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

message: 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)
thread_title:  'Timeline 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  'Response to criticism of euthanasia' section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article image used in U magazine 

message: 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)
replies: text: You are correct that it is related, and it is already included in the article. Crum375 00:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People Eating Tasty Animals 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2007 "State of the Union" 

message: Website is www.petakillsanimals.com Seen this on FOX News TODAY. Martial Law 00:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This shows PETA personnel killing animals, worse. Martial Law 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My terminal has a weird glitch concerning a Linksys unit. Martial Law 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This shows PETA personnel on trial, PETA's cruelty to animals, etc. Martial Law 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

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

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Third Paragraph in Lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement From PETA on Anna Nicole Smith's Death 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Extremist? 

message: 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( & ).  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removal of sourced information regarding POM Wonderful's halt of animal testing