Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11



Perhaps it's just the facts that make it look this way, but reading this article seems to paint a very bad picture of PETA. I can't say that any of the wording sounds especially bad, but it paints PETA as hypocritical, disorganized, and misguided. Perhaps an expert on the subject/on neutrality should give it a look over? It might be a correct image to paint, though... -- 12:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? With all the PETA quotes in the article it practically reads like a pro-Peta page. Plus, no criticism section? Sure, there are criticisms listed throughout but are easily overshadowed by the flashy quotes and enormous amount of information that seems to be glazed over to provide a POV in favor of PETA. 09:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I think all these 2 comments show is that whoever reads the article reads it with a bias of their own. Personally I find it is pretty well balanced. There shouldn't be an equal amount of 'good' and 'bad' things as this would not be balanced in terms of allowing the organisation to be described. There should always be more info which just describes PETA.
Also, just because you flick over criticism within the article doesn't mean that putting it all in one section is a good idea. At the moment we have a relatively structured article with a flowing set of prose. To chop the criticism out of this and group it together would significantly damage this readability. Also, we used to have such a section and it was a magnet for stupid comments, trolling and unsourced ranting.-Localzuk(talk) 11:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I chopped out the quotes that make this appear *exactly* like a peta newsletter. I'm all for referencing quotes, but since when does an encyclopedia put "marketing" style quotes in separate quote boxes floating down each side of the article? If this was a handout for shopping centres, that would be appropriate.. NathanLee 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This is by far the most Pro-Peta thing I have ever seen. Why is there no criticism anywhere of PETA? Everyone but PETA members criticize PETA and this needs to be in the article...
Please re-read the article. With all due respect, you sound like you haven't read the article at all (or barely skimmed it).--Ramdrake 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the following is worded in anti-PETA manner, "In general, Newkirk makes no apology for PETA's support of activists who may break the law, writing that "no movement for social change has ever succeeded without 'the militarism component'."". Does the wikipedia article on Ghandi using wording like, 'Ghandi made no apology for his civil disobediance,'?

Also, the enlarged quotes are biased in their selection. I specifically take issue with, "“ (Even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS), we'd be against it.. — Ingrid Newkirk, PETA President [108] ”" The source for that is *not* Ingrid Newkirk, but rather a letter from Patient Advocates Against PeTA to Charlize Theron quoting her as saying that. Do I need to explain why secondary sourcing is bad? Either find a source where the reporter actually heard her say it, or else qualify the enlarged selection like the article itself does.

And again, isn't the picture of the dead cats just an emotional appeal to bash PETA. The crime seems to be a relatively small part of what PETA is (and in any case, it does not represent PETA policy, but rather what people working for them have done). In an encyclopedia, with few pictures, this seems like space misused.

So was this article written by the American Meat Institue?

Because it sure reads that way. I know that most articles in wikipeida are shit and should only be read for their entertainment value, but this is really over the top. Singhahyung 16:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --BigDT 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes because actually, the AMA controls the entire world, and regularly uses fluffeh baby kittins for satanic rituals.

Furthermore, everybody in THE ENTIRE WORLD supports Peta, and the only people who don't are blinded by the evil meat industry. Obviously. I vote this should be added to the article.

Generalization? 'everyone' seems a little harsh 'cause I hate PETA and am against their cause. They are rude(holocaust), philosophically unsound(see 'animal rights'), sympathetic towards cuter animals(so true - noone has a campaign for jellyfish - look it up), and disorganized. PETA should acknowledge their support for animal welfare, not 'animal rights'-- 04:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you have to read that comment as being sarcastic. However, to point you in the direction of a campaign regarding a non-cute animal, you should do a search for the lobster liberation front.-Localzuk(talk) 11:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
HEY! Are you trying to say lobsters aren't cute? It is interesting that Singhahyung says what he says, because I read the article and I thought the thing needed a POV warning added to it because some sections were very pro-PETA. I guess everyone has their own perspective. --CokeBear 00:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If everyone's roughly agreed this article wasn't written by the American Meat Institute: Reckon this can get cleaned up (deleted) from the discussion in a week or two? NathanLee 14:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has the fairness of Fox news. This article should be moved to Conservapedia. 07:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

does peta condone having pets?

I've heard this a lot, that having a pet like a dog or even having a fish is prohibited in PeTA's idealogy. If it is, it should be added to the article --Joeblack982 07:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I came to this article specifcally to get this information, and I was surprised it was not here. 06:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it used to be. Probably removed by biased editors. — Omegatron 00:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This is PETA's position on 'companion animals' (pets). Crum375 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Newkirk's quote on the matter of pets: "pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." (see [1]). It appears the position on pets is buried under the more immediate steps on the way to "total animal liberation" NathanLee 20:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
PETA on Pets another link. "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed.". Last paragraph reads "Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world." So in short: they don't want to confiscate animals, but in an ideal PETA world no one should have pets. NathanLee 18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Question then;
If the above corporate statement is correct they why the open support of California AB 1634? This was a manditory span & neuter law for all animals. Make no mistake, this is an overreaching and invasive mandatory pet spay/neuter law. The author of the bill, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, prepares another version of AB 1634 for the Senate Local Government Committee, those behind the measure have only increased their shrill rhetoric and efforts against pet owners.

On a national level, PETA is urging supporters to "Meet with your local officials to get a mandatory spay/neuter law passed in your own community," and encouraging Assemblyman Levine, "not to give up."

TAKE NOTE PEOPLE!!! PETA's is nothing more than a group of TAX EXEMPT TERRORISTS!

They have great PR people and they make believe that what they are doing is positive and get celeb's and common people to "Donate to their worthy cause".--Dogperson3d 17:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dogperson3d- It's not clear what aspect of this article you are discussing, but it appears that you are just expressing an opinion, to which you're entitled, but this is wrong place to do it.Bob98133 18:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural influence of PETA on My Gym Partner's a Monkey

i'm new here so what do you think of this addition

In the Cartoon Network series My Gym Partner's a Monkey in a scene of the episode Inoculation Day a group of 3 females Circle Ingrid Giraffe holding signs and shouting chants like “animals are people too”. This occurs when Adam is chased up her neck by Principal Poncherello Pixiefrog and Nurse Gazelle with a blow dart. When Adam is hit by the dart filled with antidote and transformed into a human the group leaves

Comeback2009 00:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is a third party source supporting the link between Peta and this show then by all means add it with the source (my god it sounds bizarre reading that! I am glad I wasn't drunk/otherwise influenced when I read that, although the new NIN album kinda makes me feel drunk. Anyway, thats off topic.).-Localzuk(talk) 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

... wait we have to find sources for Cultural influence too... like i said i'm new here, do you mind explaining. I was just watching the show and thought there was a very stong link. Comeback2009 00:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Afraid so. Take a look at WP:OR for an explanation of 'original research'. In essence, we have 2 disparate things - Peta and the show. To look at the 2 and draw similarities is drawing a conclusion based on your own ideas which is original research. However, if another, reliable and verifiable source (see WP:V) did the analysis anc conlusion drawing then it would be fine.-Localzuk(talk) 01:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Comeback2009 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotect}} The timeline should include the times that PETA has funded eco-terrorist like David Wilson, Josh Harper, and Rod Coranado. As it stands the timeline reads like a fluff piece. It also is missing the criminal charges a while back where peta was dumping dead animals in adumpster and is a fitting picture to go with it. Thanks! 05:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide proposed text for the addition before a page edit can be made. Please write exactly what you with to add, in a neutral tone then re-add {{Editprotected}}. —dgiestc 06:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotect}} 1990 PETA made a $2,000 contribution to the defense of David Wilson , and $5,000 contribution to the "Josh Harper Support Committee." Both these individuals were on trial for eco-terrorist activities.

1994 PeTA gave over $70,000 toward the failed legal defense of ALFer Rodney Coronado, who was sentenced to 57 months in prison for torching a Michigan State University research facility

2005 PETA employees charged with 31 counts of animal cruelty and 8 of improperly disposing of animal remains. The crimes were committed by PETA officials, using a PETA owned vehicle.

I will draw up more shortly. 06:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The first two don't seem like major events in the organizations history, and lack citations. I have added the third one. —dgiestc 06:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} I assume the US senate would be considered a good citation. It is also on their tax form, linked here, in the article, already. I would say forking over cash to fund an arsonist is a pretty big deal , as well as funding an organization listed as one of the most dangerous terrorist groups in America. 07:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The page is no longer protected. {{editprotect}} removed. No opinion on the proposed edit. Sandstein 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


The Timeline section is there to help the reader understand PETA's rationale for its activities, from PETA's own perspective. It starts with "according to PETA, important actions include". It is not a general timeline of PETA-related events, but a list of the actions or events PETA itself sees as important, typically what it considers as its accomplishments. Other PETA-related events or actions that don't fall into this category should be interwoven into the text, if they are not already there. Crum375 13:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

By encapsulating this large section of text by the minute disclaimer that it is "what peta thinks is important" you are doing exactly what I am attempting to prevent, putting a LARGE section of vertical space devoted to a fluff piece about peta. It should either be a complete timeline about peta, both "positive" and negative or not exist at all. I have no problem including peta's excuses for funding terrorists and terrorism in the timeline events, which allows you to add the peta perspective, albiet with less of a fluff factor. 17:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
As the article is about PETA, to try and show what PETA thinks it is doing, the list should be dedicated to their beliefs. The negative stuff should be discussed in more detail throughout the article. It allows us to focus on important events and just briefly show the other bits.-Localzuk(talk) 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of what you think is important, many of us consider funneling thousands of donated dollars to terrorists important. 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
But in doing it this way, I have a grave concern that we may be doing the exact opposite from what we do when someone suggests we should have a "criticism" section: we tell them praise and criticism are interwoven in the article. From this perspective, it seems to me unsound to have a whole section of self-praise about PETA, for the exact same reasons: praise and criticism should be distributed in the article. I'd much rather see a balanced, neutral perspective on their timeline, one that includes both "good" and "bad" deeds. Doesn't that make more sense?--Ramdrake 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand this, and my edit history shows me to be one of those who really think criticism sections are a bad structure to use. However, in this case I think that we are trying to show what PETA thinks it is doing. To include other events confuses that matter.-Localzuk(talk) 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
When a reader sees PETA's actions, many may seem odd or eccentric. The motivation for the Timeline section is to explain to the reader, from PETA's own perspective, what they consider as their accomplishments, and why they do what they do. If all we had is a timeline of PETA-related events and actions, then it would just be a repeat of the article itself, which would be redundant and confusing. Since this is an article about PETA, it makes sense to let them explain their rationale for their actions and what they consider as their goals. Crum375 21:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
So basically, you are just using that as an excuse to create a one-sided section about PETA and destroy the neutrality of the article as a whole. Like I said, either the timeline section should contain both positives and negatives or should not exist. You can include the rational peta has for it's actions interwoven in the article just as well as you can the criticisms. To do otherwise is to bias the article. 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Then, maybe a piece about their philosophy and their worldview would be appropriate. As it stands, the one-sided timeline doesn't explain the actions of PETA, just how they interpret it to fit their agenda. And yes, with or without criticism, I find this section redundant (just as much as a new section about their supporters creeping up in the article, even though it was ported to its own article months ago). If you want something about how PETA sees their actions (and I agree wholly with the principle, just not on the way it's done), I would strongly suggest to take just a few examples, give PETA's entire rationale for it, and cut down on the rest. Unfortunately, this looks like a one-sided laundry list as it is. It needs to be refocused to properly serve the purpose you intend it to serve, or it needs to go. As it stands today, it reads like an uncritical piece of apology for PETA--Ramdrake 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The primary problem with the timeline section is that it presents PETA as the motivating force behind a wide variety of third party actions (i.e. claims that PETA stopped, persuaded, or otherwise caused a third party to take a course of action favorable to PETA's cause) without any form of independent verification. This is in contradiction with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves as PETA's claims are both self-serving (the claims have the potential to exaggerate PETA's influence) and involve a partisan source making claims about a third-party's motives and intentions. The reliance on PETA to select which items to include in the list also presents issues with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox as the section can reasonably be interpreted as a repetition of PETA's self-promotion without any form of independent verification of facts. While including an explanation of PETA's rationals is a worthy addition to the article, it should be done in a manner that does not violate core Wikipedia policies. --Allen3 talk 23:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. think that the subject of an article should be able to present its own perspective of its accomplishments. If there are attributable criticisms, then they certainly belong in the article for neutral balance. Nevertheless, for a reader interested in understanding what PETA thinks, and what motivates it, the Timeline section is very useful - you certainly understand how they rationalize their actions after reading it. Of course this should be balanced by their criticism, but not in such a way to confuse the reader trying to understand PETA. I don't see how presenting PETA's own perspective in any way violates our policies, as long as each claim is properly sourced. Crum375 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I agree that the subject of an article should be able to present its own perspective of its accomplishment; however, I disagree that a long list of actions according to PETA does the deed. The list reads like a PR list, with no rebuttals (or in this case, of any POV other than PETA's). What I think would be more useful in understanding PETA would be much fewer (2-3 would suffice), in-depth examples, with views from within PETA (and possibly from without). As it stands, the section isn't balanced by any criticism, and doesn't explain sufficiently the views and motivations of PETA behind its purported actions. Thus, as it stands, the section doesn't reach its intended goal. Something needs to be done about it to achieve roughly the same balance that's been achieved in the rest of the article.--Ramdrake 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that regardless of whether one is for or against PETA, or not caring either way, just reading that list gives one an excellent understanding of who PETA really are, and what they really want to achieve - probably better than reading a lot of other complex verbiage. Once the reader understands what PETA want from their own perspective, s/he can read all about the criticisms - why others feel these 'accomplishments' (all or part) are bad, or why the tactics to achieve them are bad, or why they are not really accomplishments but a step backwards, etc. The point is that we are here to educate our readers about our subjects, and before we get into controversies and criticisms, the reader needs to understand what the subject is about. Then the criticism can move the balance to the correct WP:NPOV point. Otherwise, the reader may come away simply confused. Crum375 00:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. That timeline does NOT show the reader who PETA is, in anyway, shape or form. It shows the reader merely what Peta wants them to believe about it. You make my point for me. In order to give the reader a true view of peta, you need to include the fact that they value animals more than people (protesting insulin for diabetics, etc) and paying for terrorist activities is part of who peta is. To exclude that information you are defiantly biasing hte article, and you seem to understand that, as that is what your comment was trying to justify. In order to understand what peta is about, you need to understand the whole picture, not just the slices peta's propaganda farm puts out. 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
If this is your intent, to give readers a perspective of what PETA says they achieved, I would suggest you move this section to the front of the article (before we delve into the controversies), and reduce the section to just a few prominent points, linking to the page where PETA lists its own timeline, and let PETA do it its own way. As I said above, I don't disagree with your intent, I'm just observing that the section doesn't relay your intent properly, severely enough that it needs to be adressed. I don't know of any other article in Wikipedia where a controversial group's (or person's) deeds are listed verbatim from their own viewpoint without any outside analysis or rebuttal, as may be the case.--Ramdrake 00:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Our goal is to educate our readers about PETA - the pros and cons, properly balanced. If to tell them who PETA are we just direct them, by linking, to the PETA web site, then we are not an encyclopedia but a link farm. By being an encyclopedia, we need to explain who/what PETA are, what they want and what they do, and then present the pros and cons, as neutrally as we can. By providing that timeline from their own perspective, I believe we are doing an excellent job of explaining to our readers what PETA really wants to achieve, and what motivates them. Just linking to their website won't achieve the same goal, as there are lots of other things there, and in any case our primary goal is to present things ourselves - for example, we can validate/verify each sourced event and ensure its factual validity, independent of PETA. Separately, as I noted above, we can supply the balancing POV to ensure a neutral presentation. Crum375 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Providing a long list of PETA claimed accomplishments that are visually separated from the fine print disclaimer that the claims are not verified by a third-party is not encyclopedic content but advertising. Ramdrake is correct that PETA's claims should be integrated into the text of the article and clearly marked as being PETA's claims. Any thing less falls short of the neutral encyclopedic article that everyone is advocating. --Allen3 talk 01:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The list is not unverified - we verify every single item on it, per WP:V. The only point is that the list only includes items that PETA itself views as its accomplishments, to help explain its own rationale for its actions. The issue is therefore not verifiability, but neutrality and balance, or WP:NPOV, and we don't just provide some 'fine print' disclaimer - we specifically address each and every properly sourced criticism of PETA. The reason for the list is to help explain PETA's position and rationale, and we fully address any and all sourced criticisms, so we have both a clear understanding of who they are, what they do and want, and what their critics are saying. That's both informative as well as neutral, exactly our mission here. Crum375 01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
My comments are not about the article in general but the one specific section dealing with the timeline. This section contains numerous claims of third-party action with no sources other than PETA press releases to verify the claims. As PETA is indisputably a partisan organization and as the assertions are that PETA was the motivating force behind these third-party actions, this section fails to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves(does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject). --Allen3 talk 02:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you and Ramdrake that the items on that list need to be verifiable independently of PETA. If we can't provide individual verifiable sources, then we should only provide a link into PETA's site for the entire list, IMO. Crum375 02:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that we need to remove the portions that are not verifiable by a third party. Included on the list are items that PETA claims they convinced a second party to do, but the second party denies any validity to peta's claims.

Additionally, as it stands, we have a large amount of vertical space that is eye catchingly, noticeable visually distinguishable from the rest of the article, the sort of thing someone skimming the article would slow down and read a bit, which is nothing more than an uncontested, decidedly one-sided fluff piece that has deliberatly been written in PETA's point of view. Writing an article in ANYONE'S point of view is decidedly encyclopedic, and even worse when the POV is nothing more than a reprint of publicity information copied from the PR department of the articles topic. 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, I think we are all in general agreement that the list should be cut down to only those of its elements that are verifiable by a reliable third-party source (and we should of course give those sources), and should only have a link pointing to the PETA site for those who want to read an entire list of their claims, including the unverified stuff. Once that's done, since the section is there to offer an insight on how PETA thinks it's doing, and we have sections where their actions are criticized, I would then recommend it be moved ebefore any of those discussions. Any takers?--Ramdrake 11:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

All the whitespace of the timeline is ugly, and the content itself doesn't seem encyclopedic. I don't think we're here to write a textbook on PETA's claimed accomplishments, just an encyclopedia entry on what they are. I'd reccomend deleting the entire thing.RogueTrick 18:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to say, if you integrate the timeline into the History, that would reduce the size. It is also POV to have a history with no cotroversies, so integration with all events relating to PETA would be better. Some of the events seem more trivial than significant. Bytebear 19:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should destroy all useful information, so I agree with you. The two seem redundant anyway.RogueTrick 20:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Floating quotes

I don't believe the floating quotes from the peta site are appropriate. Wikipedia's article on PETA does not (and should not) look like the PETA site itself. I don't believe it's appropriate to have an article that reads like an advertisement for the thing that it is on. I had removed them, but slimvirgin reverted (en mass) a bunch of changes including those quotes. I think they have no place if not relevant and integrated into part of the main article body. Otherwise the whole article becomes POV. NathanLee 10:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, please read the policies before editing any further. You're sourcing your material to someone's personal website, which isn't allowed. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(from SV talk) I've integrated the previous changes into your constructive ones (e.g. removing excessive word linking) as your mass revert not only got rid of stuff which you said was repetition (although I can't see anywhere in the philosophy that mentions strict adherence to equal animal/human rights, veganism). You also undid a bunch of typo corrections I had made, a fix of POV stuff, and deleted referenced material (the 60 minutes transcript is not in any way a personal site).

I've created a discussion area if you want to talk about whether those floating quotes belong in wikipedia, but I doubt they do given that they destroy the encyclopaedic structure and make it look like a PETA newsletter. NathanLee 10:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The floating quotes are quite common, so please leave them. Their animal rights philosophy is explained right at the top, and anyway, it's contained in the term "animal rights." I don't know what transcript you're talking about; the only source I could see was a personal website. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
(from SV talk) You are the one making too many changes at once.. You've reverted back over many levels What is the section you are complaining about.
The writing was improved.
I believe you're just attempting to use the 3RR to try and undo meaningful content. This is in violation of the spirit of wikipedia! Your reasoning does not follow. I added referenced material, cleaned up the structure and corrected typos all of which you are undoing. NathanLee 10:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to add the Katrina thing about cats and dogs, that's fine; you can source it to PETA and add it to the timeline. The article can't keep expanding every time someone wants to add yet another thing PETA has done, which is why the timeline is there. As for the rest of it, you're using, which is a personal website, and that isn't allowed, so please do not add it again, or any material from it. Also, you're copy editing isn't improving the writing, and the floating quotes are quite standard, as I said above. There's no point in simply ignoring objections. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You are doing a mass revert going over multiple non vandalism edits you realise? Your reasons for undoing all those changes are incorrect and not as per the guidelines or the spirit of wikipedia. Could you tell me how your reverting any change I make (without participating in the discussion forum) is adhering to the editing guidelines? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NathanLee (talkcontribs) 10:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Can I refer you to [2]. Your edits do NOT adhere to this. Please if you have an issue with content: do not revert added content and changes unless it is NathanLee 10:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Also: the floating quotes not only destroy the formatting: they are straight from PETA's website. They do not add anything to the encyclopaedic content of the article. Also: your reversion rather than editing is pointless and has wiped out other improvements to content AND referenced material. There's an edit button: that is the better approach. Reverting is for vandalism primarily, not adding of content in order to invoke 3RR to censor an opinion that differs from your own. All it does is piss off people that are actually contributing something to the content, unlike yourself. NathanLee 10:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Nathan, you have violated 3RR and you're causing the writing to deteriorate. You changed "Other campaigns are hard-hitting and controversial" to "PETA's campaigns are [sic] have been criticised as unnecessarily attempting to achieve shock value," which I have to say is not good writing. Please take the opportunity to revert yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I had changed it to "PETA's campaigns are frequently criticised as unnecessarily attempting to achieve shock value[1].". I'll assert again that the writing had improved and your rolling back was undoing fixes. If you had an issue with a particular paragraph you should chop just that paragraph out. But as consumerfreedom apppears to be off limits because it is funded by food companies (and heaven forbid a website might have funding) and contains articles with an opposing view to PETA. I guess the BBC is off limits also as it is funded via taxation of the British people who are overwhelmingly not PETA members. NathanLee 17:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The quote from Ingrid E. Newkirk about her days before Peta and her killing animals should be expanded to included the appropriate context, otherwise it's just a chopped up quote that's made to sound cold: "I would say, 'They are stepping on the animals, crushing them like grapes, and they don't care.' In the end, I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through that. I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day. Some of those people would take pleasure in making them suffer. Driving home every night, I would cry just thinking about it. And I just felt, to my bones, this cannot be right."

I think you make a very good point. Maybe you should repost this to the bottom of the page with a new heading, otherwise people will miss it. Turtlescrubber 20:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Popplers episode/futurama

I have once again removed the reference to Futurama and the popplers episode. I have done this because

  1. The information is written in such a way that it is original research which is unsupported by the (eventual) external source ''
  2. It was referenced to an internal article which itself was poorly sourced.
  3. The '' site is, by its own declaration, a set of personal sites which makes it an unreliable source.

If we can find a reliable source that draws the link between PETA and this episode then by all means we should include it, but including it in a poorly sourced or original research filled state simply lowers the overall quality of the article and goes against our policies. It is the responsibility of the poster to provide reliable sources, not the responsibility of other editors to fix the problems left by such posts. -Localzuk(talk) 11:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


A look around suggests the IFAW has more members, assets, and is active in more countries. PETA as largest may be a meme (note the Britannica source is a blog). Marskell 11:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think the EB source is a blog? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It's right there in the URL: The main blog page is here. Marskell 11:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you mean, but it's not really a blog. Staff are being paid to write the articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a blog, just not a personal one, closer to a corporate blog. Not sure what WP guidelines are in such a case?--Ramdrake 12:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it is more a personal blog actually, if you go to the blogs home page, the about box on the right has a line which states that the staff have freedom and the views are their own, not the company's.-Localzuk(talk) 12:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of this status of this source (you can probably google up some others) the point seems debatable and probably shouldn't be stated as a bald first sentence. Shuffle it down and give phrasal attribution ("PETA claims to be..."). Marskell 14:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no reference in the blog, so it may just be completely verbatim from PETA's information. Just because it is on britannica's site doesn't necessarily mean it has the same amount of validity as from the encyclopaedia.. NathanLee 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone got an independent source or one which compares various organisation sizes? I really think that any PETA claims that are not backed up by any other source should be noted as such. PETA makes lots of claims that are not backed up by other research or evidence (e.g. "meat causes impotence" and various other dubious claims about omnivorous diets which are unsupported assertions generally). It also might be confused with largest "animal welfare" to which it can most certainly not the largest organisation when compared with organisations like the RSPCA, humane society etc. NathanLee 14:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I've used phrasal attribution for the largest claim, but I'm wondering whether the information ought to be removed entirely. First, as noted above, IFAW claims more members, staff, countries active, and assets. And then I had a brainwave: the US Humane Society, which claimed assets of 200 million dollars for '05.[3](big PDF) That's more than an order of magnitude larger than PETA.[4] Finally, whether is a reliable source is highly debatable.

In short, I think the claim that it's largest is simply false. It's certainly the most visible, which is why I suspect an internet meme. The only counter-argument might be that the Humane Society etc. are strictly animal welfare organizations, but I'd call it a distinction without a difference; its areas of concern are completely in-keeping with PETA's. Marskell 12:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

PETA are a reliable source about PETA. They say one thing, we can say they say that... As you say the humane society is an animal welfare group and the 2 (animal rights and animal welfare) are completely different concepts, which sometimes even have opposing views.-Localzuk(talk) 13:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The claim is not about PETA per se. It's about PETA and every other animal rights organization in the world. And for 1.6 million "members and supporters" I do not consider it reliable. Tax documents, OK.
I think the Humane Society is an animal rights organization, I was only anticipating the counter-argument. It agitates in exactly the same areas as PETA—factory farming, fur, animal research etc.—but less the naked women. Marskell 14:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You would be wrong about the Humane Society - they are an animal welfare organistion plain and simple. This simply shows that you don't have a thorough understanding of animal rights (this isn't an attack, it is an observation).
The statement from PETA is that they are the largest organisation of its kind. Using your argument, we couldn't use any comments from any organisation on their article if they concerned anyone or anything else, which is absurd.-Localzuk(talk) 14:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I've had this debate twice or thrice on here and I'm familiar enough with the argument—I believe it's a fallacy of definition. But that's just me.
In any case, I only wanted to point out that the claim is equivocal. If the phrasal attribution stays, I can live with it. Marskell 14:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
And as I have said there is a major difference between the 2 subject matters. People are taught about one in Philosophy degrees but not the other. Animal welfare is about allowing the usage of animals so long as it is not *insert arbitrary definition of cruel here*. Animal rights calls for the complete and total end of animal use by humans. Yes there may be similar methods but the end goal is completely different.
But as you say, the attribution is fine.-Localzuk(talk) 14:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be perfectly possible in a philosophy class to argue for a fallacy of definition. That mutual exclusivity is suggested, where the two terms ought to be viewed on a spectrum, because: a) animal rights will never be self-consistent in practice (when PETA neuters an animal its reproductive rights are deprived—the only purpose to its existence, from a certain perspective); b) animal rights is fraught with arbitrary definitions of its own (not least, where on the TOL to place your primary dividing line); and c) animal welfare organizations can perfectly well advocate non-arbitrary positions that are identical to positions held by animal rights groups.
But how did I wind up here?! Slim'll kill me. Marskell 16:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Proposed addition of content: As PETA's tactics (boycotts and "corporate bullying") are what causes controversy often, I have the following to add:

PETA's campaigning tactics were described as not "much different than blackmail" in 2005 by Dr Len Stevens, the CEO of Australian Wool Innovations body.[2]. A similar worded accusation in a 60 minutes interview that "They were blackmailed by you" was dismissed by PETA representative Ingrid Newkirk as "It doesn't matter" so long as "They are on board" (referring to PETA achieving its boycott goal).[3]

Any comments on this? I believe this adheres to wikipedia's policies:

  • no original research,
  • referenced from reputable sources (Sydney morning herald and a ninemsn/60minutes television transcript with Ingrid Newkirk),
  • articles support statements directly.

I believe also it provides the reader with insight into the attitude of PETA campaigns with the concept of "any means to an ends".

Sounds fine to me.--Ramdrake 12:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
As an addition it also sounds fine to me. I would suggest we hold off on adding more to the article until we have split bits off else things may start getting confused and lost in the transition. What do others think?-Localzuk(talk) 12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Added it in. Waiting around for a cleanup that may or may not happen that will most likely involves the timeline and campaign sections probably isn't going to achieve a much different outcome.. NathanLee 12:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty POV selection for a quote to me. "Blackmail" is a pretty loaded word. People attach all sorts of labels to things, even people that you are allied with. You could call any boycott "blackmail", but most people would realize that it's a description with baggage.

Removal of framed quotes

I removed the framed quotes again. I couldn't agree more strongly with Nathan's position that this makes it look like WP is endorsing PETA. I don't have a problem with these quotes being worked back into the article as normal text, though.--Ramdrake 12:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Crum had a point, but since all three quotes were pro-PETA, I added a couple that were critical. Indeed, the Holocaust article has them, but they represent all viewpoints, not just one.--Ramdrake 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
And right next to where you added one of the quotes, there were two unreferenced quotes criticizing Newkirk that had been tagged in March. But you left them in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
When you repeatedly wipe out fixes to typos I don't think you're in a position to be complaining about someone leaving something in the article alone. In line quotes that are part of the article flow are one thing: highlighted, large font, floating quotes straight from advertising material are another. Who's showing bias now SlimVirgin? It's pretty natural that an article on an organisation like PETA should contain a bit more reference to criticism, as I believe on average it seeks to gain criticism and thus publicity. Despite this you seem determined to stomp on any attempt to show that criticism at the expense of improving the article. NathanLee 17:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. From your edits so far it simply looked like you were wanting to add as much 'anti-peta' information as possible without the necessary sources to back it up properly. You also managed to change some of the well written lines into a mess. The roll-backs simply reflect the overall perceived quality of the edits you were presenting. Now, rather than focussing on the fact that reverting was done, we should move on and add things.-Localzuk(talk) 18:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
What well written line did I mess up? I had fixed sections and they were summarily undone. If an error crept in it was because I had to un-undo a blanket wipe of any contributions I added which meant a merge issue. I've assumed good faith, and that my attempt to contribute on this article (as I have with other articles) would not be summarily undone because it disagrees with someone else's view (despite referencing etc) and it appears that assumption was incorrect. The reason I added some material was because the article read like an advertisement. NathanLee 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin pointed out one such line in the section above marked 'floating quotes'. As I have said, your material was reverted for a long list of reasons. This is reason enough to assume good faith.-Localzuk(talk) 19:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I've added two more floating quotes to even out the score as best as I could see it, and I promise I'll stop there, as long as too many other quotes don't get added. This should dispel the perception that only having positive floating quotes makes the article look like an ad for PETA (which I mostly agree with), and the prominence of both the pro-PETA quotes and some of the strongest criticisms should help give a better first impression that this articles aims for a balance of views.--Ramdrake 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Article size

Right, the article is currently 92kb in size which is far too large. How can we trim it down/split some of it off?

I propose that we move the other campaigns section and some of the campaigning section to its own article and summarise that here. This could also be done with the Timeline section if necessary?-Localzuk(talk) 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest we start with the timeline, as this part IMHO has been more contentious in the recent past.--Ramdrake 20:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that that would only remove 12kb of stuff from the article - still leaving it twice the recommened size.-Localzuk(talk) 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Then, indeed we need to move some other stuff (like some of the campaigning section). Not sure which parts, though. I don't oppose these moves per se, I just thought it would be more appropriate to start in the reverse order.--Ramdrake 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The lengthy section on all their campaigns in detail reads a bit long in my opinion. As has been said before (and in the peer review) there's probably not too much to be gained by the detail on each and every one of their campaigns.NathanLee 08:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How about a new page for "People for Ethical Treatment of Animals Campaigns" and "History of People for Ethical Treatment of Animals Activism" ? Any thoughts on whether that would help chop this article down to size? Think this is similar to separating out the celebrity supporters.. NathanLee 12:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the subject worthy of so many pages to it? Important events and recent news is one thing, but normal happenings just start pushing wikipedia into being more of a news site.RogueTrick 18:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal (one for the ever watchful vandal reverters)

I reckon this page needs a big red sign at the top saying

"Yes, we know: People for Eating Tasty Animals.. Ha ha.. It was only funny the first 300 times.."

No this has no content, I just thought it'd get a smile from the numerous people keeping the vandals out. Keep up the good work! :P NathanLee 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Companion animals - obscure term

I've replaced a couple of instances of "companion animal" with "pet" or "animal" as it's not exactly a term used anywhere except perhaps in PETA material.. If anyone's got objections: discuss here.. NathanLee 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a pretty common term here, in the UK - as there are many degree's at universities that use it. I'm not too concerned about which one is used, but think it should stay as it is as PETA uses the term 'companion animals' in reference to its free euthanasia programme, so using the term 'pets' would not be in line with what they actually offer as a service. I'll explain a bit further. As an organisation, PETA does not use the term 'Pet', they use 'Companion Animals' or 'Companions' or 'Animals'. Now, this service is in place to provide euthanasia to companion animals, and whilst the source I have found [5] uses the term 'animals', we are specifically talking about companion animals. We should simply use what the organisation uses.-Localzuk(talk) 09:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
"Pet" is a rather old-fashioned term; organizations increasingly tend to use "companion animals" nowadays. I see that New South Wales even has a Companion Animals Act. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes and also when you say pet it is some sort of ownership, so saying "companion animals" is more appropriate especially for this article.
And thanks SlimVirgin for your edits to this and the Vegan article it is greatly appreciated!--Migospia 04:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Well legally animals ARE owned by people Migospia (whether you want to regard them as owned or not: legally animals have no right of independence under the law and in many cases the owners are held responsible for attacks etc).. The notion that the term "pet" implies ownership and that is bad is contrary to the actual definition by the way.
The general population talks of "pets" a hell of a lot more than "companion animal" (find me many movie references where people talk of "companion animals" versus "pets"). Kids talk of owning their first "pet". The shops you buy them in are called "pet stores". You feed them with "pet food" and buy things from "pet supplies". They're called "pet shelters" or "animal shelters" (not "animal companion shelter"). There are courses on pet care. The term "pet" has been around far far longer than "companion animal" and one can also argue logically that not all animals are kept as companions: e.g. show dogs, animals for security etc. "companion animal" is not the most accurate or useful term. Also: I noticed my change was reverted: might I remind you that reverting is contrary to the dispute avoidance policy (you should discuss rather than revert). In this case my change was to a more used term and a more descriptive term. So I really don't see why "companion animal" would be anyone's preferred choice and I'd request that the reverter put the changes back please. NathanLee 00:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh and as to SV's comment about the companion animal act: if you look into it: there was already a Pet animals act of 1951, so a new term was required.. So even in legal terms: the term "pet" was around first. NathanLee 01:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
And they realized that it needed to be replaced. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Why would it have to be? The term "pet" is more widely used, full stop. Companion animals is just another silly euphemism. If you take a look in the phone book I doubt you'll find a preference for "companion animal" to "pet" for anything pet related in terms of business naming. "Pet" also means favoured (if you can look past the animal lib view on pet ownership).. e.g. "pet project", "pet child". Do you have any reason as to why the longer used, more popular, less obscure, more descriptive term shouldn't be used in wikipedia (as per my changes that were reverted)? We talk of having pets as kids, not companion animals. The president was reading "my pet goat" when the WTC got hit, not "my companion animal goat". :P Yes the term is used by animal rights groups to indicate their deep and meaningful respect for animals and so they can say they don't own "pets" (they own "companion animals" instead.. so go figure).. Unless there's any real reason: I will put my changes back (this really shouldn't be necessary for any change to articles of this nature). Also: "companion animal" doesn't even seem to have made it into britannica,is described as "a humorous term for pet" by A suggestion: look for knowledge outside animal lib sites on terms and usage of the English language.. NathanLee 01:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this the next step toward acceptance of zoophilia? "Companion animal" is exclusively used by fringe groups (like PETA) for their own agendas. It is not used anywhere outside of those groups. The only instance I can think is "seeing eye dogs" which are called "service animals" because they are not (exclusively) pets. Bytebear 03:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It has been argued that the term "Companion animal" is acceptable because PETA uses the term, and this is a PETA article. By that logic, the KKK article can use the term "nigger" because it is used by their organization. I point out that references on "companion animals" actually use the term "pets". Bytebear 06:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This is like somebody told me yesterday (here on Wikipedia too) that saying nigger was like newbie. Since when is PETA like the KKK? And nigger is a hate word my slave owners whereas companion animals is actually considered to to be a nice way of saying pet, so I do not get your reasoning? (Also to point out niggers is used in the KKK article on Wiki)--Migospia 06:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My point is that a term such as "companion animal" or "nigger" may be used within a group or organization, but it does not mean that it is the common or correct term to use in Wikipedia. As was pointed out 1) the standard English dictionary correctly defines "pet", 2) only PETA and other extreme animal groups use the term "companion animal" and 3) even their own references use the term "pet". You are pushing a POV, plain and simple. Bytebear 06:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I really don't want to replace anything just the fact that companion animals is a used term and is considered a neautral used term, it is not like I am wanting to say friends, it is a neutral, whearas nigger is not at all--Migospia 06:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
and the KKK article only uses "nigger" in direct quotes. It does not replace the word "black". You are attempting to replace the word "pet". Bytebear 06:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well that is not a very strong point and actually not only PETA and "other extreme animal groups" use companion animal I do as well as I know a lot of people do it is a growing term, why are you so aganist it is what I am trying to understand? This is not POV because if it was I would be at the Pets Wikipedia article trying to change that to companion animals, this is a PETA article and this is not POV
The term "companion animal" is not a neutral term. Just by the fact of who uses the term (animal rights activists). It is a euphamism for pet, used by a very few people who use it as part of a larger agenda. That makes it POV. Wikipedia is a NPOV forum. The term "companion animal" is not even in the English dictionary. The correct term for pets is pets. And if it isn't such a big deal, why not use the more common term? I suspect it is because it has a connotation you do not agree with. Bytebear 06:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Simple question- Why are you so against companion animals? (When it is neutral and a much more positive term)--Migospia 07:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Would this be a good junction to think about what our article on companion animal says? Rockpocket 07:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple question really don't know why anyone would be aganist it and so much to compare to KKK and niggers. It is just a lot more neutral and a much more positive which there should be no harm in spreading love. Wiki does not have an article on companion animals that is also my point, if you read above--Migospia 07:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess when it comes to peace no one has an answer. Also it seems companion animal was removed when referencing to [70] [6] in the article. And even Bytebear says the KKK article uses niggers in their quotes, it seems odd reference to something that should be there but that is not--Migospia 07:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)-----
Indeed. We don't have an article on it, instead it redirects to pet. One would have thought if companion animal is widely considered "a lot more neutral" a term for it, the redirect would be the other way around. Yet, it isn't. I wonder why? Rockpocket 07:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well you really should not spend your time wondering over it because just the past two days the word nigger has been used to compare to nice things on Wikipedia, so I wonder why that is....maybe because the world prefers hate over peace? Pet is negative and for some Friend is too postive so companion animal is neutral--Migospia 07:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I think focusing too much on a comparison with of the word "nigger" is somewhat of a straw man. However, I would propose that, as it stands, the first proposed use of the term companion animal is justified since it directly refers to PETA's policy towards them. I would simply wikilink it, and provide a reference for PETA's use of the term. The second example, I think, would be better off as "pet" since the source is critical of PETA, and therefore the use of PETA's preferred word seems somewhat unjustified when there is a perfectly acceptable word that everyone else uses. That my take, I'll wait to see if there is any support for that before adding to the revertage. Rockpocket 07:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Might I suggest that if "pet" is negative then you have a strange view of the definition of the word and the common usage (most people love their pets..).. Pet means favoured, lovingly raised domestic animal. "Companion animal" is a silly distinction as it implies you're using the animal for companionship: which is not the case with a lot of owned domesticated breed of animal. E.g. many people own dogs for security.. They're still classed as "pets" but hardly "companion animals". I'd also urge people that comments in reverts are not a substitute for discussion. NathanLee 08:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well whatever really I just think it's quite silly a few have an opposition to companion animal when it is used twice and in referece, and it is not negative like I believe pet is.--Migospia 09:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The definition says it is a silly term:"a humorous term for a pet". I'd have to agree. I think it's a rather ridiculous euphemism for "pet" (and means absolutely nothing in terms of "ownership" or "control" as it's hardly the dog's decision when it goes for a walk or eats or anything). It's like "domestic engineer" for "housewife": it's insulting to engineers and ridiculous to suggest ironing/cleaning is "engineering" (a title which requires completion of a degree certified by the Institute of engineers in Australia). We shouldn't be using silly obscure/niche names (that mean less) in an encyclopaedia and pet has only positive connotations for the majority of the population.. This isn't PETA's site Migospia, it's an entry ON PETA and normal, simple, non-euphemistic words should be used for things. NathanLee 10:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
As long as it is sourced there is no reason not to use it. If you disagree with its use, you are free to also include the term 'pet' - but if it is sourced then your objections are moot as far as I can see. We don't take preference to's definition over other definitions and uses.-Localzuk(talk) 11:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I just love how a simple correction to the most common word still needs to be fought tooth and nail because it disagrees with animal lib literature. Go down to your local store and find a can of "companion animal food", or buy a collar from a "companion animal store". I've only ever heard of the term used by PETA and activist sites. It certainly isn't a term I've EVER heard any person use and if they did it'd probably be a piss take. Everyone uses and knows the term "pet", companion animal is just silly and not backed by dictionary definitions except to say it's a humorous term for animal.. This page on PETA should be written for normal people, not just PETA followers used to their strange alternate terms and who think "pet" is some negative term for their "non-human life partners"/"animal brother from another mother"/"live-in differently species friend". NathanLee 12:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Nathan - you are doing it again. Primary sources do not trump secondary sources. They are just another source. Regardless of your original research filled banter, the fact remains that PETA uses the term 'Companion Animal' and this can be sourced to them. Our policies allow this to be included and sourced to them. If you have an alternative, with sources, then include it but do not remove the existing term because you personally haven't heard of it. And if anyone needs a source using 'Companion Animals' here's one [7]. Also Nathan, calling arguments 'ridiculous' doesn't help - it just makes people dislike you even more than they do already. You would be better off sticking to proper discussion.-Localzuk(talk) 12:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Localzuk. Also, if you check out pet you'll see that it refers to an animal kept for "companionship and enjoyment." So, stray or abandoned animals would not be considered pets, nor would guard dogs, racing greyhounds or service animals, who might require euthanasia if sick or injured. I think companion animal is a broader more inclusive term as used by PETA that describes the animal as opposed to its function, so that term, like it or not, is a more suitable choice.Bob98133 13:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Problem with your distinction is that "companion animals" would be a subset of "pets", and the PETA policy on euthanasia which applies to "companion animals" would then not apply to pets which aren't companion animals (such as service animals, guard dogs, etc.) which to me is not what PETA had in mind to start with. The only way PETA's policy makes sense in that respect is if the meaning of "pet" is identically equal to that of "companion animal". While I don't think we should exclude any and all mention of "companion animal" from the article, we shouldn't go out of our way either to replace all instances of "pets" with "companion animals". What I would suggest is to use both, in a ratio that reflects what exists in the "real world" (where, unless I'm much mistaken "pet" is largely predominant). Just my tuppence.--Ramdrake 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Localzuk: that's directly a personal attack and completely irrelevant.. If you don't like me because I don't agree with you then fine: keep that to yourself and out of a discussion page (by all means go for it on my talk page if you want to have a go at me). My comment that it was "silly" is based on a reference I gave (where I provided pretty much the only actual links to proper material in this discussion so far). It's indeed silly and ridiculous to put a term that is "a humorous term for pet" into an encyclopaedic entry. It is also not a very international term (as an Australian, someone who has lived in Asia and europe) I have yet to hear anyone use the term in conversation so euphemisms should be avoided. Perhaps in animal lib circles it is common, but in the real world that term is not used in the vast majority of cases. The term does get used certainly, but generally we are talking "pets". We're not here to popularise niche terms when a simpler, more popular one exists.. NathanLee 14:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I don't see how that could even slightly be construed as an attack. It was personal, yes, but not an attack - it is advice asking you not to go around calling things 'ridiculous', I wouldn't do it as it is simply rude. It is relevant, as you are once again stating quite plainly that dictionaries are preferable as sources, which goes completely against our policies on the matter. The issue is that we have a source from PETA (and I can find you many thousands more from both activist organisations and non activist organisations, such as universities, the media, laws etc...) which uses the term. We can therefore use that term within the article as it is sourced. If you wish to have an alternative term, by all means include it, but not at the expense of the one that already exists, that is how things are done.
Ramdrake - actually, wouldn't it make pets a subset of companion animals and not the way round you say?-Localzuk(talk) 14:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The way I see things, "pet" refers to a small number of species which are commonly used as companion animals (cats, dogs, some birds, some rodents, and a few more). To me, it is a species-level term, which means, for instance, all dogs are pets, irrespective of whether they are companion animals, service animals, stray dogs, racing dogs, hunting dogs or whatever. Since humane societies usually do not discriminate between dogs depending on their use, I feel it is safe to assume "pet" should be used as a species-level term. "Companion animal" to me rings closer to a descriptive based on their use. You can disagree, but that's my personal opinion.--Ramdrake 15:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
For some stats on media usage via google restricted to news sites: from 175 results for "companion animal" OR "companion animals" versus pet OR pets getting 74,000. Sydney morning herald ( 58 for companion, 27,500 for pet/pets. Google news across all sources: pet/pets is 30,969, comp animal: 362. Google news archive: 1.1 million pet/pets versus 17,500 for comp animals. Now some of that might be false positives on the pets side for technical terms, but "pets" versus "companion animals" shows a similar ratio.. e.g. google news: 234 for the companion animals versus 13,000 or so for pets. So it doesn't appear to be a very common term relative. How about what people are searching for on google: the flat lines at the bottom are the terms "companion animal" and "companion animals". So any good reasons we should be promoting an uncommon term? NathanLee 14:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The term 'pet' is used for a larger number of things than just describing companion animals (eg. pet peeves).
Also, you mention that the term isn't used in Australia when there is in fact an Australian government dept with that as its name... [8]-Localzuk(talk) 14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you put "companion animal" in quotes and source it to PETA when used in a reference to PETA's policy on pets/companion animals. Elsewhere, when used not in direct reference to PETA, "pet" could be used. Is that an unacceptable compromise to anyone? Rockpocket 17:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Companion Animal should be in the article, but only in reference to PETAs usage of the word. Wikipedia is not a platform for animal rights. Your opinions do not matter. Only the facts matter, and the fact of the matter is this: "pets" is the correct term for animals in the care of people. Animals for slaugter are not pets, work animals are not pets. When I think of "animal companion" I get the idea you are attempting some kind of equal playing field with your pet. Do you get an opinion from your cat when you paint the bathroom? It is euphamism that should be explained in the article, but not used in the article as if it were an accepted term, because it clearly is not. Bytebear 17:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
In using the word "you" are you referring to me, specifically? Rockpocket 18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I am talking in generalities only. But I would be interested if anyone does, in fact, get decorating advice from their pets... er... companion animals. Bytebear 18:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It'll be the same day they do some of the cleaning, pay their share of the rent, electricity, tv and grocery bill (oh, and clean up their own mess or pay for anything they wreck).. Well.. ;) NathanLee 19:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
localzuk: do you mean an "Act" rather than a department? Yes there's an act (law) and a register (for linking animals and their owners/life partners/species differentiated twins), but not a department as far as I can find. Unless act/law or register = department in your way of determining "synonymous".. And the "pets" part of my stats (that had similar ratio) was addressing what you raise as it's seldom used except in that context. NathanLee 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the fact that a state of Australia may or may not have a law named after something or other does not make it better than a word in overwhelming common use. The page releating to the law in question, seems to use "companion animal" and "pet" interchangeably. I agree with the above poster who stated that pet is to companion animal as housewife is to domestic engineer: an unnecessary, ridiculous replacement of a commonly used word engineered by interest groups. It can be mentioned that PETA uses the term companion animal and in direct quotes, but I don't think that it should be used in the article, which gives a legitimacy to the term that wikipedia should not (on any issue/term) --Gunny01 05:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A google search for "companion animal" yields almost a million hits, and PETA isn't even mentioned in the first few pages that I checked. Agencies which are mentioned include the US Dept of Agriculture (USDA), various universities, government councils, etc. I think that companion animal is a new term to describe a "pet's" unique legal and emotional relationship with people - even though pets are owned, courts in the US have begun recognizing that "loss of companionship" is something that should be compensated for, so if someone kills your dog he may be responsible for costs in excess of the cost of replacement, unlike if he wrecks your car which legally only requires replacement value. I think the term companion animal better, like it or not, better reflects the way society currently views animals kept as companions than pets. It's not an animal rigths or welfare issue, just evolving language. Bob98133 12:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

Why Further reading is now labeled External links that makes no sense?--Migospia 03:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it back. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

on guide dogs and farm animals

From a PETA representative house of lords transcript.



1200. Would you oppose guide dogs for the blind?
(Dr Seidle) Considering some of the training that I myself have witnessed, yes, unless that can be substantially modified.

Earl of Onslow

1201. Do you realise that if your policy was carried out and everybody became vegans then there would be no sheep, no pigs and no cattle in this country or in any other country in the world? Is that what you want, the extermination of cattle, sheep and pigs in the whole universe? That would be the direct consequence of your policy.
(Dr Seidle) That is not our motivation.

1202. That was not the question I asked. The question was do you realise that this would happen, that is the direct consequence of your policy?
(Dr Seidle) Yes.

1203. So you are happy to see the extermination and the extinction of sheep, cattle and pigs?
(Dr Seidle) I would not say happy but we would accept that.

1204. That is the direct consequence of your policy.
(Dr Seidle) That would be fine. It would not happen overnight.

Earl of Onslow: You say that it would be fine. Okay, I have said enough.

Chairman: Lord Onslow, we are not a court of law.

Might be useful to clarify positions on things. Though the chairman had to remind the earl of onslow to pull his head in a bit. NathanLee 23:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"... in the whole universe?" Ha ha. E.T. had better make sure those Reese's Pieces are vegan. Rockpocket 01:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The questions demonstrate the wisdom of abolishing the House of Lords. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
But what would those rich fatcats do with their time if not pointless pontificating eh? Think of the poor tax-funded-born-into-it aristocracy SV! :P Perhaps PETA could find them "good homes and shelter" in a dumpster? For the ones that the paparazzi doesn't get of course.. ;) NathanLee 13:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'm coming into the conversation a bit late, but did any of the above transcript make it into the article? Because if this is just a general discussion of the topic it should be moved elsewhere... VanTucky 14:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The talk page of an article is an appropriate forum for providing potentially useful source material. Rockpocket 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It was more of a "here's a resource" on some parts of the PETA philosophy that weren't covered.. And some random piss-taking from everyone ;).. NathanLee 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Would it be possible to charge PETA's gross misrepresentation of the facts as a crime?

What crime would that be? What law? What country? This isn't a discussion forum about PETA, it is to discuss improvements to the article.-Localzuk(talk) 21:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

False advertising, lying, disturbing the peace, rabble rousing, trying to change the way people live, obscene ad campaigns etc. 12va34 20:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What are they advertising? Nothing. The rest is simply nonsense and not against the law. Please keep your own misinformed and petty opinions of the organisation to yourself.-Localzuk(talk) 21:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me that the "Your Dad Kills" campaign isn't obscene and offensive. 12va34 22:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

PETA is worse than the mafia, take the Vick situation, he hasn't been proven guilty, yet the PETA people are strong arming their way into getting him banned from Falcons camp. PETA cares only for their interests and refuses to compromise, with all the hot air coming out of their mouth, they probably kill Billions of air molecules, because I guess they consider them animals to. It's natural selection, survival of the fittest. 21:20 July 23

Hey, 12aV34, perhaps you could take your allegations and complaints to your local district attorney, a federal prosecutor or hire an attorney to represent you. Those would all be appropriate actions to achieve your goal. Posting your opinions here couldn't possibly lead to what you want. Good luck. Bob98133 23:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be more appropriate, yes. Also, that campaign isn't obscene, just offensive. And as far as I know there isn't any laws against being offensive unless in relation to material such as hardcore pornography in the UK etc...-Localzuk(talk) 23:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What about mentioning in the article that some people have brought up lawsuits against PETA's massive propaganda campaign? A guy in Texas successfully sued PETA on the grounds that the propaganda was innapropriate for children. If this isn't mentioned in the article, a seperate Controversie section should be created. 17:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Any sources of that?-Localzuk(talk) 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

See Also

I question the Center for Consumer Freedom web site being listed as a See Also link on this page. I don't think PETA has ever said anything about them, and PETA's got plenty of critics, so it seems odd that just this one would be here. Unless someone thinks otherwise? Bob98133 20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right. So, I moved it into the external link section, which seems more appropriate. Turtlescrubber 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the next move should be off the page. The Peta Kills Animals site right above that is put up by the same guys. I don't think it's well documented at all, but at least it's specific to PETA. The Center for Consumer Freedom site is all over the place - they've got stuff about PETA, but mostly about other things they don't like, so I still think it should go. Maybe the NRA doesn't like PETA either, but that's no reason to link to them or every other group that hates PETA. Page would be too long :) Bob98133 21:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just reverted back to the state before cultural influences were removed, PETA was removed as a source about itself (which is acceptable per our sourcing rules) and the addition of a link to an attack organisation funded by the food and tobacco industries... Please discuss these changes, as they have all been discussed to death before.-Localzuk(talk) 21:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Dude, what are you doing. You just screwed up 20 minutes of edits that are beneficial to the article. Why would you do that? I didn't add a link, I moved it from the see also section, I removed a trivia section (which includes 3 of my favorite tv shows), I removed some very poor sourcing (because it wasn't actually sourcing anything) and I removed youtube links which go against wikipedia policy. I left more than adequate edit summaries and you just reverted everything that I did in good faith. What is your problem? Turtlescrubber 21:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
In fact, you moved that link you don't like back into the see also section. A much more prominent place on the page and you seem to have missed the discussion right above your comments.Turtlescrubber 21:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh my god. You just removed all the grammar and fact tags. You don't understand what proper sourcing means. You have a major case of wp:own as all the changes I have made have been in good faith and for the betterment of the article. What are you doing?Turtlescrubber 21:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, I undid it all because:
  • The sources in the timeline section are sourcing all those statements you tagged with {{fact}} tags.
  • The CCF are not appropriate as an external link as they have an article on the site, so we should 'See Also' them.
  • There is nothing wrong with the cultural references section as all 3 are notable
  • There is no policy against youtube - I was embroiled in the battle at another page about youtube video's and the result was that each link should be looked at on an individual basis and the 3 here are fine (ie. they don't break copyright, they can be verified as they are simply clips of a speech etc...).
So as I said above, these things have been discussed before in detail (in particular the PETA as a source and the CCF link on this page, and the youtube links on our linking policy pages).-Localzuk(talk) 21:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Thats improper sourcing 2. That's wrong. Please see the wp policy on See also 3. The cultural reference section is a trivia section 4. If they don't break copyright then okay. 5. They are not properly sourced as currently formatted.

Turtlescrubber 21:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, please see WP:V - last I checked they were fine with self-references. There is no policy to do with see also's, there may be guidelines or style guides but there isn't a policy as far as I am aware. Trivia sections are fine, so long as they aren't filled with nonsense - these are notable programs covering PETA in some way. Glad we agree on the youtube links. They are properly sourced - there is no requirement that every line has a source, a single 'all covering' source at the top of the section covers them just fine.-Localzuk(talk) 21:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Your "covering source" theory is completely crackpot. Trivia sections are not good. We agree? I compromised but you do nothing. Turtlescrubber 22:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've already covered the source issue, so I won't say any more on that. The trivia issue is not as cut and dry as you seem to think. Please take a look at the MOS and see that it advises editors that such sections shouldn't be simply removed but should be integrated into the article.
And yes, we agree now on the youtube links. I don't like youtube links really but feel that the best compromise solution for them is the way they are dealt with now - so long as they are proper, not copyvio's and are reliable then they can be included.-Localzuk(talk) 07:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Copied from archived peer review,

You are correct that achieving and maintaining a proper balance is going to be a long term concern for this page. One thing that jumped out at me with regards to the balance is the appearance of exclusive use of PETA sources for the time line section. Instead of having the grouping of four references, all to the peta website, at the top of the list it would be better to move the individual references to the portions of the time line where the information is actually used. --Allen3 talk 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Guess I am not the only one. Turtlescrubber 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
From the citing sources style page.
Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence, while others are referenced at the end. Frequently, a reference tag will coincide with punctuation and many editors put the reference tags after punctuation (except dashes), as is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS).[4] Some editors prefer the style of those journals, like Nature, which place references before punctuation. Each article should be internally consistent, but editing solely to change from one style to another throughout an article is deprecated unless there is a consensus to make the change.
Just for your reading pleasure. Turtlescrubber 17:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Turtlescrubber, please explain to me why the link to the WP CCF article wouldn't be appropriate in the See Also section?--Ramdrake 23:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It's already linked in the article. --Haemo 00:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, so are all three other links currently in the "See also" section... So, why the different treatment?--Ramdrake 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) Why not just remove them all? Not all articles need a "see also" section at all. --Haemo 00:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That would also be acceptable.--Ramdrake 00:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Done! --Haemo 00:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest complete protection for this article

As it will save everyones time. All of my good faith/helpful edits have been reverted for very specious reasons. Why? This article is locked down tighter than any article I have ever seen. The claim of "already sourced" is a joke. Could I add 5 sources to the top of an article and then not have to put any sources anywhere in the article? I spent a good amount of time trying to improve this article, starting with someone else's talk page suggestion. The editors on this article are acting in ludicrous abandon of wikipedia policy. Turtlescrubber 23:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if those sources covered everything in the article, you could... Repeating the same references over and over again simply turns into an exercise of bureaucracy. Why should the article be protected? 2 editors oppose your edits, which indicates you don't have consensus for them.-Localzuk(talk) 07:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least you let me fix a link. Thank you so much, grand protector of the PETA page. I bow before your knowledge of all things PETA. 16:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, slimvirgin just removed my fact tags. Must be right of course, he is an administrator. I also bow before your administrative privileges. Turtlescrubber 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia and NPOV tags including the SEE ALSO SECTION

I added a tag to the trivia section, also known as cultural influences, as per Localzuk(talk)'s suggestion and my complete agreement. This section needs to be "integrated into the article." Also, as per Bob98133 suggestion above, the Center for Consumer Freedom should be removed from the see also section as undue weight. I wholeheartedly agree and have added a npov tag. Turtlescrubber 16:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree that the article should be re-written to make known PETA's gestapo propaganda tactics, eco-terrorism, and conspiricy to make everyone miserable. What about PETA and the dems money laundering scandall? That was thouroughly covered by the news butisn't mentioned once in the article. 17:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the trivia and npov tags that I added. Turtlescrubber 22:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Documentary film

 + A 2007 documentary film called Your Mommy Kills Animals, taking its title from the PETA pamphlet of the same name, looks into PETA's tactics and their being characterized by the FBI as a domestic terrorist group.  

Hey, Fourdee - this is POV for several reasons. 1. this movie is NOT about PETA - it is primarily about the Stop Huntington campaign, PETA is mentioned in the film but it isn't about PETA 2. the movie certainly isn't about PETA being characterized as a terrorist group by the FBI - so mentioning both of these conveys the message that including this is promoting a POV. I don't see the necessity of a separate catagory for Documentary film - which indicates that there is only one film documentary about PETA, or referencing PETA, so use of the singular "film" again promotes a point of view. If the intent is to establish a category of documentary films about PETA, perhaps it could have been discussed prior to your posting since this page is already controversial. I don't object to this film being included in the proper place in this article, or a list of documentary films about PETA, or inspired by the names of PETA pamphlets, as long as the content conforms to Wiki NPOV.Bob98133 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Add major criticisms for PETA

I respectfully suggest the incorporation of a criticisms section, just because a particular section attracts vandals does not mean that the article should be altered to appease the wiki vandals. The article needs a central criticism section as this is almost the defacto standard for articles on controversial subjects/groups and inserting criticism throughout the article presents significant NPOV problems since it functionally dilutes criticism. Presentation does matter (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read Biased Removal of Criticism at the bottom of this page.Bob98133 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I did, and I still respectfully disagree, a criticism section does serve as a magnet for, pardon the pun, criticism and revisions, but the lack of one does bias the article, even inadvertently. I guess a better way of describing my point is that while you mention that the seperate section does not work by encouraging vandalism, I think the current format presents NPOV problems, so one problem has been reduced at the cost of introducing another. (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Peta kills 3/4 of the animals they supposedly "save." 2. PETA supports "total animal liberation," which essentially means the outlawing of animals as pets, entertainment (circuses), farm use, and even seeing eye dogs for the blind. 3. PETA does not denounce the use of violence, including fire bombing research laboratories 4. Opposes the use of animals for drug testing for medications such as vaccines, medication, insulin, etc Intranetusa 02:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, IntranetUSA - all this has been gone over before in this article. Details of PETA's euthanasia statistics are in the Community Animal Project Section. No references exist for your point #2, since it is simply wrong. I think PETA might support breeding bans for pets, be against breeding animals for fighting, in favor of spay/neuter, but they also have entire website about how to take care of pets,etc. They constantly support Cirque du Soleil, so they are not against circuses. Farm use? You mean they are against growing vegetables? Odd position for a bunch of vegetarians. Seeing eye dogs - what are they doing naked demos in front of blind people or something? The sections in the article about PETA policies and campaigns talk about what they do. Point #3 - I think some PETA people may have made statements over the years about violence, but the only statements I've seen from PETA have been against violence, including fire-bombing. If you have a reliable reference for this, supply it. Simply employing someone prior to that person committing a crime or paying the legal costs for someone accused of a crime do not constitute supporting the crime. #4 PETA's position on using animals to test products, drugs, etc. is very clearly stated in the Undercover Investigations section. There is no point lumping these items together in a Criticisms section. Please read the article carefully and you'll see that what you're suggesting has already been covered. Thanks Bob98133 15:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The above paragraph is incorrect. They DO oppose pet ownership, and if that were exposed, PETA would be out of business tomorrow. They are NOT a "humane" organization. They believe in "animal rights" and oppose domestication of animals. Just look at the quotes of the truly deranged founder Ingrid Newkirk. She makes no bones about it.--2 March 2008 Susan Nunes —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Susan, obviously your agenda is "to expose" PETA and "put them out of business." You are welcome to pursue that agenda in whatever ways might be legal and appropriate, but the Wiki discussion page is not such a place. If you can document and supply reliable references for your statements you are welcome to edit the article, but repeating your beliefs without substantiation on this page is a waste of time. Just some questions though, if PETA does not believe in people having pets, why did Newkirk write four or five books about things you can do with your cats and dog parties and other domestic animal related issues? Why do they run a spay/neuter clinic? Why do they provide free dog houses and straw to dogs living outdoors in Virginia and North Carolina? Why does PETA have an entire web site [9] devoted to helping companion animals? And, is being "truly deranged" the oppostie of being "falsely deranged"? You are welcome to reply to my talk page User_talk:Bob98133. Bob98133 (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
And yet, almost EVERY OTHER ARTICLE on the site has a section devoted to criticism! Amazing! Why do readers of this particular article have to hunt when any other article presents them in easy-to-find form? 22:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This whole wikipedia website is extremely biased. There are always huge criticisms for every organization or person that even leans to the Right, but there aren't any for even the most extreme groups on the Left. For example, Dennis Prager, conservative talk show host, who always tells his listeners that he believes that there are just as many dumb people on the Left that there are on the Right, and the Left has their equal share of good people, has a criticism section (actually titled philosophies (!!) as if these are his main issues he talks about) that has all these stupid, no-big-deal issues in it. Check out Michael Moore. absolutely nothing. You can't tell me that Dennis Prager is virtually infinitely more deserving of criticism than Michael Moore. The other funny thing about this article is that the only criticism it delivers to PETA is from people or organizations that are even farther left of center, as if the credibility of any criticism coming from the Right is only fractional to the credibility of the attacks from the far Left. -Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talkcontribs) 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Bob98133, you either missed or ignored Intrantusa's point. PETA supports Cirque du Soleil BECAUSE they have no animals. So, yes, animals as entertainment (circuses) is out. When Intrantusa said "outlawing of animals as farm use," s/he obviously didn't mean vegetables. Your argument against the idea of PETA opposing seeing eye-dogs doesn't even make sense. And PETA could easily be anti-pet and still have a website telling people who DO have pets how to take care of them. ButteredToast 05:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There was a major criticism section in this article and all it served to do was attract vandalism. so criticisms were incorporated into the article. I don't know why animal rights is assumed to be Left politically. Is abusing animals something that only the Right does? The statement that PETA kills 3/4 of animals they save makes no sense and is unsupported. PETA claims to have saved hundreds of thousands of animals from cosmetic testing - did they then kill those animals? Show me some current reference that states that PETA wants to outlaw pets. As far as I know, PETA does denounce the use of violence - can someone point out an instance of violence that PETA as an organization has supported? IntranetUSA obviously has some problems with PETA, so it would be up to that person to document and reference what he believes to be true. This has been up for weeks and no documentation has been forthcoming.Bob98133 13:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There are other ways to impede vandalism besides getting rid of the Criticism section.
Even if there is no proof that PETA has supported violent animal liberation groups or killed animals (not that I'm convinced that proof doesn't exist), it's definitely notable that PETA has been publically accused of such things on numerous occasions by decidedly notable people and organizations. And as you've said, this has only been up for a few weeks.
Additionally, I'm not sure why we would need a current reference that states that PETA wants to outlaw pets. There's no statute of limitations for criticism. The Laugh Factory Incident isn't omitted from Micheal Richards's article simply because he made a public apology. ButteredToast 14:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, all of these criticisms are already in the article with extensive citations. Just worded differently. I don't know how I missed that. So, I guess the only real dispute here is whether or not this stuff should be organized under a Criticisms section. I think it should be.ButteredToast 15:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE NEEDS THE CRITISMS OF PETA LIKE MOST OTHER ARTICLES DO —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. There used to be a criticisms section that was a magnet for vandalism. The criticisms were incorporated into various sections which seems to have reduced vandalism without compromising the information, so I'd say leave it alone. I don't agree with anonymous comment above that most Wiki articles need a criticism of PETA in them. Bob98133 14:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bob on this. I've come to feel a "Criticism" section isn't very useful for the goals of the project and instead should be dispersed throughout an article with the relevant topics. First, I think a section devoted to negativity--which is always the most interesting since people are naturally drawn to conflict--ends up the only thing that is read since most people feel they know all there is to know about a topic. Second, I think criticism worked into the relevant parts of the article encourage people to actually read it. I think that's a better model than the one prevalent on WP right now. --David Shankbone 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bob and David. Adding a "criticism" section would reduce the quality of the article and become a contentious pov dumping ground. As they are on the majority of controversial wiki articles. Turtlescrubber 00:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think NOT adding a lenghty 'Major Criticism' section would not be in the best interests of readers trying to get a balanced and in-depth view of what PETA is and what it stands for. As for the outlawing of animals as pets thing (rumor, myth, or not) this would actually seem a far less compassionate concern for an animals well being- as humans know how to provide shelter and decent food for their pets. Of course animals that are currently house pets would not know how to survive in the wilderness when they are unadapted. This is all stuff that the out-of-mainstream PETA organization has no clear or responsible approaches to. RRM MBA (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize that the aforementioned Criticism section may have drawn intense vandalism, but I have to second the original poster's sentiments: working criticism into the article subtly is, at its most effective, subversive (doesn't Wiki have policy against weasel words?) and, at worst, utterly ineffective to the point that the casual reader cannot so much as detect it whilst reading it. The idea driving criticism is to offer a counterpoint to a primary viewpoint presented. Just because PETA-fanatics may regularly spam this article to keep it skewed to representing a bias doesn't mean that Wiki should cave to their antics—the purpose of a respectible reference document is to offer, if not as neutral a point of view as is possible, at least two opposing viewpoints such that the reader may gain an understanding of both sides of a particular issue. Reading the article as is, it seems purely uncritical of PETA, which, given the organization's history, is unacceptable. Wiki shouldn't be moulding its standards to suit the whims of abrasively vocal groups simply because of how abrasively vocal they are. It sets a bad precedent that will be difficult to stem once other similar groups witness how well these tactics work on Wiki—would it be acceptable to erase or heavily whitewash several articles on the Protestant Reformation simply because a group of fanatic Catholics got together and persistently vandalized the articles? I came to Wiki looking for information on PETA's past controversies and instead got a PETA pamphlet. If Wiki is to maintain any sort of respectible position as a source of reference, this must be remedied. SumeragiNoOnmyouji (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The vast majority of the vandalism in the criticism section was anti-PETA, and it was pure vandalism, not referenced criticism. This has been discussed several times, even without going to the archives. If you are looking for criticism, perhaps you should be looking at a site other than Wikipedia since I do not believe that criticism is the intended function of this site. In this case, you are clearly approaching the topic with your own POV (that it is unacceptible in that it doesn't present criticisms that you believe). As you point out, there is no shortage of criticism of PETA, so any web search should find plenty. Bob98133 (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
So Bob,what you are basically saying is that because a bunch of anti-PETA vandals messed with the criticisms section, we should get rid of it and disperse such criticisms all over the article. They may as well be pro-PETA vandals doing this, because they achieved the riddance of a valid section that helped keeping things balanced - this is what Wikipedia is about. As for looking for the information on the web yourself... well, you could say that about any article, and do away with Wikipedia entirely, could you not ? :) Marsipan (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Marsipan - I think the discussion above supports not having a separate Criticism section. I don't think that the article is necessarily unbalanced for not having that section since opposing views are included and referenced elsewhere. Part of the problem might be that PETA pisses off everyone, including me, with some things they do; and they do so many things that the criticism section ends up debating things that are discussed elsewhere in the article, so why not put them alongside the contentious content? Otherwise, in addition to all the vandalism, the Criticism section grows larger and larger until it assumes undue weight and we're back where we started. That's kind of my understanding about why the section was removed and the criticism moved to the appropriate topic sections, but I'm certainly open to trying some other way to include that info - but stand by for the vandals and edit wars (I agree with you that those shouldn't determine content, but I'm OK using a format that discourages them).Bob98133 (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob- I respectfully disagree. I added [5] and you deleted it-- an academic reference critical of PeTA....?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnand thegolden (talkcontribs) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To all, there must be a critism section in this article, or all other critism sections from all other articles must be removed to make it fair and balanced. To assume that PETA is above critism is absurd. This article is a biased piece of work without a legit critism section, and must be cleaned up to present itself as NPOV or wikipedia begins to lose the little credibilty it has remaining. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a large amount of criticism in the article already. There is absolutely no need to put it all in one section as this will damage the flow of the information and make the article disjointed. Also, I agree that criticism sections should not exist in any article, the criticisms should be woven throughout the articles like this one.-Localzuk(talk) 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Localzuk. If you've read this discussion page you can see that this has been gone over before. There is no attempt to keep criticism out of the article, but instead to weave it in, topic by topic so that the article reads well and is NPOV. If there are valid, referenced criticisms that you believe should be included, either add them where they fit, or discuss them on this page. Saying "It's absurd" of "PETA kills animals" doesn't really further a balanced article, whereas well-referenced material, either pro or con, is welcome.Bob98133 (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe a criticism section is desperately needed on this page. It is overwhelmingly biased in favor of the organization and barely even acknowleges any criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but there is a lot of criticism in the article, and the article as a whole has been a lot less vandalised without such a section. Do you have any other arguments to support such a section that goes against all of the previously mentioned reasons not to?-Localzuk(talk) 16:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This talk page stinks of bias. Checking up on the people blocking a critism section and I found a lot of them have connection to animal rights -OOPSIE- (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the ad hominem argument. If you actually have the resources to accomplish the checks you claim to have made then I am sure will have noticed that individuals not connected to animal rights have also supported the position you are unhappy about. --Allen3 talk 08:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Whilst having the criticisms widely distributed is all well and good, it is a long article and I don't want to read all of it to find what I'm looking for - it's illogical not to have at least a section. Alternatively, I'm sure there are enough to make an entire page on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Time-line sourcing/Citations tag

Why are there other sources in the timeline? I thought it was all supposed to be sourced by the four cites in the title? Should I remove them as duplicates? Should I add fact tags to the ones without secondary sources? Or both? I honestly don't know what is sourced and what isn't. Turtlescrubber 00:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be time to decide about the future of that section once and for all. Personally, I feel that it has caused more trouble than it is worth and should probably be deleted. The key information is either already in the article or could be moved to the relevant sections but as it stands it is a giant troll magnet. What do other people think?-Localzuk(talk) 10:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you calling me a troll? Not very civil at all. Maybe if the section was sourced in a half-way suitable manner there wouldn't be so many "trolls" concerned about citations. "Citation trolls" are the worst. Turtlescrubber 17:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I am saying that the section is a magnet for trolls (a cursory glance at the history of that section brings up people putting unsourced information in there regularly). It doesn't add much to the article as a section, so should it be there? -Localzuk(talk) 19:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't mind it being there if the "sourcing" method is changed. However, if the method is not changed then it should probably be deleted. Turtlescrubber 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links clean-up

Okay, rather than being silly and edit warring over these, I'll just bring this here. So, as of my writing, these are the links which are being discussed:

  1. PETA's website
  2. PETA's page at Network for Good
  3. Revelations — The Official Clive Barker Resource Read PETA and Clive's 1997 Open Letter...
  4. Excerpts from a talk in Washington DC by Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA - Speaking Up for the Animals PART 1
  5. Excerpts from a talk in Washington DC by Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA - Speaking Up for the Animals PART 2
  6. Excerpts from a talk in Washington DC by Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA - Speaking Up for the Animals PART 3
  7. No Kill Now!, a no-kill philosophy animal advocacy group opposed to PETA's broad support of euthanasia
  8. Craft, Nikki. "PeTA: Where Only Women Are Treated Like Meat"
  9. PETA Kills Animals PETA criticism site
  10., a U.S. lobby group which actively campaigns against PETA.
  11. Vegetarians Are Evil PETA criticism and satire site.
  12. I Heart Paws — Beware of the Bad Apples an informative article from personal experience opposing PETA's beliefs on Pit Bull breeds and other pets
  13. "PETA's Appeal for Jewish Community Support 'The Height of Chutzpah'", Anti-Defamation League.

Now, I think everyone can agree that (1) and (2) should be clearly kept. However, lets go through the other ones.

(3) - This is an "open letter" by Clive Barker and PETA to a number of newspapers, that calls on them to start publishing animal deaths in the obituaries. However, this has no context in this article -- a "Clive Barker" is never mentioned, nor is this letter ever discussed in the article. In fact, Clive Barker's article doesn't mention this as even being signifigant. I removed this item because the article gives it no context, something required by WP:EL, and the statements made by PETA are already covered in other respects in the article itself.

(4) - (6)' - These are three parts of a speech given by Ingrid Newkirk, edited by someone, and posted on Youtube. They have no attribution, so their copyright status is highly dubious. This alone is grounds to remove them. However, they are also never given any context. Is this an important speech? Are the views in this speech novel, or atypical of PETA? Did this speech garner some reaction which would merit including it? Apparently, the answers to all of these are no. This speech is never mentioned in the article, nor are the views explained to be in any way atypical of PETA. There appears to be nothing unique about this speech. As such, it's simply a statement of a number of things PETA believes -- but, these should, and indeed mostly are, covered in the article -- and will certainly be covered in an FA-class version of this. This is specifically what should be avoided by external linking guidelines.

(7) and (9) - these are sites critical of PETA's stance on euthanasia. They explains why, and how, they oppose PETA's policies. However, this is not relevant for an article about PETA -- is "no kill now" or "PETA kills animals" prominent memberd of this community? Do they have some special viewpoints which are not discussed in the large section about PETA and euthanasia? Again, apparently not. These add nothing to the page which is not already discussed in the section, or at the linked no-kill movement article. Again, per guidelines they should not be included.

(8) - I actually feel that this should not be in an FA-class article, but since there is a dearth of discussion about the topics covered right now in the article, and it's by a recognized authority, I could definitely see this being retained; perhaps even in the future.

(10) - this is a general site which lobbies against a variety of different groups, including PETA. However, their site is not specifically related to PETA, and the article already both links an article about them, at Center for Consumer Freedom and cites a news story about them as well. This link add nothing which is not already included in the article -- however, of these links, this is the one I can most see retaining; but, since it is not specifically about PETA, I am having a hard time still.

(11) - this is a PETA satire and criticism cite. However, this site is never mentioned in the article, nor is there any context given. The satire group mentioned, People Eating Tasty Animals, is not the same as this one, and is already wikilinked. However, this link is never given any context, or included in the article in any way.

(12) - this is an article written by Christina Harvey about why she opposes PETA's policies on certain dog breeds. However, the article already explains PETA's policies, and the opposition to them. The question which remains is "why is this important"? I honestly don't know. This appears to just be a non-notable person, who is not an expert on the subject, nor of any particular interest or qualifications, writing about how she likes her dogs in a blog about pit bulls. This is specifically prohibited by guidelines, as Ms Harvey is not a recognized authority on the topic.

(13) - this should be the most clear-cut. It's a press release by the Anti Defamation League which denounces PETA. However, you already cite this in the article! There's no need to include it as an external link, since it's already been entirely covered, and reference.

Anyways, those are just my thoughts on the issue. --Haemo 21:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused: you're arguing the exclusion of some links because the subject matter is already discussed in the article, and some others because the subject matter is not broached in the article. I see both types of argument as mutually contradictory: regardless of actual policy (I'm just discussing this as a matter of logic), if some links should be excluded because the subject matter is discussed in the article, the fact that the subject matter of a certain link isn't discussed in the article (i.e. the opposite reason) shouldn't yield the same result (i.e. exclusion from the external links section).--Ramdrake 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me put it more simply; things not discussed in the article should not be included, since they have no relevance. Things covered in the article should not be included, if they do not add anything which is already there. What should be included is material which is relevant to the article, and discussed, but cannot be included. For instance, if I was writing an article about Martin Luther King, and I discussed his speeches, I would include some of his speeches that were talked about as external links. This is explained in the guidelines, and I thought I made the distinction clear above. Apparently not. --Haemo 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Then, since we mention that PETA has many detractors, shouldn't we include some of them in the external links? While I can side with some of your points, deleting all the ELs you mention leaves only a couple of pro-PETA links in the section. This was already discussed some time ago, and the consensus was that some sort of equilibrium should be sought between ELs praising and those criticizing PETA. Do you think we can trim down the list while preserving such an equilibrium? If we can do that, I'll remove my objection.--Ramdrake 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I understand where you're coming from. As I mentioned above, I think the Nikki Craft article is a good one, especially given the lack of content on this page about the subject; so, that's a criticism. This would give us 3 links; PETA's main site, a critical article, and a neutral article about their philanthropic practices. The Center for Consumer Freedom link might also be good to keep, but I think 3 is good. --Haemo 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The CCF link I can live without, but I'd like the "No kill now" site link to also stay, as I feel it addresses a very serious criticism of PETA, namely its rather stringent pro-euthanasia stance, where it diverges even from most other animal rights organizations. Think we can agree on this? If you want to add another pro-PETA link for balance (like 2-2-1), please go ahead and pick one you feel is most relevant.--Ramdrake 22:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care about "balance", either way -- but I would prefer a site that is either recognized as authoritative or is mentioned in the article. I'll go ahead and trim the section now; feel free to add that site, or another one, when you've decided what you want to use there. --Haemo 22:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Okay, so I used my journal privileges and did some digging to clean up the trivia section. So, we have the "timeline" and the "see also" section to fix.

Honestly, I don't see why you need a timeline to begin with -- shouldn't any and all notable event be in the "history" section? -- so I think I'll just deal with the "see also". Honestly, right now, I don't see what the problem is. You could, perhaps, add some more -- but just remember, only add things which are not already Wikilinked in the article. --Haemo 23:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As suggested by Localzuk above, should we delete the timeline section? I am not opposed to that move.Turtlescrubber 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Just kill it, IMO. All of the important information should be covered in the "history" section; the rest is basically contentious trivia. --Haemo 23:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Vick

Details of the Michael Vick trial needs to be added PETA has/is victimising a person convicted of no crime

The Michael Vick case has not yet gone to trial, so there would be nothing to add. The process is that a Grand Jury met, reviewed evidence and decided that there was enough evidence to likely get a conviction, so Vick was indicted (charged with a crime). Vick was arraigned (brought before a judge to plead). He claims that he is not guilty, although a co-defendant admitted guilt. There was sufficient evidence for the grand jury to believe that Vick fought dogs and beat, hung and electrocuted dogs. There is no doubt that a large number of dogs, many with previous injuries from fighting, were removed from property owned by Vick. Bodies of dead dogs were also removed from the property. The evidence will be presented at trial and a jury will decide if Vick is guilty of the charges against him. Do you think that the Nike, Inc page and the Reebok and the NFL pages should also be accused of victimizing Vick, since their suspension of his endorsements have cost Vick millions of dollars, even though he is not yet convicted? How exactly has PETA victimized Vick? I certainly wouldn't want to victimize an innocent person, but on the other hand, I'm not hiring Michael Vick as a dogsitter. The Vick secton was removed but because Wiki generally doesn't report day-to-day details of an ongoing case - just larger issues.Bob98133 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just go to the PETA home page they have strated a presure campaign to have Vicks endorsment and NFL contract suspended. There latest campaign see link asks for "help today to urge the league to treat the allegations against Vick with the seriousness that they deserve and suspend him without pay immediately."

OK. So why is that worthy of inclusion in the Wiki article? I didn't look at the page, but I bet there are lots of other pages on the PETA website - do we want a separate section for every thing they are for or against? How is asking people to help support your POV victimizing? Nike dumped Vick's merchandise - so aren't they the ones victimizing Vick? PETA never had a contract with him. Please sign your comments. Thanks. Bob98133 13:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just a case of trial by media. PETA have already decided on his guilt and have used a pressure campaign with Nike to have Vicks merchandising deals suspended. This case should be on the page because it is very high profile. Will PETA apologise if Vick is found innocent? 15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PETA can decide if someone is guilty or not - it doesn't affect their legal status. Nike decided to dump Vick merchandise. Trading card companies and other businesses such as Reebok also dropped Vick. Why do you claim that Nike caved in to pressure from PETA? Do you have some documentation for this? Why not just put all this in the Michael Vick article where it belongs? There already is some discussion of this controversy there. Or put it in the dog fighting article? Or the Nike article? The PETA article is already controversial and details of another high profile campaign doesn't really add to this article - it just adds to the controversy.Bob98133 16:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


This article has been heavily vandalized. I'm going to put up a semi-lock for vandalism until someone with more expertise can make the appropriate changes.Cmsr. Jackdaw 15:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And why so? Because the majority of people in the United States think PETA is a buch of loonies fighting for no cause while we animal-eaters are out fighting for real causes like freedom and democracy while they cry cause we kill pigs and other stupid animals. 11:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Do you realise how childish you sound? ...perhaps you would be best not editing on Wikipedia till you remain impartial, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid editorial. -- Librarianofages 11:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Are only impartial people intelligent enough to make edits? I'd say that nobody is impartial. That's why we have arguments on the discussion sections of all these articles. -Brad
  • Whoa, there, User# Vegetarians hate PETA too, you know. ButteredToast 05:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Brad is spot on. Librarianofages sums up the sort of snooty users that make wikipedia unbearable sometimes. -- (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose i'll take that as a compliment. -- Librarianofages (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd be careful, as you are clearly outnumbered on this issue. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but consensus is pretty important. Using a snarky comment instead of a reasoned response will not help your case. You already clearly violated Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, and WP:CIVIL which is what got you insulted in the first place. Just because they violated it doesn't mean you get to. As I have to assume good faith, I will assume you didn't know any better. Please refrain from calling people names in the future. (Just in case you're wondering, I'm not criticizing the anon because, if you leave them alone, they usually just go away.)
-- trlkly 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural influences and context section

This section now states:

These positions often face opposition from commentators and academics who hold differing political and cultural views. Matt Stone and Trey Parker have lampooned PETA in a number of the episodes of their cartoon South Park, including Douche and Turd; making the claim that PETA cares more about animals than humans. In addition, the duo Penn & Teller, known for their association with libertarianism, attacked PETA in a 2004 episode of their television show Bullshit! over a number of issues, including purported hypocrisy by PETA spokespeople and leaders.

I think that "commentators and academics" should be changed to "cartoonists and comedians" since that is who are used as examples. Otherwise it would need a citation about who these cultural "commentators and academics" are.Bob98133 18:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


PETA has been banned in Texas for harassing children with their "your dad kills" campaign. 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Got a reference for this? Was the first amendment repealed in TX? Bob98133 13:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It was in an LA Times editorial by columnist Daniel Berchevsky. And last time I checked, harassing children was not a protected right. 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a full citation? Unfortunately the LA Times online search and archive search are unable to locate the piece you are referring to without additional information. --Allen3 talk 06:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is patent non-sense. I saw the Texas Tech campus chapter of those hippies creating a ruckus at KFC about 3 months ago. And, for the record, I support their right to do so. Pygmypony 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please cite the patent number for the nonsense? Or at least cite some verifiable source. The point is not whether you support someone's rights but rather if the information you'd like included in the article is appropriate and verifiable. Bob98133 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood pygmy's point. Turtlescrubber 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do none of you guys know that PETA is considered a terrorist organization by the government? The First Amendment doesn't cover pouring paint on people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why VA?

Any reason why they are HQed in Virginia? just curious.

Arthurian Legend 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that having an HQ in Virginia places this large lobbying organization closer to Washington DC, thus cutting travel costs for lobby excursions, protests, etc. RRM MBA (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Campaigning section

"Many of the campaigns bear fruit for PETA. Burger King,[49] McDonalds,[50] Wendy's,[51] Petco,[52] and in 2006, after talks with PETA, Polo Ralph Lauren announced that it would no longer use fur in any of its lines.[53]"

McDonalds used fur?? I don't know what they convinced Bk, McD etc to do, but it ought to be made clear that they weren't in the furburger business 16:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No criticism section on main page?

It seems strange to me that an article on a group like PETA, a group which aims to create controversy to further its cause, has no section for legitimate criticism on the article page. While I recognize that such a section could be, in some circumstances, a sort of 'open season' for heckling the group, it also seems to me that the article might seem a bit biased without one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As has been repeated discussed in this talk page's archives, separating praise and criticism not only has the effect of creating the 'open season' mentioned but also removes the background and context needed to fully understand individual quanta of criticism or praise. --Allen3 talk 17:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words there is no criticizing PETA on Wikipedia we all know they are better than everyone else, and only do what they do because of it. Come on Even George W. Bush has a criticism section, so does Ann Coulter, do you really think more people will open season on PETA than them? Also I resent the idea that this discussion has been tabled a lot of people on here work for PETA. If this is not answered in 3 days I will re add a criticism section and request the article be locked due to vandalism from the subject of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfmanjess12 (talkcontribs) 12:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Wolfman - you've responded to an almost year old discussion. If you look at the top of this page you will see the current discussion about this (there's more inthe archives, too). If you have specific documented criticism you are welcome to add it to the body of the article in the appropriate place including good references (that means not CCF, petakillsanimals or other sites paid to criticize PETA). Statements such as "we all know..." something or other won't do though. Sincere efforts have been made to keep this article balanced and keep vandalism to a minimum. Please review the history of both this page and the article to see why the Criticism section was removed. If it is reinstated, criticism would have to be removed from each individual section and collected in one, which would mean an entire rewrite of the article. Can you please document your claim that "a lot of people on here work for PETA?" If their IP addresses trace back to PETA, I agree that they should not be working on this article. In any event, please discuss any specific changes you plan to make on this talk page to save being immediately reverted.Bob98133 (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Should there be a "controversy" section that cites PETA's supposed killing of animals? Sites like [10], [11], [12], and [13] cite PETA's "hypocritical" stance on animals ("better dead than fed") and seem legit... First page of Google. I didn't even bother to check for anything else; it was just that easy to find.

An IP kept adding stuff about it, but it was reverted, due (in my opinion) more to wording than anything. Your thoughts? --King of the Wontons | lol wut? | Oh noes! Vandals! 20:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, why did the controversy section get removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The CCF is not a reliable source, and therefore the first 2 links you provide are not suitable as sources.
Other than that, there is a section regarding this already present... It just isn't called 'controversy'.-Localzuk(talk) 17:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is Bias towards PETA and there criticism and controversy needs to be put up since this artice making PETA look like Angels in fact there bad as the meat industry (irony)

None of you people have any say in what is credible.

I don't find CNN credible, should I remove all those CNN references? (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Your version: In 2005 PETA killed over 90% of animals it had brought in. 14,419 animals killed by PETA since 1998

My change: In 2005, PETA killed over 90% of the companion animals surrendered to it - 14,419 animals since 1998.

Turtlescrubber - I get your point - despite the inferior source - you want this information included, but don't you think it's a bit redundant to start by saying PETA killed... then end the sentence by saying killed by PETA? Can you document that PETA brought all of these animals in? My understanding of their operation is that a lot of the animals that they get, and maybe kill, are animals that are brought in to them. But if they killed an animal, it would have had to have been surrendered to them, or they couldn't have killed it, which was my point in using that phrase - it's more concise when you're talking about shelters who get animals by owner surrender or if they bring in strays or municipal impounds. I don't think that PETA takes in, or otherwise gets any farm animals or exotic animals in their shelter, so these numbers are basically about cats and dogs, maybe with the occasional rabbit. Bob98133 03:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the source for Turtlescrubber's entry and found that it only repesented a very small part of the information about PETA reported by Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services - who were the original source. I thought it was best to quote to original source than the website of an organization not known for its credibility. The source did not back up the numbers presented by Turtlescrubber - in fact, they seemed to indicate that PETA's euthanasia rate is far below most shelters in the state. This info might be better in a different part of the article, but since it was constantly reverted in the Profile section, I left it there.
Here are the raw numbers (since you have to repeatedly search the VDACS database the get them:
Statewide: 2004 Total surrendered 241,234, RTO 33,883 RTO= 14%
Statewide: 2005 292,488 animals received, 38,484 RTO = 13% RTO
PETA 2004: total intake = 10298, RTO = 7643 RTO= 74%
PETA 2005: surrendered total 9960, RTO 7795 RTO= 78%

The euthanasia stats were arrived at in the same manner. Bob98133 16:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What's going on here? I have no idea. Did I revert your edit at some point in the past? Turtlescrubber 04:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
If this has anything to do with the october 3rd edit than you need to start reading edit summaries. There was no content dispute (with me) but someones edit screwed up the entire reference section (check the page history). I did a blanket revert back to a good version (in terms of the reference section) of the page. I in know way cared about the content of the edits only that they screwed up all of the references. Please try to look a bit more closely. Turtlescrubber 04:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

PETA's stand on euthanasia

(for those coming here from the WP:NOR talk page, the following section refers chiefly to this section, which is continuously being taken out and added back in, and its nature, whether or not OR, is being debated):

According to numbers filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, in 2005 PETA killed over 90% of animals surrendered to it. [6] [7]

There seems to be conflicting information about PETA and euthanasia. If they are both "right" (i.e. conflicting sources)then something should probably be said about that, as one could easily site two portions of this article (which are not even discussing controversy directly, as in citing a support and criticism section) and as it stands it is rather confuseing. Both of these sections have citations, though the second section has more.

Profile: While PETA has been accused of killing a large percentage of the animals surendered to them, state statistics compiled by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services show a vastly different picture. In 2004, of 10298 received by PETA, over 74% were reclaimed by their owners. In 2005, out of 9960 animals surrendered, 78% were returned to owners. During these same time periods, the overall statewide rates of return to owners were 14% and 13%.

Similarly, PETA’s rate of euthanasia was considerably less than the state average. In 2004 and 2005, all Virginia shelters euthanized 43% of the animals entering their shelters – a total of 231,258 animals. During these same time periods, PETA euthanized 22% in 2004 and 19% in 2005 – a total of 4385 animals, less than 2% of the pets killed by shelters in Virginia during this time frame. [8]

Policy on euthanasia: PETA is against the no kill movement and euthanizes the majority of animals that are given to them.[65][66]. It recommends euthanasia for animals, for certain breeds of animals (e.g. pit bull terriers)[67] and in certain situations for unwanted animals in shelters: for example, for those living for long periods in cramped cages.[68][69]

I do not know nearly enough about this subject to reconcile this myself, though hopefully someone more knowledgeable can clarify it. Oniamien 04:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The 8 one has a completely irrelevant statistic in there (the 2% of total). I think perhaps the issue is also about "state average". Is PETA's result in total the same as the virginia one? Is there any reason why virginia's result should trump the total across all states one as per the other source I believe it was. PETA seems to be a small player in pet shelters anyhow (compared to the proper dedicated organisations like RSPCA etc), so perhaps in virginia it's even smaller. NathanLee 17:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, things work pretty much this way: most of the animals PETA takes in are for sterilization. These are later "reclaimed by owner", so any real statistics on the percentage of animals really surrendered to PETA which are later euthanized by them should not include the "reclaimed by owner" number in either the numerator or the denominator of the fraction. If you do that, you'll see that the euthanasia rate suddenly jumps to 80-90%, significantly higher than state average. Hope this explanation makes sense.--Ramdrake 17:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The sentence you keep reinserting from Center for Consumer Freedom is not accurate. It states the number of animals "PETA had brought in." That has to be the number entering the shelter - I would think that's what "brought in" means - whether they were returned to the owner for whatever reason. It seems that the state decides how these statistics are kept and presented. What evidence do you have that these animals returned to their owners were animals taken in for sterilization? It doesn't seem very clear, and certainly does not yield the 90% kill rate. It this information even relevant in the Profile section? Like someone said, the shelter operation is tiny compared to other shelters or the state, so maybe the whole thing should be removed? Bob98133 01:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with ramdrake. Ones that are in for sterilisation or returned to owners are not valid in the "what percentage of abandoned/lost etc animals end up alive after PETA has been involved". That's like counting people that go into a shop to browse but don't buy anything in "percentage of happy customers" (to be a customer you have to buy something first). You can't claim credit for finding a home for an animal that's already got a home. So the G column matches "reclaimed by owners". So then you get number in = 2225 (they don't break down strays etc.. does that indicate they don't do any pick up?). Where did they go: adopted = 312, euthanized = 1911, transferred = 1. That's 14% found homes and lived, 86% killed, <1% transferred. Looks like they don't keep any alive over the new year either: 0 on hand. One might suggest that's why they don't adopt many out: they kill them as they get in. After all: it's hard for someone to adopt any animals from a place that keeps 0 on hand at any time unless you happen to catch 'em between coming in the door and getting the injection.
So in response to your question about evidence about sterilization vs returned to owners: those aren't related, but column G "others" (and listed in the handwritten note) matches the "reclaimed part" (one extra cat appeared in the stats though??). NathanLee 18:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
As for 2002 from [14] stats were: 2,298 killed out of 2680 total = 86% killed.
2001: 2686 total, killed: 1994 = 74% killed
2000: 2654 total, killed 2029 = 76% killed
1999: 1771 total, killed 1328 = 75% killed
1998: 941 total, killed 685 killed = 73% killed
So that's how the figures look for 1998-2002. So I think that 90% for 2005 is most likely correct looking at how these figures are going. Nearly there by 2002. NathanLee 18:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
From the computer read out ones:
2005: 2138 total, killed 1946 (and 2 died?): 91% killed. Note: 7815 were dropped off for sterlisation, but only 7795 returned. Maybe some died or were transferred.
2004: 2657 total, killed 2278 : 86% killed.
So that's where the 90 % comes from. NathanLee 18:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I would say that a qualifier needs to be attached to the sentence to clarify that it is a particular state's figures for PETA, not PETA in total (unless they only operate in one state). NathanLee 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Something like according to numbers PETA filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture? I'd agree with that.--Ramdrake 19:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This whole conversation is an exercise in original research. Please try to find a published, reliable source that accounts for your calculations. How is digging up numbers, coming up with a formula for calculations and doing the calculations not original research? If someone has to ask "where did the 90% come from", after looking at your sourcing, well then your text doesn't match your source.Turtlescrubber 20:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you look up WP:NOR, you will find that merely adding up numbers like everyone (or nearly everyone) can do isn't OR. Furthermore, this stance has been advanced by someone else already (petakillsanimals), and although this source could be considered unreliable and thus biased, its numbers can be verified independently through the VDACS website, for which I provided the link. I also specified that we are looking at "animals surrendered" (which anybody can see, and which is also in line with the comment that line G represents animals other than surrendered). The source gives you the number to do the calculation yourself, and merely doing the calculation is not original research by any stretch of the imagination. Alternatively, we could just give the numbers of animals surrendered and animals euthanized, but the conclusion would be the same.--Ramdrake 20:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is original research as you are making a selection as to what numbers you are comparing. If I cared to play with the numbers a bit I could come up with a much different percentage. This is original research. Turtlescrubber 20:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's a column labelled "Surrendered by owner" and a column labelled "Euthanized". saying that the "euthanized" number represents over 90% of the "surrendered by owner" number (actually 92,4% for the 2005 year) is strictly descriptive and not original research.--Ramdrake 20:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Since this isn't the first time this argument has come up, would you care to submit this to an RfC?--Ramdrake 20:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the "others" category? Turtlescrubber 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The others category obviously means something else than surrendered by owner, or else it would be counted in that column. The petakillsanimals reference says it's animals taken in for sterilization and reclaimed by owner. Whether or not one chooses to believe they were actually taken in for sterilization, the fact that the column labelled "reclaimed by owner" is almost the same number as the one for "others" means that whatever "other" reason the people who brought them in had, they took the animal back, so it is possible it was taken in for sterilization, but it is undeniable these animals weren't left with PETA for them to find families for (as they were reclaimed by owner). All of this is just basic logic, all of which anyone could deduce. It's not research, and certainly not original.--Ramdrake 21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thus, at a minimum, out of 9960 animals PETA took in, 7795 were reclaimed by owner, (which means PETA didn't have to try to place them), thus PETA was left to decide of the fate of (9960-7795=) 2165 animals, out of which 1946 were euthanized, or (1946/2165=) 89,9% at a minimum. None of this requires specialist knowledge to assess (it's basic math), thus it can't be considere OR as per WP:NOR.
Sorry, it's totally original research. The basic math aside, you are using the categories on the page in a haphazard manner as you don't even know exactly what they mean. Really, just guessing as to the intent of the categories is original research and should really be done by an expert. You may think you know exactly what the "reclaimed by owner" but you don't know for sure. I would say that this needs to be left up to the experts and what your are doing is easily classifiable as original research. Turtlescrubber 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've asked the good people on the talk page of WP:NOR to drop by and give their opinion. Please don't take it personnally if I don't agree with your assessment of the situation. I don't think you need an expert to figure out what the columns mean.--Ramdrake 22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I don't take it personally. This is just a simple content dispute. If I am wrong (which is always a strong possibility) then I'll put your section back in myself. Turtlescrubber 22:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If you will read the entire document you will see that column G (others) requires an annotation. And if you will look at the copies of the submitted forms, you will see that they specifically say (e.g.) "Animals taken in for sterilization and held until reclaimed by owner." I will leave it to others to argue whether doing the math with the rest is OR, but there's no excuse for the claim that we have to interpret what column G means. Mangoe 23:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view: this whole debate is original research. There is too much uncertainty about what these figures really mean. Essentially, if you want to say Peta is a good/bad organisation because of its approach to putting down animals, then you need a reliable source (not pro/con activist source) that has said so. This has the potential to be defamatory of the organisation so it seems only fair that the view is impeccably sourced. It is the analysis, and that analysis is not a simple extrapolation, but needs to be a proper interpretation of the figures. Just because the figures are from a reliable source (are they?) does not mean you can build a statement on top of them, especially if, to use the tortuous phrase from policy, you are seeking to advance a position. Spenny 07:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Another outside view: You are free to add whatever numbers you can reliably source into the article (although relevance is a matter for consensus), provided you describe those numbers exactly as your source describes them. You are not free to draw any conclusion from them, unless that conclusion comes also from the source. Claiming the conclusion is "obvious" does not help; if it is obvious, then the reader can figure it out on her own. The potential for defamation cited by Spenny also indicates that even greater care is required here than might be acceptable in other articles. Eaglizard 09:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested that a phrasing along th lines of "out of xxxx animals surrendered to them in 2005, PETA euthanized yyyy". Would that be more factual and less OR?--Ramdrake 12:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the whole line of argument is suspect. Basically, you need a reliable source (and petakillsanimals surely does not qualify) that says "Peta has had its ethical stance brought into question. Amongst its inconsistent approach, they have been shown to be overly enthusiastic to put down animals." If you cannot find such a source, then the whole section is suspect. If you can, then there is no need to worry about these figures. The trouble with the figures is that they are just that, and as I see below, the veracity of the figures is in question. If there is a good source, then it may be reasonable to add in the figures to spice up the presentation, assuming they are consistent with the main argument. Spenny 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's try again

Even as it stands the contested section is a jumbled mess. But if the numbers are to be presented (much less argued to mean something) we need to deal with the conspicuous irregularity of PETA's numbers. That "other" column which constitutes the overwhelming majority of animals passing into PETA's doors is a problem if not explained, because that column hardly figures for anyone else. In 2005, for example, PETA listed 7815 "other", versus 9843 for all humane societies. It's misleading to talk about the aggregate numbers without accounting for that huge number.

If you believe that the documents from petakillsanimals are auhtentic copies of PETA's submitted forms, then all is explained: the vast majority of the animals PETA handled were there strictly for spaying or neutering. Very few of the other agencies are doing that, so it would make sense to compare their numbers excluding these. We could also put a number on the size of their spay/neuter program.

The question of course is whether this is OR. Well, we could sort of cite petakillsanimals. Or we could just remove all the numbers, since there's no way to present them accurately without engaging in this "research". I have a big problem with how it is presented now, because it manages to be polemic in both directions at once. We could just note that they provided a human society in Norfolk, and that they had this spay/neuter program (giving the actual number if we're willing to trust petakillsanimals). The implication that they are just like the SPCA carries a moral judgement that they ought not to be like them, which is a big NPOV issue. Mangoe 14:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The actual forms that PETA submitted are online at the VDACS database, so there doesn't seem to be any point in referencing petakillsanimals since that source is obviously POV. However, the numbers referenced for 2004-2005 were somehow used as a reference for numbers going back to 1998. I agree that the numbers can just be left out. But since PETA's euthanasia policy is already detailed in the Community Animal Project section, why would it also appear in the Profile section since animal sheltering seems to be a very small part of anything that PETA does. The numbers are really small and also confusing, so why not leave these numbers out as Mangoe says? If this info can be quantified or would improve the Community Animal Project section, it could be added there or just left out.Bob98133 14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The argument you're referring to has been made, by petakillsanimals, a site openly critical of PETA. However, as it can be construed as biased site (with potentially biased information), inclusion of the argument was refused (when based solely on the petakillsanimals source), on the basis that they might be using possibly biased info. However, that info is independently verifiable on the VDACS website, therefore authenticated. Thus, should we discount reporting the argument, (when we can independently verify the data upon which it's based), solely based on the fact that the argument is being advanced by one of PETA's detractors, when we know the argument is based on valid data, which can be obtained independently?--Ramdrake 15:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that this amounts to OR since the VDACS database only presents raw data, so you can come up with a whole bunch of statistics depending what you want to emphasize. Plus, the info that was up on the page earlier had data for 2004-2005 but then presented some number from 1998, so it wasn't really properly referenced. I just question if having these numbers on the page makes any sense. The point that PETA kills animals is made in the Community Animals section. If PETA only takes in about 2000 animals per year, that makes it a tiny shelter since many take in over 30,000 year. Also it's really a small part of what PETA does, so I also wonder why it would be at the top of the article. Bob98133 18:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Made a change to clarify and qualify the statement. How's that? change made NathanLee 22:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Turtlescrubber: this is the place you give feedback on the edit as requested (see the "How's that?" section above). Revert is not a substitute for discussion and is against the recommendations on dispute avoidance. The edit was in there, someone chopped it out, I've addressed (I think) any complaint anyone has raised above. Correct me via discussion if that's not the case. "How it plays out in discussion" isn't a justification for a revert if you've added nothing new. Dejavu. NathanLee 19:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Nathan, watch your manners. You did not discuss anything on this page. Do not lecture me on anything. I was in on this conversation from the beginning but am letting the discussion play out on the page without my interference. You want feedback? You added that to the intro. You didn't discuss anything on this page. You didn't look for consensus. Another edit has already reverted your edit. I have added way more to this discussion than you have so keep your condescending two days later editing style to yourself. Turtlescrubber 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
And if you are going to quote someone, get it right. It's common courtesy. Please look that up. Turtlescrubber 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about Primarily Primates, Inc.

A section about Peta's dispute with Friends of Animals and Primarily Primates, Inc. is necessary. Here are a few quick links. I'm new to this Wiki thing so I'll let someone with a bit more experience write the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxmatt (talkcontribs) 02:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Matt. This should be added. Turtlescrubber 02:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's fine to add something about PPI, but since PPI is a division of Friends of Animals, it would have to be sourced from someplace reliable and not involved.Bob98133 12:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
That too. Turtlescrubber 19:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Membership - in the letter at the bottom of this PETA page, it says that they have 1.8 million members. I don't think it needs a reference since it's just what PETA is claiming. They also didn't make an announcement about it that I saw, it's just mentioned in this letter. Just wanted to explain why I was making the change. If someone thinks it needs a reference in the article, either put it in or let me know and I will. Thanks. Bob98133 15:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a question for PETA's founder?

I will be interviewing Ingrid Newkirk on Tuesday, November 13. Leave questions on my Talk page. --David Shankbone 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that not "Original Research" ? (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of Communist/Marxist/Socialist ties

I've heard accusations that PETA has ties or is a front organisation for the communist party. Anybody else seen any sources claiming or supporting this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that someone may have accused PETA of this, but it doesn't make any sense to include accusations even if they are referenced. If there were some statement to this effect by PETA that would be different. Since the group is pretty controversial, they've probably been accused of lots of things but that doesn't make them true. If you find references for this, please post them to this discussion. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this right?

"appeared to show monkeys being hit, tormented, and humiliated." How do you humiliate a semi-intelligent animal? I thought only humans could be humiliated. --Simpsons fan 66 00:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Humiliation = Etymology: Late Latin humiliatus, past participle of humiliare, from Latin humilis low. To reduce to a lower position in one's own eyes or others' eyes. While related to the word "humble," it is possible for one to be humiliated and not humbled. -- Librarianofages (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It is a bit POVy, never mind anthropomorphic, to suggest a non-human "appeared to be "being... humiliated". I would suggested leaving it as "hit and tormented" would be better. Rockpocket 00:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No, why is it anthropomorphic? It is a fact that animals do have feelings, so what is the problem here? Speciesism me thinks. -- Librarianofages (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Really? Which animal told you about his or her "feelings" of humiliation? Rockpocket 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You've obviously never had a pet. -- Librarianofages (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I've had a companion animal (pet is specieist, non?), but it never expressed to me how it felt "reduced to a lower position in its own eyes". Maybe it just felt it couldn't open up to me though. God knows what it told its monkey therapist. Rockpocket 03:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
More likely you treated him so well that he never had to learn the concept of humiliation. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

More seriously, I think it's perfectly possible to humiliate an animal, in the sense of "reduce to a lower position in its own eyes or in someone else's eyes." That's exactly what technicians did when they wrote the word "crap" on the forehead of a monkey in a lab. And when they forced a baboon they had just brain-damaged to stand drooling in front of the camera, while they mimicked him asking animal rights activists to please come and rescue him. That behavior reinforces the idea of animals-as-things, and therefore does very precisely reduce them to a lower position, at least in the eyes of anyone so inclined or anyone not thinking clearly. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well I agree with all this, but it's been blown a bit out of proportion, I agree with Rockpockets suggestion for change, however I only disagreed with his reasoning. I agree with the change for style and economy of words, the sentence looks a little sluggish with the addition of "humiliated". What do you think Slim? -- Librarianofages (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
In not really too bothered either way, especially if humiliation is meant as reference to the motive of the technician, as SV suggests, rather than the precise emotional state of the animals (which we simply can't know, irrespective of how much we wish to interpret.) I would propose what those technicians have done is humiliate themselves, rather than humiliate the animals. The animal isn't lower in our eyes for that appalling behaviour, the people abusing them are. Rockpocket 04:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The danger with the behavior is that the animal may be reduced in the eyes of people who watch it. So the people watching someone write "crap" on an animal go on themselves to write it on another one, and so on. The word "humiliation" connotes an element of publicity and damage to the subject, not just an internal emotional state (though such a state may well accompany the public damage.)
As for using the word in the article, I'm not that bothered, so long as removing it doesn't dilute the sentence too much. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Your Mommy Kills Animals co.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Your Mommy Kills Animals co.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Campaigning" confusion

Can someone who knows more about this article clean this up: "Many of the campaigns bear fruit for PETA. Burger King, McDonalds, Wendy's, Petco, and in 2006, after talks with PETA, Polo Ralph Lauren announced that it would no longer use fur in any of its lines." It doesn't ever say what Burger King et al. did, it just cuts to Ralph Lauren stopping fur usage. I know there are links to the stories, but a brief synopsis here is important, as some of the links appear to be dead or require a subscription. Surfbruddah. 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

HBO Documentary

The HBO Documentary I Am An Animal stated that PETA does indeed support terrorists like ALF, Earth First!, Elf, and that the FBI has infiltrated PETA, and that in the founder's will, she is to be dismembered and barbequed. Can this be stated under anything about PETA in this article ? The documentary aired yesterday and today, CST. 05:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of this is already explained at Ingrid Newkirk. Rockpocket 08:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


I believe that in its present condition, this article portrays its subject in a far too positive light. It really ought to be made more neutral, perhaps by damning/criticising some of PETA's obviously wrong/evil mentalities/actions. 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a tenuous handle on what NPOV means. "made more neutral, perhaps by damning/criticising some of PETA's obviously wrong/evil mentalities/actions" -LOL. Turtlescrubber 17:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I, however concur with "User:". These animal rights freaks are invariably depicted as noble, and well above the carviverous mass of the rest of us, in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioform 1234 (talkcontribs) 17:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be too much trouble for you to cite references? Your comments are very POV - I've seen animal rights people depicted in various ways on Wiki, but not "invariably" (means always, without exception) as "freaks" or "noble" or in any relation to "the carniverous mass". If you can document these implied accusations, please do. Thanks Bob98133 17:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[scoff] I don't *need* to justify myself.
Nor should you. However, if you want to post material to Wiki you will have to document it, since your opinion is unjustified.Bob98133 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Making vague criticisms about PETA isn't going to help the article if you think its too positive-POV. Find reliable sources for facts and include them in neutral language in the appropriate section, and help contribute to the wiki, instead of lurking! Max.inglis (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue of NPOV with this article is the structure. It is structured so that criticism of PETA is concealed/diluted, and the body of criticism against PETA is presented in that light. I still would push for a central section combining the criticism to help address the NPOV issue. (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Questionable reference #107,2933,204753,00.html PETA: Sacrifice Human, Not Animal Life for Medical Research, July 20, 2006 By Steven Milloy

The reference above is used in support of statements in the Animal Testing section of this article. This source is an OpEd, not a news article, by a clearly biased, and paid, source Steven Milloy. PETA's support of stem cell use is fine, but I think the rest of the ph, including the recent attempt to clear it up, be deleted. Thoughts? Thanks.Bob98133 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Insulin Use

Is there a reason the animal testing section doesn't contain a reference to MaryBeth Sweetland's insulin-dependence? There's an article here written by her downplaying her use of animal-based insulins which might prove a good reasonably un-biased quote (all the links to quotes I could find from her were all inflammatory and on anti-PETA sites). Given PETA's stated policies on animal testing, this seems like a pretty important fact, because without animal-harvested and animal-tested insulins, she'd would have died at age 25 when she became insulin-dependent.

Actually I just re-read the article, and right after the quote from Newkirk about them opposing a cure for AIDS based on animal testing would be the perfect place for it. Max.inglis (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

MaryBeth Sweetland has not worked for PETA for sometime, so not sure how a quote about her insulin use would be relevant to PETA article. Bob98133 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Because at the time of that quote (2005) one of the VPs of PETA, and close confidante of hers was dependent on medication derived from animals and animal testing, and the quote clearly says that she wouldn't support something that saved lives if it was based on animal testing. You can pretty reasonably extrapolate this to mean that if Sweetland had AIDS, she (Newkirk) would prefer she didn't take a medication derived from animal testing, and therefore die. This is a very clear and repeated criticism of Newkirk and PETA, and previous discussions have specified that criticisms should be mixed into the article. I think inclusion here is appropriate.Max.inglis (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Using this logic, it would be correct to quote Carl Rove about Bush's current policies? Sweetland, speaking as a VP of PETA, seems reasonable to include; but claiming any relationship between her and Newkirk or PETA, other than employee/boss (now both ex)seems like a stretch. Newkirk might speak for herself and PETA, but it isn't reasonable to assume that she is speaking for all the hundreds of employees of the organization unless she specifically indicated this. Why not come up with something new or current that makes the same point, or was this an isolated case? Bob98133 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Well bob: we have quotes from ingrid newkirk scattered throughout the article. Are they relevant to Peta? I certainly think that if a high ranking official in an organisation is probably relevant, just like for a CEO or board member with respect to a company. NathanLee (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just reread that section - position on animal testing - and it really looks like the info about Sweetland is inappropriately tacked onto a paragraph about AIDS. She is also cited as Director of Research and Rescue - which was not correct even based on the reference provided. Personally, I don't see that the info about Sweetland has any place in this article, but even if it does, it currently is in the wrong place. Does this article need a section on PETA employees who wear leather shoes or do other things that PETA says are wrong?Bob98133 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if its in the wrong place, where to put it then? You yourself have numerous times posted that a criticism section is a target for vandalism, so where else to put mention of a very specific and well-known criticism of PETA? Placing it directly after a quote from Newkirk about not accepting cures that would save lives if based on animal testing seems like the perfect place for it - since its an animal-based and animal-tested cure. The section is titled "Position on Animal Testing", perhaps a seperate paragraph? It was made in very neutral language, and included a quote from MBS herself, as well as a link to her article about reducing her dependence on animal-based insulin. Max.inglis (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why anything an ex-employee did or does has anything to do with the organization's position about animal testing. For all we know, Sweetland was fired for taking insulin or violating some PETA rule. If Newkirk was taking insulin, you're right, it would fit. If Sweetland still worked there - sure. But since this is entirely in the past and not directly attributable to anyone setting policy at PETA, it seems out of place. I didn't mean that the entire position on animal testing is out of place - that's fine - and if there is current or relevant examples (such as Newkirk's quote) I have no problem with those. Including Sweetland just says "someone who used to work at PETA didn't agree" which isn't really wiki worthy info.Bob98133 (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Should we separate it from the AIDS comment then? The section is titled animal testing, yet you think the fact that an ex-VP (all the docs I could find show her as director, research and rescue, but perhaps thats out of date) of PETA owes her continued living to the existence of a product derived from animal testing isn't relevant? Any reasonable person can assume that Newkirk, at the time the quote was made, knew MBS was insulin-dependent, yet the quote was still made. From the quote given, the organization, by definition, (Newkirk, being the head of said organization, gets to make up the policies) doesn't support her continued living. This isn't a choice she was making (although I guess it is, the choice would be to allow herself to die), it was a fact about her existence. I would put this sort of thing in a "criticism" section, but we know where that gets us - vandalism by anonymous. The fact was added in neutral language and included links to her own article downplaying her dependence on animal-based testing, and included a quote from her giving justification. It could possibly be made into a separate paragraph to remove it from direct reference to Newkirk's quotation. Max.inglis (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Max - I understand what you're saying. Quotes from Newkirk are certainly relevent. She is the founder and current president of the organization. If you feel that it somehow adds to the article to include that a former employee used insulin that may have been derived from animals (although I believe that Mary Beth Sweetland claimed that her insulin, and most insulin these days, is not derived from animals)or developed or tested with animals, then include it, but it should be stated that Sweetland no longer works for PETA. However, this is the same logic that paid lobbyists use to attack PETA - that they once gave money for the legal defence of someone who was later convicted of a crime, and whose affiliations were later ruled illegal. So PETA once employed someone who may have disagreed with Newkirk about her position. If a McDonald's employee (even a VP) uses drugs, even though it is against company policy, is that newsworthy or deserving mention in condemning McDonalds in an encyclopedia article? PETA can be criticized for many things but I just think this one is a stretch.Bob98133 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Well everything I've read about the relationship between MBS and newkirk was "close friend" and "confidante" - to say that you wouldn't support animal testing if it leads to a cure for AIDS when your close friend's living depends on a drug originally derived from animal testing seems hypocritical. I'm not a big fan of animal testing but I'm also not a big fan of lots of people dying either - which is probably why I feel so strongly that this should be in here. It's another example of PETA valuing the lives of animals over people - not to say there aren't lots of people who shouldn't be valued over animals, or that animal testing is by any means right in every situation (testing makeup and vanity things on animals drives me nuts) but when it saves lives on the scale of these examples (a cure for AIDS would be astronomical, as was the cure for diabetes in its time). Humulin is what MBS uses now from her own account, but her assertion that its "more appropriate for the human animal" is of course ignoring the fact that without the original animal testing and derivative insulins, humulin wouldn't exist. That being said, I'm not happy with the wording having re-read it. It does seem tacked on, and I think I can find a clearer way to include that information, keeping its tone as neutral as possible, and relevant. Max.inglis (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I read an interview with the guy who did the HBO movie about Newkirk and he said that she doesn't have any friends, and I tend to believe that. She has lots and lots of employees, including a half dozen or more Vice Presidents. If you can add the Sweetland stuff back in so it makes sense - fine, but it seems with so many employees there ought to be something more current and relevent. I think if Sweetland was a "close friend" with Newkirk then she wouldn't have a similar job for In Defense of Animals[15] now (unless she just wanted her Wiki info moved to that page :)Bob98133 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not an example of Peta valuing the lives of animals over those of humans, it's an example of Peta valuing neither over either... for you see, the cure of aids as a result of animals testing would kill many more non-human animals in one year than humans at the hands of the aids virus probably in the entire next century... so I can't see how you say that. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well according to, an organization dedicated to worldwide AIDS reduction, 2.1 million people died from AIDS in 2007 alone. I would be surprised if the research for an AIDS cure reached that number over the span of its entire research cycle (assuming a cure is ever found). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max.inglis (talkcontribs) 17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


I cant find any valuable informations at "PETA's page at Network for Good" What is the use of this link? --Arcy (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It does seem pretty general and pointless. Maybe if it was in the article referencing finances or something, but I'd say remove it. Bob98133 (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Why got the imgage "File:Your Mommy Kills Animals co.jpg, used in article Your Mommy Kills Animals deleted? Who deleted it?. --Arcy (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

probably because it is a copyrighted image, and the fair use rationalle was not accepted. Bytebear (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I can verify that the image was deleted because it did not have a proper fair use rationale. It was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#I7, and the bot tagged the article due to WP:NFCC#10c. The rationale always was lacking. The image could be undeleted or even re-uploaded if it had a proper fair use rationale.-Andrew c [talk] 17:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Image Dimensions contributed by PeTA - Image:Holocaust_plate.png

Why has the image Image:Holocaust_plate.png contributed by PeTA such a litte dimension? The PeTA-Posters must have been much more readable --Arcy (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the rules regarding using copyrighted material on Wikipedia. Bytebear (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problems

Some editors seem to be trying to turn this into an attack page. I ask all good-faith editors to look at the animal testing section:

In 2005, a coalition of advocates for AIDS patients launched a campaign assailing PETA for its opposition to using animals to test possible AIDS drugs and calling on PETA's celebrity supporters to account for their high-profile role in what they described as "hindering the search for a cure to AIDS."[109] PETA vice-president Dan Mathews responded that: "AIDS is an easy disease to avoid, but our government squanders millions on duplicative animal tests, rather than issue frank warnings, especially to young people." Dr. Genevieve Clavreul, the coalition's organizer, expressed concern that in order to find an AIDS vaccine "We are going to have to go to an animal model to do it and I don’t want to have to be fighting every five minutes against PETA."[110] In a letter, the Patient Advocates Against PETA, observed that PETA President Ingrid Newkirk made a statement that even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, "we'd be against it."[109] The Director of Research and Rescue of PETA at that time, Marybeth Sweetland,[111] is an insulin-dependent diabetic,[112] and has defended her use of the animal products (insulin) by saying she needs her life to defend the lives of animals.[113]

In 2006, Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority ruled that PETA misrepresented both animal testing and the science behind animal experiments, ordering it to stop making the misleading claims and rewrite one of its publications. PETA had claimed that “nearly 3 million sensitive animals—monkeys, rabbits, mice and others—are killed in the UK each year in painful experiments” and that “animal experiments are crude and unreliable.” The ASA ruled that animals used in laboratories may suffer in experiments, but that PETA had failed to document that nearly 3 million died “as a result of painful experiments.”[114]

PETA supports embryonic stem cell research because it has "the potential to end the vast majority of animal testing".[115] However, their position has been criticised as being contradictory to their belief all species are equal, since it puts one animal species (humans) to be "preferentially sacrificed to save another"; i.e. that PETA exalts "animal life in trivial ways, while simultaneously devaluing human life to the point where it’s worthless."[115] The response is that whilst animals can suffer pain in experiments, embryos can't.

No one could possibly call this section neutral. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While this section seems to be quite critical of PETA, it seems properly and reliably referenced. In order for it to fail NPOV, it would need to misrepresent a significant viewpoint about the subject. The fact that this section is openly critical (with its criticism sourced) does not make it violate NPOV. Neutrality does not mean lack of criticism; it means that all significant viewpoints are expressed.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, except that it barely addresses PETA's viewpoint. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If you mean that PETA's position in this part of the debate should be expanded upon, I agree.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The trouble with PETA's viewpoint is that they are fundamentalists and thus have a very narrow viewpoint (e.g. "all animal testing is evil regardless of the reasons for the testing" which is mentioned via newkirk's quote).
I don't see anything that suggests this is biased (it is referenced, doesn't use emotive language). SlimVirgin: do you mean upon reading it that any reasonable person would most likely be appalled at the stance PETA takes on these things? That doesn't make it something we need to chop out, it just means PETA has a questionable set of values when applied to the real world. It also mentions an important tactic that PETA has been called on a number of times: misleading advertising and hindering medical advancement. NathanLee (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Nathan - I saw your note after making some changes to this section. I tried to present their view, as they present it, and left in documented criticism. It really didn't make much sense for PETA's position on animal testing to be entirely against their psoition on animal testing. I've left the misleading advertsing reference - that was documented; but the hindering scientific progress was from a press release, so I added a fact tag. I'm sure they've been accused of that so someone should find a reference for it easily, but at least it should be from a scientific source. I don't think it matters if PETA's position is nuts or not, since this page and this section in particular, is about their position, it should at least be stated. I think you exaggerate when you say "any reasonable person would most likely be appalled at the stance PETA takes on these things" - maybe most would, maybe not even most, but both sides should at least be presented or all those reasonable people will only be getting one side of the story. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Nathan, it doesn't matter what people might think about PETA's position. This article is about them, and so we need to give it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

More Information On Rumors About PETA Being On Terrorist Watch List

I'd like to see more information about the rumors that PETA was/is on the Terrorist Watch List. -- (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe on the rumors page? This article should stick to items that can be referenced. Even just being on a terrorist watch list wouldn't be that appropriate an addition unless they were watched doing some terrorism and there would be references for that if it happened.Bob98133 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Domestic Terrorists and/or Single Issue Terrorists: PETA. (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Does that help ?! (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

conflicts w/other activists

To me including the info from the secretary/activist/former employee makes the whole section less strong. The other criticisms are from recognized groups or spokespeople whereas this one sounds like a disgruntled employee. I think there is justification for keeping it or getting rid of it, but I think the article reads better without it.Bob98133 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


This article is pro-PETA, hardly anything criticising them. Typical liberal, far left loony crap, as Bill O'Reilly would state. (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Fix it or delete it. (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your demands, we'll get right on it. Not. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia which everyone can edit. If you think something is missing, please add it, ensuring that you follow the rules regarding verifiability, reliability, neutrality, and remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a soapbox. Thanks. (I've copied this to the user talk page as well)-Localzuk(talk) 16:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Is PETA eco-terrorists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiketsu (talkcontribs) 14:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't. Bob98133 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No but they do have connections to them. Bytebear (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
All the documented stuff I've seen dated back years and years ago to before ELF or ALF were considered terrorists. I think maybe they agree on some things, but I think "connections" implies something more formal like working together on projects which I don't think happens at all. There are probably supporters of PETA who also support ELF or ALF but that doesn't mean the organizations have connections.Bob98133 (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The article, as it stands, discusses the connections in a way that implies them. That seems appropriate since the connections themselves are implied and not official. Micahmedia (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes section corrupt?

The notes section appears to be corrupted from item number 75 on. Doesn't display properly on Firefox or MSIE and displays coding in the article. I'm new to wiki markup, so I'm sure what the issue is. Micahmedia (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure! Micahmedia (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Animal Research War

A single-issue account has been spamming articles with a cite to this book since September, and never any page numbers, so there's no indication that there's anything in it relevant to the sentences he adds it after. Please don't restore it without a page number, and then only if it says something another source doesn't already say. SlimVirgin talk|edits 03:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So that's why you reverted the information containing numerous extra links rather than just that one link? I really don't see how you/Crum375 have issue with this one link when there are a tonne of links in the article (and others) that reference books, without any page number or further information. E.g.
  • "Newkirk, Ingrid. Free the Animals. Lantern Books, 2000. ISBN 1-930051-22-0" - no page numbers.
  • Schwartz, Jeffrey M. and Begley, Sharon. The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force, Regan Books, 2002 - no page numbers either
Given that there are now a handful of sources that also support it, there shouldn't be a big issue.
That's not to mention your insistence that any organisation that is hostile to PETA or its tactics is not able to be quoted, yet PETA is assumed to be worthy of quoting in every animal article on wikipedia. NathanLee (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Nathan, if you can provide context, relevant quote and page number in the body of the article for that book, and it turns out to be pertinent, then it can be included. We can't just mention a book name in the lead, that is being spammed without proper justification. If you'd like to add page numbers and quotes from the other books you mention, that would be very helpful. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Crum, are you ready to apply this rule to other pageless refs and remove them also from the article for consistency's sake? I'm counting at least four references which are pageless.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ramdrake, the issue with that book is that someone was spamming it into various articles to promote it, not to use it as a source. We actually have no idea what it says, and I don't know why Nathan keeps adding it back because I'm sure he's never looked at it. If there are any other books lacking page numbers, let me know in case I have them here. SlimVirgin talk|edits 16:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If this particular instance for the Crum375/SlimVirgin tag-team collective NEEDS a page number: then by all means remove JUST that reference (and I'd expect you'd apply this to other book references and their material I've listed above and in other articles that have them too). You're taking out a handful of other references and the valid criticism that there are links to domestic terrorist groups.
I don't have that book you've taken issue with, so I can't comment on it (like most of the off-web materials referenced in this article). Any of the books referenced with page numbers could just as easily be made up entirely. NathanLee (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Nathan. I think it's up to the editor posting a reference to do so properly, not demand that others fix it if they disagree. As I recall, it is improper Wiki procedure to cite a reference, like a book, without having reviewed it, so there should be no question about this reference being removed, since you do not have the book you referenced. Rather than viewing this collaborative editing as organized oppostion to your view, it might be more productive to consider it an ongoing process to improve the quality of the articles. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
At least one of the other articles didn't mention what it was being used as a source for, and the others were "me too" sources. Not every single point can go in the lead anyway, which already covers the main points of criticism, so please add anything that really is an issue elsewhere in the text (but please read the sources first to make sure they're not just saying "me too"). SlimVirgin talk|edits 16:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Bob: I didn't put the ref in, I was just placing it back in as the people removing it were not being consistent and had not read it either. Presumably since the person putting the reference in thought it was relevent.
You are admitting to revert warring to restore a source you know nothing about, when several editors (on both "sides) have been removing it as spam from a number of articles since it was added by an SPA in September. That is not productive editing. I had hoped you had stopped this way of interacting. SlimVirgin talk|edits 17:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
So fine: chop THAT reference out. I've said that numerous times. But then the reason for taking the text out changes from "not the right page number cited" to "duplicate of information".
I don't see anything in the lead that provides the information that the chopped out sentences have in them. Perhaps the reference to ALF/ELF is automatically "FBI domestic terror list" and "misuse of funds" but that would require the user to have existing knowledge of those organisations, the situation etc to even begin to make that determination.
Where is the information about:
a) links with FBI listed domestic terror organisations
b) misuse of funds
SlimVirgin says we have a source for those: Where? There's the quote from a senator which doesn't cover those. Of course not every point can go in the lead, but this is less than a sentence worth of info and two valid points of criticism which have many references.NathanLee (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The alleged link to the "terrorist" groups is the Senator complaining about the relationship. It is already there, and he is a better source than the websites and opinion pieces you were adding. The misuse of funds thing is related to that, and is dealt with in the text using better sources. You seem to be editing the lead without having read the article or the sources you are using. And there is no need to add four sources for every point, especially when they are very poor sources (e.g. opinion pieces on websites). SlimVirgin talk|edits 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No, he's saying that there are links to groups he thinks have committed terrorist acts. The comment I put in was about the FBI classification of organisations as domestic terrorist groups and links from PETA to them. To determine that that is misuse of funds is a derived thing. Most normal people would think that using funds to help people who firebomb or destroy research labs is misuse of funds, but PETA has never said that it was misuse of funds to sponsor the legal fees of a terrorist. The reason the sources are there (opinion pieces in newspapers or otherwise.. Why a senator's opinion counts more than one published in a newspaper) is for exactly the reason that you would complain that they need references. Well, there are about 4 for each of the two points you keep removing. Do you dispute that the articles/opinion pieces match the two simple points? The number of them needed is because of the exceptionally strict standards you and crum375 apply to any move of the article away from a PETA promotional sheet. Seems I should ask you permission before editing anything whatsoever on the page: is that correct? Please SlimVirgin, may I edit the page to put my many referenced small amount of content without you and Crum375 tag team reverting? NathanLee (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnote #7 seems like spamdexing to me... --Vesal (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that link was changed or dropped. I changed the link in the article to a PETA website with the coreect video on it.Bob98133 (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

British government

With all the talk of PETA being viewed as "extremist" in the U.S., something that might be worth noting in the article, if there's an appropriate space, is that the British government seems not to take that view.

In 2004, a British Home Office minister was asked in the House of Commons whether the government had made contact with animal rights groups. The response was:

"Home Office Ministers have not made any visits to extremist groups involved in the harassment and intimidation of individuals or companies licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
"Home Office Ministers are, however, willing to meet groups prepared to engage in reasoned debate and discussion about the use of animals in scientific procedures, whatever their point of view, provided they do not support extremist activity. Ministers have, therefore, met groups involved with the protection of animals, such as the RSPCA, as well as groups opposed to animal experimentation, such as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, the National Anti-Vivisection Society, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Uncaged Campaigns, Animal Aid and Naturewatch, and organisations seeking humane alternatives to animal experiments, such as the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments." [16]

SlimVirgin talk|edits 20:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Objective

This article was not objective at all. It failed to state critisisms of PETA and disputes against PETA. Not only that, another blaring omission is not having more information about their connections to eco-terrorism and sponsoring such acts. I expect more neaurality from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion pages and revise your expectations. Wiki is a collaborative effort and if you can make a postive contribution to the article by adding properly referenced material, please do. I don't think omissions blare - might want to check that.Bob98133 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Go to this site, click on the SEARCH icon, type in it:Single Issue Terrorists and/or Domestic Terrorists, and you'll see under these Eco-Terrorists: Earth First!, Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, and of course PETA. Been there, seen it. This should be stated. Is that WP:OR or not? (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been told to do this a few times, I've done it, and I still have not seen anything like what you're describing. I'm skeptical that this page exists. If PETA was explicitly identified as a terrorist organization, it would not have 501(c)(3) status, or any official status at all. Give me an actual link to an FBI web page that I can look at. Vague directions that are supposed to show me to some vaguely described page are not going to cut it for whatever you're arguing for (which is what, by the way?). Djk3 (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that probably originates here: Washington Post: FBI Papers Show Terror Inquiries Into PETA; Other Groups Tracked. The FBI later (sorta) denied it. While PETA denies links to violent activist groups, some continue to suspect them. Addendum: Here is a FOIA file on PETA that contains intimations of links with ALF. The FBI has certainly called SHAC a terrorist group, and although many PETA members probably act with or sympathize with SHAC, PETA denies the link. -- Tom Ketchum 23:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What link? Bob98133 (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
A link between SHAC (a group they have labelled "terrorist") and PETA, which supported SHAC and co-protested for a while, but stopped when SHAC people started (e.g.) firebombing businessmen. -- Tom Ketchum 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice finds, with those links. I looked through the FOIA release and it didn't seem like anything as serious as what the Washington Post article was suggesting. It didn't seem to indicate any particular investigation; it just looked like some miscellaneous notes. I wonder what else has been released, and if it's online. Djk3 (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Tom,when I asked "What link?" it was in reference to PETA denying the link between PETA and SHAC. If no link exists, except possible overlapping membership or sympathies as you say, the phrasing of your sentence "PETA denies the link" implies that such a link exists. Other than apparently inconclusive investigations to determine this, there is no reference to support it.Bob98133 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry -- I would never say such a thing in the article, because of the confusion you cite. There are citations of PETA disavowing SHAC (see the SHAC article). That is what I was referring to.[ This quote: "With such deep pockets Peta is able to disburse millions of dollars every year across a global network of interest groups, including the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), which opposes animal experiments on scientific grounds and whose members (95 per cent of whom do not have medical degrees) have well docu mented links with Shac and other militant animal rights groups." makes the link -- it is from The Guardian (UK). It is quite a good read and might inform this article. -- Tom Ketchum 19:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look at that. Yeah, that's not much of a link. It would be like saying PETA supports child molestation because they donated money to a church group some of whose officials were convicted of that crime. Bob98133 (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
True, but the "war on terror" has brought us much worse nonsense -- see Global Relief Foundation. -- Tom Ketchum 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Other campaigns" section

I have a different problem with this article -- the lengthy section on "Other campaigns". It's really a laundry list, and few of them add anything encyclopedic to the article - it is more like a brag list. I think this should be cut down, or perhaps moved into a separate article. -- Tom Ketchum 18:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree about some of these. I don't think a separate article would make sense, but shortening and consolidating might. For example, some of these are ongoing campaigns (anti-fur, circus, vegetarian) but others are either part of some other campaign or something that happened to be in the news (like Michael Vick).Bob98133 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased Removal of Criticism

The removal of the criticism section has been addressed by several people saying, "Oh, but we spread it throughout the article." However, I noticed much of the heinous and horrible acts committed by PETA have been completely erased from the article. This smells too much like PETA members and advocates wanting to shine better light on themselves. Not to mention that most organizations listed on Wikipedia have criticism sections. Why should PETA, a horribly unethical organization, be exempt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section was removed since it simply served as a magnet for vandalism and for posting unsubstantiated, POV, material, such as "horribly unethical" or "heinous acts" without citing anything other than personal opinion. Bob98133 (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bob here - though I'm not crazy about PETA, you need facts and quotes to backup your opinion. If you have something you would like to point out or have proof they've done, and links to credible sources, include them in a neutral fashion and it shouldn't get edited out. Max.inglis (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Then just lock the frickin' article after putting in a reasonable criticism section. Open it for a few days, keep the ones that are reasonable, and lock it. For God's sake. PETA is the most unethical of all organizations. Maybe we should all just make a separate article for PETA's criticisms? That's what they did for the Michael Moore article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please, keep it civil here. Personally, I feel a criticism section is needed, as per those present in many other articles concerning controversial topics. We should NOT make a separate article for criticism, as that is unnecessary, goes against protocol, and is unmistakably biased against PETA. But the absence of a criticism section is clearly biased for PETA. We need to find the middle ground, and put in a reasonable critical section backed up with sources and such. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 01:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say to integrate the criticism into the article. There is no need for a special section if critical viewpoints are present in the article's main text. As noted above, criticism section devolve into pov dumping grounds. I am not against critical viewpoints being put into the article but I am against them having a section. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree w/Turtlescrubber. What's the point of trying something that has already failed? In the past, the criticism section was a constant source of fights and revisions. Criticism can be incorporated in the article, as it is in some places.Bob98133 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, the issue is that the current structure, without comment or reference to content, causes NPOV problems since it has the effect of minimizing criticism of an admittedly controversial topic and group. I think that throwing up our hands and declaring failure does a disservice to the wiki, but am leery of boldly adding a controversy/ central criticism section; however, I do think that the current structure represents a significant point of view problem and causes the article to "read" as a promotional as opposed to a balance encyclopedic entry. If wiki vandalism is sufficient to cause this change, irrespective of the point of view of the vandals, rearranging this article in its current format does an article like this a disservice. There are multiple other techniques such as locking that would be entirely appropriate to resolve the vandalism without NPOV issues. (talk)
I have addted the NPOV tag to this article. I came here to see what information Wikipedia had on the criticisms and negative aspects of PETA, and have found nothing but a PR article. Bob98133 has scrubbed this article of any criticism, claiming that the reason is that was a magnet for vandalism and supposedly unsubstantiated claims. What Bob failed to realize is that Wikipedia has a procedure for this, and it isn't Scrubbing the article of all criticism, its called locking and protecting the article. There are numerous sources online that describe PETA and its UNETHICAL treatment of animals to balance out this article. I dont have time to put together a section, but a simple Google search on "PETA KILLS" is a good start, as is This and numerous other sites will site facts, such as in 2006 PETA killed 97% of the animals brought to its shelter in Norfolk, while the state average was less than 35%, and the Norfolk SPCA less than 3%. That is just one example of the numerous criticisms against PETA that are WELL DOCUMENTED and can be found online. --Goosedoggy (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but if you read the article you will find a good amount of criticism - such as the whole euthanisia stance, the animals in the dumpster, the conflicts with various people/groups etc... A lot of unsubstantiated nonsense is removed, as is getting information from petakills, as it is an unreliable source. Please read the article before commenting in future.-Localzuk(talk) 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing the tag. These two sections directly address what you're objecting to. The source is the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. In 2006 PETA euthanized 97% of the animals brought to its shelter? Looks more like 31%. Djk3 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This particular factoid has already been discussed ad nauseam. The 6564 animals in the column "Others" were not surrendered to PETA, but rather brought in for spaying/neutering. Out of 3043 animals surrendered by their owners, 2981 were euthanized, which is indeed a 97,9% euthanasia rate. It also looks like their owners reclaimed 11 animals that were brought in as strays.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see that section now. I wish there was a source that explicitly made it clear what each column stands for. The euthanasia section in the article is a bit misleading as it stands, if the columns are what you say they are. Djk3 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually Localzuk, the section you claimed addressed the criticism of PETA sited above does NOT address that criticism at all. No data comparison of the high PETA euthanasia and low adoption rates to the much higher adoption and lower euthanasia rates from an aggregate of rescue groups. A citing of an article that claims (with no data to back it up) that PETA's euthanasia volume went down annually from 199-2005, yet no mention that PETA's euthanasia volume increased by over 1,000 animals from 2005 - 2006. And then there is the factual red herring comparing PETA's 2000 euthanized animals in 2005 to the 125K euthanized in the thousands of state-wide shelters. And why are we using data from 1999 at all? I see no real criticism of PETA here, while key FACTUAL components of the criticism are missing. I do see there are some criticisms of PETA splashed through the article (like the cat in the dumpster). Unfortunately, the instances of criticism are buried within a MASSIVE, poorly organized article filled with an overwhelming amount of pro-PETA material. The first third of the article reads like it came directly from the PR/marketing team at PETA. Looking through the history of the chat, I am not the first person to read this article and miss some the criticisms of PETA because of the article structure.
Bob98133 states that a criticism section was taken down because it was a magnet for vandals. Yet we have separate sections on controversies and criticisms for nearly all Wikipedia entries, many topics which I would think would garner more vandalism and controversy than PETA - for example, the entry on our current president - and these sections have remained up. Localzuk claims "unsubstantiated nonsense" is removed, yet pro-PETA red herrings remain in the article. Let's remember that Wikipedia policy states that just because an article attempts to present a NPOV and offer criticisms doesn't mean the article is NPOV. Balance and fairness of tone are two key components for an article to be NPOV. If there is a strong consensus that the tone of this article is pro-PETA (or anti-PETA for that matter), then we should seriously reevaluate how this article is written and structured. Unfortunately here, while many have asked that the criticisms of PETA either be expanded upon or clearly identified in a separate section, this page has been hijacked by a couple of biased editors who scrub criticism with little discussion. (I take Localzuk's claims of "unsubstantiated nonsense with a tablespoon of salt). I think most who come with this page will agree that this article is certainly not NPOV and needs to be restructured/rewritten.
As for not being a reliable source -- PETA is frequently used as a resource for matters concerning animal rights on Wikipedia. (Check the Wikipedia page on fur farming as an example) Yet, PETA has proven in multiple occasions (some documented in this article) to be an uncredible, unreliable source. So why can information criticizing fur farming coming from a source (PETA) that obviously has a biased and credibility issues OK, but information coming from petakillsanimals is not? Why should PETA's "facts" on fur-farming be deemed credible, but petakillsanimals is not?

--Goosedoggy (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets deal with your claims about unsourced info that exists in the article, and that it is NPOV. If you can improve these areas, then by all means do so. Last I checked, the article was about a non-profit organisation. The criticism of the organisation is not a major aspect of the subject matter and as such this should be reflected within the article.
Next, lets talk about the structure. The wikipedia guidelines on the subject discourage the use of criticism sections as they polarise a subject and damage the flow of an article. Put it this way. You are discussing the issue of euthenasia. If this article had a criticism section, you would end up with some info in that section and some info elsewhere. With the current structure we have it all in one place. Why is this a bad thing?
I don't think the petakillsanimals site even needs replying to, it has been discussed (as has all of this) ad nauseum.
Finally, please cut the rhetoric. It is pointless.-Localzuk(talk) 06:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
One point: the position that criticism of the organisation is not a major aspect of the subject matter is a POV. Most of my reading supports the fact this is one of the most controversial animal rights organizations in existence. A simple Google of "PETA" and "controversial" (both terms to be included in each reference) yields over 147k results.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've also added a couple of numbers from the references which may help address Goosedoggy's objections.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've also found this piece in Newsweek which I think offers a good comparion between PETA's numbers and those of other shelters: [17]. This other piece [18] also independently confirms the 97% euthanasia rate of PETA for 2006.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh,oh - you're right back to quoting petakillsanimals with your 2nd ref. That's a press release from Center for Consumer Freedom - the group that does the petakills website. I really don't doubt that the numbers they present are correct, but they are certainly not unbiased. I'd like to see confirmation from a legitimate source like Virginia state website. I found this collection of .pdfs online [19] that detail how Consumer Freedom was set up by Philip Morris to divert discussion about cigarettes' harmful effects and reframe the issue as a question of free consumer choice. Bob98133 (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, I didn't see the line about the author. I just looked up the news agency (USNewswire) and saw that it was legit. At least the first article is a legitimately independant source. I've also struck out my previous sentenuce about the second reference above. I'll concur that the numbers are exact (I come to the same ones), but there is a definite concern of bias. On another subject, I saw that a lot of the article on the No-kill shelters is quoted from PETA publications, an avowed opponent of the no-kill philosophy. Wouldn't the same concern for bias apply there also?--Ramdrake (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Cultural influences and context

I have a few problems with this section which I thought I'd discuss prior to changing. It links to Humane Society and claims that PETA is part of "the modern humane movement" which began in the 1970s. The link does not support this, or diferentiate between "modern" and other humane movements. As well, the summary of the source cited (the article is only available if you pay $15), does not appear to mention PETA at all, but talks of animal rights activists, not the humane movement, in general. Perhaps the article is talking about PETA, but again, there does not seem to be anything specific. Are we to believe that the demographics and political point-of-view of every humane society or organization in the US are democrats or independents, distrust capitalism, etc.? The source seems overly generalized and certainly not specific to PETA. I think it should be removed, but it could also be replaced by information which is more specific. I think that context is probably estalished in the article, but I see no problem with it being clearly defined in this section too, but it should cite specific references, not a generalized summary of animal rights which is not readily available to all editors. Bob98133 (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why PETA gets more animals in poor condition

Re: revert of item by Ramdrake about why PETA would get more animals in poor condition. This page offers some explanation [[20]]. My understanding is that their Community Animal Project actually goes out looking for dogs or cats in poor condition - chained, left outside, sick, etc. while they distribute free dog houses and straw for animals living outdoors. I have seen pictures of some of these animals with chains embedded in their necks, open sores, etc. Since they don't run a "traditional" shelter (from the stats they obviously don't do many adoptions and euthanize a high percentage of animals)where people can go to adopt animals, they pretty much go looking for animals in miserable conditions. Whether someone agrees with this or not doesn't change the fact that they get a lot of animals near death. In that case, expecting their statistics to be similar to a traditional shelter would be like expecting hospitals and hospices to have equal death rates. I couldn't find really good references for this, so I don't object that strongly to your deletion, but I think there are reasons for the difference. Bob98133 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Find references, and I'll withdraw my objection. However, what was there this morning 1)looked very much like a cop-out and 2)wasn't even supported by the cited ref. There are two possible situations: indeed they get more animals near death (which one should be able to document using a reliable source) or they get pretty much the same mix of animals as many other shelters and they really euthanize way more animals than should be warranted. I won't speculate as to which, but any statement should be properly and ideally independently verifiable. Bob, regarding your ref specifically, it doesn't say anywhere that PETA gets more animals in poor condition than other shelters - it would be nice if we could find that claim written somewhere rather than any of us making it up.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. It definitely needs a real reference. Bob98133 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
PETA tends to take animals that other shelters avoid, and it goes looking for animals rather than waiting for them to be delivered, which most shelters don't. I'm pretty sure we had a source from PETA explaining this, so perhaps someone has removed it. SlimVirgin talk|edits 18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Ramdrake, that source you provided seems to be a personal website, which would not be an RS. Also, it doesn't mention what kind of insulin she takes, if any. We would need a reliable source that gives the information, clarifies that it's animal-based insulin, and alleges that it's hypocrisy. SlimVirgin talk|edits 18:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please address the issue here rather than continuing to revert? SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved in this, because I don't think this issue is particularly relevant, but this source is a first-person article on a PETA-controlled website that seems to indicate that Ms. Sweetland uses Humulin, a synthetic insulin that is created using recombinant DNA processes, and is different from aniimal-derived insulin. While it seems implausible that it was not, at some point in its creation, tested in animal studies, I cannot at the moment find a source stating that. Without regard to its testing regime, there seem to be adequate sources that say it is not (in the clinical sense) "animal-derived". Whether the first-person account noted earlier in a reliable source under Wikipedia's arcane rules is far beyond me to determine. -- Tom Ketchum 22:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - This document, from the manufacturer's website, seems to indicate that a close relation to Humulin, Humalog, was in fact tested in animal trials. What this means for this argument I won't guess. -- Tom Ketchum 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, Tom. SlimVirgin talk|edits 23:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, while I wouldn't necessarily consider them reliable on the fact that Mrs Sweetland takes insulin or that her particular brand of insulin is animal-tested or not, the CCF has made allegations of hypocrisy regarding this issue. Since the basis for the story is confirmed by Mrs Sweetland herself, and the manufacturer's pamphlet confirms the product has been animal tested, this would count as a primary source for the allegation of hypocrisy, properly attributed, of course.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's another ref about it: [21]. It's even used as course material reference here and again mentioned here [22]. I'd say there are multiple suitable references for this fact.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
All medicines in the West are tested on animals, so anyone who needs to take prescription medication has no choice. Indeed, that's one of the things PETA campaigns against — the fact that the consumer has no choice. You can't really accuse someone of hypocrisy because they're not willing to die. SlimVirgin talk|edits 23:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the allegations were made, and rather widely publicized, and are therefore notable.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source accusing her of hypocrisy for taking insulin (i.e. not a college newspaper or an anti-PETA lobby group)? It would surprise me if any reliable source were to make such a claim. SlimVirgin talk|edits 23:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The lobby group in question constitutes a reliable source in this case, since they are a source about themselves on this (i.e. they are the ones directly calling Sweetland a hypocrite), as per WP:RS.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
That lobby group is not a reliable source on PETA, because they're in effect an anti-PETA website, which seems to be written largely by one man, and is financed by the fast food, alcohol, and tobacco lobby. I know they have targeted others in the past (e.g. Mothers Against Drunk Driving), but they seem to focus mainly on PETA nowadays. They're not a source about themselves in this case because they're writing about a living person. Per BLP, we need a mainstream source for that. SlimVirgin talk|edits 23:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, we need sources for two claims. The CCF is not a reliable source for the claim that Mrs. Sweetland uses animal derived insulin. They are a reliable source for the claim that there are allegations of hypocrisy. They're a notable group, and they themselves are making the claim. Djk3 (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that either side will consider me impartial, but after looking over the Center for Consumer Freedom's website, while they are an interest/lobbying group (like PETA), they don't seem to be a PETA attack site or a single-issue site in general. It would seem consistent with other articles that a "The <adjective> Center for Consumer Freedom says ..." citation of this could in fact be used, if I understand WP:SELFPUB correctly. I will repeat, however -- why??? There are much bigger issues with this article, why bother with the subject of one woman's insulin? -- Tom Ketchum 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a cheap point to make — that animal rights advocates, in order not to be hypocrites, should choose to die rather than take life-saving drugs that have been tested on animals, when there are no equivalent non-tested medicines to choose from, which is hardly their fault. Animal rights supporters often do avoid taking these drugs whenever they can, but when the alternative is death, you can't fault someone for caving in.
It's in part because that lobby group makes points like these that it's very hard to regard them as a reliable source (although that's not the only reason). SlimVirgin talk|edits 17:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me ask: are other AR organizations also adopting the stance of being steadfastly against animal research even when it is aimed at saving lives (such as AIDS research, which PETA adamantly opposes)? If it can be shown that it is also routinely the position of other AR groups, then I would agree with you: it's a specious, cheap shot. However, if other AR groups don't oppose animal research when it is to save lives, and PETA is the only one doing it, then I believe it would be a notable fact.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That is the stance of BUAV, AnimalAid, the Dr Hadwin Trust, the SHAC campaign, the SPEAC and now the SPEAK campaigns. All of these have their goal on their websites. These pretty much sum up the largest animal rights organisations and campaigns.-Localzuk(talk) 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ramdrake, all animals rights group oppose the use of animals in research — to talk about "research that saves lives" is to miss the point of their argument that the research is not necessary to save lives, and that (they say) it sometimes or even often actually slows down the search for life-saving treatment, because it costs a lot of money and time, and may produce misleading results. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The arguments above all strike me as being entirely partisan, and not involved -- on either side -- with what should be in a creditable encyclopedia. If the point to be made is that PETA, or AR activists in general, take what many would consider extreme positions regarding the use of animal-tested or animal-derived products, that seems to be adequately covered in the article. That some of these activists find themselves involved in actions -- hypocritical actions, in some views -- seemingly at odds with those positions, whether animal euthanasia, use of animal-tested drugs, or violent and human-life-threatening protests, also seems covered. My view is that the partisan bickering here is over different, but equally unacceptable, versions of undue weight POV violations. It is (in my view) undue weight to reference that Sweetland uses animal-tested insulin (especially in the absence of what would be an out-of-place explanation that all insulin is animal-tested). However, it is also undue weight, and entirely unencyclopedic, to have an article of which over 60% is tiresome repetition of the group's many campaigns. In my view the way these bloated articles get this way is that one "side" adds their (sourced) piece of partisan POV, then the other side (perhaps trying but failing to take it out), retaliates by adding their countervailing POV, and on and on it goes.

The Britannica has seven (short!) paragraphs about the entirety of "The moderns animal rights movements", in which PETA is briefly mentioned and described in one (!) paragraph, in the same breath as the Humane Society. Admittedly, Wiki("not paper")pedia take a more inclusive direction, but in my view this is way too far. This article should be 5 to 7 paras long, covering the organization, its history, aims, principals, example campaigns, and major critics -- then this argument would be moot, and we wouldn't be arguing about Ms. Sweetland's insulin or most of the rest of what's on this page. Fini. -- Tom Ketchum 22:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tom, there is no wiki rule that says that the length of an article, or the amount of detail in it, is in any way related to WP:UNDUE. The only rule relating to length is WP:NOT paper, which tells us we may freely add information, as long as it's relevant, and the formatting limit on total article length which tells us to split overly long articles into sub-articles so they are easier to download. You seem to have made up your own private rule, which is "if I don't like something, the article about it should be very short." Until there is consensus for such a rule, which is unlikely (since our likes and dislikes are very different), we should continue to keep Wikipedia as informative as we can. Crum375 (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Tom, the article is only 58 kb without the footnotes. That's well within reasonable limits compared to other articles. SlimVirgin talk|edits 18:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It would appear that this article is one that strives -- and succeeds -- at keeping Wikipedia less informative, but being obfuscated with dreary partisan bickering. You have ignored the essence of my argument, focusing only on the secondary metric of length. Perhaps you can contribute something to the substance of the discussion, rather than attacking me? -- Tom Ketchum 23:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Tom, I don't know you, and have no reason to attack you. You may be a swell guy, for all I know, and by WP:AGF I'll assume so. My point is that we are actually encouraged to add information, not to remove it, as long as it's relevant, reliably sourced and informative. If your point is that the article is "obfuscated with ... bickering," I would respectfully disagree. The whole point of WP is to present both sides of controversial issues, and this is what we do here. If you'd like to add more relevant information, feel free to do so. Crum375 (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
OK then, if "we're encouraged to add things", and not take them away, then we should add this silly little fact about Ms. Sweetland's insulin. I personally think it makes for a worse, not better, article, one that is polarized and partisan in both directions, rather than informative. However, your suggestion that one should fight obfuscation with -- wait for it -- more obfuscation reminds me an old Vietnam War saying: "Fighting for Peace is like f*cking for chastity". It makes me laugh, and not in a good way. -- Tom Ketchum 00:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The "silly fact about Ms. Sweeland" is not related to the issue of article length. If it were properly sourced and not WP:UNDUE, there would be no problem to add it. I think in this case we would need a source that makes the case for us — that explains, for example, how her taking insulin reflects on PETA as a whole. That source would have to be a reliable mainstream source, since this is a WP:BLP issue, among others. Crum375 (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Mary Beth Sweetland no longer works for PETA and hasn't in over a year - see discussion about insulin above.Bob98133 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Your Kids, PETA's Pawns
  2. ^ Sydney Morning Herald Article on PETA wool campaign
  3. ^ 60 minutes transcript with Ingrid Newkirk
  4. ^ "Note reference numbers. The superior numerals used for note reference numbers in the text should follow any punctuation marks except the dash, which they precede. The numbers should also be placed outside closing parentheses." (The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed. 1993, Clause 15.8, p. 494)
  5. ^ Conn, P. Michael and Parker, James V (2008). The Animal Research War, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-0230600140
  6. ^
  7. ^