Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Template:Controversial groups

Source requests

I feel we really need to make an effort to improve the sourcing. This article should be based on disinterested secondary sources (newspapers, books) as far as possible, plus material from PETA because the article is about them. There's too much that's based on primary sources, minor columnists, or soundbites from lobby groups, which means we have no way of judging what's accurate, fair, or notable. It means the article always has a recentism flavour to it, because someone has added whatever latest thing they noticed on whichever website they tend to visit. A few months or years later, the comment looks out of place.

We should aim to publish material that really is notable when it happens, so that it doensn't look odd or overly detailed two years down the road. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate that the specifics come below, and I will try to go through each of them in time. But I have a general comment for now. It's easy to agree that independent secondary sources are often better than primary transient ones, obviously. But I want us to be careful about applying two standards, one for PETA as the topic of the page, and another for critics of PETA. Sometimes a primary source is entirely appropriate as sourcing for what a particular source, themselves, said. We need to be careful that we do not, selectively, delete criticisms in a manner that could make the page unbalanced. Obviously, I don't mean that that was the intention, but it could be an unintended consequence if we are not careful about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The danger of allowing primary sources is that any organization with a criticism can simply issue a press release and have their material appear on WP without a filter. I'm not keen on some of the local newspapers and guest columnists for the same reason. I think we can properly source criticism without using that kind of source—and if we can't, that ought to tell us something. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for going through the article so thoroughly for suspect sources. I'm still catching up on archived discussion. So I may have overstated the level of animosity here -- based on insufficient reading, some projection as well as my own history with an editor from the SSCS discussions (who seems to enjoy stirring the pot here, too). Overall, regular editors have been more civil than I'd expected. More feedback below.. PrBeacon (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that! It's really perfectly understandable, given that people have so many good reasons to feel strongly about the subject matter, but ultimately most editors just want, in their respective own ways, to find the best way of presenting the material. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I take the second part back. Upon further review Tryptofish is becoming increasingly unreasonable on this talkpage. And then he wonders why other editors don't engage. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Covance

Could we have a mainstream secondary source for this, please?

A German state prosecutor determined that Covance's European laboratories had broken no laws.

The source is a press release from the European Biomedical Research Association. [1] We need a disinterested secondary source, not a press release from a lobby group. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting now to go through these one-by-one, and I realize that a lot more than that one sentence was changed.

The version now:

File:600-restraint-tube4.jpg

A monkey in a restraint tube filmed by PETA inside Covance, Vienna, Virginia, 2004–2005.

In 2003 and 2004, a PETA investigation inside Covance, an animal-testing company in the U.S. and Europe, obtained footage that appeared to show monkeys being hit and mistreated; PETA submitted a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Covance received 16 sanctions and agreed to a fine of $8,720, but said the citations were for minor administrative matters unrelated to animal cruelty, and that over 700 of the charges made by PETA had been rejected by the government. In 2005 Covance initiated a lawsuit charging PETA with fraud, violation of employee contract, and conspiracy to harm the company's business, but later dropped it.

The version of April 18, before the changes:

File:600-restraint-tube4.jpg

A monkey in a restraint tube, as filmed by PETA in Covance laboratory in Vienna, Virginia, 2004–2005. Covance disputed many of PETA's charges, but not this photograph.

PETA sends its employees undercover into facilities such as research laboratories to document the treatment of animals, sometimes requiring them to spend months recording their experiences. Some of these investigations have led to legal action. It conducted an undercover investigation of Covance, an animal testing company in the U.S. and Europe, in 2003 and 2004, obtaining video footage that appeared to show monkeys being hit and mistreated, and submitted a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Covance received 16 sanctions and agreed to a fine of $8,720, but stated that all of the citations were for minor administrative matters unrelated to animal cruelty, and that over 700 of the specific charges made by PETA had been rejected by the government. Covance also claimed that PETA had edited film together in order to exaggerate the evidence. A German state prosecutor determined that Covance's European laboratories had broken no laws. Legal action has also been brought against PETA for invasion of privacy following undercover work, but a federal judge in the U.S. ruled in PETA's favor in April 2007 that undercover investigations often reveal misconduct.

I'd like to examine all of the changes that have been made. There was previous talk about this at Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 12#Covance image.

As for the question posed about the EBRA source, I've looked, and I do not find any non-mirror sources saying this. However, there are multiple sources indicating that the German state prosecutor had started looking into this, and then nothing besides this about the outcome of looking into it, nothing covering the filing of any charges, etc. It looks to me like the EBRA source is likely correct, and there just wasn't any "news" there, in that no prosecution took place. Had there been any charges, I'm sure there would have been some news coverage of it, and some mention of it by PETA or BUAV. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the changes more carefully, I see some introductory material that was deleted from the beginning of the passage, simply because there was a reorganization and the introduction is no longer needed. No problem there. But later in the paragraph, three things have been deleted: (1) the German prosecutor sentence, discussed above; (2) a rebuttal claim by Covance, questioning the accuracy of PETA's film editing (which, looking at it now, really should also include PETA's denial of the accusation, if we add it back); and (3) part of the image caption, containing Covance's balancing POV (which was previously the product of extensive talk here, and has not since been challenged in this talk). What bothers me about those three deletions is that they, together, largely remove Covance's rebuttals to PETA's accusations, and do so selectively and without prior talk here. Over and over in this talk, editors have, rightly, argued that any serious accusations must be accompanied by any sourced rebuttals, lest the page be an "attack page". That principle should be applied in an NPOV way, to the people PETA attacks, just as much as to the people who attack PETA. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The previous version was too long-winded, and the cutline contained OR. It currently makes Covance's position clear: "Covance received 16 sanctions and agreed to a fine of $8,720, but said the citations were for minor administrative matters unrelated to animal cruelty, and that over 700 of the charges made by PETA had been rejected by the government. In 2005 Covance initiated a lawsuit charging PETA with fraud, violation of employee contract, and conspiracy to harm the company's business, but later dropped it." Which rebuttal is important and missing, and is there a secondary source for it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• About OR in the cutline, no, see the archived talk.
• About which rebuttals are missing: two of them, and they are listed, plainly, above. They are that PETA allegedly altered the film, and that the German prosecutor found no illegality.
• About which ones have secondary sources, I am not proposing pages, so this is not an AfD. There is reliable sourcing for both. I have responded to your question about the German prosecutor, and I have indicated that the film issue should include PETA's denial if it is to be added back.
• Once again, over and over in this talk, editors have, rightly, argued that any serious accusations must be accompanied by any sourced rebuttals, lest the page be an "attack page". That principle should be applied in an NPOV way, to the people PETA attacks, just as much as to the people who attack PETA. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you have the discussion here, please, rather than referring me to an archive? Also, can you post here the exact words you want to restore, along with the secondary sources if they exist, or primary sources if not? It speeds things up if I can see the exact addition that's being proposed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's all just above, either copied or easily linked. I'm happy to discuss, but I'm not anyone else's private secretary. If I can read it, so can you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I correct that there are no objections to my arguments here? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit I then made: [2]. Reverted three times: [3], [4], [5]. Then slipped back out again: [6]. I've read all of those edit summaries, and I do not see anything substantive that replies to the discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Also: [7]. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that further edits have been made, here is what I think. There have been some very significant improvements, both to the Covance section in particular, and to the page as a whole. I no longer think that the Covance image caption is an issue, because there is no longer a situation where it is a part of a visually-accusatory pattern. I also think the disputed claim by Covance about improper film editing is no longer an issue, because of the more substantive aspects of Covance's responses in the way they are now covered.

However, I think we still need to look at the German prosecutor issue from the very top of this thread. At present, the page refers to Covance both in Europe and the U.S., but only presents information about the aftermath in the U.S., creating an impression that PeTA's accusations might, perhaps, have been correct with respect to Covance's European facilities. As discussed elsewhere in this talk, we have to be careful with respect to BLP/organization issues, and this involves a serious, potentially criminal, accusation against a present-day organization. As I have tried to explain above, there are valid reasons to use this primary source in this case. There is plenty of evidence, including statements from PeTA and BUAV, that the prosecutor looked into the case. There is zero news coverage of a subsequent prosecutorial action against Covance in Europe. Given what the trade group says, there is every reason to believe that no such action was ever taken, and every reason to believe that news organizations simply did not choose to cover a prosecution that did not take place. I would, however, change the unclearly-sourced claim that the prosecutor "determined that Covance's European laboratories had broken no laws" with the verifiable statement that they "did not pursue any legal actions against Covance in Europe". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't currently mention an investigation in Europe. The paragraph says:

In 2004 and 2005, PeTA shot footage inside Covance, an animal-testing company in the United States and Europe, that appeared to show monkeys being mistreated. According to The Washington Post, PeTA said an employee of the group filmed primates in Covance's lab in Vienna, Virginia, being choked, hit, and denied medical attention when badly injured.[47] After PeTA sent the video and a 253-page complaint to the United States Department of Agriculture, Covance was fined $8,720 for 16 citations, three of which involved lab monkeys; the other citations involved administrative issues and equipment. The company said none of the issues were pervasive or endemic, and that they had taken corrective action.[48] In 2005 Covance initiated a lawsuit charging PETA with fraud, violation of employee contract, and conspiracy to harm the company's business, but did not proceed with it.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the first two sentences create the impression that PeTA shot footage inside Covance's facilities in the U.S. and Europe, and then goes on to give details of the film from Virginia. Perhaps we could solve the whole problem by just calling Covance "an animal testing company in the United States and Europe". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this?

In 2004 and 2005, PeTA shot footage inside Covance, an animal-testing company with bases in the United States and Europe, that appeared to show monkeys being mistreated in the company's facility in Vienna, Virginia. According to The Washington Post, PeTA said an employee of the group filmed primates there being choked, hit, and denied medical attention when badly injured.[47] [And so on.]

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. I made a few, very minor I hope, further tweaks to the wording, and I'm satisfied with that. If that is OK, then I think we have settled the Covance-related issues. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

KKK

At another event, PETA members dressed up in Ku Klux Klan regalia at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and passed out fliers saying that the American Kennel Club was like the KKK, in that it wanted to create "pure bloodlines".

It seems to be a "and another thing" entry. Unsure what to do with it, if anything. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest adding it back to the section that discusses pet ownership. ("At another event" would have to be changed to "In 2009".) It relates directly to PETA's opposition to the breeding of animals to be pets (as opposed to the rescuing of animals from shelters and pounds), and it seems to be pretty prominent, having been broadcast as it occurred on U.S. national TV. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this is nonsense. We can't add every single thing a newspaper has ever reported PETA as doing. If we're going to do that, we'd also need to focus on the good and sensible things they do, no matter how little coverage they got. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, no need to call my comment nonsense. I'm making a suggestion, in talk, in a thread that you began by saying "Unsure what to do with it". It's one thing, not every single thing, and no one is objecting to adding good and sensible things, nor claiming that this was not good or not sensible. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the KKK thing is nonsense, the kind of thing PETA does every day to attract attention. We can't list them all. You certainly would object if I were to start adding every story about every outdoor dog that PETA buys a new house for, and all the other little things they do that make the local press but otherwise aren't noticed. We can't have a page full of trivia, good or bad. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just discussing this here, where you raised the issue (and I'm not speculating preemptively about what other editors would or would not object to). Given that it's "the kind of thing PETA does every day", that's the kind of thing that is representative of the subject, and this is a single incident, not 365 of them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

T, you've been getting a lot of your own way here recently, inching the article in the direction you want to take it. Please don't keep pushing it. If you want to add material about PETA's typical day-to-day operations, please add more about all the dogs they buy houses for. That's a big part of the non-flashy stuff they do. If I see you keen to add that sort of thing too, it would make a big difference. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Please don't keep pushing it"??? This isn't about anyone getting their way me getting my way, and it isn't about keeping score. Prior to late April, you had been away from the page for some time, of your own choosing. You made a huge number of edits in a few days when you came back. Since then, I have been slowly and methodically responding to those changes, one by one, and I am continuing to do so now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is about you getting your own way, as I see it. You've managed to get arson into the lead (though I'll be reviewing the sources for that), and "total animal liberation". That's fine, we agreed to it. The point I'm making is that you require everyone else to edit neutrally, from both perspectives—and you rightly complain if you feel it's not happening—but you're not willing to do it yourself. The day I see you write, "Hey, there are some important PETA undercover investigations we don't mention," is the day I'll fully retract and joyously apologize. I'm very serious about that. Please make more of an effort to write for the enemy, and stop adding stuff about tofu cream pies, terrorism, and Newkirk wanting to confiscate people's pets while dressed as the KKK. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the KKK item in the article now. I agree with SV that this is just one more stunt to attract attention, but I can also see Trypo's view that this demonstration speaks to PETA's view about pet breeding. It wouldn't make sense to include and describe all of PETA's demos or stunts, from a costumed celery stalking Al Gore to sheep following Australian politicians, unless they fit a particular larger campaign such as the I'd rather go naked than wear fur thing, or the vegetarian campaigns. The doghouse thing and community work is already mentioned. I would think that if the KKK demo was used at all it might be cited as a reference for PETA doing controversial stunts or opposing purebreds, rather than as an entry per se. As for who's pushing what, I think we all have our own thoughts about what is important or should be included, but discussing the points is likely to be more productive than discussing each others' views or editing styles. I've edited articles with SV & Trypto before and you both seem to be reasonable in wanting articles to be reliably referenced and NPOV, as soon as we can figure out what that is. Bob98133 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Bravo Bob for saying that. My thinking is that it does speak to their view on pet breeding, and it can be mentioned in the section about pets to flesh that out. Just suggesting it, in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking some more about Bob's suggestion about using it as a reference, perhaps an approach would be to use the citation (from USA Today) as sourcing for a sentence that simply says that PETA has protested at the dog show against pure breeding of dogs, without going into a description of the KKK theatrics. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a primary source from PETA, explaining their view: [8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Look folks, there is a reason why it is important to accurately and completely present PETA's position on pets, regardless of whether we do or do not cover the Westminster protest. The public, and our readers, relate to animals particularly through their interactions with pets, and this page has historically not given much attention to PETA's views on the subject, beyond describing some of their welfare activities, even though PETA themselves indicate that pets are very important. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What more do you think should be added to the existing section? It seems fairly complete to me. I think the first ph indicates that they think that pets are important. Bob98133 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I worded that poorly, when I said that pets are important. Of course, you are right about that. What I meant is that they consider their position about pets to be an important position, and that position includes opposition to breeding animals to be pets. Not that pets shouldn't be rescued from shelters, but that animals should not be bred or sold to be pets. Their welfare work on behalf of animals who need help is only one part of what PETA says they stand for. They also oppose the breeding of animals to be pets. I think their criticism of the American Kennel Club is important in that regard, and is not something one would know from reading that PETA supports neutering and provides shelters. I thought (and actually still do think) that the KKK protest is a clear and notable way of reporting that, but I'm happy to discuss other ways of communicating it. (And another thing. It occurs to me that an implicit assumption in some of this talk has been that the protest is "bad", even though PETA obviously did not consider it to be bad. If editors think something PETA did is bad even though PETA does not think so, it seems a flawed approach to exclude it from the article, as if to protect PETA. It's like saying we know better than they do.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa - now you've lost me. What makes you think that PETA thinks their position about pets is an important position? Or do you mean it's important for people who want to know about PETA to know their position? My guess would be that they think that all their positions are important, but their credo about eat, wear, experiment, entertain, doesn't seem to include pets, at least not in the top 4, although my dog does entertain me occasionally. Bob98133 (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I didn't specifically mean either of those two things. More like it's certainly something that PETA makes no secret of, and draws attention to via such protests, and in part, yes, I do also think that readers who want to know about PETA would want to know about this. But I just meant, more generally, that it's notable, it's worth including. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something like this: a sentence added to the first paragraph of that section, saying that "PETA campaigns against the breeding and selling of animals to be pets." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To flesh this out, maybe extend the sentence at the end of the first paragraph, sourced to the USA Today article, saying: ", and campaigns against organizations such as the American Kennel Club that promote the breeding of purebred strains." Also, it might make sense to change the title of the section to: "On pet welfare and ownership". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you're working on the pet section, but the sentence above ["PETA campaigns against the breeding and selling of animals to be pets."] doesn't really need the "to be pets." I can't think of an instance where they are in favor of breeding and selling any animal. Leaving that in makes it appear that in some other context they have a different position. Bob98133 (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Woops, I didn't mean that, so I better clarify what I said. I'm no longer advocating that tentative suggestion about "PETA campaigns against....". When I said that, I was just floating the idea here. What I meant after the outdent was to put this more specific wording, as an actual proposal, at the end of the last sentence of the first paragraph, as it is on the page. So, here is what I mean:

Now, the last sentence of the first paragraph of the section reads: "PETA also finances public announcements urging people to control the pet population through neutering and adoption from shelters." I propose to change that period to a comma, and, after the comma, add: "and campaigns against organizations such as the American Kennel Club that promote the breeding of purebred strains.", and source it to the USA Today article about the KKK protest. So, the full sentence would be: "PETA also finances public announcements urging people to control the pet population through neutering and adoption from shelters, and campaigns against organizations such as the American Kennel Club that promote the breeding of purebred strains." I think that wording bends over backwards to not make a big deal about the theatrics of the KKK protest and is extremely fair, while also adding a very relevant aspect of what PETA says they stand for. And, while we're at it, I also suggest changing the section title to "On pet welfare and ownership". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

An adverse side-effect of discussing this so carefully is that I noticed the wording "PETA also finances public announcements..." at the beginning of that sentence. I'd also like to suggest deleting the word "public", so it would just be "announcements", instead of "public announcements". That's because the present wording makes it sound like public service announcements, which (at least in the U.S.) are usually run by broadcasters for free or at reduced cost, as a public service. Unless there is sourcing that this is the case here, I think the fact that PETA "finances" these indicates that they are, strictly, advertisements, not PSAs. Dropping the word "public" would remove the ambiguity. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

From this [9] it looks like at least some of these are PSAs. Maybe it should be something like "PETA also produces public service announcements and paid advertisements..." ? Bob98133 (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If there's sourcing that they include PSAs, I'd be inclined to just leave the wording as it is. But, here, I'm going to have to ask what other editors have been asking me: do secondary sources confirm this? I wonder whether PETA is describing ads as PSAs as part of the way they present them at their website. Not that there's anything sinister about that, just that it might not meet Wikipedia's requirements for sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they call them PSAs whether they are paid to air or not. This PETA page [10] gives info on how to promote free and paid PSAs. Here [11] TV Guide refers to PETA PSA (coincidently about pet overpopulation). But these would still technically be different from a paid bus ad, or billboard or print ad, even though the subject matter might be similar. Just "Public announcements" without the Service sounds somewhat odd, more like public pronouncements. Bob98133 (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that "public announcements" just sounds odd. It seems to me that the line between "public service announcements" and "advertisements" is going to be unnecessarily difficult to delineate in this instance, and I would suggest that simply saying "announcements" would be the easiest way to do it. "PETA also finances announcements urging people to control the pet population through neutering and adoption from shelters, and campaigns against organizations such as the American Kennel Club that promote the breeding of purebred strains." Does that sound OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Even just "announcements" sounds odd. Why not "advertisements"? Or if that is confusing, how about "materials"? And why do you prefer finances to produces? In the context of an ad or PSA, the producer would coordinate things including costs; PETA has made a big deal on occasion about ads or materials being donated by ad agencies, celebrities, etc., so "financing" could be a bit misleading if it was a donated ad (or materials). Bob98133 (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, "produces advertisements" would be fine with me. I was worried that some editors would object to "advertisements" on the grounds that they really are PSAs, but I have no objection to that. "Finances" was just the word that was there before. I do think it would read better your way. "Materials" may be a bit vague, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Great. Let's hope other editors concur. Bob98133 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And how! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I correct that other editors have no objections? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been following this thread closely. But since you & Bob seem to agree I see no big problem. I read the last few replies and the wording is not a big deal to me. PSAs are ads, if you think about advertising/marketing in the broader sense. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: I see why SV stopped replying. Trypto- I agree with the general point about balance, the give&take of collaborating when views don't mesh, i.e. pulling one way and letting others pull back. There's a better way to say that, please just re-read SV's comments. Thanks. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow that second part, sorry. I think I've read everything carefully, and replied to everything. We can't read anyone's mind if they don't reply to us. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit I then made: [12]. Reverted three times: [13], [14], [15]. Then slipped back out again: [16]. I've read all of those edit summaries, and I do not see anything substantive that replies to the discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Also: [17]. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I would advocate two changes. First, I would add back to the last sentence of the first paragraph the linked phrase, "such as the American Kennel Club". Thus: "and campaign against organizations such as the American Kennel Club that promote the breeding...". This is directly per the source, and provides some specificity to an otherwise vague phrase.

Second, I would add back "and receive love from" to the first sentence of the second paragraph. Thus: "that the desire to own and receive love from animals is selfish". Again, this is exactly per the source, which is PeTA themselves in this case. Including this, we represent accurately what they said. Without it, we are including one part of what they said while leaving out the other part, in a way that alters the meaning from the verifiable source.

By the way, for those editors who were so exercised over the POV tag a couple of days ago, I just want to say that, if we can do these two remaining things, we will be at the point where I would have, myself, removed the tag. There continue of course to be other things that need work on this page, but they will increasingly be just matters of housekeeping. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Activists independent of PETA are irrelevant

If activists threw a dead raccoon at a Vogue editor and they acted independently of PETA, why mention them in this article? PETA was not affiliated with that. Including them here is biased against PETA to make them seem like terrorists. If a New York Yankee fan vandalized Fenway Park, would that go in the Yankees article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.191.235 (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

PETA makes use of this incident, as on this page [[18]], so apparently it's not irrelevant to them. Bob98133 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think they did do it. I've seen several sources where Newkirk seems to take ownership of it, so I'm thinking of tweaking the writing of that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

April edits

I'd like to continue to discuss some of the edits that were made in late April. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted quote

At present, the "Campaigning" section of the page says:

Newkirk has said that the outrageous campaigns are the ones that grab attention, so PETA won't shirk from engaging in them, though she adds that the group has many quieter projects that are rarely heard about.

Before the April edits, the "Profile" section covered this in more detail:

Regarding PETA's controversial campaigns, Newkirk has said: "The fact is we are the biggest group because we succeed in getting attention. ... The fact is we may be doing all sorts of things on a campaign but the one thing that gets attention is the outrageous thing. It simply goes to prove to us each time, that that is the thing that's going to work; and so we won't shirk from doing that facet — in addition to all the other things we do that you never hear about because no one cares."

I appreciate the value of cutting back on the quotefarm attributes of the page, but I wonder whether this particular quote is important enough, and indeed goes to much of what gets argued about in this talk, that it might be good to put it back, in place of the paraphrase. If we want to cut back on direct quotes, I note that a large quote was added to the "Euthanasia" section, which maybe could be briefly paraphrased instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I still think covering this quote more fully would be useful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court decision

Before the April edits, the "History" section, discussing the Silver Spring monkeys, included this sentence:

It became the first animal-testing case to be argued before the United States Supreme Court, which rejected PETA's application for custody.

Now, the second part of that sentence, indicating what the Supreme Court decided, is no longer on the page. I would think it ought to be added back. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether it did reject the application for custody as such, or whether it rejected some other aspect of it. That's why I removed it. If you can find a good secondary source explaining what the final legal procedure was, by all means post it here. This is not the place to go into the legal issue in detail, but even a summary of a few words needs to be accurate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. I will look into that, now that I understand your reason, which makes sense. I think that you can see why removing just that part of the sentence draws attention in relation to figuring out the right NPOV. In any case, if the decision were a rejection in any form, we ought not to leave it without that information. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary Fuss

In the section on "Undercover investigations", the description of Unnecessary Fuss was expanded some. If one clicks through to the main page, it includes some content partially rebutting the film. Perhaps a portion of that, very briefly summarized, should be included for balance. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I hardly see that anything in the film is rebutted, although I haven't looked at the history of the changes. It seems like all of the abuses were admitted, and researchers' earlier assurances shown to be untrue. The fact that it gave the impression that the abuse was more common is a red herring. No one seems to deny that the abuse that was depicted actually happened; and impressions are hard to document. What sort of thing do you think should be added here? Bob98133 (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good question; I should have been more specific. At Unnecessary Fuss#OPRR investigation, first paragraph, there is a quote from Charles R. McCarthy, director of the OPRR at the time. Also, in the last paragraph, "The OPRR identified 25 errors in Newkirk's voice-over commentary." I'm thinking of a very brief paraphrase sourced to those two things. At present, the page says:

The ensuing publicity led to the suspension of funds from the university, the firing of its chief veterinarian, the closure of the lab, and a period of probation for the university.

I'm asking about adding to the beginning of the sentence:

Although the Office for Protection from Research Risks found errors and overstatements in the film, the conclusions of their investigation, and the ensuing publicity, led to the suspension of funds from the university, the firing of its chief veterinarian, the closure of the lab, and a period of probation for the university.

An additional advantage of this clarification, besides some balance, is that it makes clear that the sanctions against the university were not just a reaction to a firestorm of bad publicity, but to a substantive follow-up investigation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I continue to think this modification to that sentence, or a similar modification, would be desirable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Reversions

Please see the ends of #Covance, #Sentencing memorandum, and #KKK, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes

Tryptofish, I can't see the point of the changes you're making, which are creating problems with the writing and/or changing what the sources are saying. For example:

1. The academic source that talks about them being leading exporters of AR to moderate groups doesn't mention animal welfare; your adding it caused welfare to be mentioned three times in one sentence. And the reason he didn't use it is he was referring to groups that straddle the AW/AR divide., i.e. the animal protection movement.
2. The offended sources are AR feminists, not feminists in general; at least our sources are.
3. Why move "new welfarists" from the lead, when that's what the academic source says?
4. Why paraphrase carrot-and-stick when that's what Newkirk says, that is the key point, and that why it's in the lead (as I said earlier)? And "to treat animals better" is poor writing, and not always accurate anyway.
5. Why remove Frisco's name, when it's in the W/Post and elsewhere, but not remove any other names (e.g. of PeTa staff accused of wrongdoing)? And repeating "the care director" twice in one sentence instead of his name is odd writing.
6. There's no need for scare quotes around "press sluts"; we already say "what she calls press sluts."
7. You created a Easter egg link with Your Mommy Kills Animals (film). That film is not the same thing as the campaign, and it's once again promoting CCF, which financed it.
8. "Gained recognition" isn't an improvement on "made its name."
9. Why remove that it involved the first police raid of an animal lab in the U.S.? That is an absolutely key point.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the diff of you reverting, in a single edit, all of the edits that I made: [19]. First, I want to note that, for each edit that I made, I made a single change at a time, and provided an edit summary, which in several cases, would answer some of the questions that you ask. Second, I'll point out two comments that I made to this talk, to which you haven't replied, that would also be worth taking a look at: [20] and [21]. As a broad observation, please note that, when you make edits to the page (in great numbers), I am very cautious about reverting anything that you have done, but instead, take it to this talk page, where all too often, you have been reluctant to engage with what I have said, other than to question my motives or integrity. This pattern is creating an appearance, whether you intend it or not, of ownership of the page by you.

Let me also point out, broadly, that as I read the latest revisions you made before today, I see a lot of excellent work, which has been very helpful, so thank you for that.

Before I respond directly to your points, I want to make note of three additional things that you reverted, that are not listed by you above:

(a) You deleted "and" in the first sentence, which, though not a big deal, was a copyedit to make the sentence more syntactically correct.

(b) You unlinked macaque, also not a big deal, but seems a bit fussy to object to. I don't think it's overlinking, and it can be useful to some readers.

(c) Aside from the more substantive issue of Francione's terminology, you unlinked animal welfare. Regardless of what we decide otherwise, it makes entirely good sense to link from this page to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The continuation of my answer is refactored in the next sub-thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Replies

Now to your questions, numbered as you did: --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(note from SV: SV's questions inserted below, followed by T's reply, followed by SV's reply to that): SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

1. The academic source that talks about them being leading exporters of AR to moderate groups doesn't mention animal welfare; your adding it caused welfare to be mentioned three times in one sentence. And the reason he didn't use it is he was referring to groups that straddle the AW/AR divide., i.e. the animal protection movement.

   You had already reverted me on that, and I accepted it, only adding back the link to animal welfare at a point in the sentence where it those words already occurred in your wording of the sentence, not changing anything you said about it except for providing the internal link. Why are we still discussing that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

   I was just wondering why you changed it. Making changes without checking the sources creates extra work. I have to re-check what the source said in case I misread it (and in this case it's a book, not online that I'm aware of, and not here with me right now, so that involved some extra hassle). Then I have to change the edit back. Then I have to post here explaining or enquiring. Then I have to respond to your response. It would save time, if you see a sourced edit that you feel isn't quite right and you've not seen the source yourself, if you could ask me to check it.

   If I had realized that it was something specific to the source, I would have done something like that. But it appeared to me to just be common sense. And I have not always gotten a response to my other inquiries in this talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

2. The offended sources are AR feminists, not feminists in general; at least our sources are.

   I see what you mean. Previously, this page included sources about feminists outside the AR movement who also objected; apparently those sources have been taken out during all the recent editing. I'll look for those, and we can see about whether it makes sense to put them back. If it does, I think that it is reasonable to consider that not all feminists are in the AR movement—some agree with it and some do not—but it may very well be the case that feminists broadly would find such campaigns objectionable. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

   My recollection is that all the sources are and were animal rights feminists. That's why the material was included: criticism from within.

3. Why move "new welfarists" from the lead, when that's what the academic source says?

   You can see what I said in my edit summary. I was trying to tighten up the lead, make it a little less wordy. I didn't change the meaning, only shortened the sentence to indicate what Francione says about it without using his catchphrase. It's a judgment call: since the page is about PeTA rather than about Francione, is it important enough to put it in the lead, important enough as a phrase that is widely-repeated and notable, or is it enough to just have it in the main text and have a summary of his argument in the lead? I think it's OK to leave it out, but it's hardly a big issue for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

   It's what he said. He's a key AR academic source, and as such he frames the debates and creates the vocabulary that others use, and yes this is widely used of PETA because of him.

4. Why paraphrase carrot-and-stick when that's what Newkirk says, that is the key point, and that why it's in the lead (as I said earlier)? And "to treat animals better" is poor writing, and not always accurate anyway.

   Another thing that just doesn't seem like a big issue to me. It sounded a little humorous to me (unintentionally humorous) to use this phrase (based on a metaphor of animal training) in this context, and I thought it would be better writing the way I did it. Just a paraphrase (and you've been arguing for paraphrases instead of direct quotes). If you see it as something important, I'm not interested in arguing about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

   Again, it's what the source said, and it's a key PETA concept (and key in general in certain sections of AR).

5. Why remove Frisco's name, when it's in the W/Post and elsewhere, but not remove any other names (e.g. of PeTa staff accused of wrongdoing)? And repeating "the care director" twice in one sentence instead of his name is odd writing.

   I indicated in my edit summary very clearly that I felt it was unnecessary to call this person out by name, and that it raised BLP issues. With you putting it back, it still does. As far as I know, this person is not otherwise notable, and putting his name there when there is nothing like a court conviction seems accusatory, regardless of whether the Post discussed him in their news coverage of the event. Frankly, I'm surprised that you would feel so strongly that he must be identified by name. When you bring up other people, PeTA staff, that were not in any way part of this edit, you appear to be making an innuendo about me. I cannot see anything wrong with discussing Ingrid Newkirk or Alex Pacheco on this page, since they are highly notable and public individuals. I think we still discuss Matt Prescott in the holocaust section, but I do not see a problem with how we do that. I assume you are, in fact, referring to MaryBeth Sweetland. Her name no longer appears on the page. That is because Crum made what I think was a very good argument against retaining the insulin material, and I was quite happy to change my opinion and agree to deleting it. Why are you bringing it up now? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

   See the section below.

6. There's no need for scare quotes around "press sluts"; we already say "what she calls press sluts."

   It's a stylistic choice, not an issue to fight about. It's certainly an out-of-the-ordinary phrase. I don't care that much, if it's something you are going to make a big deal about. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

   Adding scares quotes means we're effectively saying "what she calls, what she calls."

   [22], noted, since it wasn't me who first added those. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

   I take your point about redundancy, but I also think it appropriate to note just how remarkable the phrase is. A solution could be to restore the quote marks but delete the words "what she calls." That also has the advantage of being more succinct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

7. You created a Easter egg link with Your Mommy Kills Animals (film). That film is not the same thing as the campaign, and it's once again promoting CCF, which financed it.

   You are right. I stand corrected, and I agree with you. My mistake, but made in good faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

8. "Gained recognition" isn't an improvement on "made its name."

   Again, you think this is a big deal? My feeling was, and is, that the "gained recognition" language is a little (a very little!) less colorful and more professional sounding. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

   It looks odd to my eyes.

   It looks odd the other way to mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

   On thinking about this some more, it seems to me that "made its name" is typically used in contexts where the "name" is, in effect, a "good name". Here, the situation is (obviously) one fraught with controversy, and the word choice implies wrongly that it is not. (I'm not arguing for words that imply the opposite, just for words that are neutral either way.) There's nothing sacred about "gained recognition", and there are plenty of other word choices that covey the same thing, but without any implications either way. Surely, we can find one (became well known? caught the public's attention?). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

9. Why remove that it involved the first police raid of an animal lab in the U.S.? That is an absolutely key point.

   Again, I provided an edit summary, and also indicated in this talk that I thought the section was a bit longer than it needed to be. Leading to a change in the law, and establishing PeTA as very well-known, those things are clearly lead-worthy. But a police raid on a lab? The sourcing says that it was the first such raid. Has there been a second? Is this (police raids on labs) a commonplace phenomenon, something that has become part of our world and PeTA started it? Do we have a page on Police raids on laboratories? I have no objection to reporting the raid in the main text, but is it so important that it needs to be in the lead? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

   That's a key point. It shook up the research community at the time, had never happened before, and hasn't since that I know of. It was in large measure what made PeTA's name.

   That being the case, it needs, at a minimum, to be worded differently, because it implies that police raids of laboratories are an ongoing occurrence. If it was a one-time event, then the wording needs to reflect that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It should go without saying that I'm perfectly happy to discuss any concerns about content in this talk. However, I don't think that I should feel like whenever I make an edit to the page, you will immediately revert everything that I did. There's also an option of reverting some of what I did, or changing some of it to an intermediate or compromise form, while retaining some of it, instead of single-sweep undoing it all. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

T, I'd appreciate it if you'd remove those sigs. It's not a huge deal, but it looks odd, and I wouldn't have done it. Yet they're my sigs. It's also easier to read without them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to remove yours. I want mine to stay. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but in future please add only your own. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I did it because you had refactored my comment, and I want it to be clear to others what I did and did not say. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Including names

That's a lot to read. About the names: you removed Frisco (widely named, including W/Post, and what he did is on video, so not seriously in dispute), but you left in Maria Blanton (PETA, serious allegation, no charges ensued that I know of, based on one source). I just wondered why you approach them differently. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me know what you think when you have read it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please address the point about the names now? I would like the page to be consistent in that regard. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Number 5. About Maria Blanton, I do not recollect that part. I haven't checked it yet, and I certainly am not the editor who added it, nor do I remember this coming up in talk before. I've already told you that it will take a long time for the rest of us to go carefully through all of the changes that you made. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I added it to the direct action section, para 3. My approach has been to name anyone named by high-quality reliable sources (not just any old RS, but a particularly trusted one). But if you think we ought not to, we'll need to take the same approach for anyone in the article accused of something serious but not charged. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about being uniform in that regard. As I said, it is impossible for the rest of us to evaluate all of your edits in so little time, so I was unaware of it. I noticed the circus person while quickly scanning down the page, but not this one. Perhaps it will be a function of the specifics of the circumstances, and perhaps a function of us just being consistent. As I finish reading and thinking about the numerous changes to the page, I will keep you posted in this talk. As you finish reading and thinking about my answer to you just above, I suggest that you do the same. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case I'll restore Frisco until we come up with a consistent approach. I feel the best approach for BLPs is to include the name if and only if high-quality sources do. If we decide to remove all names regarding serious issues if no charges ensued, it opens up a can of worms and would affect quite a few names on the page.

But we certainly shouldn't name people that the very reliable sources haven't named. Frisco was in the W/Post, so that seems okay, and the writer who included Blanton has a background in law-enforcement research that seems very reliable—though I did worry that he was the only source for the name I could find, so I intend to look around for others to back him up, and if I can't find any I may well remove it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I found the part about her in the ALF section. My opinion (influenced a lot by the recent discussions of BLP and of the insulin matter): I think that we should treat both of them the same way, no matter what we do, because it would be POV to treat the two of them differently. And I would come down on the side of not naming either one of them by name. I don't think it adds anything, in either case, to provide the name, and I think that both instances are of marginal justification to name names, in part per WP:PERP. My suggestion would be, in both cases, just to refer to them as "an employee" of the respective organization. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind it's not only those two. We would have to go through the article and remove all named people that are the source of serious allegations in high-quality reliable sources, but who have not been charged. That would include Alex Pacheco in that same section, for example, and possibly others elsewhere.

It's worth bearing in mind too that Frisco is on video doing what he did, so there's no disagreement about it (which is presumably one of the reasons the W/Post felt happy to publish his name), but with all the PeTA members accused of wrong-doing here, it's just people who disagree with them doing the accusing. No one has seen the evidence except the accusers (and even they may not have seen it, and it may not in fact exist). And no high-quality newspaper that I know of has repeated the claims. So there's a much stronger presumption against naming the PeTA people. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I already commented about Pacheco above, in the first part of my subsequently refactored reply to you; there's a difference (per policy, not per me) between people who choose to be highly public and those who do not. And as I said here, I would lean towards doing the same with respect to PeTA people and people criticized by PeTA, rather than treating one differently than the other, whichever way we end up deciding this. For me, this is not a particularly big issue; rather, it's one that I only started to think about a lot after you pointed out BLP to me. At this point, it might be useful to hear from other editors, as to what they think about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A consideration

T, I'd ask you to consider the countless woman hours that have been wasted by discussions like this on AR pages. It doesn't benefit you, me, the article or the project. It's time neither of us will ever get back, and there's nothing to show for it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think the page has improved a lot over the past year or so. But I find your comment rather strange. In the most recent talk thread, it was you who posed a long numbered list of questions to me. I suppose as an alternative to my seeking consensus in this talk, I could, instead, just revert you over and over, but that seems to me to be a bad idea. Let's keep in mind that no editor owns the page, and I have just as much right as you do to seek to improve the page. Perhaps you might find that it saves time, in the long run, if you make your own edits to the page more slowly, discussing the substantive ones in this talk before making them, and engaging promptly with the questions posed by me or anyone else, instead of either saying tl;dr or declining to engage at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It has improved because I've rewritten it. That's unconnected to anything that happened here, except that it would have happened sooner had it not been for the time wasted on the talk page, or taking the article off my watchlist because of it. And I'm not just talking about this AR page as you know. But it's up to you. It's your life, your time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And I'm happy to have helped point out things that led you to do such an excellent job of rewriting it! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can think of an example, I'd be happy to thank you for it. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

PETA or PeTA?

Please see Talk:Animal testing#PETA or PeTA?. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

criticism/controversy section

Last time I viewed this page, there was a whole section on controversies revolving around PETA. Now it's not there. PETA has stirred up criticism and controversy (targeting children in campaigns, animal abuse within the organization, etc...) on many different occasions, and now the article reads as if there is very little criticism/controversy at all. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, it's bad wiki-writing to have a separate criticism (or praise) section, since criticism and praise should be interwoven into the normal article for easier reading. If there is an act or statement X, you don't want the reader to go to one section to hear it praised, and to another to hear it criticized. Consider that this organization thrives on controversy: they intentionally carry out provocative acts or make provocative statements to further their goals, so almost everything about them is controversial, one way or another. If you can find any specific significant issue where PETA has been criticized (or praised) by reliable secondary sources and it's not in the article, please provide the reference. Crum375 (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the relatively minor issue of whether there should be a specific section or not, which often ends up being a distraction, I think it's worth pointing out that I am not the only editor who has been concerned that the page "reads as if there is very little criticism/controversy at all". As I said in this talk a few days ago, I am now satisfied with the balance and would have removed the POV tag myself if other editors had not been so, shall we say, eager to do so themselves. But clearly, there are other editors who are even more concerned about POV than I am. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources in support of secondary sources

Regarding this edit, I'm not clear why primary source (PETA's official releases on the matter) wouldn't be useful citations when included in addition to the secondary sources (news articles) that form the more objective factual basis for the section. In this particular instance, the ad in question is most easily obtained by visiting the first link that was removed, PETA's original blog posting releasing it.--Trystan (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I have to reply to you in two parts. Actually, it's kind of ironic that I, of all editors, would be the one reverting you, given recent history here. But anyway, part one is that I mistakenly thought the blog was by someone critical of PETA, not a blog by PETA themselves. My bad, and I apologize to you for that, but it actually doesn't change part two. And, for that, you might want to skim through Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 14. This primary/secondary source issue really isn't my issue at all, but it sure has been the source of a lot of heat here very recently, so I would suggest just sticking with the secondary sources in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what portion of that archive you are referring to, but I don't see anything that falls outside my understanding of the appropriate use of primary sources based on WP:PSTS. The sources in this case, releases by PETA on a specific topic, are only being used in support of the claim of their existence. They are not being synthesized, analyzed, or otherwise used to establish a new point. Their content is not being used to make a POV point on behalf of their authors or in support of any contentious claim in the article. The notability and context of the paragraph is established entirely by reliable secondary sources.--Trystan (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You can include links to primary sources in the footnotes, but they shouldn't be allowed to frame our coverage of any contentious issue; for that we rely on secondary sources.

Regarding including McLean and Pickton, I've retained McLean, [23] but moved Pickton to the footnote. We can't include every single campaign that someone objected to, particularly as PETA does these things deliberately; the only reason anyone knew these ads had been created and rejected is that PETA released statements. It makes sense to mention the slavery, Holocaust, and suicide bombing objections, which gained international coverage, but the objections to the Canadian ads were confined to Canada, and I doubt that anyone outside Canada would know who Robert Pickton was. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

Tryptofish, stop reverting my edits for the hell of it. It's been going on for years and has become disruptive. You seem quite happy to introduce inconsistencies in formatting and long-windedness, rather than let my edits simply stand. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)