Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Needs controversy section ASAP

This article on PETA looks like one huge advertisement board. It's all structured to put Peta in a positive light in ALL matters. The fact that's it's only got 3 major points ( History + Philosophy and activism + Position within the animal rights movement ) and no Controversy section should ring a huge bell. Ranging from the mockery of certain stars and accusation relating to holocaust victims and all the way to accusations of supporting and financing home terrorist groups, it's all structured to break the points into small manageable pieces which are very carefully masked inside bigger paragraphs that manage to turn the whole critical idea into a positive and remarkable action on behalf of PETA. The article needs a clear well defined controversy section in which all the issues that have been paraded in the mass media shall be properly detailed. Like let's see making fun of Mario bashing turtles, Gaga's meat dress, Peta beying upset about some cape made of spider silk(today 21 01 12 on yahoo news), news article in telegraph.co.uk ' Peta under fire over claim that it kills most animals left at its US headquarters ' , also ' PETA Mocks Florida Shark Attack Victim ' , and also ' PETA Mocks National Infertility Week ' , and of course ' PETA condemns brutal Battlefield 3 rat stabbing '. Plus there are others which i haven't heard off. If there's one last responsible editor left on this side of Widipedia, please take into consideration that most important and respectable articles on Wikipedia have a well defined and structured controversy sections. There's just no other way aroudn it with such a complex subject; mixing stuff like it currently is, is just misleading to say the least. So with the risk of repeating mysef: it's not about the lack (even if only partial) of controversy subjects, it's mostly about the fact that the already small number of controversies area very well and intentionally hidden in a sea of text that praises Peta.

Unbelievable

One of the most horribly biased articles on Wikipedia. PETA is lying scum and everyone knows it. This is exactly why Wikipedia can never EVER be a reliable source. This article's watchers are obviously partisan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.105.197 (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 15#How is there not a "Controversy" section here?. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So all attempts by Wikipedians to include valid, well known, criticism and controversy in this article is met by "here's an old archive discussing it"?

Isn't that, uh, against the rules? Every single archived discussion is in support of including a criticism/controversy section (either in the article or as a separate article) and yet clearly PeTA supporting, dare I say sock-puppets in most instances, users simply instantly revert it whenever it is included despite the fact consensus and the specific rules of Wikipedia have been reached that defined the need to. And when anyone brings up the continued point that this article needs a criticism or controversy section, it's simply met with a user presenting an archive of that discussion which supports such a section as a reason it's not to be included? 124.169.44.127 (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

A controversy section is frequently proposed, but there is considerable, widespread opposition to the idea as well. There is most definitely not consensus to add it. Nor is there any rule requiring one. On the contrary, I believe the guidelines recommend against them, stating it is generally better to incorporate criticism throughout the article on a subject-by-subject basis. That is what has been done here. Since much of PETA's notability comes from their notoriety, trying to lump all criticism in a single section would make for a very awkward article.-Trystan (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the original post in this thread was directed at me, so I'd like to respond to it. There's a reason I encourage new editors to read past discussion, and it most definitely is not to try to make you go away. Quite the opposite. If you bothered to look more closely, I am most definitely not anyone's sockpuppet, nor am I in any way an apologist for PETA. I'm someone who worked for many years as an academic laboratory scientist using laboratory animals, and I got involved in this page because I, too, was concerned about a pro-PETA, pro-animal rights movement bias. I've been bitterly attacked by editors who, arguably, really are pro-PETA, and have put up with it very patiently, and I think I've helped make this article better (or, if you prefer, less bad) than it used to be.

So I most definitely am not blowing anyone off. I'm encouraging you to do the right thing. Instead of saying that Wikipedia is awful and patting yourself on the back on how superior you think you are, please consider rolling up your sleeves and doing the serious work of making this article better. I'm telling you, from experience, that you will get push-back. If you really want to make progress, you will need to engage constructively with editors who will disagree with you, and a significant part of that includes educating yourself about past discussions so that you don't just repeat what has been shot down before. Anyone who wants to get serious about making Wikipedia better will find me very happy to join in. But anyone who is only interested in dropping by to say nyeh-nyeh-nyeh, well, Conservapedia is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nicely put, Tryptofish. Bob98133 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bob. And fyi to new editors, Bob and I have frequently seen things differently about the content of this page, but at least we each listen with an open mind to what the other wants to say. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is there NO criticism section? Everyone complaining in this talk section is right. This is biased bullshit. I have the feeling that adding one won't make a difference, as I know I'm not the first person to try.

StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What would a separate criticism section contain?--Trystan (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, why is this article being set to a completely different standard from other articles in terms of a criticism section? There's plenty of articles that are organized in this manner, so what's so radically different about this one that a separate section documenting the criticism of this controversial organization is out of the question? 173.10.93.122 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read all the comments directly below this section. The one with the headline, "No controversy section?" Then please read the article. Then please be specific about what controversies you feel are not being addressed. If you actually do the reading I suggest, you'll see that there is an army of editors (both pro- and anti-PETA) that monitor this page, all of whom have worked very hard to keep this page as balanced as possible and documented to the hilt. Thank you, and we look forward to hearing more about your suggestions. Bob98133 (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not someone is pro or anti-PETA is irrelevant, as is how much criticism is in the article. The issue is where the criticism is located. Allow me to repeat myself and make my question even clearer: What is the reasoning behind selectively setting articles to completely different standards in terms of organization or setup like we're doing with this article? I don't really care who likes what and who doesn't, and the discussion you redirected us to is just a textbook example of wikilawyering, a clear disregard of WP:OWN, and people making snide remarks about the credibility of an editor based on whether or not he's editing from an IP. Check me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that isn't allowed here. 107.0.86.58 (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct when you point out that some articles do have Criticism sections. See WP:Criticism for some examples, such as World bank, Existentialism, Planned Parenthood, Materialism, Exxon, Oracle, Creationism. But these articles are in the minority, because the general rule in WP is to avoid polarizing material into pros and cons. The ideal is to present materially topically, and into weave together pros and cons within each topical section. Probably the best way to convince other editors that a Criticism section is warranted is to find sources who treat "Criticisms of PETA" as a distinct topic. If sources treat it that way, that may justify this article following suit. If you find such sources (or if you want to propose a Criticism section even without such sources), then you could use the WP:RFC (request for comment) process to see if there is support for your proposal. --Noleander (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud here, I wonder whether it might actually be helpful in quieting the complaints to just break out a criticism section and be done with it. It's difficult for me to understand, however, why anyone would feel strongly about the need to organize it into a separate section, whereas I can readily understand concerns that there are not enough criticisms. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

About the only good reason to have a dedicated "Criticism of" section (or article, for that matter) is if the criticism itself was very notable. So if the World Bank (or United Nations, or Exxon) was subject to two or three notable criticisms/controversies, one can imagine a scenario like this: a reader vaguely remember hearing about the controversies a few years ago, and they come to WP to refresh their memory on the controversies, and they are disappointed when the article's table of contents does not explicitly identify the controversies. In such a scenario, it could be helpful for such readers to have a section named "Criticisms/controversies" so the reader could jump to it and quickly see a synopsis of the dirt. On the other hand, it is not very professional to highlight criticisms in such a manner, and smacks of sensationalism. In the case of PETA, it could go either way, that is why an RfC may be helpful, to get input from a set of fresh editors. Personally, I'd leave the article alone. --Noleander (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Noleander on this. If we do a criticism section, then we're going to need to pull out all the criticisms of the various issues and rewrite what's left. I'm not trying to get out of extra work (really, I'm not!), but I think this flows so well as is. I wish more pages did it this way, frankly. And don't most of the calls for a criticism section come from IP addresses that are rarely heard from again? It just seems to me like someone with a set bias to begin with sees the PETA page, doesn't actually read it, and jumps on the "why isn't there a criticism section" bandwagon. I think you've all done a bang-up job of adding in legitimate criticisms and issues when they're brought to our attention. I've still yet to read any reason why having a dedicated criticism section would make this article better. Does making it easier for passerbys to find criticisms in one section make it better? I honestly don't know... Bob98133 (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, instead of once again dodging direct and honest questions about the organization of this article about a very controversial private organization, making snide remarks about the credibility of IP editors and citing an awfully convenient rule that has been disregarded for almost every article I have ever read about a very controversial private organization, how about a good look at WP:IAR and WP:BURO for the readers? 107.0.86.58 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No controversy section?

You have to be kidding me... Sure, PETA's goals and ideals are good by all means, but their methods... Their methods were, are, and will be criticised be many. They are acting just like Greenpeace (even worse in some cases), and I can't understand, why GP does have a criticism section, but PETA (excuse me for a bad joke) is a holy cow here, and does not have any place for an opposition against their methods... Shame on you Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.238.58.70 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

About every other month, this same song is sung, usually by unsigned writers (You lose credibility right there, my friend---open an account and sign your posts!). Take the time and read the previous comments. And please, if you truly have something to contribute, present your case, present your sources, be bold and add it. You'll find the people who regularly edit this page are more than happy to help. Thank you. Bob98133 (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I am not worried about who is saying it or what anyone think of them but rather the issue. If it is being brought up every month and every time it has been added it was removed because either it was unpopular with people who support it or just one then there is a bias problem as in the article by definition as I do not see a single mention of this controversy. Bias not only exists in articles but in groups of members that baby certain articles that contain content they are sensitive too. By not allowing all information on the topic to be displayed it shows extreme bias by those who have interest in it. Wikipedia is not about having bias in a page, for or against, but rather compromise. Currently this compromise is non-existent as a result of a few power-users. In order for this article to contain as much relevant information as possible these users must concede at least a small section or separate linked page about controversies or criticisms of PETA. Every organization, no matter how good it's mission, has invoked controversy and PETA is no exception.72.241.135.189 (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What specific controversies do you feel are missing from the article? The article describes accusations of funding terrorist organizations, of being a terrorist organization, of capitalizing on the holocaust, of exploiting murder victims, of frightening children, of treading on women's rights, of being too radical, of being too tame. If you have reliable sources for more controversies (I'm sure they are out there), please add them.

Whether to reorganize the article to pull the substantial material it includes on controversies and criticisms out of the relevant sections and place it in a separate "Controversy and Criticism" section is a separate issue. I think the reason that there has been no consensus to do so is because most editors who have worked with the article for any length of time (most assuredly including some who are not fans of PETA) do not feel it would strengthen the article. A good chunk of what PETA does generates controversy and criticism, and the article reflects that throughout. For example, it makes much more sense to me to discuss the criticisms of their various media campaigns in the same section where the campaigns themselves are described, rather than shunting the criticisms off to the bottom of the article.--Trystan (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Trystan put it very well. I'm exhibit number one of editors who are not fans of PETA, but I also would prefer not to segregate all of the criticisms in a separate area. And I'd be happy to add more critical material (subject of course to Wikipedia's policies on sourcing, neutrality, and all the rest). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Tryptofish, I am a big fan of PETA, but I am also concerned about political correctness being used as a sword to censor sensitive material from the encyclopedia. If there were any specific criticism of PETA (that is well documented by sources) I would be the first to help add it to the article. As to whether or not all the criticisms and controversies should be co-located in a single section, that is a tough question: one could argue that a concise list of controversies is exactly what an encyclopedia is supposed to supply to readers. On the other hand, one could argue that the article should be organized topically, and criticisms should be interwoven within the appropriate topical section. This article currently uses the latter approach, and I see no big problem with that. There is no censorship happening. --Noleander (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And I fall somewhere in between Tryptofish and Noleander on the PETA fanline and have yet to see a single one of these IP address folks (who pop up every other month or so with the "where's the criticism section" complaint) ever follow-up with anything, much less anything constructive. In Noleander's words, if there were any specific criticism of PETA (that is well documented by sources) I would be the first to help add it to the article. (Although I suppose if Noleander is the first, that would make me the second. :)) Bob98133 (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the standard response of asking what "controversies" are missing is that it would require the complaining IPs actually read the article and do some research☹. There are two controversies of which I am aware that are currently not included. The first, removed in March 2009, was PETAs use of cybersquatting while suing to obtain the rights to peta.com from another cybersquatter. The second involves PETAs opposition to mulesing by the Australian sheep industry. --Allen3 ^talk 21:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm very happy to see two specifics here! About the cybersquatting, we have a separate page on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, which currently is on this page in the See also section. I'd support having a summary style mention, with a link, in the text instead. As for mulesing, I'd support mention of it in the Campaigns section, probably rather briefly, with sourcing from the mulesing page (if for no other reason than to be less US-centric). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I added those two items. For the mulesing, I added a paragraph at the end of the Campaigns section. The wording still needs to be improved. For the Domain name disputes, I added a new top-level section (a small section with a "main" link). But that seems a bit too prominent. Maybe it should be a subsection of the "History" section? --Noleander (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually made some further edits along those lines, before seeing your comment here (woops). I'm reasonably satisfied with the edits now, pending what other editors think. I've got to say, though, that the material doesn't quite rise to the level of criticisms, although I'm satisfied that the coverage is NPOV. (The page on mulesing really doesn't say much about criticism of PETA.) If anyone else thinks that something more "critical" is missing, I'm receptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I found a page here that has a TON of sources, see the newest section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.69.87 (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

To the extent there's a manufactured "controversy," it's like Dick Cheney claiming there's a controversy about his war crimes. Joe Circus (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

Or maybe an invitation, one that I am offering sincerely and do not intend to blow off. I recognize that the page is semi-protected due to a long history of vandalism, so the IP editors who have been expressing concern here cannot directly edit the page. But if anyone provides a thoughtful guidance here in this talk about what to put in a "Criticism" section, I'll offer to make the edits adding it to the page, and I'll take it on myself to argue with the other editors who will object to it. (But you have to make a thoughtful case for what my edit should be, not just bitching about how awful things are here, because I will blow off that kind of bitching.)

What I'm asking for, here in this talk thread, is a list of the specific things that are now part of the page, one by one, that should be taken out of their current locations and brought together in a separate "Criticism" section. I find it hard to figure that out, because it creates problems with the flow of the page. But if someone else will do the hard work of figuring it out, in a way that will be well written and make good encyclopedic sense, I'll do the work of making the edit. So, again, please list here everything that ought to be moved out of its current place in the article, and consolidated into a "Criticism" section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No need for a criticism section

For those wanting to see the appropriate amount of criticism in a very good article on a very controversial figure, see Noam Chomsky. Criticism sections don't help articles. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't about the amount, it's how the criticism is organised. Since these horrid concepts like straightforward organization of an article into separate sections is such a blot on the name of this website, how come there exist separate criticism sections/articles on companies like Coca-Cola or McDonald's? 173.10.93.122 (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that the McDonald's article is a great example of a dedicated criticism section; it comes across as a laundry list of unrelated items that could perhaps be better organized into separate sections addressing nutrition, employment practices, etc. There is already a dedicated subsection on "Environmental Record" which is currently a subsection of Criticism, but it needn't be.

As for PETA, it is, IMHO, a particularly poor candidate for a dedicated criticism section because a huge portion of what they do is designed to provoke controversy and criticism. Trying to separate what they do from the response it provokes would make for an unworkable article.--Trystan (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.34.90.221, 12 August 2011

In the peta page thereis a section that mentions peta saving animals in the state of virginia and finding homes for the animals, this is only partially true they do "rescue" thousands of animals a year but they kill all of them, they beleive it is a release from their opression. they give 3 or 4 animals a year away to homes to continue being a legal shelter, but put down the rest of them without ever trying to find homes for them. this can be proven by their records to the state of virgina all of wich can be found here: petakillsanimals.com before you dismiss this website as false you can actually read legal nortarized documents from the state of virginia on the website 24.34.90.221 (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: This seems more like a personal opinion instead of encyclopedic information. Topher385 (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It is true, see my link below. 69.132.69.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC).

what "link below"? Joe Circus (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

no link? Joe Circus (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume the person didn't know how to create a link and was referring to the website mentioned in their comment, petakillsanimals.com. Not an unbiased source, but IIRC it has links to credible sites. (I see that the request was at least partially met under "euthanasia", was just clarifying what the likely link was.) Xyzzy☥Avatar (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

PETA page ... oh no not another biased Wiki page ... thanks a lot.

Hahahahaha .... Another bullsh!t article without any criticism. People who want an article to be encyclopedic and have relevant information actually don't care about PETA, they want Wikipedia to be simple and open.

100% agreed. It's really disappointing that an organization like PETA has multiple paragraphs on undercover operations but nothing on all the moronic stuff they've received criticism for.64.213.221.84 (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing? I just don't understand that criticism of the article. To be so bold as to quote myself: "The article describes accusations of funding terrorist organizations, of being a terrorist organization, of capitalizing on the holocaust, of exploiting murder victims, of frightening children, of treading on women's rights, of being too radical, of being too tame. " More well-sourced criticism is always welcome, and the above discussions contain examples of the information being proposed and then added to the article.--Trystan (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The "Parody" games they made of Cooking Mama and Mario should be listed. If you play them, you'll see they are so absurd they boarder on self parody. Its that bad. I mean really, Mario picks up a leaf which causes him to wear a suit designed after a mythical creature that resembles a racoon...so they have a naked racoon beat Mario up to steal the suit, which as stated was created by a leaf...at least research the game you're trying to critizise Peta. Evnyofdeath (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That did get quite a bit of coverage, thanks for suggesting it. I've added it to the article.--Trystan (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

POV, needs renewed discussion (referring to old "concensus" does not work), all PETA linked editors count as only one

This article is a joke. It has no controversy section, and PETA activists are constantly POV pushing. PETA brings bad name to animal lovers (they no way represent all animal lovers) by their methods, reflected by activism on this page. All PETA activists count for only one, per wiki policies. Their POV pushing is rivalled by those of Scientologists and are otherwise unrivaled by their bigotry. Close reworking of this propagandistic article is desperately needed, and wider community of neutral editors needs to take care.

Things missing in the article:

• Controversy section (standard in most such articles)
• non PETA POV
• more in depth discussion of PETA inspired terrorism
• discussion of PETA dishonesty (for instance, PETA tries to belittle Nazi Germany pioneering contribution in animal rights; instead of just stating the obvious point that overall nazi evil does not mean everything they did was wrong, they deny any contribution by nazis, in hope of dissociating themselves from the nazis - this proves that PETA is intelectually dishonest).
• generally, all sorts of criticisms are either absent or presented from PETA's POV

While I am all for animal rights, PETA's methods (evident even on the wiki page) are so loathsome and petty, and PETA activists, often accused of links with violence, prove their ugly side by bigoted edit warring on wikipedia too. This has to stop. They have to understand a couple of things:

• Just because something was discussed ages ago, does not mean that it cannot be opened for debate again. New users come and go, and new arguments (and new concensus) need to be considered again.
• All PETA activists count as one editor/vote (which has not been taken into accuont enough). This includes 3RR policy etc.
• PETA POV pushing cannot overrule major wikipedia policies - NPOV included - for presenting ALL sides of the story, proportionately and with due weighgt. If there is a MAJOR controversy, it has to be given due weight.
• POV pushing is so severe on this page, that request for arbitration/comment might be the only way to restrain PETA bigoted editors, for the protection of truth, and wider community (that does not approve of violence, nor of bullying, weather in real or virtual world).

Wangleetodd (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

My offer still stands. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I greatly dislike PETA, and I don't have a history on this page. That said criticism and controversy sections are terrible; they are troll magnets and WP:COATRACKS. If you have criticism feel free to put it in the article, but I will never support a criticism section in any article which all should currently start being phased out.AerobicFox (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

In American political articles, all Republican Party linked editors should count as only one. (Or Democratic Party if that appeals to you more.) What a dumb idea. Criticism sections are usually demanded by those who hate the subject of an article, and are therefore, by definition, non-neutral POV. Never a good look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

New section regarding shelter euths

Wangleetodd and Tryptofish, regarding the recent addition, would suggest that sources other than Consumer Freedom be used? They have a clear agenda, much as PETA does. Controversial on both ends of that spectrum. Bob98133 (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I noticed that too. I have decided to be neutral about whether they are a valid source or not, for the moment. I want to see how this discussion plays out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I’m against using CCF as a source, but I don’t have a problem with at least provisionally using documents on their servers as sources. For example, PetaKillsAnimals.pdf is supposedly not an original document created by the CCF, but rather a collection of government documents obtained by them. If it’s such a big deal, then one of the Americans among us should submit requests to the governments for the same data to confirm it. I wouldn’t call this original research any more than, say, contacting a university to obtain the text of a scholarly work cited as has been done millions of times on Wikipedia…. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 10:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair point. And I'm going to rant expand on it quite a bit further. In the past, I've encouraged IP editors to become autoconfirmed accounts, and to work with us to add sourced material to the page. I meant it. It wasn't just a platitude or a blow-off. So when Wangleetodd made some edits, I decided to fix up things like grammar and format, but I didn't edit war with anyone, either about adding the material or deleting it, and I'm starting out neutral about the sources. Although the stuff about counting editors as just one is silly and not worth discussing, the simple truth is that, historically, this page has been dominated by editors with a pro-PETA POV. So we can have a long, caressing section sourced to Gary Francione, but not only can we never source anything to the Center for Consumer Freedom, we cannot even cite David Hubel, a Nobel laureate, for goodness sake! We have to make the terrorism concerns sound like they only come from an extreme right wing Republican senator, even though the criticisms are much more mainstream than that. We have pages like Britches. I'm not saying that PetaKillsAnimals is a reliable source, and I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying that I want to see editors on both sides of the debate really think through their arguments, not falling back on what was decided a long time ago, and let's find out which arguments are the soundest. Maybe consensus can change, maybe not. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually the idea of treating multiple PETA associates as one is not too far from policy. See WP:MEATPUPPET. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 10:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Should the same apply to multiple Republican Party associates? HiLo48 (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, that's what we're still discussing? Anyway, I agree with the editor who asked for a citation for the number of animals killed. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't you use these as a source for the numbers: VDACS: Online Animal Reporting: PETA (2006) VDACS: Online Animal Reporting: PETA (2010) etc. Slsh (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Shelter euthanasia numbers - not even CCF/petakillsanimals.com supports them?

In the article it says like this: "According to PETA's own official report, PETA put to death nearly every dog, cat, and other pet it took in for adoption in 2006. Out of 3,061 companion animals PETA took in during that year, 2,981 were killed and only 12 were adopted", sourcing to consumerfreedom.com website. However, the documents presumably referred do not seem to be supporting those numbers. If you look at reporting year 2006, there is "Total" column listing 9637 animals, and "Euthanized" column listing 2981 animals. Right? Or am I seeing things?

Slsh (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced accusations should be removed from this page

Case in point: "PETA practices killing animals shortly after they come in the door (or inside a cargo van in North Carolina), without any good-faith effort to find adoptive homes for animals or provide necessary long-term veterinary care" says verifications needed. This is a high-visibility article, and accusations such as that one should be either sourced properly or removed. I would think it would be hard to find a neutral, reliable source saying that there is even no good-faith effort in what PETA does. If there is a source like that, it should be definitely mentioned in the text also. Slsh (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Been thinking about this, because the CCF connection comes up from time to time, and suggest that if it must be used, then it should be in context as in, "CCF, which is funded by the restaurant and tobacco industries, has a history of challenging PETA's actions and claims that..." Even the CCF Wiki page does a better job of sourcing this issue. Bob98133 (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed that and edited the section for it to appear a bit more neutral. Slsh (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In my opinion, these further edits are an improvement, while I also think that the addition of the section about the shelter killings to the page is an improvement over the way the page had been before. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)