Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

KKK

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

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

That is rich. So PETA criticises someone for being racist? PETA has already linked milk consumption with Autism. Being such racists, PETA must have a good expertice on that issue.(83.108.30.141 (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a primary source from PETA, explaining their view: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From this [2] it looks like at least some of these are PSAs. Maybe it should be something like "PETA also produces public service announcements and paid advertisements..." ? Bob98133 (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

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

It looks like they call them PSAs whether they are paid to air or not. This PETA page [3] gives info on how to promote free and paid PSAs. Here [4] TV Guide refers to PETA PSA (coincidently about pet overpopulation). But these would still technically be different from a paid bus ad, or billboard or print ad, even though the subject matter might be similar. Just "Public announcements" without the Service sounds somewhat odd, more like public pronouncements. Bob98133 (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit I then made: [5]. Reverted three times: [6], [7], [8]. Then slipped back out again: [9]. I've read all of those edit summaries, and I do not see anything substantive that replies to the discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Also: [10]. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

criticism/controversy section

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

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

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

Got Autism? PETA has created a billboard to alert the public to the connection between this devastating disease and dairy-product consumption. End qoute. Also to be ended is the notion that one can push autistic people in front of themselves for manufacturing more political correctness. It really is not nice. (83.108.30.141 (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

Primary sources in support of secondary sources

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

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

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

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

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

Pickton is one of the most notorious serial killers in history, and regularly receives international press. More to the point, the PETA ad itself received coverage outside Canada.[12]

At any rate, I've rewritten the sentences to describe the ad campaign more generally and then list the specific instances. There's really quite a lot of coverage of it - definitely not simply just "some campaign someone objected to". Last year, a PETA blog post described the original Dahmer ad as "arguably our most controversial ad ever " and the volume of articles about it and its successors would seem to support that.--Trystan (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

Tryptofish, stop reverting my edits for the hell of it. [13] It's been going on for years and has become disruptive. You seem quite happy to introduce inconsistencies in formatting and long-windedness, rather than let my edits simply stand. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Much of what you said there is being addressed at another, more appropriate, page. However, with respect to page content, you made this edit [14], which you summarized as "some tidying". Some of it is, indeed, tidying. However, it also contains a significant amount of reverting edits that I had made, and which I have, of course, justified on this talk page. I will let others judge who is reverting "for the hell of it". --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, stop characterizing, for fuck’s sake. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 18:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Herbal, I appreciate the support, but I want to emphasize that civility and calm talk is what we need on all sides, please. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Replies

Moved by the bot to Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 14#Replies. (The only reason I put this here is that I linked to it in some recent edits summaries, and the archiving broke the link.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposing separate section for criticism

new comments moved to end of section, per WP:TPG. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Throughout the article are mentioned many times "x criticizes PETA on grounds of ...". A separate section would be a better container for these criticisms. Also somehow incorporate the data and references from these two graphics, should the information on them be legitimate: 1 & 2. --Codell (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to my world, and please read the talk archives. Having a separate criticism section has been a perennial proposal here, and always gets rejected (for valid reasons, in my opinion). As for sourcing anything to critics of PETA, good luck with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Been there. Agree w/above. Bob98133 (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

where is the truth? sounds like peta wrote this. encyclopedias sucked in the past. now Wikipedia sucks worse. you will be silenced and the web will die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.32.13 (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Truth would be here. Good luck finding your Shift key prior to the death of the web. Bob98133 (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRITICISM makes it clear that with a few exceptions, criticism should be woven into an article, not contained in its own section, and why. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 14:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what the WP:Criticism policy says. It says "A dedicated section can make dealing with criticism easier by keeping these aspects compartmentalized, as criticisms may be similar and can be combined in a fashion that will reduce repetition. Separate sections containing negative evaluations may become a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it leads to users with strong opinions dominating the article but may simplify maintenance of the article if unhelpful edits are limited to a single section. There is currently no consensus on what is best". Personally, I think this article would be better with a dedicated Criticism or Controversy section. Why? Because that would be must helpful for readers. (Of course, all the material must be neutrally presented, and well-sourced). Many readers, when coming to an article about a controversial topic, are short on time, and want to read about the controversies: who made the criticism? What is PeTA's response? There is nothing wrong with spreading the controversies through the article, but - frankly - if gives the appearance of trying to hide them, so readers with only a couple of minutes cannot find them. I've read through the Talk page archives, and I'm still not sure if the correct decision was made to eliminate the Criticism section. Also, it is very telling that the lead section of this article is organized exactly the way I am suggesting: first the organization's history/charter; then the controversies/criticisms. I'm simply suggesting that the article's body also follow that organization - because that is most helpful to readers. --Noleander (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Usually, this suggestion comes from an IP editor or from editors with relatively little experience, so I'm interested to hear it from someone whom I know to be experienced with NPOV issues. As those talk archives will show, I'm usually the person who is concerned that this page underplays the criticism, and I have the scars to prove it. But I'm honestly pretty happy with the current consensus here, and am satisfied that the page is currently pretty much NPOV. I'm very interested in your perception, though, that it seems as though the criticisms are hidden throughout the page. I can see how some of the other editors would like it that way, and maybe I've become too close to it to see it any more. Even if we keep the present organization, are the criticisms somehow hidden or underplayed? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment (that I am experienced :-). Don't worry - I have no intention of editing this article ... I just noticed that the discussion was happening, and wanted to clarify the WP:Criticism policy, since another editor appeared to misrepresent the policy. I agree with you that the article is fairly neutral, and Im not suggesting a POV tag. My point was simply this: We need to think about the readers. When readers come to articles on controversial subjects (Sarah Palin, Islam, OJ Simpson, whatever) 90% of the readers want a quick synopsis of the controversies. Sure, this is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer, but by spreading the controversies throughout such articles it - in effect - hides the controversies, and readers may just click on another link and move on. I'm not suggesting that all articles have a Controversies section: only those that readers are likely to want to learn about the controversies. Again, I point to the lead section of this article, which represents what readers want to see in the whole article. --Noleander (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you would be happy with it this article still reads like a commercial for PETA. They have consistently worked a huge group of their supporters in here as editors so that they get special treatment that no other wiki page does. Then they like to make up rules that do not exist like the above mentioned criticism policy. I do feel the purpose of moving the criticisms is to hide them and give PETA a chance to to dilute them. Realistically I would like to see a seperate criticism page for PETA, because anything done on this article has never gotten fair treatment. I know I am just an IP editor, but I still see no reason to give PETA the free soft soaping job they get from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.250.236 (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply by my previous comment that IP editors are somehow of lower status at Wikipedia. I didn't mean it that way, and I apologize for making it sound like I did. I simply meant that editors who drop by to make a complaint and then do not stick around to follow through are easy to dismiss. I honestly don't see the current version of the page as reading like a commercial, but as I said above, maybe I'm just too close to the ongoing debates to see what others see. If other editors are willing to stay around and make the case for further changes, and, yes, be prepared to disagree thoughtfully with some other editors, I'm very open to listening to the arguments on both sides. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough I did not really take it that badly, like I said I just think that activists within this group have subverted this page and the criticisms on it for several years now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.250.236 (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's deja vu all over again! We have had a separate criticism section. We have had criticism mixed into the article. Eventually, with enough fair editors, it seems to come out close to NPOV either way. It seems to me like a like of work redoing this article again to separate out criticisms into their own section. I'd rather see any additional referenced criticism blended into the article where it fits. While some readers might miss a dedicated criticism section, they can always read the article. Bob98133 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I'm trying to see this from both sides (despite past efforts by certain other editors to claim otherwise!). I agree with you that there really is little justification for a separate criticism section, and, as I've said, I'm currently satisfied that the page is NPOV. But on the other hand, I keep hearing editors saying that the criticisms of PETA seem to be "hidden" within the page, and I'm not sure that this observation might not be valid and I'm just missing something. I know that past history has been that editors drop by, complain about POV, and then disappear without following through, but if anyone new really wants to stick around and help improve the article, I want to encourage them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I came here looking for a concise (more or less) history of the various contoversies and criticism surrounding PETA, and discover what could be a PR piece. Disappointing. 99.92.53.39 (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Then I'm guessing you didn't bother reading the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the intro, much more than comparable articles, or any of the body text where criticisms and controversies are included as described above. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd quite like to see a criticism section just because of their horrible practice of buying peoples email adresses from around the world and bombarding them with spam, even after unsubscription from the mail list and multiple corrispondences, this organisation has done enough questionable things in my opinion to warrant a criticism section. neople 20:37 17th of october 2010. —Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

If you can find reliable, secondary sources that demonstrate that this practice is notable, then we can consider adding it. But we don't make edits like that based on editors' experiences. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

clarification requested

I didn't mark this in the body of the article yet, but the following sentence could use some rewriting:

"The group takes in feral cat colonies with diseases such as feline AIDS and leukemia, stray dogs, litters of parvo-infected puppies, and backyard dogs, and as such it would be unrealistic to operate a no-kill policy."

First of all, you can't operate a policy; you operate a facility. The phrase "it would be unrealistic" may be true from PETA's POV, but it seems like a judgment statement, not an encyclopedic fact. The phrase "as such," thrown not infrequently into vague writing to suggest unstated causation or a perceived necessary condition, is an adverbial phrase not really attached to anything (example of how it's supposed to work: "Jones is a vegan; as such, he eats no animal products of any kind," where the "such" refers clearly to what he is). The sentence quoted seems to mean: "The group takes in feral cat colonies (etc) and backyard dogs. Since it lacks the resources to provide these animals with medical care to alleviate their suffering or the extensive behavioral therapy to attempt to rehabilitate them, it cannot operate a no-kill facility." I only assume these as the reasons, since they're left unstated, as if it's obvious what and why it's "unrealistic." For instance, "backyard dogs" without obvious health problems I only assume to fall into the category of "high potential for euthanizing" because of behavioral issues.

Although I edit WP regularly, I came here to look up a fact and would prefer not to become involved in the article. But I hope someone will address this. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I think you make very good points. (And I can well understand the preference not to become involved, regrettable as that may be!) Anyway, I made an edit to the sentence, to try to fix those things. The information is sourced to the second of the references in the footnote at the end of that sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolina Biological add

Appreciate good faith addition of investigation into Carolina Biological. First problem was the date cited (1999), which is incorrect. Did some searching and this investigation apparently happened in 1990. Also, the source is essentially an editorial piece written by someone who has been directly affected by PETA's actions, so that really doesn't qualify as a NPOV. However, I am finding some news articles about the case and will add a graph back in shortly.Bob98133 (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember past talk about this, now at the bottom of Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 13. If you can rewrite that with better sourcing, that would be great, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My attempt at condensing a complex 4 year case is up. Please let me know if any issues!Bob98133 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Based on the third source, it seems to me to not be accurate to summarize the judge's findings that way—rather, the source seems to be saying that the judge cleared the company on all charges. Is that correct? If so, it seems wrong to present the sensationalistic description of wriggling, or the apparently thrown out USDA charges, this way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm....well, I tried to find the least sensationalist way of describing what was on the tapes, as reported in the newspapers and on ABC News. There's no disputing there were moving cats on the tape. The question was whether or not they were alive. And the judge ruled they weren't (that's the first line of the 3rd source). Do you think it would be better to add that the judge agreed with the testimony describing movement as part of the embalming process? Or that all animal cruelty charges were dropped, including the embalming of live cats? I THINK that third soucre is saying all the charges were dropped (it's implied, but not said directly), and Carolina Biological issued a PR statement saying they were, although I don't want to use that as a source. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CAROLINA+BIOLOGICAL+SUPPLY+COMPANY+ANNOUNCES+IT+HAS+BEEN+CLEARED+OF...-a015244449 This really was a confusing case to wade thru. Bob98133 (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Before seeing your reply here, I made a WP:BOLD revision, so please take a look at that. I agree with you that we shouldn't/needn't cite the PR press release, but I also agree that the source seems to indicate that all charges, including but not limited to the embalming, were thrown out. The first sentence of the third source sounds like a "hook", but I read that source as going on to say that all charges were rejected, not just the dramatic one. Anyway, please see what you think of my revision. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks! Bob98133 (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, and thank you for doing the research! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Change in NC charges

I eliminated the littering charge phrase altogether since the charges were dropped {see: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-court-of-appeals/1224997.html). Littering seems irrelevant to the bigger picture in this case, but if consensus deems I add a sentence back in about the initial conviction for littering and subsequent dismissal of same, I'm happy to do so. Bob98133 (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How is there not a "Controversy" section here?

A simple Google search, or "paying attention", will show the countless threats of violence and death that this organization has committed. Why is none of this in the article? 65.211.179.9 (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Because Peta constantly gets their members to so overwhelm the editing of this site it really is just a commercial for them now. They actually promote arson on animal testing labs, and violence to researchers. They are nothing but terrorists with good PR people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.102.132 (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In the years I've been watching/editing this page, honestly, I've not felt "overwhelmed" by anyone from either "side." There are several editors on this site who have worked very hard to keep this page as NPOV as possible, and there are sections on this page that deal with criticism of PETA, so we'd be more than willing and pleased to entertain any additions either of you would like to propose. Please keep in mind that accusations as those you have made above will need verifiable sources. Bob98133 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Just so those who are new to this page know, this question gets asked repeatedly. For the most recent previous discussion, please see Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 15#Proposing separate section for criticism. Personally, I've had a few occasions where I did, indeed, feel overwhelmed. Unfortunately, there seems to be a never-ending supply of editors who drop by, ask the question asked above, and then never follow through. If you really want to help, and not just complain, Bob is absolutely right: you have to make the effort to source and explain the edits you propose to make. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is controversy here, yet it is censored by someone with high priviliges in Wikipedia. The main page can no longer be edited by common users. I'll be back... --71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not censored, but the reason that unregistered editors cannot edit the page is that it is "semi-protected". If you look at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, you can see an explanation of what that means. And if you register an account, you will shortly after become eligible to edit such pages. And I hope that you will be back, and work to make Wikipedia better. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Position on working dogs

The source provided originally to support the statement that PETA was against all working dogs (http://www.peta.org/issues/Companion-Animals/doing-whats-best-for-our-companion-animals.aspx) just didn't hold up. Maybe there's a source out there that supports that statement, but that isn't it. So I replaced the two sentences with one, backed up by an interview with a PETA VP. The search and rescue part isn't tackled in that interview (neither was it in that factsheet, again poor source for original wording), although she does mention a program with a police department, which I could add if maybe we could confirm that from another source. Let me know if it works and/or if you have any suggestions for better wording. Bob98133 (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I support the change you made (aside from a very minor wording tweak that I just made). This is rather strange: I clearly remember when the source you replaced (linked just above) was added to the page, and, at that time, PETA said on their website what this page previously attributed to them: that, among other things, they disapproved of things like using animals to search for injured people etc. It appears that PETA subsequently changed what they say about it. And therefore, we need to correspondingly update what we report here. (I wonder: could Wikipedia have influenced them to change what they say? Pity that there are no diffs of their website.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my wordiness, Tryptofish. Who knows. That was a 2009 article I cited, so there could very well be something out there that says they don't support working dogs. But the source that was originally cited just didn't say that. Maybe it was, indeed, "updated" recently. :)Bob98133 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"the dogs are bred as if there are no equally intelligent dogs literally dying for homes in shelters."--- This statement here isn't worded correctly. Is this how they actually say this?208.80.74.49 (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You can click on the source link and verify it yourself. It could have been worded more clearly, but since this is a direct quote, it is unwise to alter it. Kuru (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Sorry I can't do this myself, but in the section Campaigns and consumer boycotts there seems to be a link to another section in the article which no longer exists. Can someone remove it or direct the link to another section please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.96.22 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thank you for pointing that out. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

PETA and Internet History

The article appears to be locked, so I can't add any information about the (in)famous court case where PETA took control of the peta.org domain name from a parody website (see http://slashdot.org/story/00/06/21/1524208/Court-Orders-Owner-Of-Petaorg-To-Give-Up-Domain and http://www.boston.com/news/daily/21/peta.htm and others). Someone with the edit power should add something about this important bit of the history of internet intellectual property law. 72.207.237.162 (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It's already linked, to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.234.68.23, 23 July 2011

I DO NOT HAVE TIME TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA, BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS TOPIC IS PROTECTED WHEN IT IS THOSE THAT USE WIKIPEDIA THAT ARE BEING PROTECTED FROM THE TRUTH. THOSE THAT CONTROL THE CONTENT OF THE PAGE ARE ALLOWED TO IGNORE FACTS THAT SHOW PETA IN AN UNFAVORABLE LIGHT.

In this article, there seems to be no mention that PETA euthenizes large numbers of animals each year, which misrepresents the true nature of this organization.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#On_euthanasia

http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/03/27/does-peta-kill-animals-absolutely-says-newkirk/

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/04/27/peta-and-euthanasia.html

98.234.68.23 (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So much for the conspiracy theories about editors "protecting" this page. I agree with you that sources that satisfy Wikipedia's sourcing policies should be added to this section. Petconnection is a blog, so we cannot use that. However, Newsweek is an entirely appropriate source, and I am now going to add it to the section. Thank you for pointing out this source. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, I made a minor change to the wording as I don't think PETA operates any shelters. The Newsweek article doesn't say they do, and I found this letter from them http://faculty.smu.edu/jkazez/animal%20rights/Response%20to%20PETA%20kills%20animals.htm (I realize it's not a legit source, but I've always been led to believe they will sometimes take in animals and help other shelters, but don't actually RUN a shelter). Let me know if you believe otherwise. Bob98133 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem! It was a subtlety that was lost on me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Kill ratio disputed

http://imgur.com/gallery/pr2Ab claims sources at the bottom say 97-99% kill ratio. I'm not exactly neutral so I'll refrain from going through those sources and editing what's obviously a heavily fortified wiki page. Pär Larsson (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that source runs into problems with WP:RS. In contrast, I think that Newsweek is a reliable source. And it's nonsense to call this page "fortified". If you want to make the small effort to engage in the consensus process, you will find that I, for one, will be welcoming and helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

Can someone with editing privileges please fix this sentence: "PETA has also produced various flash games ..." Flash needs to be capitalised, as it is the brand name. 82.113.133.21 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Info

http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm

Though it is clearly biased, it DOES have sources. Can any of this be added? 69.132.69.87 (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your source is like petakillsanimals.com run by the Center for Consumer Freedom who has it's own clear goals. If you would present some reliable sources we could add some content to the article.TMCk (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Peta has it's own clear goals. How is it a reliable source? PETA members need to be banned from wikipedia, this is madness. 66.68.87.193 (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.34.90.221, 12 August 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unbelievable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No controversy section?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A suggestion

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

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

No need for a criticism section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Things missing in the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New section regarding shelter euths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think the CCF should be used as a direct reference. If there is no news coverage or academic treatment of the issue, then I think it should be removed. At the least, in this article CCF should be characterized as a political lobbyist for industries engaged in animal abuse. El duderino (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Actually, the total number of animals is inflated by the number of sterilizations (in the years after 2006, these sterilizations are discriminated in the "others" column, there is no reason to believe this column is significantly different in the 2006 report). These are NOT abandoned animals, but animals whose owners requested PETA to perform a sterilization. If you want to be intellectually honest, you should not lump these animals together with the rest, these animals always had an owner waiting for them. If you subtract these animals, the result is much more grim towards PETA.

01 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.46.56 (talk)

Unsourced accusations should be removed from this page

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

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

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

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

Needs controversy section ASAP

This article on PETA looks like one huge advertisement board. It's all structured to put Peta in a positive light in ALL matters. The fact that's it's only got 3 major points ( History + Philosophy and activism + Position within the animal rights movement ) and no Controversy section should ring a huge bell. Ranging from the mockery of certain stars and accusation relating to holocaust victims and all the way to accusations of supporting and financing home terrorist groups, it's all structured to break the points into small manageable pieces which are very carefully masked inside bigger paragraphs that manage to turn the whole critical idea into a positive and remarkable action on behalf of PETA. The article needs a clear well defined controversy section in which all the issues that have been paraded in the mass media shall be properly detailed. Like let's see making fun of Mario bashing turtles, Gaga's meat dress, Peta beying upset about some cape made of spider silk(today 21 01 12 on yahoo news), news article in telegraph.co.uk ' Peta under fire over claim that it kills most animals left at its US headquarters ' , also ' PETA Mocks Florida Shark Attack Victim ' , and also ' PETA Mocks National Infertility Week ' , and of course ' PETA condemns brutal Battlefield 3 video-game digital rat stabbing '. Plus there are others which i haven't heard off. If there's one last responsible editor left on this side of Widipedia, please take into consideration that most important and respectable articles on Wikipedia have a well defined and structured controversy sections. There's just no other way aroudn it with such a complex subject; mixing stuff like it currently is, is just misleading to say the least. So with the risk of repeating mysef: it's not about the lack (even if only partial) of controversy subjects, it's mostly about the fact that the already small number of controversies area very well and intentionally hidden in a sea of text that praises Peta. [from User:Choice777 ]. 21 January 2012 [15]

Please read the notes at the top of this section, especially the bit that says "This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected..." In its current form your request cannot be accepted, or even really considered. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

@Choice777: If the topics have decent sources, they should be in the article. Considering them one at a time:

• Mario & turtles - already in article in section "Campaigns and consumer boycotts"
• Gagas meat dress - not in article
• Cape made of silk - not in article
• US HQ killings - already in article in section "Killing of shelter animals"
• Shark victim - not in article
• National Infertility Week - not in article
• Battlefield 3 - not in article

So, there may be five topics that are not yet in the article. But not every single press release from PETA (or isolated responses) needs to be in the article; so if the missing topics have multiple sources that discuss it in a prominent way, by all means, they should be in the article. The spider-silk article, you say, only happened today, so it is a bit soon to be in the article. I'll spend a minute looking for sources on the others. --Noleander (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

After researching the topics (see below) it appears that nearly all of them are press releases that were issued by Peta, for publicity reasons, and they all got some minor coverage, but not major coverage. I suppose that Peta issues several press releases each month. The general question is: Should this article list every single press release that Peta issues? Or only those that get major media coverage? The WP policy "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article" at WP:NNC says that bits of an information in an article do not have to be "notable" in the WP sense, so one could argue that this article could include a list/catalog of all Peta press releases that are described by reliable sources. I wouldn't object to inclusion of minor press releases, provided that (1) there was some kind of public response (positive or negative); and (2) reliable secondary sources are available that describe the press release & response (i.e. the responses themselves are not sufficient sources). --Noleander (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think those would be excellent criteria. I agree with your assessment of the individual items below; I would support adding a sentence for the Gaga meat dress and the Shark attack.--Trystan (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I added that material. --Noleander (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow..look at all the ripples i've caused. Good ! I like the truth to be more visible and outlined for all to see. :D Choice777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

Well, there's been plenty of discussion before about perceived or actual POV pushing. E.g. see the archive on Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/POV_tag (also listed above with other archives worth perusing). And I believe that a separate criticism/controversy section is generally discouraged when the issues can be woven into the body text, as is the case here. Some opponents of PETA won't like any fair treatment of the subject, just as some pro-PETA editors may push the other way. But there is a long-standing consensus to stick with the guidelines at WP:Criticism - Avoid sections.. Readers looking only for the negatives are thus encouraged to consider context. El duderino (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaga meat dress

Peta issued a two-paragraph press release the day after Lady Gaga wore the dress: [16], and several minor news outlets reported on the press release. But it died out very quickly, with very little lasting or significant news coverage. Not sure if it is substantial enough for its own section/paragraph in this article: maybe a sentence? --Noleander (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A sentence has been added to the article. --Noleander (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Silk cape

It looks like Peta has a formal policy statement objecting to all silk used for any clothing: [17]. That is broader than a single "spider silk cape" incident. So that appears to be a major policy position that should be mentioned in the article. --Noleander (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I created a new section in the article here covering Peta's position on clothing/silk/fur. The section is small now, and should be enlarged. Note that there is also a section on anti-fur activism by the Asian affiliate of Peta, but that latter section is focused on actions of the Asia affiliate, rather than a summary of the positions of the US HQ. --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Shark attack

In late Sept 2011, Peta issued a press release that described a planned billboard which showed a shark biting a human leg, with the title "Payback is hell; go vegan". It appears that the ad was never actually placed on a billboard. After the press release, many news outlets reported that a recent shark attack victim was outraged (the press release was soon after a Florida fisherman was bitten by a shark), e.g. Fox News: [18]. Borderline: could go in the article. As far as I can tell, there was never a formal Peta position, nor an actual billboard: more of a shock-effect press release to get publicity (and it worked). --Noleander (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A sentence has been added to the article. --Noleander (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

National Infertility Week

Peta, in April 2011, briefly had a press release on their web site, objecting to spaying/neutering pets. The press release related the practice to National Infertility Week and reportedly said ""Human overpopulation is crowding out animal life on the planet..." [19] and " In honor of National Infertility Week (April 24 – 30), PETA will give one free vasectomy to a man who has recently had his companion dog or cat neutered. " [20] There was quite a bit of response in blogs, particularly from persons involved in IVF, etc. But the press release was transient, and I cannot find any major news sources that described the press release in any significant way. If someone can find more/better sources, it could go in the article. --Noleander (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Battlefield 3

In early November 2011, a German affiliate of Peta reportedly issued a statement objecting to an animal-killing episode in the game Battlefield 3. Several gaming blogs reported on the criticism by Peta. This appears to be very minor: it was not the Peta HQ; and no major news sources (that I can find) reported on it. Nor is there any lasting significance. Unless more/better sources are found, probably not sufficient for inclusion in the article. --Noleander (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"Euthanasia" and "Killing of Shelter Animals" sections

Any objection to my merging these two sections together? Keeping all sources intact, of course. Bob98133 (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No objection. --Noleander (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

At first, I had low enthusiasm for that. I remember previous talk where the point was made that the euthanasia section is where we present PETA's position, whereas the other is where we present events that happened. On the other hand, I would feel the best way to do it would be to move the euthanasia content up, by way of background to the events, and that approach would be acceptable to me. Certainly, it would have the value of decreasing some redundancy. Please just don't move the events material down. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, folks. I have consolidated the two sections. The sources are the same, with one addition, and I tweaked the wording slightly. If a press release is going to stand as a source, then I feel it should be quoted verbatim, which it sort of was originally, only without the quotes. I also felt that the response by the Virginia Department of Agriculture was germane to the case. As to the title, I suppose the argument could be made the "killing" should stand, however I feel there is a point-of-view to that word, where "euthanasia" is more neutral. Anyway, have at it and let me know what you think! Bob98133 (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with your approach. You'll see that I cast "a critical eye", and made a rather minor edit, that actually makes the writing worse! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Bland-ifying." <<snort>> Totally stealing that, Tryptofish. Bob98133 (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks folks, you've been a terrific audience. I'm playing here every evening. Now let's hear it for the band. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Written like an advertisement?

First, let me state that I'm not just saying this to be another anti-PETA opponent, or that I want to bring up the euthanasia, etc. that are difficult to resolve in any discussion.

I feel that this article is written less from an informational, impartial point of view, and more of one meant to advertise and promote PETA on Wikipedia. For example, the passage in the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Neutering.2C_backyard_dogs.2C_working_animals.2C_and_pets is, at least to me, less for informative purposes, but just to paint PETA in a brighter light. Does anyone agree with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TangLab (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In principle, I'm receptive to what you are saying, and I appreciate that you are raising the issue in a constructive way. I've been involved in these kinds of discussions about this page for so long that I might not be seeing things that someone coming with fresh eyes would see. What, specifically, would you suggest changing? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

@TangLab: Of course, the wording of the article should be very impartial. On the other hand, the Neutering subsection you are referring to is within the "Positions" section, and the material in those subsections is supposed to be summarizing and explaining PETA's outlooks. Naturally, those Position subsections may give the appearance to some readers to be advocating PETAs positions rather than simply stating them. As Tryptofish says above, if you can point out some specific words that are too promotional, other editors would be willing to rectify the situation. Would it help if each paragraph began with some introductory words like "According to PETA document XYZ, PETA's position on ABC is blah, blah ..."? --Noleander (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You know, that may be exactly it. I re-read with a view to what we are saying in Wikipedia's voice, and I do notice a lot of sentences along the lines of "PETA helps dogs and cats...". Strictly speaking, what we say is all verifiable statements of factual things that happen, but when we use positive value-laden words such as "helps", that does put Wikipedia in the position of endorsing a POV. I don't think we need to attribute things like the number of shelters, but we should probably not be using verbs that attribute positive or negative attributes, unless we attribute that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Neato. I unfortunately am quite low on free time to do this, so I don't think I'll be able to help out in any actual editing. But thanks for keeping an eye on this discussion page. :) The Tangmeister (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that. I've made an edit to that section, to try to address that issue. I'd appreciate feedback from other editors about whether I overlooked further things that should also have been changed. I'd also welcome similar advice about other sections of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Investigations

I want to ask whether our use of the word "investigation" (as in "undercover investigations") also falls into this area of concern. The word commonly connotes journalism, as in investigative journalism, and yet we have a lot of sourcing of things that would cause most mainstream journalists to issue corrections. PETA sees what they do as investigating, whereas those they investigate often see it as something with a non-neutral agenda. Would "probe" or another word be more neutral? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, I would argue that police departments use the term "undercover investigation" and they're clearly on a mission or have a non-neutral agenda. If someone infiltrated PETA for an expose, it would most likely be called an "undercover investigation," whether it was a journalist or someone from the Center for Consumer Freedom (big fans of PETA, right?). I guess I just don't see the term "investigation" being limited to use by those who are professionally unbiased. My 2 cents. Bob98133 (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Although police have a mission, it is generally assumed (not 100%, but a general societal consensus) that they are acting in the mainstream, on behalf of the populace as a whole. I would not regard an infiltration of PETA by someone from the CCF the same way that I would regard something done by a legitimate journalist, seeking the unbiased truth (and I would take this same position about the CCF page as I would about this one). In fact, when I wrote the question above, I considered offering the word "infiltration" as an alternative to "investigation", instead of "probe", but I decided against it because I think that word has a too-negative connotation. What police and mainstream journalists have in common, and differ from both PETA and CCF, is a general presumption that they are after the truth, wherever that may lie, as opposed to only those truths that support a particular agenda. (Has PETA ever published an investigation where they concluded that the people they investigated were actually doing things just right? Has CCF?) Ironically, discussing this is making me feel more inclined to prefer an alternative wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't think the word "investigation" should be relegated to journalists or people and professions deemed "unbiased." The OED defines "investigation" as "The action of investigating; the making of a search or inquiry; systematic examination; careful and minute research." And "investigate" as "To search or inquire into; to examine (a matter) systematically or in detail; to make an inquiry or examination into." Doesn't say anything about intent. I think the word should stay, but if somone has a better idea, I'm game. Definitely not "probe," though. Sorry, Tryptofish.  :) Bob98133 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, no need to be sorry, and of course that's why I brought it to talk. I won't make the edit at this point, but I'd like to see whether anyone else comments on the issue. Could you explain, though, why you consider "probe" to be a bad choice? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Would "work" work? Maybe change some instances to "undercover work", while leaving others as "undercover investigations"? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I like "work." Call me crazy, but "probe" just sounds violent. OED defines it as "a penetrating investigation." So technically you're right, the word does apply here--although it does mean "investigation," so round and round we go---and since I love citing the OED so much, I really can't object to using "probe" maybe once or twice. "Undercover probe" just doesn't sound right to me, though. Maybe I've seen too many alien movies. Bob98133 (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I got it: anal probes and all that! (Nuff said.) Good, I'm going to make a, um, working edit. Please see if it, um, works (Tryptofish, stop it!), and feel free to BRD if it doesn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the word "investigation". I think the word "investigation" is very widely used by neutral sources in association with undercover "stings" and the like. "Probe" is not quite right since that implies a research effort conducted from afar. "Work" is not bad when used in a generic sense of overall mission, but I dont see how "work" could be used in a specific situation: "In 2002, PETA conducted an undercover work within the blah blah ..." - in sentences like that "investigation" is superior. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy with current edits. Bob98133 (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see that about "undercover works", and I agree. I think the changes I made ended up being pretty limited, and took that into account. Through all of this, I'm trying to be sensitive to the perennial comments about the page being written like an advertisement, and I'm looking for places where the previous choice of words might have been "framing" in ways that make it sound promotional. But I think the edits I've made have been pretty subtle, and hopefully will not be controversial. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

criticism

For several discussion pages there is the valid notion of a criticism section against this terrorist organization, which is being shouted down by a loud minority of vegan leftists. The very fact, that 'criticism should not be on this page because of this and that rule' is an indicator that criticism is rightfully needed, because there is lobbying at work, and there IS without any doubt something to critizice! Ignoring rights to critizise is fascism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.28.178.38 (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As has been stated before many times, well-sourced criticism has never been opposed, and there are many examples in the archives of new criticisms being proposed and added. A criticism section, on the other hand, is unworkable for the very reason that the article as written contains far too much criticism to fit into a single section. It is far better writing to discuss the criticisms in the same place as the campaign or action by PETA being criticized.--Trystan (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I never knew that I was a vegan leftist! Although, I like vegans well enough – medium rare. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

Perhaps a criticism section can be made. It can be mentioned that some PETA actions actually backfire. For example, there's the issue of Exotic Joe's zoo; which PETA is campaigning against, stating that they "mistreat their animals" (ie touring with the animals). Appearantly, PETA's actions have had financial consequences for Exotic Joe's zoo. The owner has stated that, if the zoo will fail financially, he is going to put his 1500 animals to sleep, as moving them to other zoo's isn't financially possible (ref= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016yklh ). Surely killing an animal is allot worse than some stress to the animals that may result from touring, so PETA's campaign is having a very negative effect here. One solution may be to also campaign on legal responsibility to relocate (endangered) animals and keep them alive, if a zoo indeed fails. 91.182.12.65 (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections are inherently a bad thing. They simply attract criticism. Yes, I know that's obvious, but it defeats our goal of being non POV. If a particular issue can be described in an objective way, it can be included in a relevant place in the article, but it's bad practice to create a placeholder for negative comments. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what HILo48 wrote about criticism sections. But I would welcome you to add anything you can source and maintain the NPOV (which is tough to do on this page) on a particular issue. Unfortunately, the link you provided as your source for the zoo story doesn't seem to have the info you stated. Let us know if you need help! Bob98133 (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I Googled around to see what I could find on it, and the zoo in question appears to be GW Exotic Animal Foundation. I found this, which is not a reliable source for our purposes, but it seems to contain the information to which the original poster refers. It sounds more like speculation as to what will happen, rather than anything concrete for us to include here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, would make this article more well organized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.93.61 (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Euthanasia of shelter animals

This section needs to be updated. The Newsweek article is from 2008. As of 2011, PETA killed 97% of the animals in its shelters, not 85%. This is from Virginia's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. [21] 96.246.63.195 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I reading the source correctly: do we have to calculate the 97% from the raw numbers? If so, do any editors here have concerns about WP:SYNTH or about anything else? Myself, I think the SYNTH issues are OK, as a routine calculation, and I'm receptive to updating the information, but I recognize that other editors might disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, except the calculation is actually 95.85%. And of course the wording should reflect that it's the VDACS 2011 report. Would want to try to find that info from a source other than Nathan Winograd's outfit (see the Web address on the PDF), too, since they are PETA's chief adversary regarding euthanasia. I'm sure it's legit, but maybe get it directly from VDACS or npov secondary, just to be safe. My 2 cents. Cheers! Bob98133 (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Huffington Post recently did an investigation of the organization. I'm not exactly sure if 'the Huff' is considered a reliable source here; I suppose there's a WikiProject explaining it.-- OsirisV (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I've been watching this unfold too. The problem with that huffpo piece is it's from a group that PETA has been at odds with forever. I think Ingrid Newkirk published a huffpo piece in response just today. Nathan Winograd promotes no-kill shelters and PETA promotes open-admission shelters and so they've been at each other for years. Really gotta watch POV issues here when citing the facts and their sources. I think as long as we stick with the stats from the VDACS, we're good. Bob98133 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to their 2012 return [[22]]. I'll put in the numbers from that. It's a straightforward calculation of (1675 + 72) / (1877 + 81) = 89%. The smaller numbers being added in are wildlife as the sentence said "animals" not pets or domestic animals. You may be able to cite a more meaningful average as it clearly fluctuates from year to year, but that sounds like WP:SYNTH. Citing the most recent year available is just a statement of fact. Tangledweb (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Update

Link.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly a reliable source. Probably worth adding in the section about euthanasia. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me. I came across it looking for RS on another article. I thought the regulars at this article may wish to see it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

PETA routinely euthanizing animals given to them for adoption

Why are the facts that PETA is saying one thing, yet killing animals it collects not being mentioned? 90% of animals they collect, they kill within 24 hours.

Why are the facts that PETA uses lawyers to silence criticism, not being mentioned?

(Both links, Huffington Post and NY Times, are credible sources, I trust)

If noone objects, I will add these points of criticism into the article.

198.84.233.162 (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please let me start with the second source first. It's from the NY Post, not the NY Times, but nonetheless I agree with you that it satisfies WP:RS. Thank you for finding it!! I'll be happy to see a reliably sourced criticism added to the page. The first source is essentially a blog post by Nathan Winograd. I'm interested that the author is someone within the animal protection movement, rather than someone from one of the anti-PETA advocacy groups. However, Wikipedia typically does not accept blogs as reliable sources, so I would like to hear from other editors whether or not they would accept this source as "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", or whether they would accept it as a news blog, which generally is a reliable source. In my opinion, it's a news blog. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

See section above for previous discussion about Winograd vs PETA. I wouldn't accept it, anymore than I would accept an Ingrid Newkirk blog as a source on Winograd's page. Also, what criticism you want added to the section on Euthanasia? This seems to be a regular theme but it's essentially the same info out there about PETA and their anti no-kill stance, it just gets regurgitated when the no-kill folks vs open admission folks go at it. There's some criticism in the section already, so I'm curious about what else you feel is needed? Thanks! Bob98133 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(I have to admit I had forgotten about this!) OK, agreed about not citing Winograd. How about the NY Post source, along with the NY Times source linked below in #Update, as sources? (I haven't thought it through yet, with regard to what exactly to say.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The whole thing thing reads like a manefesto

The whole thing reads like a manifesto.Irishfrisian (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Only to someone who is anti-Peta. A more neutral, discerning reader will see there is sufficient criticsm and controversy, as summarized in the lead and covered within the body text. 76.17.125.137 (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia quality standards?

This article is lower than average with regards to quality and could be improved. Most notably, the sections are not well organized. The language is verbose and filled with pictures of celebrities. The lack of a criticism section means that each topic is written as if it were a debate between positions. On the whole, the article is well below the quality of a normal article. Proposal: create a reverse outline -- for each topic collect the summary points. Then reorganize the content. Keep pictures of supporting celebrities to a minimum, it diminishes the credibility of the writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4F00:19:5CE9:D2C8:83F1:D34E (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the points you raise have been discussed before, and I would suggest looking at those earlier talk sections. However, I think that you raise an interesting new point: that the page may be over-heavy on celebrity photos. I think that's a leftover from the earlier days of editing this page, when a few editors were determined to include what may amount to press release material from PETA. I would be receptive to removing some of the celebrity photos. Which ones? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Tryptofish @ the old topic of not having a criticism section. Been over and over this. As to the photos, I would argue that celebrity participation is such a huge part of PETA's m.o. that I don't know how we can avoid it. I counted 4 pictures of celebrities and 3 have to do directly with campaigns, not with the celebrity him/herself. The exception is the pic of Alec Baldwin. I suppose if one needs to go, that would be the one. Cheers! Bob98133 (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The article's quality and organization seem fine to me, considering the edit history and push-pull of advocates and critics. I encourage the OP to peruse the talkpage archives to see more details about the longterm collaborative process. 76.17.125.137 (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Animal killings???

Okay someone check this out...

• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]

I didn't see anything in the article about this but then again I just skimmed through it. If it's not in there, someone should seriously put it in. CrowzRSA 05:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You would have a far more successful discussion if you actually made a point here, rather than trying to force readers to click on a string of links for an unexplained reason. I say "trying", because I saw no reason to and couldn't be bothered. Please tell me why I should, and what your point is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright...If the title "animal killings" wasn't enough for you, PETA has been accused of killing thousands of animals by several sources and this article neglects this topic. CrowzRSA 20:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

We already have PETA#Euthanasia of shelter animals. Is there something we should add there? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

---

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals → PETA – Per WP:COMMONNAME 71.59.58.63 (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support No reason not to based on COMMONNAME. --JOJ ^Hutton 15:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I looked at the examples at COMMONNAME and, in each case, they are cases where the less-common name is unambiguously a lot less common. That's not the case here. "PETA" is more like a convenient abbreviation. Spelling it out is more precise and informative. Readers won't have any problems finding the page, because PETA is a redirect. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

  Using the examples at COMMONAME is hardly a strong argument for an oppose. Precision and informative is not the basis of Wikipedia article titles. We use the most common name used in sources. JOJ ^Hutton 18:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

  I'm surprised that you feel that strongly about it. NIH is a redirect to National Institutes of Health, UN is a redirect to United Nations, and US is a redirect to United States, not the other way around. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

  PETA is the most common name used in reliable sources. Not hard to come to a conclusion on that one. In your examples, those articles are already using the most common name for those subjects. You are trying to make this into an initials vs full name question. It's only based on common name. In this case, PETA is the most common name. JOJ ^Hutton 19:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

  In all four cases, the longer name is the most encyclopedic name, and the abbreviation is used very commonly because it is quicker. You will find that most sources that make extensive use of the abbreviations will define the abbreviation at first usage, so such sources are not really using the abbreviated name "more" than the full one. You are also somewhat oversimplifying WP:Article titles. WP:NC not only points to precision, but it cites as a specific example the use of United Kingdom instead of either United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or UK. It also says: "These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus." So, you can't reduce this to a strict or rigid rule. Consider also pages that are closely related to this one. We use Animal Liberation Front, not ALF, and Earth Liberation Front, not ELF. Partly, that's because the abbreviations are ambiguous, but it also is done despite the fact that it's a lot more common to say ALF than the full name. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. With Tryptofish on this. But since Hutton mentioned "reliable sources," i just did a cursory Google search for PETA and every single good news source that popped up used People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals first, with PETA used in subsequent mentions. I think that the title should stay as is with PETA redirect. Bob98133 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tryptofish and Bob98133. Bob98133 clearly shows that "PETA" needs to be spelled out in reliable sources to explain what it is before being used. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tryptofish. Using the full name is perfectly appropriate to ensuren clarity for all readers. Xoloz (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

There's also the collision with People eating tasty animals which is rapidly gaining land rights for gay whales status, and whose merchandise remains globally available ( Google ) despite the US court decision. Andrewa (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question the neutrality of the page

The page really reads like a PETA advertisement rather than looking objectively at criticism aimed at the organization, like how much of its budget goes to actual animal care as compared to salaries. The percentage of animals killed that are under their care compared to shelters that try not kill animals they care for (there is no 100% no kill). 96.31.177.52 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Could you please read the "Euthanasia of Shelter Animals" section again? It does include criticism (as do most of the sections), but I'm not quite clear how you would suggest we compare employee salaries to PETA's record on euthanasia. Provided you've got some solid sources, we're always eager to improve upon articles. Thanks! Bob98133 (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sentences to be made more neutral

I just decided to make a section of the talk page for sentences that might need to be made a lot more neutral.I'm not sure how to edit some that I have found, so I am listing some which may need changed.

This one is about midway down the consumer campaigns and boycotts subsection. Using the word complained sort of makes it sound that they didn't have a valid reason for objecting to PeTA's campaign.

NAACP complained about the "Are Animals the New Slaves?" exhibit, which showed images of African-American slaves, Native Americans, child laborers, and women, alongside chained elephants and slaughtered cows.

GouramiGirl (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing specific examples of sentences, because that is a very helpful way to address such problems (much better than complaints in other talk sections about the page just being generally biased). I agree with you entirely, and I made an edit, changing "complained about" to "criticized". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I am collecting a few more sentances that to me seem biased or confusing. (Any attempts to clarify them by me would probably end in disasters)

Midway down the Killing of Shelter Animals

The CCF claimed in a press release that "(a)n official report filed by PETA itself shows that the animal rights group put to death nearly every dog, cat, and other pet it took in for adoption in 2006."[72] A spokesperson for the Virginia Department of Agriculture responded that "PETA will basically take anything that comes through the door, and other shelters won't do that," and that it had considered changing PETA's status from "shelter" to "euthanasia clinic."[73]

Claimed could probably be replaced with another word, and the last sentence doesn't make much sense to me.

Campaigns and Consumer Boycotts

In response, the Australian wool industry sued PETA, claiming among other things that mulesing prevents flystrike, a very painful disease that can affect sheep

Using the word claiming makes it seem as if the wool company isn't telling the truth at all. I just have no clue what to change it to, if it actually needs changed at all. GouramiGirl (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done, for both. Thanks again. Actually, we have a guideline at WP:CLAIM that specifically instructs using more neutral words instead of "claim". By the way, I've watchlisted this page for several years, and have long tried to undo pro-PETA biases in the language (in the past, against some rather fervent pushback), but at this point I've looked at the page so many times that I just don't see these things unless someone with fresh eyes points them out to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks, sorry, but i have to take issue with removing the response from the VA Dept of Agriculture about PETA taking in animals. The CCF and PETA have been arch enemies for decades and one of the key issues is the euthanasia rate. By leaving in the CCF quote and taking out the VDA's quote, you're giving the CCF more space for their argument. CCF has long said that PETA just kills everything. PETA says that they are a shelter of last resort (as the VDA says "the take anything" which other shelters will not) which is why their kill rate is so much higher. I've tried to make that a little clearer in context without putting the whole quote back in, even though I'd prefer to have the quote back. LMK what you think. Bob98133 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That's OK, with one quibble, Bob. I don't think either GouramiGirl or I objected to that argument, just that the quote, as written, was rather difficult to understand, as it was previously written. (Saying that they "will basically take anything that comes through the door" sounds more like a put-down than an explanation.) It's clearer now, so that's fine. My quibble was that "take in" ends up carrying a subtle POV, by making it sound like PETA was taking in the animals to shelter them, when in fact it was euthanizing them. I changed "take in" to "handle", and with that, I'm fine with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(PS: I've gotta say, after all these years editing this page, it takes me by surprise to find all those WP:CLAIM issues going right past my eyes until someone new points them out. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC))

Lady Gaga's meat dress

Please amend " After Lady Gaga wore a dress made of meat in 2010, PETA issued a statement objecting to the dress" to include a link to the article Lady Gaga's meat dress. I suggest " After Lady Gaga wore a dress made of meat in 2010, PETA issued a statement objecting to the dress". Thank you. --110.20.243.197 (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam ^Sing! 08:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2014

Please change "shopping center in Ashoskie" to "shopping center in Ahoskie" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinet91 (talk • contribs)

 Done Stickee (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"Killing of shelter animals"

Much of the information in this section is duplicated, and needs to be cleaned up. 74.90.255.19 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, sure was. Thanks for the heads up. Don't know how I missed it, but it seems as though three graphs were added to the top of this section that were simply rehashes of info already contained within. A couple of items were inadequately sourced. Removed. All the info is still there, just not repeated. Bob98133 (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

With one quibble, I agree. Those paragraphs were added rather recently. I went through them just now, looking critically for anything that was reliably sourced but not covered elsewhere in the section. There was pretty much nothing, but I did find one thing, and I just made an edit, putting that back. It was some specific numbers about the proportions of animals euthanized or not euthanized, and I think that it is worthwhile for us to report exact numbers. On the other hand, the information was sourced to the CCF, and I recognize the issues about sourcing material to them. Therefore, I tried to put the material in an appropriate position within the section, and to put it in the context of its source. I hope that's OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on keeping the stats, but not on the source. I've pulled the stats instead from the gov't agency directly, rather than the picked and chosen ones that CCF used (i.e. the animals that were surrendered to other agencies). I also used the gov't agencies nomenclature "euthanized" rather than "killed." I have a problem with using the percentages as quoted by CCF. I will look to see if there's another source that will compare their percentage rate to the other shelters and put that back in. I think the stats speak for themselves. PETA obviously euth'd most of the animals they took in. Is that ok? Cheers...Bob98133 (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. (I moved the "VDACS" abbreviation to the first occurrence, and took out the repetitions of the long agency name, but that's a trivial revision.) I think that the source you added is a good improvement, as are the more complete figures. As I said, I was a bit uncomfortable with the previous source, so I'm happy that you improved upon it. I see some value in not only telling our readers, as we do, that PETA euthanized most of the animals, but also indicating the extent to which PETA's practices differ from other shelters. When PETA does something in a manner that is specific to PETA, that seems encyclopedic to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Where's the reference for the claim that most of the euthanized animals are healthy? I can't find anything supporting that in the references around the text. I'm also very dubious of using primary sources for the euthanasia rate without context or secondary sources to interpret them. Is that rate higher than normal shelters? Is that rate representative of the annual average, or was 2006 an unusual year? These are all things that are missing from the article, and precisely the reason that primary sources should be used with extreme caution. 128.84.216.20 (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Took a look and decided to update the stats. This is such a contentious issue that I do feel it's best to put the primary source for the numbers out there. You're right about the use of "healthy," and I did remove that since none of the citations supported that claim. I am game to put some context about the numbers, but will have to think on how best to word and from what sources. If you have suggestions, please advise! Bob98133 (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted what appeared to be an add about 2014 VDAC numbers that didn't match up to actual VDAC numbers cited in the previous sentence, which are linked to the original source in the footnote. If I'm not doing the math right, please do correct with explanation. Thanks! Bob98133 (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bob98133: Please see the numbers for the "previous sentence" they are for 2013, the numbers removed were for 2014. Why suppress information verified to a reliable source, the Washington Post?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RightCowLeftCoast (talk • contribs) 12:15, 25 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Hi there, please, I'm not trying to suppress anything. The Washington Post is using the same source as I cited: the VDACS 2014 shelter numbers. If you click on the 2014 numbers within the Wash Post article, they take you to the exact same source as I link in the footnote #67. Please take a look. What the Washington Post is doing is only counting cats and dogs. If you look at the VDACS numbers, PETA took in 3014 animals TOTAL, and the subsequent figures are based on all the animals, not just cats and dogs. And if you look at the 2013 numbers, the 81% figure is actually the same in 2013 and 2014 when you figure total animals and total euthanasias. I don't know why you would want to limit the information to just dogs and cats? Thanks!Bob98133 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry if the above editor misunderstood what I was saying. I provided a link in my last comment that shows that the links differ. Here: 2013, 2014. The WaPo story links to the 2014 information where it got its different numbers.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bob98133: The previous content sources the 2013 numbers, and not the 2014 numbers which I added and sourced to WaPo (which used the 2014 numbers) and Bob98133 removed. So the confusion is not on me, but on Bob98133. Please, correct this Bob98133.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, I'm going to change everything to the 2014 numbers. Again, the Washington Post is citing the same source but as it says in the article only for the cats and dogs. I am using the VDACS 2014 numbers for ALL ANIMALS taken in by PETA in 2014. ALL OF THEM, NOT JUST THE CATS AND DOGS. I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand. I see no reason (and I am open to a reason) for just using the number for cats and dogs. PETA took in 3017 animals in 2014 and euthanized 2455 for an 81% euthanasia rate. It's right here https://arr.va-vdacs.com/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2014. Please look at this and at the link in the Washington Post article again---they are the same exact thing. The reason I had not changed the 2013 citation is because that year, PETA took in 2210 animals and euthanized 1805 which also comes to an 81% euthanasia rate. But since using 2013 seems to have caused some confusion, I've changed that citation as well. Again, if you can explain why you just want the cats and dogs number, I'm all ears.Bob98133 (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Sorry, one more thing, just feel like I should spell all of this out: The Washington Post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/animal-bill-could-put-peta-out-of-the-shelter-business/2015/02/23/2f4f05b6-bb6a-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html says "In 2014, according to state reports, PETA took in 2,631 cats and dogs. All but 307 were euthanized." Their source is https://arr.va-vdacs.com/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2014, and indeed, if you add up the columns for cats and dogs ONLY, you get 2631 and then add up the euthanized dogs/cats and subtract, you get 307. Cool. I am using the same source but including all of the animals from all columns. Please tell me that makes sense? I don't think we're at cross purposes here. I think you did make a good faith edit, but I don't know why we would want to only have the cats/dogs numbers when PETA euthanizes all kinds of animals. Thanks!Bob98133 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not include the 2013 and the 2014 numbers? And numbers from previous years (if available)(and a table could be made) if more than two years were available.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you can go back a number of years on the VDACS website. I'm not so skilled at the table thing :), but I can put in a couple of years of numbers, or at least link to a couple of years back. What do you think? Bob98133 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why not. More information the better. Not having looked at the numbers, the high percentage of euthanizing might be a recent aberration rather than a historical norm.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

I would like to dispute the neutrality of this article as it is slanted towards making PETA appear to be more ethical than unethical, example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

There isn't even a "criticism" section. Yet another example of bias in Wikipedia and very poor moderating. Craxusius (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism sections are controversial at Wikipedia, and in the past the consensus at this page has been to have criticism section-by-section. I've long been concerned that the page is not critical enough, and I'm receptive to adding sources that criticize the euthanasia practices. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Dude, you didn't even read the article if you think it's slanted. You find it slanted because it's not slanted; that is, it doesn't portray PETA with the same propogandistic vitriol you wish it to. 68.67.92.144 (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Like all criminal nut-cults, PETA assigns some of their minions to scrub any criticism of their cult from wikipedia. Unless the critics are as dedicated as the cultists, the cult will usually win this tug-of-war. See the pages for el ron hub bard's cult or the moons for similar examples. 50.131.153.242 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this article is way too critical of PETA. The negative points and quotes, esp. in the intro and the conclusion, far outweigh the positive ones, as my comments and analysis below indicate. Calling PETA a "criminal nut-cult" (as this last poster does) indicates that the person's perspective is completely skewed in a way that cannot begin to be taken seriously. That's just empty name-calling, without any substance. PETA is not "criminal" or a "cult"--to be accurate, it's a legit and perfectly legal animal rights nonprofit that exercises its free-speech rights. And although opinions may vary, it probably makes far more sense to say that those who oppose the ethical treatment of animals are "nuts" rather than those who support it. Also, the person who writes "I've long been concerned that the page is not critical enough" ("Tryptofish"), obviously isn't looking carefully at what's there. This piece is currently quite biased against PETA and needs to be brought into balance and also into alignment with Wikipedia's own neutrality guidelines. 174.22.190.144 (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"Science-Based Medicine" is not a reliable source

The blog "Science-Based Medicine" is a blog run by Dr Gorski and is not a reliable source of information for the purposes used in this article. I would recommend removing anything that is supported by this blog, or else finding other sources. That blog, in my experience, is largely an industry-supporting agenda-based propaganda machine, and it bans commenters for disagreement with the content. SageRad (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Please quote a few words from the article that would allow a search to find the source you are referring to. Johnuniq (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the article quote:

According to sciencebasedmedicine.org, PETA embraces pseudoscientific views and has "a history of (as the old saying goes) using science as a drunk uses a lamppost – for support rather than illumination. In that way they are typical of ideological groups. They have an agenda, they are very open about their beliefs, and they marshal whatever arguments they can in order to promote their point of view."

The cited source is this essay, and my purpose is just to point out that this website is, in my estimation, an agenda-driven source of its own, so it's like "Yes it is!" "No it's not!" sort of back and forth. But... that's just a heads-up and i'm not involved in either side of the debate, just putting up a flag for someone to put a little attention on this section. The quote from sciencebasedmedicine.org does read like a polemic to me, and i wonder if the quote needs to be there. It's also ironic because in my reckoning, sciencebasedmedicine.org is also an agenda-driven ideological group, so it's pot and kettle. SageRad (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, in case you think this constitutes a conflict of interest, i was banned from commenting on "Science-Based Medicine" for engaging in dialogue on the topic of glyphosate, in which i cited scientific evidence for potential harm of the chemical to the human gut microbiome, as it is a chemical that has been shown to inhibit growth and normal metabolism of bacteria at very low concentrations, and has not apparently been tested in regard to whether or not it disrupts the human gut microbiome's microbial population balances. I cited a few studies and gave some reasoning. I was attacked by resident trolls there, and replied to them and David Gorski banned me from commenting on the website forever. I only mention this because the very comment that i posted right here was used as a further basis for a long and tiring hounding saga by a few editors upon me to not ever say anything about David Gorski or his web-blog ever again, apparently, as shown in this section of my Talk page where an editor brought up my very comment above as evidence that i am doing something wrong in regard to speaking about my reckoning of the nature of "Science-Based Medicine" as a source in regard to this article. I posted here because my familiarity and my read on "Science-Based Medicine" as an information source might be of value to people here, who seem to be trying to find a balance in regard to bias in a "he said / she said" bias war, of sorts. And, besides, i found the tone of the quote from the "Science-Based Medicine" website to be rather unprofessional and polemic and perhaps not deserving of prominence in a Wikipedia article. Anyway, in regard to my comment, take it with a grain of salt in the light that i have been banned from "Science-Based Medicine" for engaging in science-based dialogue, where the science disagreed with the conclusion that David Gorski wanted. SageRad (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Vegetable Killers

Nowhere in the article does it mention that PETA blatantly promotes the slaughter of innocent vegetables.

Vegetables have feelings too, actually they don't have a central nervous system, so that might be incorrect. But has anyone at PETA even bothered to ask? They seem capable of talking to sheep when it is convenient for them, so I presume they can also talk to vegetables, that they then murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.33.190 (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Cherrypicked quote about Holocaust and animals

I wholeheartedly believe that the quote regarding comparing the Holocaust where at least 6 million Jews died with animal suffering is WP:UNDUE weight towards that specific cause and quote. I also note that the editor who has put it there as almost exclusively focused on the topics of animals and is a WP:SPA. Tutelary (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This quote is highly relevant and adds much-needed balance. Also, although I have edited a lot of articles about animals, which is a topic close to my heart and that I know a lot about, I have also made quite a few edits to articles about other subjects of interest to me, such as music and poetry, so this claim about an SPA is not true and just an attempt to write off my contributions. Further, the quote is not "cherrypicked," as it concerns the intention behind this particular exhibition. It could hardly be more relevant, and it gives the other side of the story, balancing out the criticism from other groups. I have following this guideline precisely: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

Wilbur777 (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The reasoning on why I called the quote cherrypicked is that within the very same article, there is quotes that are very similar to the reaction that I have. Due to your insistence that this quote must remain, I am going to be adding the other quotes as well for balance. Also, the guideline you're looking for is again WP:DUE. You're conflating balance with false balance--Just because two claims seem rather familiar and absolutely antithetical in nature does not mean they garner the same weight. This is also true when there is a large amount of criticism for one position, and a very small amount of criticism for the other, and attempting to conflate them both as 'both disputed theories'. They are not, and that is the definition of WP:UNDUE weight. If you let my edit stand, I will let your stand. Tutelary (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Previously, there was no presentation of the other side at all. I am fine with the quotes you have added, as they flesh out the Anti-Defamation League's point of view and let readers hear from both sides. I just made a few grammatical tweaks to your addition. But I don't agree with you about "false balance" here, and I think you're revealing your own position rather than being objective. There are two different points of view, and both merit consideration. Since this page is about PETA and not just about criticisms of PETA, the point of view behind the exhibit should be stated. Also, these are not "theories" but matters of value, which is something else. I am not attempting to eliminate the criticism in this article, but I have attempted to create some more balance in spots. Also, I think if you looked deeper into the issue of animals rights and into the scientific evidence for the intelligence of nonhuman animals, our evolutionary kinship with them, and their capacity to experience pain and suffering, you would be less apt to assume that the anthropocentric view is obviously the correct one here.Wilbur777 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

When a person or organization is criticized, it is usually relevant to give the response to the criticism, unless it cannot be sourced adequately and is unduly self-serving. As PETA's explanation for the Holocaust analogy has been reported on in secondary sources, it seems relevant here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

Wilbur777 (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Pronounce the PETA

How do you pronounce "PETA". Do you say PAY-tah or do you say some other way? I just want to add this onto this article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Pee-ta. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I add a pronunciation template beside "PETA" abbreviation? It appears that some people pronounce "PETA" in many different ways and could do with how to pronounce the "PETA" abbreviation. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have always heard it pronounced "Pet-ah'. I live in the American south but that's how I have always heard it. White Arabian mare (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Multiple Issues with This Entry

Unless you have witnessed for yourself that farmers abuse their animals you cannot let PETA impersonations make you go vegan. Yes there is cruelty out there but as a farmer myself I am shocked at how many people believe that we hurt them. Cows are one of the toughest land animals on Earth and we are saving them, we become their parents. Why let the cows die from disease we can treat so the bears and wolves can get to them? When we could be using it to feed the world. What a waste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.167.82 (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

First, it's odd that the intro concludes with two paragraphs about controversy. The information in these paragraphs does not seem essential to the introduction of this subject and should perhaps be moved to a separate "Controversy" section or elsewhere. For instance, Gary Francione's opinion is not a central or defining fact about PETA and certainly does not merit such prominence. Objectively speaking, what has Francione accomplished on behalf of animals that begins to compare with what PETA has done? And what gives him the "stature" to be the one person whose opinion really "counts" here? Frankly, his opinion is a pretty trivial piece of information. Likewise, why should a notorious climate-change denier such as James Inhofe have his critical opinion about this group so prominently displayed? What special authority does he have on the topic of PETA and animal rights? This is not an objective and well-considered presentation, and I don't believe it's typical of Wikipedia articles to present such hostile and arbitrarily selected opinions in the intros to other subjects. And what about some counter-balancing positive opinions of the group? Frankly, it looks like industrial enemies of the animal rights movement have tampered with this piece to skew it against the organization. The presentation needs to be more balanced and more in line with the standards of an encyclopedia and Wikipedia's own stated standards of neutrality.

Profile

This section says the group has "two million members and supporters," whereas other sections, including the boxed info at the top, say three million (which seems to be the correct number).

Campaigns and consumer boycotts

The list of celebrity supporters is both short and arbitrary. A much more complete list appears here:

https://www.looktothestars.org/charity/peta

And it includes many very prominent names not listed in this section, such as Kate Winslet, Paul McCartney, Richard Linklater, Roger Moore, and many, many others. I would suggest expanding the list and using the page above as the reference.

The criticism of the Holocaust analogy should probably be balanced by a reference to the fact that the great writer Issac Bashevis Singer initiated it. According to your own Wikipedia page: "In The Letter Writer, [Singer] wrote 'In relation to [animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka.'[31] which became a classical reference in the discussions about the legitimacy of the comparison of animal exploitation with the holocaust."

Just because the Anti-Defamation League has criticized this analogy does not make it illegitimate, and, obviously, it is not rejected by all Jews, since Singer, a Jew, initiated it.

Killing of shelter animals

The CCF should probably be immediately identified as what it is, a front group for industries that abuse and slaughter animals. Frankly, by any standard of proportion and logic, a group that represents KFC, just for starters, which slaughters about *a billion* animals a year, criticizing a group that euthanizes a few thousand old, sick, and injured animals is pretty laughable stuff. It's kind of like Stalin criticizing Jack Kevorkian. It's also worth noting how disproportionate the attention to PETA's euthanasia program has been. According to the Humane Society of the United States, about 2.7 million cats and dogs are euthanized in the U.S. each year:

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html

PETA performs about 2,000 of those, which is something like .1%. You would hardly gather that, though, from all the attention this subject receives. By way of analogy, imagine if your cause is greenhouse-gas emissions. Would you go after the country that's responsible for .1% of the emissions (e.g., Bahrain, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions, which makes PETA the Bahrain of euthanasia)? Or would you go after the truly big emitters, such as the U.S. and China? (Breeders and animal mills would be the equivalent in this case, because they are to blame for the overpopulation crisis.) Clearly, then, the critics who harp on this issue are not really interested in addressing the issue of euthanasia itself in a serious manner. They are interested in tearing down PETA. So I would suggest approaching this issue with appropriate caution and skepticism. And there are many reasons, some of which are listed in the article, why PETA does not function like ordinary animal shelters do. One that you do not mention is that the organization has an active Cruelty Investigations Department, which identifies abused and ill animals, many of whom cannot be rehabilitated, because of illness or injuries, and so require euthanasia. Regular shelters do not have anything like that, so comparing their euthanasia stats with PETA's is really apples and oranges.

Position within the animal rights movement

Again, way too much prominence is given to the opinion of one individual, Francione. Did he or his disciples edit this section? And again, what kind of hands-on achievements on behalf of animals does Francione have by comparison with this group? The focus on Francione's opinion here is completely disproportionate and should be edited down to a size that is reasonable for an article of this length and the significance of the topic (which is extremely low, really).

And much more acknowledgement needs to be given to PETA's achievements and the way that it has defined the cutting edge of campaigns and actual accomplishments within the animal rights movement.

Other views

This is an extremely weak concluding section. It references a single campaign from years ago in support of a generalization about "pseudo-science." Unless some pattern of "pseudo-science" can be documented, this is simply not a legitimate criticism, and the prominence given to this discussion is way out of proportion with other areas of the article. For instance, PETA is heavily invested in opposing animal testing and fur and has many accomplishments in these areas, and yet the discussions of those subjects receive far less space than this one of something that is absolutely not central to the organization's work, history, or mission. Something is clearly wrong here, and it creates an overall false, unfair, and misleading impression. The article definitely needs a much stronger and less arbitrary concluding section.

The problem with neutrality and balance is highly evident if we characterize the content of each paragraph in terms of being NEUTRAL, NEGATIVE, or POSITIVE. I score the four paragraphs of the intro like this:

NEUTRAL NEUTRAL NEGATIVE NEGATIVE

And the conclusion of the article is like this (with paragraphs in which PETA itself is merely being cited in defense of accusations as "NEUTRAL"):

NEUTRAL NEGATIVE NEGATIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE NEGATIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE NEGATIVE [block quote] NEGATIVE

That's extremely unbalanced, obviously.

Many critical viewpoints from outside the group are quoted, across a range of perspectives, but virtually no positive opinions from outside the group's leadership are quoted, even though supporters of the group include many prominent figures, such as Jane Goodall, Peter Singer, Thich Nhat Hanh, J. M. Coetzee, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Linklater, Paul McCartney, Michael Stipe, Morrissey, and many, many others. This article strongly implies that their opinions do not count, whereas those of a professor at Rutgers, a far-right climate-change-denying senator from Oklahoma, and industry front groups somehow do. Let's call that what it unfortunately is: ludicrous.

I would like to see the organization receive more balanced treatment on your supposedly unbiased site. Instead, what I am reading often looks like industry propaganda against the group. Especially glaring are the two paragraphs focused on controversy in the intro and the very weak and unbalanced conclusion. And why don't you have a section that covers PETA's rescue of animals from roadside zoos and other sorry facilities and how it helps transfer them to first-rate sanctuaries such as The Wild Animal Sanctuary in Colorado? See, for instance: http://investigations.peta.org/bfbp-bear-rescue/ and also http://www.petaindia.com/blog/sunder-next-steps/. Those are just two cases out of a huge number. Surely, the subject of rescuing abused animals is vastly more important and integral subject matter for this topic than much of what the article currently contains.

Thank you for considering my points.

174.22.190.144 (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you have some good points, potentially, but I'm not highly knowledgeable on the topic. The page is only semi-protected, meaning registered users can edit it after they have been editing for four days and made at least ten edits. Why don't you create a username and try fixing it? Your first step ought to be to replace most of the quotes and synthesized arguments with material from reliable sources. That should clear up some of the NPOV issues by itself. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Maya

I am surprised that there is no mention of the dog Maya taken by PETA on October 18, 2014. Why is this?

SteamPunk Devil (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Metta World Peace

Please change Ron Artest to Metta World Peace because that is his name now. Thetylerlynch (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 21:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130724195856/http://www.myatltv.com/article_watl.aspx?storyid=105335 to http://www.myatltv.com/article_watl.aspx?storyid=105335

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130724195856/http://www.myatltv.com/article_watl.aspx?storyid=105335 to http://www.myatltv.com/article_watl.aspx?storyid=105335

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2016

Can somebody change the Start date and age template from the current {start date and age|1980|3} to {start date and age|1980|3|22} to correspond to PETA's official founding date? 173.73.242.76 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Celebrities who support PETA" section

Is this section really suitable for this article? It is sourced to a single webpage, is difficult to maintain, and may fall under WP:IINFO. The other parts of the article have already mentioned how PETA has received support from many celebrities. I propose removing the "Celebrities who support PETA" section, and adding a link to the Look to the Stars webpage of PETA celebrity supporters in the External links section of the article. SSTflyer 08:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thinking about it again I decide that this is uncontroversial enough, and I have done the edit. If anyone disagrees, please undo. SSTflyer 08:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2016

I would like to edit the PETA page, but can't. My edit request is to change "PETA was sued after workers of the group allegedly stole a Virginia family's pet Chihuahua from their front porch and killed it. The family filed a lawsuit against PETA in November 2015" to "PETA has stolen and killed many animals, most notably the killing of a family's pet Chihuahua named Maya, despite the dog being in good health. The dog was reportedly stolen from the family's front porch. Although PETA denied the allegations, video evidence showed otherwise. PETA was sued in November 2015, nearly a year after the dog was killed. BlackChecker6 (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Greetings BlackChecker6 and thanks for your input. Turns out this incident was mentioned twice on this page already, so I have combined the information and put it under "controversy," with facts based on the sources. I don't see anything to indicate that "PETA has stolen and killed many animals," so I would need a verifiable source in order to add a statement like that. Thank you!Bob98133 (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2016

please move article to PETA as its the common name and saves server space with fewer letters 65.175.134.44 (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See prior consensus at Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 15#Requested move 15 March 2014. If you wish to restart discussion, feel free to do so here on the talk page, but that wouldn't quite be another edit request Cannolis (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/40_1/40_1Roots.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.peta.org/feat/annual_review04/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.greatestcities.com/0299pic/916/CP18916.jpg/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.satyamag.com/jan01/newkirk.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.terra.com/musica/noticias/patricia_de_leon_lidera_campana_de_peta_contra_las_corridas_de_toros/oci1108176
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/40_1/40_1Roots.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huntingdonsucks.com/gallery/InsideHLS.mpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huntingdonsucks.com/gallery/scared_monkey.mov
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061101171517/http://www.covancechandler.com/docs/pr060331.pdf to http://www.covancechandler.com/docs/pr060331.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://tiftongazette.com/local/x323686581/Wells-I-did-what-I-was-told/print
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lincolntribune.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1420
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://espn.go.com/outdoors/general/columns/guest_columnist/1349596.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arkangelweb.org/international/us/20060808coronadosentenced.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.farinc.org/newsletter/v8_n3-4_94/editorial.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

PETA UK, Netherlands, France and Germany

In Other international affiliates, PETA UK, Netherlands, France and Germany get a mention.

Those organisations act independently and are significant pressure groups in each country. They may be worth more than a passing mention. For instance, PETA UK says it has more that 1,000,000 members and is regularly involved in high profile news and campaigns, including:

Clothing Industry debate in House of Lords. Dutch Parliament Passes Motion to Phase Out Non-Human Primate Research Persuading the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to prioritise non-animal test methods. Pressuring for closure of London's last greyhound stadium Persuading the Scottish government to band wild animal circuses. Virtually wiping out the angora industry. And high profile involvement in "Team Badger" and "Team Fox" campaign groups.

Would it be worth expanding that section to include the significant work from PETA's international branches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanPublicPolicy (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Typo

"used of nudity" should be "use of nudity" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.124.105 (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103113915/http://www.strokeassociation.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3029931 to http://www.strokeassociation.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3029931
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto110720081502290946&page=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.greatestcities.com/0299pic/916/CP18916.jpg/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611200819/http://www.rcfp.org/news/1994/0222f.html to http://www.rcfp.org/news/1994/0222f.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060705161856/http://www.covancecruelty.com/videos.asp to http://www.covancecruelty.com/videos.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613170852/http://www.covancecruelty.com/feat-fined.asp to http://www.covancecruelty.com/feat-fined.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000320/http://www.kittyvillage.com/morton_v_irvin.pdf to http://www.kittyvillage.com/morton_v_irvin.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000320/http://www.kittyvillage.com/morton_v_irvin.pdf to http://www.kittyvillage.com/morton_v_irvin.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This article needs more criticism before it can become a good article or a featured article. Perhaps a criticism section or a separate article for criticism?

As the title to this section states, this article is in need of well-written, legitimate criticism of the group and of certain of its unethical aspects, which is largely absent or hard to find. Could you fellow editors reach a new consensus on including criticism in a separate section? We do not want PETA sockpuppets to whitewash the article of criticism. Also, if a criticism section cannot be made, how about a separate article about criticism in the "See also" section? What do you think, ladies and gentlemen? Zakawer (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. At the moment all criticism is squashed into the intro. --31.49.114.250 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. For such a controversial group, it seems odd that the criticism is watered down throughout the article instead of standing on it's own. I agree a separate article may be better suited, how would that fit in with the protected status of the PETA article? ourweakness (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a new article for PETA criticism, the entry just needs better organization. Right now the lede is too long and goes from relevant info to extreme detail (and criticism) very quickly. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree. I actually came to this page because I wanted to know more about the controversy of PETA and wikipedia often has a section about that. Deep.fried.bacon (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC) (Also I couldn't figure out how to add a separate post nested under this original one so I just added this here. I wasn't sure if that was the proper way to do it, so if not if someone could let me know what is the proper way, I'd be grateful.)

If a criticism and controversy section and/or a separate article for criticism doesn't work, we're gonna have to incorporate a buttload of criticism into the article's lead and especially into the body of the article. Still, the article needs a lot of work before reaching GA or FA status. Zakawer (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I was disappointed to not find anything about the case where PETA sued photographer David Slater because a monkey took a selfie with his camera and he published it in a book. Apparently he is now bankrupt from the ongoing court case where PETA demands the monkey should own the copyrights and be reimbursed. There is a wikipedia article on the case but I couldn't find a link in the PETA article. Monkey selfie 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:9153:6A96:43A2:2556 (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree, too. Why it's there a link to the controversy of the Monkey selfie copyright dispute? 212.59.44.4 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you use the SVG Version?

Hi, I'm from the Hebrew Wikipedia. I just updated the logo of PETA. Take a look here טוסטר אובן (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for the new logo! rchard2scout (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2017

I request that PETA be described as a domestic terrorist organization as it was classified by the federal government. Nowhere in this entire article does it give this Information. People should be able to know the full info for this Article. Mr. Meseeks (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for this claim first. --regentspark (comment) 18:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

a link about PETA supporting terrorism (most similar thing to what the OP claimed), but no creditable sources to state direct terrorism:

Not done: OP please see WP:TERRORIST; PETA funding is discussed in the "Positions" section. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 8:02 am, 26 April 2018, last Thursday (4 days ago) (UTC−7)

--Vkovtun (comment) 7:53, 26 April 2018/18:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Even though this is different to what the OP stated, it still deserves a mention in this article to keep it from being biased (would be added to the section "direct action and ALF"). Also (unrelated), maybe the two parts "Direct action and ALF" as well as "Euthanizing shelter animals" (along with the sub section "Legal proceedings") should be merged into one section called "Controversy" as both have less to do with the major sections which they are currently a part of, and more about the controversy surrounding PETA itself. (Edited due to time constraints writing original comment made here a day ago)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Peter not Isaac Bashevis

The animalrights philosopher is Peter Singer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.86.153.173 (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)