While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
"used of nudity" should be "use of nudity" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Can someone fix the spelling of Bill Maher's name?
It is in the list of members under Bill Mahar. I was going to change it but cannot due to the protected status of the article.
This article needs more criticism before it can become a good article or a featured article. Perhaps a criticism section or a separate article for criticism?
As the title to this section states, this article is in need of well-written, legitimate criticism of the group and of certain of its unethical aspects, which is largely absent or hard to find. Could you fellow editors reach a new consensus on including criticism in a separate section? We do not want PETA sockpuppets to whitewash the article of criticism. Also, if a criticism section cannot be made, how about a separate article about criticism in the "See also" section? What do you think, ladies and gentlemen? Zakawer (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. At the moment all criticism is squashed into the intro. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree. I actually came to this page because I wanted to know more about the controversy of PETA and wikipedia often has a section about that. Deep.fried.bacon (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC) (Also I couldn't figure out how to add a separate post nested under this original one so I just added this here. I wasn't sure if that was the proper way to do it, so if not if someone could let me know what is the proper way, I'd be grateful.)
If a criticism and controversy section and/or a separate article for criticism doesn't work, we're gonna have to incorporate a buttload of criticism into the article's lead and especially into the body of the article. Still, the article needs a lot of work before reaching GA or FA status. Zakawer (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Is the old news story where a pup was stolen off a porch in the criticisms of PETA section? I don't see it. It made the rounds and was big news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolven1 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)