Misplaced Pages

Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:23, 9 May 2007 editNathanLee (talk | contribs)1,884 edits Edits by NathanLee: - please refrain from editing MY post. If saying that slimvirgin and crum375 appear to be two aliases for same user is an "attack" rather than observation then cite WP rule← Previous edit Revision as of 19:25, 9 May 2007 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 editsm Reverted edits by NathanLee (talk) to last version by MarskellNext edit →
Line 515: Line 515:


:::Nathan, do you accept that if everyone were to add everything that PETA had ever said or done, or that anyone had ever said about them, this article would become unmanageable? Do you accept that we cannot include everyone's opinion, every action, every statement, and every quote? They are vegans, they want to kill pets, they are blackmailers, they spark outrage, they didn't like Steve Irwin, and we don't like the way Ingrid Newkirk scratched her nose on Thursday ... there has to be an end to it at some point. That is why the article is written the way it is. It gives general guiding principles about their philosophy, with a few examples. The page can't be written as example after example after example with no binding narrative. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC) :::Nathan, do you accept that if everyone were to add everything that PETA had ever said or done, or that anyone had ever said about them, this article would become unmanageable? Do you accept that we cannot include everyone's opinion, every action, every statement, and every quote? They are vegans, they want to kill pets, they are blackmailers, they spark outrage, they didn't like Steve Irwin, and we don't like the way Ingrid Newkirk scratched her nose on Thursday ... there has to be an end to it at some point. That is why the article is written the way it is. It gives general guiding principles about their philosophy, with a few examples. The page can't be written as example after example after example with no binding narrative. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
::::SlimVirgin/Crum375 - it certainly looks like you're both the same user. I see now why you both have tried the same tactics to skew the editorial direction of the PETA page. Do you accept that having a PETA article that more accurately reflects the statements, general feelings, newspaper articles that mean that it would have a fair bit of criticism information. What is your problem with referenced articles that are negative to PETA? You aregue tooth and nail for any pro-PETA stuff, and then cite everything you can to undo anyone else's contributions. If you are no longer able to cite why the sections are not suitable additions (referenced, non POV, relevant as they are non repetitive). You are quite happy making changes when it involves chopping out parts that show PETA's hypocritical side or basically anything that doesn't match the PETA advertising briefs. So why aren't you culling the verbatim copying of every campaign they did? ] 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC) ::::SlimVirgin/Crum375 ... I see now why you both have tried the same tactics to skew the editorial direction of the PETA page. Do you accept that having a PETA article that more accurately reflects the statements, general feelings, newspaper articles that mean that it would have a fair bit of criticism information. What is your problem with referenced articles that are negative to PETA? You aregue tooth and nail for any pro-PETA stuff, and then cite everything you can to undo anyone else's contributions. If you are no longer able to cite why the sections are not suitable additions (referenced, non POV, relevant as they are non repetitive). You are quite happy making changes when it involves chopping out parts that show PETA's hypocritical side or basically anything that doesn't match the PETA advertising briefs. So why aren't you culling the verbatim copying of every campaign they did? ] 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


:::::I don't like the list of campaigns, and I've argued for its removal and tried to shorten it, but I was reverted. Some anti-PETA editors wanted to keep it, I assume because they think it shows PETA in a poor light, though what it really does is show that we're poor writers. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC) :::::I don't like the list of campaigns, and I've argued for its removal and tried to shorten it, but I was reverted. Some anti-PETA editors wanted to keep it, I assume because they think it shows PETA in a poor light, though what it really does is show that we're poor writers. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Assuming good faith: why is it your edits here and on the factory farming page seem to be rather skewed? It's like a slow chip away at pages until you've removed as much as you can hidden in the changes. You seem happy with use of the fact tag there when it matches your opinion, or the more sensational picture, but when I've done as you ask and found references from major news sites: you still have an issue with me editing this page. Everyone has a right to contribue so long as they match the terms and conditions, and granted I needed to find different references. But my contributions if they adhere to it and are referenced are just as valid contributions as yours regardless of your trigger happy revert use. ] 19:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


::::::A comment on a few things at once. Nathan, you're introducing typos even while removing them, which is part of the reason for the full reverts; six edits that mix typo fixes and POV reverting can be difficult to manage. On the campaigns, I am of the opinion that the idiocy of most them is revealed simply by describing them. You don't really need a lengthy for-and-against. This article certainly could be compressed. ] 19:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC) ::::::A comment on a few things at once. Nathan, you're introducing typos even while removing them, which is part of the reason for the full reverts; six edits that mix typo fixes and POV reverting can be difficult to manage. On the campaigns, I am of the opinion that the idiocy of most them is revealed simply by describing them. You don't really need a lengthy for-and-against. This article certainly could be compressed. ] 19:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::: As I said: the typo wasn't in the edit, it came about after 2 round cycles of I thought unjustified reverts. I learned from that and did smaller edits: So that if someone had a particular complaint about a change: they could undo just that one. But again ALL of them were reverted without any examination as to what each of the revisions consisted of. I don't think SlimVirgin is being impartial, but I admit that I had referenced a site which someone regards as off limits: I've now fixed that, tightened up the material I want to add here in the discussion forum and the argument is no longer to do with any violation it's "do you think we should let anyone put material in.. it'll destroy the structure" blah blah blah.. Slimvirgin chopped out a referenced section on Steve Irwin and did not put it back in for some reason as part of another refactoring. I tried to make the article look more like wikipedia should (the PETA promotional quotes making it read like an Ad) and that again was undone despite someone else agreeing in discussion. If no one is allowed to change the content on this article without prior permission from SlimVirgin (or else it'll be reverted along with any other changes you make) then I must have wandered into the wrong wikipedia and someone better show me the correct url.. ] 19:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


== Removal of framed quotes == == Removal of framed quotes ==

Revision as of 19:25, 9 May 2007

WikiProject iconAnimal rights Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archives

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8


'Timeline

Maybe someone should do a timeline of events based on something other than PETA's own account of its triumphs. I'm not an expert in this area, but I'm sure someone might be interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.189.198 (talkcontribs) 21:53, January 31, 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the timeline updated to include the following: 2006 Peta employees were charged with 21 counts of felony animal cruelty in North Carolina. 2007 Charges were reduced to misdemeanor animal cruelty but also three felony charges for obtaining property by false pretenses. http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/1190796/ 67.76.169.41 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

'Response to criticism of euthanasia' section

This section is repeatedly being re-inserted with 2 poor quality sources for things. A blog is not a good source and the alf site is only a good source for things directly relating to the alf, and then has to be attributed within the prose.

The majority of the information being added is simply not sourced. Please can those editors who are adding this section please stop and properly source it? Thanks, Localzuk 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There are blogs, website and people all over the internet that have reposted it. The links provided show a reprint of the transcript from the PETA Press confrence. I have a copy of their responce by email as well. PETA is the primary source, just as it said in that section. You are free to email PETA and ask for a copy of it yourself if you like. --Steele the Wolf 04:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand our policies on sources. PETA may well be the source, but unless it is specifically published by them, then it is simply not acceptable. Blogs etc... are not acceptable proxies for primary sources either. What we'd need is a document, published by PETA with the information in, then it would be acceptable as a primary source. -Localzuk 18:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, I have to disagree somewhat. The implication of the last post is that PETA comments are only citable if on a PETA website. WP:RS doesn't demand only self-publication. It looks for reliable sources. A statement on the ALF website, said to be written by PETA, attributed to Newkirk, with a PETA employees name, position, title, email address, and phone number at the end, seems pretty citable and verifiable to me. At the least one would cite it as "Source: Statement on AFL news website , attributed to Ingrid Newkirk". That's the usual "X says Y" format, which is applicable here. Steele the Wolf 02:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that would be fine - if the ALF were a reliable source in this context. If this was on another news site or similar then fine, it would be acceptable. As it is on the ALF site, which is generally not an acceptable source unless talking directly about the ALF then it cannot be used as far as I can see.-Localzuk 08:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
They are reporting on another’s statement. That statement is attributed, and has verification contacts. This is not a blog, but a known organization. They may be unreliable in reporting some matters, but it is not at all evidenced that ALF Press are unreliable in reporting what others say, or that they fake PETA/Newkirk statements claiming PETA/Newkirk wrote them. In fact given the relationship and history between PETA and the ALF Press, this might be considered unlikely. So given that this is not a primary source (ie a person reporting their own observations) but a secondary source, and from an organization (however unpopular) and not a blog... what exact evidence is proposed that this is not a reliable cite of an actual Newkirk/PETA statement.--Steele the Wolf 22:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word "killings" for the arrests of the two PETA workers is intentionally provocative and not NPOV. Virtually every media report on the trial (with the exception of a few PETA-bashing editorials by conservative columnists) are referring to the animals deaths' as euthasia, not killing. For example, this paper refers to "allegedly euthanizing": http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/articles/2007/01/23/news/news1.txt. If all the media representatives whom are actually at the trial, etc are referring to it as "euthanasia" than that is how it should be stated on this page, I believe. Ctrain26 10:02, 23 January 2007

I disagree that "killings" is intentionally provocative. It simply describes what happened. If they were to say something like "caused them to suffer an untimely death" that would be provocative. Animal shelters constantly use the word "euthanasia" to allow themselves to feel better about killing animals who they have no room for, and many animal activists feel they should just call it what it is. If you're going to use it when describing something you find to be wrong, it's actually more balanced to use the word when describing something that some people don't think is wrong. GingerGin 00:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that point shows that changing the words to "killings" is very POV. There is a very big difference between killing an animal and euthanizing (especially in the legal area). You could argue that killing can encompass euthanasia, but euthanasia is much more specific as to what kind of "killing" this was.--Steele the Wolf 22:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wally Swett and PETA are engaged in a long-lasting and bitter battle over Wally's treatment of animals at Primarily Primates (see Misplaced Pages article by that name). I don't think he should be cited as a source in this article. Adistius 18:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Article image used in U magazine

http://www.excal.on.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2542&Itemid=96

This is from York University. -- Zanimum 14:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

People Eating Tasty Animals

This was removed as a related link. I believe it is appropriate, since those two organizations are linked (though not in a positive way), and also because of the famous domain dispute over peta.org. --Mr. Vernon 23:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that it is related, and it is already included in the article. Crum375 00:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Membership

Although I'm sure it's been covered before, can someone point me to the reliable sources about the number of members PETA has?

I can see the wording "stated members" is in the intro; was this a form of wording due to a lack of reliable sources, or was there more to it than that?

Thanks. FT2 11:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The source is provided already - Peta.org/about. Peta are being used as a source about themselves - which is acceptable per our verifiability policy and reliable source guideline.-Localzuk 12:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources other than PETA's own claim, of whatever number it states as members, by whatever criteria it uses?
Can the number itself be verified and cited, as opposed to merely the statement "PETA make this claim" being what is verified? FT2 13:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Then it should be indicated that PETA claims this membership, not that it is an established truth.--Ramdrake 13:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It says "stated," which is accurate. "Claims" makes it sound as though we don't believe them, but no one else could possibly know how many members they have, and they do count as a reliable source about themselves per WP:V. SlimVirgin 13:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm having trouble seeing what the problem is really. The only organisation that can know how many members PETA has is PETA itself. We use them as a reference to the statement that they have over a million members and use the term 'stated' which indicates that it is a statement by themselves. PETA doesn't claim anything, they know how many members they have...-Localzuk 15:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I also can't see what the issue is. SlimVirgin 16:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


As an aside, I once signed up to receive some pamphlets from PETA under a fake name (I don't want them spamming me with garbage constantly,, and when I moved, I failed to update the address for my fake name). Included in the packet I received was a letter welcoming me as a new member of PETA. I get the feel from this event that peta enrolls anyone that asks for information as a member, and thus the number would be inflated. Looking for concrete sources on this. 205.161.214.82 11:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 "State of the Union"

Here's a new development that someone should include mention of this in the article: a promo where this woman presents PETA's argument while undressing; from PETA's website. Alcarillo 20:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Alert

Website is www.petakillsanimals.com Seen this on FOX News TODAY. Martial Law 00:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This shows PETA personnel killing animals, worse. Martial Law 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
My terminal has a weird glitch concerning a Linksys unit. Martial Law 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
This shows PETA personnel on trial, PETA's cruelty to animals, etc. Martial Law 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You may have seen it on Fox news, but the reference you provide above is to a PETA attack site, which per WP rules should not be used as a reliable source for PETA. Crum375 00:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I was going to place it as a PETA critic. Martial Law 00:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(removed unsigned unsourced material)

Again, we may not use an attack site as a reliable source relating to the subject of the attack. Crum375 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really add anything new to the article - the issue with the employees is already in there. We can discuss developments from the trial if they are properly sourced though (not to an attack site).-Localzuk

I think it adds a lot to the article - although the data should be 2nd sourced. For example, different Peta employees came each week to pick up animals from the shelter. Doesn't sound like an issue limited to 2 employees. 65.160.201.88 15:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What you added appears to be assorted tidbits from the trial. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum or blog. We need to have a clear and concise summary of the essential elements of the trial. A running play-by-play is wrong since we can't separate what's important from what's not. Ideally we should have a neutral and reliable secondary source providing a top level analysis and/or summary. Crum375 15:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Facts relating to PETA, such as their operating a crematorium at their Norfolk headquarters, may not be pertinent to the outcome of the trial itself, but are facts about the organization that should appear in the main article. The trial is likely to be long-running. I don't advocate a play-by-play, but previously unreported facts about Peta shape one's understanding of their mission. I still don't know how the orginal article was reverted without comment or signature. 65.160.201.88 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Any pertinent fact that can be attributed to a reliable source and presented in a neutral fashion, should be in the article. If you want to add anything like that, since this is a very contentious entry, I suggest you propose it here first, so we can discuss it. Thanks, Crum375 16:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
PETA is an attack site on eating meat, so how does a site which is referencing PETA's own records become an invalid source? Are pro-peta sites also off limits? NathanLee 14:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)



Today, two employees of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a radical animal-rights group that opposes meat-eating, are on trial for the strangest of charges: killing animals. http://www.newsobserver.com/722/story/535593.html

Yes, we know. The article already discusses this issue...-Localzuk 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to include updates from the trial in the main article. It's particularly interesting that the animals were euthanized in PETA vans right in the shelters own parking lot. The implication is that PETA had no intention of adopting out the animals. 67.76.169.41 01:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to include any pertinent well sourced information. Just make sure you do it at the right place in the article, and with the proper sources, neutrally presented. For example, if it sounds that WP itself is taking a position, either pro or anti PETA, it will fail WP:NPOV. Since the PETA employees are living individuals, any derogatory information must have excellent sourcing, and must otherwise meet WP:BLP requirements. Crum375 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Operates Crematorium: Phil Hirschkop, (a lawyer for PETA), said the pair (Adria J. Hinkle and Andrew B. Cook),dumped the animals because they had other stops to make and the animals often started to smell before they got back to Norfolk, where PETA has facilities for cremating animals. http://www.newsobserver.com/672/story/534959.html 65.160.201.88 11:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC) I added the above to the main article this morning, but it appears to have been reverted without explanation or signature. I don't understand.65.160.201.88 15:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

For anyone interested, here's a more reliable source (CourtTV site) with a lot of details about the trial: . When the smoke blows over, this could be a good, reliable source of info.--Ramdrake 16:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, it probably will be. I think we should wait a while until we start updating the article with details else we will end up with a mess of tid-bits in the article rather than a coherent section. Also, including too many details would be giving undue weight to an incident that bears no major relevance to PETA as a whole.-Localzuk 17:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree to wait as well. I just wanted to put this link in the talk page as a potentially very relevant source once the "newsiness" (sic!) of the trial is past and we can see a bit more clearly.--Ramdrake 20:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
"Also, including too many details would be giving undue weight to an incident that bears no major relevance to PETA as a whole." The facts coming out in this case including accepting animals on a fraudlent basis, discarding animals in dumpsters, euthanizing animals in a shelters parking lot, and operating both a crematorium and meat locker at the Norfolk location are precisely revelant to Peta as an organization. I would expect that donations could dry up overnight as these facts are presented to members. I suspect the above is why the article page has been reverted without comment after I properly sourced the information and signed it.24.211.249.43 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think you need to find that kind of motive. I'm content with thinking we don't yet have enough distance with the trial to have a good idea of all the facts which will turn out. And even now, I think you can count for certain that whatever has already gone on will significantly hurt PETA financially, whether or not we wait until the end of the trial to put it in this Misplaced Pages article.--Ramdrake 11:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Mgunn, please don't use animalrights.net as a source; it's a personal website, not allowed to be used under V and RS. Also, that's too much criticism for the lead, and the particular criticisms you're adding are not among the well-known ones, which are already mentioned. SlimVirgin 21:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:LEAD

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any.

Given that, I don't think the sentence I replaced, "The organization has been criticized for some of its campaigns" provides any useful information. What advocacy group HASN'T been criticized for its campaigns? In my opinion, it is substantially superior to provide something specific, as my 1 sentence does. In fact, I think WP:LEAD requires something brief, but more substantive than what is currently there. If you're trying to make the lead shorter, then it would make sense to delete fairly random material such as "There is also the peta2 Street Team for high-school and college-age activists." Discuss? Mgunn 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Many advocacy groups aren't criticized for their campaigns. PETA's campaigns on the other hand are frequently criticized because they're deliberately hard-hitting. Regardless, you used animalrights.net as a source, and you can't do that because it's a personal website. The lead should contain the notable controversies, and in the case of PETA, we have to pick the most common or the best known; these are allegations of links to violent activists, inappropriate euthanasia, and hard-hitting campaigns. SlimVirgin 21:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
First, you have a valid point on the animalrights.net citation, and I can easilly provide an alternative citation for the "Eat the Whales" campaign as it has been widely reported on by the mainstream media. Second, the criticism as it currently stands in the PETA article I think somewhat misses the point. Any large group can have a few bad eggs that associate themselves with nefarious groups or engage in actions inconsistent with the goals of the organization (eg. kill animals). These criticisms don't question the stated goals of the organization.
On the other hand, I think a more common line of criticism is that the organizations PHILOSOPHY is a wacko and naive approach to animal rights. I cite an exceedingly controversial campaign (anti-whaling groups went nuts over "Eat the Whales") and an exceedingly controversial letter that in essence asks Yasser Arafat to not blow up donkeys when he directs bombing attacks against israeli Jews. These were officially sanctioned actions of the group and go substantially more to the heart of the matter than lack of internal policing within the PETA organization. -- Mgunn 22:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that the criticism linking PETA to violent activists is wrong-headed, but it's a common one and given that it's well-sourced, it's legitimate to include it in the lead. Your view that PETA's philosophy is a "naive approach to animal rights" seems to be your own original research. I've heard this argument within the animal rights movement, but so far as I know, it's confined to the movement; critics outside the movement are opposed to PETA because it's an animal rights group, period, and have no idea about the different approaches. But if you can source it, by all means let's have a look. I don't think you'd find any critic who would agree that a letter from Newkirk to Arafat asking him to stop blowing up donkeys is more controversial than the alleged financing of activists who blow up labs. SlimVirgin 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
(1) I didn't advocate the removal of the Inhofe material. I believe it should stay. (2) I said my material is in some ways more relevant because it discusses officially sanctioned actions of the organization, not unsanctioned actions. (3) The point of a LEAD isn't to put in the most explosive criticism and leave out everything else, the point is to explain what the organization is and notable controversies. The Arafat material does both. Mgunn 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The support for the ALF and ELF is officially sanctioned. The letter to Arafat was just a plea from Newkirk not to involve animals in the conflict. To introduce yet more criticism, especially such minor stuff as Arafat and whales, is a pile-on intended to make PETA look bad. SlimVirgin 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else care or want to weigh in? Mgunn 05:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that with the wide range of activities sanctioned by PETA, arguing over which is more controversial is a bit pointless. We should simply have a selection of them, reflecting on the amount of space taken up within this article - ie. the ALF link, the relation to their employees treatment of animals and their beliefs regarding euthanasia. Anything in more detail, ie. providing specifics, would seem to be putting too much detail in the lead.
Also, the version that you attempted to insert Mgunn, contained weasel words such as 'many' which should generally be avoided.-Localzuk 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The third paragraph goes into specific details which are then not covered in the rest of the article.--Lincoln F. Stern 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Third Paragraph in Lead

The organization has been criticized for some of its campaigns, for the actions of some of its employees regarding their treatment of animals, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. It was also criticized in 2005 by Senator James M. Inhofe for having acted as a "spokesgroup" for the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, after activists associated with those groups had committed what Inhofe called "acts of terrorism."

The second sentence goes into specific information that is not revisted in the article. The paragraph doesn't conform to the LEAD policy. --Lincoln F. Stern 20:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that info should likely be moved or elaborated on in the section relating to their involvement with the ALF/ELF.-Localzuk 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it needs to stay in the lead, because it provides the context within which PETA has been associated with these groups, and we elaborate on that in the article. WP:LEAD only says: "A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead." There is no significant argument in the lead that isn't mentioned elsewhere. SlimVirgin 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
So does that mean I'm thinking a little too specifically? As in I was thinking there should be duplication of info?-Localzuk 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I think you are correct Localzuk. The specific criticism by Inhofe should be mentioned again, and elaborated upon, within the article. If there isn't enough to work with to create at least a couple of sentences about it, then it should either be removed, or replaced with a summary statement referring to one of the other criticisms discussed in the article. The lead should be a summary of what will come in the article, not present info that is never revisited in the article.--Leperflesh 21:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I am wondering if criticism should be mentioned in the LEAD. A look at the Greenpeace LEAD shows no criticism. --Lincoln F. Stern 21:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms?

Something that really bothers me about this article is the lack of notes on the organization's criticisms. I can see no reason why this is not include. Even wikipedia has a list of its own criticism. I am currently working on a list with good sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aurocker49 (talkcontribs) 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

There are dozens of references to criticisms woven throughout the article. We do not want a 'criticism' section as it causes a lot more trouble than it is worth, has an inherent pov problem and breaks the flow of the article. Please read through the entire article and you will see the criticism. Thanks, Localzuk 10:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
There are also repeated discussions of this issue archived at Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 4, Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 5, Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 7, and Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/archive8. --Allen3  10:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a criticism section is certainly required. Almost every article about a group of people, coporation, methodology, philosophy (the list goes on) has a criticism section, I don't see why this particular minority group is exempt. mr_happyhour 29/03/2007
In general, having a 'criticism' section, which of course would require a 'praise' section for balance, is a bad idea, and any article that has them is a bad example. One reason is that they tend to separate out the pros and cons, in a way that is hard for the reader to follow. For example, if source X says something bad about the subject, and source Y refutes it and shows it's actually good, where do they belong? If we keep them separated in separate sections, the readers will have a hard time following the arguments, while if we keep them together (the preferred approach), we can't have separate sections. Also, having a dedicated section for pure criticism tends to act as a POV magnet, attracting various drive-by editors and trolls to just pile on more criticism, often with poor or no sourcing, and tends to destabilize the article. Also, if the praise and criticism sections grow over time, and require their own articles, the problem becomes even worse, as the reader would need to read two separate articles to follow the pro and con arguments. Bottom line: the preferred approach is to properly interweave and balance out criticism with praise, which tends to flow better, and is easier to present in a neutrally balanced encyclopedic fashion. Crum375 02:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
In general, wikipedia articles on controversial groups, theories, movements, etc. have criticisms sections. To a reader coming to this page for the first time, is it possible that the lack of a criticisms section could develop the impression that the page's maintainers have a collective overwhelming bias in support for the organization and that an neutral presentation of the information therein is entirely absent?68.101.76.251 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In general, per my comments above, Misplaced Pages articles that have a criticism section are poorly constructed. In order to be fair, they would then need a 'praise' section. Then a reader would have to jump back and forth between those sections to find out how each side addresses a given issue. If a casual reader coming to this article feels that we are not presenting both sides of an issue in a balanced and neutral fashion, no doubt we have failed. The way to improve it is to find and include all attributable praise and criticism in its proper section, not to have dedicated praise and criticism sections. If you yourself have some specific ideas as to what's missing, or what is presented in a non-neutral fashion, please let us know, or try to edit yourself, based on our content policies. Crum375 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't need a "praise" sections.....to answer the question...I'm sure people have tried to create one..only to be edited back, buy the brainwashed, hypocritical people that are attached to PETA. If you we're to put that PETA killed dogs and cats for no reason, or that the company is totally against anyone owning pets whatsoever (sure the pet loving supports of the organization would love that, eh?.....nah this statement will be critisised and told to be false) or that the Vice President fights and condones harmful activities to labs and other things that test stuff on animals, yet she uses Pig Insulin. (they have to kill the pig) Oh, but she has an excuse....the pigs "willing give up their lives so she can continue the fight." I'd really like to see someone argue that that's not hypocritical in any way, yet it seems like any PETA supporter that works for or knows the ends and ours of the organization can't put together any reasonable arguements, the just spew out bullshit lies and try to disprove any critism the organization gets. Unfortunately, too many mindless kids and adults listen to them. There's nothing wrong with loving animals, but you should join other Animal care orginizations....not corrupt PETA.

Wow. What a poorly thought out and unsourced rant. Please try to support your comments with references, as it stands you simply look like you want to slag off PETA but don't actually back anything up. If there is anything which is sourced, by reputable sources and it isn't in the article, then by all means add it.-Localzuk 19:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

www.petakillsanimals.com There's your proof/support, etc. It's all true, and all proven by laws, etc.


A "Praise" section? Pfft, please. Writers take the neutral point of view sure, but you don't need to have a Praise section to keep it neutral. If a company does something that is well documented that is against what is says or has otherwise controversial beliefs we should have a criticism section. That's like saying an article on a serial killer shouldn't be written because you have nothing positive to say about him. If it's fact and well documented then as long as the wording is right there should be no problem.

This article reads like a PETA pamphlet due to the efforts of numerous PETA supporters. e.g. anyone calling it "radical" when it is pushing a radical vegan agenda. PETA is at odds with 99% of the world's population, with our scientific classification as Omnivores and I would think that makes it rather radical. 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that says it's radical, and you can insert that "PETA is called a radical group by so-and-so". That's how Misplaced Pages works.--Ramdrake 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Community Animal Project

"PETA has several programs helping cats and dogs" We need to correct this to indicate that Peta's idea of "helping" dogs and cats is typically limited to killing them in vans after taking them under false pretenses. http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=118579&ran=47521 67.76.169.41 22:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"We're here because the defendant, Miss Hinkle, went to the Ahoskie Animal Hospital and lied to get an animal and then kill it," Assistant District Attorney Valerie Asbell said.

Hinkle, 28, and Cook, 26, had each faced 21 felony counts of animal cruelty until Grant reduced those charges Thursday to eight misdemeanor counts.

Each also faces a misdemeanor littering charge, and Hinkle faces three felony charges for obtaining property by false pretenses.

If convicted, Hinkle could receive up to 8 months in jail on each of the felony counts. The misdemeanor charges carry a 45-day suspended sentence, with a period of probation. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NC_PETA_ARRESTS_NCOL-?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=STATE 67.76.169.41 22:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why you posted that info here? We are avoiding adding it to the article as this is not Wikinews and waiting until the outcome will produce a more well rounded description of the proceedings.-Localzuk 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hinkle worked for the CAP. I guess I'll have to remove the "false pretense" charge - they were acquitted.

WINTON, N.C. — A jury found two animal rights workers not guilty Friday of animal cruelty for euthanizing cats and dogs they took from shelters, but both were convicted of littering for dumping the carcasses in a trash bin.

Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook, two employees of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, were cleared of eight misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty. Hinkle also was found not guilty on three felony counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/1191233/65.160.201.197 02:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, now that we have an outcome we need to reduce the section down a bit in size. Overall, it bears little relation to PETA as a whole and there is too much info there now. I propose just including a single paragraph, outlining a small amount of background, the reaction from PETA and the outcome of the trial. There is no need for a picture either now, as it doesn't actually seem to add anything to the section. What do people think?-Localzuk 10:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
A Bertie County animal control officer testified that Hinkle said she would have "no problem" finding homes for two dalmatians named Annie and Toby. The dogs were dead before they left the shelter's parking lot.
The same officer said he handed over his own dog, a terrier named Happy, because he had had trouble housebreaking it. Hinkle sent him a picture of the dog in a garden, standing in front of a house but didn't mention that the dog had been euthanized upon arriving at PETA headquarters.
"They go out and say, 'Oh, we helped all these animals,'" said Asbell, who is the district attorney for Hertford, Bertie and Northampton counties. "They sure aren't out telling folks they're killing healthy ones ... because that doesn't go along with the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals."http://www.newsobserver.com/680/story/539313.html65.160.201.163 12:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement From PETA on Anna Nicole Smith's Death

Statement released by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) on the death of Anna Nicole Smith http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251007,00.html Crocoite 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deceased

When we have a list of living individuals, with an additional deceased one, we inform the readers about the deceased status by adding 'the late' before the respective name. This is not 'POV' as some people seem to think, simply a clarification/notification that that person is now deceased. This is the case with the 'late' Steve Irwin mention. Adding 'the late' does not connote sympathy or any other emotion or opinion, and is not POV - it is simply his status. Please do not remove it, as it reduces the information available to our readers. Thank you for understanding, Crum375 23:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Booshakla, rather than reverting again, could you explain your objections here please? SlimVirgin 00:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I can see how someone might read it as being POV but it isn't itself POV. If you already have an inkling of dislike for PETA and a like for Irwin then saying 'the late' will invoke an emotional reaction. It is not actually POV so it should stay in the article in my view.-Localzuk 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I will make sure that will be removed permanently. I will not do this for awhile to avoid violations, but hope that someone else will consider and agree. There is no reason whatsoever to put "the late" in front of his name, I will list several reasons, and although I think that is somewhat POV, there are other reason as to why I remove the info:
  • Everyone dies sometime - Does it really make sense to have an article about a past event and just put "the late" in front of everyone that has died?
  • Poor writing - It's just sloppy/filler writing to put "the late" in place. Would you ever see anyone referred to as "the late" in a print encyclopedia?
  • Recentism - WP has a guideline/template that we should try not to capitalize too much on recent events and keep them in perspective. Would it make sense 10 years down the road to still refer to him as "the late"? Let's make things as static as possible.
  • Precedent - At one point, several dozen articles referred to Steve Irwin as "The late Steve Irwin", now, this is the only one that does (by doing a search), and there seems to be consensus about that.
  • Knowledge of his death - Let's face it, a vast majority of people (especially those that would look for this article) know he is dead, and the few that may not be sure can click the link. Maybe people don't want to know that he's dead or be reminded of it, and putting that acts as a spoiler. Even Anna Nicole Smith had a few "the lates" put on pages of hers, and those have all been removed (a few by me, a few by others). "Saving a click" is not a valid reason for this, we should assume that the readers are smart, and things like that can go to the Simple English edition.
  • Irrelevance - Why would the fact that he is dead be relevant to an article that talks about his programming? His shows will probably be reran for many years to come, and the fact that he died somewhat unexpectedly makes no bearing on what he did on his programming.

Well, this is my case, I would also like to point out WP:OWN, which I feel has been violated in these reverts. I also am starting a discussion on WP:Words To Avoid to get some word from other editors to make sure that I am doing the right thing. I am supremely confident that I am, and I look forward to improving the PETA article in the future. Booshakla 00:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, looking at the edit summary, I hear that there is "consensus" to keep "the late" mention. I don't think that there is yet, as there isn't really any consensus to have the phrase anywhere on the encyclopedia. Other Wikiprojects have discouraged the use of the phrase. I will keep cool for awhile, but will likely continue to remove the mention whenever possible, since I am supremely confident that I am right. Booshakla 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Being supremely confident that you're right on Misplaced Pages is bound to lead to trouble. :-) SlimVirgin 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, I still think that the paragraph should be tweaked some, Steve Irwin is referred to as "the late" and "recently deceased" in the same paragraph. One or both of those should go, at least, IMO. Booshakla 04:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, looking through a few research engines, there have been tens, if not humdreds of references in the last month to "the late Steve Irwin", so yes people are still referring to him by his state. It turns out that hundreds of WP articles use this formulation, and suddenly editing all those passages to remove "the late" has made them quite adversarial to your position, especially the scale on which you did these reversions (hundreds of articles).--Ramdrake 13:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we are here to write an encyclopedia article, not rehash what newspapers and magazines say. And articles/editorials are far different than an encyclopedia article. Just because VH1 or the local news refers him as "the late Steve Irwin" does not mean an encyclopedia should say that. There were plenty (at least 20-30) articles that at one point refered him to as "the late Steve Irwin" and this is the only one that does at this point (I don't want to violate WP:BEANS and encourage anything). There is talk at WP:WTA about the usage (it's never been brought up) and there is fair discouragement to use "the late".

While I hope that both mentions in that paragraph will be removed eventually in the near future, I'd like to make a compromise for now. You have that paragraph refering him as "the late", yet a few sentences later, it refers to him as "recently deceased". Could the latter mention be removed, at least? It's redundant and cluttering.

I am sorry if people are upset with what I'm doing, but I'm only trying to help WP being a more legitimate source of information. Personally, the only argument I see with keeping "the late" is that I'm a jerk, and it "saves a click". Please read the discussion at the talk page at WP:WTA. Booshakla 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone comment on my proposal? I think at very least, one of the death phrases should be removed (but hope to see both removed at some point). Booshakla 08:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Extremist?

I added in the top paragraph, "Many find it an extremist organization". This was reverted. Can we settle on letting this stay? This does say, "PETA is an extremist organization", rather " (referring to a significant group of people) find it an extremist organization. IBeatAnorexia 19:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

While I certainly characterize PETA as extremist and I have no doubt that others do as well, that is just opinion and has no place in the article, and certainly not in the introductory paragraph. We should always be on the lookout for such qualifiers as "many people". There are 6,000,000,000+ people on spaceship earth how do you quantify "many people". Cheers. L0b0t 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I would assume that there are many people who would find religion X 'extremist'. Would we then say that, in the lead for religion X? I rather doubt it, as it would sound very unencyclopedic, especially if religion X has lots of devout followers. Similarly for many organizations. What 'many people' think is hard to quantify and prove via reliable sources, and there are lots of people who think poorly (or highly) of almost any religion or organization, more so if they are ambitious and aggressive, so it's essentially irrelevant. BTW, I am sure that there are 'many people' who think PETA is a terrific and wonderful organization that helps protect animal rights - should we say that too in the lead? Hopefully you get the point. Crum375 19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Uhh.. Dude. PETA is targetted by half the nation and most of the people that know about them as extremist and just plain stupid. This article makes it look way too buttered up for my tastes. IBeatAnorexia 19:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If the article is "too buttered up" and you seriously want to address that, you are going about it the wrong way, IMO. Saying that a group of people think X about PETA, without verifiable sourcing and a neutral balance, violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V, to name a few. For balance, you'd have to say what other groups think of it (assuming you had the verifiable sources), and soon every article will become an opinion poll. If this article seems to you too pro-PETA, find something concrete that you can properly source, and go for it, remembering that everything must be neutrally presented. Crum375 19:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are some sources that call PETA "extremist": Fox News (and again), the [ http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_24_55/ai_n13606711 National Review], a Welsh local paper, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Those are just the mainstream media outlets and one organization with the same claim to fame as PETA. Of course, we can add www.petakillsanimals.com and www.peta-sucks.com, but that might cause an argument :-) Famey415 06:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming majority of people do not regard:
  • animal life as equally important as human
  • use leather/meat etc to be the equivalent of killing humans

or

  • a vegan diet to be natural.. PETA IS extremist, no matter how the vegan editors on here keep reverting changes that mirror what popular sentiment is.

NathanLee 14:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information regarding POM Wonderful's halt of animal testing

Twice information sourced to a Reuters news story showing that POM Wonderful was potentially under duress caused by a product tampering hoax when they halted animal testing has been removed from the timeline without explanation( & ). Can anyone provide an explanation as to why this is information is inappropriate for inclusion in Misplaced Pages? --Allen3  12:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like POV-pushing to me. I read the article and it is indeed sourced, so I restored it.--Ramdrake 13:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality?

Perhaps it's just the facts that make it look this way, but reading this article seems to paint a very bad picture of PETA. I can't say that any of the wording sounds especially bad, but it paints PETA as hypocritical, disorganized, and misguided. Perhaps an expert on the subject/on neutrality should give it a look over? It might be a correct image to paint, though... --24.163.212.206 12:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? With all the PETA quotes in the article it practically reads like a pro-Peta page. Plus, no criticism section? Sure, there are criticisms listed throughout but are easily overshadowed by the flashy quotes and enormous amount of information that seems to be glazed over to provide a POV in favor of PETA. 64.128.22.8 09:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I think all these 2 comments show is that whoever reads the article reads it with a bias of their own. Personally I find it is pretty well balanced. There shouldn't be an equal amount of 'good' and 'bad' things as this would not be balanced in terms of allowing the organisation to be described. There should always be more info which just describes PETA.
Also, just because you flick over criticism within the article doesn't mean that putting it all in one section is a good idea. At the moment we have a relatively structured article with a flowing set of prose. To chop the criticism out of this and group it together would significantly damage this readability. Also, we used to have such a section and it was a magnet for stupid comments, trolling and unsourced ranting.-Localzuk 11:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I chopped out the quotes that make this appear *exactly* like a peta newsletter. I'm all for referencing quotes, but since when does an encyclopedia put "marketing" style quotes in separate quote boxes floating down each side of the article? If this was a handout for shopping centres, that would be appropriate.. NathanLee 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So was this article written by the American Meat Institue?

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

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


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

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

Generalization? 'everyone' seems a little harsh 'cause I hate PETA and am against their cause. They are rude(holocaust), philosophically unsound(see 'animal rights'), sympathetic towards cuter animals(so true - noone has a campaign for jellyfish - look it up), and disorganized. PETA should acknowledge their support for animal welfare, not 'animal rights'--70.68.43.50 04:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

does peta condone having pets?

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


Yes, I came to this article specifcally to get this information, and I was surprised it was not here. 207.237.100.65 06:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Comeback2009 00:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


{{Editprotect}} The timeline should include the times that PETA has funded eco-terrorist like David Wilson, Josh Harper, and Rod Coranado. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200203%5CCUL20020308a.html As it stands the timeline reads like a fluff piece. It also is missing the criminal charges a while back where peta was dumping dead animals in adumpster http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL and http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:PETA_dumpster_incident_cat_with_kittens.jpg is a fitting picture to go with it. Thanks! 205.161.214.82 05:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

2005 PETA employees charged with 31 counts of animal cruelty and 8 of improperly disposing of animal remains. The crimes were committed by PETA officials, using a PETA owned vehicle. http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/articles/2005/06/18/news/news1.txt

I will draw up more shortly. 205.161.214.82 06:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200203%5CCUL20020308a.html http://epw.senate.gov/109th/Exhibit_11.pdf I assume the US senate would be considered a good citation. It is also on their tax form, linked here, in the article, already. http://en.wikipedia.org/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#_note-62 I would say forking over cash to fund an arsonist is a pretty big deal , as well as funding an organization listed as one of the most dangerous terrorist groups in America. http://www.cq.com/public/20050325_homeland.html 205.161.214.82 07:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Timeline

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

By encapsulating this large section of text by the minute disclaimer that it is "what peta thinks is important" you are doing exactly what I am attempting to prevent, putting a LARGE section of vertical space devoted to a fluff piece about peta. It should either be a complete timeline about peta, both "positive" and negative or not exist at all. I have no problem including peta's excuses for funding terrorists and terrorism in the timeline events, which allows you to add the peta perspective, albiet with less of a fluff factor. 205.161.214.82 17:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
As the article is about PETA, to try and show what PETA thinks it is doing, the list should be dedicated to their beliefs. The negative stuff should be discussed in more detail throughout the article. It allows us to focus on important events and just briefly show the other bits.-Localzuk 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of what you think is important, many of us consider funneling thousands of donated dollars to terrorists important. 205.161.214.82 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
But in doing it this way, I have a grave concern that we may be doing the exact opposite from what we do when someone suggests we should have a "criticism" section: we tell them praise and criticism are interwoven in the article. From this perspective, it seems to me unsound to have a whole section of self-praise about PETA, for the exact same reasons: praise and criticism should be distributed in the article. I'd much rather see a balanced, neutral perspective on their timeline, one that includes both "good" and "bad" deeds. Doesn't that make more sense?--Ramdrake 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand this, and my edit history shows me to be one of those who really think criticism sections are a bad structure to use. However, in this case I think that we are trying to show what PETA thinks it is doing. To include other events confuses that matter.-Localzuk 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
When a reader sees PETA's actions, many may seem odd or eccentric. The motivation for the Timeline section is to explain to the reader, from PETA's own perspective, what they consider as their accomplishments, and why they do what they do. If all we had is a timeline of PETA-related events and actions, then it would just be a repeat of the article itself, which would be redundant and confusing. Since this is an article about PETA, it makes sense to let them explain their rationale for their actions and what they consider as their goals. Crum375 21:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
So basically, you are just using that as an excuse to create a one-sided section about PETA and destroy the neutrality of the article as a whole. Like I said, either the timeline section should contain both positives and negatives or should not exist. You can include the rational peta has for it's actions interwoven in the article just as well as you can the criticisms. To do otherwise is to bias the article. 205.161.214.82 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Then, maybe a piece about their philosophy and their worldview would be appropriate. As it stands, the one-sided timeline doesn't explain the actions of PETA, just how they interpret it to fit their agenda. And yes, with or without criticism, I find this section redundant (just as much as a new section about their supporters creeping up in the article, even though it was ported to its own article months ago). If you want something about how PETA sees their actions (and I agree wholly with the principle, just not on the way it's done), I would strongly suggest to take just a few examples, give PETA's entire rationale for it, and cut down on the rest. Unfortunately, this looks like a one-sided laundry list as it is. It needs to be refocused to properly serve the purpose you intend it to serve, or it needs to go. As it stands today, it reads like an uncritical piece of apology for PETA--Ramdrake 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The primary problem with the timeline section is that it presents PETA as the motivating force behind a wide variety of third party actions (i.e. claims that PETA stopped, persuaded, or otherwise caused a third party to take a course of action favorable to PETA's cause) without any form of independent verification. This is in contradiction with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves as PETA's claims are both self-serving (the claims have the potential to exaggerate PETA's influence) and involve a partisan source making claims about a third-party's motives and intentions. The reliance on PETA to select which items to include in the list also presents issues with Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox as the section can reasonably be interpreted as a repetition of PETA's self-promotion without any form of independent verification of facts. While including an explanation of PETA's rationals is a worthy addition to the article, it should be done in a manner that does not violate core Misplaced Pages policies. --Allen3  23:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. think that the subject of an article should be able to present its own perspective of its accomplishments. If there are attributable criticisms, then they certainly belong in the article for neutral balance. Nevertheless, for a reader interested in understanding what PETA thinks, and what motivates it, the Timeline section is very useful - you certainly understand how they rationalize their actions after reading it. Of course this should be balanced by their criticism, but not in such a way to confuse the reader trying to understand PETA. I don't see how presenting PETA's own perspective in any way violates our policies, as long as each claim is properly sourced. Crum375 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I think that regardless of whether one is for or against PETA, or not caring either way, just reading that list gives one an excellent understanding of who PETA really are, and what they really want to achieve - probably better than reading a lot of other complex verbiage. Once the reader understands what PETA want from their own perspective, s/he can read all about the criticisms - why others feel these 'accomplishments' (all or part) are bad, or why the tactics to achieve them are bad, or why they are not really accomplishments but a step backwards, etc. The point is that we are here to educate our readers about our subjects, and before we get into controversies and criticisms, the reader needs to understand what the subject is about. Then the criticism can move the balance to the correct WP:NPOV point. Otherwise, the reader may come away simply confused. Crum375 00:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. That timeline does NOT show the reader who PETA is, in anyway, shape or form. It shows the reader merely what Peta wants them to believe about it. You make my point for me. In order to give the reader a true view of peta, you need to include the fact that they value animals more than people (protesting insulin for diabetics, etc) and paying for terrorist activities is part of who peta is. To exclude that information you are defiantly biasing hte article, and you seem to understand that, as that is what your comment was trying to justify. In order to understand what peta is about, you need to understand the whole picture, not just the slices peta's propaganda farm puts out. 205.161.214.82 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
If this is your intent, to give readers a perspective of what PETA says they achieved, I would suggest you move this section to the front of the article (before we delve into the controversies), and reduce the section to just a few prominent points, linking to the page where PETA lists its own timeline, and let PETA do it its own way. As I said above, I don't disagree with your intent, I'm just observing that the section doesn't relay your intent properly, severely enough that it needs to be adressed. I don't know of any other article in Misplaced Pages where a controversial group's (or person's) deeds are listed verbatim from their own viewpoint without any outside analysis or rebuttal, as may be the case.--Ramdrake 00:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Our goal is to educate our readers about PETA - the pros and cons, properly balanced. If to tell them who PETA are we just direct them, by linking, to the PETA web site, then we are not an encyclopedia but a link farm. By being an encyclopedia, we need to explain who/what PETA are, what they want and what they do, and then present the pros and cons, as neutrally as we can. By providing that timeline from their own perspective, I believe we are doing an excellent job of explaining to our readers what PETA really wants to achieve, and what motivates them. Just linking to their website won't achieve the same goal, as there are lots of other things there, and in any case our primary goal is to present things ourselves - for example, we can validate/verify each sourced event and ensure its factual validity, independent of PETA. Separately, as I noted above, we can supply the balancing POV to ensure a neutral presentation. Crum375 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Providing a long list of PETA claimed accomplishments that are visually separated from the fine print disclaimer that the claims are not verified by a third-party is not encyclopedic content but advertising. Ramdrake is correct that PETA's claims should be integrated into the text of the article and clearly marked as being PETA's claims. Any thing less falls short of the neutral encyclopedic article that everyone is advocating. --Allen3  01:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The list is not unverified - we verify every single item on it, per WP:V. The only point is that the list only includes items that PETA itself views as its accomplishments, to help explain its own rationale for its actions. The issue is therefore not verifiability, but neutrality and balance, or WP:NPOV, and we don't just provide some 'fine print' disclaimer - we specifically address each and every properly sourced criticism of PETA. The reason for the list is to help explain PETA's position and rationale, and we fully address any and all sourced criticisms, so we have both a clear understanding of who they are, what they do and want, and what their critics are saying. That's both informative as well as neutral, exactly our mission here. Crum375 01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
My comments are not about the article in general but the one specific section dealing with the timeline. This section contains numerous claims of third-party action with no sources other than PETA press releases to verify the claims. As PETA is indisputably a partisan organization and as the assertions are that PETA was the motivating force behind these third-party actions, this section fails to satisfy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves(does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject). --Allen3  02:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you and Ramdrake that the items on that list need to be verifiable independently of PETA. If we can't provide individual verifiable sources, then we should only provide a link into PETA's site for the entire list, IMO. Crum375 02:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that we need to remove the portions that are not verifiable by a third party. Included on the list are items that PETA claims they convinced a second party to do, but the second party denies any validity to peta's claims.

Additionally, as it stands, we have a large amount of vertical space that is eye catchingly, noticeable visually distinguishable from the rest of the article, the sort of thing someone skimming the article would slow down and read a bit, which is nothing more than an uncontested, decidedly one-sided fluff piece that has deliberatly been written in PETA's point of view. Writing an article in ANYONE'S point of view is decidedly encyclopedic, and even worse when the POV is nothing more than a reprint of publicity information copied from the PR department of the articles topic. 205.161.214.82 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Floating quotes

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

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

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

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

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

Popplers episode/futurama

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

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

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

Largest

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

What makes you think the EB source is a blog? SlimVirgin 11:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It's right there in the URL: http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2007/04/ingrid-newkirk-animal-rights-crusader/... The main blog page is here. Marskell 11:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you mean, but it's not really a blog. Staff are being paid to write the articles. SlimVirgin 12:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a blog, just not a personal one, closer to a corporate blog. Not sure what WP guidelines are in such a case?--Ramdrake 12:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it is more a personal blog actually, if you go to the blogs home page, the about box on the right has a line which states that the staff have freedom and the views are their own, not the company's.-Localzuk 12:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of this status of this source (you can probably google up some others) the point seems debatable and probably shouldn't be stated as a bald first sentence. Shuffle it down and give phrasal attribution ("PETA claims to be..."). Marskell 14:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no reference in the blog, so it may just be completely verbatim from PETA's information. Just because it is on britannica's site doesn't necessarily mean it has the same amount of validity as from the encyclopaedia.. NathanLee 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits by NathanLee

Nathan, your edits were reverted by Crum375 for, probably, the same reasons I was about to revert them.

  • The information regarding veganism being 'core' to PETA is original research and was unsupported by the source.
  • The Centre for Consumer Freedom is not a reliable source as they are a industy funded body created specifically to counter claims made by organisations such as PETA.
  • You used weasal words such as 'on a number of occasions' without a reliable source to back that claim up.

I can understand if you think the blanket reversion was not appropriate but in the larger scheme of things, removing the information that you added due to the above problems is more important than keeping the capitalisation of PETA and a few spelling fixes.

As you seem to be coming up against serious problems with your posts, would it not be a better idea to post your ideas on the talk page and between all the editors we can fix any problems and make them fit for inclusion? Seems like a better idea than being reverted again. Cheers, Localzuk 12:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems you're forgetting the purpose of reverts. So where is the supporting information from an independent, verified source on the claims made by PETA. e.g. the number of members. I added the less controversial changes in smaller hits so that you can separate what has changed: but the couple of you attempting to keep the thing looking like a PETA ad still seem to dispute everything I put up.

How about instead of rolling back or disputing a reference (my link to peta's main site for vegan information): you change the reference to one that does support the statement. I changed what I regard as POV "Other campaigns are hard-hitting and controversial." to "PETA's campaigns are have been criticised as unnecessarily attempting to achieve shock value." Now you tell me which reads more like a PETA ad campaign, and which one is referenced? So am I to understand that any reference to consumerfreedom article which is critical of PETA is invalid? It seems there's an inability to reference anything that has criticism of PETA without you pro-PETA guys changing it back. At least change the phrasing of that from "hard hitting" to something more suitable or remove the sentence. I believe I was creating a more accurate/neutral sentence and which matches information in numerous other places in the article (e.g. criticism for the nazi/jewish comparisons). Also wiped out in your over zealous rollback: "PETA's campaigning tactics have on a number of occasions been described as "blackmail". The accusation that PETA campaigns are "blackmail" was dismissed by Ingrid Newkirk as unimportant so long as "They are on board"."

Now that references the Sydney morning herald AND 60 minutes. Quite how they are excluded references I'm not sure. It's not repetitious, has new information, direct quotes and given the validity of adding in a comment about the blackmail style of lobbying that PETA does.

I also changed the dodgy spelling/grammar/basically rubbish section "videos" from "Many video's have been made my PETA about animal cruelty, among these the most famous is:"meet your meat"- a documentry showing the viewer how animals are cruely treated and slaughtered for their food. All their video's have no copyright agreement, this has led to the video's being uploaded everywhere and has worked in PETA's favour as it has reached many more people then it would have with the copy right agreement."

To "Many videos have been made by PETA about animal cruelty, among these the most famous is "Meet your meat" which is a documentary showing video footage of animal abuse and graphic scenes of animals being slaughtered. Their productions have no copyright agreement, leading to the videos being made available freely online on a number of video download sites." Now what is your problem with that? Do you prefer it to say "made my PETA"? and to contain spelling mistakes for "documentry", "cruely" and some obviously wrong use of apostrophe. Might I suggest you look at the diff and the change comment on my changed before you wipe out every contribution I am attempting to make to fix up this article. Also: I was under the impression that in wikipedia if you see some errors or areas that need improvement: YOU MAKE THEM. I do not expect that I improve an article and then every 2 seconds someone who differs but has nothing to contribute hits the rollback across 5 levels of different changes instead of being a bit more fine grained. Rollback and then warn about 3 rollbacks is NOT supposed to be the standard practice. All it does is means that changes to improve an article get removed because you differ. I didn't just put back everything, I put back the changes which I think are reasonable and if you disagree with one of the fine grained ones: how about you discuss that before rolling it back?

I also say that the floating quotes are just making WP look like it is written by PETAs publicity group. NathanLee 16:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You have simply ignored the reasons I gave for why I would have reverted (which I didn't do). PETA is an acceptable source about PETA and its activities - how else can you get a membership number other than directly from them? This is plainly written in our policies, which I have linked to a number of times now.
The CCF is not an acceptable source when dealing with PETA unless it is directly a comment from them (eg. The CCF say 'blah', rather than 'there has been criticism ). This is also plainly obvious, as they are a pressure group funded by the organisations that PETA is fighting against...
The problem with the veganism being core to PETA info is that it was completely unsupported by the PETA reference. It also contained original research in the form of 'although campaigns against milk products and eggs indicate that PETA is against vegetarianism in the longer term' which is simply your opinion.
The use of the term 'hard-hitting' is not promoting PETA, it is simply a descriptive term. ie. Hard-hitting means 'characterized by or full of force and vigor; "a hard-hitting expose"; "a trenchant argument'
'PETA's campaigning tactics have on a number of occasions' is weasaly. What does 'a number of occasions' mean? Simply putting more than one source doesn't support this wording, as it could mean anything. We would need a source which uses that language or something very similar.
So, because of all these, major, problems the loss of a few capitalisations and spelling mistakes is fully justified in maintaining as high a quality article as possible.
Ok, if "a number of" is not supported by several references: ok, then why wouldn't you just EDIT to chop out the offending phrase rather than a rollback of every change I did? This is what I'm getting at. It is possible to use something other than total rollback of every change I made! NathanLee 16:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The quotes are exactly what they say on the tin, quotes. We now have some from the opposite side of the fence so it should be more balanced but they are not promotional - that is simply your own bias coming through (people read things from their own biased position, it is normal).-Localzuk 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually: when they're put in as floating quotes and are plucked right from the promotional material on PETA's site (where they were chosen because they DO put forward a POV) then that's why I said they were promotional. There's no bias in wanting to make wikipedia not look like promotional material, it's simply returning wikipedia to an encyclopaedia style formal (in my opinion of course). NathanLee 16:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but that is your opinion on what is encyclopedic - Misplaced Pages is not a paper or traditional encyclopedia. What goes in is upto the consensus of editors. I see them as being relevant quotes to PETA, and with a couple from a different POV it makes the article much more pleasing to the eye, if less formal.-Localzuk 16:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I would agree with Nathan that we should get rid of all the floating quotes. Maybe we should put this up to an RfC?--Ramdrake 17:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Since any edit I make seems to be overturned by wikipedians with god complexes: I'll just post up more references so one of them can put it back to save me the trouble of some idiot rolling back 10 levels of changes to put typos and everything back. Here's a reference for the vegan part of the philosophy: and another or on the part about blackmail/bullying an opinion piece in the SMH: , or a quote from a clothing company (on the SMH site again so there's no allegation of "personal site"): . Or another link for the idea that going vegan is a core belief of PETA: . Whatever happened to the "citation needed" concept that seems to work on every other page on wikipedia.
How about the vegan part goes back in without the "longer term" part. When PETA says "What's wrong with eggs, wool, leather etc" AND has campaigns to that affect AND promotes vegan diet I do believe that constitutes having a vegan core to their philosophy. NathanLee 16:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, I will take each of those sources one at a time and tell you in what way they don't support what you are saying:
  • The Peta links on goveg - neither of them say that veganism is core. They explain why milk is bad, why eggs are bad etc.. but don't say that Veganism is core to PETA.
  • The SMH links: 1 is an opinion piece so is not acceptable as a source and using the other on its own doesn't mention blackmail, let alone 'a number of'.
  • The Peta.org link explains what is wrong with leather, silk etc... not that veganism is core.
To draw conclusions from those links is called original research. We cannot allow it I'm afraid as it is one of the pillars of this site that we don't allow it.
The reason why I would have removed rather than use the citation needed tag is that a while back this article was riddled with uncited information and it took considerable work to track down sources. If we allow some uncited info in then it will slowly build up again and make the article much lower quality.
So, in conclusion, please read our policies on verifiability and original research. I am sure if you read them fully you will understand my points about why your statements are supported by your sources.-Localzuk 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you are being a bit over the top on what is allowed and not allowed under "original research". If someone knows what veganism is, and an organisation promotes veganism AND is for and against the same things that veganism is against (pro veg, anti milk, eggs, wool) : how is that original research to say that veganism is part of the philosophy of PETA? NathanLee 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
They promote not using animal products, which amounts to vegetarianism or veganism, depending how far people want to take it. Their being an animal rights group tells you what their own position is, but to say it's "at the core" of their philosophy, or whatever expression you used, is your own opinion. What is at the core of their philosophy is that animals should not be used at all (e.g. in animal testing), which is closely linked to, but not the same as, veganism. That, indeed, is why I highlighted the quote at the top of the first section that you kept removing, because it explains what is "at the core" of their philosophy: "PETA believes that ... like you ... are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use — for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other reason." But you didn't want it to be highlighted, because you think in so doing, we are being pro-PETA, rather than pro-reader. SlimVirgin 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The omission of the vegan aspect of PETA's philosophy is not pro-reader, it's meaning that there's no mention of this at all in their section on philosophy when it is most indeed worthy of inclusion in that section.. See below for the link to a quote from a major newspaper that says as much. NathanLee 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Is that fair enough: no weasel words, double referenced and contains only quotes when referring to the blackmail comment and reply from ingrig newkirk. There's also a quote in that other article which backs up my statement about the vegan aspect. "In keeping with that theory, PETA's banner slogan is "Animals are not ours to eat, to wear, to experiment on, to exploit" and its aim is to establish a vegan society"

Can you put my edits back in now that it's no longer original research and that it does not contain weasel words.. Or do you have some more complaints lined up in order to justify rolling back those changes. NathanLee 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

also "Sparking outrage is a deliberate tactic." is referenced in the SMH article. So I'll substitute that for the one from consumerfreedom too.. NathanLee 18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Nathan, do you accept that if everyone were to add everything that PETA had ever said or done, or that anyone had ever said about them, this article would become unmanageable? Do you accept that we cannot include everyone's opinion, every action, every statement, and every quote? They are vegans, they want to kill pets, they are blackmailers, they spark outrage, they didn't like Steve Irwin, and we don't like the way Ingrid Newkirk scratched her nose on Thursday ... there has to be an end to it at some point. That is why the article is written the way it is. It gives general guiding principles about their philosophy, with a few examples. The page can't be written as example after example after example with no binding narrative. SlimVirgin 18:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin/Crum375 ... I see now why you both have tried the same tactics to skew the editorial direction of the PETA page. Do you accept that having a PETA article that more accurately reflects the statements, general feelings, newspaper articles that mean that it would have a fair bit of criticism information. What is your problem with referenced articles that are negative to PETA? You aregue tooth and nail for any pro-PETA stuff, and then cite everything you can to undo anyone else's contributions. If you are no longer able to cite why the sections are not suitable additions (referenced, non POV, relevant as they are non repetitive). You are quite happy making changes when it involves chopping out parts that show PETA's hypocritical side or basically anything that doesn't match the PETA advertising briefs. So why aren't you culling the verbatim copying of every campaign they did? NathanLee 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the list of campaigns, and I've argued for its removal and tried to shorten it, but I was reverted. Some anti-PETA editors wanted to keep it, I assume because they think it shows PETA in a poor light, though what it really does is show that we're poor writers. SlimVirgin 18:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A comment on a few things at once. Nathan, you're introducing typos even while removing them, which is part of the reason for the full reverts; six edits that mix typo fixes and POV reverting can be difficult to manage. On the campaigns, I am of the opinion that the idiocy of most them is revealed simply by describing them. You don't really need a lengthy for-and-against. This article certainly could be compressed. Marskell 19:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of framed quotes

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

Crum had a point, but since all three quotes were pro-PETA, I added a couple that were critical. Indeed, the Holocaust article has them, but they represent all viewpoints, not just one.--Ramdrake 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
And right next to where you added one of the quotes, there were two unreferenced quotes criticizing Newkirk that had been tagged in March. But you left them in the article. SlimVirgin 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
When you repeatedly wipe out fixes to typos I don't think you're in a position to be complaining about someone leaving something in the article alone. In line quotes that are part of the article flow are one thing: highlighted, large font, floating quotes straight from advertising material are another. Who's showing bias now SlimVirgin? It's pretty natural that an article on an organisation like PETA should contain a bit more reference to criticism, as I believe on average it seeks to gain criticism and thus publicity. Despite this you seem determined to stomp on any attempt to show that criticism at the expense of improving the article. NathanLee 17:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. From your edits so far it simply looked like you were wanting to add as much 'anti-peta' information as possible without the necessary sources to back it up properly. You also managed to change some of the well written lines into a mess. The roll-backs simply reflect the overall perceived quality of the edits you were presenting. Now, rather than focussing on the fact that reverting was done, we should move on and add things.-Localzuk 18:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
What well written line did I mess up? I had fixed sections and they were summarily undone. If an error crept in it was because I had to un-undo a blanket wipe of any contributions I added which meant a merge issue. I've assumed good faith, and that my attempt to contribute on this article (as I have with other articles) would not be summarily undone because it disagrees with someone else's view (despite referencing etc) and it appears that assumption was incorrect. The reason I added some material was because the article read like an advertisement. NathanLee 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Your Kids, PETA's Pawns
  2. Your Kids, PETA's Pawns
  3. Sydney Morning Herald Article on PETA wool campaign
  4. 60 minutes transcript with Ingrid Newkirk
  5. Sydney Morning Herald Article on PETA wool campaign
  6. 60 minutes transcript with Ingrid Newkirk
Categories: