Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Holocaust on your Plate heading

Yes, and the Holocaust on your Plate campaign is important enough to have its own section in the PETA article, particularly since other, less important campaigns like the "Lettuce ladies", have their own sections. Farnsworth J. 04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's because the Lettuce Ladies aren't important that they have their own subsection in "Some PETA campaigns" and aren't one of the issues that's discussed as part of the main text. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, if the Holocaust on your Plate campaign is, as you say, more important than the Lettuce Ladies then it shouldn't be less visible by not having a heading and a mention in the table of contents. It looks like we're hiding it under a generic label (Campaigns) rather than recognizing it as being important. We should either change the “Campaigns” heading to read “Holocaust on your Plate and other campaigns” or create a “Holocaust on your Plate” subsection. If you're concerned that this would not give it more prominence then the Lettuce Ladies then we should list it first. Farnsworth J 16:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep the article in narrative form rather that list form. Everyone who comes to this article as a new editor wants to add their own pet opinion or theory or criticism under a header as a separate section, because that's the easiest way to write. The Holocaust on your plate" exhibition is discussed in the main campaigning section as an example of one of their hard-hitting campaigns. What is the benefit of separating it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If you do separate it out, it will go under the "Other campaigns" section at the end, and another controversial campaign will take its place in the main discussion, so if your aim is to draw attention to it, you're going about it the wrong way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The benefit is to wikipedia readers as a) it appears in the table of contents so it's easier to find b) it is possible for other articles (such as Holocaust (disambiguation)) to link directly to the section rather than just linking to the PETA article as a whole leaving readers to hunt for the Holocaust on your Plate reference. 72.60.227.118 01:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

For more information about that topic, it's best to link to Animal rights and the Holocaust, not here (an article that will be developed over the next couple of weeks). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Holocaust on your Plate" material should be under its own heading

Support

• Farnsworth J 00:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose This article is far too big as it is. Perhaps we could have an article for large, notable, or successful campaigns. Which is better, one bloated article or a series of smaller articles linking back and forth? L0b0t 02:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The proposal isn't to lengthen the article but just to add a header to existing material. Farnsworth J 04:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that. I am of the opinion however that the article needs to be trimmed down a great deal. Maybe splitting off the campaigns would be a good place to start. L0b0t 05:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article's too long and splitting the list of campaigns off would be a good idea. The disadvantage is that the new page will look like a PETA ad. My own preference would be to remove the list of campaigns and just link to PETA's site where they can explain for themselves what they do. But either way, having the list here makes the page too long. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Slim 100% --C civiero 07:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Article far too long, goes in to too much details about irrelevent individual campaigns. Adding a header for yet another campaign is moving in the direction of bad, not good. JBKramer 14:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment

• In my mind Holocaust on your Plate is a significant PETA campaign and should be dealt with fully in its own article. What should be in this article should only be a summary of that campaign. One or two sentences about the overall message and significance of the campaign, and (if applicable) a few more sentences about the signficance of the campaign to PETA as a whole. Commentary, criticism, or support of this campaign which has no wider significance on PETA as a whole, should only be dealt with in that article. If significant campaigns are to get subsections (===Campaign===) in this article, then yes it should get one. If there are so many (as it appears to me at first glance) that such would be cumbersome, perhaps they should only be listed, or better yet in a table. It certainly appears that there are a few dozen campaigns at this level of significance for PETA, which could create an unmanageable table of contents if each recieved such treatment. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

POV Issues

Alright, a few problems here:

-The criticisms section is gone. Some people are attempting to justify this by arguing that the criticisms "should be weaved into the article" instead of having their own section. I have issues with that. Firstly, a number of criticisms which used to appear on this page are gone. They seem to have been deleted rather than moved. Secondly, the absense of a criticisms section only makes it more difficult to find such content. As a result of this recent "reformatting", the article reads like an advertisment for PETA.

-The links to anti-PETA sites are gone. I'll re-add a few and see how long they last.

-Most of this article seems copy-and-pasted from PETA websites.

I think it would be appropriate to have a POV tag on this article. --C civiero 04:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like I'm in way over my head here. The article is long and confusing and criticisms are buried. This article was much better a few weeks ago, it should be reverted. If not, throw on a POV tag. --C civiero 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the criticisms being weaved in - they are going to stay like that. IIRC, Jimbo Wales stated that this is how it should be done, rather than splitting the article as it is difficult to discuss an issue if it is spread out.

Please feel free to add back in criticisms that have vanished, in the correct place with verifiable, reliable sources.

A lot of the information is sourced to PETA websites, and is allowed to be as under the guidelines mentioned above.

We have discussed the 'anti-peta' links in detail, and some were removed under the above guidelines and policies due to them not adding anything to the article. The links section is not meant to be a section to advertise pro and anti websites, it is supposed to be to link to useful sites that add something to the article.-Localzuk ^(talk) 12:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism should definitely be "weaved into the article". Criticism sections are bad, as Jimbo himself once stated. Removing all criticism from the article, of course, is even worse. — Omegatron 07:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The majority of controversial articles have "criticisms" sections. "Weaving in" the criticisms only hides them from a anyone who isn't looking hard for them. I find it very hypocritical that many of the contributors here dismiss the idea of a proper criticisms section for PETA, but have no problems with the state of the animal testing article. Here are a few other examples:

-KFC has a "controversy" section, which FEATURES CRITICISMS FROM PETA

-There is an Ethics of eating meat aritcle, half of which CONSISTS OF CRITICISMS FROM VEGETARIANS.

-The Fur clothing article includes a "criticisms" section, which mentions campaigns made BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS.

This is ridiculous and amazingly hypocritical. The "animal rights" related articles are in terrible shape because a handful of hippies hijacked wikipedia and won't allow any valid criticisms of their stance to show. I have presenting a good, solid argument, citing precedents to show why a "criticisms" section should be included. PETA should not be exempted from the standards applied to other articles. --C civiero 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, lots of articles have Criticism or Controversy sections, but good articles generally don't. To be neutral, you have to present the information in a neutral way. Please read Wikipedia:Criticism.

Oh, and, generally, there are more than two sides to every issue. You might want to look into that. — Omegatron 23:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand why "criticism" and "controversy" sections would contribute to POV, but the criticisms that are buried in this article are greatly foreshadowed by copy-and-pasted PETA propaganda. --C civiero 02:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So add more. — Omegatron 12:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha! - adding more will likely result in a revert war and a 3rr warning from the high priestess of tofu and her vegan minnions. Nevertheless, I have gone through dozens of controversial and other articles here in Wiki and have decided quite the opposite: controversy sections are far superior to weaves and even a good article becomes a better article when so contstructed. Let's get to the meat of the issue. Firstly, I can read throught those articles (let us take a film for an example) and learn what the film is about and who was in it and who created it, etetera. Then I can read about secondary things like how much money it made, the impact it had on specific groups, and the short-lived or perhaps long term cultural impact it had locally or even globally. Then I can read about what the press thought, whether good, indifferent, bad or just descriptive. Then I can read about any conroversy the film generated; sections like this contain everthying I need to know about how and why a controversy existed and the criticims that are germane. Having a section like this allows me to quickly find out about the relevant controversy without having to read throught the whole article. I realise that, of course, if I had an agenda to recruit people to my cause I'd certainly want the opposite: I'd want to make them read everything about my cause and I'd hope that my inflammatroy rhetoric, photos and biased viewpoints would ring a bell in the reader and he'd sympathise with my ideas. I'd also want to make it difficult for dissenters to makes edits, keep track of all that work and maintin a proper perspective regaring controversy & criticism --- better to hide it where it can be surreptitiously de-clawed. Worse, controversy & criticism sections might just contain too much common sense and force the reader to scoff at the cause! In the case of PETA and animal (so-called)rights, all this is indubitably the case. I don't want to leave any meat on the bone here: what we want here is to BE encycloepedic by describing the truth, which involves laying it out so that all sides to a story receive proper attention. Wow - when common sense is a headwind, your cause is fruitless. DocEss 17:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This article REALLY SHOULD HAVE A POV TAG. If you skim through this talk page, its obvious that the POV IS DISPUTED. --C civiero 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please notice the article intelligent design, a candicate for Good Article. It has a controversy section, a situation whicj adds markedly to its roundness and objectivity. It is well written and is happilly devoid of the 'criticsm-weave' technique.DocEss 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem here is. This is an article about an organisation that has several, widely held, specific criticisms. A section detailing these criticisms (explaining them, not saying they're right or wrong) is not POV. -- Desire Campbell 140.184.32.65 02:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is definitely POV to hide the criticisms amidst all the propaganda in the article. Someone put the section back. --LifeEnemy 22:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dumpster Bin Incident

I feel that the description (and space) committed to this incident is not quite neutral, and should be trimmed down significantly.

Unless we find proof that this is official policy of PETA (or at least tolerated) the dumping was a misconduct of some employees, and not really representative of the organization (and therefore inappropriate for an article like this). By the same token one could list every personal misbehaviour of any company's/organization's employees, and use it as an argument against them. Not quite fair, and definitely not NPOV. It doesn't matter much that this event actually happened, and that it is well documented. What matters is whether its representative of their policy, and I find no evidence for that. --Frescard 16:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether personal misconduct or not, it does reflect on PETA as it is a work-related misconduct while the employees were carrying out PETA-mandated work. So I am of the opinion it is indeed quite relevant.--Ramdrake 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the detail of the incident is fine - it covers all areas of the issue. However, as it is not a major aspect of PETA, I do not think there should be images - especially not 2 of them. -Localzuk ^(talk) 16:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed one of the images for the above reason. I think the first one is more representative of it than the second.-Localzuk ^(talk) 16:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's "work-related", but the question is, was this an independent decision of some employees, or was is approved or condoned by PETA? --Frescard 16:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If something is not part of their official policy, but they do it anyway, it is obviously relevant to the article, even moreso than the official policies that they do follow. These were two PETA employees using a PETA-registered van, picking up animals during typical work hours from shelters who believed that PETA would find them a new home, killing them and dumping them around 5 PM on a Wednesday afternoon. This was something that had been done repeatedly in the area in many different dumpsters (about 20 animals each) for more than a year (mostly on Wednesdays) before someone was caught in the act, and prevented these euthanasias from being reported to the county's Animal Control Officer (which already logs a very high percentage for this organization). In the van was a well-organized portable "death toolbox" and a digital camera with pictures of animals before and after euthanasia. After the incident, one worker was suspended, but the other was still employed by PETA.

Seems pretty damn relevant to me, and seems like it was encouraged or at least tolerated by PETA. But none of this really matters; their guilt or cooperation with PETA is not for you or I to decide; we just have to report on it neutrally as a common criticism of the organization. — Omegatron 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The section takes up very little of the article in size and actual relevance to the article as a whole. Including 2 images is pointless as it only needs one. As it stands, it looks cluttered. -Localzuk ^(talk) 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason that smaller sections should have fewer pictures. Can you cite any kind of guideline, policy, or style guide that says so? Even if there was, PETA's most prominent criticism is a little more important than one of their many campaigns. Beyond that, the first picture was commonly shown in the news as a representative photo of the incident, and the second picture directly relates to the commonly-referenced text about a vet's testimony. — Omegatron 18:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not just the number of pictures that matter, but also whether they illustrate a point. What does a picture of two dead kittens illustrate? How dead kittens look like?

The main reason for those pictures is to stir up emotions, and that's not what an encyclopedia is for. If they would contain pictures of the offenders the space they take up might be ok (not sure about the legal implications though), but including pictures to rouse emotions is not what Wikipedia articles are for. --Frescard 18:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then the monkey in a tube goes, the Unnecessary Fuss image goes, the lettuce ladies go, the naked rather than fur goes, Phan Thị Kim Phúc, Nguyen Ngoc Loan, and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima need their images removed...

Just because an image could provoke an emotional reaction doesn't mean it can't be included in the encyclopedia. The picture serves as photographic evidence of Proctor's claims, helping readers decide for themselves whether to believe him or not. — Omegatron 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The pictures do indeed arouse emotion; they arouse disgust at the hypocrisy of that arrogant, pontifcating and illogical organisation, PETA. Hubris! - somebody could have eaten that dog but they just threw it away. What a shameful display of waste.DocEss 18:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Monkey in a tube illustrates the point that PETA is using emotionally charges images to gain support. The campaign pictures obviously illustrate their campaigns. The war pictures are not there to raise emotions (even if they may do so in the process) but those specific ones have pretty much reached iconic status, and that's why they have their own pages. --Frescard 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

... and why they were the first to come to my mind. So you think that the use of one of those images in the article on Strategic bombing unfairly biases the article? That's silly. Our purpose here is to document fact.

One of the major points of the incident, and one of the charges against the two, was obtaining the animals under the false pretense that PETA was putting them up for adoption. As reported in several news articles, Proctor gives an example of a family of healthy cats he gave to them, paraphrasing the PETA workers as saying "my, what beautiful animals. We will have absolutely no trouble finding homes for these" The cats were found killed within a few hours, as attested to by the photograph. — Omegatron 18:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

When I first came across this paragraph I hadn't been familiar with the incident, and just judging by the images and write-up it pretty much looked like anti-PETA propaganda to me, attacking those two employees as a strawman. Only after I did some research myself did I start to have suspicions that PETA might have somehow tolerated or supposed this behaviour after all. Not everybody will do that though. The article itself should be as objective as possible, so that people "on the fence" will not write it off as obvious propaganda.

Instead of posting pictures that will only further that initial suspicion I would suggest to put more (referenced) facts into the article itself, to demonstrate the kind of involvement PETA has in this incident (like the fact that only one of the offenders was fired, and the letter PETA wrote in response). Steeping down to the same irrational methods PETA is employing (by using emotionally charges pictures) you will just make readers ignore your point altogether, since it'll be viewed as biased. --Frescard 19:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm planning to add all the other information from my above summary, but gotta spend 3-4x as long finding the best references and writing them up for the article. :-)

I don't think the images are as detrimental as you suppose, and it's not our job to manipulate readers' emotions in either direction, anyway. They can read what they want, and dismiss what they want. We present the facts as neutrally as possible, and the reader decides what they think. — Omegatron 23:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the photograph of the kittens, Image:PETA_dumpster_incident_cat_with_kittens.jpg, if you click on the source link and then on the second link they direct you to, that image appears to have been taken by the police, not the journalist, so we can claim PD, I believe, as it's USG property. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)\

I wrote to the site owner last night before uploading them, but haven't gotten a response yet. The cats are definitely law enforcement photos though.[1][2] Thanks for pointing that out. — Omegatron 23:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this typical? PETA radicals kill some pets (not animals, pets) and throw them in a dumpster and half a dozen people here rush to exclude it from the article. Some of the arguments?

-It's propaganda intended to provoke an emotional response.

What about the tube monkey, guy with the dog, Newkirk with the rooster, unnecessary fuss, etc.?

-It's the actions of a few people and not the policy of PETA.

Regardless of whether PETA has some official document which says "we like to kill kittens and throw them in dumpsters", some employees did just that and it wasn't the first time. It is certainly relevant to this article. I wonder how long it will last, given that *GASP* it ACTUALLY MAKES PETA LOOK BAD. The pictures need to be there to help balance the POV of the article. --C civiero 23:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And after we've added all the details they say are still needed to show a non-strawman connection with PETA, they'll say it makes the article too big and want to fork it out to its own.  :-) — Omegatron 23:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is how often, in Wikipedia and elsewhere, (potentially) isolated examples of animal abuse by individuals in the animal testing world is held up, by PETA and others, as examples of systematic abuse by the industry. I see strong parallels here with this section in the HLS article:

In 1997, film secretly recorded inside HLS in the UK by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) showed serious breaches of animal-protection laws, including a beagle puppy being held up by the scruff of the neck and repeatedly punched in the face, and animals being taunted. The investigation led to the company's Home Office licence being revoked in April 1997 for six months. At the time, the company's shares stood at £1.13: within three years they were worth 2.5 pence. Huntingdon officials claimed, in their defence, that these breaches were isolated cases and that the staff responsible were sacked and prosecuted.

Is this "really representative of the organization" anymore than PETA and the animal dumping? Who really knows, and its not our place to decide. Personally i think there is nothing wrong with both incidents being reported, but lets try and be consistant. Rockpocket 00:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought of that, too. Agreed completely. — Omegatron 00:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that some people here don't like using consumerfreedom.com as a source (and I don't really either), but this is dated June 2nd 2006, which is a lot more recent than the stuff in this article: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3045. Apparently, they were also charged with obtaining property through false pretenses. Is this worth mentioning in the article? --C civiero 02:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's in the article already. — Omegatron 12:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Refs

• PETA-registered van
• during typical work hours
• from shelters who believed that PETA would find them a new home
• killing them and dumping them around 5 PM on a Wednesday afternoon.
• had been done repeatedly in the area in many different dumpsters
• (about 20 animals each)[3]
  • when caught, they had dumped 18, and started to drive off with 13 still in the van
• for more than a year (18 month period)
• (mostly on Wednesdays)
• prevented these euthanasias from being reported to the county's Animal Control Officer
• (which already logs a very high percentage for this organization).
• In the van was a well-organized portable "death toolbox tackle box"
• digital camera with pictures of animals before and after euthanasia
  • "a digital camera with pictures of living and dead animals and vials of substances later determined to be drugs used to euthanize animals."
• After the incident, one worker was suspended, but the other was still employed by PETA.
  • "PETA said it has suspended Hinkle, but not Cook, who worked as Hinkle’s assistant. Newkirk called Hinkle “the Mother Teresa of animals. She’s a very kind, decent person.”"
• $35,500 bond on a combined 62 felony counts of animal cruelty and eight misdemeanor counts each of illegal disposal of dead animals. An additional charge of illegal trespassing was filed June 17 against both individuals.

Phew! — Omegatron 00:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a big list against the two employess, but the connection to PETA is still circumstantial.

Compare this case with what happened in Abu Ghraib. You could check off nearly every item for that situation as well. Does that mean the Army supported or tolerated it? Some say they did, some say they didn't. And there was even more evidence available there...

So - since it's not really up for us to make judgements like that (that's what courts are for), I still feel assigning blame is a bit early.

But actually - I don't really care anymore. I'm not gonna waste any more time trying to balance this article. If you guys want to get into an edit war with the PETA supporters, once they show up, go for it. I don't... --Frescard 02:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a big list against the two employess, but the connection to PETA is still circumstantial.

Yep.

I still feel assigning blame is a bit early.

Good thing we're not assigning blame, then.

If you guys want to get into an edit war with the PETA supporters, once they show up, go for it. I don't...

I don't, either. It's tiring. — Omegatron 12:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

POV Language

I just like to run every edit that I make by everyone. I'm deleting a few words because they screw up the neutrality of the article:

1.)"PETA was nevertheless criticized by the OPRR for having edited the film in a misleading way"

-Deleted the word "nevertheless", served only to make the article POV.

2.)"has been criticized...for the actions of some of its employees regarding their treatment of animals"

-Deleted "for the actions of some of its employees". The wording was just an attempt to direct responsibility away from PETA. --C civiero 23:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good edit. — Omegatron 23:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

3)"By 1989, PETA had persuaded nearly 500 companies to go "cruelty-free".

-replaced "go 'cruelty-free'" with "abandon such practices". --C civiero 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues with Timeline

The "timeline" section has almost no citations to support claims, and consists almost exclusively of points intended to promote PETA. I have been told numerous times that any claims I make must be backed by citations, yet it appears I would not be held to such standards if my contributions were in support of PETA. The timeline section also exponentially extends an already overly-long article. It's messy, POV, long, and pointless. It should be deleted, but it won't be. Forgive me for not "assuming good faith", but it's pretty hard to do so when its blatantly obvious that I'm being shut down because my views and contributions differ from the veterans here. I can't "assume good faith", when nothing that myself or User:DocEss contribute will ever make the final cut (interesting that we happen to differ from the majority here). --C civiero 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would separate your comment into two parts, the issue of neutrality the issue of proper sourcing. I think you are correct that the title should probably be modified to 'Timeline of important PETA achievements', with clarification just below that the importance is from PETA's own perspective. Then it makes sense for the reader to see how, over time, they achieve (what they consider) concrete results. For your second point of proper sourcing, since several sources are provided, I would ask if you could possibly name a single timeline event that is currently unsourced. Do it one at a time, as that would be easier to tackle. If no appropriate source is found, nuke the item and you'll have majority support. Then repeat for all others you feel are unsourced. But please do it one at a time. Thanks, Crum375 20:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with your recommendation to deal unsourced material, I must disagree with the need to create a timeline of events PETA thinks are important. The timeline should instead receive the same treatment as the previous criticisms section and be blended into existing sections were appropriate or become the start for new sections when needed. The primary reasons for this are to help demonstrate the impact of various PETA campaigns and activities, reduce unneeded repetition, and to place events into proper context. Integrating the timeline into the article proper will also help prevent its use as a surrogate criticism, praise, or trivia section. --Allen3 ^talk 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, however there is the problem that if some of the information is expanded upon and removed from the section it will no longer be a timeline... So whilst this, long and difficult process, is done what do you suggest we do with the information that hasn't been integrated?-Localzuk ^(talk) 22:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There would appear to be two possible answers. The first is that as items are added to the article elsewhere they are removed from the timeline with the understanding that the timeline is to be removed completely. The second option is to use HTML comments to tag the sections that have already been integrated so that the timeline can be removed in one big chunk upon completion of the integration effort. --Allen3 ^talk 23:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a timeline of 'accomplishments' (from PETA's perspective - the article is about them) makes sense, to let readers judge for themselves whether PETA's sometimes eccentric campaigns actually produce concrete results. The redundancy with other mentions in the article is not a problem, since in the timeline it is the gradual unfolding of events that counts, and of course the timeline items should have a summary only. Overall, I think the timeline is a valuable asset to the article and a good summary for a reader wanting to know what PETA is about (again, from PETA's perspective). Crum375 23:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a public relations firm or resume writing service. Due to Wikipedia's policies, we must employ a neutral point of view. If there is a timeline then it needs to include all important events related to PETA and not just the events that PETA wishes to advertise. For an organization with as many simultaneous activities as PETA, a timeline format also has the problem of breaking sequences of related events and intermixing them with unrelated material that makes it difficult to glean a clear understanding of how events relate to each other outside of a calendar ordering. --Allen3 ^talk 23:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The "timeline" needs to go. Most of it is just cut & paste from the peta.uk website. We had a rather long debate on the subject of sourcing if you want look through the archives. My contention is still that PETA can NOT be used as a source to establish causality for these timeline claims. PETA has a campaign then on down the road a company changes it's policy towards animals, of course from the PETA pov PETA is responsible for the change but unless there is some 3rd party documentation to establish causality it is just another PETA claim and we are guilty of a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, or after this therefore because of this. There are some wild claims on that timeline relating to shutting down Defence Dept. labs. If PETA did convince the army or any company to change policy we need the army or those companies to say so, via press release, news story, some source other than PETA the group making the claim. I say PETA is a self-published source when it comes to 3rd party causality. Unfortunately certain editors disagree including one with admin powers and she would just rv. any of the changes I would make so I gave up. L0b0t 00:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the sourcing, I think the PETA site itself should be used very sparingly, esp. for 'accomplishments'. We need non-PETA related sources for each. And I agree that if it's copy paste from PETA site it's not WP-neutral. But I do think it's useful for a reader to see a log-like summary PETA's perceived accomplishments, as it gives the reader of PETA's 'state of mind' or agenda etc. Even if the reader is anti-PETA, it's useful. But of course it must be based on WP-acceptable sources. Crum375 00:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The timeline needs to be removed. It's just copied and pasted from PETA's own Timeline of Victories, and is inherently biased. None of the attempts to make it neutral have been successful. — Omegatron 21:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Human Experimentation

I've heard that PeTA's position is that humans should be experimented upon, instead of animals. Does that mean that the Concentration Camps should be opened ? I've heard rumors that humans are being experimented upon, especially those that are physically and mentally disabled ! I REALLY hope that is a really sick rumor. Martial Law 02:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this kind of thing on www.rense.com, and other places, and I have a Popular Mechanics magazine discussing Cold War tech. incl. human experimentation, and here in Texas, I've seen a billboard pix of a horse that says that,"Animal Experiments helped me too." Martial Law 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they propose experimentation should be on human volunteers. See human experimentation and Medical torture for details of more recent allegations and examples of involuntary experimentation. Rockpocket 04:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no 'sick humour' here; human experimentation is part of their radical dogma. But which humans to experiment on and which humans will make the decisions are the really tough parts to their equation. How exciting - what we'll need for the leader is someone with no scruples, no moral basing, no conscience, no susceptibility to divergence from the path, a cold & calulating personality and an iron will to ignore criticism. Did Himmler, Mengele or Heidrych have any lovely little kids PETA could hire? And who could we choose? Should we use Jews, negros, retards, communists, liberals, cripples, disidents, Mexicans, people from Cambridge, short baskeeebawl players, slow drivers, bad typists? Who exactly? Maybe PETA could volunteer its one million freaks. PETA is just a bunch of silly asses.DocEss 16:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of one's view regarding PETA, I think most people would agree that performing clinical studies or medical testing on humans is a critically needed function. Of course a proper clinical study should always have the patient (or his/her legal representative) sign an appropriate informed consent, where they agree to participate in the study while understanding the potential risks and benefits. Often the drug, device or procedure being administered is a placebo, which creates a control group against which others are measured. Using animals for research is possible, with its own ethical issues (since animals can't legally sign consent forms) but inadequate, as animals are anatomically and physiologically different from humans. In summary, regardless of animal testing, human testing is carried on every day, with proper controls, and is crucial for the advancement of medicine. Thanks, Crum375 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course testing on humans is necessary - that's what the USA's FDA does with viagra, for example. But there are inumerable cases where testing on a human is dangerous, reprehensible, unnecessary or wrong. You have to keep in mind that there are no ethics involved with animals; ethics require a moral basis and animals do not have morals. Whatever your twisted beliefs, know that many animals are sufficiently anotomically and physiologically similar to humans to allow adequate to very good (and sometimes excellent) clinical analogies - which is precisely the point: we spare man the ordeal. Animals will do just fine for experiments - not to mention satisfy my culinary and clothing needs.DocEss 18:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, ethics are in the eye of the ethicist. And ethics evolve over time and place. I am sure that during slavery in the US many people would have felt that testing on slaves is ethical. During Nazi rule in Europe, testing on Jews and other hapless victims was considered ethical by many, and so on. The point is that ethics are as fluid and transient as society itself, and although A's ethics may not equal B's ethics, like religion, all views have to be understood. For WP's purposes, it is crucial to present them neutrally without taking sides. Crum375 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get into a discussion about what ethics are and fall into other syntaxical bickering. (We could discuss ethics on another page, ya?) The PETA and animal (so-called)rights articles are skewed and biased not only in tone but in content. The articles are written in a holier-than-thou, pontificating, our-view-is-obvious manner with only a scant shrimp-cocktail sized smattering of criticism hidden throughout. That situation is unacceptable. The articles make ludicrous claims and statements like 'testing should be only on humans' and they don't contain any criticsm about what most humans think is wrong with that radical idea. The beliefs are not common (indeed, they are radical) yet the articles read like gospel or promo pieces for PETA-philes' agendas. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a PETA referencing machine.DocEss 19:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion to you is to apply your criticism one item at a time, brick by brick. Instead of decrying the entire article as a PETA promo, take one single sentence that you think is POV and address it (for best results start with the most POV one you can find). This way, by focusing on one point at a time, you will get support of many editors and potentially achieve results. If you take on the entire article, you won't get far. Crum375 19:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems well reasoned. Ah,...there is hope, and hope is enough.DocEss 19:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

There was a bit in the article a while ago about Mary Beth Sweetland of PETA using insulin derived from animal testing, but it's been removed, of course. "I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals." — Omegatron 21:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not an experiment, it's medication. Even hypocrites benefit from animal testing. PUT it back in the article in the criticsim section where it should be.DocEss 21:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no criticism section. — Omegatron 23:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. There should be a criticism section. And don't tell me good articles are better with 'weaves' of criticism. For example, please notice the article intelligent design, a candicate for Good Article. It has a controversy section, a situation which adds markedly to its roundness and objectivity. It is well written and is happily devoid of the 'criticsm-weave' technique. Even so, why don't you make a sugestion as to where the Sweetland quote should go?DocEss!

Wherever their stance on animal research is mentioned, of course. — Omegatron 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would vehemently oppose the creation of a criticisms section on any article that is as controversial as this one, using the following as reasoning [...] 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. Which to me seems like a sensible idea fr such a controversial article. If there is a 'Criticism' section then should there also be a 'Counter-Criticisms' section etc...? Instead, if we provide the criticism to an action, event, statement (or whatever) with information about it within the rest of the article, it can be dealt with there and then.-Localzuk ^(talk) 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That reasoning is, I submit, specious. 'We don't want criticism sections because troll-magnets will cause grief.' So what? Use some other type of control to eliminate destructive vandalism. Protect pages, do something else beside mangling the article. Hey: intelligent design, a candicate for Good Article, seems to function pretty well. Troll magnets?- you must have some other reason other than that for ignoring common sense.DocEss 18:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You will note, however, that the article you keep citing as an example is a different article to this one. What is done there does not have to be the same as here. This article, as you know, is a highly contested one which has suffered badly (and still does in some places) a lot of POV, unsourced information. We specifically removed the criticism section to try and prevent edit warring as people who are against PETA will be drawn to it and will add their own tuppence. If, instead, the information is spread out, people will be more inclined to add well sourced information and we won't start having to battle against these things. Why do you specifically think we need a criticism section rather than providing criticism to each specific area in the text?-Localzuk ^(talk) 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I specifically think we need a criticism section because 1) it is a superior format in that it allows the reader to find all the criticisms quickly and analyse them sytematically, perhaps even come up with new perspectives or line items; 2) it makes the articles more rounded by at least the mere recognition that there are criticisms (especially controversial ones like intelligent desin, PATA, Midlle East wars, Nazis or whatever); 3) there is vehement and unreasonable oppossition to same, which means that the dissenters have a seprate agenda (one other than the truth). Criticism sections are subject to the same revisions and edit wars as every other article, so they are not uniquie in that sense. I suspect PETA-philes just don't want criticisms to be at all highlighted. Suspect? - nah - I'm stating it.DocEss 19:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It makes the article inherently biased. Why isn't there a Praise section to go with your Criticism section? Because it's a silly, arbitrary way to break up an article. This is what you're fighting for:

• PETA
  • General info about PETA
    • History
    • Campaigns
    • Policies
    • Relationships
  • Why PETA sucks!
    • Criticism of campaigns
    • Criticism of policies
    • Criticism of relationships

This is what it should have:

• PETA
  • History
  • Campaigns

    Criticism of campaigns

  • Policies

    Criticism of policies

  • Relationships

    Criticism of relationships

Which is a more logical way to break up an article? Which is more neutral, emotionless, disinterested?

Also, your suspicion/statement is simply wrong. — Omegatron 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This article was fine and dandy with a critisisim section. It had a list of peta owned sites AND a list of sites critical to peta. But peta then came in and rewrote the article in their favor.

South Park episode

A recent episode of South Park had PeTA featured in it, only that the PeTA members were having SEX with the animals, had a goat in charge of their group, tried to have the school mascot changed, got killed by what appeared to be MAFIA personnel. Martial Law 23:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The episode was Douche and Turd. Martial Law 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Where can this be placed ? Martial Law 23:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere? Jean-Philippe 00:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

External links, PETA in popular culture go for it. L0b0t 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, but it's what I've come to expect. Jean-Philippe 02:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You have come to expect what? People calmly and freely discussing ideas, and additions on the talk page. That's what I expect. Do you think a section about "PETA in popular culture" or perhaps "cultural influences of PETA" is ridiculous? I would be interested in your reasoning. I think a group important enough to have an article deserves to have it's cultural impact reported upon. L0b0t 02:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with you trying to improve the article and everything to do with taking a cheap shoot at PETA with nonsense. A section about cultural influences of PETA sound good, by all mean go ahead and write one, but don't pretend to be neutral about it. Jean-Philippe 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would never pretend to, nor even claim neutrality. A human who claims any motivator other than some form of self interest is lying. I will however, try very hard to keep an objective, balanced tone to my writing. Failing that, I rely on the Wiki community to discuss, edit, and provide perspective. Having not seen the particular television show in question, I'll not comment on any "cheap shots" they may or may not have taken. I will continue to posit that an organization that has enough cultural cache to be lampooned by notable media, and have their name become shorthand for a whole system of beliefs, should be discussed as such. As far as not improving the article, how does it not? Please assume good faith. L0b0t 03:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"You know exactly what it is, because Martial Law did a good job describing it in relatively good details. As for telling me to assume good faith, what good faith is there to assume about someone who would insert a link picturing PETA activists as beastiality practitioners? You've asked me to how it doesn't improve the article, because it's false and misleading, that's my opinion. Now please do tell me what it does to improve the article?Jean-Philippe 03:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that the parody of Peta is nothing more than trivia - and I am against adding trivial information to any article as it detracts from the actual subject - wikipedia is not a trivia site. Did the episode make any profound and notable statement regarding peta, or did it simply parody them as it did with the ALF and many other organisations.-Localzuk ^(talk) 17:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles that are a hell of a lot better than this one have cultural impact sections. Satire is a valid and respected form of critical comment, and thus deserves its place as much as any other, notable, criticism might. Consider the cultural impact section of Heavy metal and the Parodies section of The O'Reilly Factor. Rockpocket 17:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously easy to change the topic from adding an link to a cartoon depicting PETA as beastiality practicioners into a noble quest to add a cultural influence section to "improve" the article. The fact remain that I believe this one piece of trivia is disgusting, which is obviously my POV. Jean-Philippe 18:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We can't include every reference in every comedy routine, or newspaper or juvinile cartoon that parodies or even supports a group or cause. Goodness, can you imagine how long articles would be if we included parodies of the Repuclican party, the Queen, the Vatican, the Buddhists, etc....? It is merely trivia and does not add to the roundess of the article. Serious and thought-out criticism, on the other hand, should be included.DocEss 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You are familiar with the concept of parody as criticism, right? This type of Juvenalian satire is as "serious and thought-out" as the subject of the parody. Are such flippant headline grabbing stunts such as suggesting cities change their name, or that parents might kill their children's pets "serious and thought-out" campaigns? No, of course not, PETA is using shock tactics to get their message in the mass media. So why are these campaigns notable, yet a celebrated mass media satire - using similarly exaggerated shock tactics - is deemed a trivial "juvinile cartoon" [sic] and "disgusting"? Makes you wonder who is editing from a NPOV here. Struck due to impolite inference Rockpocket 20:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am an ardent and vocal (yet objective!) opponent of the PETA and AR articles as they stand here; I seriously question the objectivity and skewness of these articles -- they lack proper criticism content, for one. But we don't need little quotes from little cartoons to colour the articles. Otherwise, we'd have endless pages of drivel about what Seinfeld thinks of Ovaltine or Homer Simpson thinks of U2. Get real; I think you've lost sight of the purpose of an encyclopoedia: the purpose is to desrcibe, not editorilise. If the description of the subject matter actually requires a cultural reference, then by all means include same and you'll receive supoort from all objective editors. Anyway, grow up, stop watching cartoons, read a book, expand your mind. Why don't you write an objective Critiscism section here instead of relying and South Park's view?DocEss 20:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't require your advice on what what i do in my spare time, thank you very much. But as it happens, your inference is way off mark, i doubt i have ever watched an entire episode of South Park. Please keep your comments on the subject of the talk page, and desist making idle speculation about other editors' pasttimes, thank you. If i offended you by implying you were POV pushing, i apologise, i have struck the comment. I personally agree that, given editorial oversight, such popular culture references would not be in articles such as these. However, neither you nor I have such exclusive oversight. The fact is, cultural references such as these are the norm in Wikipedia articles. I see no reason why mention of a Peabody Award- and Emmy Award-winning satire (i.e. a notable one) should not be included in a factual, NPOV manner. And while we are at it, the Penn and Teller episode could go in there too. Rockpocket 21:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am offended by nothing - you should try the same mindset. Anyway, your 'failure to see' is hardly support of your argument. It is trivia, merely trivia. It's neat-o, it's thuper-duper, it's perhaps on-point, it's maybe even funny --- but it ain't encyclopoedic. Who the hell cares what South Park thinks of PETA? DESCRIBE PETA; describe their purpose, their actions, their principles, their beliefs, their structure, their verifiable criticisms, their controvorseies - don't describe mere trivia, no matter how matter awards the sources may have won. This is pointless: move on and write a proper criticsim section and impress us all.DocEss 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent). I'm not offended, i would just rather follow policy and avoid personal comments. I would kindly ask you try that mindset. Clearly we differ in what we consider "important information" (hence trivia). It seems to me that for any group that fights their battles in the forum of mass media, verifiable comment (be it directly critical or satirical in nature) in the same media is not automatically unimportant. When such comment is from an acclaimed source, then it becomes notable. In a similar vein, is Michael Moore's comments on the Columbine High School massacre mere trivia? By your rationale it would appear they would be ("Who the hell cares what Moore thinks of Columbine"?) If PETA only operated in the scholarly literature - or in highbrow intelligencia circles - then you may have a point, but they don't. They are as mass-market as you get in the movement (see the discussion about radicalism in the archives).

You say: "Who the hell cares what South Park thinks of PETA"? I say who the hell cares what PETA thinks of Beyonce? Not me, and i suspect, not you, but clearly some people do. WP is not paper, thus we can cover material that is not found in traditional encyclopaedias. I'm pleased you would like to move on, as would I. However, i am content with the level of criticism in this article and do not believe such a section is required. Sadly, then, you will have to remained unimpressed with my editing skills. Rockpocket 21:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

NOT POV @ all. Martial Law 22:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Seen comment about me being POV in history sect. on article. NO! I'm NOT being POV @ all. Just stating what I had found, no more, no less. Martial Law 22:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yawn. Rocketpocket: Of course we differ and what we consider important information or we wouldn't be debating. I believe South Park's little episode about this (or any) issue is mere trivia; you don't agree. You are incorrect and your insistence on pressing the point is fruitless. Look, this is one of those things that is obviously not black & white and so we'll need to discriminate and make distinctions. In that regard, it is your judgement that is faulty. For example, in the case of Moore's film, his viewpoint on Columbine is not trivia when referneces are included in the right articles. To address what you're struggling to say, I think we can say that Moore's film might have had enough impact on the Columbine issue that it very well could merit inclusion as a cultural note in the Columbine article. Should we include the film Pride of the Yankees in the NY Yankees article? Obviously! We shall have to rely a judgement to make those calls. On the other side of the coin, I think all editors would judge that South Park has had insufficient influence (on PETA for eg) to be considered relevant; hence, it is trivia. As for the Beyonce reference, I'd delete it (as trivia) but I'd be out-voted becasue many others would think that this particular reference exemplifies PETA's beliefs; I'd fight them. And finally - it is WE who should wish to operate in high-brow intelligencia because if we don't or our little encylopoedia becomes nuttin but a juvinile pamphlet full of drivel and banalities. We are here to DESCRIBE. Now, describe PETA correctly and stop with the cartoons. (Man, you sure have a lot of glowing support of and knowledge about a program you said you've never fully watched. I suspect you're a South-y Park-yphile.)DocEss 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, i implore you to desist with patronising personal comments and remain focused on the subject at hand. I note that your talk page consists almost entirely of warnings about personal attacks. You are already be issued a final warning of being reported at WP:PAIN, please consider taking more more civil tone in your talk page discussions.

It would appear will not be content until it is acknowledged that you are right and I am wrong. I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that with opinions. I acknowledge your opinion and, if consensus forms around it, then i will have no beef with accepting that. Sadly, you appear unwilling to offer me the same courtasy. Let me quote back to you something you said: "I believe South Park's little episode about this (or any) issue is mere trivia; you don't agree. You are incorrect" You express that your belief (a conviction to the truth of a proposition without its verification, therefore it is a subjective mental interpretation of the perception results) has superior inherent validity over another editor's. We are not here to "fight" for our beliefs - something worth remembering. And, to paraphrase, i'll give you the last word... Rockpocket 19:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine....survey the world and you'll discover most thinks it's trivia. Consensus will form around that idea, I can assure you. I can say it is trivia and will be generally viewed as trivia simply because my wisdom and experience are what give me the skill to make the judgement. Accordingly my opinions do have superior inherent validity and I question your reasoning skills if you can't make the necessary distinctions. A doctor has opinions about brain tumors - do you believe your opinion equal to his? Get real. Stop wasting everyone's time whilst you go about finding your place in the world. Stick to DESCRIBING PETA and AR.DocEss 20:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate i offered you the last word, but i can't resist this. You ask, "A doctor has opinions about brain tumors - do you believe your opinion equal to his?" Well, being a doctor myself, i do actually. However, you'll not find any instance where i attempt to use my expertise to demean the opinion of others here. The point being: your self proclaimed "wisdom and experience" (not to mention modesty) notwithstanding, your opinion is worth no more and no less here than anyone elses. Talk about policy and we'll listen. Self-important belittling of others - especially when you have no idea who you may be talking with - is both unwelcome and unconstructive. Rockpocket 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean "you", I meant "one": I certainly wouldn't listen to my plumber's opinion of brain tumours. Perhaps you would? Anyway, it was worth a try to de-claw you and get you focused. Let us now Stick to DESCRIBING PETA and AR.DocEss 17:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)