over the whole article (as if to disperse it in a POV way, to minimize). Thus, this section becomes an article. I don't care if policing is an issue because of vandals, that's irrelevant to how the article should be formed. There is "Criticism". The "Criticism" is fairly well defined. Such well defined substance should have a section. Without a "Criticism" section, the article is clearly POV. This is not in alignment with Wikipedia theology of unbiased critique. Proxy User (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really contributing with this comment here, but it is really amazing how people don't recognize their own POV. I guess an article on PETA would draw an emotional response, but still, please try and recognize "PETA is evil" is not a NPOV comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.223.249 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is sometimes hard to recognize what is POV, but can you please explain how "PETA is evil" is NPOV? Who exactly decides what organizations are evil? And how evil do they have to be to be called evil and have it not be POV? What if those making the accusation are equally evil? Maybe if they're both evil it cancels out? I appreciate that you realize that you weren't really contributing with your comment. If you have something else not to contribute, please do so.Bob98133 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Bob, you owe the anon above an apology. Before you ask people not to contribute to the project, make sure your own reading comprehension is up to snuff. Reread the anon comment above and then see how much of an ass you made out of yourself. 96.231.105.2 (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bob, I've noticed you make another strange comment like this about "patent nonsense". It would be better to read comments more carefully before responding to them. 137.122.200.15 (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not me. Thank you very much for pointing this out so I can improve. Bob98133 (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

PETA and Euthanasia

I have a Newsweek ref [1].

I believe it to be a relevant item. Is there any objections? --WikiCats (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What did you want to do with it? Most of the information in it is incorporated into the article already, I think. It's a fine reference if there is material you want to add that isn't in the article. Please use the direct link to Newsweek, though, and not one through some forum.Bob98133 (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be strong objection to a reliable source. --WikiCats (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The objection isn't to the source. It's that the information is already in the article. Djk3 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WPFood

This article was mistakenly tagged because it has the Poultry Farming category attached to it. Could some one please locate the source and delete it. Sorry about the error. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New outrage

Just heard on Bill O' Reilly's show tonight that PETA is encouraging, as HE put it, "encouraging YOUR kids to have SEX". It's on his show, which is on FOX News right now.65.173.104.138 (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bill just DID indicate that they're a bunch of nuts. Both FOX News and Bill O' Rielly would have this on their websites real shortly. 65.173.104.138 (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, not a news source, so while his opinion may be interesting, it is of no value as a source. If PETA has a new "outrage" I'm sure it's featured prominently on the PETA web page - I just looked and it is - so there is no reason to place any value on O'Reilly's opinion when the original source is readily available. If there is referenced material from a responsible individual or organization working on the issues of teen sex or pet overpopulation, their opinions might be reasonable to include in the article, but otherwise O'Reilly's opinions are best suited for inclusion on his wiki page. Bob98133 (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Feminists

Man, the section about the feminists cracks me up. Pure comedy gold. They never fail.

Kudos to you, wiki guys. How you are able to write about MacKinnon and her cirus without bursting out in laughter... great work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.151.80 (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "NewkirkFree" :
  • [[Ingrid Newkirk|Newkirk, Ingrid]]. ''Free the Animals''. Lantern Books, 2000. ISBN 1-930051-22-0
  • Newkirk, Ingrid. ''Free the Animals''. Lantern, 2000.
• "about" :
  • [http://www.peta.org/about/ "About Peta"], retrieved July 10, 2006.
  • [http://www.peta.org/about About PETA]
• "Sideris" :
  • Sideris, Lisa et al. [http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/40_1/40_1Roots.shtml "Roots of Concern with Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Ethics"], Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, ILAR Journal V40(1) 1999.
  • Sideris, Lisa; McCarthy, Charles & Smith, David H. [http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/40_1/40_1Roots.shtml "Roots of Concern with Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Ethics"], ''Bioethics of Laboratory Animal Research'', Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR) Journal V40 (1) 1999.

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hunting Cultures (someone erased this the first time I posted it. you know who you are. do not do it again)

I have never been able to find any information on how PETA views cultures (past and present) who depend upon hunting and fishing to survive. To say that such activities are wrong is basically an outright insult to many people in the world today who would DIE if they could not eat animals. In particular are many inuit groups in alaska and canada, who's enviroment is not capable of sustaining any significant variety of wild or cultivated plants (that humans have been living in such enviroments for so long is proof that vegetarianism is not necessarily as natural as some think it is). Also are groups such as the "primitive" tribes still surviving in parts of South America, Africa, and Australia, who simply do not wish to have anything to do with westerners ways of life. Come to think of it, without modern agricultural technology, complete vegetarianism would be almost impossible in most of the earth. How does PETA view people who either don't have access to, or don't wish to utilise technology that would allow them to be vegetarians? I think they forget that a good portion of the world's hunters and fishers are not "sportsmen". Similarly, the fur industry is not the same thing as a man wearing fur or leather from an animal he killed himself and also ate. What would a PETA activist say to an indian on a reservation who is wearing a buckskin coat he made himself? would he say "shame on you for being self-reliant and for not jumping on the industrial band wagon of buying commercial cotton clothing!"? Most PETA acivists are too busy anthropomorphizing animals to take these things into consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.204.22 (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the history of this talk page, you will see that the editor who removed this section gave you a valid reason why it was deleted. Talk page guidelines state: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Your addition doesn't meet any of the "How to use article talk pages" suggestions, so it was appropriately removed. Leena (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that the article does not mention this perspective at all. I did not make this clear in my post. sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.157.99.142 (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Newkirk quote on AIDS needs a reliable source

I added a Citequote tag to the quote attributed to Ingrid Newkirk in the Position on animal testing section, which Ramdrake removed. This quote is inflammatory enough that it needs a more neutral source than the one provided, which is a press release from an organization with an openly stated agenda against PETA ("Patient Advocates Against PETA") and does not mention when or where Newkirk is supposed to have said it. Ramdrake says this is "a known quote, reported by a news agency." If so, please add that citation. Until then, I have put the tag back. Epistaxis (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are some links you can peruse: [2] [3][4]

The quote seems to come from the September 1989 issue of Vogue where Ingrid Newkirk was interviewed.[5]. Hope that settles it.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find that quote mentioned anywhere in your first two links, but some Googling turned up several other secondary sources that refer to an article in the same issue of Vogue cited in your third link. I replaced the citation with one that seems slightly more reliable, and filled in the rest of the verbatim quote from there. I suppose it would be ideal if someone could track down page 542 of the September 1989 issue of Vogue and double-check, so we could just cite that directly, but this is a big improvement. Epistaxis (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Penn & Teller as a source

"My concern using Penn & Teller for a reference for anything is that it really leaves the door open to Jay Leno's monologue to become criticism. This same material is pretty well covered and referenced in the Philosophy and activism section. I'm not questioning that it is true, just that there surely must be better examples to use."

Penn & Teller is the source that came to mind, for me, since they're the ones who are most famous for bringing it up; not necessarily because they are the best source. -- LightSpectra (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, LightSpectra, but based on this, I guess that Pamela Anderson would be a good source for info about factory farming, KFC or fur, since she documents her statements and is far better known than Penn & Teller. Bob98133 (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

HAHA PWNED !!!

Sure, provided that (a) it's culturally relevant to the article, and (b) you specifically note that it's Anderson bringing it up. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Error

Link number 9 does not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.118.105 (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I searched the source site and didn't find the article there. I would like to propose a replacement of that link, with a more appropriate and timely one from Newsweek. Any objections to this? Leena (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed as above. Leena (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the criticism?

You can not tell me that for a activist group that is criticized repeatedly by hundreds of organizations and government officials, that the criticism section is only one paragraph long. Right now the artical smacks of a PR piece on the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.254.246 (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

First, look at the other sections on the page (instead of only the criticism section). You'll see that disputes and criticism are sprinkled throughout the entire article where appropriate. Second, look at the long list of archived talk pages. You'll see that many people have accused this article of being either "too positive" or "too negative", the difference is usually their own opinion about the org. The article is/has been edited by hundreds of people who are well-aware of PETA talking-points and PETA critics. The article is quite balanced, despite partisan editors from both sides. Do you have any new criticism to add to the article? Leena (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing "Criticism" Details?

The last time I saw this page it had a very large Criticism section. One of the topics included Peta's disposal of cats in dumpsters. Was this topic removed, or was this added to the body of the article?

• NOTE

The Criticism section had a picture of the dead cats.

Thanks!, L337*P4wn 04:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This article hasn't had a criticism section for a long time — from well before the dumpster incident, as I recall — because they're not recommended. Positive and negative aspects of a person or group should be woven throughout the narrative, wherever possible, for the sake of balance. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 07:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK! Thank you!

-L337*P4wn 19:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Letter to Ben and Jerry

Letter shoud be added..!!

WATERBURY, Vt. -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent a letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, cofounders of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., urging them to replace cow's milk they use in their ice cream products with human breast milk, according to a statement recently released by a PETA spokeswoman.

"PETA's request comes in the wake of news reports that a Swiss restaurant owner will begin purchasing breast milk from nursing mothers and substituting breast milk for 75 percent of the cow's milk in the food he serves," the statement says.

PETA officials say a move to human breast milk would lessen the suffering of dairy cows and their babies on factory farms and benefit human health.

"The fact that human adults consume huge quantities of dairy products made from milk that was meant for a baby cow just doesn't make sense," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "Everyone knows that 'the breast is best,' so Ben & Jerry's could do consumers and cows a big favor by making the switch to breast milk."

"We applaud PETA's novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother's milk is best used for her child," said a spokesperson for Ben and Jerry's.

Read PETA's letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield

“ September 23, 2008

Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, Cofounders

Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc.

Dear Mr. Cohen and Mr. Greenfield,

On behalf of PETA and our more than 2 million members and supporters, I'd like to bring your attention to an innovative new idea from Switzerland that would bring a unique twist to Ben and Jerry's.

Storchen restaurant is set to unveil a menu that includes soups, stews, and sauces made with at least 75 percent breast milk procured from human donors who are paid in exchange for their milk. If Ben and Jerry's replaced the cow's milk in its ice cream with breast milk, your customers-and cows-would reap the benefits.

Using cow's milk for your ice cream is a hazard to your customer's health. Dairy products have been linked to juvenile diabetes, allergies, constipation, obesity, and prostate and ovarian cancer. The late Dr. Benjamin Spock, America's leading authority on child care, spoke out against feeding cow's milk to children, saying it may play a role in anemia, allergies, and juvenile diabetes and in the long term, will set kids up for obesity and heart disease-America's number one cause of death.

Animals will also benefit from the switch to breast milk. Like all mammals, cows only produce milk during and after pregnancy, so to be able to constantly milk them, cows are forcefully impregnated every nine months. After several years of living in filthy conditions and being forced to produce 10 times more milk than they would naturally, their exhausted bodies are turned into hamburgers or ground up for soup.

And of course, the veal industry could not survive without the dairy industry. Because male calves can't produce milk, dairy farmers take them from their mothers immediately after birth and sell them to veal farms, where they endure 14 to17 weeks of torment chained inside a crate so small that they can't even turn around.

The breast is best! Won't you give cows and their babies a break and our health a boost by switching from cow's milk to breast milk in Ben and Jerry's ice cream? Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Tracy Reiman

Executive Vice President

”

No need for the letter to be reproduced either in the article or the talk page (that's what hyperlinks are for). This could be mentioned in a sentence or two under Dairy campaigns if it was properly referenced.Bob98133 (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Properly Referenced: http://www.wptz.com/news/17539127/detail.html . I would write it in myself, but I can't get over the irony in the letter. The letter states that all mammals only produce milk while pregnant/shortly afterwards, and that cow's "exhausted bodies are turned into hamburgers or ground up for soup." Thus, isn't it suggesting that instead of impregnating cows, we impregnate women for the same purpose? I would not make any citations of this article from a NPOV. Mjf3719 (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't think that the letter is a sincere suggestion. Djk3 (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a short note with ref to the Dairy Campaign section. Whether it is sincere or NPOV, it is just another part of a PETA campaign, so I put that "PETA claims" and also put B&J's reply. I don't think Mjf's conclusion that PETA thinks women should be impregnated for this has much basis, unless PETA said that somewhere. Bob98133 (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it has no basis - just an observation on my part. I do not intend that my comments are actually what they meant. Thanks Bob.Mjf3719 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• sarcastically* Oh I would jump at the chance to eat ice cream made from human breastmilk :)....

"Links to direct action"

Wikipedia policy is that articles require a neutral point of view. Trying to downplay the fact that it is in fact eco-terrorism is pretty clearly apologetic towards PETA. Besides, links to "direct action"? That doesn't even make sense. -- LightSpectra (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That material has already been integrated into the Support for direct action section which has existed for some time. I do not believe that there is documentation to show that PETA supports ecoterrorism although they are frequently accused of it. Bob98133 (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what you believe. The section should appropriately be titled, "Links to Terrorism", as the section is about how PETA is accused of supporting terrorists financially (such as Rod Coronado). What you're saying is that we should be easy on PETA because of whatever reason, but that's a direct violation of the NPOV policy. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Never mind beliefs. Show me the references that PETA supports ecoterorism.Bob98133 (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Check the section in question. PETA has donated several thousand dollars to ecoterrorists like Coronado. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No one is being "easy" on PETA, there is plenty of negative content in the article. Being so eager to have more of it isn't exactly in line with NPOV either. Even Rod Coronado's article doesn't label him a terrorist and as you know, it's best to avoid those kind of terms (see WP:TERRORIST). Leena (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article doesn't list Coronado as a terrorist, it most certainly should. As I understand it, the terms are only to be avoided when they're used somewhat ambiguously; however, in this case, we're speaking of accusations of terrorism, so you're removing the words from other peoples' mouthes. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The accusations, including quotes with the word "terror" in them, are already in the article. Leena (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And the section should be called "links to terrorism" since that's what the accusation is about. "Links to direct action" sounds like some politically correct jargon you'd find in a kid's almanac. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You have read direct action, right? The term is not something PETA (or any of the editors here) made up. What you're trying to do with the article is very clearly biased. I hope you'll reconsider. Leena (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

LightSpectra, I care as much about your opinion as you do about my beliefs. Please cite references for your intended changes. This is the second time I've asked for references which you've failed to supply.Bob98133 (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I already told you, the references are already in the section. Sources #35-40. -- LightSpectra (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I was asking for references for what you are suggesting, not existing references for the article. The existing references were supplied by editors interested in a balanced article, not ones with any agenda, so I wonder why all of them felt OK with the existing text, but you are unable to understand their reasoning. Citing a list of references instead of references to support your point is not at all useful. Please cite individual references, with page numbers or quotations from reliable sources to support your ill-advised changes. I'm also sorry, but I don't recall you mentioning any numbered references before, but since Wiki isn't a restaurant take-out menu, you'll have to do better than a list of numbers. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You've already decided that my recommended change is some kind of fanatical ridiculousness, so I don't see the point of debating anymore. The accusations that PETA have fiscally supported eco-terrorists are well-sourced within the article, and only a deluded man would deny it. I'm merely saying the section header should be altered to reflect that: since the section is about PETA's links to terrorists such as Rod Coronado and the ALF, the heading should appropriately be called "links to terrorism". You have provided nothing to suggest that this is a flawed train of thought, other than by what I must assume is playing dumb. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference 35 - Ingrid Newkirk discussing slaves in the US South. So this reference has nothing to do with your alleged point.

Reference 36 - In the US, everyone is entitled to a legal defence, a person is presumed not guilty until proven otherwise. It is not a crime to support one's legal rights to a defence, even if the person is later convicted. An unpaid loan just means that it was improperly secured, it doesn't indicate support for the borrower.

Reference 37 - PETA alleged to have donated money to a 501(C)3, one of whose directors is linked to ALF. Sorry, the donation would have to be confirmed and it would have to be shown that the donation to the group was specifically to support the illegal activities of Vlasak, who has never been charged with terrorism.

Reference 38 - Again, donating money to a support fund for legal defence is not a criminal or terrorist act. The text says the money was given prior to any terrorist related charges being filed against Harper. I gave money for Nixon's re-election - does that mean I'm linked to Watergate as a supporter?

Reference 39 - explained, entire transaction took place prior to terror label for organization

Refernce 40 - again, an alleged donation for what sounds like legal defence

This is specifically why I asked for references to support your point of view. The references you gave do NOT support your view that there is a PETA link to terrorism. Therefore your flawed train of thought is totally derailed. You keep saying things are well-sourced, but when challenged to produce a source you come up with sources that do not support your argument. No wonder you're done debating, you weren't doing very well at it. Bob98133 (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference #35: The founder of PETA claiming that "no movement for social change has ever succeeded without 'the militarism component'"; about the Animal Liberation Front, she writes: "Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out." This is taken straight from the article. Right there, she is claiming that an eco-terrorist organization is, more or less, 'doing what they must'.

The other references: As I said, we're talking about accusations of supporting terrorism. I'm not particularly interested in your charming rebuttals. The fact that PETA is attacked for supporting a terrorist organization is very significant to the article, and thus the subheader should appropriately be "connections to terrorism". This does not infallibly mean that it's true, obviously, but that's what the subheading is about. -- LightSpectra (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So now you're saying "accusations" of, or "connections" to terrorism. Earlier you were arguing for Links to Terrorism. Your interpretation of Ref #35 is OR. The article clearly states that PETA is attacked for various reasons - that doesn't make the reasons true simply because there has been an attack. Frequently, details of the attack are referenced leaving the reader to review the reference and decide for himself. Since the existing references do not support your position, please supply references which do, my third request.

If I understand you correctly, there is no need for a subhead to be "true"? Why don't we compromise then, and call this section Tap Dancing on the Moon? Bob98133 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

One, what's the difference between "links" and "connections" with terrorism? Two, your replies show that you're still misunderstanding what I propose. The section is about how PETA is accused of being connected with eco-terrorist organizations, or in other words, the section is about "links to terrorism". Now, perhaps these five sources are wrong in associating PETA with the ALF and Rod Coronado. That is up for the reader to decide.

"If I understand you correctly, there is no need for a subhead to be "true"? Why don't we compromise then, and call this section Tap Dancing on the Moon?"

I'm not exactly sure what you're going on about, here, but the subhead is the subject of the section. The section is about PETA being connected with terrorists. Thus, the relevant title would be, "connections [or links] to terrorism". -- LightSpectra (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi LS, we have to take a neutral point of view about PETA. That means we can't call anyone "terrorists," but can only say, "Reliable source X referred to PETA as linked to terrorism because ..." But if we say "linked to terrorism" in a subhead, we're not attributing it, which would imply that it's what Wikipedia believes, and that wouldn't be neutral. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming the subhead "links to terrorism" does not imply that this is Wikipedia's view. It means that the section is about how PETA is alleged to have connections to terrorism. Or, are you implying that a "criticism" section in any person's article means that Wikipedia does not like that person? -- LightSpectra (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC).

First, we're not supposed to have criticism sections; rather, criticism and praise should be woven throughout the article in the most neutral way possible. But supposing an article does have a criticism section — it would not be biased to call it "criticism," but it would be biased to choose what one side has said and highlight it by naming the section after it.

Imagine an article about you, and imagine too that a published source had said you were dishonest. Would it be neutral for us to call that subsection "Liar"? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just calling it "liar" wouldn't make sense. If the section were titled something like "dishonesty", yes, that wouldn't be inherently biased. -- LightSpectra (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)