Jump to content

Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Undue tag - Animal testing

I don't think we can use statements from PETA for this. There's no discussion of what independent sources have said about using these techniques as alternatives, or what the downsides could be, so it is unbalanced and places undue weight on PETA's position. The LA Times article cited as "Also See" does not say anything about embryonic stem cell research and in vitro cell research. There are some sources about this [1] but I'm not sure they are really usable under WP:MEDRS. I'm open to suggestions on how this section could be improved. Seraphim System (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

PETA Fake News Scandal is not reported on page

There does not seem to be a mention of the recent incident where PETA allegedly made a fake animal abuse video:

reported at the washington post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/06/07/peta-wanted-a-fake-cat-video-to-go-viral-it-didnt-exactly-turn-out-as-planned/ ThisPageIsTooClean(talk) 00:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)ThisPageIsTooClean

It's verifiable via Mashable and Peta's own site, where they released a statement regarding the whistleblower article - so, yeah - I'm for it's brief inclusion if there's a suitable section of the article you are thinking of putting it into. Suggestions?
Edaham(talk) 05:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Sea Kittens

Does anyone know if PETA have copywritted the term "sea Kittens" I think it would make a great name for a seafood restarant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.27.5 (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A "controversy and criticism" section is needed, to address multiple issues and events

These events include things like vandalizing homes post-katrina with messages like "animal murderer" https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2010/08/17/129251257/misrach

members being charged with animal cruelty for dumping dead animals http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8255324/ns/health-pet_health/t/peta-employees-charged-animal-cruelty/#.XFUDUlxKg2w

and Newkirk not believing in a right to life for animals: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ingrid-newkirk-quotes-peta-euthanasia/

It feels strange using a snopes link but for every legitimate criticism of peta, there is a made up story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.89.234.91 (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

PETA over stepping their bounds

If PETA just focuses on animals are treated properly than that would be fine but now a days they are clearly over stepping their bounds involving in everything related to animals. They literally killed the circus industry by harassing everything a circus does is violation of animal rights. Going after google for a tribute to Steve Irwin's (Crocodile Hunter) 57th birthday. Because of people like Steve Irwin regular people learn about different wild animals which is a good insight especially if you live in or go to areas that have those wild animals. It is a matter of life and death with a lot of the animals he and others have shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:112F:8068:358F:7E8F:C26C:3A82 (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019

peta are assholes 2A00:23C4:130C:8D00:287D:CC54:A130:C285 (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tutelary (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

they terrorize animals

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/killing-animals-petas-open-secret_us_59e78243e4b0e60c4aa36711

have freezers full of dead cats but no food to give them, come on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.69.119 (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals#Euthanizing shelter animals seems to contain all that information already. PLease make your requests in the form of "Change x to y". NiciVampireHeart 12:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Controversy

I definitely agree that there should be a dedicated controversy section on this page. They've had their fair share and it shouldn't be hidden in among the other information. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Tutelary (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted Wilbur. This article is quite in need of some work. There is quite a lot of puffery with regards to actions that PETA has taken, among other things, focus on things that have more than their weight in sources. The entire section in question (Criticism) is smaller than their "philosophy and activism" section which could be cut down quite a lot, removing the video game section all together, among other things. We need to evaluate which sections need more expansion, which sections should have axed altogether, and which sections can be rearranged/renamed to fit the overall spirit of Wikipedia policy. But I do not believe that the introduction of the criticism section is "redundant with other sections that cover topics such as legal work, " Or if it is, we need to simply move that to said criticism section, to ensure readers have proper flow of the article and are able to read preferred sections at will.Tutelary (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree as well, I have reverted the edits by Wilbur again, under threats of retaliation of course, in my opinion, this article is perhaps one of the most single sided article I have seen. Many cited sources are from PETA themselves and is a clear violation of policy.Jdmdk (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not exactly a violation of policy to -use- WP:PRIMARY sources in general, but they should only be used for: to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. which is obviously not happening with the current state of the article. In either case, there is a larger theme going on here with regards to the article. Wilbur, there is no second revert in the WP:BRD cycle. Please discuss your changes and arguments on the talk page, as I have implored you. As far as the Steve Irwin thing goes...I'm not sure it belongs in the WP:LEAD, but it does deserve to be in the article, given WP:RS. The lead itself reads a lot like a PR statement, and makes no attempt to summarize the rest of the article, as leads are intended to do. Tutelary (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The references added to support the existence of various PETA resources are straightforward and factual. The material added was concise and obviously pertains to an important aspect of this organization's work. Users with an obvious agenda against this organization are attempting to suppress important information about it while simultaneously placing undue and unbalanced emphasis on something as trivial as a single tweet. That certainly does not belong in the intro to this article. It is simply one minor example of what the final sentence of the intro covers. Also, users should not be removing material that is factual and accurately sourced. That is vandalism.Wilbur777 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Why did they lock peta editing

Peta is a hipocritical pile of shit and should be destroyed. They fucked up and should take the consequences Adamadam1718 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Although I agree with the statement that "PeTa" is hypocritical, and as noted above by others that there should be a controversy page, as well as the fact that the entire page seems rather biased. Wikipedia is NOT the place for vandalism, instead its a place for neutral information that's been supported by sources. --Luna Delrey (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Please explain what you mean by "hypocritical" here. If you are referring to euthanasia, PETA makes its position in support of that under certain defined circumstances very clear. (See: https://www.peta.org/blog/euthanize/.) It is not "hypocritical" to act according to your stated positions. Also, it's obvious why this article needs to be protected when users on a talk page are writing things such as "Peta is a hipocritical [sic] pile of shit and should be destroyed." There is no place for that kind of foul, vehement, unhinged language on Wikipedia (or anywhere, really).Wilbur777 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Reading the article is surreal

You can tell that PETA's people have been over and over this article with a fine-toothed comb, trying to present it in as positive a light as possible. It's very weird seeing the terrible things they do bookended with all these excuses and "peta believes in a philosophy of" stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.161.116.7 (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

have to agree. saying that Wiki is clear on its no bias and factual citated comments requirements of an article with no personal opinions allowed. saying that this article is in major need of an overhaul to take out the clearly bias nature, especially emphasizing its accomplishments and down playing the controversies. it reads more as a sales slogan in current form than an encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.85.18 (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
You have to understand that it isn't in Wikipedia's best interests to defame large organizations. Yes, the article is certainly notably biased, but that's not unique to just PETA. Wikipedia is edited by people, people can have very strong opinions. The goal of controversial pages should be to present all information and straightforward as possible, PETA is no stranger to controversy and a single tweet doesn't change that. 51.37.86.100 (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
In terms of overall emphasis, the article is still very much unbalanced in the direction of criticism of its subject matter--criticism and well-funded misinformation that originates with shadowy industry attack organizations such as the recently renamed Center for Organizational Research and Education. The purpose of a Wikipedia page is to provide information about a subject, not to criticize that subject and repeat misleading information that comes from its enemies.Wilbur777 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

User:Wilbur777, you have not engaged in the talk page since April of 2016, when we last butted heads. Regardless, your contributions have issues with following Wikipedia policy. The whole article reads like PETA wrote it itself, and does not follow the npov of view policy, specifically WP:PROPORTION. This article frankly needs a lot of work, and generally over-emphasizes PETA's positions while downplaying and euphemizing the legitimate criticism that PETA has lodged at it. Tutelary (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with your assessment, and I believe it is completely biased and unduly influenced by industry propaganda. The article actually contains a disproportionate amount of criticism for a Wikipedia piece and completely distorts what the organization actually does on a daily basis. There has been a concerted attempt to define this group in negative terms based on issues such as euthanasia without an adequate understanding of the complex underlying issues. The methods of the enemies of groups such as PETA are very similar to those of Russian trolls. What they do is pick a few misleading "memes" and push them as relentlessly as they can (including in unwitting mainstream media) while actively attempting to obscure the big picture. Just for instance: Euthanasia services are a very small part of PETA's work, whereas vegan outreach is a HUGE part. Yet you and other hostile users don't even want the latter to be mentioned, which is ridiculous! And it completely distorts the reality that should be reflected in the contents of this article, which barely even begins to cover what the group actually does. Also, because PETA is radical and challenges conventional practices in our society (such as eating meat), it is very easy for people to be misled, since they aren't (yet) sympathetic and want to avert their eyes from what goes on in slaughterhouses, laboratories, etc., while claiming that those who call attention to such matters are "hypocritical" or otherwise "compromised" (i.e., shoot the messenger). I am hoping you are not malicious or an industry agent and have simply been misled by propaganda, because in that case, you might come around to the side of light.Wilbur777 (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
*breathes in* Excuse me, what? You're completely and totally missing and/or ignoring the point. PETA has come under fire for things they have actually done, not for things "trolls" accuse them of. Yes, the recent Steve Irwin debacle is somewhat notable for the degree of backlash PETA has received, but a more longstanding issue pertains to other things they've done; some of which are actually cited in links found in above discussions on this exact talk page. One of the most notable ones was kidnapping someone's dog, named Maya, seemingly for the sole purpose of euthanizing her. This isn't touching on the whole "PETA has killed 36k animals since '98" controversy most notably cited by PETAkillsanimals.com. Is this actually true? Frankly, I don't have the guts to wade through all the disturbing photographs I'd have to look at to do the necessary research; but you know what? I'm willing to have a discussion about it. I don't like PETA myself, but that's not because of their challenging the meat industry. That's also something I want to see changed. What I take issue with are questionable and hypocritical actions they've taken, and the rather haunting notion that, at some point in my childhood, my dog could have been taken from me and euthanized, and that this could have--and still can--happen to anyone's dog. At least, that's the conclusion I've come to based on the evidence I've seen and heard. I will not, however, pin that on trolls or bots or propaganda or what have you; and if you can prove that PETA hasn't actually done the terrible things they seemingly have done, I'll be downright elated. Until then, it's downright unethical for a website that touts itself as the internet's encyclopedia not to note the very real controversy and criticism surrounding PETA, just as it should note controversy and criticism of groups and people I do like and agree with. Also, who the hell DOESN'T want PETA's veganism campaigns to be mentioned here? That's a big part of what they do, ethical or not. I have no power here, so I can't tell you what to do or say; but I will note that you have an oddly defensive tone of voice here, and as a less-than-active user who has never heard of you before, that makes me question how credible your argument is. Just throwing that out there. --Please stop. (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The tragic incident you mention concerning the dog who was mistakenly euthanized is covered in this article. See the second paragraph of "Legal Proceedings" for details. The person who mistakenly took the dog was a volunteer, not a staff member, and was dismissed. Also, note the circumstances: "The trailer park's manager had contacted PETA after a group of residents moved out, leaving their dogs behind, which is why the workers were on the property." This was a tragic mistake on the part of a volunteer, but it is definitely an incident that trolls have seized upon and pushed in misleading ways to attack the group as a whole. The "PETA Kills" campaign is run and financed by a shadowy industry group that used to be called the Center for Consumer Freedom but now calls itself the Center for Organizational Research and Education. (It changes its name from time to time in order to fly under the radar screen, as it were.) This is exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about. This group is also dedicated to running misleading campaigns against the Humane Society, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, environmental groups, and so on. Here is an article about the group's activities in The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/peta-and-humane-society-attacked-by-reports--but-are-they-real/2012/02/27/gIQAZdR2dR_blog.html?utm_term=.667b13dc2d22. Also, here is a piece about this particular misleading campaign from Generation Progress: https://www.genprogress.org/peta-murders-animals-another-lie-from-the-center-for-consumer-deceptio/. And this is PETA's own statement on euthanasia: https://www.peta.org/blog/euthanize/. So you see, you have been influenced by the kind of propaganda I had mentioned. As to who doesn't want PETA's vegan campaigns to be mentioned, if you look at the history of this page, you will see that a new section on that topic was removed twice by two different users, including the one who started this particular discussion. And this article definitely does contain quite a bit of criticism of the group.Wilbur777 (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Right, couldn't find the bit about Maya because I couldn't find a "controversy" section, and the dog isn't named in the article. Regardless, even if "PETA Kills Animals" is all a hoax, there is no mention of it in the article. It is a real controversy that has affected a lot of peoples' view of PETA, so slander or otherwise, it should be mentioned here. Let us establish that there is controversy and link any articles necessary--I should think PKA may need one, and then we can have information on their history and activities there--and include what has been said about the matter and what data exists. Readers can form their own opinions given that. Also, it's worth noting that, even going on the sources you site, it is true that PETA has killed thousands of animals in the last 20 years. Even the PKA website itself provides a seemingly legitimate government document backing up that data (and if it's fake, it should be pretty easy to get these guys in jail for that sort of thing, right?). Far as I can tell, that's real. Now, is it ethical? That depends on your personal politics, whether you believe PKA's claims from their "PETA's Lame Defense" passage on their "Evidence" page, and whether you think it makes sense that every single one of those animals had to be put down. However, all claims made about the motivations for this euthanization from both parties should be listed in this article: PETA claims it only kills for humanity's sake, and PKA claims that it kills animals that could easily be rehomed. In short: there is data not listed on the page that's very much relevant. The controversy, valid or not, is real, so readers should be made aware of it. They can think for themselves from there. --Please stop. (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Issues

I would like to request that User:Geartooth clarify what specifically on this page should be addressed. The problem with blanket pronouncements about "issues" is that they can be interpreted in various ways. To move forward, we need something concrete to focus on. Could you please provide examples of passages that supposedly read like "advertisements" for this group? And could you please recommend how to establish certain facts without reference to sources such as PETA's extensive website? By my count, of the 231 references on this page, only 14 are to PETA.org pages (i.e., 6%). Is that unusual or problematic? For purposes of comparison, on the page for the Humane Society of the United States, of 271 references, 25 are to its homepage, which is a higher percentage (9%). Several references were added recently by me in a discussion of vegan outreach efforts. I did that because it seemed the best way to substantiate the existence of certain resources and to cover a very important aspect of this group's efforts that had previously been neglected on this page, whereas many topics of lesser importance were and are covered in much more detail. I am open to alternative approaches, as well as to input from users who are interested in constructive improvements to this page. Many thanks.Wilbur777 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll give you a list, in no particular order.
  • The WP:LEAD, which is supposed to be an accurate summation of the entire article is composed nearly entirely of positive statements with regards to PETA. In order for it to be NPOV, it should include some criticism of PETA as well. For example, the average 81% euthanasia stat could be put in the lead, and that would start to make it swing towards NPOV, but it remains to be seen on whether or not that would be enough.
  • The "undercover work" includes a lot of examples of 'investigations' that PETA has done, but most of them do not have a final conclusion, and sometimes even say that courts have dismissed the charges. Not every investigation that PETA does should be included, only those that meet their WP:DUE burden and have enough coverage in reliable sources.
  • The vegan outreach section should be entirely removed, as it's based primarily on WP:PRIMARY sources--and you have edit warred its inclusion despite other users' objections. There is a means to gain WP:CONSENSUS, and no one editor owns the article.
  • The video game section should be ultimately removed or cut down considerably.
  • The "person of the year" distinction that PETA awards other people remains to be seen whether such an award is notable. I cannot find many reliable sources to attest to this. If it is considered notable, it should be included, but I cannot find sources for it other than from PETA's website itself.
  • Under positions, Direct Action and the ALF, this section does not even mention the donation that PETA gave to ALF, even if they claim to have regretted it later. The entire language in this section is too favorable to PETA, and doesn't include core facts such as the donation.
  • Under Neutering, euthanasia, backyard dogs, working animals, and pets, entire section should be removed, given its basis on WP:PRIMARY sourcing and engagement of original research.
  • Under Autism and dairy products controversy, it should be made quite clear that there is not a link between autism and dairy products, and that PETA is issuing false statements.
  • Under Wildlife conservation personalities, there should be mention of the newest Steve Irwin controversy given PETA's tweets.
  • You also removed a user's suggestion on how to introduce more NPOV content into the article when you reverted them.

I believe once the above is finished, then we can examine this article having the tags removed. Otherwise, I feel they are appropriate as well. Tutelary (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

My stance is that entire sections are completely relying on primary sources that User:Tutelary had mentioned above, and that oddly there seems to be absolutely no mention of any Controversy aside from ones from 10 years ago. At this point looking at the article's history and User:Wilbur777's actions, I'm feeling a bit of COI going on here. Geartooth The Pony Who Edits 04:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The article should be cleaned and edited. A lot. Its too long, it has NPOV issues, etc. ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 11:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Some responses:

  • The introduction to this article does contain criticism. The first sentence of the third paragraph focuses on controversy, and specific criticisms from Gary Francione and "feminists within the movement" are mentioned. I'm not persuaded that the Francione point deserves this prominence, but it's of interest that the group has been criticized for not being radical enough.
  • The euthanasia figure is highly controversial and something that has been pushed relentlessly and in misleading ways by the Center for Organizational Research and Education. If included in the intro, it should have adequate context and perhaps be balanced with spaying and neutering figures.
  • The "Undercover work" could be tightened up, but this is a very important part of what the group does on a regular basis and one of the most widely covered in mainstream media.
  • I recently assessed the article and determined that "vegan outreach" was the most important topic not given adequate coverage. This is another central focus of the group, so it does not seem right, in terms of emphasis, to omit the topic. (And as another user notes above: "who the hell DOESN'T want PETA's veganism campaigns to be mentioned here? That's a big part of what they do.")
  • The section I added was concise and factual. I endeavored to follow this guideline concerning primary sources: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
  • If the primary sources are still deemed out of bounds, there should at least be an attempt to replace them with secondary sources instead of simply removing important information about the organization's activities.
  • The new section also includes important information sourced to recent articles in Forbes. There are no grounds for removing this, and even if the section is removed for the time being, that passage should be moved elsewhere, such as under "Campaigns and consumer boycotts."
  • The sections on video games and "person of the year" do not seem nearly as important and could potentially be whittled down or removed. (I have noticed, though, that the video games have been fairly widely discussed online.)
  • The Community Animal Project is another very important part of the group's work. Instead of simply cutting this section, secondary sources should be identified to support at least some of this factual information, especially about spaying and neutering.
  • In the dairy and autism section, the block quote seems overly long and to have undue weight.
  • Also, footnote 187 to this section cites PETA.org, so this should be removed if other references to that site are removed. The site should not be cherry-picked for purposes of "criticism" if it cannot be cited to substantiate major efforts by this group.
  • Under "Wildlife conservation personalities," there is, in fact, a discussion of the recent controversial tweet, and that tweet is cited in full.
  • I removed those hidden messages because they weren't signed, used inappropriate language, mentioned unsupported rumors, and did not call for NPOV content but exclusively for "criticism." They seemed part of the recent vandalism of this page and violations of NPOV.
  • There is actually a fair bit of discussion of more recent controversies, including euthanasia (which has its own section and is also highlighted under "Profile"), Holocaust analogies (2010), a soft pornography website (which may not actually exist?), shark/fisherman, dentist/lion, the dog who was mistakenly euthanized, the "monkey selfie" lawsuit, the previously mentioned autism link, and the Irwin tweet. And that's in addition to much more.
  • I agree that the article could be trimmed. Here are a few additional suggestions: the soft pornography section, the undeveloped mention of a jallikattu ban under "PETA India," and the three paragraphs about Gary Francione at the end.

Wilbur777 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

as an editor who is unrelated to either side of either Peta’s Advocacy or industry lobbyists (I’m a Shanghai based interior architect and occasional contributor) I have looked at the article. I have not assessed it in terms of the content, but in terms of the quality of sources used. While I expected to find a great deal of primary sources used - this does not appear to be the case. Most of it is based on reliable journals. The article does adopt a generally sympathetic tone but this could just be because reliable sources generally come across as being supportive. I did find some main problems with it:
  • firstly a lot of the sources are primarily based on secondary coverage and cite the secondary source. However they also often include a cite bundle, which reads: “for PETA’s view see...” or something of that nature. It can be reasonably argued that this is link spam. It’s not contributing a great deal to the context of the article and if it were it would be primary sourced information. This practice should be greatly reduced.
  • secondly, some of it definitely is primary sourced.
  • thirdly the contents of the article should be reviewed with regard to what their sources are actually about. If an secondary sourced and reliable article is about a botched campaign and happens to mention a part of their manefesto as part of the context of the article, then the source definitely shouldn’t be used to state a part of their manefesto as this would be unduly cherry picking. There’s a bit of that going on in the article to some degree.
in short it’s been well written and sourced by a decidedly sympathetic editor and could do with a more neutral editor checking over it with regard to the actual contents of the sources, but it probably doesn’t need a large scale overhaul. This can only really be done bit by bit, due to the way the material has been abundantly sourced, so it might take some time. To the editors coming to this talk page to decry the woes of the organization, you can probably help by analyzing individual sources rather than pointing fingers and stamping feet. Edaham (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2019

Change the whole article to the truth about how PETA kills all animals it "saves" from homes they were happy and healthy in, another good example might be when they released a bunch of lobsters into fresh water and they died 68.101.170.58 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

To point out the obvious, this is not true.Wilbur777 (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tutelary (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Here is an article from The Guardian that claims that a PETA shelter in Norfolk, Virginia euthanized 1,600 of 2,000 animals in 2016:[1] Someone Not Awful (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The description has been trolled.

When you search for PETA on mobile, the description says "Animal Slaughter House". I'm not allowed to fix that due to the protected nature of the article. CuriousCat618 (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Position within the animal rights movement - edit request

The whole bullet point list after " Specific experts consulted by Philanthropedia, including academics and senior staff members of other nonprofits, made the following observations about the group's position within the animal rights movement:" needs to go, since these points are both cherry-picked out of the original site and excessive. --2003:CD:7F46:1600:35FB:E290:8B78:4602 (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Can someone fix the spelling of Bill Maher's name?

It is in the list of members under Bill Mahar. I was going to change it but cannot due to the protected status of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.61.245 (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020

Peta is an animal rights group that literally can kill anything and get away with it 50.226.204.182 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Should Norm Phelps' name (in the intro section) link to his page? I had no idea who he was until I looked him up, and the article doesn't give any details about him in the rest of the sentence either. Ssk109 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

An organization of FEAR.

can we please label PETA as a terrorist organization nom this meat burger tastes delicious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.183.101 (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2020

This page does not illustrate how controversial PETA is and the various scandals it has been involved in which are important to its history. Vgo4475 (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please clearly indicate what change you would like to see (in the form of change x to y). Please also provide reliable sources that back up your request. --regentspark (comment) 01:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

the truth of peta

there kill rate is 80% don't donate to them their terrorists

source (please reed wp:rs before answering)?Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Where is the euthanasia?

Why is there not a single mention of euthanasia in the "Neutering, euthanasia, backyard dogs, working animals, and pets" section?

Either the word needs to be removed from the title of the section or the content of the section need to be changed to mention it.

Moipaslui (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it, we mention euthanasia a lot, just not in that section. As such it should not have euthanasia in the sub heading.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 Verified as done. Normal Op (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Naruto

The section on the copyright suit ends with PETA and their victim, Slater, settling on said victim having 25% of his rightful income stolen by PETA. The ninth circuit court of appeals not only overruled and prevented Slater from settling, they ruled in his favor and made PETA pay for all of his court fees. A very crucial bit of information for that particular story.

I got that from a Verge article - https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/24/17271410/monkey-selfie-naruto-slater-copyright-peta

65.34.114.228 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Daniel John Taylor 5/4/2020

Correct. You can update this article with information you can easily find in the Monkey selfie copyright dispute article. The paragraph in this article is out of date. PETA lost, lost, lost that case. Normal Op (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I see no reason not to say they lost.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I tackled the project and reworked the paragraph. See if it covers all the angles you wanted included. Normal Op (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

2nd opinion requested

Huge Issues with this Article

This article is missing acknowledgement of multiple controversies, history of the organization, the incredibly controversial and immoral things PETA does, and is written in a very biased manner. This article needs to include the multiple controversies in the US, the crude and immoral activities of the organization, and slaughter of animals the partake in. 69.248.114.38 (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you give an example of one we ignore (from an RS)?17:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I think this article could use a controversy/criticism section. As is, it doesn't appear neutral with the various controversies PETA has been involved in over the years being scattered all about. TheGreneNight (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
We try to avoid such sections.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
That's not true for situations such as this, though. Controversy sections are quite liberally used throughout all of Wikipedia when applicable. It seems that this page in particular is avoiding a controversy section for no discernible reason. 93.107.153.40 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes there is, we are advised against them, two wrongs do not make a right. Now if there is a specific criticism you wish to include we do not what is it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Have at it, 69.248.114.38. Wikipedia is kind of a do-it-yourself project. Tips: Be bold and Criticism. Normal Op (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The article definitely warrants a section on the Criticism that PETA has received. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I began working on the NPOV problem of this article, starting with the Naruto case and then the section "Ag-gag laws". The problem with the article is that it is written to highlight PETA's point of view — heavily supported by citations from similarly-minded organizations (which fails WP:RS because they are WP:BIASEDSOURCES and are not really independent of the subject), and PETA's own website (a primary source). Instead, the article should be about PETA, who they are, what they have done, and how others see the organization (secondary sources). The article is so bloated that it can more easily be tackled in bite-size pieces. Or... I bet if someone just trimmed out all the puffery supported by peta.org, and everything that is really a PETA press release, the article would sound completely different. I might get a little bolder tomorrow and try some of that. Normal Op (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Were do we use PETA as a source for a fact?Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Citations 1-4, 6, 21, 24, 27, 28, 37, 45, 51, 58, 85, ... for starters. That, from a quick check through the References section and only checking from 1-100; no evaluation beyond checking the URLs. Like I said, I'll look into it further tomorrow. Normal Op (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Cite 1 is about what they say their mission is, they are an RS for that claim. If this is the kind of things that is the issue its a non issue. Where do we uses them for a fact about themselves that is controversial?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Really nice work! You're putting a load of time and effort into this, and every one of your edits seems a significant improvement. Someone gathered up a bunch of refs for some of their most egregious controversies over at https://imgur.com/gallery/KOcx4 - maybe helpful? Personally, I'd just create a controversies section, despite arguments against it, since controversy is arguably the whole point of PETA, and since that's what a significant proportion of readers are likely coming here to find out about. But I'm forced to admit your approach seems far cleaner, even if it hides that information a little, so I'll just stay the heck out your way :D DewiMorgan (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, DewiMorgan. The problem with "adding a controversy section" is that it will attract edit fighting from both sides (pro-PETA and anti-PETA) and not resolve the underlying problems of the article. There already are controversies all throughout the article, albeit hidden amongst the stuffing. It was my evaluation that the root of the problem with this article was its use as a "platform" to continue the publication of PETA's viewpoints. If you read through the Talk page archives, you'll see repeating patterns of complaints of non-NPOV, missing controversies, article reading like an advertisement, etc., but no one seemed like they could figure out how to alter the situation. Well, like a huge ship that takes miles before you notice the change in direction after a rudder adjustment, this article will take more than just a few edits to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. The article was (and still is) so convoluted that I just pick one section at random and work on that by itself. You're welcome to pick up a sub-project, too. Some PETA advocates have spent an enormous amount of time propagating peta.org in citations all over Wikipedia and adding undue content. I don't even know how I got into the subject because I didn't have much of an opinion about PETA one way or the other; I was just here to build an encyclopedia when I happened upon this mess. And since it is a mess that needs cleaning up, I have continued to work on what has become "the PETA project". It is my hypothesis that once this article is trimmed or altered to remove advertising, promotion, non-NPOV, UNDUE, etc. then it will be clearer how best to organize the article to present it to the readers as a neutral point of view, appropriately balanced, article that is easy to read for the average reader. It may or may not wind up with a controversy section. Who knows. So please do join in. The water is fine and the editing opportunities are plentiful. Normal Op (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

PETA India, Animal Rahat

According to the two citations, Newkirk set up this organization in India [2] and PETA is the recipient of all USA donations to Animal Rahat (if you want them to be tax deductible) [3]. One citation is Animal Rahat's own website. The Huffpost citation is based on a telephone interview with Newkirk. As such, both citations are primary sources and disqualify them to support this content. Unless someone finds other reliable sources, the content is being removed per WP:NonRS. Normal Op (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I did a cleanup for the rest of the PETA India section. Removing poorly sourced content, updating citations, cleaning up the wording. Normal Op (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"The Animal Genocidists" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Animal Genocidists. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 11#The Animal Genocidists until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 05:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Ugh

Please add a new section about the controversies and hypocrisy it has. PETA is notorious for this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.28.15 (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Care to provide examples?Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Here you are. https://www.ranker.com/list/messed-up-peta-facts/laura-allan 1+1=yes (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure that source would be good enough, but care to actually suggest an addition?Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Suggest, not make. And it has to be something we do not already cover (and one source "widely" does not make).Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
https://rottenwebsites.miraheze.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals and https://atrociousyoutubers.miraheze.org/wiki/PETA_(People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2F00:3830:2CAF:5584:603F:F180 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure what edit you want to make.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Make a section called "Controversies" and put references from those 2 pages + the ranker link. WatchMojo also made a video debunking it, which my computer restricted the video, and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAWRsjJJO3c . 2600:1700:2F00:3830:6DFE:4890:4F3:F259 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but you need to suggest a bit more then (and there are other issues I will not deal with yet) ask us to use them, you have to tell us how, what do you want us to say?Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
See section "Huge Issues with this Article", seems like the OP of this talk section wants a new "Controversies" section like many controversial organisations have. DannyDouble (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but what I meant was we need to know how you are going to use those sources, what does he want to say. A section called "controversies" that just has two radon link sin it is not much use.15:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
Find sources and add them, that imgur link seems to have sources that can be linked to. There's plenty of credible sources discussing controversies with PETA, not overly difficult to add to a common controversies section. DannyDouble (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
You (you, not me) are supposed to suggest edits. Moreover we already have a number of controversies, so what ones need to be added we do not cover, its not a hard question.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Some starting notable controversies with a link to read more on: statistics on put-downs of animals (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/peta-taking-pets/), steve irwin controversy (https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/2019/02/26/trending-peta-needs-keep-its-thoughts-about-steve-irwin-in-house/), meatboy vs tofuboy (https://supermeatboy.fandom.com/wiki/Tofu_Boy, though is not as serious as other controversies). DannyDouble (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@DannyDouble: I used your Steve Irwin citation and put it into the article. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals#Steve Irwin controversy. Normal Op (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I gotta agree with the ugh part here, how does does this page not have a controversy section for a organization of this caliber? This page is very uninformative and slatersteven just seems like he's a oblivious or something. There are plenty of sources about PETA's cruelty's if you look anywhere, and the multiple users in this chain has proved this. This article is really in need of a cleanup. blueyandicy (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2020 (EST)

Because Wikipedia does not like controversy sections. it prefers prose.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Not true, many articles have controversy sections. You seem to defend PETA a lot. --a gd fan (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I have not said we cannot include criticism, I have said we should not have a section on it, that is not defend anyone, and I suggest you stop making wp:pa's.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
If you think that's a personal attack, then you can't take criticism and playing the victim card when teres n need to a gd fan (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, starting to feel like trends of COI regarding editors on this wiki section, very much surprised this article doesn't have a controversy section already; seems like its currently the largest highly controversial organization or topic in general to not have a criticism section, especially with it being a very much alive article. I'm pretty new to editing, is there anything further I can do to help out on this issue? Not sure i'm competent enough to directly edit/manage currently though.DannyDouble (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
If you think there is a COI editor take it here WP:COI/N, I will be happy to answer such allegation there.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
What's the reason for this section not already being added? We have given sources and provided a reasonable explanation that controversies are a common section and neutrality determines that we *should* do this. DannyDouble (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Why not just write it as prose?Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
OK lets look at some of the controversies that have been posted here (sources to RS). Killing recuse animals, we mention it. Steve Irwin controversy, we mention it (using the source added here). So are there any we do not mention (please use RS, not youtube videos or other wikis)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The primary matter with these listed controversies is that there isn't a dedicated section, not that there isn't a passing reference to some of the larger controversies (excl. steve irwin, which in itself could do with some expansion). It would be beneficial if these mentions of controversies where properly covered to make this article more neutral in coverage — even if the tone of the article still seems vaguely COI'd. DannyDouble (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

PETA as a source elsewhere on Wikipedia

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard about the reliability of PETA as a source:

My overall read on these processes is that Wikipedia's reliability discussions need structure and become disorganized otherwise. In my view, PETA presents facts sometimes and opinions much more often. Lots of organizations do this. PETA is very reliable for representing the views of their membership and supporters. I wish the discussion could avoid being a critique of their opinions and views and more focused on their fact checking practices. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Like you said, "and opinions much more often. Lots of organizations do this", this is why we require secondary independent reliable sources for citations in Wikipedia. A news organization is covering someone else, some other organization, some other viewpoint; whereas an advocacy organization will only cover themselves and their own viewpoint. Normal Op (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

P people E eating T tasty A animals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.200.3 (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me guess, The article was protected because of the Steve Irwin Change? i.e, The time when some one changed who founded PETA and when and were it was founded (You know, THAT change) ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonShadow756012 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Regarding People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and its Numerous Issues

The article on the organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals does have numerous issues regarding the neutrality and objectivity of the material contained within.

The first paragraph of the article contains the expession "Its slogan is "Animals are not ours to experiment on, eat, wear, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way."" I am of opinion that the slogan is of self promotional origin and can be transfered to a more revelant portion of the article.

The biography of the persona Ingrid Newkirk is discussed in the article. This information should be moved to the respective biography article focusing on her.

The group has been criticized by some animal rights advocates for its willingness to work with industries that use animals for the purpose of affecting gradual change. Newkirk rejects this criticism and has said the group exists to hold the radical line. The term "rejects" holds emotional weight and can be replaced for a better expression such as "Newkirk disputes the critism and claims that PETA is focused on holding a radical line." Moreover the expression "PETA is an animal rights organization that opposes speciesism, and the abuse of animals in any way, such as for food, clothing, entertainment, or research." in the same paragraph is self promotary in all aspects. It should be removed.

In the following lines an expression which claims that the Pentagon shoots animals for wound tests is given. ",the Pentagon stopped shooting pigs and goats in wounds tests, and a slaughterhouse in Texas was closed down." Pig skin and muscle has been used for years to better understand effects of firearms due to its similar density and mass to the human body. This practice is, according to my knowledge now obsolete and was replaced with ballistic gel. Moreover whether live animals or their carcasses are used for these tests should be clarified.

The expression "In 2011, Patricia de Leon was the Hispanic spokesperson for PETA's anti-bullfighting campaign." is out of place and includes ethnicity without good reason. The expression should be removed unless it has significance for PETA's campaign and the sentence should also be transferred elsewhere.

Close to the end of the article the expression "PETA is a strong proponent of euthanasia and considers it a necessary evil in a world full of unwanted pets. They oppose the no-kill movement, and rather than adoption programs, PETA prefers to aim for zero births through spaying and neutering." is given place at the start of the part regarding PETA's euthanasia program and is written as if it was of defensive nature. Neutrality is essential for functioning of Wikipedia and this part should be changed as such and also transferred to the end of that particular part, rather than be place to the top of the discussion.

These are the numerous issues I have detected regarding the article. If the community was to allow and wish to do so, they should be discussed through the appropriate channels. Wikipedia stays as a free to access and free to edit Encyclopedia, please be aware that neutrality is our only way to be respected and regarded as a reliable source. This last paragraph is only revelant for some specific persons. --The Elusive Penguin (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a lot here to try and discuss.
I have no issue with the placement of their slogan.
I agree we caN trim the biography to about a line.
I do not agree "rejects" has any meaning other than how we use it.
We could add "what it has said is" to the line "PETA is an animal rights organization that opposes speciesism, and the abuse of animals in any way, such as for food, clothing, entertainment, or research." I am less sure about outright removal.
I will let others chip in for the rest.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Campaigns and consumer boycotts

I believe The Unhappy Meal campaign should be included in this section. There is reference to campaigns against fast food companies, but nothing specific about this campaign. Here are some sources that I have regarding this campaign: [2] , [3] , [4] -- Lsand345 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this section can be reworked to improve clarity. A new section should be added that only references the campaigns. Within the section, subheadings for each campaign would help separate information. -- Lsand345 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Peta says sorry for taking girl's pet chihuahua and putting it down. The Guardian
  2. ^ https://www.peta.org/blog/unhappy-meals-now-mcdonalds-courtesy-peta
  3. ^ https://www.peta.org/blog/win-wednesday-unhappy-meals/
  4. ^ https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/08/peta-mcdonalds-unhappy-meal.html

Lead

The information about the Silver Springs monkeys case should be removed from the lead. All of the information is talked about in a later section of the article. It can be mentioned, but I think most of the information about the case can be removed. -- Lsand345 (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I would do it, but this page is such a mess its tough to know where to begin. The lead is one of many issues. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I will be working on this section in my sandbox -- Lsand345 (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

References

In the references section, there is a source that is no longer being used ("About Peta" archived version). I am not sure how to remove it. It is not being used anywhere within the article. It also does not show up while editing. Any help would be greatly appreciated -- Lsand345 (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Beauty Without Bunnies

PETA has a program called "Beauty without Bunnies" that certifies companies that are completely cruelty free, vegan, or both. We should add a section for this to live within the page so that we can add and update lists of companies that are certified cruelty free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaileighD (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

should be moved to PETA

They themselves are called PETA, not people for the ethical treatment of animals Syedalibangbang (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

No they do not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The very first words on their home page are "PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS".[4] Largoplazo (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I think it should be moved to PETA (People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals) 119.160.119.85 (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

No, titles should never have multiple versions of the same name. When there are multiple possible names, one is the title and others are redirects or entries on disambiguation pages. Largoplazo (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Moore4jp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Restored Holocaust on your Plate

In 2006 someone redirect the content from there to this article, the main PETA article. Read for yourself some of the prior discussion, but my interpretation of the reason is that they felt this main article covered it well enough.

I restored the article because now this article hardly covers it, and because I think it is better covered as a stand-alone article. Check it out if you like. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree with this restoration for both the reasons you say here 👍 –AFreshStart (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Pet as a word

In the Pet as a Word subsection of the Positions chapter in the article, would replacing the term "word" with "noun" be more appropriate? It appears upon reading the content of the subsection that PeTA only finds objectionable the noun form of the word pet not it's other forms.

Maxscode (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Should probably be "Pet as a derogatory term" Jojosunshine69 (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

PETA is criticized for euthanizing animals. However, there are no objections to this criticism. One can argue that it is strange to criticize PETA for "killing" animals but support killing non-pet animals to feed pets. Even on surface, this criticism of PETA does not sound reasonable to me. 46.34.194.205 (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The article isn't itself criticizing PETA for this. But it's significant that the criticism exists, and the article is reporting on its existence. If there have been significant shows of support for PETA in these situations—protests with people holding "PETA is right to end the misery" signs or something to that effect—then the article should cover those as well. In the absence of those, it isn't up to Wikipedia itself to offer a counterargument.
For comparison, in an article about a convicted criminal, if the article covers arguments offered at trial supporting conviction, and if significant arguments were also offered during or outside of the trial that the person didn't commit the crime, that should be covered. If there were significant protests that the deed was acceptable and the perpetrator shouldn't be subjected to prosecution for it, that might be covered. However, Wikipedia isn't going to make its own arguments as to why the arguments for conviction might have been flawed or as to why the perpetrator shouldn't have been prosecuted. Largoplazo (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, we are required to report major controversies, as long as we do not take sides. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Second paragraph should be edited to remain neutral

"cock fighting, dog fighting, beekeeping, and bullfighting, and other animal abuses" implies that the given items are in fact animal abuses, this needs to be cited if it is factual, or it should be changed to highlight it is PETAs opinion, eg "and other things it sees as animal abuses" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.242.81.38 (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Beekeeping, less sire about the rest. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but i guess its peta's view of it soo Tkipsizad (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Then it should be in brackets Gwoll (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I am sure most people consider cockfighting as animal abuse but beekeeping is up to debate. Some consider it as a mutual relationship where the bee colonies are protected in exchange for honey. It doesn't matter if its false, wiki still is obliged to maintain neutrality. I would prefer "PETA is critical of cock fighting, dog fighting, bull fighting, beekeeping, factory farming, bullfighting, etc".

Gwoll (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Editorializing in "Campaigns and Consumer Boycotts"

The second sentence in "Campaigns and Consumer Boycotts" reads: "Every week, Newkirk holds what The New Yorker calls a "war council," with two dozen of her top strategists gathered at a square table in the PETA conference room, with no suggestion considered too outrageous."

This is not a direct quote from the source, and "no suggestion considered too outrageous" is an editorial liberty not suited for this page. This passage does not come across as neutral, and the source referenced is clearly not either. I think this sentence should be removed. If not removed, it should be changed to this or something similar:

"Every week, Newkirk holds a meeting with her strategists at PETA Headquarters, referred to by the New Yorker as a "war council""

When phrased this way it does not appear to be relevant information. Nkfarwell (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

"Nothing was too kooky or unkind to think about." which we rephrase to "no suggestion considered too outrageous". Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
It may be rephrased but remains unnecessary editorializing. What is the relevant information being dispensed, and how valid is the source? A simple rephrasing does not address any of my concerns about this passage. Nkfarwell (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
It is not "editorializing" as we are quoting an RS. As to what we are dispensing, what an RS has said about their strategy. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should be including this. The source is an article from 2003, the author was describing a single strategy session that he attended, and we have no idea if these sorts of meetings were the norm or are still being held. Also, it gives the mistaken impression that PETA is a no holds barred sort of organization which is not borne out by the rest of the article which goes on to say "But Tracy Reiman, who is in charge of international campaigns, quickly brought the group to its senses" and that the session focused mainly on PETA's campaign against KFC (not so "kooky"). --RegentsPark (comment) 18:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I argue the source being quoted is largely irrelevant to the topic of the section. The source being quoted is an interpretation of one meeting that the author attended, and is not necessarily based in fact or even the present day (written 2003). It's colorful language with a clear motive, and removing the passage does not remove any relevant information to the section. Ultimately, the only information it is dispensing is that PETA holds regular meetings with its board, which doesn't merit mentioning. Judgements on the quality of this meeting would come from one individual (the source) from a piece that clearly takes a side, and don't have a place in this article. One needs only to read the title of the article being quoted to raise questions on the bias of this passage. Nkfarwell (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality?

Various neutrality issues lol:

"She moved to the United States as a teenager, first studying to become a stockbroker, but after taking some abandoned kittens to an animal shelter in 1969 and being appalled by the conditions that she found there, she chose a career in animal protection instead."

(the audio clip at the top)

"PETA is an animal rights organization that opposes speciesism, and the abuse of animals in any way, such as for food, clothing, entertainment, or research."

Language Boi (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 June 2023

(this is for the PETA redirect, not the actual article)

change 

{{R from acronym}}

to 

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from acronym}}
{{R printworthy}}
}}

There is no other term for '"PETA" to be confused for and the category shell will describe and categorize its full protection. OfTheUsername (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this reliable?

Hi, this is Lelly. I'm covering some of things PETA wrongly done. @Slatersteven please check if this is RS https://time.com/4127919/virginia-family-dog-euthanized-peta/


Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The proper place to ask if something is an RS is at wp:rsn. Also, this is being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:RSP, as Slatersteven brought up, Time is considered reliable. That said, this instance is already mentioned in the article. Since this material is already covered outside of the controversy section, there isn't much of a reason to include it again. Unless more material is brought forth, I don't think it's necessary to repeat this information unless it has some serious due weight. In which case, I would advocate for a "Shelter" section or something that would briefly gloss over their history and actions. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 18:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Non-neutral lead

I've added a POV tag on the article's lead because it fails to mention any of the organization's gross controversies or the allegations of counterproductive measures such as the mass application of euthanasia. If added they should be complemented with achievements of the organization. I am not aware of any myself. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I am not knowledgable on the organization, though I still believe its wide criticism should be included somehow in the lead. Regular editors on this article will probably be able to come off with better suggestions. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I updated the lede with this. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2023

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 19:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals → PETA – Per WP:COMMONNAME as shown in this Ngram ("People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" is too long for Ngrams, so, when broken down into "People for the Ethical Treatment" and "Ethical Treatment of Animals", the two segments coincide with each other, confirming they're part of the same phrase). It's already a primary redirect. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  • UNsure what the last part is all about, but yes PETA seems fine. Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Slatersteven: An Ngrams technicality. Don't worry about it. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment You can't go by that Ngram. For example, I clicked the button to see Google Books results for 2018–2019. The first ten results are:
    • Being Peta: Living with Leukaemia
    • Joe Peta's Tour Guide Presents a 2019 Masters Preview
    • Peta, a Magic Cat
    • Advanced Software Technologies for Post-Peta Scale Computing``
    • a book by Peta Carlin
    • a book by Peta Stapleton
    • a book by Peta Dunstan
    • a book by Peta Mathias
    • a book by Peta-Gay McClure
    • a book by Peta Credlin
An important consideration is whether there are references to this organization as PETA that appear without having, at some point, used the full name. Largoplazo (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
@Largoplazo: Sources mentioning PETA solely by acronym are legion. Here are some:
I think this validates the Ngram well enough. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
@Largoplazo: Also note: Ngrams are case-sensitive, book searches aren't. That's why you got false positives. Ngrams doesn't count them. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Both FBI and CIA are redirects. Both have the full name as the article title. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 15:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
So they are. My mistake. I think those should probably be moved as well. But there are still plenty of other examples of organizations that use acronyms as the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
There isn't much ambiguity with most of those. PETA does, especially since it's also a name. However, I still think the strongest argument so far is that many sources still opt to spell out the entire name, which is how the organization seemingly prefers it. It seems common to spell out the name, "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" and then refer to it as PETA from then onwards. Other articles may have the acronym as the title, but their having it does not necessarily mean all articles need to follow it, since this is something that we have to discuss on a case by case basis. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Spelling out acronyms in full is the usual, expected norm. The existence of article without the full name is the unusual part that proves the acronym's popularity. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Both the FBI and CIA are three-letter acronyms, while both NASA and PETA are four-lettered. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
JTTF is four letters. JTTF redirects to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces page. Is there a policy or something that establishes a letter amount as reasoning for name changes? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 15:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
4 letter acronyms are less likely to require disambiguation than 3 letter acronyms. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Maybe. Aside from the JTTF, there is Defense Threat Reduction Agency, General Data Protection Regulation, Dynamic random-access memory (The RAM article also spells out the full name, and Drug Abuse Resistance Education. I wouldn't say there is a strong precedent, however, that convinces me we should apply this to PETA, which is also an actual name. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Euthanasia

Why is there nothing in the Controversies about Peta's allegedly high rate of euthanasia at shelters, which seems to have been going on for years. Even on its own site it says 'about half' of animals it rescues are euthanized. 2A04:CEC0:1000:8DE4:0:5B:15B3:D401 (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

By the time the Controversies section begins, the controversy over its euthanasia practices has already been covered extensively in the article. So perhaps there's no need to cover it all over again? Perhaps some of the detail covered earlier could be broken out and covered in the Controversies section so that it's at least mentioned there. Largoplazo (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I think whatever controversies that PETA has been involved in should be covered exclusively in the Controversies section in order to maintain cohesion. In addition I also feel it would be worth adding a section to Controversies about the time that PETA stole a 9 year old girl's dog and killed it. The case is briefly mentioned in the larger Euthanasia section, but it could use additional focus for it's impact on the public's perception of the organization.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-for-taking-girls-dog-putting-it-down
https://time.com/4127919/virginia-family-dog-euthanized-peta/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9tWoFiFX4s ← security camera footage of the crime Cat-with-the-'tism (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not clarify the neutrality of this BS. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
We do not clarify anything, we repat what RS (youtube is not an RS) say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
then isn't that euthanasia RS? mostly true on Snopes. more general article I will put a link here. mostly a cover up Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Read wp:rs, a claim is not an RS, and RS (reliable source) is the source that makes the claim. Nor are we covering anything up. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
So is the killing of a pet chihuahua by PETA RS? No, it's not a claim.
https://time.com/4127919/virginia-family-dog-euthanized-peta/ Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
If there's word "claim" in this article, this isn't RS. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Read what wp:rs means. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
As someone who's expanded a larger portion of the Controversies list, @Largoplazo's right: I was having trouble figuring out where to put the information, as it could also fall into the Positions section. I've tried (since your post) to split the information so PETA's justification is under Positions, but the actual numbers and some info on the chihuahua incident are placed under Controversies. The new problem is that the chihuahua incident also qualifies as falling under Legal Proceedings, so I'm not really sure how best to split the chihuahua information, specifically. Taurterus (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

A really similar question (RS aside) what do people want us to add? Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Vegan SJWs are big. They have their own biased point of view. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Vegan does not even appear in the source, so do you have any RS that says that this case has anything to do with Vegans? Otherwise, it will fail wp:v, so we can't add that line (and read wp:or). Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
No, but PETA-bribed person. Just close already. Stop convincing me. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
So unless anyone can actually suggest an edit they wish to be made backed by RS this looks like a violation of wp:forum and should be closed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I dont know what Lellyhatesanimals is on about, but I think the ideas discussed earlier on in this thread should be implemented by the proper authorities. Cat-with-the-'tism (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
We already do. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Can we please just agree that this article needs more coverage of the horrible stuff PETA has done? Meowo45 (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
agreed Cat-with-the-'tism (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

"Controversial" in lead sentence

I've removed "controversial" from the first sentence of the article twice, and User:Ltbdl has twice restored it.

My reason for removing it is that, while it's true, it isn't a primary, defining characterization of the organization. It isn't notable for being controversial. Ltbdl's reply on the second reversion was honestly, how does it *not* define it? and bonus: whenever someone edits this article they are alerted to this being a controversial topic.

It doesn't define it insofar as, as I noted in my first edit summary, the controversy around it is ... not what defines it or the reason it's a notable subject. Further, many, many subjects are controversial. Imagine opening sentences like "Facebook is a controvesial online social media and social networking service ..." or, at Sinéad O'Connor, "Sinéad Marie Bernadette O'Connor (8 December 1966 – 26 July 2023) was a controversial Irish singer, songwriter, and activist ...". These subjects are associated with controversy, but being controversial isn't what they are. PETA is no different, and it isn't an article's job to alert anybody to anything. We don't do trigger warnings. It seemes to me a WP:NPOV problem, expressing a value judgement.

What do others think about this? Largoplazo (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree, in fact courting controversy is one of its main tactics. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
the controversy around it is ... not what defines it or the reason it's a notable subject
well, that's where we disagree. ltbdl (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I think that it is controversial, and that it seeks controversy in a way that is a defining characteristic, and that these things are well supported by sources. That said, looking at recent edits, the word "controversial" is rather clumsy in the lead sentence, and I'd prefer to say it in a subsequent sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
would it be considered a fact that peta is technically a extremist group which bassically means peta dosent care about animals 24.49.35.94 (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Here's the thing: I do agree that something being controversial is not the main thing to know about it, the kind of thing you would want in a one-sentence summary.
BUT: It is controversial, and that needs to be said. I would vote that it should be mentioned in the first discussion of PETA's views and actions. Language Boi (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
That appears in the third paragraph of the lead. Would you prefer that it come sooner? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I think in the end of this that it should indeed be noted but perhaps should not be so immediately. I agree with Language Boi's point that it should be mentioned in discussion of PETA's views and actions or at earliest not as directly defining/describing. Odin Vex (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"Reclassify PETA as a slaugterhouse" sounds so biased

In 2008, industry lobby group Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) petitioned the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, requesting they reclassify PETA as a 'slaughterhouse.'


I have read the overall article IMO. I agree to tha particular article, in my personal opinion (for personal non-Wikipedia related purposes) but overall messages such as (“It is absurd to classify PETA as a ‘humane society’ when its employees are slaughtering nearly every companion animal they bring in,” said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. “PETA has killed over 17,000 pets since 1998. Given the group’s astonishing habit of killing adoptable dogs and cats with such ruthless efficiency, it’s only fair that the state of Virginia refer to PETA as a slaughterhouse.”)[1], which cannot Assume good faith of PETA, and are overtly biased to the overall agenda of CORE/CCF. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "Consumer Group Asks Virginia Government to Reclassify PETA as a Slaughterhouse". Center for Consumer Freedom. Retrieved 2023-11-15.

Requested move 31 October 2023

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Given that this move discussion came in only 3 months after the previous move discussion in July 2023 and that there are references to the previous move discussion on both sides of this discussion, the points raised in the previous discussion are considered as well.

Both supporters of both sides have compelling reasons for either of the titles here, with both citing the same guidelines (COMMONNAME, ACROTITLE, etc.). However what is inconclusive here is the extent of which the the acronym is primarily used for this subject. As such I am unable to determine which title should the article rest at.

Given the usage of ngram had been questioned before (in the previous discussion), we should not simply rely on trends and charts. Perhaps a more comprehensive analysis of recent sources can be carried out before a consensus can be reached conclusively. This would take some time for interested editors to dive into, hence it would be preferrable that the next move discussion not to be opened so soon, at least for the next six months (per standard gap between move discussions in general) unless there's pertinent information that can conclusively tip the scale. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals → PETA – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and MOS:ACRONYM, see above. Unlike the requested move of RSPCA via talk page. 49.150.4.134 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Well I suppose it has been a few months since this was last rejected, no new arguments have been made, so my opinion remains unchanged from the last time. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close per #Requested move 23 July 2023. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
    As we shown here on Google Trends has been overwhemingly search preference for PETA. 49.150.4.134 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. It is in the same class as NASA, NATO, OPEC, YMCA, UNICEF, and FIFA in terms of being known by its acronym. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose vehemently because the same move failed to achieve a consensus three months ago and I hate when talk pages and their entries on my watchlist become monopolized with the same discussions leading to the same arguments leading to the same outcomes. The vehemence is in reaction to the lack of respect for the time and effort of others that goes into putting us through this again with full knowledge (inferred from "see above"; if I misinterpreted that, then I'm sorry) that it's a repeat. Largoplazo (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:AT § Avoid ambiguous abbreviations and MOS:ACROTITLE state higher standards than WP:COMMONNAME. You have two criteria for abbreviations in page names: they should only be used "if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject" (emphasis added). We still have some topics listed on the Peta dab page that also use the "PETA" abbreviation or acronym. Therefore, using the full name is appropriate to ensure that it is clear for all readers worldwide. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the move request of 23 July 2023; and per Largoplazo as a renomination of a recent request -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support
    • Can anyone identify a source which only uses the name "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals", without clarifying that they mean PETA? Most sources call this organization PETA, then a few say the full name. Not only is PETA the WP:COMMONNAME, but "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" is not even a name used without saying PETA. I think previous discussions about this move July 2023, July 2021, and March 2014 are in error for assuming that some sources say "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals", and some say "PETA". I want to call this out for anyone to demonstrate - I think either no sources only say the full name, or it happens only rarely in strange conditions.
    • Here is easy-to-check evidence: look at the sources we cite in the references of this article. Many of the titles say "PETA", one is a primary source court case which uses the full name, one source uses both names, and none only use the full name. These sources are our foundation for building this article, and that makes them good enough also to guide our decision for naming this subject.
    • PETA is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "PETA", as Pageviews Analaysis shows that the traffic to this article is more than the traffic to all other articles with this name, combined.
Bluerasberry (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
"PETA" is likely WP:COMMONNAME in all caps, but "Peta" is not the same in lowercase letters, I should move as "Peta (disambiguation)" and "PETA (disambiguation)". 49.150.4.134 (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Support - clear WP:COMMONNAME. MOS:ACROTITLE says Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. Well, the commonname argument would clearly prove that the subject is commonly known by its abbreviation, and the existing primary redirect shows that the abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. Most of the opposition appears to be based on prior requests, but consensus can change. estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Animal welfare

In the infobox it says animal rights and "animal welfare". I think animal welfare should be removed. There is no strong sourcing describing this as a welfare organization or that they focus on welfare. I thought I would raise this issue here as I know this is a controversial article. Unfortunately there has been a lot of confusion on Wikipedia regarding animal rights and animal welfare in regard to organizations. I have fixed many of these in the last few days. We need to follow the sourcing, it would be WP:OR to cite welfare on this article. It's rare to find an organization that supports both rights and welfare. Most are clear cut, they either advocate for rights or welfare. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and I just removed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

removed CCF related-article to revert neutrality

Removed CCF-related articles in "high euthanasia rates", see WP:NOTADVOCACY. keep the paragraph as a matter of fact. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I reverted that before I saw your note here in talk. I'm willing to reconsider, but I don't see that our reporting that amounts to advocacy in Wikipedia's voice. If there is reason to believe that the data cited are not accurate (ie, that PETA does not have high euthanasia rates), that could be a different matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
On further reflection, I partly changed my mind. I think you are right, that we should not include the part about claiming that PETA is a slaughterhouse. That's just advocacy, and I removed it. But I think we can keep the euthanasia statistics. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
eyep, it's "only" a 80%-97% slaughterhouse. straight up libel. --23:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/Archive_16&oldid=1239338259"