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

message: I removed a section from the KFC section about sales dropping since the inception of the PETA campaign. It almost certainly is untrue. If it were true, PETA would be hyping that statistic. Also, considering , there's a good chance that if KFC sales have dropped, bird flu is an additional contributing factor.
One other thing ... I noticed that yesterday, one user replaced "secretly" with "surreptitiously". That's obviously POV ... loaded words are not usually a good thing. BigDT 03:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me removing "secretly". The sentence was something like "PETA secretly shot undercover video" which is pretty redundant. My dictionary defines surreptitiously as secretly or sneakily, seems pretty NPOV to me but I defer to your judgment.L0b0t 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KFC 

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

message: I have made some changes to claims about amounts of money paid by PETA to various organisations. The source is claimed to be PETA's tax records according to http://www.targetofopportunity.com/peta_tax.htm, http://www.animalscam.com/references/peta_joshharper1.cfm and http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21. None of these sites are acceptable as tertiary sources as they are all politically motivated and are dubious themselves. We can either state that according to these sites this is what the tax records say or find a reputable non-biased site to say it directly. -Localzuk (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-profit taxes are a matter of public record and can be verified by any reader who wishes to. WP:V. — Omegatron 13:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case we shouldn't reference the animalscam.com, targetofopportunity.com or activist cash at all. Instead providing a reference to the place to get those records. (Reference the tax office, form numbers etc...). It is as simple as this - those 3 sites are not reliable and should not be used as tertiary sources for that reason (regardless of the fact that the particular piece of information be referenced is true or not), if we do then we start giving them undue credit for being reliable when in fact they aren't.-Localzuk (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what we're doing - referencing the tax records themselves. Anyone who wants to can verify the tax records by writing to PETA, an organization like guidestar.org, or viewing the copies available from the above three sites. They are perfectly reliable resources. — Omegatron 14:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my comments above about these types of sites. You have not referenced the tax records themselves as you have not provided a full reference (stating the tax office is not a full reference). I still have severe misgivings about referencing those sites in any way other than primary.-Localzuk (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then we'll expand the references. — Omegatron 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI the CCF provided some PETA primary tax documents as evidence to the US Senate PETA,Inc; 52-1218336, 1994 (pdf, p21). Rockpocket 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tax records 

message: As this article is quite large and is undoubtedly going to get larger should we not leave expansions of things like who the ALF/ELF are to their respective articles? We don't need duplicate information about the ALF/ELF in every article which they are mentioned in. Also, the section in question is related to extremism, yes, but does not need to expand on every person, group and organisation they funded - that is for their own articles is it not?-Localzuk (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 21 words of explanation isn't hurting anything. We are explaining who considers ELF a terrorist organization, in the section about PETA supporting terrorist organizations. Completely appropriate. — Omegatron 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion on ALF/ELF 

message: I've noticed, SV, that a lot of your edits you call "tidying." If you remove an entire paragraph and never reincorporate it, could you please not call that "tidying?" That's called "deleting for no reason other than that I don't like it." 66.33.235.186 15:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which paragraph are you referring to? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that last one was me and I forgot to sign on. I'm referring to the section about the 1991 killing. You deleted it here. You gave no explanation other than "tidying," when really you expanded it to justify their killing.Jesuschex 15:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm again having difficulty understanding what you mean. The section is not "about the 1991 killing." It is about PETA's stance on euthanasia. The edit summary didn't say "tidying." It said "expanded, tidied," which describes exactly what I did. You wrote above that "an entire paragraph" was removed. But no material was removed. I did not expand the section to "justify their killing." I expanded it to describe their stance on euthanasia, which is what the section is about. Can you explain precisely what your point is? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The sentence was mad sloppy, "lost an application to the U.S. Supreme Court" makes it sound as if PETA misplaced their resume and job application. One doesn't "lose" a PETITION to the court, the court either affirms or rejects said petition. In this particular case the Supreme Court unanimously rejected PETA's petition.L0b0t 16:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you deleted what it was about. Don't you want people to know? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The case is linked to in that very sentence and is also discussed a couple of paragraphs earlier. Perhaps if this timeline wasn't just c&p from the PETA website we wouldn't have this problem.L0b0t 16:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Tidying"

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

message: There's a piece  on front group NAIA website's about the quote, claiming the real quote is "Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal. [...] A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. [...] They're all mammals" and quote "Washingtonian writer Katie McCabe in 1986"
A typical pro-animal-research website  quote similarly to NAIA's, but on Vogue now, with "Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all mammals." - (Vogue, September 1989) 
On the NRA site, you get "I don`t believe human beings have the right to life. That`s a supremacist perversion. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." --Audubon, Nov. 1990 
But on the ALF site, they claim the quote rightful context is "When it comes to having a central nervous system, and the ability to feel pain, hunger, and thirst, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." --Ingrid Newkirk (AR activist) but give no source at all. 
125 hit for the ALF one , But I couldn't find any source at all. To me, it appears made up after the fact for propaganda purpose.
I get 60 hits for the NAIA one, 
down to 43 if you add Vogue to the search. But only 19 if you use the Washingtonian 
and even then some of those refer to another quote by another activist which explain the discrepancy.
Oh, and 9 hits  for the NRA quote, with 3 attributed to the Audubon 1990 article. Aug.
I'll revert it to old one, but complete it with "Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal," and add a cite tag to it. Should I quote it to the Washingtonian, which seem more likely to be the original source, or to Vogue, which came 3 year later and gave me many more hits? Jean-Philippe 17:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I added Spiked online as a source before I saw this discussion. The confusion may stem from her having said it more than once. I don't think it's a controversial quote in that, in all its forms, it accurately represents the anti-speciesist position. Perhaps we could write to PETA and ask which is the accurate version and request a citation? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, we shouldn't use anonymous websites or heavily biased ones as sources in this article. Best to stick to mainstream sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." 

message: One thing I noticed when looking through the references associated with each of the celebrity names was that many of the listed individuals appeared in an anti-fur advertisement. Beyond this there was no indication as to how any of the celebrities felt about the other activities that PETA is associated with. Does the fact that a person allowed their notability be used to promote one PETA campaign thus mean that said person supports everything that PETA does? Optionally, is it possible for a person to oppose killing animals solely for their fur yet still support the use of animals in medical research or some other activity that is opposed by PETA?
If it is possible for an individual to support some aspects of PETA's philosophy yet not support all aspects of the philosophy then there probably needs to be some method for distinguishing between the possibilities. One option is to move the list of names that the articles sources only show to have supported a single campaign to the article section dealing with the campaign. --Allen3 talk 21:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That,s a good and pertinent question. --Ramdrake 22:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To your question Alien3, no and I don't think it's relevant. Nobody agrees about everything anybody or any other group does. The list is about notable individual who expressed support to PETA through their action and contributions. Between the holocaust ads, the I'd rather go naked then wear fur photo-ops, and the Got Beer? campaign, to name just a few, you'd be hard pressed to find someone one hundred percent in agreement with PETA or who even claim they do, even among PETA activists. Beside, not everyone on that list can be categorized to one single and specific campaign, particularly with the limited scope of the article. Jean-Philippe 04:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are in agreement that some people on the list can be shown to have fairly broad support of the organization with for others the available sources only show support for a single specific campaign. Your comment that practically nobody will be in complete agreement with everything that PETA does is also accurate. That being said, I still believe it is important to divide the list between single issue supporters and those supporters who have expressed broader support of PETA. The primary reason for this is to keep in solid compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability by not extrapolating the information available from our sources. Such a solution also shows potential as a workable compromise because it is likely to anger both the pro-PETA and anti-PETA editors. --Allen3 talk 12:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've moved the list to the discussion page again as it IS NOT GERMAIN to an encyclopedia. SlimVirgin even admits the list is only there for POV reasons "I've moved it back. It's perfectly legitimate, sourced, and shows PETA has mainstream support, which acts as a counter-balance to those of you who want to claim it's some kind of "terrorist" organization. If some of you weren't so extreme in your views, retaining material like this wouldn't be necessary, but unfortunately you are, and therefore it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've obviously ignored the entire conversion outside of what motivates your anti-PETA agenda. You've called them movie star before and you've done it again, ignoring the wide range of talents and contributions of those supporters. I don't think you actually looked at who's on the list. I believe, that you simply read the word "supporter" and figured it couldn't be tolerated, since you simply cannot admit PETA has mainstream support, which is factually correct as well referenced. You don't give me any reason to believe that you've read what you're deleting (or moving, whatever), so I don't have any problem with reverting you in turn. Jean-Philippe 04:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Jean-Philippe, PETA has mainstream support, nobody denies it. The first problem is with how much space the demonstration of this mainstream support takes, and second the fact is, this list really shouldn't be in the main article per se. It should be in a spin-off article, probably linking back here. --Ramdrake 12:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And, if it does stay in the article, we'll also need to add a list of famous PETA critics, for neutrality. You can't use a list to overwhelm an article with one POV. Is there a precedent for a list of supporters in other contentious articles? — Omegatron 12:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to my knowledge, there isn't, which was one of my points. I have just moved the list off to a spinoff article, linking back to this article with a nice blurb that I tried to make as NPOV as possible. Hope everybody will accept this compromise. --Ramdrake 13:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Ramdrake, that looks great. Again, my contention was only that a list of movie stars that think Peta is nifty has no place in an encyclopedia. My only POV on this is a hatred for the cult of celebrity in the west that seems to think that movie stars can do no wrong. Remember when Meryl Streep went and badgered congress about all the alar in the apples and said anyone who eats an apple will die, or Oprah Winfrey trying to cripple the American beef industry, or Richard Gere following the slave owning Dalai Lama around the world to try to get his plantation back from the Chinese. Celebrity should not imply competence in any subject other than the acting, singing, dancing like a monkey, or whatever their craft is.L0b0t 14:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I had the same contention. I really believe the point should be made (it's very legitimate to demonstrate PETA has mainstream support) without however belaboring it. --Ramdrake 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, PETA's mainstream support is noteworthy and valid for an article but a list like that is both exclusionary (What about all the other people who give time/money to PETA?) and too inclusionary in that it takes up a lot space to make a point that I think everyone concedes (PETA has mainstream support.). With the exception of a couple of vandals here and there I don't think any editor is out to smear PETA, we just want a balanced nuanced article touching on PETA's pros and cons. What we don't want however is an article that becomes a blatant cheerleader for any single point of view. there are many, many PETA websites that gloss over the facts and just report the things that make PETA look good and that is fine but this is an encyclopedia not a soapbox.L0b0t 15:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is being anti-fur the same as supporting everything PETA does?

message: Also, this begs the question if we really need the complete list of all 32 PETA-backed sites in the article. It looks like overkill to me. --Ramdrake 14:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a link to peta.org should be sufficient. Maybe do a WHOIS on all the sites and remove any registered to the same people or groups?L0b0t 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, these 32 sites aren't even the complete list. The complete list is closer to 100 sites! (And I thought they were lying when they said they have no money left for the upkeep of animals.) --Ramdrake 14:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely questionable content. Should probably salvage the most notable (I think peta, peta2 and Ingrid's) and delete the rest. Jean-Philippe 16:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved here for archive purpose. Jean-Philippe 16:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of PETA sites

message: Recently added "===Animal testing===
PETA has opposed all forms of animal testing by medical researchers. In an interview, Newkirk told Vogue magazine "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it." (Vogue, September 1989)."
It belongs in a article in some form or another. The article does mention their activism on the matter But it doesn't elaborate on PETA's strict stence on animal testing, and simply dropping the quote doesn't portrait an accurate and neutral picture on the matter.
Just another POV bomb dropped by a pov-pushing editor. Not the first time tough about the quote, I believed it was already in the article. I'll see if I can write something half-decent about it. Any comment? Jean-Philippe 17:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Think the quote could be worked in elsewhere. It explicitly demonstrates PETA's ideological stance on drug development using animals models - that cost/benefit analyses arguments hold not water with them. I don't think it is particularly controversial (in that i imagine PETA would stand by the quote). Rockpocket 18:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, if it's a verifiable quote, it's just a fact we have to report on, nothing else. If it paints PETA in a bad light, well so be it. We can't withold statements by relevant people (and I believe Newkirk is very relevant to the sbject at hand) on the basis that it may influence how people think about a subject. That would be thought censorship, in my view. --Ramdrake 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see the point of adding quote after quote after quote from Newkirk. PETA is against using animals for anything, period. Therefore, they are against animal testing, period. Does it help for us to keep saying the same thing in a thousand different ways? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a verifiable quote and shows that they are even agaisnt animal testing when it would save human lives as opposed to just oppositing it when it is for cosmetics or as part of drug trials for non life saving medication. Hunting Thomas 20:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PETA says, and our article says, that they oppose ALL ANIMAL USE. I'm therefore wondering how often we have to keep saying it. Our readers aren't completely stupid, I hope. By the way, is User:HuntingThomas the account of another Wikipedian or former Wikipedian? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you're not asking that as a form of intimidation? This is an alternate account for an existing user as permitted underLegitimate uses of multiple accounts. There is no obligation for me to tell you which user so I hope you'll respect that and not try to "out" me. I will not answer any more questions about my identity as I trust you wouldn't answer any yourself. Hunting Thomas 20:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I recovered this section from previous versions of the article, as I think they deserve a place in this article, demonstrating that PETA receives criticism even from animal welfare activists. I would like to discuss the merits of these paragraphs first before doing another revert and causing another ruckus. I'd like people to explain their reasons to believe these paragraphs should or shouldn't be included in the article, as I have stated my reasons above as to why they should be included.
--Ramdrake 19:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because I believed those were nameless individual who weren't really part of the AR/AW movements, but simply employees PETA who were fired for some unknown reason. I blindly removed the section using notability as an excuse without doing any real research, probably because of my strong-PETA POV, and now that I did it does certainly look like it was a mistake. Jean-Philippe 22:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was fair enough, Jean-Philippe. It's just that this is, in fact, a common criticism of PETA from within the animal rights movement. Most of the editors on this page know little or nothing about animal rights, and see PETA as an extremist group, which is why they're here and why they want to turn this into an attack page. PETA is in fact a moderate group and has been criticized from within the movement for pandering to what the public thinks an animal-rights group ought to be. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: Both persons are members of Feminists for Animal Rights, they both make an identical criticism in slightly different words, which is that PETA is objectificating women in the "I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur" campaign. They also make a point of criticizing an "alliance" between PETA and Playboy. So yay, not necessarily a bad thing but not a good one. It's fairly minor I guess. Jean-Philippe 01:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's perhaps a little bloated too, but hopefully it will serve to satisfy those who think there's not enough criticism on the page, and it is at least decently written, which is my main concern. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Would whoever wrote this section, please give footnotes and full citations, as in the rest of the text, instead of just slapping in an external link? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that this is a legitimate section, and well written. It's good so long as the references are, which I haven't checked, because these comments are about a living person, so WP:BLP applies. When writing up references, please use the ref tag, and enter: Name of author, URL, headline, name of publication, date of publication if available, and date you retrieved it if you can be bothered (the last thing isn't necessary). Otherwise, it's good. Thank you for writing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicts with other animal welfare activists