Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Controversial History

Looking at recent history, it appears there may be some controversy concerning how well PETA and there tactics are accepted by other animal rights groups. Is this worth exploring? Can it be documented in a neutral way (assuming such controversy exists; I don't know)? Wesley

I don't think this is controversial, frankly. Many other groups have criticized PETA's frivolous style, their paternalistic attitude towards other cultures, and their use of female nudity to "sell" the animal rights message. A lot of this stems from the intersection of animal-rights activism with other forms of activism (something PETA seems to eschew), but it is NOT out of thin air that I wrote this. Graft
PETA seems to eschew other activism publicly, but maybe not privately. A couple of weeks ago there were news reports that PETA had been paying legal fees for the defense of various ELF members. Some people were saying PETA's non-profit status should be revoked because of this. -q
Let's please try to put some info on this (with good references) into the article itself. Thanks.

Why has the word dishonest been singled out for special NPOV documentation requirements? Eloquence, for example, at 06:29 Jan 26, 2003, says "sorry, but if you say 'dishonest' you have to back that up)." Amazingly, Eloquence does not mind the undocumented use of offensive and unethical, however.

I merely stated, as is the policy here, the opinion of some people when I wrote dishonest. Can Eloquence prove me wrong? Back up his or her unqualified editing?

C'mon, Eloquence. Censor everyone or censor no one! Isn't that what NPOV means?

  1. There's no need to put your complaint both on my talk page and on the article's talk page. Choose either one. Now I have to respond twice.
  2. The statement that PETA is dishonest is, in my understanding, not one that is frequently leveled against them. I would like to see some references for that statement (not that they are dishonest, but that people say that about them, and in which frequency). The other parts of the article seem OK to me. --Eloquence 15:45 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

"seem OK to me"?

What a POV argument!!!!

but Eloquence, as always, doesn't care.

Damn! I should so leave this stupidity alone! Ignorant people are always the most persistant!

You don't understand what NPOV means, Arthur. Please read the related pages again. --Eloquence 21:47 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
And yet, Eloquence has ENFORCED HIS OR HER VIEW here at wikipidia. Others (me, for example) have not. Oh. I should quit this debate with the ignorant. Hey Yo! Dude! Go look at the PETA page. Is my edit the last? No! Yours is! Because you insist that your POV is correct, while I do not!
Arthur 22:04 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
What is my "POV" again, Arthur? --Eloquence 22:44 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

suicide bombing

Jewish groups have also been upset at PETA for their stance on suicide-bombings against Jews in the State of Israel. Please can this be expanded upon- what is their stance on this issue? (referenced if possible) Thanks quercus robur 12:09, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Here's what he's referring to: and -- Axlrosen 15:30, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, it's clear now. Jeez these folk sure know how to shoot themselves in the foot.... quercus robur 22:22, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

disambiguation block

I think the disambig block belongs at the top- but I'm not prepared to go to war over it- in the unlikely event that I should be searching for peta and accidentally type in PETA (not that unlikely that I should do the latter -I often search in lower case, others might in upper case- but unlikely that I would want to know anything about mathematics :-) ), I'd come to the page on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and think, 'hmm, nothing on wikipedia about these big numbers I was hoping to find out about', and wouldn't bother wading through an article I wasn't interested in on the off-chance there might be a disambiguation link at the bottom. I really can't see why it's a problem to have the disambig at the top, but perhaps I'm missing something? quercus robur 22:24, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Animal holocaust"


Nothing POV about attributing a particular POV to a noteworthy commentator -- Netesq

(Discussing here rather than starting an edit war.) That's not necessarily the case. NPOV dispute says:

There are many ways that an article can fail to be NPOV:
  • The article can simply be biased, and express viewpoints as facts.
  • While all facts might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
  • Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others.
  • The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.
  • The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view.

I think points 3 and 4 apply here. IMO stating the position of the ADL is fine, but actually quoting the strong language from their press release goes too far.

Axlrosen 19:25, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Greetings, Axlrosen. It is highly unlikely that you and I will have an edit war regarding this issue, as I was not the one to introduce the text in question, and my interest in the content of this article is very marginal. In any event, I think that point 3 is much more relevant than point 4. To wit, quoting the ADL's press release may give "undue attention and space" to the ADL's position. At the same time, I think the ADL deserves equal time regarding PETA by virtue of the fact that PETA has taken the highly controversial position of attempting to equate the inhumane treatment of animals with the Holocaust. PETA's position is a fringe position, and the vast majority of Jews who are not themselves PETA activists find this position extremely offensive. In other words, in the view of most Jews, it is PETA that has gone too far. -- NetEsq 20:59, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Greetings to you, NetEsq. My response to your comments is that I don't think the concept of "equal time" would apply to quoting ADL's press release, unless we also showed PETA's actual ads. We describe PETA's ads, then we describe ADL's response, but if we then proceed to actually quote ADL's response, then we're not giving them equal time, we're giving them extra time (i.e. we're letting ADL have its say in the matter but not PETA). Axlrosen 01:51, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
So, either we add the actual content of PETA's ads, or we summarize ADL's response. Point well taken. -- NetEsq 06:32, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ah, like so many others here, Axel believes that the way to achieve NPOV is not to make this a better and more comprehensive encyclopedia, but to cut out material until one achieves some kind of balance. What nonsense. This isn't about NPOV. Axel is just minimizing a viewpoint he doesn't want to see in print. RK 16:23, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

No need to get huffy. I'm OK with your version. BTW which viewpoint is it that you claim that I don't want to see in print? And why are you not giving me the benefit of the doubt, that maybe I just want to see a balanced article? Axlrosen 17:07, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Apparently you have not encountered RK's frequent allegations that Wikipedia has a systemic anti-Semitic bias. This particular accusation against you, groundless as it is, is actually one of RK's most coherent and diplomatic attempts at engaging in a dialogue with someone who does not agree with his highly subjective POV. Apparently RK believes that the way to eliminate anti-Semitism at Wikipedia is to accuse every Wikipedian of "minimizing a viewpoint he doesn't want to see in print." "What nonsense. This isn't about NPOV." This is about RK's POV. -- NetEsq 18:07, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I did not say that this was anti-Semitic. Rather, I said that like so many others here...he believes that the way to achieve NPOV is not to make this a better and more comprehensive encyclopedia, but to cut out material until one achieves some kind of balance. I have see this stance time and again; people spend time describing subject X, and only a little time describing subject Y. Then someone comes along and cuts out material on subject X to give "equal time" to both subjects, because that their interpretation of NPOV. However, this misses the point; Wikipedia is an evolving work in progress that needs more material on just about every issue. RK 19:49, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
When people cut to make what they see as NPOV balance, this seems to be because they misunderstand NPOV, or are embarassed by a view that they do not want to see. For me, I take the opposite tack, and add material to try and give perspective and balance. I even do so on subjects that cause me personal pain, and which could make my own position look bad. For example, consider my recent additions on the chosen people article, which present Jewish viewpoints that I not only disagree with, but which I think can make Jewish groups look very bad, even if most Jews don't have such views. I felt that NPOV was best achieved by presenting all points of view (hopefully, in the historical context), even though these viewpoints were a rejection of what I believe. RK 19:49, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps I was too subtle in stating that there are two ways to resolve a good faith NPOV dispute -- i.e., removing content and adding content. I agree with your [RK's] position, set forth above, in re the best way to achieve NPOV balance. Nonetheless, you were hasty in attributing questionable motives to Axlrosen's good faith edit, an edit which I had already reverted in the hopes of avoiding an accusation of bad faith like the one that you made. IMHO, Axlrosen correctly "edited boldly," then correctly chose to engage in Talk page discourse rather than reinstating his previous edit. You responded to Axlrosen's good faith actions by asserting, in bad faith, "What nonsense. This isn't about NPOV. Axel is just minimizing a viewpoint he doesn't want to see in print." -- NetEsq 21:07, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This paragraph belongs on the ADL page...not here:

Many Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has attacked this practice as "abhorrent." A recent press release from the ADL states that "PETA's effort to seek approval for their Holocaust on Your Plate campaign is outrageous, offensive and takes chutzpah to new heights. Rather than deepen our revulsion against what the Nazis did to the Jews, the project will undermine the struggle to understand the Holocaust and to find ways to make sure such catastrophes never happen again."

This link clearly shows my view on the subject: Lirath Q. Pynnor

I agree. I've moved it to the article on the ADL, for the folks who look after that article to do with as they will. Martin 20:56, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I disagree; you misunderstand the Wikipedia policy on this issue. Nearly all groups discussed on Wikipedia include some criticisms of said groups' controversial positions. This isn't just true for PETA, but all political, religious, social, environmental and advocacy groups. RK 19:49, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
You often have opposing point of views all over an article because you have two editors who want to insert their own point of view and the only way to do that without an edit war is to agree to put both in there somehow. When the real best practice would be to just state the fact with neither POV.

-- "Bill Clinton did this good thing but some think it was bad. He also did this bad thing that some think was not so bad." as opposed to "Bill Clinton did this, and then did this." 20:06, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree with Martin and Lir. PETA has taken particularly controversial fringe positions on various issues that are near and dear to many Jews, and the ADL's response to the "Holocaust on Your Plate Campaign" is highly representative of mainstream Jewish views on this particular issue. As such, the ADL deserves equal time on this issue in the context of the present article, whereas removing both sides of the debate from the article is counterproductive. -- NetEsq 23:50, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The ADL does not receive equal attention; because, this is not an article about the "Holocaust on Your Plate Campaign"; this is an article about PETA. The ADL's opinion of PETA, while worth mentioning, should not be discussed in full at this page. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Well, I can see your position, NetEsq. I think it's rather stating the obvious to include the reasons of either side: you'd be better off linking to Godwin's law and going home. Still, if we have either we should have both, I guess. Martin 18:16, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I don't know that Godwin's law applies per se. Many groups may have their own commentary on genocide, ethnic cleansing, fascism, etc., but commentary on the Holocaust is primarily the province of Jewish groups, notwithstanding the fact that other disfavored groups were also targeted by Hitler's regime and millions of people who were *NOT* Jewish died fighting it. Indeed, even PETA recognizes the Holocaust as a peculiarly Jewish issue, appealing to the authority of a Jewish Nobel laureate in positing a moral equivalency between the politically motivated genocide of Jews attempted by Hitler's regime and the slaughter of animals for food. In this context, Godwin's law has very little relevance. -- NetEsq 19:16, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

We do not need to go into detail, regarding the ADL's view of PETA. The ADL has its own page, and in that page it is appropriate to discuss all of the ADL's views. It is enough to note here that the ADL has a negative view of PETA's "animal holocaust" campaign -- any further specifics belong on the ADL page. Lirath Q. Pynnor


Adam, aka User:Lir, aka Pizza Puzzle, is again censoring opinions that he disagrees with, and is making edits at the rate of one a minute. He/She (it keeps changing its mind) is back to the old anti-consensus habits which got him/her banned in the first place. This is not a good sign. RK 02:25, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

I have no idea what RK is going on about. I moved the ADL quote below the description of PETA's campaign; not only should the ADL not be given such attention here; but PETA's campaign should be mentioned BEFORE the ADL criticism. Lirath Q. Pynnor
False. You are deleting text. And it now has been restored. RK 02:36, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

What text? I am not aware of any text which I have deleted. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Heh, on close examination I realize that RKs version lacks a paragraph -- apparently he is the one deleting text. Lirath Q. Pynnor

The PETA page as it currently stands is not from a NPOV. I know very little about PETA and all I see on this page is what is wrong with it. I see nothing about its goals or mandate. I see nothing about its history and formation. Those are things I expect to see in an encyclopedia article. Instead I see a scathing critique of the group without any mention of what it is that is being critisized. I look forward to when these edit wars are sorted out and I can get some actual information about PETA. --zandperl 02:43, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well it does say that Pamela Anderson supports them- what more do you need??? quercus robur ;-)

Feel free to delete the ADL quotes, they don't belong here. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir, please do not include entire web pages as a quote. That is out of line; it is certainly a violation of our NPOV policy, and maybe a copyright violation as well. Please do not falsely accuse other people of censorship when they refuse to allow you to quote such huge gobs of text. This is not censorship; is merely standard Wikipedia editorial practice in all of our articles. As it is, the shorter quote from PETA here is still huge. RK 00:40, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Lirath Q. Pynnor
A couple of days ago someone added an entire web page from PETA on the "animal holocaust" issue. I edited this material down, somewhat, but still left a fairly large quote. In response, you immediately reverted my edit, and accused me of censorhip. Check the page history of the main article. RK 01:09, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
RK, I added the large quote, not Lir, on 18:00, 21 Oct 2003. Lir has not edited the article since then. Check the page history of the main article. Martin 11:31, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, thats probably because you didn't take the time to explain why you were removing the information. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Zandperl's definitely got a point. Seems like the entire article is devoted to nothing but proof of controversiality, with agenda that this proves PETA bad. John Brown in the Civil War got argued both ways too; was he a bomb-heaver, or martyr? The one thing you don't get much out of here is a sense of info about PETA from a PETA perspective. If they employ Holocaust comparisons, why? Not only is one PETA person's declaration binding on all members, I don't think you have to value all animal lives at exact par with all human lives in order to believe animal lives have intrinsic value, killing or reducing to inanimate means to your will is wrong, suffering is wrong, boxcar herding is wrong, inflicting pain alive is wrong, etc. Definitely needs a little balance and devil's advocacy, imho. Chris Rodgers 07:38, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Boy, after reading some of the comments above, this is going to seem positively tame. :-)

"PETA supporters say that the organization has been able to protect the lives of many animals, including closing the largest horse slaughterhouse in the nation" - which nation? I'd guess the U.S., since that's where PETA's based, but I don't want to make assumptions. -- Ortonmc 02:45, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sugarcoating PETA

The last few changes are bascially a sugarcoat, placing pro peta first, and softening critisams and putting them last. I am posting my intention to fix this here now to avoid a revert war. Dominick 20:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Criticism should go last, the article is about PETA. Also, saying that something is sugarcoated implies that there is an icky taste to require sugarcoating, which is not neutral. Looking at the edit history [of this article] User:Rosemaryamey has been adding much valid content, and created People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals#Criticism of PETA for you to notice. Hyacinth 21:34, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Explain this POV hack job: Center for Consumer Freedom Dominick 21:58, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Instead of waiting for my explination, why don't you just edit. Hyacinth 22:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Dominick, I hope you can remaind calm about this -- I went to that article and saw nothing that looked horribly biased, but then I don't know the topic. What needs changing? Furthermore, I think this article is laid out exactly as Wikipedian standards would suggest -- it establishes who PETA are and what they do, and then explains the criticisms. What do you think is wrong? Can you copy specific passages here that need fixing? I think people would be more willing to discuss possible changes with you if you were ready to talk things over here (rather than make unilateral changes, which it appears that you are threatening). That's just my perspective. I'm sure you do have some important criticisms of the article (most articles here need work of some kind), and I'm interested to hear what they are. Jwrosenzweig 22:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

POV on talk pages is OK. If Dominick thinks we are "sugarcoating" PETA, that means he thinks we are downplaying something important. I'd like to know what that is.--Eloquence* 23:51, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

That is correct. PoV should be out here, I don't want my own personal view to dominate the topic of PETA. I would prefer that my fellow Wikipedians know how much I think an original article falls short. First, I think by stating the claims that this organization makes in the Wiki gives them a free channel to present thier views. Second, this isn't a place to present them in a good light. This isn't a PR vehice, they have some real strong connections to ELF terrorists, and have had people accused of violent crime on the payroll. TO close this too long comment, (sorry folks), Jwrosenzweig, I posted here to discuss this, and did not make a single "unilateral" change. The changes User:Rosemaryameywere a departure from the original article, and were "unilateral" IMHO. I would like this to be a complete treatment of PETA, which would not just look like a pamphlet. Every comment she softened was a anti-PETA comment. Every thing she highlighted was pro-PETA. Did I answer you Eloquence? Dominick 03:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia, and was unaware that it was necessary to get into a discussion on the talk page before adding factual information to expand an article. I haven't removed any of the criticism of PETA, just moved it to its own section. I agree that there should be more on their links to ELF, etc. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done on this page. Rosemary Amey 14:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
First, welcome to WIkipedia. We cooperate to write articles, and people write about what they care about. I worry that people unknowingly put PoV into those organizations they are sentimental about. I didn't like your changes, which were widespread, and I complained here to get a better perspective and try to think through how to improve the PoV and empasize facts I think are objective and important. Unfortunatly, some critics are just "feces tossers" who edit and leave. I would prefer to make certain this article and the Center for Consumer Freedom one reflect NPOV. I have a PoV, I admit, I am a fur wearing, meat eating sportsman. :-) I would prefer to rise above the label and do a decent fact based job. Dominick 15:19, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I tried to keep an NPOV in the parts I added, e.g. when I added the Jesus is a Vegetarian campaign, I mentioned that most Christian leaders disagree with PETA's claims. The CCF stub needs a lot of work, obviously. Go for it. Rosemary Amey 17:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
It's not necessary to get in a discussion on a talk page just to change an article. Usually the discussion on the talk page happens after the changes, when someone disagrees with the changes, and you need to decide what to do with it. :) - Fennec 15:24, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Reality check

Checking one of Rosemaryamey's edits, 13:01, 4 May 2004, I find that she in no way altered the text so as to soften criticism. In fact, about the only real change besides sorting paragraphs I can find is the de-linking of chutzpah. Similarly her first edit to the article only rearranged paragraphs and added slightly more information. She herself added an article and a link to a group which is critical of PETA, Center for Consumer Freedom. Criticisms of the article may be entirely correct, but they have always been there, are not because of recent changes, and not because of Rosemaryamey. Hyacinth 17:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Hyacinth. If anyone is wondering, I delinked chutzpah because there was no article to link to and also "chutzpah" seems like a definition that belongs in a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia. Rosemary Amey 17:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Disappearing links

I was wondering if the anonymous users who removed the links to Peta Sucks and Center for Consumer Freedom could explain their reasoning. Rosemary Amey 00:11, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

It was going on before. Some anonymous users will continue to delete links. I think just because someone is anonymous, doesn't disqualify them from editing, but unfortunatly, some vandals are anonymous. Links both ways belong here. Censorship stinks! Dominick 10:04, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

campaigns of violence against people

Listed in one of the links

" It gave $7,500 to Fran Stephanie Trutt, who tried to murder the president of a medical laboratory. It gave $5,000 to Josh Harper, who attacked Native Americans on a whale hunt by throwing smoke bombs, shooting flares, and spraying their faces with chemical fire extinguishers."

Peta has of payed legal fees for people arrested in conjunction with ALF "raids". There is a stong link there. The ALF and ELF are wanted in acts of arson and criminal vandalism.[1] Arson constitutes depraved indifference, since you can't be sure that nobody is in the building. Dominick 12:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yikes. Thanks, Dominick. Rosemary Amey 17:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

PETA Does Not Have 800,000 Members

PETA's claim to have 800,000 members is bogus. PETA is incorporated, in fact, such that there are only a handful of members in order to avoid the risk of having an outside group take the organization over as PETA itself did to at least one animal rights organization.

The 400,000 or 800,000 members claim appears to be made up out of thin air. A running hypothesis is that they likely count anyone who has ever donated to them as members.

Are these just allegations or do you have anything to back this up with? Allot of non-profits work like this. PETA is one of many top down (control) private non-profits.--Steele 05:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am probably counted as a member (I get a lot of mail from them, and they certainly treat me like one) but I am a huge critic of theirs. My theory, as a vegan, is that they are funded by the meat industry to make us vegans/vegeterians look bad.


Would it be appropriate to put into the article that critics of PETA often mockingly claim it stands for "People Eating Tasty Animals"?

That joke is many years old. I don't see why it is relevant to contributing anything meaningful to this article.--Steele 05:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If that other acronym were to be included, why not include "People Enjoy Torturing Animals" too?--Rolandog 01:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
"People Easting Tasty Animals" actually exists as a quasi-organization; it's mainly a group of sarcastic farmers making fun of PETA. Check the web for several different versions.

My 2 cents, Is there really any fairness in here?

This seems more like a hit piece on PETA masquerading as an Encyclopedia article. It is very easy to pretend to be "Fair and Balanced"™ while pushing an agenda. It is accomplished by putting facts in you like and leaving out those that you don’t. Because of this omission of the truth, it comes across as NPOV to the average user but it shapes misinformed views of the organization in that persons mind. After reading this article any user will come out with a terribly negative view of this group.

I am not trying to accuse anyone here of pushing an agenda because I think the issue is much more complicated then that. It is much easier to dig up dirt on this group then it is to verify or discredit it. After all, PETA and the AR movements opponents are some of the biggest corporations in the world and all the power that comes with it sure does have some influence. Like friends in the major media who produce hit pieces, PR firms and front groups. It is allot easier to get your message out to the public compared to a group with very limited funds and media access. Basically, flooding the public with disinformation, which I see where ever I go on the internet.

This is already on top of a movement that is very complex and that the general public has little to no understanding of. This means the system stacks against them in an age of media sound bites and quick segments that favor the status quo. Not only that but lets not forget the Right Wing echo chambers that, even though AR is neither a left or right, likes to pick on as part of the liberal scapegoats or left wing conspiracy.

Comparison with other organisations' Wikipedia pages

Let’s look at some of the problems and compare this to the other organizations out there and on wiki. How about the NRA, NAACP, Greenpeace, [ Republican Party], [ Democratic Party], KKK, Neo-Nazi’s, NAMBLA and the ACLU?

Size of complaints:

  • PETA (1/2): before I even get half way there are critics and complaints until the end of the article.
  • (worst case senerio) ACLU (1/5): for defense of various unpopular groups and strong church and state separation.
  • Greenpeace (1/12): Funny, this organization is the closest to PETA in its tactics.
  • NRA(1/12): Note these are bulleted and not detailed criticism like the others.
  • Republican Party(NA): none
  • Democratic Party(NA): one link at the end
  • NAACP(1/28): very mild ones at that
  • KKK, neo-Nazi’s, NAMBLA(NA): no criticism sections at all?

Interesting how you can learn more about what’s “wrong” with PETA then what they actually stand for. I also noticed how the link section is 11 to 6 against PETA. Funny, since PETA owns 114 different webpages.

Interesting how the only thing about PETAs executive director Bruce Fredric is not his success against corporate giants like McDonald’s, his famous “Got Beer” Campaign, not his life of community service, the fact that he is a devout Christian or even that he was one of the top 10 candidates for [

Showtime’s American Candidate] but his misquoted rant at a speech to fellow animal rights activist.

“Sponsorship of terrorism” isn’t POV, it is libel. That is the first thing that needs to be removed. PETA has never sponsored a “campaign of violence” against anyone. Animal Rights is a nonviolent movement, humans are after all animals so the very idea would be hypocritical not to mention counterproductive. Consumer Freedom isn’t anything close to a real source as they are just a partisan hack job for the corporations that make money off the exploitation of animals in addition to the many other things they do. The money given to Rodney was to pay his legal fees. That is legal, remember? The money sent to the “Earth Liberation Front” didn’t go to terrorist. That is the Earth Liberation Fronts Press office which maintains a webpage, support group and creates a magazine. That is also legal. The FBI would shut down PETA in a heartbeat if they ever did anything wrong.

the ALF and the ELF were described as a "serious terrorist threat" by James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation.Geni 09:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
ALF and ELF do not actually exist, there is no centralize organization or coordination. To be an ALF member all you have to do is liberate animals from places of abuse, inflict economic damage to those who profit, and/or reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors. The way it works is anonymous people carry out these actions and send proof of it (video or newspaper clippings) to the ALF Press office (which does not keep any contact information.) The ALF press office, making sure the activist carried out the actions under ALF guidelines (must be a vegetarian/vegan and take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human or non-human) and if they did, the Press office will claim responsibility. The money that PETA sent was to a self appointed PR/media relations firm that represents (but doesn't know) the people who carry out actions under the concept of ALF. That is what the ALF Press office is. There isn't any way to "support ALF" unless you are the one carrying out the action--Steele 21:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I found this in the main article "I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them, exploded tomorrow." That could be construed as inciting people to commit acts of violence against places that a person does not agree with. One thing I found was 18 U.S.C. § 1951 - Interference with commerce by threats or violence. See here for the text of the stature.

JesseG 03:11, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure how they consider it “sexism” when the celebrities volunteer and they use both men and women for their campaigns.

“Holocaust on your plate” section doesn’t talk about how the campaign was run by a Jew who lost family members in the Holocaust or that it was funded by a Jewish philanthropist who has spent the last 25 years working with prominent Jewish organizations that highlight the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust. Something I wouldn’t be able to back up if it wasn’t for the “Yahoo cache” and no thanks to the big media. Please read the [

fallowing] (you may have to highlight the text with your mouse to see it.) 

PETA also can’t take sides on issues outside of the Animal Rights movement. So of course, condemning suicide bombing in her letter to Yasser Arafat could alienate the Muslim presence they also try to reach.

What is the point of the domain name dispute? It looks like the only reason it was put up was for the old “people eating tasty animals” joke. I don’t see any good reasons why it would be up there, so it seems to be just more pointless criticism.

Last but not least, one thing that is missing is a statement explaining why they always use these controversial tactics. Did anyone here think that the people who read this article might have a better understanding of why PETA does these things if they had read this?

Since I am new to this whole “wiki” thing and the fact that I am a card carrying member of the group I will let others edit the article first if they do so within a reasonable amount of time. Please feel free to tell me what you think or correct me if you feel I am wrong. Sorry for the ranting but this has made me frustrated.

--Steele 09:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article is an outrage. It's just a hatchet job.Simon d 02:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then it's your duty as a member to do something about it. If you want someone else to do something, be more specific, but if you want it done right, do it yourself.--Mylon 17:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Major overhaul for NPOV.

This article is in major need of restructuring. Tensions seemed high so I thought I'd float some ideas here before making changes myself.

First, clearly and concisely, at the beginning of the article, state PETA's own claimed goals. No annotation is needed. Seccond, defer the animal rights controversy to the animal rights page. Use PETA's distinction of animal rights vs. animal welfare and a link to the animal rights page. Third, create a new page for the PETA/ADL debate; i.e., defer all of the anti-semitism acuasations to their own page and include a prominent link here. Fourth, state criticisms and PETA positions without judgemental language. Fifth, include a reference to monies given to convicted arsonists, etc.

It would be nice to have more factual/background/history information on the group. Look at the greenpeace or ACLU articles for formatting examples. I am sensitive to the argument that PETA is fundamentally different in both ideology and tactics from advocacy groups such as greenpeace, but that is a conclusion that in informed reader can reach on his or her own. Most importantly, the flow of the article isn't very good.

--Selket 18:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Timeline of PETA history

Any way we can incorporate this info into this article, or another specialized article, perhaps Timeline of PETA History? See [2]. 17:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jesus was not a vegan

"And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took [it], and did eat before them." - Luke 24:41-43 17:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is this comment related to the article? Hyacinth 22:05, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[3] Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 00:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In what way is your opinion that Jesus was not a vegan related to the article? Hyacinth 18:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Too much criticism

Since Wikipedia is not the place to debate whether a group is right or wrong, it seems like there is far too much criticism of PETA on this page, as others have pointed out. Do we really need a criticism section on several individual campaigns, so that they can be individually criticised? We could condense the criticisms down to a paragraph, with references to webpages that conduct in-depth criticisms. Or the "Campaigns for a Vegan Diet" section already has a line of criticism after each campaign - isn't this sufficient? This isn't the place to go into detail about criticisms and counter-criticisms, as otherwise Wikipedia would just turn into a giant debating forum. --Raye 14:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since one of the main features of PETA is those contivesal campains probably. Do you have evidence to support your final assertion?Geni 14:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or debating forum [4], it's an encyclopedia. If we allowed debates here the situation would get out of hand - this page would say "Peta did A. critics say this is wrong because of B. Peta say that B is wrong because of C. Critics say that C is wrong because of D . . . " and so on forever. We do need important criticisms to be noted, but we can't allow this to get out of hand. This is difficult to resolve I admit, but the amount of criticism on this page certainly seems disproportionate, as others have also noted. If you look at the "Comparison with other organisation's Wikipedia pages" above, the difference is striking. -- 19:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article is already listed as disputed, and the edit history shows many comments regarding campaigns.
The article's title and subject is PETA. Perhaps the article is of sufficient length now that any criticism of specific PETA campaigns belongs on articles devoted to those campaigns. This also cuts down on the overabundance of debate as issues may be settled on seperate articles talk pages and described more sublty and in greater length than allowed on this article. Hyacinth 19:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good, but do the campaigns really warrant their own pages? I'm not sure what the guidlines are for what deserves its own page, maybe you are right and they do warrant individual pages. But also, if we deleted the campaigns from this page then there would be very little on this page! However, perhaps the most contraversial ones at least warrant their own page (I'm thinking of the Holocaust on your Plate campaign . . .) -- 20:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course some of these individual campaigns deserve an indepth discussion. PETA is deliberately controversial, and their actions have a significant effect on much of the American community. (The effect isn't always what they wish, but that's another story.) Remember - we are writing about a large and well-funded group that is trying to change the entire world in a revolutionary way (whether we like their goal or not.) Of course the result will be major controversies that deserve in-depth discussion. The same is true for reporting criticism. RK 16:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 13:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I've toned down the crit a bit, and removed the NPOV tag: discussion seems to have stopped. From my POV, there is too much unsourced stuff in the crit section, and too much flinging around of "terrorist", most of which I've removed.

(William M. Connolley 15:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Geni has re-inserted the "listed" terrorist orgs bit. The ref given doesn't convince: to me, a listed terrorist org implies an official list, and a place on that list.
I agree that "listed" implies a list. Actually the FBI does regard ALF/ELF as eco-terrorists [5]. There is a problem with using such evidence alongside the 1991 quote, however. We'd need to establish that ALF was known to be involved in identified acts of eco-terrorism in 1991--their later listing wouldn't really be relevant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)) A fair point. Also the link you quote isn't a list... its rather vaguer. Does in fact a "list" of terrorist orgs exist? This is what is wanted to support the text on the page - as well, as you point out, some evidence that they were "listed" in 1991.


The note alongside PETA donations to ALF, characterized as a "listed terrorist organisation" has been reverted twice now (see above). That probably means it needs some backing to the claim here:

  1. "... the FBI classifies the Animal Liberation Front, for example, as a terrorist group, and describes it as 'one of the most active extremists elements in the United States'. The FBI classifies the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) with ALF as the two main groups that characterize special-interest extremism. In fact, ELF is actually modeled after ALF ... eight of what the law enforcement group deemed 'terrorist incidents' during 1999 were attributed to either ALF or ELF" Rick Ross Institute for study of destructive cults groups and movements, 2002
  2. "Despite Sept. 11, the ELF and ALF have committed at least five violent acts the FBI deems as crossing the line into terrorist activities ... The current spree started on Sept. 8, when militants torched a McDonald's restaurant in Tucson, Ariz. Four of the five action shave been claimed by the Animal Liberation Front and one by its sister organization, the Earth Liberation Front. Beth Anne Steele, an FBI spokeswoman in Portland, said it's 'pretty unbelievable' that the groups, considered terrorists themselves by the agency, have continued their sabotage during the nation's terrorism crisis." Associated Press, 2001
  3. "During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars ... In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States ... The ALF is considered a terrorist group, whose purpose is to bring about social and political change through the use of force and violence." FBI counterterrorism chief testimony to House Resources Committee, 2002

With this in mind I've re-asserted the comment in the article. FT2 03:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute that ALF (or ELF) are "eco-terrorist" groups (appropriateness of this label aside, for groups which forbid violence against humans and animals). However I do dispute the one-sided attempt to tar PETA as eco-terrorist by association with ALF and ELF. The only support lent for this is a link to a website by the conservative corporate front group Center for Consumer Freedom. First of all, donations to legal defense funds can hardly be conceived as supporting eco-terrorism, unless you take the view that lawyers are terrorists. They should be disregarded. Other than that there are some allegations of some pittances out of PETA's large budget given to ALF, which are poorly documented. In my understanding there was only one actual transfer of cash from PETA to an [A/E]LF group, which was afterwards withdrawn. If the article is going to mention ALF/ELF connections, it had better document them better and show the connection as being much flimsier than it suggests now. 19:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
And what of PETA's VP of Communications who stated that they had indeed given money to ELF; "We did it, we did it. We gave $1,500 to the ELF for a specific program," said PETA President Lisa Lange. [[3] (] plain_regular_ham 19:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Got any more reliable sources for that? The "Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise" doesn't appear to be the most unbiased source (they have a page called 'PETA Probe'). Neither does Fox 'news', which the broken link on that page is apparently pointing to. Vclaw 02:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
How about [6]? This from a bunch that also looks into activities by the American Corn Growers Association among several others including the Chefs Collaborative. They don't appear to be after PETA specifically. Are they reliable? plain_regular_ham 13:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
That's the Center for Consumer Freedom again, who are opposed to a wide variety of enviromental activists. They are criticizing the American Corn Growers Association and the Chefs Collaborative because both are pro-organic / anti-GM etc. That quote is pretty meaningless anyway, as it says a "specific program", which does not equal supporting terrorism. And who at the ELF did this money go to, as they are not an organisation anyway. Vclaw 15:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
You would have to ask Lange. I didn't say that PETA gave money to ELF. (A front. Not an organization. True.) She did. Regardless, as I said, they aren't after PETA specifically. Should we ban information about Republicans from organizations that endorsed John Kerry? I don't think so. plain_regular_ham 13:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


Would you stop it already? This article looks just fine. If you want to change or correct something, then do it!


I asked for a source recently for the following passage, but none was forthcoming, so I've removed it. "Critics point to PETA's implied advocacy of violence and the view of one of PETA's cofounders that "arson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are acceptable crimes when used for the animal cause" as a reason for PETA to lose its status as a non-profit organization."

We need a credible source, not unnamed critics, saying PETA ought to lose its status because of its implied advocacy of violence, and we need a citation, and preferably a link, for the quote. I removed that the ALF and ELF are eco-terrorists because it was unattributed, and I fixed the external links, as they're not normally embedded. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 07:22 (UTC)

Would the freaking BBC be credible? i googled the quote attributed to petas leaders and it was the first hit. seriously people, quotes like that are amazingly google-able.

IreverentReverend 3 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

We also need a source for the claim that PETA are "quasi-terrorists." The link that was given went to a general website, not a source, so I removed it. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 07:23 (UTC)
IreverentReverend, could you supply a source for your edits about Rod Coronado? Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 07:28 (UTC)
Not sure how to cite TV shows, but Penn and Teller Bullshit season 2, episode 1 shows the actual tax paperwork from peta that they filed with the government. IreverentReverend 2 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)
I'll make the Coronado references invisible until you find an authoritative source. Could you supply sources for all similar edits from now on, please? See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite sources. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 07:58 (UTC)

while looking into getting a copy of the tax form, here is a ref IreverentReverend 2 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)

Not a copy of the tax form, and not a personal website. We need authoritative third-party sources for your edits e.g. books published by reputable publishing houses, or reputable newspapers, with the date, byline, headline, and preferably a link. Please read our policies before you edit any further, particularly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Anything questionable that lacks a source will be removed, so it's in your interests, if you want your edits to stick, to be very careful about sourcing your claims, and writing them in a disinterested, encyclopedic tone. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 08:30 (UTC)
wait one second... why the hell would a copy of the tax form itself not count? you cannot get any more primary source than the freaking irs on this...IreverentReverend 2 July 2005 08:36 (UTC)
Why don't you just read the policies? If you can supply a link to the tax form that is on an authoritative website, then fine, do it. But if you're only going to obtain a copy of it yourself, that's no use to the readers. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 08:46 (UTC)
sorry but the folks at Wikipedia:No original research agree with me. the IRS does not have all it's records online. Just like a book citeatio if you don't belive me get a copy yourself. they are public records available from the irs.IreverentReverend 3 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)

animal research

can we include a section on peta's stance on animal testing? including the fact that the VP of peta uses animal based insulin? IreverentReverend 2 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)

Would you mind providing sources for the edits you've made already, rather than suggesting new ones? SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 07:43 (UTC)

hpw about this one? doesnt say the insuline comes from animals, but that the insulin was derived from animal testing, also some goon peta/anitmal testing info... IreverentReverend 2 July 2005 09:13 (UTC) has a juicy quote at the end....IreverentReverend 2 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)

peta vs humane society

might be worth a section on peta protesting animal shelters euthanizing animals... something peta does itself... any thoughts?

Copy edit

Overall, this article seemed partisan and in places unencyclopedic, so we need sources, and reputable, unbiased ones if possible, rather than partisan websites.

Removed from article and sources needed

1) The following has a link at the end, but only to a highly partisan website, and it's not clear where on the site the specific claims would be found. If the website links to articles, we should link to the articles, not to the website:

"From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats and other companion animals at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. It killed 85% of the animals it brought in to its shelter." [7]

2) "The Lettuce Ladies campaign has been criticized by some other animal-rights groups, who see it as sexist and exploitative."

3) Needs a source and an explanation of what it is: "Another case where similar concerns arose and PETA was accused of orchestrating and mis-representing animal owners for P.R. purposes, was Berosini v. PETA."

4) I'm requesting a source, and preferably a quote, for the sentence in bold. "Another cause of concern is the degree of financial support given by PETA to listed eco-terrorist organizations such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF), [8][9] both associated with firebombings and other actions of industrial sabotage; PETA's tax exempt status has been challenged for this reason.

5) In the following, there's a link provided, but no indication of where the information can be found on the page, or even what the sentence might mean. Press releases aren't conducted, and nothing is conducted on behalf of a firebombing. "PETA has also conducted press releases on behalf of firebombings by ALF" [10].

6) Needs a source and is anyway unencyclopedic: "Its members are usually drawn from the segment of the population that eats meat, and usually mock and insult members of PETA as idiots and idealists who lack a proper sense of humor and perspective."

7) This is the milk claim: These claims are true (so far as I know), not marginally so, and we need an authoritative (non-partisan) source saying the reactions are minority ones: "While these claims are marginally true, such reactions are only found in a small minority of Caucasians, and are common only amongst Asians. This was not made clear by PETA."

8) I didn't fully understand the following claim. The typical Western diet, if it were to become vegan or vegetarian, wouldn't be the typical Western diet anymore. In any event, it needs a source: "PETA has also been accused of promoting vegetarian and vegan lifestyles without providing sufficient information on the health risks involved in excluding meat and dairy from a typical Western diet."

9) We need a source for the linkage, and a source for the concerns: "It has also linked both lifestyles to weight loss, prompting concerns over groups targeting of groups that are vulnerable to eating disorders."

10) We need names, sources, instead of "many opponents": Many opponents of PETA see them as extremists; many take offense at the statements by Bruce Friedrich, a PETA executive, "If we really believe animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then of course we're going to be blowing things up and smashing windows. I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them, exploded tomorrow."[11]

Sources needed but text not removed

There are also some requests for sources in the text.

The following needs a source, particularly the quotation, but also the separate claim that it cooperated with radical groups, as it's not clear whether this is still Morrison:

1) "Morrison claims that PETA "cleverly edited" 60 hours of video tape into a damning 30-minute segment, that it cooperated with radical groups, and that it used questionable tactics to silence, discredit, and smear its opponents."

Original research

Removed because it's not clear what the following has to do with PETA, and it looks as though a WP editor was trying to build a case (see Wikipedia:No original research:

1) An apparently contradictory portion of the Bible reads: 'And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took [it], and did eat before them.' - Luke 24:41-43

2) The Christian Vegetarian Association originally grew in response to a different approach to the Bible and vegetarianism, characterized by the CVA's first campaign known as "What Would Jesus Eat...Today?" - an effort PETA has subsequently co-opted, adopted, and enthusiastically supported.

That's about it. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 11:04 (UTC)

I also meant to add that I'll be looking for sources too for these edits. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 11:24 (UTC)

Where sources go

IreverentReverend, I think you may have misunderstood the point of providing sources. They're for the readers, not for us, so they go into the article, and they're not made invisible. They also have to be sources that are credible and accessible to ordinary readers. Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop being so aggressive. There's no need to use freaking as an adjective: I understand you just as well without it. Finally, please read Wikipedia:No original research, as you seem to have misunderstood what it is. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 08:11 (UTC)

Eh, doesn't really matter, as i linked to a website with it as well as put the IRS tax form, which, again was deemed acceptable at Wikipedia:No original research. Oh and I am agressive due to your massive violation of NPOV by removing anything that doesn't make peta look good.IreverentReverend 3 July 2005 08:17 (UTC)

Can you use a quote from the source you provided? [12] And please watch the writing: if PETA's referred to in the singular throughout, why suddenly refer to it in the plural? Also, there's no need to keeping saving after all your edits; it makes them harder for others to check quickly. Use the preview button. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005

08:15 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make PETA look good. I'm trying to stop you from making them look bad. If you're going to refer to the tax information, you must provide a checkable source. As a matter of interest, how do you know about it, if you can't find a source that others can check?

The key is to write in a disinterested, encyclopedic style; stop using labels and let the facts speak for themselves where possible; and attribute any controversial descriptions to respectable, mainstream sources. Here's an example from an article about animal-rights activist Keith Mann. He has been called a terrorist by mainstream sources, so I felt it ought to be included in the intro, but I attributed it, like this:

Keith Mann is a British animal-rights campaigner, believed to be a senior Animal Liberation Front activist. He was first jailed in 1992 in connection with an attack on the home of a fox hunter. In 1994, he was sentenced to 14 years in jail for possession of explosive substances, incitement, criminal damage, and escape from custody. The Guardian has described his activites as a "terrorist-style sabotage campaign against the meat industry." [13]

The part that Wikipedia is saying is completely factual, but the opinion part is attributed to the Guardian, and because it's a controversial opinion, it's in quotation marks.

If you write like this in the PETA article, you'll find you have no complaint from me. But there's no point in finding a highly partisan source to call them "terrorists," because it's too easy and it's worthless. Try to stick to mainstream sources, even if you don't agree with them. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 08:38 (UTC)

Like I said, it was on penn and teller, along with a dateline a whileback. Still in the process ow getting the forms sent to me, but like they said on the no original research, since anyone can check them, no need to upload them. just because it is not online doesn't mean they are not true.... Oh and, All i did was un comment out that line and sourced it.IreverentReverend 3 July 2005 08:44 (UTC)
I just looked, and you've provided an article as a source for the donation information to Coronado, so I'm not sure why you still feel you need the actual tax forms.
Also, your reliance on is probably not a good thing, as they are highly partisan. If they're the only source you can find for a particular piece of information, you should ask yourself why. Mainstream newspapers are often reluctant to use sources like these lobbying groups, because they're biased and don't have the staff to do proper fact-checking. We should be wary of them for the same reasons. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 08:52 (UTC)

I filed to recieve the tax forms before adding that link, and I am argueing with you due to you claiming that the IRS is not a reliable source. Is the FBI reliable? here is a speach that calls the ALF and the ELF as a serious terrorist threat " In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front have become the most active criminal extremist elements in the United States." [14] not quite what the line currently states, but the credentials seem prety darn good: Statement of John E. Lewis Deputy Assitant Director Counterterrorism Division Federal Bureau of Investigation Before the Senate Judiciary Committee IreverentReverend 3 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Violent animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists now pose one of the most serious terrorism threats to the nation, top federal law enforcement officials say."[15] alternative to the last one IreverentReverend 3 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)

Right, and this is a good example of the importance of using sources properly. Neither of these says that the ALF is "listed" with the FBI as a terrorist group. A listing as a terrorist group is a very specific thing, and usually it's the State Dept that lists them, not the FBI, though that may have changed since 9/11. What you have here is someone saying they're the "most active criminal extremist element in the United States," and someone else saying that "animal-rights extremists ... pose one of the most serious terrorism threats ...". Make sure you quote the source absolutely correctly and don't jump to your own conclusions. Also, I haven't looked at your FBI report, but if it's the one I think it is, the FBI also makes clear in the same document that the ALF in the U.S. is a non-violent organization and does adhere to its policy of non-violence, so there's an inherent contradiction there, because the U.S. govt defines terrorism as political violence directed against civilians, though that also may have changed since I last looked. My point here is that you need to be very careful when you attribute claims like this, because these words are too easily thrown around.
I have no idea where you think I said the IRS was not a reputable source. Can I ask you again please to read WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, as I think most of these misunderstandings would clear up if you did that. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 11:05 (UTC)

"They also have to be sources that are credible and accessible to ordinary readers." that is your comment about me using the IRS as a source, amoung other actions and statements, that is one of the more recent. and I have read those pages, and YOU seem to need a review of them, as this argument seems to show. Any way :"It also lists left-wing domestic groups, such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), as terrorist threats"[16] from the article in the Congressional Quarterly article "Animal Rights Groups and Ecology Militants Make DHS Terrorist List, Right-Wing Vigilantes Omitted" IreverentReverend 3 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)

That's an excellent source. Thank you for finding it. That means it's okay to say the DHS has called the ALF and ELF a "terrorist threat," or whatever other term they're confirmed as having used. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 23:39 (UTC)

Recent Link

On July 9, an anonymous IP added as the top link in the critical section. This seems to be a brand new site that nowhere mentions its affiliation, history, mission, or funding. Data is also not available yet on SourceWatch. The registration data for the site is also hidden from whois searches. At this juncture, it seems like a very poor quality source for information on this topic, so I have deleted it. I am curious as to who is behind this one, I would guess CCF or Nichols-dezenhall. If someone wants it back, go ahead and put it back on, but its quality and stature certainly don't warrant it being at the top.--Teej 07:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


An anonymous IP added the NPOV template, with no reasoning on the edit summary and no note on this page. I removed it for that reason. Feel free to add it again, but make sure you include a reasoning, otherwise I will assume vandalism. IreverentReverend 17:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Reason for my revert

Coolguy, I reverted this edit of yours: "The organization takes in numerous animals into its care every day, but killed 5 animals per day, or 86% in its Norfolk, VA headquarters (in 2003)" because it's not sourced, and also because I'm not sure it's appropriate for the introduction even if it is. Do you have a good (non-partisan) source for it? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:11, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The most recent changes made at 2005-07-23 0810Z are probably going to be reverted again. Can some other people help to create an NPOV with respect to the newest issues. Thanks CoolGuy

Do you mean my revert, or something else? See above for explanation. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a neutral source [17]. CoolGuy 07:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that. It's from, which isn't neutral. Where did you see five animals per day or 86 per cent? It would be safer to find a newspaper article about it and to quote from it. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
It's from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 5 per day and 86 percent is a result of dividing, which anyone can do on their own. Comments, anyone? CoolGuy 07:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I feel that it is relevent, just not in the intro. Also, onyl that ONE edit should be removed, the others from coolguy are acceptable to me. IreverentReverend 07:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The documents are supposed to be from there, but it's risky taking them from a website set up to criticize PETA, and then doing our own calculations. Also, PETA kills five animals a day where, and 86 per cent of what? If this is a serious issue, there's bound to be a newspaper article about it somewhere. We're edging toward original research with this. The second thing is that, true or false, it looks a bit odd in the intro, and as though we're trying to build a case against PETA. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:54, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[18] that good enough?

[19] less unbiased, but a good starting point for more info, and a good breakdown

Thanks for finding these, IR. The first one looks fine. The second one mentions an AP report, so I'll take a look for that tomorrow, but I'd say the first one is okay on its own. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:18, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

a bit bored, I was using phrases from the second articel to try and track down the AP article, I came across this :[20]

This one is on a ringling brothers website, but is cited to Associated press...[21]

last link [22] IreverentReverend 08:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

You consider "WorldNetDaily" a "neutral" source? It's not a *bad* source, per se, but it is known to be a conservative paper and thus more likely to support a negative view of PETA to begin with. The top ad on the front page is from Jerry Falwell. The others are also conservative papers. Hey, I'm not saying you have to get your news from the Village Voice... BUT... I would look elsewhere to a less partisan paper before quoting their stories on George W. Bush. The question is, why aren't people using any major Virginia newspapers to back up this claim (Washington Post - which has a Virginia regional edition; Newport News Press; Richmond Times-Dispatch; Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)? A reporter from a reliable, well-sourced and major paper would be backing up this story with more sources - such as state or federal officials (aka the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services) who can legitimize the data on that sheet, or at least confirm or deny whether PETA kills a majority of these animals. I'm not a fan of PETA - I like animals and eat meat - but it's important to find unbiased, thoroughly-researched sources for claims, not the same rewritten PR release through conservative or liberal papers. Noirdame 18:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we need to use credible, preferably neutral, sources for an article like this, and I think we should avoid entirely, as well as the group that runs it. If they release credible, newsworthy information, it'll be picked up by a mainstream news organizations, and if it isn't, that ought to tell us something. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I dislike PETA but "killed" is hardly neutral and not the term used in the VA report. I have changed it to "euthanized" per the VA report. I would be eager to discover the condition of the euthanized animals. All animal centers have to euthanize animals that are too ill. The question is whether these were healthy animals put to sleep simply because there was insufficient space (as is the case in many areas). The real story isn't the killing of the animals but the hypocracy of PETA when they denounce it elsewhere. - Tεxτurε 22:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Since 2,655 animals were surrendered by the owner and 2,278 were euthanized, is it possible that they were put to sleep at the request of the owners? (A possible support for a claim of hypocracy.) - Tεxτurε 22:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, "killed" is neutral. "Euthanized" is a euphemism. There is no reason to believe that all, or even most, of these animals were ill. - Nunh-huh 22:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If peta feels that it can use "killed" and "murdered" to protest animal shelters putting down animals, they can hardley complain when the same term is used for the same thing... any way though, that is no reason to use killed. A better reason may be that "euphinized" is a euphenism, conoting a "mercy" feeling... perhaps "put-down", or "put to sleep", while both are euphenisms, they are pretty transparent........ IreverentReverend 23:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

People seem to be very hesitant to speak plainly. The correct word is "killed". There is no place for euphemism in an encyclopedia article. The animals aren't "sleeping", you know. - Nunh-huh 00:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I fully agree with you. I would LOVE to leave killed in there, but that is not going to happen. every single peta nut that sees that is going to change it. If you want to put it up to a vote, I am behind "killed". IreverentReverend 00:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps they could learn to live with it as a compromise from "slaughtered"? <g>- Nunh-huh 00:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
;-)IreverentReverend 00:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"Euthanized" is not a euphemism but rather what the State of Virginia calls it on their report. If we are referencing a report we need to use the terminology of that report. I don't like PETA but won't stoop to their strategies. - Tεxτurε 18:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course "euthanized" is a euphemism. It appears on this list of the most commonly used euphemisms. If you think "euthanize" isn't a euphemism, you don't understand what euphemism is. - Nunh-huh 18:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so here is the reference for euthanasia :"To subject to euthanasia." since that wasn't so helpfull, I looked up euthanasia :"The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment." Seems pretty specific, and not QUITE the same as kill:"
  1. To put to death.
  2. To deprive of life: The Black Death was a disease that killed millions."

(alternate definitions removed). Now seems to me, unless we can find evidence that PETA only killed animals that were terminally ill, we should use the more generic, less euphimistic word, "kill", as it INCLUDES the meanings for "euthanize". If we find evidence that they were all euthanized, then we should include a blurb as to why PETA recieves more terminally ill pets than other groups like the humane society do. IreverentReverend 22:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

euthanized means put to death due to an medical problem killed is for all other reasons The animals were not ill. Therefore, they were 'killed' by PETA. CoolGuy 03:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that it makes any difference. I'd probably prefer "killed" because "euthanized" is a weasel word.
Someone above wrote that PETA is guilty of hypocrisy because they criticize other shelters for killing animals, but I've never seen them do that. Does anyone have a source? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:29, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I would have to look, but it was included on Bullshit! among online resources. a breif google found this, admittedly biased, but a neat read about what peta claimed to be doing to the animals it killed in virgina..[23].
[ is a good local (virginaian) paper with an article about the peta killings, including this juicy quote :""According to Barry (Anderson, Bertie's Animal Officer), the man and woman told him they were picking up the dogs to take them back to Norfolk where they would find them good homes," Pittman said."
[24] another local paper with this quote "“These were just kittens we were trying to find homes for,” Proctor said. “PETA said they would do that, but these cats never made it out of the county" and "When Proctor evaluated one dead dog for police, he discovered a healthy, 6-month-old mutt with a needle mark on its front right leg, he said."
[ nice article that says, amoung other things :"PETA is even willing to see animals killed before they are made proper and humane use of by humans. A classic example of this approach came to light 2003 federal litigation. PETA and other animal-liberationist organizations sued to prevent elephants from being imported from Africa and placed in zoos. The elephants in question were endangering the ecosystem of the world famous Kruger National Park. The court noted that granting the injunction would cause the elephants to be culled rather than save their lives. But the attorney for PETA and its liberationist co-plaintiffs told the court that the pachyderms “will be better off if…killed rather than imported and placed in zoos." more relevent and telling ". A PETA representative answered “maybe” when asked last week whether any of the group’s euthanized animals had been adoptable. Indeed, nine of the 31 animals Hinkle and Cook are charged with killing were highly adoptable puppies and kittens."
While I know that wasn't exaclty what you were looking for, googling for "peta" and "kill" only resultins in articles about the dumpster dropping recently, due to its massive public outrage. Will look more later.
IreverentReverend 07:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


What do you make of this quote:

"Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!"--The Simpsons episode 3F03.

Vegetarians and vegans

Hi CraigWaling, thanks for adding the section about vegetarians and vegans wanting to distance themselves from PETA. Could you provide a good source for that claim, please? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:36, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

As there's still no source, I've removed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:31, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
It's a growing sentiment. It's hard to source what everyone is saying, but pretty much every vegetarian I know, including myself believes so. i understand that you do want vegetarians and vegans to keep their "PETA freaks" status, so there's little point in pointing this out, but in all honesty, if you look up PETA and practically any internet community of vegetarians, you will see widespread condemnation. There's one example at That's one. But anti-PETA sentiment by vegetarians is something that many feel, but many do not have the opportunity to say.

PETA is not liked by many groups, and i do think that it is important to acknowledge that many vegetarians and vegans do not like PETA for certain reasons. I speak for many people when I say that there are vegetarians out there who think that PETA's campaigning is wholly ineffective, and serves to represent vegetarianism poorly. But if you want a source, I ask that you ask the vegetarians out there. The voice of the silent majority needs to be put forward. That way, they won't be the silent majority any more.CraigWaling (talk) 13:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Rod Coronado

I found out recently from a uncomfirmed source that Rod Coronado is a columnist for PETA Kid's magazine and if somebody should comfirm this I think a section should be added to this section.

If you want some background information on Rod Coronado (ALF Activist), please visit

Re: Rod Coronado

I'm still new to wikipedia, so i'm trying to figure this out...

" It seems incredible that a self-described mainstream charity like PETA would main- tain a public relationship with a violent felon. But the group has also featured Rodney Coronado as a guest columnist in Grrr! Kids Bite Back, a periodical described as “PETA’s magazine for students aged 8 to 14.” PETA claims it distributed almost 160,000 copies to kids and teens in 2003. The magazine’s very name prepares pre- teens to identify with the terrorist Animal Liberation Front, which has long used the phrase bite back as a rallying cry for violent crime. Coronado dubbed his own 1990s arson spree "Operation Bite Back"." Source: User:KerryJones

Hi Kerry, were you suggesting we add the above? It's highly POV, so we wouldn't be able to, at least not written like that. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 14:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

What I was suggesting is not what CCF wrote, but to write about Rod Coronado being a guest columnist for Grrr! Magazine which peta distributes to thousands of children. I'm thinking of sending an e-mail to peta to try and get them to comfirm, but with a history of them and me its likely they don't like me asking questions like this. User:KerryJones

What would make them not want to hear from you? And please sign your posts. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


Is it just me or do I think it would be a better idea for the ASPCA to extend their services towards domesticated animals (like livestock) and just get rid of PETA?

-- How does one "get rid of PETA"?  
-- Ohh, and PETA is a bunch of nut jobs devoted to the elimination of ANY human uses of Animals (including owning pets), so they really have absolutely nothing in common with the SPCA.

Recent Revert

I saw this part of a revert that needs a source " freed animals. Hypocritically, PETA launched a slander campaign against the director of San Francisco's animal shelters because some animals are euthanised there."

video from season 2 of penn and teller's Bullshit!