Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Examples of POV that could be removed

Obviously, this article has a serious pro-PETA bias but not much has been done with the article. Here are some things that could be changed:

-"It also campaigns against...the keeping of chained backyard dogs...." PETA has said that they support "animal liberation" which, they say, includes pets. This section of the article suggests that PETA only supports the cruel keeping of pets. So that could be changed to "the keeping of all pets" instead of just "chained backyard dogs".

-"It was also criticized...by Jim Inhofe, who stated that PETA had acted as a 'spokesgroup' for the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, after activists associated with those groups had committed what Inhofe called 'acts of terrorism.'" According to this quote, the ELF and ALF are only terrorists in Inhofe's eyes. Not true. They are arsonists. There is no reason why the ALF could not be defined as terrorism, even if that terrorism is justified. The article provides a lot of justification for this, with no quotes critical of the actions.

-"PETA members have been criticized for taking activism too far..." There are lot of actions by PETA which simply say "were criticized" or similar. But again, there is a large amount of justification.

-"Ingrid Newkirk is firm in her support..." This whole section is simply a sob story for PETA. The actions that PETA took were obviously not allowed, something which the section glosses over.

-The most glaring part of the article is the huge amount of PETA quotes and pictures which make the article seem pretty much the same as reading the biased PETA website. In my opinion, I don't see much harm in including a Controversy section, since that's most of the reason why PETA is well-known. 68.193.130.33 (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. All too often, we get rants from unregistered users who complain of bias without offering specifics, or constructive ideas about what to fix. This problem makes it difficult for me and other editors who want to work responsibly for NPOV. In contrast, you have expressed in a concrete and helpful way some things that have been bothering me too. In the near future, I am going to look very closely at each of the points you have raised, and see what I can do. In addition, it would be very helpful if you or others could help in locating sources that we can cite to back up what you say about critical quotes and justification for criticism. Also, my take on past discussions is that it would be better to correct POV issues as they arise on the page, rather than to create a separate criticism section. (I'll also point out that there are other related articles where similar concerns arise, for example Animal Liberation Front.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea to review the article, however several of the points by unregistered user have been gone over again and again, such as relations with ALF and terrorism. The chained dog business is OR unless there is a solid reference. It doesn't make sense that PETA would be against all pets and run a spay/neuter van for pets. Agree about not reinstating the controversy section - been there, done that, discussed it to death. Bob98133 (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

About the pet issue, I should probably clarify. PETA basically does not want there to be domesticated animals, pets. But so many people have them, that it would be impossible to reduce pets to zero. Instead, they want to keep pets to a minimum by having them be spayed and neutered, instead of just taking them all away. Source. And according to Centre Daily Times, PETA puts down most of the pets it takes in. (source which quotes the article) 68.193.130.33 (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You say "PETA basically does not want there to be domesticated animals" but the reference does not say that. It does say that they don't want any breeding of animals for pets, but even without intentional breeding there would be plenty. Why would they sell pet items [1] or have an entire website about caring for pets [2]? How does the number of animals they kill have anything to do with their view about domesticated animals? If these two were connected, any major city which kills thousands of animals yearly kills more than they they do, so you would have to say they were even more against pet ownership. I understand what you're suggesting, but it amounts to OR. You are trying to connect bizarre things that PETA does to construct a policy which I do not believe exists. Bob98133 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

About that latter discussion, about pets, I think that Bob is reading the sourcing correctly insofar as what we at WP can justifiably claim or not claim in an article (although I have a strong suspicion that 68.193... is correct about PETA's ultimate wishes, which cannot however be substantiated via sourcing, at least not sourcing from them, and so should not be claimed here). However, I think that (at least for a start) 68 makes a good point about how Inhofe is presented in the lead. It does come across like it's just his personal opinion, whereas some of it can, in fact be sourced to DHS and other sources. I think that can be improved upon. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Public Response section

I understand why there's no criticism section. I'm perfectly fine with that. But, how about a Public Response section? A section that discusses both praises and criticisms by outside individuals/organizations. As long as it's well sourced, it'll be better than nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.236.247 (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, but do public responses to actions of a non-profit have a place in an encyclopedia? For example, I recall that MADD was mad at PETA about some college campaign to drink beer not milk. MADD is a fairly respectable org and their objections can be well-sourced, but how relevant are they? PETA campaigns seem to intentionally piss people off, so there must be plenty of "criticisms", or public response, of these campaigns, but do those criticisms help define the topic or balance any POV? There are also organizations, like Center for Consumer Freedom that criticize everything that PETA does - are those relevant? I think your idea for a separate section might work but establishing criteria about who or what should be included might be really difficult. For example, Pam Anderson probably loves PETA. It seems relevant that she participates in PETA campaigns, but her feelings about the org seem a little off topic. I'd be curious how you'd see this working. Bob98133 (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be that specific. There could be responses by foreign governments, corporations, celebrities, other animal activists (perhaps incorporating the "Conflicts with other activists" section?), etc, without listing every single individual or organization that falls under said categories. --69.255.236.247 (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that, rather than add a separate section, to add public reactions of this sort section-by-section. The page certainly has an abundance of coverage of specific campaigns, and I bet we can add reactions to those as each campaign is covered, and that has the potential to improve the page. ("This was the campaign. This was the reaction to it.") Thank you for suggesting that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be better if we did both. A separate section would be more convenient for the readers. Also, a lot of the public responses that could be included, wouldn't fit directly under the other sections.--69.255.236.247 (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with 69.255...I agree with Tryptofish that this material would be better integrated into the article. Let's try to remember that we've just cut about a third off of this article to streamline it, so bloating it with a lot of this stuff doesn't make much sense. 69.255..,please do not insert your comments between other comments - it makes them hard to read and follow - thanks - Bob98133 (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A separate section would not bloat the article. If anything, it'll make it easier for the readers to find what they're looking for, since many of these public responses wouldn't fit well in the other sections of the article. That's like cutting out the Controversy section of the Scientology article because other sections mention the controversy. This sounds like a double standard (hence why there's been complaints about a lack of NPOV).--69.255.236.247 (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think my history here shows that I'm very sympathetic to correcting the pro-PETA POV of the page. At the same time, I've learned from experience what will or what will not achieve consensus in the process here. In a way, it's not going to be productive to argue about a separate section in the absence of actual content for the page. So, I suggest that we see what material can actually meet standards for inclusion, and then we can see where it will best fit on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree - makes sense to have content before we decide where to put it. Bob98133 (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wriggling cats

Does this need to be included?

PETA was criticized in 1999 regarding undercover film it took inside the Carolina Biological Supply Company, which appeared to show wriggling cats being embalmed alive. Two veterinarians agreed that the cats appeared to have been alive at the time. An anatomist argued 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.

It's the kind of thing we focus on a lot -- a non-notable case gets included because someone happened to read about it. I think we need to focus on the key, notable issues, because otherwise we're going to have to engage in a major trim every few months, with all the hassle that entails.

Can we come up with some criteria for inclusion perhaps? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your work on this. I'm still trying to take it all in, as there's a lot on the table in a short period of time. For this particular question, I'd suggest that the thing to be careful about is to not delete those instances where, as seems to be the case in the text quoted, PETA's claims were called into question. That can be notable because it can illustrate the other side of the issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but the difficulty with this article is that the negative material was written by people with strong feelings but no information (and no desire to spend a few days doing research). So the article ends up as a series of quotes or examples that they've read in some newspaper, with very little linking narrative. Example: "PETA was criticized in 1999 for doing a very Bad Thing. "It was a very Bad Thing," said Nobel Prize-winning researcher Professor Sir John Smith OBE, MBE, "really very Bad." A blue-ribbon committee of the Best Researchers at the Best Researchers' Institute condemned the Bad Thing, and the United States government vowed to introduce Anti-Bad-Thing legislation without further ado. Sources: Best Researchers' Magazine; New York Post op ed.

The fact is that PETA is a large organization that does a lot of things, and get some things right, and some wrong. Unless we want an article that is several hundred pages long, we have to be selective, and it shouldn't be the kind of random selection we have at the moment. Basically we should focus on (a) the group's bread-and-butter activities (e.g. buying homes for outdoor dogs); (b) famous campaigns and campaigners, and responses to them (good and bad); (c) famous cases they've been involved in, whether investigations or other legal and political issues, to be determined by how much coverage they got. And then we should choose the best, most mainstream sources -- no more New York Post or small-town newspapers. If those are the only stories that can be found, then the case is not notable enough for inclusion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to insert myself here. I'm glad that we have some agreement in principle, and I also agree with you that getting the page right involves properly balancing things that PETA does right and those it does wrong. My perception of discussion over time is that the problems of editors who put things in the page is not that all the bad edits come from people who feel strongly negatively about PETA, but from people who feel strongly on both sides. I actually think, for example, that NRen has raised some helpful points, and that Nobelist David Hubel, sourced from the rigorously-reviewed Annu Rev Neurosci, satisfies every citing/sourcing policy that exists. I haven't seen a whole lot of talk about the page being too harsh on PETA. But I think we can discuss things where there are sincere differences of opinion, and work together to make sure the page is sourced correctly. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching the page for a few years and I've seen very little positive material added beyond the basic text; almost all the drive-bys are people wanting to add criticism. David Hubel isn't a reliable source for the Silver Spring monkeys because he wasn't involved in the case and he is partisan. What is needed, if at all possible, is to find neutral sources who criticize, or critics who were directly involved. It's a question of using primary and secondary sources appropriately.

For example, let's say PETA goes undercover into a university lab. PETA and its investigators are primary sources and can tell us what they did. The university is also involved and can tell us, "PETA has invaded our privacy and exaggerated what they saw." That is fine. We then look for reliable mainstream secondary sources (newspapers, for the most part) to tell us what the regulatory body said, or that body itself, and so on.

What we mustn't do is go to entirely uninformed sources who are also partisan e.g. David Hubel, generic scientist not involved in the case (just as we wouldn't use PETA to comment on Hubel's work that PETA was not involved in), or a New York Post op ed written by someone also not informed but who dislikes PETA. Bottom line: we should use the most informed primary sources, and the most mainstream and disinterested secondary ones, as we would if we were writing a history article, say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your thoughtful answer. About drive-bys, it's certainly true that vandals trend overwhelmingly that way, but of course what matters are the stable edits, and the fact is that there are a lot of reasonable complaints about a pro-PETA POV and none that I know of about an anti-PETA POV. And David Hubel truly is not "entirely uninformed;" likewise, we can't very well leave out every observation by people who are "partisan." I'd be willing to wager that Hubel's understanding is a lot deeper than Alec Baldwin's (not that I really want to get into an extended talk about either person). Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've adjusted the subhead, because I keep scrolling to the end of the section and can't find your posts. This makes it easier. Hubel may indeed have a deeper understanding, but not necessarily the information he needs to form that understanding. The point is that we need to use informed primary sources, and secondary sources who don't care, who've just appraised the facts in a disinterested way. If Einstein were alive, I wouldn't quote his view of the Silver Spring monkeys, though I'm sure his understanding of many issues might run deeper than any of the reliable sources. That's the only point I'm trying to make. And at the other end of the same uninvolved-uninformed-but-opinionated sourcing scale lies the New York Post op ed page.

Hard as it sounds, I think we should over time try to come up with some firmer criteria for inclusion, because the page is likely to start sprouting again soon. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the good news is that we actually agree more than we disagree. As I see it, while Hubel is not an expert source on whether PETA actually did fabricate something at Silver Spring, he is a very solid source on what much of the scientific community says about PETA. And if one party (PETA) takes a position on the other (certain scientific researchers), we should report what both say, not just one, even if one, or both, are factually wrong in what they say. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed Hubel as he has no involvement in this at all, and clearly isn't disinterested. If you want to add something critical, we should find a knowledgeable source, or a mainstream newspaper. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting an expert commentary just because the author is ‘uninvolved’ and not ‘disinterested’? Somehow I don’t think you’d take that stance if the material on the chopping block was… oh… say the PETA “investigation” pictures you’ve uploaded and labelled as factual depictions. Oh, I suppose infiltrating biology labs makes PETA involved. Big difference. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how disappointing. NRen is entirely right, and SlimVirgin is entirely wrong. Hubel is about as knowledgeable as they come, and Annu Rev Neurosci is better sourced than most mainstream newspapers. Just to keep track, let's note that NRen, Escape Orbit, and I, have all supported inclusion, and only SlimVirgin has reverted. Anyone else beside her want to revert? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

RS/V

I was going to disagree with you about the mainstream news part, but when I looked it up I realized you’re right. WP:RS seems to prefer “mainstream” newsmedia. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:V is the policy, by the way, not RS, though they essentially say the same thing. What kinds of sources were you going to suggest? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, thanks for the correction. Well, I’m thinking “small-town” newspapers should be acceptable sources when the incidents they’re reporting on are close to home. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty with allowing those is that PETA is very active all over America (at least), so we'd open the floodgates to including anything a local newspaper saw fit to publish, which was very much the tone of this article before the copy edit:

"PETA was condemned in June 2009 when images of animal abuse carried by a Lettuce Lady in Boise, Idaho, upset local shoppers to the extent that visits to child psychiatrists were up, while meat sales plummeted, inching the local economy toward complete collapse, said the editor of Boise Butchers Weekly. "Those PETA people care more about fruit flies than they do about our children," complained one distressed shopper, whose son hasn't stopped screaming since the animal rights group, described by the FBI as "domestic terrorist threats," arrived in town last Tuesday.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That’s more of a WP:UNDUE matter than anything. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The only way to avoid UNDUE is to stick to mainstream sources, or decent books written by good authors. I'm not saying everything must have been mentioned by the New York Times, but we should try to stay away from the reproduction of any old material just because it's bad, which is what this page has been characterized by. It leads to people adding positive material just because it's good, and before long you have an 80-kilobyte dog's breakfast. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

“The only way to avoid UNDUE is to stick to mainstream sources, or decent books written by good authors.” The policy says otherwise. I’m flabbergasted that somebody so hardheaded would be given sysop powers. As for the rest of your comment, I won’t even reply to it. You’re shadowboxing. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 04:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The policy does not say otherwise. I've tried to engage you, but clearly it's not going to work, so I'll stop responding after this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That wasn’t “engaging”, that was denying and then trying to change the topic. But yes, by all means, if that’s all you can bring to the table, then just don’t bother. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 04:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

SPLC

We say, "According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, PETA also provided $7,500 to Fran Trutt, convicted of the attempted murder of Leon Hirsch, the CEO of the United States Surgical Corporation."

The ref is: Smith, Wesley J. Terrorists, Too: Exposing animal-rights terrorism, National Review, October 2, 2002. In it, he cites this report from the Southern Poverty Law Center. But I can't see the Trutt/PETA claim in that report. Trutt's name doesn't appear in it, so far as I can see. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Made invisible until we find a source. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

AnimalScam: The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights by Kathleen Marquardt, Herbert M. Levine, Mark LaRochelle, Regnery Publishing, 1993, ISBN 0895264986, p31 :

"Similarly, when Fran Trutt was convicted of the attempted murder of Leon Hirsch, president of the U.S. Surgical Corporation, PeTa contributed $7,500 to her defense."

See also Eco-terrorism: radical environmental and animal liberation movements by Don Liddick, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006, ISBN 0275985350, p50. Rockpocket 21:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, RP. Will restore. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Refs

I'm about a third of the way through fixing the refs, which includes finding or creating web citations for the dead ones. I'll continue later. Removing repetitive refs has in itself shaved a few more kbs off the article, and we're now down to 59. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad sources

We also need to stop using sources like this: PETA: Sacrifice Human, Not Animal Life for Medical Research. It's just uninformed polemic and it adds nothing to the article, other than yet another quote that doesn't actually say anything. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We also can't use private groups like the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

How about inappropriately used sources, for example:

Covance was fined for violations of the U.S. Animal Welfare Act, but was cleared in Germany, where the incident was filmed.^[1]

The reference used here (CovanceCruelty.com) is a PETA work, so it fails WP:RS in a handful of ways. If I read WP:RS correctly, it should only be used to source its own statements. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Will remove for that statement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the charges and the judge saying the video was highly disturbing. Will restore when I find an independent source, but I don't have time to do it right now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

References

^ "Covance fined for violations of the Animal Welfare Act", Peta.org.

PETA criticizes Obama for swiftly killing a fly, says it's cruel

There we go. This is something that should be worked into the article. I'm not exactly sure where. Oh by the way, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain#In_other_species . Most insect species don't have nociceptors so they can't feel pain. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Pain isn't the only unpleasant thing that can happen to a sentient being. Anyway, no, I don't think that the fly incident (I mean, PETA's reaction to Obama's gesture) is notable enough for inclusion. The article should not include every press release PETA makes. David Olivier (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Barack Obama fly swatting incident [3] The article structure was mildly amusing. Dynablaster (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing somebody made an article on it. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly should be included, if only as an example of PETA extremism Flage (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Bob98133 (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it's probably significant enough for inclusion, but not for a large section of the article, and certainly not important enough for a detailed description of the controversy. The only reason for inclusion is in the chastising of a president; if it was a regular Joe, maybe a local newscaster, then certainly not. But the POTUS? Probably. Hkobb7 (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If I recall, PETA had someone dressed like a stalk of celery following Al Gore when he was VP and they have had a bear following British royalty for a long time. Chastising a public figure, and everyone else, is what PETA does. The reaction to the fly incident was largely media, not PETA. I'm surprised someone still remembers this since it happened a couple of months ago. Bob98133 (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Covance image

File:600-restraint-tube4.jpg

Inside Covance

Tryptofish, you've been removing that image ever since you started editing this page. How often is that now?

It is an image from PETA's Covance investigation, which we discuss in the paragraph the image is attached to. It is a perfectly legit image, and one of their notable investigations. Why do you keep removing it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, despite your framing, I am acting in consensus with other editors, and you are edit warring. Please see Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/archive11#Quotes throughout article. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That was you and Sally Ford, a banned editor. Again, what is wrong with that image? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of others, I've posted it here. It's an image taken undercover by PETA inside Covance of a monkey inside a so-called "restraint tube." It has been in the article for years, as I recall, initially added by myself. It is being used to illustrate the paragraph on PETA's investigation of Covance, and is a typical example of what PETA aims to do when it goes inside these laboratories. It aims to show things that the researchers don't want people to see, which is why their undercover methods were recently upheld by a judge (regarding another case), when someone tried to challenge them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The archived talk to which I linked clearly answers the questions you raise, and the edits made then were stable until your recent multiple edits, so it's not just me and one other person (despite this misleading edit summary). --Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The page you linked to that showed "consensus" was you and a banned editor arguing against it. [4] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish, you are keen to remove PETA's undercover images. But this is what PETA does, and this is an article about what PETA does.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I reject the way you are framing my intentions, and the way you are framing the talk that has occurred here over a period of time. Please discuss content, not the editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing content. I'm asking you why you keep removing the undercover images. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What I "keep" doing is editing within policy. And, because I use edit summaries and talk page discussion, I have made very clear my reasons for all of my edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(Parenthetical, and not very important: You know, it's funny. Maybe I'm doing something right, because simultaneously with the above, there is this and this on my talk.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Even calling PETA’s infiltrations of animal labs “investigations” smacks of NPOV. If PETA “investigation” photos and video stills are to be used, the caption ought to clearly point out that they’re made by PETA and thus aren’t necessarily what they purport them to be. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 06:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm going to wait a day or so before reverting the image again, but first, I want to invite anyone - anyone! - to respond reasonably to why the discussion in the archived talk should no longer be applicable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove it again. You've done it too much, and you've been opposed. The archived discussion was just you and a banned editor. In that section, we discuss the HLS campaign, with an image from it; the Covance campaign, with an image from it; and the head-injury lab, with an image from the film cover. Why would we want to exclude any of them? They are photographs showing PETA's most notable work. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I will respond to each of your concerns:

"You've done it too much": only because you keep reverting me. No one else has.
"and you've been opposed": only by you. No one else has.
"The archived discussion was just you and a banned editor." Actually, you too, and you appear not to have had a substantive response at that time. Setting aside the other editor, whose history is irrelevant to the validity or lack thereof of my argument, I set out very specific reasons for the edit. The present layout you have created amid a huge number of rapid edits, made with inadequate and sometimes misleading edit summaries, goes against that discussion. Counting also the Silver Spring photo higher up on the page, there are three graphic and propagandistic monkey images.
"Why would we want to exclude any of them?": The three images you list in this section are jumbled together. Following the archived talk (and preceding it too), there is much talk from multiple editors about how the page has too much material that looks like a PETA promotional brochure.

You have made it clear that you would rather personalize the argument, as though if it's me "and a banned editor" that somehow discredits what I am saying. Does anyone else want to support your reverting me? I'm not hearing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Let’s go ahead and ask for consensus. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 06:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. If the images are to be re-added, it needs to be made clear that they’re from PETA, and no implication that they’re part of any impartial investigation is to be made. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 06:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I support this image being in the article. The images in PETA's investigations are generally unavailable from other sources for obvious reasons. If they were simply created by PETA or photoshopped, they would not receive the creedence or cause the reaction they do. I recall a very recent article that several pig slaughter workers were charged with crimes based on PETA undercover video. I would think that if a district attorney or prosecuter finds PETA images credible enough to pursue criminal charges that they are credible enough to include in this Wiki article. Of course, the source can be cited. I would be more prone to oppose this if it were a one time occurance and investigation, however, as crazy as the stuff PETA does might be, it would not serve their purpose to fake photoes since they are under such scrutiny already. There are some people/editors who won't believe anything coming from PETA, but that is a separate issue from this image being included. Bob98133 (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you NRen and Bob; I'm happy to have more editors joining in this discussion, on both sides, with comments on content and not on me. Given Bob's views, I am certainly going to slow down on any plans to change the page without discussing the image some more. But that said, I think that NRen is right about impartiality in the images. Although Bob's comments are largely directed to whether the images might have been photoshopped etc., I'm perfectly willing to assume for this discussion that the images are authentic. Although there are concerns about fraud (as in the Hubel claim much discussed above), I think it's unnecessary and besides the point when it comes to choosing images for this page. My issue continues to be NPOV. I'm still waiting to hear an editor say this page is unfairly critical of PETA, and I'm not holding my breath. But there's no shortage of those of us who say, again and again, that the page reads like a brochure from PETA, and when we do, we get insulted in this talk. The way the page is set up, it seriously fails NPOV, because, as I said in the now-archived talk section, images are presented in a manner obviously designed to grab the reader by the lapels and shout "See?! See?!". As I said previously in the archived talk, if this were a page about methods of primate restraint, then I suppose there would be a reason to have multiple illustrations, one showing straps, another showing a tube, and so on. But that's not what this page is. The shouting illustrations are not encyclopedic, and not NPOV. I recognize the argument that these are important PETA campaigns and they need to be covered, but no one is arguing that they should not be covered. It's just about the emotional content of the images, not about topics covered. (And in fact, the section with the three campaign images is crowded just from a layout point of view.) --Tryptofish (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read somewhere on Wikipedia that NPOV is not about majority rule; that guidelines, not votes, should count. I'm skeptical about that being really the way it works on Wikipedia, but then that's the way it's supposed to be, so let's give it a try. That means that the number of people who come and say that the page is unfairly critical of PETA, vs. the number who say the opposite, is irrelevant.

As far as I can see, the page being about PETA means that it should illustrate PETA campaigns and what they are about. If the illustrations are "shouting", then that means that the realities that PETA uncovers (or claims to uncover) are "shouting". The fact that they "shout" doesn't mean they should be censored.

So: I support the pictures, including the Covance one, being left in.

David Olivier (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David. However, my argument is about POV, as the policy is practiced here at Wikipedia, and I think that your interpretations of NPOV and of discussion consensus are your own (to which you of course have every right), but are not those of the Wikipedia community. This has nothing to do with censorship, and everything to do with writing as an encyclopedia, rather than as a representative of PETA. And please note that I was not counting votes, but rather pointing out the balance of the discussion. Also, it's simplistic to say we need to illustrate every campaign: should we then restore all the photos of nude women? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Trypto - I don't think that you can claim that the PETA campaign images are shouting so they are POV. Obviously, they illustrate the reason for whatever the PETA campaign is. I don't believe that the images are over-emotional. Removing them as POV tends towards censorship - I think it might be better to point out somewhere in the text that PETA has been accused of using overly-emotional images (with a ref, of course), but removing them from this article for some perceived emmotional content doesn't seem right to me. That isn't to say that every campaign needs a controversial image, or that the article needs to be stuffed with images, just that the main ones we've been discussing do a good job illustrating what PETA does. Bob98133 (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bob. I think you have made some very perceptive points that may be helpful in moving us forward. One point of possible common ground comes in what you say about providing a counter-balance to the figures as an alternative to deleting them. Is there a strategy we can agree on for modifying the figure legends? I'm not exactly sure yet where I'm going with this, but something along the lines of the approach used for the lead image caption at animal rights, making it clear that it is PETA's image rather than Wikipedia's. You also make the point about not stuffing with images, but including the main ones. In that regard, do we really need three monkey images? Certainly, at least one such image needs to stay (and there is a strong argument that the Silver Spring one is iconic in a way that makes it appropriate to illustrate what PETA is about), but do the second and third add more information for the reader? They show that there were at least two further campaigns that occurred after Silver Spring, but that is abundantly clear from the text, so what else do they provide information about? And I do think that I am right that, simply from an MOS aesthetic layout point of view, the campaign section is now too cluttered with images. Now, having said that, I have to also say that I sincerely and strongly disagree with you about whether the images are over-emotional. They are images that PETA has used to considerable effect, so they must be persuasive, and they are. The effect of using so many of them is to make the page less like an encyclopedia article and more like a PETA brochure, or at least an image gallery. The argument that we need to show them in order to show what PETA is about is like arguing that the abortion page needs to have a photo of a fetus in order to show what abortion is about. This isn't about censorship, really. No one is arguing that all the controversial images should be taken out. This is, rather, a question about how many of them we need. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You are arguing that the public should not be allowed to see the results of PETA's most notable investigations. Regarding the emotional aspect, there are a large number of much more "emotional" images I could have chosen from those investigations. The Silver Springs monkey case has a famous image that was published in many newspapers, and which no one disputes is genuine, of a disabled monkey apparently limping on the floor looking directly to camera, one of the most awful images I have ever seen. I deliberately didn't use it. The Covance investigation produced a video and lots of stills of animals having chemicals pumped into them, and being mishandled in various ways, clearly in distress. I deliberately didn't use them. The investigation into the head-injury lab at the University of Pennsylvania in 1984, which even a pro-testing source called the most pivotal investigation into animal research ever conducted in terms of public response, produced a video showing appalling — by any standard — images of baboons not only being brain-damaged, but being laughed at and ridiculed while it occurred. I deliberately didn't use them. I chose a relatively tame image from the film cover instead.

“You are arguing that the public should not be allowed to see the results of PETA's most notable investigations.” You didn’t seriously just try that one, did you? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

These are three of PETA's most notable investigations, and there is no excuse not to describe and illustrate them, given how central the images were to the investigations. Indeed, the whole point of going undercover is to obtain these images. And there other notable investigations that we really ought to be covering in this section too.

Articles about subjects on Wikipedia have to show what that organization does from its own perspective, and well as from the perspective of critics, otherwise they become attack pages. This article, and its editors, must appreciate what PETA does, and must want to produce an article that explains what it does to our readers. Criticism must be included too, but it can't extend to active censorship. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. First, with respect to the sentence that you bolded and repeated, please understand that this isn't about you. It's about what the page is. I think that the way you point out the emotional poignancy supports what I said to Bob about the images being, in fact, emotional. The argument that there exist other images that are even more disturbing, and they weren't used, is not really informative about whether these images are useful. And, no I am not arguing for censorship, nor for preventing the public from seeing information. I'm saying, and there is a history in this talk of other editors also saying, that by having similar images again and again, the page ends up pushing PETA's POV. I'm opposed to deleting all images, in favor of retaining some of them. So this is not about censoring what the public finds out about. I'm sure that there are some people who would say it is censorship not to have a photo of a fetus in the page on abortion, but that is not censorship. There is a difference between showing "what the organization does from its own perspective," and actually adopting that perspective. No, I am not trying to make it an attack page. When you say criticism must be included too, we all agree, but recent edit history has been marked by what can only be regarded as deletion of criticism and expansion of PETA support, and hostility to reasonable attempts to move back towards balance. So please, let's stop all this stuff about censorship, and see if we can work with the points Bob and I just discussed, as ways to move forward towards common ground. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

One way we could move forward toward common ground would be if you were to stop acting as a pro-testing advocate. You rightly insist that I add content from both perspectives on the various animal rights pages, and I do. I've written a lot of AR pages and frequently add content that I don't agree with. But I have never seen you do the same. If you want to edit animal rights page, I ask that you observe NPOV yourself, just as strictly as you ask over people to, and start adding content from both perspectives. When I see that happen, I'll feel much happier about spending time debating our differences. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That's really contrary to AGF and NPA. You are continuing to frame this discussion in personal terms, instead of engaging with content, and you don't really sound like you want to move forward. I am advocating NPOV; and if you "have never seen [me] do the same" in adding content from both sides, or reverting content from what you think is "my" side, then you haven't been paying attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with AGF or NPA. It is just a fact that it is difficult and tiresome to debate with advocates. It's not what I'm on Wikipedia for. I want to write articles with other Wikipedians, each of them struggling to advance positions they agree *and* disagree with while being fair, which isn't easy. I want to debate and work with that kind of editor, even when I disagree with them, and I will very happily work with you too, if that's what you're doing, even if I disagree with you. But when it's just advocacy, it's no fun to deal with; it leads to badly written articles and attempts to censor, and it's not why WP exists. That's all I'm going to say about it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. But it has everything to do with AGF and NPA. If that's all you are going to say, I regret that, but it's your decision. Now, maybe the rest of us can work towards common ground. I, for one, am eager to do that. So, let's see if we can find a mutually agreeable solution, maybe along the lines Bob and I started to discuss. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is exactly as you state it, except that you’re the advocate who’s giving the rest of the community trouble. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

“One way we could move forward toward common ground would be if you were to stop acting as a pro-testing advocate.” There you go again. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And the point you seem to be missing is that PETA, as animal rights activists don’t have the NPOV necessary to undertake actual investigations. Anything shown in any of their “investigations” is highly suspect. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion. There is no one who is neutral when it comes to animal research. Animal advocates either oppose it, or oppose some of the conditions. Animal researchers mostly approve of it; those who speak out against it also have their POVs. We therefore report investigations conducted by informed people, not neutral ones, and as PETA has been doing this since 1980, they count as informed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It’s not my opinion, it’s objective truth.
Your "animal activists vs animal researchers" is a false dichotomy.
You seriously think PETA being “informed” excuses their extreme bias and makes them a reliable source? Oh come on now! — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

About the need for 3 monkey images - I'll defer to Slimvirgin on that, she knows much more about the intricacies of the subject matter as I've seen in her editing of Animal Rights and similar articles. Trypto, as I've told you, I appreciate most of your edits. I haven't checked your contribs to see if SV's accusation about your editing has merit, but if it does, you would know and I don't really care. I work on this article because I find the subject matter pretty cutting edge, and Wiki seems like the only place online that provides at least an attempt at balance. I believe a lot of this article was recently cut by SV at your and other editors' urgings so it does seem like she is willing to compromise if there is a reasonable choice. Bob98133 (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My compromise regarding this section was (a) to include a paragraph only about three of the key investigations that led to new legislation or international campaigns, and not to write about all the major ones e.g. I left out City of Hope and Columbia University; and (2) not to use the most shocking images from them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

SV: thank you for coming back to this thread. I don't know if you believe me when I say this, but I am sincerely pleased to see you back. Bob, you are right about what you said about not really caring, and I, likewise, want to say as clearly as I can that I, too, do not really care what the balance is of edits made by others, just so long as we can discuss the content and reach fair conclusions without getting into personal distractions. So, in that spirit, I want to come back to two questions I raised earlier, with respect to finding common ground. Is the page really served by having the three images currently in the campaign section, both with respect to layout concerns, and with respect to whether each really adds information (keeping in mind the disagreements here) that is not available to the reader with fewer images? And, especially if we decide to retain all the images, is there a strategy of improving either the figure legends or the accompanying text, to make the presentation less like an advocacy for PETA and more neutral, that is, to make more clear that the images are PETA's and not WP's? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In that regard, I have made an edit, without deleting the image, so see what you all think. I based it entirely on what reference 25 says (my edit summary, saying ref 27, has a typo; it's 25). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This was that edit, and I guess I got an answer to my question about what you all think. After I made the edit, there were a series of edits between Crum375 and me (from here to here), collaboratively finding what I thought was a good balance of NPOV, so the edit represented an effort by multiple editors, not just me. It has now been completely reverted here. Let's take a good careful look at that edit summary. It is labeled as a minor edit. Is that correct? Reverting a whole series of substantive edits by two editors accompanied by discussion here is minor? And let's keep this (especially part E) and this in mind. The edit summary goes on to say that the words do not apply to the image. That's a fair point to discuss, although Crum and I already did discuss it, and I think they do apply. Anyway, the talk here has been about either modifying the caption, or deleting the image completely. I had hoped the modification of the caption would avoid the need for deleting the image, but I guess image deletion is now back on the table. I'm not going to revert the editor who deleted, nor delete the image, at least not yet, so we can discuss. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to delete it or modify it. Stop trying to remove or undermine it. No one has questioned its validity. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No consensus to do anything with it is why I'm not reverting you, but inviting talk here. It's a pity that you do not extend the same courtesy to me or to other editors with whom you disagree. Please stop mischaracterizing what I am doing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has questioned its validity? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 18:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In hopes of finding a reasonable middle ground about which we might be able to agree, I put what I thought was a very uncontroversial and fully-sourced statement into the image caption, but yet again this has been completely reverted (diff). At least, I thank the editor for not labeling the reversion as minor; I suppose that's progress. Although I understand the point in the edit summary, that the (still) image itself was apparently not challenged, I think the wording made it clear that PETA's charges related to the image, as opposed to the image itself, were challenged as described in the cited source. I think it is mis-framing the issue to say that it is a matter of whether the image has been challenged or not. Rather, as has been explained again and again in this talk, by me and others, it is a matter of presenting an image which has acknowledged emotional and propagandist impact in a way that presents both sides of the issue. I think that's much fairer to those of you who support the image, than would be deleting the image entirely, as some of us have endorsed. I would have hoped that editors with varying views would work together on this instead of just reverting every attempt at balance. I'm certainly open to other solutions, if anyone wants to suggest them. And please note that I am continuing to refrain from reverting the reversions, and instead discussing it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made another edit to the caption, with the rationale of presenting both sides of the argument without implying that the photograph was questioned. Please look through the edit history, with edits by both Crum and me, to follow how the edits were made. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the way how Tryptofish's has handle this. Personally, I really don't see a need for another monkey photograph, but this nice compromise. Great work Trypo! Wade Hunter (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that! You really made my day! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation tags

Did the person who added the citation tags look for sources, and if so, what happened?

See WP:V, "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice that per the policy you quoted, it’s on the editor who added the material to find a source, not on the editor who tagged it. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And anyone questioning material is first expected to look for a source themselves, because we're here as Wikipedians. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Expected by who, other than you? You’re wikilawyering. Stop it. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Expected by the policy I quoted it above; please read it. These endless barbs aren't productive. You've been on WP less than a month; you've discussed on your user page how you've been banned from several Internet forums already; you use templates against regular editors; you inject yourself into debates with very strong views as though this were Usenet. Please don't do it on this page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

“Expected by the policy I quoted it above; please read it.” I’m not doing your homework for you.

“You've been on WP less than a month” I’ve been on for more than two years.

“you've discussed on your user page how you've been banned from several Internet forums already” Yes, because in both cases they were fucked in the head and we don’t work like that here. Your point?

“you use templates against regular editors” Because they apply. Do you think there is a problem with using templates on regular editors? If so, show me where the policies discourage it.

“you inject yourself into debates with very strong views as though this were Usenet.” No, I participate in debates because Wikipedia is a community with rules and standards and because consensus is an important part of how Wikipedia functions.

“Please don't do it on this page.” Please, stop mischaracterizing my actions and those of others. I have already had to warn you about this several times. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 04:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevant policy is WP:CIVIL, and specifically to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive; this discussion page is not the place to accuse other editors of Wikilawyering without a very good reason for the claim, because it's a very serious accusation. Slimvirgin's correct in that if you find unsourced material that needs to be cited (e.g. a fact that is likely to be challenged), as an editor, you are generally expected to make some attempt to lookup sources before removing or tagging material, in fact WP:V says you should. You don't have to do it, it's just part of what is expected by the policy which is agreed upon by community consensus. In fact, you may (for whatever reason) decide to tag first, and possibly lookup later, this is not what's expected, but it is still perfectly valid. --Mysidia (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 17:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I thank the person who added the cites. The section reads much better now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Location

Should the first sentence mention USA after Virginia? Makes sense to list the country rather than expect people to make the leap. 131.111.186.95 (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we also should not be US-centric. Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I.B. Singer and related quotes

I want to explain why I think this edit is dead wrong. The passage cites this source; I provide the link here because I will refer to it repeatedly.

"Jewish." I deleted the word "Jewish" from what had been an old version of the page; the other editor puts it back. Please note that, in the cited source, the PETA spokesperson never mentions Singer's Jewishness. The descriptor seems to have been added by editors here. Why does this matter? Because framing the Holocaust as a Jewish, rather than as a human, issue is (unintentionally, of course) insulting. If PETA didn't say that, then we have no business putting the words in their mouths.
"Singer was a vegetarian who believed strongly in animal rights." I deleted this sentence, but the other editor restores it. First of all, the sentence is plagiarized word-for-word from the source. Secondly, this is a page about PETA, not Singer's bio page, and the material is redundant with his quote, and really unnecessary.
Should the Singer quote come before, or after, Foxman's? I suggest putting Singer first, then Foxman; the other editor favors the opposite. This seems to be the biggest matter of disagreement. Please note that the source indicates that Singer's quote was behind PETA's thinking before Foxman made his criticism. For editors to re-frame it as a "rebuttal" ends up being OR (perhaps intended to give PETA the "last word"?). In contrast, it is perfectly logical to present PETA's side first, and then present the criticisms, especially since this section of the page is specifically about campaigns that have attracted controversy.

Clearly, I think the edit should be reverted, but I have taken it to this talk instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, as follows:

Re Jewish-ness, the entire point of Singer speaking about the Holocaust is from his perspective as a Jew, i.e. as a victim. It is just like an African-American comparing slavery to something else: a victim's personal perspective is key to his statement's meaning and significance.
Re Singer's vegetarianism and animal rights stance, this is very relevant to the understanding of his words, and was specifically mentioned by the source in that context.
Re sequence, the logical sequence should be: a. What was the campaign about? b. Why was it criticized and by whom? and c. What was PETA's rebuttal to that criticism? Putting the cart before the horse doesn't make sense.

Crum375 (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

About the Jewishness, we just disagree, but I am correct in what I say about how the source quotes PETA. Even if your view is right, is it PETA's view or yours? About the sentence, do you really support a plagiarized sentence? What does it add, that his quote does not already say? And there is nothing cart-before-the-horse about insisting that PETA did not present it as a rebuttal, so we shouldn't try to convert it into a rebuttal. If we follow your logic, then we could go down the road of: d. What was the critic's rebuttal to PETA? e. What was PETA's rebuttal to the critic's rebuttal? ad infinitum. I'm just trying to be accurate in presenting the sourced material, but it sure sounds like you just want to give PETA the last word. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "my view" vs. PETA's view. And again, his Jewish-ness adds (to someone unfamiliar with Singer) that this is a Jewish Holocaust victim who believes that, as PETA stated in its campaign, the treatment of animals in factory farms is reminiscent of the treatment of Jews in extermination camps during the Holocaust. His being Jewish, shows that PETA's campaign followed the thinking of a prominent Nobel-winning Jewish author. This would not be clear to someone who doesn't know Singer's ethnicity. As far as the infinite rebuttal issue, the most logical (and NPOV) way to present a controversy is to present the issue, then the criticism, then the reply. If there were a specific reply to the Singer quote, I would include it, but I am not aware of one. Crum375 (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that PETA does not use the word in the source. Anyone unfamiliar with Singer can of course follow the link to his bio page. The problem with, first, fabricating the claim that Singer was a rebuttal, when the source actually says that it was PETA's rationale from the start, and, second, explicitly pointing out his Jewishness, is that it is like saying "here, we have our own Jew to refute your Jew." (Why not also point out that Foxman is a Jew?) Since that is not the way PETA framed it in the source, why should editors here do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And how does attributing the plagiarized sentence to CNN make it not plagiarized? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism only exists if you either quote long passages verbatim (this is a very short and simple sentence), or don't clearly attribute it to the source (we do). So clearly this is not plagiarism. Crum375 (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That mis-definition of plagiarism is one of the most common bogus excuses given by students, and it is just plain wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The key to plagiarism is representing somebody else's work as your own. As soon as you clearly attribute the work, and don't lift big passages (for copyright reasons), you are not plagiarizing. Some online dictionary definitions:[5]

the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
Literary theft. Plagiarism occurs when a writer duplicates another writer's language or ideas and then calls the work his or her own. Copyright laws protect writers' words as their legal property. To avoid the charge of plagiarism, writers take care to credit those from whom they borrow and quote.
the act of taking the writings of another person and passing them off as one's own. (emphasis added)

Crum375 (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why not put the passage in quotes? Or paraphrase it? Note that none of the definitions you quoted actually repeats your assertion that a passage has to be lengthy to be plagiarism (in the academic, if not the legal, sense). In any case, the page isn't about Singer, and doesn't need to go on at length about him. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Quotes would make sense if what was said were controversial, which it isn't. The length issue is more copyright than plagiarism, but they are related. Both are verboten, both are avoided here. We need to explain that Singer is vegetarian and animal rights supporter, and the sentence is very short. For NPOV reasons, we need to present his views and quote to counter the possible impression given by the Foxman quote that "Jews" are against the PETA Holocaust campaign. Crum375 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that no one is disagreeing with you that we need to present Singer's views to balance Foxman's. The fact is, the page had only Foxman's for quite a few weeks, until today I restored a missing part of what Foxman said. You then immediately added a lengthy passage about Singer, and I never objected to adding Singer for balance. I'm just reacting to the way the Singer part is written. The fact is, you are wrong when you say that "we need to explain that Singer is vegetarian and animal rights supporter," because what we really need to explain is how Singer compared animal rights to the Holocaust. That's the issue behind this specific PETA campaign. Singer's quote does that very well, balances Foxman's quote very well, and I have never suggested deleting it. What we don't need is to expound on Singer's views beyond the comparison of animals and the Holocaust, any more than we need to discuss whether Foxman is a carnivore, or list a lot of Jewish vegetarians. (Furthermore, Singer did not say what he did in response to PETA's campaign, and it is an inference that he would have supported PETA. There is a difficult remaining question, if as you say we are indicating the views of Jews as a group, of whether Singer's views represent an undue emphasis on a small subset of Jews, whereas Foxman represents a much larger percentage.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The section used to have a much broader discussion of the Holocaust campaign, a more direct reference to the wiki article Animal rights and the Holocaust, as well as Singer's quote, and was reasonably balanced. I added Singer today when I noticed that the entire animal rights position had been mysteriously eliminated and all that was left was the criticism. As far as Singer's position on Animal Rights and vegetarianism, it would have been WP:SYN for us to include it, even if we had a great source for it, unless, as is the case here, the CNN source itself specifically mentions it, so clearly it is well sourced and relevant. As far as who represents a higher percentage of Jews, Singer or Foxman, if you feel it's needed for the article, you'd need a reliable source showing that an opinion poll among Jews (in which country?) had been taken and it showed X or Y. I am not aware of such a poll or source. Crum375 (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment does not really engage with what I said. No one is questioning whether Singer's views are sourced. Please re-read what I said about Singer's quote relating animals and the Holocaust. And who said that I want to poll Jewish opinion? You are the one claiming to balance the presentation of the views of the Jewish community. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I fear this talk is degenerating into a tit for tat, so I'm signing out for tonight. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim that Foxman's views are "balanced" against Singer's: I don't know what the percentages are, and I am not aware of anyone who does. All that is needed is to balance one side with the other, per NPOV, even if we don't know their percentages, as long as no side is a fringe minority. Given that Foxman represents the ADL and Singer is a Nobel-winning author, I think both sides are non-fringe, and that's all we need, unless we have more sources. You agree we need the Singer quote, and I explained above that the CNN writer found Singer's vegetarianism and animal rights stance relevant, and it adds context and perspective, so we include it. If a source about Foxman and the PETA Holocaust campaign added that Foxman is a carnivore, or anti-animal rights, we could add it too. Crum375 (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) File this under the value of stepping back from a disagreement and thinking it over calmly (duh!). Actually, we agree that Singer's and Foxman's comments do not balance one another. If one thinks about it, Foxman was responding to PETA, not to Singer. And, unless Singer (who died in 1991) was issuing a 2003 press release from the grave, he was not responding to Foxman! The quotes from each person are not opposing sides of a single argument, a critique and a rebuttal. They are separate statements of belief about the issue, not addressed to one another. And, importantly, in the source cited, PETA does not claim that Singer is a rebuttal to Foxman, only that Singer was the inspiration behind the campaign. Editors here put words into PETA's mouth by using Singer as a rebuttal. So, I've moved Singer's comment to where it belongs: as the inspiration for the campaign. Doing so removes the Jew-against-Jew dialog to which I objected, and thereby removes my objections to including the things that Crum supported including for context, so I have put them back (paraphrasing the previously plagiarized part, which really wasn't so hard). In addition, the good thing about doing it this way is it corrects the impression previously given by the page, that PETA came up with a flaky comparison out of the blue. This version provides a sourced explanation for PETA's thinking, and presents both sides of the argument succinctly. I wish I thought of it earlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If we imply that Jews, esp. Holocaust survivors or their relatives, oppose the Holocaust to Factory Farm comparison, then we need to add more balance, which I have done. Crum375 (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Very sincerely, I think your edit comes across as POV-pushing and overly-lengthening the page, but I'm not going to revert it. (It's also strange how in this talk you seem to imply that three individuals (Singer, anonymous donor, and Prescott) add balance to the views of "Jews, esp. Holocaust survivors or their relatives," relative to the ADL which does not by any means speak for all Jews, but certainly speaks for more than three. The issue isn't polling Jewish views on PETA's campaign, but presenting two sides of the issue. It seems to grate on you to present Foxman's side, and so you want to overload the section with opposing views. It's not like the page doesn't present PETA's view!) You might want to think about whether it really needs to be a long add-on at the end of the section, or whether it might be more reasonable to say succinctly near the beginning how the campaign was funded and created. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I still feel that, as I noted above, the best way to present criticism is: what is the issue (factually), what is the criticism, and how is the criticism addressed. So in our case, we need to describe the campaign (as neutrally as possible), then how the ADL criticized it, followed by a countering view. In this case, PETA responded by saying this campaign was inspired by Jews, some of them Holocaust survivors. If we present a critical view by a Jew, then we need to present a counter-balancing supportive view by another, per NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not disagreeing with you about presenting both sides per NPOV. What I'm reacting to is the way you are following the a, b, c, format in a way that makes b very brief and c very lengthy and repetitive. A lot of us feel that the page suffers from being a quotefarm, and the Prescott quote you added really does not add much, other than to beat home points already made very clearly. Why not delete the long Prescott quote, and move the first sentence of your addition to just after the Singer part, just before the description of the exhibit? I get the feeling that you are worried that NPOV will be lost if we don't present PETA's side first, then present critics, then present PETA's side again, which is really what your edit does. It's overkill (currently 8 sentences on PETA's side, 1 on criticism, and I'm only suggesting reducing it to 7 to 1), and it really is not balanced. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish, please try hard to avoid referring to me personally. Regarding the issues, again, I think we need to present: a. the facts (what is/was the PETA Holocaust campaign), b. the criticism (Jew A says it's abhorrent), and c. the counter-balance (Jew B says it's right on). I am not worried about quotes, esp. in controversial issues, because they help us convey the facts to the readers without contaminating them with our own views as editors. Crum375 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with you personally, and it's a little bizarre to hear that in the context of all the insults that have been leveled at me (not by you however) in this talk. Yes, you have made it very clear that you like a, b, c. I get that. You like a, b, and c. What I'm saying is that the argument you are presenting for NPOV is actually working against NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If it has nothing to do with me, please don't refer to my perceived emotions, like "worrying" or "grating", and insults against any editor are unacceptable. As far as the issue here, if you feel that my argument is not NPOV, you are welcome to present your own view, and try to reach consensus. Crum375 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to understand your reasoning, not to insult you. If you took it as insulting, then I'm sorry. I think that I have been presenting my concerns here in this talk. It's difficult to edit when there are hard-felt content disputes, and I guess the lesson is that both of us -- I'm including me there! -- would do well to take a step back and a deep breath. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology. I think you'll find it much easier to edit when you only focus on the message, not the messenger. It is perfectly normal to speculate about other editors' POVs or feelings, but when posting to WP, we should stick to dry WP issues. Crum375 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I wish people had said that more at other times in this page's talk. And do, please, consider whether your edits make the section in question unbalanced rather than balanced. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the a.PETA, b.PETA's critics, c.PETA's rebuttal of critics, format does not, per se, come from WP:NPOV (which does of course require that we reasonably present both sides, but does not stipulate that ordering of information). Right? If so, what, really, is the rationale for requiring a, b, c, as opposed to a.PETA, presented fully, b.PETA's critics, presented second and more briefly? (Other than "I like it.") I say this realizing that an extended "debate" between sources is one possible way of achieving NPOV, but not necessarily the most succinct or helpful (to the reader) one. And I remain concerned that the recent edits are making the section an extended (and lopsided) "debate" that does not serve the page. (To repeat, currently 8 sentences on PETA's view, to 1 sentence on the critics' view, and all I'm talking about, in addition to the order, is reducing it to 7 to 1.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that the "a b c" sequence is not defined by NPOV; it's just what seems logical and reader-friendly to me. It is not specific to PETA, and should apply to any WP article about an organization or individual. If there are no controversies, we just describe what they did or said. If there is a controversy, then we start with what they did or said which caused the controversy ("the basic facts"), presented in a carefully neutral fashion. Then we describe the criticism, and finally how the individual or organization responds to it. Any other sequence seems awkward and less reader-friendly to me. Now, specifically addressing the PETA campaign: we describe the campaign (what they did, what they attempted to show or achieve, and why), then we describe the criticism, and finally the rebuttal. I think the criticism and rebuttal should be roughly equal for NPOV reasons. So in this case, since you decided (and I accept) that the Singer quote is part of the "inspiration" for the campaign, and not the "rebuttal" (among others because Singer was dead by that time), it belongs in the "what, how and why" paragraph, explaining what the campaign was about. Then we present the ADL/Foxman quote saying it was "abhorrent", followed by the campaign's creator saying it was on target. I think it makes sense to trim both ADL and Prescott to be roughly equal in size, but since Singer is part of the inspiration, it is not the rebuttal and thus belongs with the basic presentation of the campaign itself. Crum375 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps me see what you mean much better than did your earlier talk. Where you say: "Then we describe the criticism, and finally how the individual or organization responds to it," (italic mine, not yours), it's not clear to me who the "we" is, since it doesn't come from policy. The other sequence seeming awkward to you is your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled, but it is not everyone's opinion, and that approach should not therefore become a default. Now let's make a careful distinction. What I argued is that Singer's quote is not a rebuttal to Foxman's. It does not, however, follow logically that Singer's quote is simply a neutral piece of information devoid of POV. In fact, it is a very salient part of PETA's thinking in coming to their views (based on what they said). In fact, the descriptions of the exhibit and the quotation of the captions are also presenting the PETA's perspective on the controversy. Therefore, it is inaccurate to treat Prescott's quote as the first statement to come along that presents the opposing side to Foxman's view. Furthermore, it seems to me to underestimate the readers to consider that they must see a "rebuttal" after any criticism, as though they won't remember what they just read before. I think that the analysis you present actually ensures an unbalanced presentation that fails NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that since this article is about PETA, and the section is about one of its controversial campaigns, we (i.e. WP editors) should start by describing to our readers what the campaign was, why PETA did it, and what they hoped to achieve or convey, all from PETA's perspective. After we do that, and the reader understands fully PETA's own actions and mindset, we present an external criticism: ADL's Foxman says it's "abhorrent." Now that they have been criticized, we need to present their rebuttal to that criticism, so we quote the campaign's creator's explanation that it's actually the factory farms which are abhorrent (in his view). The ADL and Prescott need to have roughly equal-sized statements, but the original campaign description is not limited by NPOV; it's limited by a balance between wanting to fully educate the reader about PETA's campaign (since this is why the reader comes to this article), and not wanting to inundate them with details. Crum375 (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we are never going to agree on this (although I hope not), but I do not buy your statement that the original campaign description is not limited by NPOV. It's not like NPOV only applies to some parts of pages, but not to others. As you say, the initial explanation is presented here "all from PETA's perspective." I do not believe that, the moment a criticism is presented, the slate gets wiped clean, and what came just before does not count. What NPOV actually does indicate is that both sides should be presented fairly, not that the subject of the page must always "sandwich" any criticism. This section is about a controversial campaign, and is introduced that way, and I believe that the current version with your edit ends up tilting very much to presenting one side of the controversy in detail, and the other only in passing. (My goodness, the amount of talk expended by two editors over a shortish section on the page!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you may misunderstand NPOV. If we are describing a controversial act done by someone, inside their own article we can (and should) explain it fully from their own perspective, including what they did, how and why they felt they needed to do it. Then, if we have reliable sources which criticize that act, we should present that criticism, and then add the subject's rebuttal, per NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think I do understand NPOV. As we already discussed, NPOV does not dictate the "explain, critic, rebut" organization of a section or page. It does dictate presenting the subject's side of a controversy, as well as presenting critics' views, and allows for giving more space to the subject's side, but does not require giving the appearance of the subject "winning" the debate. If you really think I don't understand something, please point me to where it says that in the policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don’t think that’s the right way to go about it. That’s the way big chunks of the Sea Shepherd article were until a couple months ago. It broke the flow and read like soapboxing. From the policy page:

Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view.

It’s not just about throwing clashing POVs together or presenting a debate point-by-point. It’s better to summarize the various parties’ positions into a neat little pro/con arrangement rather than going back and forth ad nauseam. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Tryptofish: It's not a question of any one side "winning", it's just the most logical presentation to a reader. We have an article about an organization. We say they have undertaken some controversial campaign. We explain what/how/why they did it, then show how it was criticized, and finally what they had to say in rebuttal. Nobody "wins", except the reader who wants to know, what did they do/say, and why? What was the criticism? and how did they address it? This is the simplest way to present this topic, and at the end of the day, nobody wins, but everybody becomes (hopefully) better informed. Crum375 (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

NRen, thank you. Crum, it not being about winning is my point. Please don't attribute to me things I didn't say. As Nren correctly describes, the way that you are advocating is actually not any more logical than the way I and NRen are suggesting. And your argument really has not engaged with my point that the "what/how/why" is, itself, POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, perhaps I misinterpreted: "but does not require giving the appearance of the subject 'winning' the debate." But leaving that aside, you say that the very statement, in the subject's own article, of their own position, constitutes POV. It does, of course, by definition. But we need to find a source that criticizes them, and present it, which we do. If we leave it there, it would seem to a reader that the subject has no reply to that criticism, which is very often false. This is why the sequence: what/how/why, then criticism, then rebuttal, makes the most sense. Crum375 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, thank you. I see what you mean. But I continue to think that a reader would have to be very dense not to realize that the extensive explication of PETA's views coming just before Foxman's comment presents PETA's side, and indicates how PETA would rebut what Foxman said. (Maybe if there were a statement from PETA saying something like "we disagree with Mr. Foxman because..." then that would, logically, need to come after Foxman's quote, but that's not what we have now.) It's really a false premise to say that, unless a rebuttal comes directly after Foxman's quote, then PETA's POV has not been explained per NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason why Foxman needs a rebuttal is because the way he is presented, it implies that he represents in some capacity the "Jewish view", or the "Holocaust survivors view". A casual reader could walk away from this section thinking PETA is being insensitive to Jews, or to Holocaust survivors. Therefore, after we present Foxman's statement, esp. if we emphasize that he's a "survivor", we need to balance that impression by showing that the creator of the campaign, as well as its financial supporter, were both Jews and survivors themselves, and that they feel strongly that the Holocaust is similar to factory farming, which is why they funded and created the campaign. Unless we get that point across to the reader, we'd be non-NPOV and create a false impression. Crum375 (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. To some extent, the "Jewish view" issue is addressed by noting that Singer, the philanthropist, and Prescott are all Jewish, regardless of whether they are presented before or after Foxman. (That was an important part of my reasoning in retaining the description of Singer as Jewish when I made the edit moving his part up in the section.) To some extent, also, the fact is that Foxman is speaking on behalf of a significant part (not 100% of course) of the Jewish community, and it risks being POV to understate that. As for the "survivor view," perhaps some of that arises from my edit, yesterday, describing Foxman as a survivor. If you would agree to my suggested deletion of Prescott's quote and moving the sentence before it earlier (I'm just saying "if" and you certainly don't have to if you don't feel it's right), then I would agree to deleting my edit that indicated Foxman is a survivor. Would that work for you? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding ADL or Foxman representing the Jews, do you have a source for that? I find it hard to believe personally, esp. after reading the Foxman wiki article. But if you have a source showing there was some kind of global opinion poll (since there are Jews outside America too), and that they overwhelmingly support Foxman and the ADL, it would be useful for this discussion. As far as your suggestion, I think that the Presoctt quote and information is needed for this section, as is the Singer quote. Leaving POV aside, the point is that this campaign was funded and created by Jewish Holocaust survivors, who feel strongly about the issues, which sheds an important light on the PETA campaign. And the Singer quote is very relevant because he inspired the campaign. So these are specific bits of information that I believe we need to get across to the readers so they'll have a complete picture of this issue. I agree that the Foxman quote belongs there as criticism, even if I have no idea how many Jews he represents, because his organization is well known. Crum375 (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Regarding ADL or Foxman representing the Jews": I didn't say representing "the Jews," which is a rather incredible proposition. It is the case that Foxman leads a large Jewish organization (and Prescott and perhaps the unnamed philanthropist do not). What you or I find "hard to believe personally" is, well, you know. We all agree that it is appropriate to include mention of Prescott, of Singer, and of the philanthropist, so that's not the issue. What I suggested still presents what Prescott, Singer, and the philanthropist think, but it appears that you do not agree with it. It's late where I am, so I'm signing off for tonight, and I'll be back tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As an alternative to deleting or moving the Prescott quote, I have added further sourced material for NPOV. Since Crum said earlier that: "If there were a specific reply to the Singer quote, I would include it, but I am not aware of one," I hope in the same spirit that this can be an acceptable solution, especially since it was PETA themselves who issued the apology. (I still have some concerns that the section has been made longer than was really needed, but no matter.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that this section can grow uncontrollably unless we clamp down on it in an NPOV fashion. We already have a main article, and that's where most of this material belong. Looking at the main article, it needs work, too. The problem I see with saying something like "Newkirk aplogized" is that it can be misleading. Some people may think she is backtracking on the issue, whereas if you read her actual statement, it's more of an explanation than an apology. This is why a big part of her statement is included in the main article, and if we say here that she "apologized" we need to quote it verbatim here too. Crum375 (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to learn that you are now sharing my concerns about making this page too long. Thank you. Thank you also for pointing out the limitations of the ADL press release for sourcing what Newkirk said, and for providing a much better-nuanced explanation of what she actually did say. I have modified the citation accordingly (which surely makes better sense than just deleting all mention of Newkirk's statement). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure this section will (and should) get whittled down soon. But to do it properly, all relevant "top level" information should be presented (briefly), and the crucial challenge is present it all neutrally. The best temporary way to do it is by actual quotes, but of course this takes up space and creates clutter. In general, this section should be a summary of the main article, which unfortunately is far from OK itself. Crum375 (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy/Criticisms

Why has all the criticism of PETA vanished, or marginalized? The fact that PETA, one who claims ethical treatment for animals, but has a history of arson, and hypocritically conducting euthanasia (they may claim it was done under humain conditions, but it does not excuse the action, and the public clearly thinks this) is AT LEAST newsworthy?

I remember this page had a controversy section, hell even the Scientology article has a controversy section. Clearly the PETA loyalists have hijacked this page. I don't have much experience with editing Wikipedia, but I think someone needs to up the security on this page to stop biased PETA lovers from hijacking this page, and restore the objectivity of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.45.66 (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being interested in improving this page. Since you are, by your own description, somewhat new to the process, please let me suggest that you begin by reading this talk page, from the top down. I think you will see that it is not a matter of security, but of a relative shortage of editors who are willing to take the time to engage constructively with those editors who apparently like the page the way it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fast Food section

I'd like to add to the Fast Food section that PETA recently renewed it's campaign against McDonald's by handing out Unhappy Meals to children and that it has received mixed-reactions due to the uncertainty of the effect it will have on children and whether they should be the ones targeted. The source is eatmedaily.com. Can I post about this? Thanks! Rosestiles (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Rosestiles

Thank you for asking about this on the talk page. I looked at the website you cited, and it appears to me to be a blog, which means that it would probably fail WP:RS and should probably not be used on the page. (Do other editors agree with that?) In addition, there has been some sense in talk on this page that we should have fewer, rather than more, listings of PETA campaigns, so unless this becomes a very significant news story, we probably do not need it. Now that said, reading the source you cited, I was struck by the quotations from parents expressing criticism of PETA's tactics. Perhaps, if such quotations can be found from a more RS news source, it would be useful to add one to this page for balance. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Campaigns section

I was looking for some other place to put the "new" in-vitro meat competetion since it doesn't need a separate section to itself. It logically would go into PETA's vegetarian/vegan campaigns, but I see that there is no longer such a section. Seems like that section could be reinstated and could include a brief mention of this new stuff (minus the near in-office riot). Thoughts? Bob98133 (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with leaving it as is. If you were to delete the Newkirk quote (which actually strikes me as at least a little bit useful in providing insight into the inner workings and thought), and add some now-deleted material, what is it you would be adding? --Tryptofish (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought there used to be a section on Vegan and Vegetarian campaigns, but I couldn't find it looking through the archives - there was a section about the Lettuce Ladies, but that's just a part of it. (I see the image of them is still there, even though the text is gone!) I'd have to look to see just what they've done, but they are always doing Go Vegetarian stunts and promoting their Go Vegetarian pamphlets whenever there is a swine flu or SARS scare, or even their recent Save the Whales billboard. It seems like vegetarianism is on ongoing campaign with them. I would think something short, about the size of the Graphic pamphlet section, could be added, which would also incorporate the In Vitro meat stuff. I wasn't thinking of removing the Newkirk quote, but it's separate from this anyhow - unless you were thinking to save space. Unless other editors object, or you get to it first, I'll work on a section like this. Bob98133 (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't get to it first. Just fyi, the Lettuce Ladies text is there, by the quote I meant the "office riot," and I tend to think the fast food and dairy sections etc. do tend to cover the vegan/vegetarian issue already. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

New article you all maybe interested in: Mercy_for_Animals

I just added this article, about a poultry business which released a video which shows workers throwing male chics being dropped alive into a grinding machine.

Please contribute to and watch the article stub. Ikip (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

PETA2

The acronym "PETA2" redirects to this page, but is not referenced anywhere on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.70.238 (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Methods of Euthanasia

In the 'position on euthanasia' section, it makes mention that PETA does a high ratio of kills compared to the animals it takes in, yet makes no mention of PETA's method. Does anyone have any information on this? It is actually a substantial addition, as the method attests to the 'mercy' of the process - and from what I've heard (I have citations), being locked in a freezer is hardly merciful, as anyone who's suffered hypothermia, or frostbite, would know.

They use the same method of euthanasia as do veterinarians, a chemical injection. A while ago, there was a mention of some federal regulatory agency investigating their use and possession of these chemicals, but it was removed since no charges were ever filed and no action was ever taken by whatever agency it was. The freezer may have been mentioned as a storage facility for euthanized animals - this is fairly typical for shelters since it is more cost effective to store animal carcasses for disposal than transport each individually to wherever they go. I don't think anyone ever suggested that they used a freezer for euthanasia, since, as you say, that would hardly be humane. Bob98133 (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is the controversy section?

Surely PETA, the organization that throws blood on people, blows up buildings that test on animals and insult world-wide celebrities that just passed away the day after they died would have quite a lengthy controversy section, and probably even an entire article based on that itself, so where is it and why is it lacking?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.248.253.149 (talk) (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 September 2009

Please read through the talk above, where this matter has been extensively discussed already. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

kosher slaughter

I moved recent addition by Tryptofish from holocaust section to fast food section. Actually, it would fit better in a vegetarian/vegan section, but there isn't one. Putting this in the Holocaust section implies that both campaigns had similar targets, or that both were related to Jews, and presenting them together implies an antisemitic thrust to PETA campaigns. Their kosher slaughter campaign is opposed to what they see as cruel slaughter methods, just as they criticize McDonalds and KFC for the same kind of stuff. The Holocaust campaign was comparing atrocities committed to humans to atrocities committed to animals, similar to its sequel the animal liberation campaign comparing animal treatment to slavery. Their opposition to kosher slaughter is unrelated to the Holocaust or their holocaust campaign, except that both upset Jewish groups, but they also upset lots of other people. Bob98133 (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, I agree with that. I became aware of the information through a recent edit at Criticism of religion and realized that it should also be in this page, but I was unsure about where to put it: either where I put it first, or where you moved it. My reluctance to put it under fast food was because kosher food is not fast food. (And it could be argued that the material is relevant to the Holocaust section in that it indicates that PETA's stance was not so much one of empathy for Holocaust issues, but rather because of animal rights concerns, which are consistent across both PETA campaigns.) However, it occurs to me now that the fast food section could perhaps be renamed to something like "Food" or "Vegetarian/Vegan" or something like that. After all, PETA (unlike some nutrition and food-oriented groups) is not really objecting to the fast food characteristics of McDonald's et al. per se, but rather to the animal issues. What do you think about a title change for that section? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I took a shot at it: "Animals as food". How does that look? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Bob98133 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

have been criticized

Hi all, I added a ^[who?] tag to the sentence "The organization has been criticized for the style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes." User:Ramdrake removed it with edit summary "The "who" is already in the section "policy on euthanasia". The intro is just for summary and doesn't need cite for every single statement if those are expounded upon later in the article."

Ramdrake makes a good point, but I'm still not happy for two reasons: 1. Campaining section says who critisised the campains. the euthanasia section doesn't, it's just more weasel words: PETA was criticized in 2005 when police discovered that over the course of a month, at least 80 animals had been euthanized and left in area dumpsters. 2. Without saying who criticised them, such a sentence is essentially meaningless: it could be added to any article anywhere. Perhaps if it were made clear that these criticisms were from respected important people/organisations and were detailed later (and they were), the sentence would be worthwhile, but as it stands it looks bad. Sugestions? Thehalfone (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing it here. The unfortunate reality is that any edit pertaining to "criticism" on this page is likely to be debated and parsed. Basically, though, I tend to agree in this instance with Ramdrake. It is true that the lead is just introducing what comes later in the page, and, although you are narrowly correct that the euthanasia section itself does not elaborate on the criticism (although it reports PETA's replies to criticisms, in a way that conveys what those criticisms were), it is immediately followed by a section on criminal prosecutions growing out of the same events, and that clearly addresses the matter of being criticized. I suppose it might be more precise to change the lead to say "and faced criminal charges for its euthanasia policies", in lieu of just saying they were criticized, but then one would have to explain that it was some employees and not the whole organization, and that they were acquitted, and by the time one says all of that, it is getting awfully long for the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree w/Trypto & Ramdrake. Bob98133 (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Obama section

The plain reading of the PETA statement was that they were NOT shocked by the Obama/fly incident. They were surprised that the Media would THINK they were shocked. Even though they think that people shouldn't kill flies, they recognize that we're all flawed people and occasionally act out of instinct. (Except the Budda.)

This whole thing seems to have been added by a single-purpose account. Probably just to make PETA seem crazier than they are.APL (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be hard to do actually. I think this should not be removed. Safesler 00:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The section, as written, was completely false. It can't be put back without a major re-write. APL (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. No PETA activist would possibly be shocked by someone killing a fly. Whoever wrote a slander like this about PETA is definitely trying to make them look bad to the public. There are whole businesses which only exist to write such slander about any group and organization, person or politician in order to turn the public against whoever their target is. Richard Burman is one of those market strategists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaandpink (talk • contribs) 06:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Euthanasia charges section

Given that there were no convictions, is it time to shorten this section? That, together with the euthanasia-policy section, currently makes euthanasia appear to be the main issue in this article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through the article trying to tighten the writing (mostly moving unnecessary quotes and examples), and got it down from 84 kb to 65 kb. I've also tightened the euthanasia section. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You're doing a little too much a little too quickly and not giving detailed enough edit summaries (when you bother to give them at all). Instead of making other editors sift through all those edits to see what you're doing, could you tell us what you're removing each step of the way? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tightened the entire article. You can't give edit summaries that describe that in detail. The article had turned into a mess, and it was too long. It has now been tightened, but nothing significant has been removed. This has to be done periodically with this article, or it just grows and grows. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you made one big edit to the whole article and summarized it as "copyediting", you would have a point, and it would probably be easier to check, to boot. You made 40 edits with edit summaries ranging from nonspecific to nonexistent. I'm not disputing your changes (If I'm going to, I have a lot of diff checking ahead of me.). I'm disputing the way you made them. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 09:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not keep reverting my work. There was no significant content change. It was a long-overdue copy edit to tighten the writing, the need for which was discussed some time ago on talk. The version you're reverting to is a dog's breakfast. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"No significant content change"? You threw 20% of the article away.
"Dog's breakfast" though it may be, it doesn't have 40 unexplained edits within the last day. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That tells you badly written the article was. It could lose another 20 percent without being harmed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to give detailed edit summaries when you're copy-editing, for obvious reasons. Read the article. You'll see it says essentially the same things, but is better written and also shorter. I haven't done yet, by the way; it still needs to be tightened some more, but that will do for now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:COPYEDIT and WP:ESL encourage you to give more detail to your edit summaries. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)}}

I don't think this section is too long - it is an important part of the article - to show all sides of PETA - otherwise this significant point may be missed by readers. Jack2uall (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit continuing

I'm about to go in and start fixing the refs. As that can be very fiddly, I'm going to put the "in use" box up to avoid edit conflicts. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please put a little thought into your edit summaries this time.… — NRen2k5^(TALK), 19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it just isn't possible to be as precise as you want, which is why I'm explaining here first. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not just wrong, that's ridiculous. Look, let's be completely open here. You're masking POV edits in your big "copy edits". I saw as much last night. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That is absolute nonsense, and I request that you cease this ABF. This is a much-needed copy edit. Please show me one of your major copy edits that provides detailed edit summaries along the way. I am not going to expand it by several hours and several hundred edits to accommodate you wanting to see a full description of the edit in each summary. Look at the diffs to see the edit, please. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn’t “ABF” until after looking through the diffs and finding some POV. And I don't make such big copyedits, but when I do copy-edit, I provide edit summaries as detailed as practical. If I didn’t, that wouldn’t make it right anyway. Intentional or not, I think that was an ad hominem: tu quoque on your part. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with SlimVirgin that the article about the euthanasia was too long and it did not explain why PETA is conducting euthanasias. When the emphasis is too much on this word euthanasia, which has been used against PETA by corporate strategists, then the article becomes strongly biased. I also suggest that Wiki should include in the article about PETA in general, that market psychologists have systematically tried to make PETA look bad to the public, because they are paid large sums of money from lobbyists of the fur and medical industry. The reason why PETA conducts euthanasia is because large numbers of animals they rescue are badly injured and sick. Those animals are suffering and prolonging their lives just prolongs their suffering. PETA do everything in their power to adopt healthy animals out to sanctuaries and people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaandpink (talk • contribs) 06:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pro-choice views

Another possible controversy surrounding PETA is that many of its leaders hold very pro-choice views, meaning that while they want to protect the smallest fly, they have no objections to eliminating human fetuses. [6] ADM (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's totally not relevant to the org. or its stated purpose. They also don't have a view about capital punishment although maybe their employees do. Can't mention every non-related issue unless they explain something about the topic. Bob98133 (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Another issue is that many PETA members don't brush their teeth after each meal. While they want to protect the smallest fly, they have no objections to letting human teeth decay. Shall I add a section? David Olivier (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the point being made is that PETA doesn't consider the Human animal worthy of the same rights as other species, which seems (perhaps onyl superficially?) to contradict it's purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.137.18 (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that PETA considers the human animal capable of defending itself whereas non-human animals are frequently unable to do so. Just as AARP doesn't campaign for children's rights, PETA doesn't campaign for human rights. That doesn't mean that people at AARP or PETA feel that children or humans don't deserve rights, it just isn't their mandate to campaign for them. Since these orgs are non-profit charities, they raise funds by promising supporters that they will follow a particular course of action which is often quite narrow but which dictates what issues they take a stand on. Bob98133 (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread is probably getting off topic, but I suspect that 24.200 was reacting to the sarcastic comment about tooth brushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course the pro-choice issue is completely relevant here - PETA compares animal cruelty to black slaves, the Jews in WWII and other "human" examples, they compare animal testing to "testing your children" - so why shouldn't we compare their passion about stopping the murdering of baby seals and other animals in front of its mother to the murdering of a human fetus inside of and by the mother? As for the comment that "maybe they think that banning abortion does very litte to decrease the abortion rates" well how about the fact that "just banning meat does very little to decrease the torturing of animal rates" Jack2uall (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

PETA does not take a stand on abortion, nor should they as an animal rights organization. MADD, AARP, AAA and other groups also tend to focus on their stated objectives and as far as I know take no position on abortion. PETA doesn't take a position on the Holocaust or slavery either, although they compare animal treatment to them, suspecting that most people find those practices abhorrent. What you suggest including in the PETA article could be better incorporated in the abortion or abortion rights articles where it might be relevant. Bob98133 (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Quotes to prove that PETA want to take away our right to own dogs:

Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.

John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist.

John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982, p. 15

As the surplus of cats and dogs {artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship--enjoyment at a distance.

Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Rights", Harper's, August 1988, p. 50. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.50 (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote one - dogs shouldn't be in leather nooses or chains - what part of this documents that PETA wants to take away the right to own dogs? By the way, where is the right to own dogs mentioned in law. I recall some guaranteed rights, but dog ownership is not among them.

Quote two - cat populations should be reduced and cats should be free from our dominance. What part of that states that PETA wants to take away some alleged right to own dogs?

Quote 3 - reducing surplus of companion animals would change their role. What part of that documents your claim?

Perhaps you are hung up with the ownership model for dogs, which I believe PETA opposes. Ownership of animals means that they are property which the owner can use as he likes, subject to a few laws about intentional cruelty. So just as I can take my old car to a junkyard to be destroyed, I can take my dog or cat to a vet to be killed. I think you miss the point, 205.212... PETA's arguments are for better treatment of dogs which is hard to obtain when they are being intentionally produced and also abandoned and killed by the millions. I might not agree with everything PETA says, but your citations do not justify your conclusion. They are original, and sloppy, research. Bob98133 (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Old discussion, but what part of "companion animals would be phased out" is unclear? This is not a controversial statement - PeTA is an abolitionist organisation, and it's sole goal is the freeing of animals from the dominion of man, and everything it does is an attempt at incrimental progress toward that goal. RayBarker (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It is original research OR to interpret that phrase as indicating that PETA/Newkirk wants to phase out all companion animals. She states that it might happen as surplus population is reduced, which is something PETA campaigns about, but she does not state that it is her or PETA's goal to do this. If you find a quote saying that, it might be relevant. Bob98133 (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me like you're deliberately misinterpreting the quote - I see no room for misunderstanding in "eventually companion animals would be phased out", but I don't really care enough about PeTA to get involved in an edit war about it(and the PeTA article seems to be a constant edit war). I can just reiterate that given the stated goal of Ingrid Newkirk and PeTA, which is the elimination of the use of animals in any role, the elimination of companion animals is a necessary consequence of that. It's implicit in the existence of the organisation itself, no OR required, and that quote is just an explicit expression of that. Personally I don't keep pets and don't care if they succeed in this aim worldwide tomorrow, but it's disingenuous to maintain that "companion animals would be phased out" can in any way mean "companion animals would be maintained at reduced numbers."

It would require much more strongly worded sources to imply that PeTA wants to exterminate Canis Canis (or indeed Bos primigenius) which is a claim I have seen made in rabid anti-PeTA diatribes, but the above quotes very strongly support the position that PeTA wishes to eliminate the posession of pets. RayBarker (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the statement by Ingrid Newkirk in the Penn and Teller video discussed more recently below is a relevant source. So far, the page quotes her rather minimally with respect to pets, but this merits a re-examination. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, strike that, to some extent. I've looked again at what Newkirk actually said there, and it would be OR to interpret what she said in this case, beyond what the lead of the page already says. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

fair enough. The current article covers it in passing anyway, I just took exception to Bob98133's interpretation above. RayBarker (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms from feminist and fat-acceptance movements

I know that many of PETA's more recent ad campaigns, such as ones where women are posed as caged animals, meat, etc. or where male PETA volunteers are fully clothed where women wear lettuce-leaf bikinis, have been criticized by feminists as misogynistic. In addition, PETA has come under fire from fat-acceptance and anti-eating-disorder activists for their more recent attempts to tie vegetarianism to weight loss and fat-shaming ad campaigns like the recent "Save the Whales" billboard that showed a large woman in a bikini and the subtext: "Lose the Blubber. Go Vegetarian."

However, there was nothing about this on the whole Wikipedia page, and I think that a section should be added since this is a fairly common criticism of PETA, enough that Ingrid Newkirk has responded to criticisms from both movements of PETA's ad campaigns. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds very appropriate to me. If you can provide links to sources, I'd be glad to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Right now it's late, but I'll find some sources tomorrow. It might take a while for me to dig up where Newkirk addresses criticism from feminists and fat-acceptance activists, but I can find the articles that show feminists/fat-acceptance activists taking aim at PETA. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Beggarsbanquet and Tryptofish, go ahead and add the information. But please also add that obesity is the number one killer in the USA leading to early heart attacks, strokes and cancer. So "loosing the blubber" is not that offensive compared to the fat itself being offensive to the body. I am a woman and I am overweight and I have no problem with PETA making ads like they do. Fat kills. And sex sells. Animals are suffering all over the world and something needs to be done about it. Saving animals is more important than protecting some touchy person's feelings. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaandpink (talk • contribs) 07:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Being a vegetarian or vegan doesn't equal losing weight. I've been a vegetarian for 4 years now and I've actually gained 60 lbs. You can over eat and become fat no matter if you eat meat or animal products or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.191.79 (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

To whom it may concern

This, followed by this: I love it! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoisted by your own petard! Bob98133 (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PETA image mass deletion nomination on Commons

Please take a look here; the concern is regarding whether valid permission was received for all images. postdlf (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive of this page somewhere ?

Just wondering if there is an archive of the discussion page somewhere. I realize I can look through previous edits, but wondering if there's another easier place to find it. I had a previous debate about the inclusion of information about Mary Beth Sweetland in the article, her dependence on insulin, and its relevance to PETAs position on animal testing, however I don't see it here now. It led to eventual inclusion in the article, but has since been scrubbed. 206.75.198.6 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

On the right hand side of this page across from the contents box, you should see an archive box w/11 archived pages. Bob98133 (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

doh figured it was that easy. thanks. 206.75.198.6 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the previous discussion about Mary Beth Sweetland's insulin use. I agreed earlier that it seemed tagged on, and left it out. Reviewing section now, I see mention of PETA employees participating in volunteer testing. One of the previous disagreements with inclusion of Mary Beth's diabetes was its proximity to the quote from Newkirk about animal testing, and how it isn't relevant. I still believe it is, and is certainly as relevant as including info about employees participating in animal testing. I'm going to think about it and see if I can't clean up the statement about volunteer testing as well, it seems tacked on as well. Perhaps both in a new paragraph would be the best fashion. Max.inglis (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You might try to find some example other than Mary Beth Sweetland. She hasn't worked for PETA for years. Recent google hits says she works for the humane society.Bob98133 (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes but she was the Director of Investigations at the time of that quote. We've had this argument before Bob, and you made that same point, looking back at the archive discussion. I left it out at the time because it felt tacked on, but since the paragraph is now written to include employee behaviour examples, mention of this fact in the same space is certainly relevant. When Mr VanValkenburg leaves PETA, will the mention of it stay with an addendum for its date? I tend to think so. Others have mentioned that her leaving may have been because she was breaking some PETA rule, but I tend to think it was probably because this quote came out, and it was revealed that Sweetland was insulin-dependent, and it became embarrassing when put in context with that statement. There are numerous notes that a criticism section is fraught with problems, and I agree, but we have to have leeway to include negative information and criticisms in appropriate places. This is a well-known, well documented criticism of PETA (that being the fact that the company made this broad reaching statement at the time when a Director - a senior-management position - was insulin-dependent.) Max.inglis (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Added link for opposing point of view

While I have nothing against PETA, WP policy insists on balance in providing various points of view (WP:POV). For this reason, I added a reference to a website (PETA Kills Animals) that contains specific alleged statistics concerning the euthanasia of unwanted pets conducted by PETA. This should satisfy those who feel that the article is biased in favor of PETA without defacing the descriptive content. David spector (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ a reliable source per WP:RS? It looks like a WP:SPS to me. Gabbe (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a reliable link. It is put up by a public relations firm, hired by a non-profit, paid for by industries that oppose PETA. See Center for Consumer Freedom. Bob98133 (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, CCF can be used to track down original sources since they only spout propaganda but loosely base it on facts. For example, the Peta-kills-animals part, which has to do with their euthanasia statistics, are available from a state of Virginia statistics website. No problem at all using reliable, verifiable sources such as those. CCF frequently twists facts and reports only what they want, so the original sources should be used anyhow. Bob98133 (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Bob. Yes, this is true, Richard Berman is the founder of the Center for Consumer Freedom. He gets paid for slander ads and articles against anyone who stands in the way of exploitation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaandpink (talk • contribs) 07:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Policy on euthanasia

This comment:

"It takes in feral cat colonies with diseases such as feline AIDS and leukemia, stray dogs, litters of parvo-infected puppies, and backyard dogs, and as such it would be unrealistic to operate a no-kill policy.[61]"

is referenced to a archive website as far as I can tell. The letter was contributed by someone without comment. At best, this comment should be described as a rebuttal from PETA, but in reality, it needs to have a better reference or it should be deleted.Desoto10 (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Peta Position on Pet Ownership (Guardianship)

Maybe I missed this in the article, but shouldn't there be a section on Peta's position on household pets? It is fairly clear from Peta statements and the statements of its leadership that they wish that the concept of "pets" never happened and that they wish for the population of pets to be reduced. However, I don't want to spend the time digging up the refs if somebody is just going to delete it. When people talk about PETA, the issue of pets always comes up, so we should cover it.Desoto10 (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've heard similar stuff before, and there may have been a mention of this before the article was trimmed back a few months ago. However, I'm not sure how that info would fit with People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Community_Animal_Project which is referenced content about programs that they have for pets. Bob98133 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, and I just don't know the answer. It clearly is a view held by people in the animal rights movement, but the question here is whether PETA actually has a stated position on it. Desoto, if there is reliable sourcing, I can promise you that I will resist efforts to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[7] C'mon, it only took 5 seconds on Google to find that. Yzak Jule (talk)

Yzak, thank you. It's so nice that you are suddenly helping out at so many of the pages I edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of the documents that hints at Peta's position, but you will notice that the only clear statement is that Peta thinks that pet ownership or guardianship should have never begun. It is less clear, although there are statements from Peta leadership that the eventual outcome of their pet-related projects should lead to pet ownership going away. I mean, if you read Peta's website and the comments from Peta leadership there is no doubt as to how they hate the concept of pets, and want to abolish the practice, but I have not found any direct statements from them to that effect (no big surprise there). Not that it matters to the article, but is there anyone here who disagrees with my conclusion about Peta and pets?Desoto10 (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I will also add a section on Peta's position on horses. The Peta website encourages an end to horse breeding, which, naturally means the end of horses, except for those in the wild. Again, if anybody thinks this is not true, please speak up. From the Peta website "factsheets":

Horse Woes PETA favors horse rescue and opposes horse breeding. Horses are often acquired frivolously and neglected or treated cruelly, and they end up lonely, bored, or overworked. Because many horses are boarded and spend much of their lives away from their guardian’s watchful eye, there is an enormous potential for abuse or neglect by uncaring or untrained stable personnel. Horse breeding has caused the same overpopulation problem that plagues dogs and cats, and sometimes “pet” horses end up at slaughterhouses. Once adopted, horses should never be sold or given away as it is virtually impossible to know where they will ultimately end up.

Desoto10 (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Desoto -I don't disagree with your conclusion, however reaching that conclusion is OR, I think. The ref that Yzak posted is pretty clear and it doesn't say that they are working to eliminate pets. The same with your conclusion about stopping horse breeding, which does not lead to an end to horses anymore than efforts to control human population (such as Zero Population Growth) are intended to lead to human extinction. I think Peta's point is that whatever animals do exist should be treated properly, and if that is not the case, they are against adding more animals to the mix. Bob98133 (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is clear from Peta statements that they want to end the ownership/guardianship of all animals, including pets, but I agree that the leap from their statements to this truth is OR. That is why I am bringing it up here, in hopes that reliable references can be found to support this. If they don't exist, that's the way it goes. I certainly have never heard Peta say that they want people to continue to own pets.169.230.82.109 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)forgot to signDesoto10 (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen video of Ingrid Newkirk in which she states "our goal is total animal liberation" (a direct quote, not paraphrasing) although I'm unclear how to reference that in wiki (It was in the episode of Penn & Teller's BS about PETA). I agree that many horses are lonely and bought on whim, but I also grew up in a rural area where horses were well cared for, seen daily, well taken care of, with large pastures to roam and run. Its not a black and white line that can be drawn, just like all other animal issues. Max.inglis (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the citation, from an old version of this page: <ref>[http://www.travelwebdir.com/video/video-l9ijLulwUTY.html Penn & Teller Bullshit!: PETA]</ref>. If you are confident of the accuracy of the quote, then by all means, please add it. (I kind of think I remember that too, but my memory here is not RS-quality.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

6:58 of that video in the link. Is a link to the video necessary, or just the citation indicating the show and episode? Max.inglis (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the reference URL does go to the video. No harm in adding the time at the end. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason that quote can't be right in the opening paragraph, after the mention of PETA's goals from the website? Max.inglis (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:Be bold, I'd say go for it. Editors who disagree can suggest other places on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The video link above didn't work for me; however, if this is from Penn and Teller I would automatically reject it since they are entertainers - comedians and magicians. This would be like using Jay Leno as source. If this is about a quote of Ingrid Newkirk's, find the original source and use it. Bob98133 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob, I would agree with you if Penn and Teller were being quoted or referenced for their views of the subject. But this is a case of quoting Ingrid Newkirk. It just happened that she provided her statement on that show, and, apparently, that was the original venue in which she said it. The show is the place where Newkirk's comment can be found and verified. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Its not a case of them quoting her, they show a video of her saying that exact quote. If I could use the direct link I would, but I'm unsure where it came from. They show a number of clips from the same video during the episode, it appears to be a recording of her speaking during a PETA event of some kind. I'm adding it in the previously mentioned location. Max.inglis (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I worded that vaguely. I meant we are quoting her, as opposed to us quoting Penn and Teller. But I agree with the edit you made. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My opinion: I saw a lot of Penn and Teller anti PETA commercials on YouTube, that's where I first saw these 2 men. 2 questions arise: Why would these comedians make that many anti PETA videos? Are they paid to do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaandpink (talk • contribs) 07:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The lack of a controversy section is startling.

PETA is a hotly contested organization and extremely fitting for a controversy section. I notice on this page it was posed by TripeFish or someone disregarded it. Perhaps instead of writing essays about the relevance of a monkey in a tube some actual important work is done to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.130.105 (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I trust you are not saying that I disregarded it? Anyway, how about including more material that addresses the controversy, section by section, as opposed to setting it aside in a separate section? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the article is coming along nicely, keeping POV stuff in check and including specific criticisms where applicable.Max.inglis (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Penn & Teller are bullshit

The quotation attributed to Ingrid Newkirk in the lead, reference #2, is widely quoted on the web, always attributed to a 2002 AR conference, but no record of the original quote seems to exist. A comedy show quoting someone is hardly a reliable reference. How about this gets reworded slightly to what Newkirk actually said. This link [8] is a PETA blog entry written by Newkirk dated Nov 11, 2008, so there should be no sourcing problem with it. In it she writes:

"And for those who think that we will never be able to achieve the dream of liberation from oppression, not just for human beings but for all beings, regardless of race or gender or species, I have just three words for you: Yes. We. Can."

So the text might change from: "Newkirk has said "our goal is total animal liberation."[2] to:

"Newkirk has said her dream is liberation from oppression for all beings."

The phrase "total animal liberation" isn't very clear to begin with, since it is presented in counterpoint to PETA's objectives as if it somehow stands apart from the stated objectives, and the sourcing stinks. I would think there might be consensus to replace it with a primary source saying essentially the same thing, but with an easily verifiable online reference. Bob98133 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding in the thread above was that the video record was of Newkirk actually saying the quote, on camera. If, on the other hand, it shows someone else saying that she had said that, then that's another matter entirely. In that case, it simply fails WP:V and should not appear on the page. But, as I said, my understanding is that we see and hear Newkirk actually saying those things herself. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you on that, Trypto, but how is someone supposed to know? The reference is to a video that isn't accessible. I'd even settle for a You Tube video of her saying it. If this is so well accepted, you'd think it would at least be on YouTube. I'm not arguing whether she said it or not, it does sound like something she'd say, but the Penn & Teller reference would be like using a clip of a notable person from a John Stewart Daily Show, which because of the nature of the source, may have been manipulated or misrepresented. Bob98133 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I'm keeping an open mind about this. But I do not believe that Penn & Teller do the kind of manipulating of quotations for comic effect that John Stewart does. My recollection of seeing the show a long time ago is that they presented clips of her talking, straight, and that they would not have needed to do any kind of manipulation to present her saying those words. But, as I said, I'm keeping an open mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqlF2rvcYIs&NR=1 2:37, not sure why that other link was broken, thats youtube directly. she said it, there's no question. Max.inglis (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

1) The Bull@#$% episode in question is publicly available on DVD. 2) Google respects copyrights, so one shouldn’t always expect to find notable clips from copyrighted works on YouTube. 3) This article is replete with media and citations sourced from PETA themselves. Where you see bias, I see balance. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 14:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I said above that I was keeping an open mind, but I think Max's link settles the issue. There is Newkirk, saying the words herself. End of story. I'm with Max and NRen on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nren - there was no question about balance or bias, just sourcing. I can't see the video online, but if the quote is there, fine. However, this leaves the door open to any comedian who happens to use a clip that might be pertinent to an article. Apparently, the clip in question was filmed at a conference, so it is really odd that it appears nowhere else but on a comedy show. Bob98133 (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob, I agree with what you’re saying about Bullshit not being a very good source due to the nature of the show. Conference minutes, for example, would be a much better source. My main point is that being unable to find the exact citation online is not all that important for a source. WP:V says that “anyone should be able to check the sources” but that “the principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries.” — NRen2k5^(TALK), 17:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[fined-1] "Covance fined for violations of the Animal Welfare Act", Peta.org.

[1]