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

message: Yes, and the Holocaust on your Plate campaign is important enough to have its own section in the PETA article, particularly since other, less important campaigns like the "Lettuce ladies", have their own sections. Farnsworth J. 04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to keep the article in narrative form rather that list form. Everyone who comes to this article as a new editor wants to add their own pet opinion or theory or criticism under a header as a separate section, because that's the easiest way to write. The Holocaust on your plate" exhibition is discussed in the main campaigning section as an example of one of their hard-hitting campaigns. What is the benefit of separating it? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you do separate it out, it will go under the "Other campaigns" section at the end, and another controversial campaign will take its place in the main discussion, so if your aim is to draw attention to it, you're going about it the wrong way. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The benefit is to wikipedia readers as a) it appears in the table of contents so it's easier to find b) it is possible for other articles (such as Holocaust (disambiguation)) to link directly to the section rather than just linking to the PETA article as a whole leaving readers to hunt for the Holocaust on your Plate reference. 72.60.227.118 01:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For more information about that topic, it's best to link to Animal rights and the Holocaust, not here (an article that will be developed over the next couple of weeks). SlimVirgin (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose  This article is far too big as it is.  Perhaps we could have an article for large, notable, or successful campaigns.  Which is better, one bloated article or a series of smaller articles linking back and forth? L0b0t 02:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal isn't to lengthen the article but just to add a header to existing material. Farnsworth J 04:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that.  I am of the opinion however that the article needs to be trimmed down a great deal.  Maybe splitting off the campaigns would be a good place to start. L0b0t 05:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article's too long and splitting the list of campaigns off would be a good idea. The disadvantage is that the new page will look like a PETA ad. My own preference would be to remove the list of campaigns and just link to PETA's site where they can explain for themselves what they do. But either way, having the list here makes the page too long. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Slim 100% --C civiero 07:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

message: The "timeline" section has almost no citations to support claims, and consists almost exclusively of points intended to promote PETA. I have been told numerous times that any claims I make must be backed by citations, yet it appears I would not be held to such standards if my contributions were in support of PETA. The timeline section also exponentially extends an already overly-long article. It's messy, POV, long, and pointless. It should be deleted, but it won't be. Forgive me for not "assuming good faith", but it's pretty hard to do so when its blatantly obvious that I'm being shut down because my views and contributions differ from the veterans here. I can't "assume good faith", when nothing that myself or User:DocEss contribute will ever make the final cut (interesting that we happen to differ from the majority here). --C civiero 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would separate your comment into two parts, the issue of neutrality the issue of proper sourcing. I think you are correct that the title should probably be modified to 'Timeline of important PETA achievements', with clarification just below that the importance is from PETA's own perspective. Then it makes sense for the reader to see how, over time, they achieve (what they consider) concrete results. For your second point of proper sourcing, since several sources are provided, I would ask if you could possibly name a single timeline event that is currently unsourced. Do it one at a time, as that would be easier to tackle. If no appropriate source is found, nuke the item and you'll have majority support. Then repeat for all others you feel are unsourced. But please do it one at a time. Thanks, Crum375 20:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with your recommendation to deal unsourced material, I must disagree with the need to create a timeline of events PETA thinks are important.  The timeline should instead receive the same treatment as the previous criticisms section and be blended into existing sections were appropriate or become the start for new sections when needed.  The primary reasons for this are to help demonstrate the impact of various PETA campaigns and activities, reduce unneeded repetition, and to place events into proper context.  Integrating the timeline into the article proper will also help prevent its use as a surrogate criticism, praise, or trivia section. --Allen3 talk 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this, however there is the problem that if some of the information is expanded upon and removed from the section it will no longer be a timeline... So whilst this, long and difficult process, is done what do you suggest we do with the information that hasn't been integrated?-Localzuk (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There would appear to be two possible answers.  The first is that as items are added to the article elsewhere they are removed from the timeline with the understanding that the timeline is to be removed completely.  The second option is to use HTML comments to tag the sections that have already been integrated so that the timeline can be removed in one big chunk upon completion of the integration effort. --Allen3 talk 23:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think a timeline of 'accomplishments' (from PETA's perspective - the article is about them) makes sense, to let readers judge for themselves whether PETA's sometimes eccentric campaigns actually produce concrete results. The redundancy with other mentions in the article is not a problem, since in the timeline it is the gradual unfolding of events that counts, and of course the timeline items should have a summary only. Overall, I think the timeline is a valuable asset to the article and a good summary for a reader wanting to know what PETA is about (again, from PETA's perspective). Crum375 23:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a public relations firm or resume writing service.  Due to Wikipedia's policies, we must employ a neutral point of view.  If there is a timeline then it needs to include all important events related to PETA and not just the events that PETA wishes to advertise.  For an organization with as many simultaneous activities as PETA, a timeline format also has the problem of breaking sequences of related events and intermixing them with unrelated material that makes it difficult to glean a clear understanding of how events relate to each other outside of a calendar ordering. --Allen3 talk 23:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "timeline" needs to go.  Most of it is just cut & paste from the peta.uk website.  We had a rather long debate on the subject of sourcing if you want look through the archives.  My contention is still that PETA can NOT be used as a source to establish causality for these timeline claims.  PETA has a campaign then on down the road a company changes it's policy towards animals, of course from the PETA pov PETA is responsible for the change but unless there is some 3rd party documentation to establish causality it is just another PETA claim and we are guilty of a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, or after this therefore because of this.  There are some wild claims on that timeline relating to shutting down Defence Dept. labs.  If PETA did convince the army or any company to change policy we need the army or those companies to say so, via press release, news story, some source other than PETA the group making the claim.  I say PETA is a self-published source when it comes to 3rd party causality.  Unfortunately certain editors disagree including one with admin powers and she would just rv. any of the changes I would make so I gave up. L0b0t 00:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the sourcing, I think the PETA site itself should be used very sparingly, esp. for 'accomplishments'. We need non-PETA related sources for each. And I agree that if it's copy paste from PETA site it's not WP-neutral. But I do think it's useful for a reader to see a log-like summary PETA's perceived accomplishments, as it gives the reader of PETA's 'state of mind' or agenda etc. Even if the reader is anti-PETA, it's useful. But of course it must be based on WP-acceptable sources. Crum375 00:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with Timeline