Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Rewrite?

Whoa! Just skimming through and noticed that this is a completely messed up article. From the discussion on this page it seems to be a pretty touchy topic.. I reckon it requres a pretty drastic reconstruction of the article. Balanced support/criticism would be nice. The "highlights" section is clearly pro-PETA - maybe scrap the highlights section and make a chronological "timeline" of peta's "victories" as well as its criticisms (like was supposed to happen in the nike article but never quite pulled through) :/ . Maybe including some pictures that aren't pulled directly from the peta site (someone suggested a picture of the "your mummy kills animals" brochure). IMHO peta's standpoint is rubbish, but I welcome offers of mature, balanced collaboration with a pro-peta wikipedian to correct this blight of a page (or collaboration from anyone else for that matter...) --Hotel city 02:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please remember that just because a page is unbalanced doesn't mean it is POV. If a fact in the article is referenced by a reliable source then it should stay. By all means add more information regarding criticisms but ensure that you reference them properly. -Localzuk ^(talk) 11:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV, but Hotel city never said it was. S/he only said it's unbalanced, but, as far as I know, isn't necessarily a WP crime, but just plain something that's bad.Jesuschex 13:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ta. Yes, I just thought that this article was pretty piecemeal and one-sided, not necessarily POV. Above all, it does a poor job of representing and explaining the topic - the article needs strength and balance. I dont want to make it sound like I'm against animal rights, I'm not, I just don't think that destroying medical research labs or fetishising pictures of animal cruelty on the peta.org site is really "about" animal rights, 'tis all. I shall get cracking on this article later today or tomorrowish. --Hotel city 12:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Having just re-read the article, I agree that it needs a rewrite. Not necessarily to change the balance, but merely because it seems to lack references for very significant claims. I'll go through with a fine tooth comb and make some changes soon. I won't really make that many content changes - although I will be considering removing unsourced information and posting it on here instead (until it gets sourced that is). I think on an article such as this we should maintain the information/criticism divide. If we merge the 2, the article will not be as easy to read from a new readers POV. Most articles are split and I think this one should be also.-Localzuk ^(talk) 07:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is an article we should be ashamed of. The writing is terrible, the sourcing non-existent most of the time, and all kinds of anons and new editors arrive with a strong anti-PETA POV and feel they have the right to insert it. It's a classic case of too-many-editors-syndrome. Don't know what we can do about it though. One possibility is that a small group of good editors gets together and writes a draft version, and then we insert it into the page and watch over it, but that would be a lot of work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That method never works very well. The best you can do is propose a new layout, like section headings, etc., move stuff around when it's achieved consensus, and then continue working on it in a wiki way from there. For one thing, the Criticism section has to go. Each should be moved up into the article as regular sections.

[...] it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms. - Jimbo Wales — Omegatron 01:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A critisism section is standard practice on many articles about buildings, people, organizations, and cars. --mboverload@ 03:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not in good articles. — Omegatron 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If this article does get a rewrite, I think it would be a good idea to state the underlying philosophy of PETA (by philosophy, I mean the rational reasoning that leads to their conclusions, that is, Peter Singer esque, rather than 'philosophy' in the sense of 'live life to the full' etc.).

Peta has edited this 3 times in the past. It used to be balanced, and there was a whole list of sites critical of peta, but peta then came in and covered that up quicker than the us government at roswell. This whole article needs to be erased and re-written by non biased wikipedia staff, then locked to prevent any more of this nonsense. 08:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

--Every WP article on organizations and such that I've read have a section devoted to documenting the criticism the organization has received. It seems to be missing here.

Like i said, peta themselves have edited this. As an expirament i edited the last section to say they harassed beyonce, and sure enough overnight it was edited back to say they "confronted" her. Peta cant stand critisisim.

The event was videotaped, the activist calmly attempted to establish a dialog, which was simply and categorically ignored. If you have a reference of Beyonce herself or her agent claiming harrassement, that's probably notable. Jean-Philippe 18:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That dosent matter, they selfishly used donators money (wich wasnt used to help animals mind you) and bugged beyonce without telling her. Not to mention they had a hidden camera in theyre coat.

KFC

I removed a section from the KFC section about sales dropping since the inception of the PETA campaign. It almost certainly is untrue. If it were true, PETA would be hyping that statistic. Also, considering [1], there's a good chance that if KFC sales have dropped, bird flu is an additional contributing factor.

One other thing ... I noticed that yesterday, one user replaced "secretly" with "surreptitiously". That's obviously POV ... loaded words are not usually a good thing. BigDT 03:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That was me removing "secretly". The sentence was something like "PETA secretly shot undercover video" which is pretty redundant. My dictionary defines surreptitiously as secretly or sneakily, seems pretty NPOV to me but I defer to your judgment.L0b0t 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in Kentucky Fried Cruelty.com and the AfD on it. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 05:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Penn and Teller

Lobot, please don't add P and T again. They are comedians/magicians. They are not reliable sources within the terms of our policies. Please read WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been added again. Do not keep adding it. It is a clear policy violation. They are not reliable sources on anyone but themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I came to this page specifically looking for info on the Penn and Teller show, and was SHOCKED that there was really no info on it. Come on, it is POV to omit those who disagree with PeTA and yet do a full two page list of PeTA supporters???? Come on, you can put Anna Nicole Smith but not Penn and Teller? I recommend removing the section "Well known supporters". I see no problem listing those who have appeared in PeTA ads, however, and have a section on those who think PeTA is a bad thing. Bytebear 04:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Penn and Teller are magicians, PENN AND TELLER: BULLSHIT is an investigative television show which is just as valid a source as most other claims on this article. The section in question is titled Criticisms of PETA, this particular episode of the P and T show was very critical of PETA. How is that not germaine?L0b0t 20:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

They are not reliable sources within the terms of the Wikipedia policies. They can call themselves "investigators", but they are magicians. They are not journalists. They are not academics. They are not experts on PETA or animal rights or any related issue. The policy is very clear on this. Sources like that may only be used as sources about themselves in articles about them. They may not be used as third-party sources. Could I ask people please to read our content policies before editing? It would save a lot of time and energy. They can be found at WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

But they do document their sources. I would suggest adding a section on the P&T show and in it go over each of their claims and use their own sources as references. Most if not all of their facts can be verified. And this isnt about proving that PeTA kills animals, it is about reporting that these claims have been made. oh, and you can be against animal cruelty and still dislike PeTA. I prefer the Humane Society myself. Bytebear 21:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Again they are not being used as "experts" on PETA or animals or anything else in this case. This is not about Penn Gillette and his partner Teller, this is about a television show with their names on it. Presumably their show had sources and these should be the sources one cites in reference to that particular episode. The Anti-Defamation League is no expert on PETA or animals yet in the context of "Criticisms Of PETA" their presence makes sense. I posit that the reference to one specific episode of Bullshit belongs in that section as well.L0b0t 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The ADL is regarded as a reliable source because it is a research organization. You are guessing that P and T employed researchers. If you watch the show, you'll see it is not a serious "investigation." It is satire. They are not reliable sources.

Can I ask why you don't read our policies instead of arguing on this page? Another guideline about sources you might find helpful is WP:RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Other than stating clearly that it is a flexible guideline and stating it is fine to use secondary and even tertiary sources what is so helpful about WP:RS?L0b0t 22:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It will give you some idea of what we regard as a reliable source. But WP:V is more important, because it's policy i.e. mandatory. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm worried about you saying it's "fine" to use secondary and tertiary sources. Why might it not be? We are supposed to use almost entirely secondary and tertiary sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Penn and Teller investigation is notable in that it has been widely viewed and downloaded. Homey 23:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The show is satirical, P & T are not journalists and making assumptions about their methods doesn't fly. They are not a relevant organisation and should not be included. I'll give an example of another satirical (ok, more extremely so) show - south park. Should they be included in the Vegetarianism article as they made a show about vegetarians? I don't think so. -Localzuk ^(talk) 23:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Michael Moore referenced in any articles on the subject he's made films on? I see Penn and Teller's show as in the same category as Moore's efforts. btw, the only reason I'm intervening here is I actually happened to see the episode of Bullshit in question a few months ago - it wasn't a South Park type take on PETA but was more of a muckraking expose a la Moore. Incidentally, isn't South Park referenced in our Scientology article? Homey 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a good enough notability criteria for this article. If a random person created a blog, video, podcast stating the same thing as P&T it wouldn't be acceptable as it is not a relevant organisation making the statement.-Localzuk ^(talk) 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And no, the south park episode is not referenced on the scientology article - it is linked to and the full episode discussed in its own episode. Michael more is an investigative journalist with many years behind him for his efforts with several films and books about various subjects. P&T are no where near him in that league. They are comedians who are attempting to branch out but have no notability in the field they are looking at. Philosophy courses at universities may look at moore's stuff (although very briefly, I'd hope - as he isn't that notable really) but definitely not P&T's. It is akin to 'Krusty brand X' in simpsons - they are putting their names on anything.-Localzuk ^(talk) 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"I'm worried about you saying it's "fine" to use secondary and tertiary sources." I was simply refering to the policy you told me go read. P and T: Bullshit is a secondary source in that it "summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources.". South Park analogy doesn't seem apt as South Park is presented as fiction P & T: Bullshit is not. Something being funny doesn't make it less true.L0b0t 23:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read through Wikipedia:Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It's easily verifiable that Penn and Teller made these claims. Please put the section back in the article. — Omegatron 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember that WP:V isn't the only policy/guideline in play here. Also take a look at this one. The source is not an authority in this area and as such should be treated more as trivia than anything else.-Localzuk ^(talk) 00:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is very firm policy, actually. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

So we can use PETA as a legitimate source for information about themselves, but their critics are unreliable sources and therefore should not be included? If you think that's how Wikipedia works, you need to read through our policies again, especially WP:NPOV. — Omegatron 01:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

They have plenty of reliable critics. A pair of magicians aren't among them. Similarly, we wouldn't use PETA as sources on Penn and Teller. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We would if PETA had a nationwide investigative television program with an episode devoted to debunking Penn and Teller's magic tricks. ;) L0b0t 03:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardng WP:RS. It is an expansion, really, on WP:V in that it tries to help you understand various parts of the policy. WP:V says the following Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources. Which to me means that a source should be relevant - which P&T are not as they are not reputable and are not appropriate. WP:RS expands on this in more detail with a community created paragraph at WP:RS#Beware_false_authority. -Localzuk ^(talk) 08:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Other sources

[ Omegatron 00:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)]

Saying "Penn and Teller said x" is good enough, following our policies of Verifiability, but if that's disputed, we should add what they said directly to the article itself. Some quick research found these additional references for each statement:

• misleading its members
  • No way to reference this directly, though P&T can certainly be quoted as claiming it.[2] Can also be implied by the below:
• euthanizing two-thirds (68%) of the animals it received
  • Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Online Animal Reporting - Organization Name: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [3]
  • "Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85% of the animals it took in during 2003 alone."[4]
  • '"It is a totally rotten business, but sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever... It sounds lovely if you're naïve. We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn't do as much work." --The Virginian-Pilot, August 1, 2000'[5]
  • PETA Euthanized More Than 1000 Animals Last Year [6]
  • "I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through other workers abusing the animals. I must have killed thousands of them, sometimes dozens everyday." -- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA President, The New Yorker, April 14, 2003[7]
  • http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
  • "It’s unknown whether PETA continues its “angel of death” role in killing defenseless animals, but the group’s most recent IRS tax filing -- only a few weeks old -- shows that it spent $9,370 in May 2002 for a new walk-in freezer at its Norfolk headquarters. According to industry sources, that kind of money can buy a 10-by-15-foot freezer with 8-foot ceilings. And knowing PETA, it’s safe to presume that this huge appliance isn’t being used to store steaks or ice cream."[8] [Federal Statement shown in the show is "Financial Statements and Supplementary Information July 31, 2002" "Walk-in freezer 5/28/02 $9,370.00"]
• funding eco-terrorists (such as Rodney Coronado of the Animal Liberation Front)
  • "We have obtained the tax records from PETA showing donations to Rodney Coronado, the PCRM, and others"[9]
  • Tax records, 2000-2001 showing donation to Earth Liberation Front (provided to http://www.undueinfluence.com by http://www.guidestar.org)
• Ingrid Newkirk's use of drugs and treatments that were developed from animal research ("I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals") (This is incorrect. It's the vice president Mary Beth Sweetland mentioned on the show. I didn't notice the error when I appended the quote)
  • "As an insulin-dependent (type I) diabetic who also cares deeply for animals, diabetes experiments on animals doubly assault my senses and sensibilities. I became insulin-dependent when I was 25." "Being able to cut my dosage from more than 50 units of insulin in the morning when I first became diabetic to taking only 15 units today can be directly attributed to not eating any animal products."[10]
  • '"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals." --Glamour, January 1990' [11]
  • "PETA vice president Mary Beth Sweetland has diabetes and injects herself daily with insulin that was tested on animals. Yet she campaigns against experiments on animals -- making her a veritable poster-child for hypocrisy. She concedes that her medicine "still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals"[12]
  • 'Mary Beth Sweetland, senior vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is a diabetic who injects herself daily with insulin developed through animal testing. Just as Ms. Sweetland doesn't believe that is hypocritical -- "I need my life to fight for the rights of animals"'[13]
• ultimately putting its political agenda of animal rights over the welfare of human beings.
  • "PETA has donated over $150,000 to criminal activists - including those jailed for arson, burglary, and even attempted murder."[14]
  • 'PETA President Ingrid Newkirk's comment: "Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."'[15]

I'm sorry but anything that you are citing as from www.targetofopportunity.com is not acceptable. They are not an acceptable source as they provide no valid sources for their claims. Also, CCF shouldn't be used as a tertiary source as they are a very politically motivated organisation. Instead, anything that you wish to use from them should be stated in a way such as The CCF says. -Localzuk ^(talk) 09:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's absurd. If that were true, then we couldn't use PETA as a source, since they're a politically motivated organization. We couldn't use anything as a source because everything has motivations.

Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We make statements, attribute them to their sources, and the reader decides whether they think those sources are reliable or not; not you. — Omegatron 13:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. -WP:NPOV

You misunderstand me. They can be used as sources but they must be correctly attributed. We have discussed this somewhere before (I can't find it at the moment) and the general agreement was that if the CCF claimed that a group did something then it should be written in a way such as 'The CCF claim' rather than 'this group did this' followed by the reference. At some point there was some talk of disallowing comments by politically motiviated groups unless they were actually their words rather than their research (so primary rather than seconday or tertiary sources only). I would not like to see claims on any article by any group being portrayed in a way which isn't honest (for example if the KFC article said 'KFC have factory farms where millions of chickens are treated inhumanely' without a specific statement saying 'PETA states'. -Localzuk ^(talk) 14:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, this site works on consensus, so based on this there is a guideline with a lot of helpful advice on this issue at the WP:RS page. It is not a policy but it should be followed as it prevents a lot of arguments.-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking at WP:V there is a section on this very subject saying the same thing I am saying. Further, the site www.targetofopportunity.com has no fixed address for contacting regarding their information, are registered anonymously and seem very unprofessional (that, I think, is apparrant from their site). It should, in my opinion, be treated as a blog would be. Further, I think this covers another aspect of my argument WP:RS#Partisan_websites.-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

PETA's website is shinier, but it's just as partisan. — Omegatron 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So? Don't argue that this site should include your reference just because it includes another one. This article is about PETA so it is granted within WP:V that it is acceptable as a source so long as it is stated that they claim this themselves. I certainly wouldn't just add them as a source on another article without stating it was them that made a claim.

On the website front, I could go and set up a website right now stating all sorts of things but it would not be acceptable to use it as a reference as it wouldn't have sources of its own. The site in question contains mostly unverifiable information. There is no way other than an anonymous email address with which to conact the people that run the site - it is, as I said before, classable as a blog and therefore shouldn't be included at all.-Localzuk ^(talk) 16:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If the Penn & Teller claims are credible they should also be made by other more reliable sources. Perhaps one should simply take what they say claim by claim and find alternate citations. That's all I have to say on this article. Bye. Homey 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag

This article is replete with assertions that are "documented" only by means of references to the PETA web site. It gives one the impression that this page has been written by the PETA PR department, as such it is reflecting a decided pro-PETA bias. The assertions need to be documented from sources outside of PETA and until the whole article is carefully sources and references, it represents a violation of WP:NPOVPtmccain 01:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you L0b0t 01:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Tax records

I have made some changes to claims about amounts of money paid by PETA to various organisations. The source is claimed to be PETA's tax records according to http://www.targetofopportunity.com/peta_tax.htm, http://www.animalscam.com/references/peta_joshharper1.cfm and http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21. None of these sites are acceptable as tertiary sources as they are all politically motivated and are dubious themselves. We can either state that according to these sites this is what the tax records say or find a reputable non-biased site to say it directly. -Localzuk ^(talk) 13:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-profit taxes are a matter of public record and can be verified by any reader who wishes to. WP:V. — Omegatron 13:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case we shouldn't reference the animalscam.com, targetofopportunity.com or activist cash at all. Instead providing a reference to the place to get those records. (Reference the tax office, form numbers etc...). It is as simple as this - those 3 sites are not reliable and should not be used as tertiary sources for that reason (regardless of the fact that the particular piece of information be referenced is true or not), if we do then we start giving them undue credit for being reliable when in fact they aren't.-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what we're doing - referencing the tax records themselves. Anyone who wants to can verify the tax records by writing to PETA, an organization like guidestar.org, or viewing the copies available from the above three sites. They are perfectly reliable resources. — Omegatron 14:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read my comments above about these types of sites. You have not referenced the tax records themselves as you have not provided a full reference (stating the tax office is not a full reference). I still have severe misgivings about referencing those sites in any way other than primary.-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Then we'll expand the references. — Omegatron 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI the CCF provided some PETA primary tax documents as evidence to the US Senate PETA,Inc; 52-1218336, 1994 (pdf, p21). Rockpocket 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Expansion on ALF/ELF

As this article is quite large and is undoubtedly going to get larger should we not leave expansions of things like who the ALF/ELF are to their respective articles? We don't need duplicate information about the ALF/ELF in every article which they are mentioned in. Also, the section in question is related to extremism, yes, but does not need to expand on every person, group and organisation they funded - that is for their own articles is it not?-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

21 words of explanation isn't hurting anything. We are explaining who considers ELF a terrorist organization, in the section about PETA supporting terrorist organizations. Completely appropriate. — Omegatron 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Single issue Terrorists

Go to the FBI's website: www.fbi.gov and the Dept. of Justice's website: www.doj.gov I've heard that PeTA and some of its allies have been listed as terrorists by the U.S. govt. Caution: These have software that can trace those making inquiries, placed since the 9-11 attacks. Thought this could be useful in the article. Is it ? Martial Law 00:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the people PETA donates money to are considered terrorist organizations by the FBI. This is already in the article. See People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Allegations_of_extremism — Omegatron 00:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Since PETA donates money to terrorists, the FBI may have declared them terrorists as well, and is more than likely carrying out undercover operations against PETA. By the way, when PETA,ALF, other terrorists of this sort are in prison, the guards, staff, even other inmates mock them cruelly, such as taking a mouse, bug and cruelly killing it in front of them, daring them to do anything about it, so they'll get a longer prison sentence, even killed "in a prison riot". Some of my sources are in law enforcement. Martial Law 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What a bunch of morons your prison guards must be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otashiro (talk • contribs)

Surely they are not "cruelly killing" bugs in front of prisoners? Someone should make a call to Amnesty International, they may pull their team from Camp X-Ray to investigate such serious human rights abuses. Rockpocket 03:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If a con is "weak", they'll taunt him/her. They have a unwritten code. On it Child molesters, rapists, cops gone bad are on the low end of the totem pole of respect, as are terrorists. Eco-terrorists are seen as weak in prison, and the human nature of cruelty is present in prison. In prison, especially in American prisons, "Eco-nuts" (or dubbed worse) are humiliated, taunted. They're like child molesters in this "Unwritten Code" of conduct, especially if they're imprisoned with someone who is a poacher (one who illegally hunts, violates hunting laws). This individual will go after the "Eco-nut", to kill him/her, blaming this individual for "idiotic crap" laws. Martial Law 20:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? — Omegatron 22:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It relates to how PETA members and allies fare in prison. Martial Law 19:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation requests

I removed a bunch of fact tags because most, if not all, were added by an editor who was on a vandalism/WP:POINT spree, triggered by him being asked to produce a citation in another article. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to prove that the editor was trying to make a WP:POINT? Also, what about the NPOV warning? Why was that removed? Jesuschex 01:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need a link to the WP:POINT editor? As for the tag, I couldn't see any discussion about it.

Lobot, you're asking for sources when you know the source is PETA. All we have to do is place one source at the top. I'm all for having good citations, but you're adding too many of these templates, and it's making the article look untidy. It also makes it look as though you're questioning PETA's credibility so it speaks to NPOV too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi SV. I think you make a fair point. However i've tweaked the introductory sentence to reflect that these are PETA's claimed achievements rather than documented by a third party, and provided links to PETA's accomplishments and victories pages. Rockpocket 05:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, RP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need to provide a link? Well, maybe because you deleted a massive amount of templates using WP:POINT as your reasoning. WP:POINT is about making a point. You claim an editor was making a point, but you have nothing to show this. Therefore, everyone who didn't see this event doesn't know that it's true. And yes, I'm questioning PETA's credibility, as is dictated in WP:V, and as L0b0t quoted WP:V in the comment directly below this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuschex (talk • contribs) .

The time line makes numerous ex parte claims and the orig. source was a timeline from PETA's UK website that was completly unsourced. WP:V seems pretty clear on this:

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

• It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
• It is not contentious;
• It is not unduly self-serving;
• It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

L0b0t 06:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I also find it kind of telling that I am accused of vandalism spree and POV for asking for some cites on PETA's 3rd party claims, whilst info critical of PETA gets deleted because in SV's opinion Penn and Teller aren't qualified to criticise PETA, yet PETA's 3rd party claims(unsourced) get a free ride. Just what other article was I asked to produce a cite for that triggered this "spree" Slimvirgin? L0b0t 13:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you, Lobot. There is another editor who added a bunch of citation templates to this and other articles as a WP:POINT; he's done it before and is currently banned for a week.

In the list of claims we're discussing, PETA is talking about itself, its campaigns, and what it sees as its successes. It is allowed to do this per WP:V in an article about itself. Which claims in particular do you feel violate V, and why? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to take it personally.L0b0t 15:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:V lists five things that would allow self-published sources to be used. Using PETA as a reference in this article violates two of them:

• It is not contentious;
• It is not unduly self-serving;

Therefore, it violates WP:V, plain and simple. Jesuschex 14:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To SlimVirgin: Did you added all the citation needed templates to all the criticisms? Or did you just not delete them when you went on your spree of deleting the pro-PETA citation needed templates? Jesuschex 13:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm finding that hard to parse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Did you yourself add the citation templates to the criticisms?

No. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Or did you merely ignore them when deleting citation templates from praise? — Omegatron 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the ones from claims that stem from PETA, because we know that PETA is the source, so asking repeatedly for citations, instead of asking once, is pointless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

PETA is not a reliable source for information about its own successes. It's inherently, obviously biased. — Omegatron 14:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Attack page

This has turned into an attack page, rather than a disinterested description of the group. The overall tone is one of trying to make an anti-PETA point wherever possible. In addition, it is badly written and disjointed, with no narrative flow; contains lots of grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors; in some parts isn't written at all, but just contains lists of quotes designed to make the group look bad; and it uses consumerfreedom.org/activistcash as a source, even though it's highly partisan, we have no idea who runs or finances it, and it should therefore be used only as a source about itself.

Whether we support or oppose PETA, or don't care either way, as Wikipedians, we should be ashamed of this article.

Can I ask that anyone with a very strong anti-PETA POV who feels unable to control their feelings stop editing this page? Anyone who stays is asked to read the content policies, particularly WP:NPOV, which states that we must write about our subjects in a sympathetic or sensitive voice, not taking their side, but writing as if we can understand their position. We must also use mainstream, reliable sources, particularly when the material is critical of the group. The more critical it is, the more reliable the source has to be, per WP:V and WP:RS.

The material should also be written up properly, not simply copied from websites containing lists of quotes. Finally, we are not allowed to do original research. That means, for example, we can include the tax information as an example of extremism if another source has done that. But as it stands, linking only to the tax documents directly, it looks like a Wikipedia editor's OR. Please review WP:NOR.

Let's try to get this page in shape, or at the very least, stop it from deteriorating any further. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the tax documents were cited from a 3rd party source. There was a discussion on the validity of those sources so the U.S. government's public disclosure copies were linked to. That is not original research, that is a matter of public record. I agree with you "The more critical it is, the more reliable the source has to be", so I asked for cites on the timeline claims of causality (Group X did Y because of PETA's campaign.) . If govt. agencys, universitys, and corporations really did "X" because of a PETA campaign, then lets see some cites from the groups themselves(press release, court filings).L0b0t 15:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's OR if we don't find a source who has used these documents as evidence of "extremism." We have to find someone other than a Wikipedia editor who thinks this is important and worth mentioning. Otherwise, it would be a bit like me breaking into a research lab today, and posting evidence of abuse on this page to support an edit that PETA's work is important. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The tax documents were linked directly because an editor (Localzuk, i think) was unhappy using a transcript of evidence provided to the US Senate by the CCF (and therefore a matter of public record) because the document was hosted on the CCF servers. The crux of that argument was the unreliability of CCF as a partisan group. To address this criticism a link was provided to the primary evidence. Now we have someone saying we must link to the primary evidence to back up the CCF's position or else it must go, and on the otherhand we have someone saying that primary evidence violates WP:NOR and thus we must link to the 3rd party source or it must go! Which is it? Rockpocket 21:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

We must use a reliable third-party source who has used the tax examples as examples of extremism, or whatever we call it. We can then link to the primary source documents too, if we want to, but the key is to find a third-party source who has used the tax documents to advance a position. A reliable source must advance the position, not us. See WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There's another organization here making criticism of PETA's donations and referring to tax records, but I don't know whether they're any better than activistcash.com. The best thing would be to find a newspaper that has written about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I can find plenty of news sources that have written about it, but each of them quote the CCF/activistcash as their primary source [16] [17] [18] [19]. This doesn't necessarily make the CCF more reliable a source (although, we of course know that the are correct in this particular claim, as we have seen the evidence), but in terms of verifiability, not truth, i suppose it helps. Is this acceptable? Rockpocket 01:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's fine. If newspapers take responsibility for using them as sources, we simply use the newspapers as sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks, i'll replace them. Btw, i love the running of the nudes addition and the new images are great too. Good work. Rockpocket 02:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I wanted to add a photograph, but the way they present them means they can't be grabbed in the usual way, and I couldn't work how to do it. Still, there's perhaps enough bare skin on the page already, what with Christie Turlington, the Lettuce Ladies, and Broccoli Boy. :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the new section (Unnecessary Fuss) looks great.L0b0t 16:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What I still don't understand is why PETA's own website is considered an acceptable source for information in support of them. Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves clearly states the following:

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

• It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
• It is not contentious;
• It is not unduly self-serving;
• It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

This information is most definitely both contentious and (especially) unduly self-serving, and it shouldn't be used in this article.

This page was still very pro-PETA before you made your sweeping edits, and it's now even more pro-PETA. I have no idea how you can call this an "attack page."

Can you give an example of what you feel is contentious? It's definitely not "unduly" self-serving (although it may be self-serving). Unduly self-serving would be, for example, a would-be actor claiming on his blog to have a contract with a major Hollywood studio without providing evidence. What we have here is an internationally recognized organization listing its achievements, all of which (so far as I know) can be sourced independently. These are well-known cases, many of which resulted in legal action. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If they can be sourced independently, I urge you to do so. That's the whole point of what I'm saying! Don't use PETA as a source. If these claims can be sourced independently, PETA won't have to be used as a source. So why not provide independent sources? Jesuschex 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

PETA is the best source available on what PETA does, and using them is allowed under our policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Contentious: by the very nature that PETA is doing somethat it is admittedly controversial, and they admit that it will cause controversy and uproar and that's encouraged, their PR reflects this. It's a one-sided view of what a highly controversial organization is doing, and it's from the organization itself.

Unduly self-serving: the question isn't whether or not what they're saying is true, as you imply in your Hollywood actor scenario. It's whether or not the self-serving is undue. Once again, PR of a controversial organization, with no purpose other than to put the organization in the best light possible. That's what PR is.

As I said before, if you can say all of those facts with an independent source, do it. Don't just talk about it. Using an independent source would solve all of the problems that arise from using PETA as a source, whether or not they're really problems. Jesuschex 20:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no need to find independent sources for all these achievements. They are well known, they've been written about many times, and this list is PETA's description of them. If you want to find additional sources and write up those sources' descriptions of the same events, be my guest, but we're not meant to slap a citation tag on something when we already know what the source is, and when that source is perfectly acceptable under our policies. That is the important point here: PETA is a perfectly acceptable source when talking about itself, its research, its investigations, and its accomplishments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a need to cite independent sources for these achievments for all of the reasons you outlined yourself about activistcash and CCF. I'm not even challenging the PETA source as being self serving or contentious, I'm just saying that PETA can not be source on anyone other than PETA. If PETA claims to have convinced government x, or company Y, or unversity z to do something or change policy then we need a source other than PETA to establish causality. WP/V states in part "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as: ... It does not involve claims about third parties.". I think that these hot button issues should be well sourced all the more because this si such a polarizing topic.L0b0t 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier, by all means go ahead and double-source them if you feel PETA isn't enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Just delete these statements until SlimVirgin can provide a double source. That's what she would do, if they were criticism. — Omegatron 13:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think that would be the responsibility of the person writting the section making the claims. As I have said the problem is PETA as a source for DOD, U of Penn, HHS, et al. If PETA campaigns led these groups to do something YOU have to source the groups themselves or a reputible news org., just saying PETA says DOD closed this program because of PETA pressure IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH! Look at this; "1985

• revealed details of the treatment of dogs at the City of Hope laboratory in California. The government fined the center $11,000 and suspended more than $1,000,000 in federal funding."

What government? Whose government? What branch? This is silly, you jump all over sources for criticisms of PETA but you like to give PETA a free ride.L0b0t 06:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just a summarized list; it isn't intended to have all the details, and I don't recall having written it, although I did add some entries. In the time you've taken to post all these responses, you could have found the extra sources by now if you think they're needed, but I can only reiterate that they are not. We may use PETA as a source about itself, its campaigns, its investigations, and so on. You're suggesting we interpret that to mean: "In 2006, PETA launched a campaign against ... oops! we're not allowed to tell you ... which resulted in a conviction of ... pity, but we're afraid we can't say." I repeat: these are well-known cases. It won't take you long to find additional sources if you want them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That I may have time to source something is not germaine, the burden of proof is on PETA supporters to show that there is some causality between their campaign and event X. Yes PETA is a fine source to cite for the campaigns, investigations itself but as for efficacy and causality one HAS TO CITE INDEPENDENT SOURCES. You said "You're suggesting we interpret that to mean: "In 2006, PETA launched a campaign against ... oops! we're not allowed to tell you ... which resulted in a conviction of ... pity, but we're afraid we can't say." of course you can say who the campaign is against, but when you claim "...resulted in the conviction of..." then NO, NO, NO you have to find a reliable independent(Non PETA) source. You say these are well known stories and there are plenty of sources, SO CITE SOME OF THEM!! The only case on the list that I had heard of was the Silver Spring case and the claim originaly said the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided wiht PETA when in fact the court rejected their petition unanimously and the conviction against the doctor was overturned, and he went back to tinkerin' on his monkeys with govt. money. Slim Virgin I'm not saying PETA can't be a source, but that as per WP/V they CAN NOT be used as source for claims about others.L0b0t 13:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

L0bt, can you explain why you feel that section of V covers PETA i.e. why they can't be used as third-party sources? Also, I'm concerned when you say that the only case you've "heard of" is the Silver Springs one. Are you saying you're doing no research for this article, yet you continue to edit it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can explain why I feel that section of V covers PETA with ease. Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves clearly states the following:

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

• It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
• It is not contentious;
• It is not unduly self-serving;
• It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

Part 4 says it right there "It does not involve claims about third parties.". Unless or until unsubstantiated claims of causality are sourced it remains Post hoc ergo propter hoc. L0b0t 03:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish you'd stop quoting that section to me. I wrote it. I know what it says.

What I'm asking you is why do you feel the section applies to PETA? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It applies to PETA because they are a self-published source making a claim about a 3rd party. The PETA website is a Jim Dandee source for "PETA campaigns for issue A against group X.", however the PETA website (self-published source) is unacceptable as a source for a claim of "Group X does action Y because of PETA campaign for issue A.". To avoid the pitfall of Post hoc ergo propter hoc one would need to cite as a source group X themselves saying they did action Y because of PETA campaign, or even better an independent (unaffiliated with PETA and group X) source. The case for precise sourcing is even more important when making claims about tort, cite Westlaw or LexisNexis. Most federal and state documents are public record. If these events are so well known cite some major news organizations. PETA's website doesn't cut the mustard.L0b0t 04:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

PETA is not a self-published source. You've misunderstood the section. A self-published source is a person (or very small group) who sets up his own website or publishes a vanity book. PETA is an international non-profit research and campaigning organization, tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. They take part in undercover investigations, court cases, they take in animals, they publish books and newsletters, they give grants to other groups and individuals. They operate in the U.S., Canada, France, UK, Germany, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, Taiwan. There are known, named, professional people involved with it. They have a multi-million dollar budget. You may not like them, but that doesn't make them self-published. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

W/RS defines self-published source as

"A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication.". PETA is this subject of this article, therefore anything published by PETA is a self-published source. Their ability to afford their own Deathstar, not pay their fair share of taxes, house puppies and kittens , and pester people in foreign lands does not obviate the fact that claims by PETA can not be used to establish causality of 3rd party actions. You yourself said these are well known events covered by the media so I ask you please cite some of that coverage.L0b0t 06:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Lobot, you've misunderstood the policy. By your reasoning, the New York Times would be a self-published source in the article about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So wait, you define a self-published source simply by how big the organization is? That is to say, Wal-Mart's PR is not self-published, but Stephen Hawking's writings are, because he's just one person? Jesuschex 13:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Walmart's published material, whether PR or otherwise, is not self-published. Stephen Hawking's writings would be self-published if he, erm, published them himself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That is patently absurd! You seem to have painted yourself into a corner of logical fallacy. The subject of an article is by very definition a self-published source if they are writing about themselves. The NY Times example is not apt as they are not "a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking" and the NY Times and all reputable journalistic endeavors will say when they are talking about themselves in the interest of full disclosure. PETA's website is "a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking" ergo UNACCEPTABLE as source for 3rd party claims. PETA is a great source for info about PETA but if PETA claims a 3rd party did something BECAUSE OF PETA then you need to cite the 3rd party themselves or a independent source who verifies that the 3rd party did do the thing BECAUSE OF PETA. The fact checking and verifiability in this article wouldn't pass muster at Grit magazine, or The Big Issue. SlimVirgin I've seen your work on many other articles and I know you are better than this. This is just silly, cite some decent sources and let's move on.L0b0t 15:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Example

Here's an example of what I mean. Someone has just added to the following section: "PETA regularly protests circuses that use animals ... This position has not, however, gone without criticism."

PETA asked the mayor of Munising, Michigan to ban items from the city that PETA claims cause pain to elephants during circus training. In response to their request, Mayor Rod DesJardins called PETA "radical extremists with a bizarre philosophy that considers the life of an insect equal to the life of a human being." [20]

This is how we should not be editing. First, no one reading it would have a clue what it meant. What "items"? "Ban" in what sense? Secondly, it's another example of every single available opportunity being taken to get another dig in. The mayor of Munising is not someone we should be quoting about PETA. They do not consider the life of an insect equal to a human being. This is nothing but silly propaganda, or propoganda, as all the PETA critics seem compelled to spell it. Come on, let's find some decent sources and create a good article! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That "someone" would be me (I don't believe pointing fingers is against WP:NPA, so feel free to say it was me). Now, upon seeing my edit, you could have done a number of things. You could have edited it to make it clearer (or corrected whatever was wrong with it). You could have put a message on my talk page about the issue. You could have put a message here asking how it could be made better. No, instead you mentioned it as and example of how this page is unfairly attacking PETA. I commend you for not up and deleting it, as you have in some other edits you didn't like. Jesuschex 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good example of how this article has turned into an attack page. You mention criticism from the mayor without clarifying what PETA is protesting against. That is very one-sided, and transparently so, so all you succeed in doing is making Wikipedia look bad, not PETA. Please don't edit this article in order to attack PETA. Try to present both sides, and also try to write them in the same disinterested tone. I've cleaned it up to present PETA's position, and I've added a link to the video so that readers can judge for themselves whether the elephants were being assaulted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying I made the best edit in the world. I'll never claim to do that; that's not what Wikipedia is about. I made an edit, and anyone can change it, as my writing is often pretty bad. Like I said, you could edit it, as you've shown you can do, or you could tell me (through this talk page, of course) how bad my edit was. I'd choose the former. Jesuschex 20:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as snippy. I don't mean to, and I also don't mean to single out any particular edits as "bad." I make less than ideal edits myself. It's just that a lot of people come to this page with a bee in their bonnet about PETA, and all kinds of negative stuff gets added that is very unencyclopedic. I accept that they're controversial, and I accept that people have valid criticisms of them. But they're not the devil. What they're asking is that people be kinder to animals. This is not a bad thing to ask! :-) Anyway, regardless of how we view them personally, we need to not inject our opinions into the article, and all criticism has to be very carefully sourced and written so that it's fair and accurate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What they're asking is that people be kinder to animals. This is not a bad thing to ask! :-)

...until you start enforcing it by firebombing peoples' homes. To paraphrase yourself, if you can't maintain a neutral point of view while editing this article, please stop editing it. — Omegatron 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm serious about this, Omegatron. I'm tired of this article being under constant attack. PETA has never firebombed anything, and even if they had, that doesn't give you permission to turn their Wikipedia article into a weapon against them. Please review NPOV and stick to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm serious about this, SlimVirgin. I'm tired of any and all criticism being removed from this article, which is otherwise just parroting PETA's own website. PETA may only be asking that people be kinder to animals, but even if that's all they do, that doesn't give you permission to remove valid, popular criticism from multiple reliable sources just because you like them. Please review NPOV and stick to it. — Omegatron 13:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you're asking us to be neutural, and in practically the same sentence, promoting PETA. Now that's not very neutural of you is it. Answer me this, SV: what is your idea of neutrality? Jesuschex 22:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Where have I promoted PETA? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

At 20:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC) SlimVirgin wrote "But they're not the devil. What they're asking is that people be kinder to animals. This is not a bad thing to ask! :-)".L0b0t 02:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with stating your point of view on a talk page. It's when you push it into articles that it becomes a problem. Stating your POV openly is actually a good thing, in my opinion, so people know when you're editing neutrally and when you're being biased. — Omegatron 15:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesushex, you've just altered a quote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind fixing this, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Where did I alter a quote? Jesuschex 02:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. I didn't realize that was a quote, I thought it was written by an editor. I'll change it. Jesuschex 18:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of accomplishments

Anything the group has ever done is being added to this. We should restrict it to notable incidents. PETA writing a letter to a publisher of dictionaries is not notable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know you were the one true authority on noteworthiness. Do you realize why so few actions that make PETA look stupid are "noteworthy" by your definition? Maybe it's because PETA doesn't write pages upon pages of PR for things they don't like. If PETA doesn't write PR for it, there goes one supposedly reputable source. In addition, the chances of third-party sources picking up on it are smaller, because they have to rely on other sources to write about it, let alone find out about it! I'm not blaming the media, I'm just saying that it's much easier to write about something if you have press releases.

I'm putting it back. Jesuschex 13:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I noticed that the statement to describe the timeline was very POV. Not only does it make the list one-sided, but it pretty much says that the following list is copied verbatim from PETA's website. Why should the timeline be only accomplishments? Jesuschex 13:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have difficult understanding what you say. Could you reword the question, please? "Do you realize why so few actions that make PETA look stupid are "noteworthy" by your definition?" SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the question. It makes perfect sense.

This section is just PETA's own list of victories rephrased.

Here's an example of a timeline of PETA behavior from an alternative perspective. How many of those things are on the list? Is that your definition of NPOV? — Omegatron 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If your view of a reliable source is rotten.com, I don't know what to say to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.. I am looking at my comment, and I don't see "reliable" or "source" in it at all. I don't see "use rotten.com as a reference for the article", either.

This is the first Google result for "peta timeline". All of these events can be referenced to reliable sources by anyone who wants to put some effort into it, (though you'll just delete their work, I'm sure). We've already found reliable references for some of them.

But the point is that this is a timeline of the events considered notable by critics, and aren't in our timeline at all. Because our timeline is heavily biased. In favor of PETA. Because it's just PETA's own timeline of accomplishments rephrased. This is not a neutral point of view; this is PETA's own point of view about itself. Do you understand? — Omegatron 14:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Then find reliable, mainstream sources, and write up their material in a disinterested voice, without the "let's get another dig in" tone that some editors here seem forced to deploy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Lost

Can someone please re-add the quotes in the Extremism section, and clean up the list of donations? I don't have time to constantly defend this page. Otherwise all this stuff SV's deleting is just going to get buried in edits and forgotten. — Omegatron 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the People Eating Tasty Animals website paragraph to the timeline, since it didn't belong in the Extremism section, but it should be moved back out to its own section Cybersquatting. Then the section should cover PETA's litigation of peta.org and should also cover peta's registration of ringlingbrothers.com and voguemagazine.com and pg.info and subsequent surrender of the names when the companies complained.

References: [21] [22] — Omegatron 14:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"All this stuff that SV is deleting." I've added several thousand words to it in the last couple of days, reordered it, copy edited it, added references, tidied writing, fixed spelling mistakes, and tried to incorporate at least some of the criticism into the text: all improvements. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

... and removed much criticism, burying it in the history so it won't be brought back up again. — Omegatron 14:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is being "buried." If you want to list quotes, go to wikiquote.

Someone added this as a citation in the euthanasia section, from the SF Chronicle: "PETA: Cruel and Unusual from Human Events Jan 16 2006." Which part is the headline?

Also, Coronado: the extremism section says he was given $70,000, then directly underneath we say $45,200. Which is correct? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tax records, as they constitute a Wikipedia editor's original research, and in Coronado's case, they contradict what The Observer wrote. Please find reliable third-party sources for this material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Tidying"

I've noticed, SV, that a lot of your edits you call "tidying." If you remove an entire paragraph and never reincorporate it, could you please not call that "tidying?" That's called "deleting for no reason other than that I don't like it." 66.33.235.186 15:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Which paragraph are you referring to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that last one was me and I forgot to sign on. I'm referring to the section about the 1991 killing. You deleted it here. You gave no explanation other than "tidying," when really you expanded it to justify their killing.Jesuschex 15:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm again having difficulty understanding what you mean. The section is not "about the 1991 killing." It is about PETA's stance on euthanasia. The edit summary didn't say "tidying." It said "expanded, tidied," which describes exactly what I did. You wrote above that "an entire paragraph" was removed. But no material was removed. I did not expand the section to "justify their killing." I expanded it to describe their stance on euthanasia, which is what the section is about. Can you explain precisely what your point is? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Lobot, why did you change "lost an application to the U.S. Supreme Court for custody of the Silver Spring monkeys," which explains what happened, to "U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejects PETA's petition in the Silver Spring monkeys case," which doesn't? And what did you mean by "fixed parsing" in the edit summary? [23] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence was mad sloppy, "lost an application to the U.S. Supreme Court" makes it sound as if PETA misplaced their resume and job application. One doesn't "lose" a PETITION to the court, the court either affirms or rejects said petition. In this particular case the Supreme Court unanimously rejected PETA's petition.L0b0t 16:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But you deleted what it was about. Don't you want people to know? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The case is linked to in that very sentence and is also discussed a couple of paragraphs earlier. Perhaps if this timeline wasn't just c&p from the PETA website we wouldn't have this problem.L0b0t 16:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I've made a request for comment for this article. The specific issue that it's about is whether or not PETA can be used as a source for it's campaigns, successes, failures, problems, and other issues, as a few editors have been debating recently.

My opinion is that no, PETA cannot be used as a source. WP:V states that: Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

• It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
• It is not contentious;
• It is not unduly self-serving;
• It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

Many of the statements in this article that were derived from PETA's web site are both contentious and unduly self-serving. Furthermore, an editor, SlimVirgin, has said that third-party sources can indeed be found for these claims (Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Attack_page), but that there is no need to do so.

In summary, I argue that PETA ought not to be used as a source, especially when an independent source can be found. Even if I'm wrong, at least using an independent source would remove any doubt. Jesuschex 16:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you answer my question above, Jesuschex, about which section I removed with the edit summary "tidying." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: PETA is not a self-published source. You've misunderstood WP:V and WP:RS. A self-published source is a person (or very small group) who sets up his own website or publishes a vanity book. PETA is an international non-profit research and campaigning organization, tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. They take part in undercover investigations, court cases, they take in animals, they publish books and newsletters, they give grants to other groups and individuals. They have over 100 employees, and dozens of professional consultants. They have close to one million members. They operate in the U.S., Canada, France, UK, Germany, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, Taiwan. There are known, named, professional people involved with it. They have a multi-million dollar budget. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS defines self-published source thusly:

"A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication." there is no mention of size, or purchasing power, or foreign offices, or tax status. PETA is a self-published source as their claims have not been subject to any form of independent fact checking.L0b0t 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As SlimVirgin says, PETA is a large non-profit organization; it is comparable to the Anti-Defamation League, NAACP, Human Rights Watch, etc. It certainly has an agenda, so it must be used with caution, but it has nothing in common with an individual who has set up a website, which is what the "self-published sources" section of the policy is referring to. Large organizations like this have natural checks and balances on them, particularly the court system; individuals do not have those balances, as they are mostly unnoticed, and even when noticed, not worth suing. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think L0b0t makes a valid point. Irrespective of size or wealth, does PETA publish through a respectable third party and does their publications undergo independent review? The checks and balances you mention do occur (e.g. the much trumpeted Silver Spring Monkey victory was largely overturned in the courts), but these are not always reflected in PETA publications (for obvious propaganda reasons). Therefore these self-publications do appear, to me at least, to fail some of the WP:V criteria, particularly of being "unduly self-serving". That said, i think there must be some leeway to use them as a valid source about themselves, just that when they make causative claims of affecting others, those should be afforded a little more scrutiny and of course be attributed to them, rather than made as a statement of fact. Rockpocket 17:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Lobot, you're quoting back to me policy and guideline sections that I wrote, and so I do know what they mean. There are dozens of people involved in publishing PETA's material. You have simply misunderstood what a self-published source is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

RP, in terms of quality of source, PETA is like the Research Defense Society or the Foundation for Biomedical Research. They are partisan, they tend to simplify and gloss over tricky issues, and therefore should be used with caution, but they may still be used, and particularly in an article about themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Then we are in general agreement, Slim. For me it appears to come down to whether we are happy to say, for example, PETA claim to have shut down XYZ as a result of their campaign, or whether we require another source to acknowledge that their campaign did what they claim it did. As along as it is made clear these are PETA's claims, then it doesn't really bother me they are otherwise unsourced. However, should other reliable sources indicate those claims are false, then i think it is equally appropriate that those can be added as a counterpoint. If we are saying, for a fact, their campaigns caused these effects, then i think there certainly needs be be third party sources. Thats my take on it anyway. Rockpocket 19:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The only problem now is that one or two editors have started adding other material to the timeline, so it is no longer a list of what PETA says are its accomplishments. The thing about these groups (PETA, Research Defence Society, Foundation for Biomedical Research, Amnesty International, and so on, is that the material you find in their publications tends to be accurate. It's more a question of what they don't say that you have to look out for. The more you read of this kind of material, the easier it is to spot when they appear to be wording things just a little too carefully, then you know they've left something important out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I might not of clear about my contention, PETA is a great source for information on PETA and their activities. PETA is an unacceptable source for claims of 3rd party causality. If PETA claims that a campaign of their's convinced another 3rd party organization to change a policy or do action X then we need independent verification that the 3rd party action was motivated by a PETA campaign. Claiming the Defense Dept. closed a program because PETA complained needs to be verified by an independent source not just PETA's assertion on it's website. If the NYT (per SV's example) was in a contract dispute with say the International Brotherhood of Printer's Devils and the NYT claimed the union caved in to all demands then the article in the Times would at the very least have a representative of the union confirming that assertion. Just saying because PETA says so is not good enough.L0b0t 17:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you would spend so much time arguing about this rather than looking for the sources yourself. It's starting to look like a WP:POINT. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

WP/RS tells us "It is the responsibility of the person seeking for content to be included to provide references.". Please don't change the subject to how l0b0t spends his free time. I am merely asking for some references and sources that aren't POV.L0b0t 18:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and references have been provided. But regardless of who ought to find sources according to the polict, please explain why you don't simply look for some anyway. It would be a lot faster than what you're currently doing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what the preob is; as long as there are inline cites and footnotes, and balance e.g. "PETA in 1767 claimed that blah blah and started a letter-writing campaign <footnote>. The US Frogfood industry claims that this letter-writing campaign lead directly to a breakin at their vivisection facitlye in 1492 <footnote>"Bridesmill 20:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That is all I'm asking for.L0b0t 21:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what you've been asking for. You've been asking that the PETA references be discounted and replaced by others. I said above (three times) that you're welcome to add sources. So if the PETA reference says X, you can find a source that disputes it, say what the dispute is, and add the source that you found. But for some reason, you don't want to do it. You want other people (me) to do it for you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that really is all I'm asking for. The onus is on the editor who added the info to cite acceptable sources (policy, not guideline), not a reader of the article or even an editor who points out when sources are inappropriate. SlimVirgin,if you did not write the time line section then I apologize if I seem to be singling you out, but if you are the author then you need your feet held to fire when you assert that PETA's press release can speak for government agencys, corporations, and universities

I would agree with both of you sort of; Editors should be balanced. If I'm editing a topic on whihc I have no bias, it's easy to represent both views. On the other hand, If I'm editing a topic I'm passionate about, it may be that I am (in the eyes of the other POV) somewhat biased. In that case, it's up to me to ensure that everything I put on is properly cited and at least reasonable in terms of WP:V (e.g. not putting something like "PETA is ethical <footnote - the PETA website>" But I cannot be expected to dig out material balancing and opposing everything I find which supports my POV; that's why we have group editing, so that people with the opposite POV can come in and balance (with of course cited material) Not meaning to be condescending; I know it's easy to get a little wound up & overly passionate about sensitive subjects - got the Tshirt.... Bridesmill 21:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Query

I've removed the following, because it doesn't say who Adrian Morrison is. Could the person who added it explain? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Adrian R. Morrison has accused PETA of using edited and out-of-context video footage to allege cruelty to animals. In particular, he cites an example of videos purporting to show cats being embalmed alive by the Carolina Biological Supply Company being given to the USDA as evidence of animal cruelty. He claims that subsequent testimony demonstrated that the cats had not been alive and that the video was being used an in an attempt to convey false information. [24]

Are you kidding? Leave it in the article and ask a question about it on the talk page like a normal Wikipedian. Or read through the reference, learn the answer to your question, and expand on it yourself. Stop removing things for trivial reasons just because you don't like them. — Omegatron 19:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing what the policy recommends. We can't start a section with "John Doe has accused ..." without saying who John Doe is. It's bad research and bad writing. There's no reason this article should contain material like that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And which policy is that? — Omegatron 19:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

V and RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in either that says "delete paragraphs on sight if they don't give background information about their references". Please explain how this removal is required by policy. — Omegatron 20:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It suggests moving them to the talk page, which is what I did. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Where? — Omegatron 22:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In WP:V, under the heading 'burden of evidence' there is a section:

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page.

Emphasis added by me. Just so you know. -Localzuk ^(talk) 14:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Misleading edits

Would editors please make sure material is written properly to reflect what the sources say? Here is a recent example of misleading editing:

1) This section implied dishonesty on PETA's part:

Adrian R. Morrison, former president of the National Animal Interest Alliance, has accused PETA of using edited and out-of-context video footage to allege cruelty to animals. In particular, he cites an example of videos purporting to show cats being embalmed alive by the Carolina Biological Supply Company being given to the USDA as evidence of animal cruelty. He claims that subsequent testimony demonstrated that the cats had not been alive and that the video was being used an in an attempt to convey false information. [25]

2) When in fact, the source made clear (and the source was very anti-PETA) that PETA had simply made a mistake, one that was also made by government veterinarians, and so the section now reads:

Adrian Morrison, a former president of the National Animal Interest Alliance, an "association of business, agricultural, scientific, and recreational interests" [26] that campaigns in favor of what it calls responsible animal use, alleges that PETA was misled into believing that cats had been embalmed alive by the Carolina Biological Supply Company, after an undercover video showed a wriggling cat being embalmed. Two USDA veterinarians agreed with PETA and the video was introduced into evidence before a departmental hearing. An anatomist called by Carolina Biological's lawyer subsequently demonstrated that the wriggling may have been the effect of formalin on freshly dead muscle tissue, which causes muscle fibers to contract and move, and the case against the company was dismissed. [27] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

1. You're inserting your own speculation into the article. Where does Adrian R. Morrison say that they submitted the video mistakenly? Where does he say that PETA was misled?
2. Inserting "allegedly" in front of everything is bad writing. — Omegatron 20:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say that, and I didn't say he said it. Read what's written. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The source says quote . PeTA presented the USDA with video footage purporting to demonstrate that the company embalmed cats alive unquote. The first extract reports that reasonably accurately. The second extract puts words into Morrison's mouth that simply are not reflected on the site, and are misleading in that they imply Morrison accuses someone else of making a mockery out of PETA rather than his accusation that PETA misled the USDA.Bridesmill 20:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Suspicions of supporting eco-terrorists

I don't thing the clause about suspected support of eco-terrorists belongs in the intro. It's impossible to write without using weasel words since the reference doesn't make clear where the suspicions came from. It could basically be anyone writing an email to the FBI. And the fact that something has been claimed in an email to the FBI is not really that significant. Unless someone objects, I will remove it. Denis Diderot 07:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. The word terrorist can't go in the intro, because it's guilt-by-association, and people want to use it only to blacken them, which we're not going to do. However, Denis, that they support some ALF activists is not a suspicion. They admit it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, then the reference should be some official statement where they admit supporting them, don't you think? --Denis Diderot 10:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that as necessary. There are ample examples and references in the body of the text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this what you have in mind?

As for the donation to ELF, PETA President Ingrid Newkirk admits giving the money, but claims it was an honest mistake,.that the money was supposed to go toward "public education about destruction of habitat."[28]

Perhaps we shouldn't say that they support these activists if they claim it was a mistake? In any case I would suggest using this reference instead. --Denis Diderot 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

These details are unnecessary for the intro, but thank you; we can add it to the body. Denis, if you read the article, you'll see there is no dispute about PETA supporting the ALF, and the ELF is associated with the ALF. They have done so since the group's foundation in 1981. One of their first campaigns was more or less a joint PETA/ALF campaign. This is not disputed. Newkirk has written a book about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I added it to the direct action section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep suggesting that I haven't read the article ("if you read the article")? "Its support of" is stated as an established fact and without qualification. But the sources refer to a single transfer of $1500 to ELF for a specific project. And according to Peta's president it was a mistake. I'd prefer "its contributions to the legal defense of activists associated with the Animal Liberation Front". And the first reference (Washington Post) is irrelevant.--Denis Diderot 16:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Denis, there is no controversy about this whatsoever that I'm aware of. Newkirk has openly and frequently supported the ALF. She has written a book about it, and articles about it. I am less familiar with what she's said about the ELF, but the ALF and ELF are connected, and she has openly supported a key activist, Rod Coronado, who is associated with both. I'm therefore confused as to what you see the problem as. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Denis, were are continually told the ALF and ELF do not exist as organisations as such, they function as examples of leaderless resistance. In other words any activist the commits an act within their remit can and is claimed for the ALF/ELF. Therefore donations to individuals who have commited crimes in the name of these groups are tantamount to funding the groups themselves. This is the crux of most of the accusations (which are backed up by tax returns showing PETA made the donations). PETA does not deny the made many of these donations, describing them along the lines of supporting the cause, not the specific action. Rockpocket 17:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, it's not just something "we're continually told". Anyone can claim to be acting in the name of ALF or ELF. Some of the activists may of course coordinate their activities in various ways, but that's obviously something else. If someone gives legal aid to an ALF activist, that's not the same as supporting ALF activists in general.

SlimVirgin, Newkirk clearly likes what many ALF activists do. Peta as an organization has a policy of not supporting the activists, but at the same time not condeming them either, as long as "no one is harmed" (whatever that means). "The ALF and ELF are connected"? Perhaps you mean that some people do things under both the ALF and the ELF labels (like Rod Coronado)? In any case, this doesn't imply that Peta supports ELF activists.--Denis Diderot 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're very keen the ELF should come out of the intro, I don't mind because they're a bit of a red herring anyway, but I think ALF should stay. So the sentence would read: "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 its support of activists associated with the Animal Liberation Front." Would that work?

When you say they have a policy of not supporting the activists, do they say that on their site? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your suggestion would work. It's just that I had preferred to be more specific. It's not an established fact that PETA actively supports ALF activists, and that's what many people would infer from "its support of activists". They support their actions, in the sense "approve of", and thereby provide "moral support", and legal aid is a form of "support". But the first form of support is protected (up to a point[29]) by the First Amendment, and the second is obviously also within the law. "PETA is a legal activist organization, but we realize that other groups have different methods and we try not to condemn any efforts in behalf of animals in which no one is harmed" [30].--Denis Diderot 03:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't imply that the support is illegal, simply that it exists, and that they've been criticized for it. Newkirk has made her support for the ALF as plain as the nose on her face. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. My point was, since these organisations do not exist as a real entity, it would be impossible for anyone to support the ALF in any direct way, unless they are supporting the individuals that attribute their actions to the moniker (be it direct action, newsletter publishing or press office duties). This is a fundamental problem in dealing with cells working in a framework of leaderless resistance. I believe, and many of the notable sources appear to concur with this analysis, that providing support to an individual to help fight a legal case relating to action carried out in the the name of the ALF, is essentially supporting the ALF. How else would one support a group that doesn't exist? Rockpocket 07:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've more or less finished the rewrite. I've moved all the criticism into the body of the text, so it's not left hanging in a section of its own. The campaign and timeline sections still need to be copy-edited, but otherwise I'm about done. I hope other editors will help to ensure that the page doesn't deteriorate again. It has to be written in accordance with NPOV, which states: "If we're going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone ... Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view ... Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. (my emphasis) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I could not find many of the criticisms that used to be on the page, so I added those that were missing. Nrets 15:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There are none "missing." They've been incorporated into the body of the text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all let me congratulate you, SV, on making the article much more balanced than before. I take issue with one small issue though. You reverted an addition of mine without justification (though i accept it may have simply been lost in the large number of edits you made). It was to do with the Observer article, which principally alleges links with extermists. The sentence as it was:

The Observer has noted what it calls a "network of relationships between seemly unconnected animal rights groups on both sides of the Atlantic," writing that, with assets of $6.5 million, and with the PETA Foundation holding further assets of $15 million, PETA is in a position to fund individual activists and activist groups.

I believe that is missing the point of the article, which is not to report that PETA makes donations to other activists or activist groups per se, but to report they make donations to fund those who ingage in illegal and extreme "direct action". Hence i changed it to:

The Observer has noted what it calls a "network of relationships between seemly unconnected animal rights groups on both sides of the Atlantic," writing that, with assets of $6.5 million, and with the PETA Foundation holding further assets of $15 million, PETA funds individual activists and activist groups, some with "links to extremists."

If this is still not acceptable, i'd like to know why, as my interpretation of the source is pretty unambiguous. Rockpocket 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi RP, thanks for your feedback. I didn't meant to remove that, and don't recall even seeing it, but I see you've restored it. I wrote it that way because I was trying to make clear, following on from the end of the previous paragraph (the "loose affiliation" sentence) that there is likely funding of SHAC too, but I didn't want to labour the point. However, I'm fine with your addition. My apologies for having removed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Slim. I thought as much as the sentence was reverted alongside quite a lot of other constructive changes you made. Thanks for clarifying though. Rockpocket 07:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist threat

Omegatron, do you have a source showing that the FBI considers the ALF to be a domestic terrorist "organization"? I'd be surprised if the FBI had ever formally used that term, given that the ALF is not an organization. The phrase that is used officially, AFAIK, is "terrorist threat." I've therefore changed it and added an authoritative source.

The second issue is that I don't think the reference to "terrorist" should be in the introduction. It's clearly an attempt to blacken PETA using guilt-by-association, and it makes Wikipedia look somewhat silly in my view. When we hesitate even to refer to Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorists, it's bizarre to me that we imply PETA has links to terrorists, when most of what it does is take photographs of animals in labs and send half-naked young women to distribute leaflets in city centers. This is an organization financed by wealthy philanthropists like that well-known terrorist Sir Paul McCartney, and supported by the exceedingly dangerous Pamela Anderson, not to mention 800,000 ordinary members around the world. Only one govt (that I know of) regards the ALF as a "terrorist threat," and no prizes for guessing which one. As it's a minority view, and as PETA simply supports the ALF's attitude toward direct action, but does not itself engage in it, I feel that plonking that word in the introduction is unfair (although I have no problem adding it to the body of the text). I won't revert, but I'd appreciate other people's opinions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this for the intro:

PETA is also allegedly criticized for its support of ALF, a group of superheroes who use "direct action" to rescue beagles and cute wittle bunnies from evil laboratories where the animals are being tortured and killed. Scientists are hard at work figuring out why anyone would criticize them for this. In response to allegations of alleged criticism, Ingrid Newkirk said, "I don't know what you're talking about. I only send money to people for good reasons", and that's good enough for us.

[References: 1. PETA's PR department, 2. The Center for Consumer Freedom (an organization of tobacco companies that kills baby animals)]

I think that fits in best with the overall tone of the current article. — Omegatron 14:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If I were going in that direction, I would use "widdle" instead of "wittle." But in terms of seriously making the article better, I think trying to link PETA and "terrorist" together in the intro gives what is a very minor point undue weight, and gets into OR territory. ALF and ELF commit crimes against property. I think there's a way to allude to that in the intro without making it sound like Newkirk is on the sat-phone with Osama on a weekly basis. IronDuke 15:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think there should mention of accusations of links to other groups, such as the ALF, in the intro but calling them terrorists there is insinuating guilt by association. However, i don't think the US government are alone in considering the ALF a terrorist entity, both the British government and terrorism experts seem to suggest this also [31] [32] [33], though admittedly it appears a uniquely US characteristic to publish a shopping list of "terror threats". Rockpocket 18:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the "terrorist threat" sentence into the section that discusses PETA's involvement with Rod Coronado et al, but I've left that they've been criticized for supporting them in the intro. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Film, images

Lobot, please stop adding errors to the article. There was not only one baboon involved in that film or research program. There were 150 in the study, and several in the film. The point of contention was only how many were shown being subjected to the hydraulic brain-damaging equipment. The film showed the same scene over and over again, to emphasize the violence of it (though there was no need to: once was enough). The veterinarians who watched the film said it gave the impression that more than one baboon was involved. But they did not say that only one baboon had had this done to him, or that only one baboon was shown in the film. If you look at it, you'll see clearly that several baboons are featured, sometimes in the same scene at the same time. Please don't keep changing things without carefully checking what you're writing first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

How many baboons are in the photograph? ONE baboon is in the photograph, just one, so please stop pluralizing the caption. As for the section, your source explicitly states that the lab violated their guidelines which are stricter than existing "animal welfare legislation". If your source is reliable enough to omit "allegedly" from their statement accusing the lab of abusing animals, then the source is reliable enough to omit "allegedly" when they are accusing PETA of being disingenuous with the editing.L0b0t 23:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow the last part of what you said. As for the first, I'm not sure what photograph you mean. I am talking about the film. You can watch it and see for yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. My edits to that particular section involved changing the caption of the picture that graces the section to reflect that there was only one baboon in the picture not "baboons" as the previous caption stated. I did not mean to give the impression that the movie contained only one babbon, only the picture accompanieing the section. In the body of the section I changed the phrase "animal welfare legislation" to "Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" which is a best practices guide that exeeds the standards of the legislation (Animal Welfare Act). The last part of my above post expresses my concern that in one sentence you treat OPRR's comment about the lab and treat it is as gospel, then three sentences later you throw in a an "allegedly" when OPRR comments on PETA's editing. What error have I added?L0b0t 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Omegatron, please stop reducing the image sizes, and educated Americans spell the nouns licence and practise that way too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please stop revert-warring, especally neutral, valid changes.

• From MediaWiki 1.5 the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences, so it is recommended not to specify "px", in order to respect the users' preferences (unless, for a special reason, a specific size is required regardless of preferences, or a size is specified outside the range of widths 120–300px that can be set in the preferences). — Wikipedia:Extended image syntax
• Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes). — Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English

I wish I had time to work on your biasing edits, too, but I thought simple maintenance edits would survive more than a few hours unscathed... — Omegatron 14:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't reduce the size of the images again. As for the spelling, did you read what I wrote? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't reduce the size of the images. Did you read what I wrote?

For instance, in my user preferences, I have the default thumbnail size set at 300px, so my edits are an increase in image size for me. For users on low-bandwidth connections who choose a smaller default size, it will be smaller for them; everyone is happy. In most cases there is no reason to explicitly set the thumb size. Please try to make constructive edits. — Omegatron 14:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Omegatron, I have just practically rewritten the entire page. My edits are constructive. You are the one arriving to undo things, slap the word "terrorist" in the intro, reduce image sizes, and change perfectly standard spelling to one used by only one segment of the population of one country. That's what I call non-constructive editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

What happened to the citicisms section.Are they above criticism now?Dermo69

Um, I think we need a revert. The page appears to have been vandalised.

The criticisms were incorporated into other sections. I don't know why, but hey, it happened. Jesuschex 01:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it has been deleted outright. I could only find two instances of the word "criticism" on the page. Also, the list of sites critical of PETA has disappeared. --Ramdrake 00:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's always better to have criticism woven into the narrative than to have it hanging on its own at the end. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? Jesuschex 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean the criticism section wasn't in prose? --165.21.155.17 10:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Because otherwise we have one section that's all good and another that's all bad, which is too black and white, and life just isn't like that. In addition, both sections end up becoming magnets for trolls and bad editors. Good articles are written in a way that's more nuanced, with the good and the bad blended in together. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy about this at. all. --mboverload@ 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nuanced my ass. Maybe we can scatter the list of notable supporters all around to make it more nuanced. Try that with the campaigns as well. How about we remove all the headers and make the article into one ultra nuanced long paragraph. I mean, if a critcism section attracts bad editors who wants to edit that section, then other sections will also attract bad editors wanting to edit those particular sections. --165.21.155.17 10:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil and assume good faith. I agree that no article on Wikipedia should have a 'this is whats good' and 'this is whats bad' sections. Instead each point should be discussed. Else the facts become fragmented and we end up with a hard to read article. I will try and dig out a policy on this, as I believe there is one too.

Don't get structure mixed up with good content. Why should the article be split in such a way as to divorce the 2 sides to any particular fact from each other? Why not have the article flow and when something is criticised, have it criticised in the relevant section?

Your argument regarding bad editors actually promotes the idea of mixing the sections as they are - as people won't be focusing on one section but over the whole article...-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin (and I bet she ain't either) has an obvious agenda to stifle all criticism of her beloved yet ridiculous cause and its silly agenda. Even worse, her behaviour as a bully is well documented throughout Wikepedia. To get a sense of this, just look at the length of these animal rights articles and their lists of outside resources, websites and star-power-celebrity supporters; look at the edit revision lists! I must say, it’s impressive and comprehensive work but this is not a BLOG or a PETA outlet! Wikipedia must be objective or it is useless; Wikepdia must present counter-points. Just look at one issue here as I quote the article: “PETA's philosophy is ‘animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.’" This belief is rejected by billions of people, yet no real criticisms of PETA’s beliefs or its reason detre are allowed by her and her cabal in the related articles. But don't despair --- we are lining up troops along the border and I assure that criticism and debate will see the light of day. DocEss

On the other hand, I would like to caution you not to paint PETA all in black. They are trying to do good (in their own eyes), and some of their initiatives are commendable and even quite successful. However, that being said, they obviously have issues (with ethics, with the internal logic of some of their positions, etc.). All told, my POV is that there is some good and some bad to them. I don't think it would do to paint them all black, just as it is inappropriate to try to whitewash them. And BTW, it's raison d'être (yes, I like to nag):).--Ramdrake 19:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ya, ya. Hey - anything or any cause coming straight from the heart is noble by definition and is therefore commendable. Gosh, what kind of sensible human, or real critic of PETA would actually advovate cruelty to animals? Who would say that it's OK to put the cat in the microwave, starve a dog out of neglect, torture a hamster for fun? Nobody -- nobody credible anyway. Hey - we all love animals. Sometimes the weak hearted can't stand that we love some of them with a Chateau LaTour, some of them as shoes, some of them as nice furry hats. And sometimes we're forced to use animals to help us live better - we don't love it but we must do it. Sometimes we love to admire them, to pet them, to cuddle them, to take care of them, to invest time in them. And some of us fools cause undue harm and stress, and they are in the wrong. If PETA is smart, they will continue to focus on what we all agree is wrong and not on their ludicrous agenda of telling a Korean not to eat Fido, me not to eat Bambi, or Merck not to test Viarga on a monkey. But that is hardly the point here: the point is that criticsm exists and said criticsim is being stifled and silenced by the advocates of the movement. That makes them bullies and lessens the nobility of their cause. Boo for them. DocEss 17:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is, it is altogether too easy to forget that PETA is also trying to do right in a number of causes. There are those who would want to stifle criticism against PETA, but there are also those who would forget that some of what they do is good and right, and only focus on their failings. We must avoid either extreme. --Ramdrake 17:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But so what? It's motherhood. Anything concrete to add? DocEss 18:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

PETA killings of domestic animals

While the site http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ is obviously an anit-PETA site, their data does appear to be legitimate; see also http://www.thisistrue.com/peta.html and the resulting exchange of letters (and note that at no point does the PETA apologist deny the stats). This website claims that PETA currently euthanizes over 90% of the animals it takes in, and certainly they have made the news recently for illegally dumping killed animals. Also, PETA claims that stockyards are the equivalent of human genocide--yet Ingrid Newkirk is on record stating that pit bulls should not be bred, but allowed to die off. Isn't that, the deliberate destruction of a breed, the definition of genocide? How many beef cattle would be around if there were no beef industry? This seems to me to be a very pro-PETA article. scot 15:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."

There's a piece [34] on front group NAIA website's about the quote, claiming the real quote is "Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal. [...] A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. [...] They're all mammals" and quote "Washingtonian writer Katie McCabe in 1986"

A typical pro-animal-research website [35] quote similarly to NAIA's, but on Vogue now, with "Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all mammals." - (Vogue, September 1989)

On the NRA site, you get "I don`t believe human beings have the right to life. That`s a supremacist perversion. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." --Audubon, Nov. 1990 [36]

But on the ALF site, they claim the quote rightful context is "When it comes to having a central nervous system, and the ability to feel pain, hunger, and thirst, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." --Ingrid Newkirk (AR activist) but give no source at all. [37]

125 hit for the ALF one [38], But I couldn't find any source at all. To me, it appears made up after the fact for propaganda purpose.

I get 60 hits for the NAIA one[39], down to 43 if you add Vogue to the search.[40] But only 19 if you use the Washingtonian [41] and even then some of those refer to another quote by another activist which explain the discrepancy.

Oh, and 9 hits [42] for the NRA quote, with 3 attributed to the Audubon 1990 article. Aug[43].

I'll revert it to old one, but complete it with "Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal," and add a cite tag to it. Should I quote it to the Washingtonian, which seem more likely to be the original source, or to Vogue, which came 3 year later and gave me many more hits? Jean-Philippe 17:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I added Spiked online as a source before I saw this discussion. The confusion may stem from her having said it more than once. I don't think it's a controversial quote in that, in all its forms, it accurately represents the anti-speciesist position. Perhaps we could write to PETA and ask which is the accurate version and request a citation? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, we shouldn't use anonymous websites or heavily biased ones as sources in this article. Best to stick to mainstream sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

External links?

Most of the articles I see here have "external links" at the bottom and some of the ones on controversial groups and topics include a list of "pro" and "anti" websites. There are a lot of anti-PETA websites, why aren't any of them listed at the bottom of the article?

Yes I agree, which doesn't mean listing every websites on the intarweb with a beef against PETA. Until we can establish some criteria and agree to keep the list down to what's relevant, we might be better off without such a list. Jean-Philippe 15:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way I just reverted back to a clean slate, but if it's inflammatory just put the list back in. I don't mean to be rude or anything, I just think it's a mistake. I won't "revert war" over this. Jean-Philippe 15:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Removal of sites critical to PETA imparts a definite POV on this article. This organization is severely criticized even from within the animal-rights movement. It looks very unbalanced to have three columns full of the different PETA sites (with redundancy to boot), whereas a single column of six or so sites critical of PETA is removed "because we can't sort what's relevant". The list was originally removed July 10, 18 days ago, in what looked like a pro-PETA activist spree. I think it's time to complete the picture again. --Ramdrake 15:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, can you show me an example of PETA being "severely criticized" within the animal-rights movement? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just look on the website of the advocacy group "No Kill Now" (nokillnow.com).

What makes you think they're an animal rights group? And is that the only example you have? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just read their site, especially the part where it says "who are we". Are you contesting that they are anything but an animal-advocacy group? If so, please substantiate your claim, just like I did mine. And to answer your question, I took this site off the top of my head. I could probably find more if I dedicated some more time to it, but for right now, this one instance demonstrates that there is criticism of PETA by at least one animal-advocacy group. You asked for an example, I gave you exactly one such example. --Ramdrake 19:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

From your explanation, I will attempt a compromise: putting the list back in with a caveat, until we sort it out and arrive at a consensus.

Nah, that disclaimer isn't necessary or appropriate, I'll take it off. The question isn't as much as weither a list like that is appropriate, I think it is. The question is how far are we going to go with it. First of all, an empty list of url's won't do any good. A short discription of each is essential. We should stick to sites which have received media attention, as per the simplest notoriety guidelines.

In the list currently in, excluding the obvious like to CCF, 4 have been produced by CCF. Another 2 websites copy content from those 4 sites almost entirely. The parent site and one of it's attack page seems fair enough to me. At the very least, if we keep them all we should label them clearly. Jean-Philippe 15:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What about exposepeta.com, it has no original content at all as far as I can tell, and the news releases are already well covered on the CCF websites. It can still be useful to some so I didn't remove it outright, but it might have to go if we toughens the criteria for admission to this section later on. Jean-Philippe 17:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Before we start trimming off more sites critical to PETA because of redundancies, could we maybe apply the same policy to the PETA-backed sites which are currently sprawled on three columns, with multiple redundancies? My point remains that PETA is a very controversial organization, contested even within its own milieu, and that at least two of its employees are facing felony charges regarding animal cruelty. If we trim down any more sites critical of PETA, but we leave all those pro-PETA sites at the end of the article, we are being non-NPOV. --Ramdrake 18:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We can't link to attack sites run by one man and his dog (though not his dog in this case, because the dog would support PETA), for obvious legal reasons. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Center for Consumer Freedom isn't run "by one man and his dog" (although I'm more inclined to think the dog would probably stay away from PETA just in case the reports were true). NoKillNow is an animal advocacy group. There are legitimate sites out there we can link to. We already have a few listed. --Ramdrake 18:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you don't know dogs and you don't know PETA. Could you give me an example, please, of PETA being "severely criticized" from within the animal rights movement? You've mentioned NoKillNow, but you don't give evidence of them being an animal-rights group. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I know dogs and cats, thank you. And when I read documents that prove PETA has had a kill rate between 80 and 95% per year for the last five years straight (the worst in the United States), I can't help but wonder. I'm not one to subscribe to the "they're better off dead than living under those conditions" train of thought. And please see above for the answer to your second question, which you had already asked. --Ramdrake 19:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anything on the nokill website that indicates they're part of the animal-rights movement. You wrote: "This organization is severely criticized even from within the animal-rights movement." I would like to see some substantiation of that, please.

The problem with this page is that people have arrived at it with a bunch of pre-conceived notions that are not based on fact, but which they refuse even to examine, and the above is a good example of it.

As for PETA's euthanasia policy, does it occur to you that (a) they might take in animals that other shelters do not? and (b) that it might be better in some cases to put an animal to sleep that to keep it in a tiny cage for the rest of its life? I'm not saying it is, or it isn't. I'm simply saying that there are good arguments in both directions.

Please stop these knee-jerk attitudes. We're here to write a fair, reasonable, nuanced portrait of this group, not to repeat ignorant, uninformed, prejudice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The nokill website displays its policy for anyone to read. After reading it, it seemed only reasonable to me they could be classified as an animal-rights organization (as they advocate not killing animals in the shelters). What more do you feel is needed to consider them an "animal-rights movement"?

Why do you suppose that not killing animals in shelters means they're an animal rights group? If they support animal rights, they'll say so, either directly, or in terms of stating they oppose the use of animals as "property." Simply having a no-kill policy is neither here nor there. I'm not aware that animal rights groups support no-kill policies, because they can lead to a lot of cruelty, which is why PETA does not have one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please define what you mean by "animal rights group". My definition is simple: any group that advocates changing human societal behavior for the betterment of animal welfare. A group that proposes ways in which fewer animals need to be euthanized in shelters (because they suggest ways to get fewer animals to the shelters in the first place) qualifies in my book. If it doesn't qualify in your book, I'd like to hear your reasoning. --Ramdrake 22:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As for your response regarding PETA, your assumptions are just that. Until you can come up with a reference that says they take animals no one else will, what you say is just suppositions, or at best OR. I think you're well-informed (being an admin) of the No Original Research policy of Wikipedia.

There are references in the article. Read the article you're commenting on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the article, and I've found it strangely uncritical of PETA, especially in comparison to what I've heard about them on the news. Or do you feel the newsw are an unreliable source of information?--Ramdrake 22:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

<---I think you mean it's not like the usual attack sites you're used to reading, and nor should it be. Our article contains material saying:

• PETA funds ALF activists.
• May have funded, or be funding, SHAC.
• Has funded the ELF.
• Have themselves engaged in arguably criminal acts (e.g. throwing paint at people, throwing a dead animal at Anna Wintour, leaving blood on her doorstep.
• Was criticized for Holocaust on your plate.
• Was criticized for its "Are Animals the New Slaves" campaign.
• Was criticized for letter to Arafat.
• May have had advance warning of a Rod Coronado arson.
• Was criticized by the OPRR for producing a misleading video.
• Was criticized for misinterpreting the effects of formalin on dead tissue.
• Was criticized for its euthanasia policy.
• Was criticized for employing people who were dumping dead animals.
• Was criticized for equating the "life of an insect ... to the life of a human being."
• Was criticized for handing graphic leaflets out to children.
• Was ordered to discontinue ads about milk consumption.
• Has assets of $21.5 million. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, please do not take this as a knee-jerk attitude. Yes, we are here to write a fair, reasonable, nuanced portrait of the organization. However, their kill rate, the fact that they subsidize ALF activists and that some of their employee have been indicted for nothing less than animal cruelty should certainly not be whitewashed. I have nothing against animal-rights movements, as long as they're open and honest about what they do. What I've read so far over the years about PETA gives me great doubts, doubts which I don't have about many other organizations that care for animals, wild or domestic.--Ramdrake 22:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Which of their employees has been indicted for animal cruelty? With respect, you say you've read material about PETA, but to judge by your responses, you've been reading only prejudiced and uninformed material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please just go to this link and you will see: [44] I don't think this is prejudiced and uninformed material, unless you have a reference that proves so.

The link doesn't show that the employees engaged in "nothing less than animal cruelty." They were indicted for disposing of euthanized animals by dumping their bodies. Show me where there is an allegation of actual cruelty (mainstream source, please, not an attack site). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the title of the article from the Lincoln Tribute I was pointing to: State News : PETA Employees Face 31 Felony Animal-Cruelty Charges for Killing, Dumping Dogs (emphasis is mine). I think it's pretty clear just from the title that they were indeed charged with a felony called animal cruelty. And I would say the Lincoln Tribute is a normal, mainstream source. And BTW we're about to fall off this page. :)--Ramdrake 23:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"PETA employees Andrew B. Cook, 24, of Virginia Beach, and Adria J. Hinkle, 27, of Norfolk, were served with warrants on 22 felony charges of animal cruelty and the three felony charges of obtaining property by false pretense in court on Friday.

A grand jury is expected to consider formal indictments Oct. 31, Assistant District Attorney Donnie Taylor said.

The new animal cruelty charges replaced 31 previous animal cruelty charges, which were dismissed.""PETA workers face 25 felony counts in North Carolina" By DARREN FREEMAN, The Virginian-PilotHunting Thomas 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, PETA workers are facing animal cruelty charges, whether it's 22, 25 or 31 doesn't matter.--Ramdrake 00:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than saying the same thing over and over, tell me what they're alleged to have done that constituted cruelty. And please review WP:SOCK. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trained in the legal trade, I'm just quoting the news. I do know the charges are related to mass euthanasia of several tens of mostly young, adoptable animals (by which means I don't know) and the illegal dumping of their bodies in a dumpster. And yes, I have reviewed WP:SOCK and I can vouch for the fact I am not indulging in any sockpuppetry. Please feel free to run an IP trace if you don't believe me. Maybe we're just several editors who all think that this articles' external links section is a little bit less than NPOV and who would like to see it corrected. From WP:EL:

On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other.

We may have an editorial disagreement, but I would appreciate if you could still assume good faith (mentioning WP:SOCK borders on not assuming good faith, at least in my books.--Ramdrake 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitions:

• Animal right groups are oganizations like PETA, that advocate things like outlawing ownership of pets
• Animal welfare groups supports making sure that pets are well taken care of. Example: The humane society. --mboverload@ 23:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

These are your definitions, I take it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Then, by those definitions, I should revise my statement and say that PETA is being criticized by animal welfare groups, among others, although I find the definition that was given of animal rights group to be too narrow in my view.--Ramdrake 00:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What definition was given? Ramdrake, I would quit while I was ahead if I were you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read with attention, you'll see these definitions were provided by mboverload. While I don't totally agree with them, cast in that light, I supplied a revision to my statement. That's all.--Ramdrake 00:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest you do some research into animal rights if you're interested, rather than lifting definitions from the talk page of a wiki. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, these aren't my definitions, nor did I post them here (and please don't imply again that I did). And BTW, I'd still like to hear your definition of an animal-rights movement. I want to know if we're even talking about the same thing. --Ramdrake 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the movement to include animals in the moral community by breaking down the species barrier that has human beings as morally unique animals on one side, and every other species on the other. It seeks to end the status of animals as property, and to promote the idea of their moral and legal personhood. As such, it campaigns against the use of animals as clothing, food, entertainment, decoration, and as things to be experimented on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Except, of course, there appears to be an arbitrary, rather than systematic, basis for what is meant by the term animal in the movement. Usually the boundary can be found somewhere just on the wrong side of that most objective of parameters, "cute". Rockpocket 18:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well known supporters of PETA

We really need to get rid of this section. This is an encyclopedia and a list of leftist Hollywood elites who once signed a PETA petition, or who happen to like animals has no place here. If someone is a dues-paying MEMBER of PETA then a list like that would be a little better but not much. University articles have lists of well known alumni but not just fans of the university. Hving this list is mad POV (These terrorist can't be all bad if my favorite movie star likes them.).L0b0t 14:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

List moved here.

They signed petitions? Hollywood elites? A quick glance at the references shows many of those (notable) individuals accepted to be part of some of PETA's best known advertising campaign. Which usually means getting naked in front of the camera, a big step from signing a petition, wouldn't you say? Some others have actually narrated or played in informational/educational media, again a big step from signing a petition. Good Charlotte wrote a song, exclusive to PETA. You also mentioned something about dues-paying members, which is irrelevant since they help PETA more than any other card-carrying Jane or Joe (or terrorist, call her/him whatever you want). I'm sure you can come up with an argument that will stop be from putting the list back in. Jean-Philippe 16:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Since there's no definition of what it means to "support" PETA, a very large number of celebrities could be put there. Jesuschex 14:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right in that "supporter" is much too vague. To me it imply monetary contributions and continual activism. Maybe there's a better word for it, "promoters" or "advocates" might be better, and we could replace "well known" to "notable" for clarity's sake. Jean-Philippe 16:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the point is, say the article about United Way doesn't have such a long list of notable supporters/advocates/promoters. If one wants to make a separate article that is all about this list and link back to the main article, fine. Otherwise, it's overkill. Just my two cents'. --Ramdrake 20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back. It's perfectly legitimate, sourced, and shows PETA has mainstream support, which acts as a counter-balance to those of you who want to claim it's some kind of "terrorist" organization. If some of you weren't so extreme in your views, retaining material like this wouldn't be necessary, but unfortunately you are, and therefore it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it falls also under the external links guideline:

The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other.

I'd say that's definitely overwhelming. Besides, it's also redundant. We know several notable people have endorsed PETA; there is no need to belabor the point. However, I wouldn't oppose a much shortened list with a link to an article with the full list. --Ramdrake 21:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop removing this. You don't like it because it shows they are mainstream, and you would prefer this to be an attack page. But we're not here to reflect your personal opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

1)I removed it once. The other time before wasn't me, if you look at the history of the article. 2)I don't like or dislike it, I just find it overwhelming and undue weight, and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. We aren't here to reflect anybody's personal opinion, neither mine nor yours. And the refs I have above say clearly that this list here can rightly be considered overwhelming and undue weight. To say that it is needed to counterbalance those who want to claim it is a "terrorist" organization just doesn't cut it. This is not a good reason to go against Wikipedia guidelines. --Ramdrake 21:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Which guideline is it going against? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Undue Weight says this:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. (emphasis mine)--Ramdrake 22:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I know what the policy says, but you haven't yet given an argument — as opposed to an assertion — as to why the weight is undue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, then I'm arguing that this is undue weight based on the depth of detail (a full list of names) and the quantity of text used up by this list. Moreover, as has been pointed out below, most of the references talk about those people's involvement in one or several anti-fur campaigns. They say very little if anything about how many of PETA's other positions (e.g. on the use of animals in drug research, on euthanasia, on "veganism" (sp?), etc.) they endorse, although there may be counter-examples in the list. --Ramdrake 22:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And I am counter-arguing that the list is important to show that PETA is accepted by the mainstream, and is not the fringe, quasi-terrorist group that you seem to want to paint it as. It is all sourced, and these are not simply anti-fur campaigners in general, but people who support PETA's campaign(s) specifically. The point is that it's hard to claim something is a terrorist group when Paul and Linda McCartney and Sarah Jessica Parker (for example) are among its main supporters.

Answer me this: why are you so keen to do this organization down? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not keen to put this organization down. I think PETA has had some very worthwhile campaigns (anti-fur is a perfect example), but I think overall it is, partly due to some of its campaigns, and partly because of the declarations and the behavior of its representatives, a rather controversial organization, again overall. Then, when I came into the article, I saw it had a list of 40 "well-known members and supporters", a list of 32 "PETA and PETA-affiliated" websites, and NO website critical of PETA. Also, there was no clear criticism section (which I found later had been massged into the different sections - a very good thing). At first sight and knowing the history of PETA, it seemed like a very-POV article. I now think it is much less POV than my first impression led me to believe, but I still believe it needs improvement POV-wise. That long list of PETA "endorsers" is possibly the last major POV-pushing item I see in this article. That is why I think it should go. --Ramdrake 23:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind the requirements imposed by Wikipedia:Verifiability. The current references show Paul and Linda McCartney support for PETA as an organization, but in the case of Sarah Jessica Parker the reference only mentions that she appeared in an anti-fur advertisement while making no mention of her overall views of PETA. --Allen3 ^talk 22:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of common sense really. If someone write a song, contribute acting or narration or just get bare naked for the camera, you can safely assume they support PETA without them having to sign a written statement that says "I am [insert name here] and I support PETA and what it stand for. Give the readers some credit please :)

They are not links, but references. Please read our policies and guidelines before arriving at pages to disrupt them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning on my personal page about 3RR, but I was aware of it, and I'm not about to break it (at least not on purpose). I came here by accident, and I have no intention of disrupting the page, just try to point out what I feel is a lack of NPOV and pointing out ways to correct it. If you really feel my presence here is disrupting the page, may I invite you to initiate a Request for Comment on my actions at this page. If a majority of the editors here think I'm disrupting the page, I'll gladly be on my way. And the "references" all point to external links, so I'm not convinced about the difference here. --Ramdrake 21:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What SlimVirgin is referring to I believe is that everyone on that list already has their own article in Wikipedia. As for all the references pointing to external links, well, reference tend to do that if they point to an internet reference. It would be ideal if all their article mentioned their support for PETA, but it's an imperfect world. Jean-Philippe 04:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

THEY ARE REFERENCES, SOURCES, not just external links! Read the policies before editing any further because you're currently just wasting people's time, your own included. Content policies = WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I ask what's POV about that list? I mean, there's questions of notability and guidelines and whatnot to be considered, but l0b0t case never stood on it's feet what with accusations of terrorism and mentions of petitions (etc...), and now I feel the discussion has shifted away from what's really important. Is that list factually correct, NPOV and notable? It is factually correct, SlimVirgin made the case as to why it's notable and I, don't see what's POV about it. It's a list. Of people. Supporters (or advocate, or whatever) of PETA and referenced as such. To me, it seems that the issue is about PETA having mainstream support. The issue isn't inherently biased, there is simply an absense of opposing view right now.

Is being anti-fur the same as supporting everything PETA does?

One thing I noticed when looking through the references associated with each of the celebrity names was that many of the listed individuals appeared in an anti-fur advertisement. Beyond this there was no indication as to how any of the celebrities felt about the other activities that PETA is associated with. Does the fact that a person allowed their notability be used to promote one PETA campaign thus mean that said person supports everything that PETA does? Optionally, is it possible for a person to oppose killing animals solely for their fur yet still support the use of animals in medical research or some other activity that is opposed by PETA?

If it is possible for an individual to support some aspects of PETA's philosophy yet not support all aspects of the philosophy then there probably needs to be some method for distinguishing between the possibilities. One option is to move the list of names that the articles sources only show to have supported a single campaign to the article section dealing with the campaign. --Allen3 ^talk 21:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That,s a good and pertinent question. --Ramdrake 22:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

To your question Alien3, no and I don't think it's relevant. Nobody agrees about everything anybody or any other group does. The list is about notable individual who expressed support to PETA through their action and contributions. Between the holocaust ads, the I'd rather go naked then wear fur photo-ops, and the Got Beer? campaign, to name just a few, you'd be hard pressed to find someone one hundred percent in agreement with PETA or who even claim they do, even among PETA activists. Beside, not everyone on that list can be categorized to one single and specific campaign, particularly with the limited scope of the article. Jean-Philippe 04:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We are in agreement that some people on the list can be shown to have fairly broad support of the organization with for others the available sources only show support for a single specific campaign. Your comment that practically nobody will be in complete agreement with everything that PETA does is also accurate. That being said, I still believe it is important to divide the list between single issue supporters and those supporters who have expressed broader support of PETA. The primary reason for this is to keep in solid compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability by not extrapolating the information available from our sources. Such a solution also shows potential as a workable compromise because it is likely to anger both the pro-PETA and anti-PETA editors. --Allen3 ^talk 12:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the list to the discussion page again as it IS NOT GERMAIN to an encyclopedia. SlimVirgin even admits the list is only there for POV reasons "I've moved it back. It's perfectly legitimate, sourced, and shows PETA has mainstream support, which acts as a counter-balance to those of you who want to claim it's some kind of "terrorist" organization. If some of you weren't so extreme in your views, retaining material like this wouldn't be necessary, but unfortunately you are, and therefore it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)". It does not matter what ones views on PETA are, a list of movie stars that like you has no place in an encyclopedia. If you want a page of movie stars that like animals then by all means go write one and link to it here but this list is POV propaganda.L0b0t 02:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You've obviously ignored the entire conversion outside of what motivates your anti-PETA agenda. You've called them movie star before and you've done it again, ignoring the wide range of talents and contributions of those supporters. I don't think you actually looked at who's on the list. I believe, that you simply read the word "supporter" and figured it couldn't be tolerated, since you simply cannot admit PETA has mainstream support, which is factually correct as well referenced. You don't give me any reason to believe that you've read what you're deleting (or moving, whatever), so I don't have any problem with reverting you in turn. Jean-Philippe 04:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Philippe, PETA has mainstream support, nobody denies it. The first problem is with how much space the demonstration of this mainstream support takes, and second the fact is, this list really shouldn't be in the main article per se. It should be in a spin-off article, probably linking back here. --Ramdrake 12:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And, if it does stay in the article, we'll also need to add a list of famous PETA critics, for neutrality. You can't use a list to overwhelm an article with one POV. Is there a precedent for a list of supporters in other contentious articles? — Omegatron 12:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, there isn't, which was one of my points. I have just moved the list off to a spinoff article, linking back to this article with a nice blurb that I tried to make as NPOV as possible. Hope everybody will accept this compromise. --Ramdrake 13:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Ramdrake, that looks great. Again, my contention was only that a list of movie stars that think Peta is nifty has no place in an encyclopedia. My only POV on this is a hatred for the cult of celebrity in the west that seems to think that movie stars can do no wrong. Remember when Meryl Streep went and badgered congress about all the alar in the apples and said anyone who eats an apple will die, or Oprah Winfrey trying to cripple the American beef industry, or Richard Gere following the slave owning Dalai Lama around the world to try to get his plantation back from the Chinese. Celebrity should not imply competence in any subject other than the acting, singing, dancing like a monkey, or whatever their craft is.L0b0t 14:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I had the same contention. I really believe the point should be made (it's very legitimate to demonstrate PETA has mainstream support) without however belaboring it. --Ramdrake 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, PETA's mainstream support is noteworthy and valid for an article but a list like that is both exclusionary (What about all the other people who give time/money to PETA?) and too inclusionary in that it takes up a lot space to make a point that I think everyone concedes (PETA has mainstream support.). With the exception of a couple of vandals here and there I don't think any editor is out to smear PETA, we just want a balanced nuanced article touching on PETA's pros and cons. What we don't want however is an article that becomes a blatant cheerleader for any single point of view. there are many, many PETA websites that gloss over the facts and just report the things that make PETA look good and that is fine but this is an encyclopedia not a soapbox.L0b0t 15:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

List of PETA sites

Also, this begs the question if we really need the complete list of all 32 PETA-backed sites in the article. It looks like overkill to me. --Ramdrake 14:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a link to peta.org should be sufficient. Maybe do a WHOIS on all the sites and remove any registered to the same people or groups?L0b0t 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, these 32 sites aren't even the complete list. The complete list is closer to 100 sites! (And I thought they were lying when they said they have no money left for the upkeep of animals.) --Ramdrake 14:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely questionable content. Should probably salvage the most notable (I think peta, peta2 and Ingrid's) and delete the rest. Jean-Philippe 16:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved here for archive purpose. Jean-Philippe 16:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

PETA websites

• PETA's main website
• PETA2.com
• AnimalActivist.com
• AskCarla.com
• HelpingAnimals101.com
• Ingrid Newkirk's blog
• PETA's Catalog.com
• PETAKids.com
• PETATV.com
• CaringConsumer.com
• IAMSCruelty.com

• StopAnimalTest.com
• CowsAreCool.com
• FurIsDead.com
• SaveTheSheep.com
• BuckTheRodeo.com
• Circuses.com
• RunningOfTheNudes.com
• HelpingAnimals.com
• PETA Espanol.com
• PETA India.com
• PETA UK

• FishingHurts.com
• GoVeg.com
• JesusVeg.com
• christianveg.com
• KFCCruelty.com
• MilkSucks.com
• VegetarianStarterKit.com
• Lettuceladies.com
• HelpingWildlife.com
• Other PETA websites

PETA "Aids" quote

Recently added "===Animal testing=== PETA has opposed all forms of animal testing by medical researchers. In an interview, Newkirk told Vogue magazine "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it." (Vogue, September 1989)."

It belongs in a article in some form or another. The article does mention their activism on the matter But it doesn't elaborate on PETA's strict stence on animal testing, and simply dropping the quote doesn't portrait an accurate and neutral picture on the matter. Just another POV bomb dropped by a pov-pushing editor. Not the first time tough about the quote, I believed it was already in the article. I'll see if I can write something half-decent about it. Any comment? Jean-Philippe 17:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Think the quote could be worked in elsewhere. It explicitly demonstrates PETA's ideological stance on drug development using animals models - that cost/benefit analyses arguments hold not water with them. I don't think it is particularly controversial (in that i imagine PETA would stand by the quote). Rockpocket 18:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, if it's a verifiable quote, it's just a fact we have to report on, nothing else. If it paints PETA in a bad light, well so be it. We can't withold statements by relevant people (and I believe Newkirk is very relevant to the sbject at hand) on the basis that it may influence how people think about a subject. That would be thought censorship, in my view. --Ramdrake 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point of adding quote after quote after quote from Newkirk. PETA is against using animals for anything, period. Therefore, they are against animal testing, period. Does it help for us to keep saying the same thing in a thousand different ways? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a verifiable quote and shows that they are even agaisnt animal testing when it would save human lives as opposed to just oppositing it when it is for cosmetics or as part of drug trials for non life saving medication. Hunting Thomas 20:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

PETA says, and our article says, that they oppose ALL ANIMAL USE. I'm therefore wondering how often we have to keep saying it. Our readers aren't completely stupid, I hope. By the way, is User:HuntingThomas the account of another Wikipedian or former Wikipedian? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're not asking that as a form of intimidation? This is an alternate account for an existing user as permitted underLegitimate uses of multiple accounts. There is no obligation for me to tell you which user so I hope you'll respect that and not try to "out" me. I will not answer any more questions about my identity as I trust you wouldn't answer any yourself. Hunting Thomas 20:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason these quotes are notable, in my opinion, is because PETA use them to generate publicity. The comments attract criticism and that is how they draw media coverage. We all know PETA "oppose ALL ANIMAL USE" (period), but if that was all their website said (in large black latters) and that was all they ever said in response to interviews then do you really think they would be the celebrity cause du jour? Of course not. If PETA wish to use such controversial examples to make their point, we should not shy away from using them either. Rockpocket 04:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Conflicts with other animal welfare activists

I recovered this section from previous versions of the article, as I think they deserve a place in this article, demonstrating that PETA receives criticism even from animal welfare activists. I would like to discuss the merits of these paragraphs first before doing another revert and causing another ruckus. I'd like people to explain their reasons to believe these paragraphs should or shouldn't be included in the article, as I have stated my reasons above as to why they should be included. --Ramdrake 19:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

PETA has been the target of criticism by other animal welfare advocates. Virginian activist John Newton (formerly of Meower Power) describes the group as "cult-like" adding "If you're not radical enough, they drive you out." Merritt Clifton, founder and editor of Animal People has said "Ingrid Newkirk runs PETA like a guru cult. Sooner or later, everyone who questions her or upstages her in any way, no matter how unintentionally, ends up getting shafted in the most humiliating manner Newkirk can think of." Sue Perna, an animal rights activist and former PETA employee calls Newkirk "an abuser of the human animal" adding "Many of us believe that the further we distance ourselves from PETA, the better off the animal rights movement will be." [45]

I removed it because I believed those were nameless individual who weren't really part of the AR/AW movements, but simply employees PETA who were fired for some unknown reason. I blindly removed the section using notability as an excuse without doing any real research, probably because of my strong-PETA POV, and now that I did it does certainly look like it was a mistake. Jean-Philippe 22:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it was fair enough, Jean-Philippe. It's just that this is, in fact, a common criticism of PETA from within the animal rights movement. Most of the editors on this page know little or nothing about animal rights, and see PETA as an extremist group, which is why they're here and why they want to turn this into an attack page. PETA is in fact a moderate group and has been criticized from within the movement for pandering to what the public thinks an animal-rights group ought to be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

J.P. Godwin, founder of the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade argues that PETA's "goofy stunts" are counterproductive and distract people from the core issue of animal suffering. Ssome people have positioned the movement as flaky, based on silly claims and goofy stunts. It's time to say no to pie throwing, manure dumping, and naked models, and get back to talking about animals" said Godwin in a published newspaper interview.[46]

I did a search on for "J.P Godwin". I found that "John Goodwin" is an HSUS activist with an history of speaking for the ALF and a pro-eminent activistcash.com profile. So it really seemed out of place for him to criticize the equally zealous Ingrid Newkirk. The reference claimed the quote coming from a unknown forum so I just dismissed it out of hand. But then I examined the it more closely and everything really look's in order as long as Wikipedia guidelines are concerned. Again, my POV playing tricks on me. Jean-Philippe 22:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

PETA's "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" campaign has generated criticism from feminists for sexism. In an editorial in their newsletter, "Feminists for Animal Rights" asserts that in an ad campaign in which a Playboy model posed naked with Hugh Hefner's dog "PETA has now escalated the tactic into pornography and got themselves into bed with Hugh Hefner and Playboy magazine" adding that PETA has "severely overstepped the boundaries of respect toward women."[47] Carol J. Adams, a prominent feminist and animal rights advocate objected to PETA's campaign saying "I don't liberate animals over the bodies of women" adding "I think the further insult was the celebration of PETA's alliance with Playboy by having a jointly sponsored event last summer, at which Patti Davis was featured. I'm glad she gave some of her money to PETA. But like Catharine MacKinnon, I'm not sure reparations money is the way we go about changing the status of women. I abhor the alliance of any animal advocacy with pornography."[48]

Here we got some quotes from FAR and a notorious member from FAR, Carol Adams. My original thought was "wow, this is uselessly redundant". So I cut it in halve favor of the notable section. But I didn't stopped there and trimmed it some more, which goes to show I probably shouldn't remove stuff from this particular section again. I still think it's redundant and bloated to make it appears worst than it is, since they "continue to support those PETA campaigns we find good and useful", but the author didn't imply otherwise either. So I guess it's just my POV. Jean-Philippe 22:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Philippe, thank you for explaining your train of thought. I'd like to hear why you think this section is redundant and bloated, because while I think it's necessary, I also think it could use some more conciseness. Just want to have somebody else's opinion too. --Ramdrake 00:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Both persons are members of Feminists for Animal Rights, they both make an identical criticism in slightly different words, which is that PETA is objectificating women in the "I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur" campaign. They also make a point of criticizing an "alliance" between PETA and Playboy. So yay, not necessarily a bad thing but not a good one. It's fairly minor I guess. Jean-Philippe 01:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's perhaps a little bloated too, but hopefully it will serve to satisfy those who think there's not enough criticism on the page, and it is at least decently written, which is my main concern. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Would whoever wrote this section, please give footnotes and full citations, as in the rest of the text, instead of just slapping in an external link? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is a legitimate section, and well written. It's good so long as the references are, which I haven't checked, because these comments are about a living person, so WP:BLP applies. When writing up references, please use the ref tag, and enter: Name of author, URL, headline, name of publication, date of publication if available, and date you retrieved it if you can be bothered (the last thing isn't necessary). Otherwise, it's good. Thank you for writing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)