Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

'Timeline

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

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

'Response to criticism of euthanasia' section

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

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

There are blogs, website and people all over the internet that have reposted it. The links provided show a reprint of the transcript from the PETA Press confrence. I have a copy of their responce by email as well. PETA is the primary source, just as it said in that section. You are free to email PETA and ask for a copy of it yourself if you like. --Steele the Wolf 04:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand our policies on sources. PETA may well be the source, but unless it is specifically published by them, then it is simply not acceptable. Blogs etc... are not acceptable proxies for primary sources either. What we'd need is a document, published by PETA with the information in, then it would be acceptable as a primary source. -Localzuk^(talk) 18:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have to disagree somewhat. The implication of the last post is that PETA comments are only citable if on a PETA website. WP:RS doesn't demand only self-publication. It looks for reliable sources. A statement on the ALF website, said to be written by PETA, attributed to Newkirk, with a PETA employees name, position, title, email address, and phone number at the end, seems pretty citable and verifiable to me. At the least one would cite it as "Source: Statement on AFL news website [LINK], attributed to Ingrid Newkirk". That's the usual "X says Y" format, which is applicable here. Steele the Wolf 02:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine - if the ALF were a reliable source in this context. If this was on another news site or similar then fine, it would be acceptable. As it is on the ALF site, which is generally not an acceptable source unless talking directly about the ALF then it cannot be used as far as I can see.-Localzuk^(talk) 08:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

They are reporting on another’s statement. That statement is attributed, and has verification contacts. This is not a blog, but a known organization. They may be unreliable in reporting some matters, but it is not at all evidenced that ALF Press are unreliable in reporting what others say, or that they fake PETA/Newkirk statements claiming PETA/Newkirk wrote them. In fact given the relationship and history between PETA and the ALF Press, this might be considered unlikely. So given that this is not a primary source (ie a person reporting their own observations) but a secondary source, and from an organization (however unpopular) and not a blog... what exact evidence is proposed that this is not a reliable cite of an actual Newkirk/PETA statement.--Steele the Wolf 22:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Article image used in U magazine

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

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

People Eating Tasty Animals

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

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

Membership

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

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

Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The source is provided already - Peta.org/about. Peta are being used as a source about themselves - which is acceptable per our verifiability policy and reliable source guideline.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources other than PETA's own claim, of whatever number it states as members, by whatever criteria it uses?

Can the number itself be verified and cited, as opposed to merely the statement "PETA make this claim" being what is verified? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be indicated that PETA claims this membership, not that it is an established truth.--Ramdrake 13:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It says "stated," which is accurate. "Claims" makes it sound as though we don't believe them, but no one else could possibly know how many members they have, and they do count as a reliable source about themselves per WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing what the problem is really. The only organisation that can know how many members PETA has is PETA itself. We use them as a reference to the statement that they have over a million members and use the term 'stated' which indicates that it is a statement by themselves. PETA doesn't claim anything, they know how many members they have...-Localzuk^(talk) 15:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I also can't see what the issue is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

2007 "State of the Union"

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

Alert

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

This shows PETA personnel killing animals, worse. Martial Law 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My terminal has a weird glitch concerning a Linksys unit. Martial Law 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This shows PETA personnel on trial, PETA's cruelty to animals, etc. Martial Law 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You may have seen it on Fox news, but the reference you provide above is to a PETA attack site, which per WP rules should not be used as a reliable source for PETA. Crum375 00:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to place it as a PETA critic. Martial Law 00:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(removed unsigned unsourced material)

Again, we may not use an attack site as a reliable source relating to the subject of the attack. Crum375 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really add anything new to the article - the issue with the employees is already in there. We can discuss developments from the trial if they are properly sourced though (not to an attack site).-Localzuk^(talk)

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

What you added appears to be assorted tidbits from the trial. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum or blog. We need to have a clear and concise summary of the essential elements of the trial. A running play-by-play is wrong since we can't separate what's important from what's not. Ideally we should have a neutral and reliable secondary source providing a top level analysis and/or summary. Crum375 15:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Facts relating to PETA, such as their operating a crematorium at their Norfolk headquarters, may not be pertinent to the outcome of the trial itself, but are facts about the organization that should appear in the main article. The trial is likely to be long-running. I don't advocate a play-by-play, but previously unreported facts about Peta shape one's understanding of their mission. I still don't know how the orginal article was reverted without comment or signature. 65.160.201.88 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Any pertinent fact that can be attributed to a reliable source and presented in a neutral fashion, should be in the article. If you want to add anything like that, since this is a very contentious entry, I suggest you propose it here first, so we can discuss it. Thanks, Crum375 16:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

PETA is an attack site on eating meat, so how does a site which is referencing PETA's own records become an invalid source? Are pro-peta sites also off limits? NathanLee 14:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

For anyone interested, here's a more reliable source (CourtTV site) with a lot of details about the trial: [1]. When the smoke blows over, this could be a good, reliable source of info.--Ramdrake 16:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it probably will be. I think we should wait a while until we start updating the article with details else we will end up with a mess of tid-bits in the article rather than a coherent section. Also, including too many details would be giving undue weight to an incident that bears no major relevance to PETA as a whole.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree to wait as well. I just wanted to put this link in the talk page as a potentially very relevant source once the "newsiness" (sic!) of the trial is past and we can see a bit more clearly.--Ramdrake 20:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Also, including too many details would be giving undue weight to an incident that bears no major relevance to PETA as a whole." The facts coming out in this case including accepting animals on a fraudlent basis, discarding animals in dumpsters, euthanizing animals in a shelters parking lot, and operating both a crematorium and meat locker at the Norfolk location are precisely revelant to Peta as an organization. I would expect that donations could dry up overnight as these facts are presented to members. I suspect the above is why the article page has been reverted without comment after I properly sourced the information and signed it.24.211.249.43 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think you need to find that kind of motive. I'm content with thinking we don't yet have enough distance with the trial to have a good idea of all the facts which will turn out. And even now, I think you can count for certain that whatever has already gone on will significantly hurt PETA financially, whether or not we wait until the end of the trial to put it in this Wikipedia article.--Ramdrake 11:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead

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

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

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

Given that, I don't think the sentence I replaced, "The organization has been criticized for some of its campaigns" provides any useful information. What advocacy group HASN'T been criticized for its campaigns? In my opinion, it is substantially superior to provide something specific, as my 1 sentence does. In fact, I think WP:LEAD requires something brief, but more substantive than what is currently there. If you're trying to make the lead shorter, then it would make sense to delete fairly random material such as "There is also the peta2 Street Team for high-school and college-age activists." Discuss? Mgunn 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Many advocacy groups aren't criticized for their campaigns. PETA's campaigns on the other hand are frequently criticized because they're deliberately hard-hitting. Regardless, you used animalrights.net as a source, and you can't do that because it's a personal website. The lead should contain the notable controversies, and in the case of PETA, we have to pick the most common or the best known; these are allegations of links to violent activists, inappropriate euthanasia, and hard-hitting campaigns. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

First, you have a valid point on the animalrights.net citation, and I can easilly provide an alternative citation for the "Eat the Whales" campaign as it has been widely reported on by the mainstream media. Second, the criticism as it currently stands in the PETA article I think somewhat misses the point. Any large group can have a few bad eggs that associate themselves with nefarious groups or engage in actions inconsistent with the goals of the organization (eg. kill animals). These criticisms don't question the stated goals of the organization.

On the other hand, I think a more common line of criticism is that the organizations PHILOSOPHY is a wacko and naive approach to animal rights. I cite an exceedingly controversial campaign (anti-whaling groups went nuts over "Eat the Whales") and an exceedingly controversial letter that in essence asks Yasser Arafat to not blow up donkeys when he directs bombing attacks against israeli Jews. These were officially sanctioned actions of the group and go substantially more to the heart of the matter than lack of internal policing within the PETA organization. -- Mgunn 22:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the criticism linking PETA to violent activists is wrong-headed, but it's a common one and given that it's well-sourced, it's legitimate to include it in the lead. Your view that PETA's philosophy is a "naive approach to animal rights" seems to be your own original research. I've heard this argument within the animal rights movement, but so far as I know, it's confined to the movement; critics outside the movement are opposed to PETA because it's an animal rights group, period, and have no idea about the different approaches. But if you can source it, by all means let's have a look. I don't think you'd find any critic who would agree that a letter from Newkirk to Arafat asking him to stop blowing up donkeys is more controversial than the alleged financing of activists who blow up labs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(1) I didn't advocate the removal of the Inhofe material. I believe it should stay. (2) I said my material is in some ways more relevant because it discusses officially sanctioned actions of the organization, not unsanctioned actions. (3) The point of a LEAD isn't to put in the most explosive criticism and leave out everything else, the point is to explain what the organization is and notable controversies. The Arafat material does both. Mgunn 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The support for the ALF and ELF is officially sanctioned. The letter to Arafat was just a plea from Newkirk not to involve animals in the conflict. To introduce yet more criticism, especially such minor stuff as Arafat and whales, is a pile-on intended to make PETA look bad. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else care or want to weigh in? Mgunn 05:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that with the wide range of activities sanctioned by PETA, arguing over which is more controversial is a bit pointless. We should simply have a selection of them, reflecting on the amount of space taken up within this article - ie. the ALF link, the relation to their employees treatment of animals and their beliefs regarding euthanasia. Anything in more detail, ie. providing specifics, would seem to be putting too much detail in the lead.

Also, the version that you attempted to insert Mgunn, contained weasel words such as 'many' which should generally be avoided.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Third Paragraph in Lead

The organization has been criticized for some of its campaigns, for the actions of some of its employees regarding their treatment of animals, [7] and for the number of animals it euthanizes. It was also criticized in 2005 by Senator James M. Inhofe for having acted as a "spokesgroup" for the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, after activists associated with those groups had committed what Inhofe called "acts of terrorism." [8][9][10]

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

Indeed, that info should likely be moved or elaborated on in the section relating to their involvement with the ALF/ELF.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to stay in the lead, because it provides the context within which PETA has been associated with these groups, and we elaborate on that in the article. WP:LEAD only says: "A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead." There is no significant argument in the lead that isn't mentioned elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So does that mean I'm thinking a little too specifically? As in I was thinking there should be duplication of info?-Localzuk^(talk) 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you are correct Localzuk. The specific criticism by Inhofe should be mentioned again, and elaborated upon, within the article. If there isn't enough to work with to create at least a couple of sentences about it, then it should either be removed, or replaced with a summary statement referring to one of the other criticisms discussed in the article. The lead should be a summary of what will come in the article, not present info that is never revisited in the article.--Leperflesh 21:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering if criticism should be mentioned in the LEAD. A look at the Greenpeace LEAD shows no criticism. --Lincoln F. Stern 21:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms?

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

There are dozens of references to criticisms woven throughout the article. We do not want a 'criticism' section as it causes a lot more trouble than it is worth, has an inherent pov problem and breaks the flow of the article. Please read through the entire article and you will see the criticism. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 10:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There are also repeated discussions of this issue archived at Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 4, Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 5, Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 7, and Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/archive8. --Allen3 ^talk 10:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a criticism section is certainly required. Almost every article about a group of people, coporation, methodology, philosophy (the list goes on) has a criticism section, I don't see why this particular minority group is exempt. mr_happyhour 29/03/2007

In general, having a 'criticism' section, which of course would require a 'praise' section for balance, is a bad idea, and any article that has them is a bad example. One reason is that they tend to separate out the pros and cons, in a way that is hard for the reader to follow. For example, if source X says something bad about the subject, and source Y refutes it and shows it's actually good, where do they belong? If we keep them separated in separate sections, the readers will have a hard time following the arguments, while if we keep them together (the preferred approach), we can't have separate sections. Also, having a dedicated section for pure criticism tends to act as a POV magnet, attracting various drive-by editors and trolls to just pile on more criticism, often with poor or no sourcing, and tends to destabilize the article. Also, if the praise and criticism sections grow over time, and require their own articles, the problem becomes even worse, as the reader would need to read two separate articles to follow the pro and con arguments. Bottom line: the preferred approach is to properly interweave and balance out criticism with praise, which tends to flow better, and is easier to present in a neutrally balanced encyclopedic fashion. Crum375 02:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In general, wikipedia articles on controversial groups, theories, movements, etc. have criticisms sections. To a reader coming to this page for the first time, is it possible that the lack of a criticisms section could develop the impression that the page's maintainers have a collective overwhelming bias in support for the organization and that an neutral presentation of the information therein is entirely absent?68.101.76.251 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In general, per my comments above, Wikipedia articles that have a criticism section are poorly constructed. In order to be fair, they would then need a 'praise' section. Then a reader would have to jump back and forth between those sections to find out how each side addresses a given issue. If a casual reader coming to this article feels that we are not presenting both sides of an issue in a balanced and neutral fashion, no doubt we have failed. The way to improve it is to find and include all attributable praise and criticism in its proper section, not to have dedicated praise and criticism sections. If you yourself have some specific ideas as to what's missing, or what is presented in a non-neutral fashion, please let us know, or try to edit yourself, based on our content policies. Crum375 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community Animal Project

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

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

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

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

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

May I ask why you posted that info here? We are avoiding adding it to the article as this is not Wikinews and waiting until the outcome will produce a more well rounded description of the proceedings.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hinkle worked for the CAP. I guess I'll have to remove the "false pretense" charge - they were acquitted.

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

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

Right, now that we have an outcome we need to reduce the section down a bit in size. Overall, it bears little relation to PETA as a whole and there is too much info there now. I propose just including a single paragraph, outlining a small amount of background, the reaction from PETA and the outcome of the trial. There is no need for a picture either now, as it doesn't actually seem to add anything to the section. What do people think?-Localzuk^(talk) 10:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A Bertie County animal control officer testified that Hinkle said she would have "no problem" finding homes for two dalmatians named Annie and Toby. The dogs were dead before they left the shelter's parking lot.

The same officer said he handed over his own dog, a terrier named Happy, because he had had trouble housebreaking it. Hinkle sent him a picture of the dog in a garden, standing in front of a house but didn't mention that the dog had been euthanized upon arriving at PETA headquarters.

"They go out and say, 'Oh, we helped all these animals,'" said Asbell, who is the district attorney for Hertford, Bertie and Northampton counties. "They sure aren't out telling folks they're killing healthy ones ... because that doesn't go along with the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals."http://www.newsobserver.com/680/story/539313.html65.160.201.163 12:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement From PETA on Anna Nicole Smith's Death

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

Deceased

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

Booshakla, rather than reverting again, could you explain your objections here please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see how someone might read it as being POV but it isn't itself POV. If you already have an inkling of dislike for PETA and a like for Irwin then saying 'the late' will invoke an emotional reaction. It is not actually POV so it should stay in the article in my view.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I will make sure that will be removed permanently. I will not do this for awhile to avoid violations, but hope that someone else will consider and agree. There is no reason whatsoever to put "the late" in front of his name, I will list several reasons, and although I think that is somewhat POV, there are other reason as to why I remove the info:

• Everyone dies sometime - Does it really make sense to have an article about a past event and just put "the late" in front of everyone that has died?
• Poor writing - It's just sloppy/filler writing to put "the late" in place. Would you ever see anyone referred to as "the late" in a print encyclopedia?
• Recentism - WP has a guideline/template that we should try not to capitalize too much on recent events and keep them in perspective. Would it make sense 10 years down the road to still refer to him as "the late"? Let's make things as static as possible.
• Precedent - At one point, several dozen articles referred to Steve Irwin as "The late Steve Irwin", now, this is the only one that does (by doing a search), and there seems to be consensus about that.
• Knowledge of his death - Let's face it, a vast majority of people (especially those that would look for this article) know he is dead, and the few that may not be sure can click the link. Maybe people don't want to know that he's dead or be reminded of it, and putting that acts as a spoiler. Even Anna Nicole Smith had a few "the lates" put on pages of hers, and those have all been removed (a few by me, a few by others). "Saving a click" is not a valid reason for this, we should assume that the readers are smart, and things like that can go to the Simple English edition.
• Irrelevance - Why would the fact that he is dead be relevant to an article that talks about his programming? His shows will probably be reran for many years to come, and the fact that he died somewhat unexpectedly makes no bearing on what he did on his programming.

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

Also, looking at the edit summary, I hear that there is "consensus" to keep "the late" mention. I don't think that there is yet, as there isn't really any consensus to have the phrase anywhere on the encyclopedia. Other Wikiprojects have discouraged the use of the phrase. I will keep cool for awhile, but will likely continue to remove the mention whenever possible, since I am supremely confident that I am right. Booshakla 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Being supremely confident that you're right on Wikipedia is bound to lead to trouble. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, I still think that the paragraph should be tweaked some, Steve Irwin is referred to as "the late" and "recently deceased" in the same paragraph. One or both of those should go, at least, IMO. Booshakla 04:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, looking through a few research engines, there have been tens, if not humdreds of references in the last month to "the late Steve Irwin", so yes people are still referring to him by his state. It turns out that hundreds of WP articles use this formulation, and suddenly editing all those passages to remove "the late" has made them quite adversarial to your position, especially the scale on which you did these reversions (hundreds of articles).--Ramdrake 13:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are here to write an encyclopedia article, not rehash what newspapers and magazines say. And articles/editorials are far different than an encyclopedia article. Just because VH1 or the local news refers him as "the late Steve Irwin" does not mean an encyclopedia should say that. There were plenty (at least 20-30) articles that at one point refered him to as "the late Steve Irwin" and this is the only one that does at this point (I don't want to violate WP:BEANS and encourage anything). There is talk at WP:WTA about the usage (it's never been brought up) and there is fair discouragement to use "the late".

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

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

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

Extremist?

I added in the top paragraph, "Many find it an extremist organization". This was reverted. Can we settle on letting this stay? This does [not] say, "PETA is an extremist organization", rather "[Many] (referring to a significant group of people) find it an extremist organization. IBeatAnorexia 19:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

While I certainly characterize PETA as extremist and I have no doubt that others do as well, that is just opinion and has no place in the article, and certainly not in the introductory paragraph. We should always be on the lookout for such qualifiers as "many people". There are 6,000,000,000+ people on spaceship earth how do you quantify "many people". Cheers. L0b0t 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that there are many people who would find religion X 'extremist'. Would we then say that, in the lead for religion X? I rather doubt it, as it would sound very unencyclopedic, especially if religion X has lots of devout followers. Similarly for many organizations. What 'many people' think is hard to quantify and prove via reliable sources, and there are lots of people who think poorly (or highly) of almost any religion or organization, more so if they are ambitious and aggressive, so it's essentially irrelevant. BTW, I am sure that there are 'many people' who think PETA is a terrific and wonderful organization that helps protect animal rights - should we say that too in the lead? Hopefully you get the point. Crum375 19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Uhh.. Dude. PETA is targetted by half the nation and most of the people that know about them as extremist and just plain stupid. This article makes it look way too buttered up for my tastes. IBeatAnorexia 19:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If the article is "too buttered up" and you seriously want to address that, you are going about it the wrong way, IMO. Saying that a group of people think X about PETA, without verifiable sourcing and a neutral balance, violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V, to name a few. For balance, you'd have to say what other groups think of it (assuming you had the verifiable sources), and soon every article will become an opinion poll. If this article seems to you too pro-PETA, find something concrete that you can properly source, and go for it, remembering that everything must be neutrally presented. Crum375 19:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Given the overwhelming majority of people do not regard:

• animal life as equally important as human
• use leather/meat etc to be the equivalent of killing humans

or

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

NathanLee 14:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Twice information sourced to a Reuters news story showing that POM Wonderful was potentially under duress caused by a product tampering hoax when they halted animal testing has been removed from the timeline without explanation([2] & [3]). Can anyone provide an explanation as to why this is information is inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia? --Allen3 ^talk 12:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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