Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 4

message: We don't need 4 links to it. Before someone say there's a number of link to PETA websites, remember that this article is about PETA and to provide information relevant to PETA. CCF is relevant to PETA as a notable critic, but this isn't CCF article. Unless you can demonstrate those websites as independant from CCF, please don't link to them anymore. Thank you. Jean-Philippe 05:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticisms have been worked into the body of the article.L0b0t 03:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Websites critical of PETA --> Center for Consumer Freedom 

message: Needs compare and contrast with "traditional"  cruelty-prevention organizations like ASPCA. PETA goes way beyond enforcing 'human use' ethics to a 'no-use' stand. Without saying whether this is a good stance to take, the article should still tell the reader how this is different from traditional anti-cruelty movements.
Nearly everyone is against cruelty, especially pet-owners and people who ride horses. There is even an 'ethical code' among many hunters, like "Take a clean shot, always finish off the animal so it doesn't suffer, never kill more than you plan to eat".
Many people draw the line at (non-mammalian) fish. Some even think they are doing a good deed by fishing rather than hunting or ranching (so they're not slaughtering mammals).
Is there any way to compare and contrast the ethical views of PETA with other (traditional?) ethical views, without creating an NPOV violation? --Uncle Ed 14:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, first and foremost, I would suggest you read up on the difference between an "animal rights" and an "animal welfare" movement. Also, this article is about PETA, its goals and its campaigns. Maybe if you want to dwell on the differences of ethics between an animal welfare movement (such as ASPCA or HSUS) and an animal rights movement (such as PETA or ALF), that may be deserving of its own article. --Ramdrake 14:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I was hoping to read about the difference right here at Wikipedia. Would you like to help me develop this worthy aspect? It could be a section of either animal welfare or animal rights. If it gets too big, we can split it off to Animal welfare and animal rights (see also race and intelligence. --Uncle Ed 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'm not in agreement with the sentence you inserted. There are no such things as "traditional" animal welfare organizations. There are animal welfare organizations, and animal welfare groups. That the two are different goes without saying. So yes, PETA contrasts with say the HSUS, but has affinities with the ALF. But all that is beside the point of what PETA does. It is just belaboring a matter of definition. I don't think it's appropriate in this article.--Ramdrake 16:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, you'd be engaging in original research contrasting animal rights and welfare here or on either of those pages. You'll have to start a separate article. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cruelty to animals

message: John Philip: Why did you instantly take out the word 'radical' when refering to PETA? By definition, they are a radical group becasue their agenda is radical, their methods are radical and most of all their pholosphy is radical. Look up the word 'radical' and try to avoid an edit war. DocEss 19:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you put a message on my talk page and then one here too? Now I have to answer again o.O Since you just copy-pasted I'll do the same :)
"It's like I said in my edit summary, you tried to introduce your pov by inserting a weasel word into the article. Be real, PETA is as mainstream as it gets, else it wouldn't have the broad support it has and be classified as a non-profit under the law. Don't try and patronize me by telling me not to start an edit war and then immediately reverting yourself. Jean-Philippe 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The notion that PETA is radical is pretty fringe-y. As I said in my summary, if we call any non-centrist group "radical," the word is going to be useless. IronDuke 20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's better. Let us discuss. The Concise Oxford English dictionary that I have here  says that radical (in this regard I must assume political, right?) is defined as 'advocating thorough reform; holding extreme political views; revolutionary.' Now how does advocating that nobody eats, wears, rides or tests animals not claissify as thorough reform? Explain it to us all, all non-1 million PETA members, who love a good steak? Go.DocEss 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By your definition, Republicans could be tagged as radicals, as could Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, etc. For WP purposes, we don't define what is and is not radical -- POV terms like that are rarely used, and AFAIK always cited when they are used. And I'm not a PETA member or affiliated with any animal rights group in any way, FWIW. I'm just interested in the topic. IronDuke 20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only definition I have is the one I qoted and I didn't write it - Oxford dictionary people wrote it. And, no, repuclicans or any of those yankee groups yopu mentioned would not be included in this definition by any means --- thorough going reform, revolution, extreme views? I don't think so (except perhaps the greens). Now, back to the point: please tell me how PETA, advocating that nobody eats, wears, rides or tests animals, not claissify as thorough reform?DocEss 20:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You previously linked to many more definitions than "thorough reform." That is not a WP definition of radical, I promise you. IronDuke 20:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Stating that " blah blah is not a WP definition of blah blah, I promise you" is not very clever on two fronts. Firstly, what Wikpedia and its sister projects state is up for debate and editing (whih is the whoile point of it!). Secondly, you assurance is misplaced and flat wrong. Ya. The Wiktionary definition is: "Thorough going or fundamental." Looky here:  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/radical. Silly rabbit - look before you leap.DocEss 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I wasn't cleverer. As I say, there are many definitions of "Radical." One definition I've seen here is "atomic or molecular species with unpaired electrons on an otherwise open shell configuration." Does PETA fit that? But seriously, if you're trying to argue that "fundamental" things are radical, you'll have your work cut out for you slapping the word "radical" on everything at WP that is fundamental or "thorough-going." But ask around, get some more opinions. Maybe your definition will win the day. IronDuke 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh goodness gracious be sensible. It is a radical movement that advocates that everyone should wear green everyday, or that scientists not be allowed to vote, or that vegetarians should be made into soylent green or that people should not eat animals. Logic dictates that relevant definition of radical be applied to PETA. Now, let us ask around, since you were unable to axplain why PETA's advocating that nobody eats, wears, rides or tests animals should not be classified as thorough reform, as extreme political view or as revolutionary. How do we start a vote thingy?DocEss 20:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You do it by starting one, plain and simple :P But in any case WP doesn't have votes per se, only means be which discussion is furthered or consensus is identified. A vote that as been initiated as a mean to achieve consensus can be simply ignored, afaik. Jean-Philippe 21:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll start one. IronDuke 21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we've discussed similar issues when using 'terrorist' with regards to the ALF. We cannot simply call PETA 'radical' or the ALF 'terrorists'. We can say 'xyz think that PETA are radical'.-Localzuk (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just avoiding the issue. It's hard to assume good faith here, since my last comment got answered by a nazi comparison as well as what I consider personal attacks. Radical in this context is a weasel word. While I wholeheartily agree with you on the question as weither or not PETA endgame agenda advocate a radical shift from current societal norm, it doesn't change the fact that the means by which those are achieved aren't. Advertisement campaigns and peaceful demonstrations don't appear to me radical to me, but I've got a bias toward PETA.  Anyway, it's my pov, and all that is fairly beside the point since I'm pretty sure Wikipedia editors don't get to pass this kind of judgment in their articles. Jean-Philippe 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm judging nothing. I am merely stating that radical is the proper word. Please stay on target here while we figure out the word 'radical', ya?DocEss 21:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is PETA radical? 

message: Question: Should PETA be characterized as a "radical" organization?
*Oppose It is not for us to make such designations and even if it were, PETA would fail that test, being relatively mainstream. IronDuke 21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment The discussion seems to me to be ongoing, so there's really no rush to have a vote as of yet. Jean-Philippe 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a "vote," in the sense that it is non-binding. EssDoc requested it, and I think it can give us a sense of where we are right now in the discussion. That doesn't mean the discussion is over, however the straw poll goes. IronDuke 21:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm all for it. Non-binding is not an issue. Knowledge. Let us have an agressive debate here. Thuper thtuff.DocEss 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We both agree on what a vote on WP is, no question there. I'm just saying we'll be giving DocEss the wrong idea here, that a vote can be used as as mean to achieve consensus. Jean-Philippe 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't want to mislead users with "radical", any more than we want them misled by attempts to blur the distinction between "animal welfare" (we love our pets) and "animal rights" (we abstain from ownership or use). --Uncle Ed 21:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Makes me happy. JoshuaZ 02:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's cited and sourced, no objection whatsoever. --Ramdrake 17:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was in the article a while ago.  It was removed, of course... — Omegatron 18:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As well it should have been. Being cited and sourced is well and good, but WP isn't a list of quotes (or a list of whatever you can copy-paste from an attack site where your quotes came from). Proper context is primordial, such as the "even if animal research resulted in a cure for aids, we'd be against it", which we used in section about the aids research "coalition" . Jean-Philippe 19:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Too bad people would rather delete information than add proper context. — Omegatron 20:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quotes isn't information. Jean-Philippe 20:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: Steven Milloy (who is notable enough to have a wikipedia article) wrote:
*...the bulk of TeachKind's educational efforts are actually crafted so as to make children believe that everyday behaviors, such as eating a diet that contains meat or animal products, are unmistakably, unequivocally acts of animal cruelty. 
He refers to:
*... PETA's own radical, catch-all definition of what constitutes "animal cruelty." 
This is in the context of Milloy's explanation of how animal cruelty traditionally has meant torture but has been expanded by PETA. --Uncle Ed 14:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you can quote that Steven Milloy (insert reason for notability) has "a radical definition of what constitutes "animal cruelty".--Ramdrake 14:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, I'm not saying that Milloy has a radical definition. Milloy is saying that PETA has a "radical definition". Anyway, I've taken off the  tag so revert if you want. But I was hoping we could collaborate a bit. --Uncle Ed 15:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: View that PETA is "radical" in some way

message: Why did no-one take note of what I said a few minutes ago? We cannot use the word radical unless it is referenced and cited as someone/some group saying this! It is against the POV policy if we do. Regardless of the outcome of any such straw poll or discussion on the meaning of radical we cannot use it. The fact that there is so much disagreement on it shows it is a POV statement!-Localzuk (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do a web search for "peta" and "radical" and see what you find.  Here's just one example:  http://fishing.about.com/od/fishermensside/a/aa052905peta_2.htm  scot 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which bring us back to my initial summary describing the introduction of radical as a weasel word. If you would like to include this editorial be example, you should improve it as per the suggestion on Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. It would read something along of the line of Ronnie Garrison, in an editorial for about.com about freshwater fishing, called PETA's agenda "radical and ridiculous". Jean-Philippe 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You can say that party X called PETA 'radical' or almost any other adjective, if it's properly sourced and otherwise relevant. You cannot just say, while describing PETA, that it is radical, as that would be WP:POV. WP itself must remain neutral and not use negative or positive adjectives or opinions itself about a subject. Crum375 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Slight disagreement, if an organization is commonly called "radical" and self-identified as "radical" it would probably be ok to call it radical. But I agree, we need a citation from an RS. If we could find a major newspaper calling them radical, like the NYT, I would probably be fine with calling them radical with just a citation and considering that NPOV. In any event, this is not something that can be decided by a straw poll. JoshuaZ 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Radical is a loaded, pejorative term. Organizations identifying themself as such are rare and they don't use it lightly. PETA isn't one of them. Jean-Philippe 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My tuppence' worth: "radical" is also a matter of degree and comparison, IMHO. If PETA were to call itself an "animal welfare group", I'd call them radicals. They stand out from other animal welfare groups (ASPCA' HSUS) in their views. However, compared to other "animal rights groups" (ALF, ELF), they are relatively tame, almost "mainstream". To me, it very much depends on what you compare it with. In conclusion, as an animal rights group, I don't consider PETA radical.--Ramdrake 23:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So this once again all confirms what I said. We should only include it if it is in the format of 'According toFred blogs/GiantGroup Peta is a radical group' - anything else is POV and weasel wordy.-Localzuk (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just thinking here, but if we are doing the USA article, for instance, should we say that it has been called 'the great devil' by some party X? How big or notable should party X be for it to be cited at all? Do we include that info in a special section of 'enemies of the US'? Do we also include other parties that praise the US and call it land of our dreams or whatever? Are all these adjectives absolutely needed? And where do they go? I ask it in the context of another article as I think that the answers should be standard and consistent across WP, and stepping back may help (at least me) gain perspective. Crum375 23:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the measure of when a group is relevant is one that needs to be discussed in each case. For example, if a small, relatively unknown group were to call Peta radical, I would argue it is irrelevant. If it were someone like 'Animal Aid' or the like then it would be pertinent. Likewise in the USA, if it were a country or a large terrorist group calling the USA 'the devil' then it would be included but if it were '6 guys in a pub who call themselves 'the new police or something then it wouldn't be.-Localzuk (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds logical to me. Crum375 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Radical = POV

message: We need to highlight the connection between PETA and the larger current of which it as part:
*The deep ecology and the animal rights movements are helping to change consciousness, away from human-centeredness and the automatic assumptions of "resource rights" to exploit wildlife and the natural world. Both movements pose major threats to the continuation of industrial capitalist society and the status quo. 
Is this just some crackpot POV, or a verifiable school of thought? What's the connection between PETA's campaigning and, say, radical environmentalism, Environmentalism or the Environmental movement? --Uncle Ed 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's just a crackpot--we do need to stop the continuation of industrial capitalist society and the status quo ;) Beyond that, PETA isn't really radical in terms of the animal right's movement. They're very tame. Radical would be ALF or the Justice Department. The Ungovernable Force 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PETA is not even slightly radical within the movement. On the contrary, it is regarded as staid and middle of the road. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What do these radicals want?

message: Someone has tried to separate out some of the criticism from the first few sections again. The whole point of writing it the way I did is so that criticism and praise are intertwined throughout the article, each explaining the other, rather than having two pro- and anti POV magnets. Please don't keep trying to create sections that are entirely positive or entirely negative. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." — Jimbo Wales. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's because it was an important campaign that I had it in the main section. The "Other campaigns" section is a remnant from before the rewrite, and in it, I left the unimportant campaigns. Any significant criticism and praise should be incorporated into the main part of the text. Please don't assume people are trying to "hide" things. I am trying to ensure that a good article is written. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you say, please, which IP addresses and accounts you're editing Wikipedia as? It's getting hard to follow your edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuance

message: Someone is using petakillsanimals.com as a source. Before doing so again, could that person say who is behind petakillsanimals? Please see WP:V and WP:RS. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the site, and from previous reading (I can't find the exact cite though), I am fairly sure this site is backed by the CCF. The "PETA kills animals" billboard campaign was funded by the CCF.--Ramdrake 14:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's pretty obviously run by the CCF.  "The Center for Consumer Freedom values your privacy." — Omegatron 02:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The picture of the two women in lettuce bikinis is on the page twice. Is that really neccessary? BlueWiz7 18:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! Actually, no it's not, thanks for noticing and removing one of them. Keep two pictures of the guy though ;) Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 20:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Double Picture

message: Any idea on putting the "counter spoof (critisism)" against PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants? Its the same as the Meat Ball Spagetti creator as a counter for creationism. 69.158.18.101
:If you want to start a new article on this (PETP) site, you may do so. However, I don't think the PETA article is the right place for it. --Ramdrake 23:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So now the PETA article is not an appropriate place to mention parodies of PETA? — Omegatron 07:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd say there's a question of notability and relevance involved. We're already mentioning People Eating Tasty Animal in our timeline by example, thanks to it's domain name dispute with PETA. Dunno the guidelines exactly. Did you at least look at their (non-fonctioning) website?  Maybe it's just me, but I think it downright suck, for lack of a better word ^^ Anyway, when it get's it's own article, I guess that's when we'll discuss it again :P Jean-Philippe 07:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the issue boils down to a question of verifiability via reliable sources.  The domain name dispute with People Eating Tasty Animals is documented by multiple non-trivial news stories in the main stream and technical press.  PETP, on the other hand, is documented on a personal website hosted by a free web hosting service.  It seems fairly clear as to which of these meets the Wikipedia guidelines and policies as to article content. --Allen3 talk 10:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PETP 

message: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7562800910863882593
206.156.242.36 14:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd call that more of an expose than opposition...they seemed to be pretty diligent about citing sources and laying out facts.  Quite entertaining, too, especially the chickens eating the KFC...  scot 15:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penn & Teller opposition 

message: Someone has been constantly removing important information and twisting meaning of sentences. 
I'm not going to list them all since it's a waste of time, but some examples are; from "almost exclusively by the contributions of its stated one million" to "and funded by its members". Not true . "The organization has been criticized for some of its campaigns, for the actions of some of its employees regarding their treatment of animals" was changed to "PETA has been criticized for its campaigns, for the actions of its employees," obviously an attempt at introducing his POV into the article by removing important adjectives. The example list 2 employee out of almost 200!
Obviously no research or care was put with those edits, but someone who's way more experienced than me reminded me that "misguided or ill-considered" edits aren't considered vandalism. He told me to discuss it here on the talk page. So hum yay, I don't see why those edits are necessary, let alone justifiable. Jean-Philippe 21:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the problem being that there are so many of them it's hard to straigthen everything short of a full revert. Considering the intricateness of the edit and the inappropriateness of most of it, I would support a revert.--Ramdrake 22:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on the verge of requesting semi-protection. The anon editing on this page is becoming very disruptive. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Yes, we want to add that it  has a million members. This is a good way to do it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *It has nothing to do with summary style, and anyway, summary style is not policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Pest control is a POV way of putting it. They are not pests as a matter of fact, but of opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well, no, it tries to inform the public. It rarely succeeds. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *It has not been criticized for all its campaigns or for the actions of all its employees. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't about the ALF. This intro is perfectly consistent with WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've read your changes alright. It's not copyedit, it's removal of information and POV pushing excused by twisting a policy's intent. I'm no wikilawyer, but I'd call this gaming the system. Jean-Philippe 03:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:207.118.2.207 is , who is trolling because I blocked his most recent sockpuppet. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Could people please stop trying to add information about the ALF to the lead about PETA? You wouldn't add details about PETA to the introduction of ALF. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem at all with your current version, in fact I think it's better not to get into ALF details in the lead. But if the reference to 'Terrorist' is mentioned, the mitigating factors belong there too. Crum375 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it's only the ALF that says it's non-violent and takes every precaution etc etc, so the mitigation would be a POV magnet for someone else wanting to "correct" it. Best to leave both points for discussion in the ALF article. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Crum375 03:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the detail about Singer's Treblinka quote having been spoken by one of his characters into a footnote, because that's a detail about Singer, not PETA. The important point is that it's a very famous quote and is attributed to Singer, because he wrote it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ALF

message: Someone added that they have 100 employees using this as a source, but I can't see where it says 100. All I can see is an entry in the table on the right saying 101-500, which is an odd way to give the figure. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to say "almost 200". Someone (anon IP) added  to it, so I researched it and the best I found was that source and that 101-500 range, so I changed it to "over 100" and removed the . Crum375 11:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's simply the most reliable estimate currently available. Maybe I'm the one who added it earlier, I remember researching it. Talk about a coincidence, I was currently browing another of their entry in my search for an headcount for Physicians_Committee_for_Responsible_Medicine. Anyway I was reading their (PETA) 2005 irs report about an hour ago looking exactly for that, but now I can't access it anymore, I get redirected to justgive.org in some browser cache mixup. Jean-Philippe 04:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay what I was referring to was [GuideStar.org], it's the people who justgive.org and network for good borrow their content from. It's the site you have to go to consult irs form records, but you need to be registered. Anyway, doesn't really help much I guess. Jean-Philippe 05:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall seeing 200 somewhere, but now I can't find it again. I'll take another look around later. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this financial report , they have 187 paid staff members.  Also, according to , 53% of them earn between 14.5K and 28K. BigDT 14:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Good job o/ Jean-Philippe 21:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work finding the source. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Employees

message: Given that Jesus was not a vegetarian, and that it is so stated even in the reference site for that section, I would remove the entire section, or rephrase the title and contents. If someone thinks differently, please speak up. Crum375 01:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had to rephrase it, assuming that site is the only source for the 'campaign', I would say that "PETA believes that Christian values of compassion extend to all living creatures and are inconsistent with cruelty to animals." Anything beyond that walks a slippery slope of POV-ness and arguments. Crum375 02:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Could we bring up Saint Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals? --Uncle Ed 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus was vegetarian section

message: What is the point in the "Further reading" section? As it just seems to be a list of links, why aren't they in the the "External links" section? Or if they are notes or references, they should be in one of those sections. Some of them seem to be redundant duplication anyway - eg their is already 2 links to similar statements from the Anti Defamation League in the notes. --Vclaw 02:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading section 

message: Why is this article exempt of a proper "criticisms" section? Other controversial topics seem to have them, NRA for example... — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. It 's always better to weave praise and criticism throughout the article, rather than creating separate sections that turn into POV magnets. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "... it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." — Jimbo Wales. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WHY is it better to have criticsm weaved into the article rather than as a section in its own right? Please explain.DocEss 20:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because praise and criticism sections become magnets for trolls and POV pushers. With a criticism section, people will just keep turning up, slapping any old piece of negative stuff they find on Google, with no attempt to evaluate it or place it in context. Ensuring that both praise and criticism are woven into the text produces a more nuanced and three-dimensional piece of writing that's almost certainly closer to reality, because not black-and-white. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that certainly serves the agenda of someone who'd like everyone to read the whole article instead of focussing on criticisms, thereby absorbing and hopefully sympathising with the author's viewpoint and its popularity with his cohorts. If this was an article about something with which you disagreed or were negatively pre-disposed, then I surmise you'd just love to have a big 'ol cricism section, wouldn't you? I can see through your agenda. Nonetheless, this PETA/Animal Rights/Animal Welfare/Animal Saute/Vivisection/Rodeo issue has a massive amount of criticsm to it, as you can plainly see. I think it would be wise to create exactly that - a critism section where the issues can be illuminated and dealt with professionally. Just admit it to yourself that criticism here is pervasive and that the endless, fruitless editing and reverting will continue no matter where the criticisms are written. You are wrong to believe 'it is always better to scatter them'; indeed, it would be better for all involved if the criticisms were deposited in one, whole, controllable place that can be more easily edited and re-edited than to force editors to scan through already verbose prose. Unless you have an agenda, of course. [I mean that this idea should apply to whatever article, not justy this one.] Also, I think you should perhaps become a less intractable and bend a little.DocEss 20:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you can't see through my "agenda." Whenever possible I try to incorporate criticism and praise into articles, regardless of my personal views. It's harder to write like that, and it isn't always possible, but I do it whenever I can. The "endless, fruitless editing and reverting" has been going on ever since this article existed, including when it had a criticism section, because people like you come along and want to turn it into an attack page. You want a big POV magnet so you can easily add attacks without having to write properly. That's why it's being resisted. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have absolutely no desire to attack anything (except stupidity, of course), especially the impresssive amount of work you've put into this very well written material, which is deeply sourced and organised. You get an A or A- for all that. But you fail to see that your beloved cause has detractors and it is blatantly obvious to the casual observer that this article is clearly focussed on forwarding its beliefs; so you get an F for objectivity. Hey -  I am only here to expose the truth, aren't you? The truth is simple here: massive criticism exists - it is logical, legitimate, pervasive, common, and not at all unreasonable. Your vigourous attempts to repress it are silly and unworthy of someone with your obvious intelligence. Now --- impress me and let's get this cricism section done right. Don't worry about POV Magnets or all that other Wiki garble - let's just get on with it.DocEss 20:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. But there is in fact an enormous amount of criticism in this article. It's just doesn't have a big illuminated sign pointing to it, and that's a good thing, because the world isn't black-and-white. PETA isn't the big, bad bogeyman you think it is, and it's not pure as the driven snow either, as many of its supporters think it is. This nuanced article reflects the situation quite well, in my view. An organization with one million paying supporters around the world can claim to have pretty broad support, and the various celebrity supporters and financers show that it's a fairly mainstream group. Within the animal-rights movement, PETA is regarded by many as moderate and mainstream, to the great annoyance of many activists, in fact. So things are not as simple as you think. And it is not my "beloved cause." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see both sides. I like the idea, in fact, I'm going to put that on the todo for the NRA article - remove but disperse. And if I was pushing my agenda, I'd be adding this article to this. But alas, I'm just trying to make things better everywhere, and at first look (correct - I did not read the entire article) I didn't just see the section. Thanks SlimVirgin. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 03:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section?