Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 10

message: Because it sure reads that way. I know that most articles in wikipeida are shit and should only be read for their entertainment value, but this is really over the top. Singhahyung 16:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. --BigDT 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you have to read that comment as being sarcastic. However, to point you in the direction of a campaign regarding a non-cute animal, you should do a search for the lobster liberation front.-Localzuk(talk) 11:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HEY! Are you trying to say lobsters aren't cute? It is interesting that Singhahyung says what he says, because I read the article and I thought the thing needed a POV warning added to it because some sections were very pro-PETA. I guess everyone has their own perspective. --CokeBear 00:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So was this article written by the American Meat Institue? 

message: I've heard this a lot, that having a pet like a dog or even having a fish is prohibited in PeTA's idealogy.  If it is, it should be added to the article --Joeblack982 07:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it used to be. Probably removed by biased editors. — Omegatron 00:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is PETA's position on 'companion animals' (pets). Crum375 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Newkirk's quote on the matter of pets: "pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." (see ). It appears the position on pets is buried under the more immediate steps on the way to "total animal liberation" NathanLee 20:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: PETA on Pets another link. "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed.". Last paragraph reads "Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world."   So in short: they don't want to confiscate animals, but in an ideal PETA world no one should have pets. NathanLee 18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, Dogperson3d- It's not clear what aspect of this article you are discussing, but it appears that you are just expressing an opinion, to which you're entitled, but this is wrong place to do it.Bob98133 18:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  does peta condone having pets? 

message: i'm new here so what do you think of this addition 
In the Cartoon Network series My Gym Partner's a Monkey in a scene of the episode Inoculation Day a group of 3 females Circle Ingrid Giraffe holding signs and shouting chants like “animals are people too”.  This occurs when Adam is chased up her neck by Principal Poncherello Pixiefrog and Nurse Gazelle with a blow dart.  When Adam is hit by the dart filled with antidote and transformed into a human the group leaves
Comeback2009 00:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a third party source supporting the link between Peta and this show then by all means add it with the source (my god it sounds bizarre reading that! I am glad I wasn't drunk/otherwise influenced when I read that, although the new NIN album kinda makes me feel drunk. Anyway, thats off topic.).-Localzuk(talk) 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Afraid so. Take a look at WP:OR for an explanation of 'original research'. In essence, we have 2 disparate things - Peta and the show. To look at the 2 and draw similarities is drawing a conclusion based on your own ideas which is original research. However, if another, reliable and verifiable source (see WP:V) did the analysis anc conlusion drawing then it would be fine.-Localzuk(talk) 01:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to provide proposed text for the addition before a page edit can be made.  Please write exactly what you with to add, in a neutral tone then re-add . —dgiestc 06:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The page is no longer protected.  removed. No opinion on the proposed edit. Sandstein 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural influence of PETA on My Gym Partner's a Monkey 

message: The Timeline section is there to help the reader understand PETA's rationale for its activities, from PETA's own perspective. It starts with "according to PETA, important actions include". It is not a general timeline of PETA-related events, but a list of the actions or events PETA itself sees as important, typically what it considers as its accomplishments. Other PETA-related events or actions that don't fall into this category should be interwoven into the text, if they are not already there. Crum375 13:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By encapsulating this large section of text by the minute disclaimer that it is "what peta thinks is important" you are doing exactly what I am attempting to prevent, putting a LARGE section of vertical space devoted to a fluff piece about peta. It should either be a complete timeline about peta, both "positive" and negative or not exist at all. I have no problem including peta's excuses for funding terrorists and terrorism in the timeline events, which allows you to add the peta perspective, albiet with less of a fluff factor. 205.161.214.82 17:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article is about PETA, to try and show what PETA thinks it is doing, the list should be dedicated to their beliefs. The negative stuff should be discussed in more detail throughout the article. It allows us to focus on important events and just briefly show the other bits.-Localzuk(talk) 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regardless of what you think is important, many of us consider funneling thousands of donated dollars to terrorists important. 205.161.214.82 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But in doing it this way, I have a grave concern that we may be doing the exact opposite from what we do when someone suggests we should have a "criticism" section: we tell them praise and criticism are interwoven in the article. From this perspective, it seems to me unsound to have a whole section of self-praise about PETA, for the exact same reasons: praise and criticism should be distributed in the article. I'd much rather see a balanced, neutral perspective on their timeline, one that includes both "good" and "bad" deeds. Doesn't that make more sense?--Ramdrake 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand this, and my edit history shows me to be one of those who really think criticism sections are a bad structure to use. However, in this case I think that we are trying to show what PETA thinks it is doing. To include other events confuses that matter.-Localzuk(talk) 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When a reader sees PETA's actions, many may seem odd or eccentric. The motivation for the Timeline section is to explain to the reader, from PETA's own perspective, what they consider as their accomplishments, and why they do what they do. If all we had is a timeline of PETA-related events and actions, then it would just be a repeat of the article itself, which would be redundant and confusing. Since this is an article about PETA, it makes sense to let them explain their rationale for their actions and what they consider as their goals. Crum375 21:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So basically, you are just using that as an excuse to create a one-sided section about PETA and destroy the neutrality of the article as a whole. Like I said, either the timeline section should contain both positives and negatives or should not exist. You can include the rational peta has for it's actions interwoven in the article just as well as you can the criticisms.  To do otherwise is to bias the article. 205.161.214.82 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Then, maybe a piece about their philosophy and their worldview would be appropriate. As it stands, the one-sided timeline doesn't explain the actions of PETA, just how they interpret it to fit their agenda. And yes, with or without criticism, I find this section redundant (just as much as a new section about their supporters creeping up in the article, even though it was ported to its own article months ago). If you want something about how PETA sees their actions (and I agree wholly with the principle, just not on the way it's done), I would strongly suggest to take just a few examples, give PETA's entire rationale for it, and cut down on the rest. Unfortunately, this looks like a one-sided laundry list as it is. It needs to be refocused to properly serve the purpose you intend it to serve, or it needs to go. As it stands today, it reads like an uncritical piece of apology for PETA--Ramdrake 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The primary problem with the timeline section is that it presents PETA as the motivating force behind a wide variety of third party actions (i.e. claims that PETA stopped, persuaded, or otherwise caused a third party to take a course of action favorable to PETA's cause) without any form of independent verification.  This is in contradiction with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves as PETA's claims are both self-serving (the claims have the potential to exaggerate PETA's influence) and involve a partisan source making claims about a third-party's motives and intentions.  The reliance on PETA to select which items to include in the list also presents issues with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox as the section can reasonably be interpreted as a repetition of PETA's self-promotion without any form of independent verification of facts.  While including an explanation of PETA's rationals is a worthy addition to the article, it should be done in a manner that does not violate core Wikipedia policies. --Allen3 talk 23:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. think that the subject of an article should be able to present its own perspective of its accomplishments. If there are attributable criticisms, then they certainly belong in the article for neutral balance. Nevertheless, for a reader interested in understanding what PETA thinks, and what motivates it, the Timeline section is very useful - you certainly understand how they rationalize their actions after reading it. Of course this should be balanced by their criticism, but not in such a way to confuse the reader trying to understand PETA. I don't see how presenting PETA's own perspective in any way violates our policies, as long as each claim is properly sourced. Crum375 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that regardless of whether one is for or against PETA, or not caring either way, just reading that list gives one an excellent understanding of who PETA really are, and what they really want to achieve - probably better than reading a lot of other complex verbiage. Once the reader understands what PETA want from their own perspective, s/he can read all about the criticisms - why others feel these 'accomplishments' (all or part) are bad, or why the tactics to achieve them are bad, or why they are not really accomplishments but a step backwards, etc. The point is that we are here to educate our readers about our subjects, and before we get into controversies and criticisms, the reader needs to understand what the subject is about. Then the criticism can move the balance to the correct WP:NPOV point. Otherwise, the reader may come away simply confused. Crum375 00:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. That timeline does NOT show the reader who PETA is, in anyway, shape or form. It shows the reader merely what Peta wants them to believe about it. You make my point for me. In order to give the reader a true view of peta, you need to include the fact that they value animals more than people (protesting insulin for diabetics, etc) and paying for terrorist activities is part of who peta is.  To exclude that information you are defiantly biasing hte article, and you seem to understand that, as that is what your comment was trying to justify. In order to understand what peta is about, you need to understand the whole picture, not just the slices peta's propaganda farm puts out. 205.161.214.82 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If this is your intent, to give readers a perspective of what PETA says they achieved, I would suggest you move this section to the front of the article (before we delve into the controversies), and reduce the section to just a few prominent points, linking to the page where PETA lists its own timeline, and let PETA do it its own way. As I said above, I don't disagree with your intent, I'm just observing that the section doesn't relay your intent properly, severely enough that it needs to be adressed. I don't know of any other article in Wikipedia where a controversial group's (or person's) deeds are listed verbatim from their own viewpoint without any outside analysis or rebuttal, as may be the case.--Ramdrake 00:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our goal is to educate our readers about PETA - the pros and cons, properly balanced. If to tell them who PETA are we just direct them, by linking, to the PETA web site, then we are not an encyclopedia but a link farm. By being an encyclopedia, we need to explain who/what PETA are, what they want and what they do, and then present the pros and cons, as neutrally as we can. By providing that timeline from their own perspective, I believe we are doing an excellent job of explaining to our readers what PETA really wants to achieve, and what motivates them. Just linking to their website won't achieve the same goal, as there are lots of other things there, and in any case our primary goal is to present things ourselves - for example, we can validate/verify each sourced event and ensure its factual validity, independent of PETA. Separately, as I noted above, we can supply the balancing POV to ensure a neutral presentation. Crum375 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Providing a long list of PETA claimed accomplishments that are visually separated from the fine print disclaimer that the claims are not verified by a third-party is not encyclopedic content but advertising.  Ramdrake is correct that PETA's claims should be integrated into the text of the article and clearly marked as being PETA's claims.  Any thing less falls short of the neutral encyclopedic article that everyone is advocating. --Allen3 talk 01:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is not unverified - we verify every single item on it, per WP:V. The only point is that the list only includes items that PETA itself views as its accomplishments, to help explain its own rationale for its actions. The issue is therefore not verifiability, but neutrality and balance, or WP:NPOV, and we don't just provide some 'fine print' disclaimer - we specifically address each and every properly sourced criticism of PETA. The reason for the list is to help explain PETA's position and rationale, and we fully address any and all sourced criticisms, so we have both a clear understanding of who they are, what they do and want, and what their critics are saying. That's both informative as well as neutral, exactly our mission here. Crum375 01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments are not about the article in general but the one specific section dealing with the timeline.  This section contains numerous claims of third-party action with no sources other than PETA press releases to verify the claims.  As PETA is indisputably a partisan organization and as the assertions are that PETA was the motivating force behind these third-party actions, this section fails to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves(does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject). --Allen3 talk 02:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and Ramdrake that the items on that list need to be verifiable independently of PETA. If we can't provide individual verifiable sources, then we should only provide a link into PETA's site for the entire list, IMO. Crum375 02:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the fact that we need to remove the portions that are not verifiable by a third party. Included on the list are items that PETA claims they convinced a second party to do, but the second party denies any validity to peta's claims. 
Additionally, as it stands, we have a large amount of vertical space that is eye catchingly, noticeable visually distinguishable from the rest of the article, the sort of thing someone skimming the article would slow down and read a bit, which is nothing more than an uncontested, decidedly one-sided fluff piece that has deliberatly been written in PETA's point of view. Writing an article in ANYONE'S point of view is decidedly encyclopedic, and even worse when the POV is nothing more than a reprint of publicity information copied from the PR department of the articles topic. 205.161.214.82 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, I think we are all in general agreement that the list should be cut down to only those of its elements that are verifiable by a reliable third-party source (and we should of course give those sources), and should only have a link pointing to the PETA site for those who want to read an entire list of their claims, including the unverified stuff. Once that's done, since the section is there to offer an insight on how PETA thinks it's doing, and we have sections where their actions are criticized, I would then recommend it be moved ebefore any of those discussions. Any takers?--Ramdrake 11:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just going to say, if you integrate the timeline into the History, that would reduce the size.  It is also POV to have a history with no cotroversies, so integration with all events relating to PETA would be better.  Some of the events seem more trivial than significant. Bytebear 19:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying we should destroy all useful information, so I agree with you.  The two seem redundant anyway.RogueTrick 20:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: I have once again removed the reference to Futurama and the popplers episode. I have done this because
# The information is written in such a way that it is original research which is unsupported by the (eventual) external source 'things.org'
# It was referenced to an internal article which itself was poorly sourced.
# The 'things.org' site is, by its own declaration, a set of personal sites which makes it an unreliable source.
If we can find a reliable source that draws the link between PETA and this episode then by all means we should include it, but including it in a poorly sourced or original research filled state simply lowers the overall quality of the article and goes against our policies. It is the responsibility of the poster to provide reliable sources, not the responsibility of other editors to fix the problems left by such posts. -Localzuk(talk) 11:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popplers episode/futurama 

message: Proposed addition of content:
As PETA's tactics (boycotts and "corporate bullying") are what causes controversy often, I have the following to add: 
PETA's campaigning tactics were described as not "much different than blackmail" in 2005 by Dr Len Stevens, the CEO of Australian Wool Innovations body.Sydney Morning Herald Article on PETA wool campaign. A similar worded accusation in a 60 minutes interview that "They were blackmailed by you" was dismissed by PETA representative Ingrid Newkirk as "It doesn't matter" so long as "They are on board" (referring to PETA achieving its boycott goal).60 minutes transcript with Ingrid Newkirk
Any comments on this? I believe this adheres to wikipedia's policies:
* no original research, 
* referenced from reputable sources (Sydney morning herald and a ninemsn/60minutes television transcript with Ingrid Newkirk), 
* articles support statements directly. 
I believe also it provides the reader with insight into the attitude of PETA campaigns with the concept of "any means to an ends".
:Sounds fine to me.--Ramdrake 12:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an addition it also sounds fine to me. I would suggest we hold off on adding more to the article until we have split bits off else things may start getting confused and lost in the transition. What do others think?-Localzuk(talk) 12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added it in. Waiting around for a cleanup that may or may not happen that will most likely involves the timeline and campaign sections probably isn't going to achieve a much different outcome.. NathanLee 12:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition 

message: I removed the framed quotes again. I couldn't agree more strongly with Nathan's position that this makes  it look like WP is endorsing PETA. I don't have a problem with these quotes being worked back into the article as normal text, though.--Ramdrake 12:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crum had a point, but since all three quotes were pro-PETA, I added a couple that were critical. Indeed, the Holocaust article has them, but they represent all viewpoints, not just one.--Ramdrake 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And right next to where you added one of the quotes, there were two unreferenced quotes criticizing Newkirk that had been tagged in March. But you left them in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you repeatedly wipe out fixes to typos I don't think you're in a position to be complaining about someone leaving something in the article alone. In line quotes that are part of the article flow are one thing: highlighted, large font, floating quotes straight from advertising material are another. Who's showing bias now SlimVirgin? It's pretty natural that an article on an organisation like PETA should contain a bit more reference to criticism, as I believe on average it seeks to gain criticism and thus publicity. Despite this you seem determined to stomp on any attempt to show that criticism at the expense of improving the article. NathanLee 17:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith. From your edits so far it simply looked like you were wanting to add as much 'anti-peta' information as possible without the necessary sources to back it up properly. You also managed to change some of the well written lines into a mess. The roll-backs simply reflect the overall perceived quality of the edits you were presenting. Now, rather than focussing on the fact that reverting was done, we should move on and add things.-Localzuk(talk) 18:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What well written line did I mess up? I had fixed sections and they were summarily undone. If an error crept in it was because I had to un-undo a blanket wipe of any contributions I added which meant a merge issue. I've assumed good faith, and that my attempt to contribute on this article (as I have with other articles) would not be summarily undone because it disagrees with someone else's view (despite referencing etc) and it appears that assumption was incorrect. The reason I added some material was because the article read like an advertisement. NathanLee 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin pointed out one such line in the section above marked 'floating quotes'. As I have said, your material was reverted for a long list of reasons. This is reason enough to assume good faith.-Localzuk(talk) 19:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of framed quotes 

message: Right, the article is currently 92kb in size which is far too large. How can we trim it down/split some of it off?
I propose that we move the other campaigns section and some of the campaigning section to its own article and summarise that here. This could also be done with the Timeline section if necessary?-Localzuk(talk) 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest we start with the timeline, as this part IMHO has been more contentious in the recent past.--Ramdrake 20:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that that would only remove 12kb of stuff from the article - still leaving it twice the recommened size.-Localzuk(talk) 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, indeed we need to move some other stuff (like some of the campaigning section). Not sure which parts, though. I don't oppose these moves per se, I just thought it would be more appropriate to start in the reverse order.--Ramdrake 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lengthy section on all their campaigns in detail reads a bit long in my opinion. As has been said before (and in the peer review) there's probably not too much to be gained by the detail on each and every one of their campaigns.NathanLee 08:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size 

message: I reckon this page needs a big red sign at the top saying 
"Yes, we know: People for Eating Tasty Animals.. Ha ha.. It was only funny the first 300 times.."
'''
No this has no content, I just thought it'd get a smile from the numerous people keeping the vandals out. Keep up the good work! :P NathanLee 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal  (one for the ever watchful vandal reverters) 

message: Why Further reading is now labeled External links that makes no sense?--Migospia†♥ 03:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it back. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: From a PETA representative house of lords transcript.
 DR TROY SEIDLE
TUESDAY 12 FEBRUARY 2002
  1200. Would you oppose guide dogs for the blind?
  (Dr Seidle) Considering some of the training that I myself have witnessed, yes, unless that can be substantially modified.
Earl of Onslow
  1201. Do you realise that if your policy was carried out and everybody became vegans then there would be no sheep, no pigs and no cattle in this country or in any other country in the world? Is that what you want, the extermination of cattle, sheep and pigs in the whole universe? That would be the direct consequence of your policy.
  (Dr Seidle) That is not our motivation.
  1202. That was not the question I asked. The question was do you realise that this would happen, that is the direct consequence of your policy?
  (Dr Seidle) Yes.
  1203. So you are happy to see the extermination and the extinction of sheep, cattle and pigs?
  (Dr Seidle) I would not say happy but we would accept that.
  1204. That is the direct consequence of your policy.
  (Dr Seidle) That would be fine. It would not happen overnight.
  Earl of Onslow: You say that it would be fine. Okay, I have said enough.
  Chairman: Lord Onslow, we are not a court of law.
Might be useful to clarify positions on things. Though the chairman had to remind the earl of onslow to pull his head in a bit. NathanLee 23:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "... in the whole universe?" Ha ha. E.T. had better make sure those Reese's Pieces are vegan. Rockpocket 01:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The questions demonstrate the wisdom of abolishing the House of Lords. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But what would those rich fatcats do with their time if not pointless pontificating eh? Think of the poor tax-funded-born-into-it aristocracy SV! :P Perhaps PETA could find them "good homes and shelter" in a dumpster? For the ones that the paparazzi doesn't get of course.. ;) NathanLee 13:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The talk page of an article is an appropriate forum for providing potentially useful source material. Rockpocket 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was more of a "here's a resource" on some parts of the PETA philosophy that weren't covered.. And some random piss-taking from everyone ;).. NathanLee 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  on guide dogs and farm animals 

message: Would it be possible to charge PETA's gross misrepresentation of the facts as a crime?
:What crime would that be? What law? What country? This isn't a discussion forum about PETA, it is to discuss improvements to the article.-Localzuk(talk) 21:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are they advertising? Nothing. The rest is simply nonsense and not against the law. Please keep your own misinformed and petty opinions of the organisation to yourself.-Localzuk(talk) 21:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, 12aV34, perhaps you could take your allegations and complaints to your local district attorney, a federal prosecutor or hire an attorney to represent you. Those would all be appropriate actions to achieve your goal. Posting your opinions here couldn't possibly lead to what you want. Good luck. Bob98133 23:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be more appropriate, yes. Also, that campaign isn't obscene, just offensive. And as far as I know there isn't any laws against being offensive unless in relation to material such as hardcore pornography in the UK etc...-Localzuk(talk) 23:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Any sources of that?-Localzuk(talk) 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal 

message: As it will save everyones time. All of my good faith/helpful edits have been reverted for very specious reasons. Why? This article is locked down tighter than any article I have ever seen. The claim of "already sourced" is a joke. Could I add 5 sources to the top of an article and then not have to put any sources anywhere in the article? I spent a good amount of time trying to improve this article, starting with someone else's talk page suggestion. The editors on this article are acting in ludicrous abandon of wikipedia policy. Turtlescrubber 23:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if those sources covered everything in the article, you could... Repeating the same references over and over again simply turns into an exercise of bureaucracy. Why should the article be protected? 2 editors oppose your edits, which indicates you don't have consensus for them.-Localzuk(talk) 07:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least you let me fix a link. Thank you so much, grand protector of the PETA page. I bow before your knowledge of all things PETA. 16:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, slimvirgin just removed my fact tags. Must be right of course, he is an administrator. I also bow before your administrative privileges. Turtlescrubber 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I suggest complete protection for this article

message: I added a tag to the trivia section, also known as cultural influences, as per Localzuk(talk)'s suggestion and my complete agreement. This section needs to be "integrated into the article." Also, as per Bob98133 suggestion above, the Center for Consumer Freedom should be removed from the see also section as undue weight. I wholeheartedly agree and have added a npov tag. Turtlescrubber 16:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That has nothing to do with the trivia and npov tags that I added. Turtlescrubber 22:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia and NPOV tags including the SEE ALSO SECTION

message: + A 2007 documentary film called Your Mommy Kills Animals, taking its title from the PETA pamphlet of the same name, looks into PETA's tactics and their being characterized by the FBI as a domestic terrorist group.  
Hey, Fourdee - this is POV for several reasons. 1. this movie is NOT about PETA - it is primarily about the Stop Huntington campaign, PETA is mentioned in the film but it isn't about PETA 2. the movie certainly isn't about PETA being characterized as a terrorist group by the FBI - so mentioning both of these conveys the message that including this is promoting a POV. I don't see the necessity of a separate catagory for Documentary film - which indicates that there is only one film documentary about PETA, or referencing PETA, so use of the singular "film" again promotes a point of view. If the intent is to establish a category of documentary films about PETA, perhaps it could have been discussed prior to your posting since this page is already controversial. I don't object to this film being included in the proper place in this article, or a list of documentary films about PETA, or inspired by the names of PETA pamphlets, as long as the content conforms to Wiki NPOV.Bob98133 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Documentary film

message: Why are there other sources in the timeline? I thought it was all supposed to be sourced by the four cites in the title? Should I remove them as duplicates? Should I add fact tags to the ones without secondary sources? Or both? I honestly don't know what is sourced and what isn't. Turtlescrubber 00:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might be time to decide about the future of that section once and for all. Personally, I feel that it has caused more trouble than it is worth and should probably be deleted. The key information is either already in the article or could be moved to the relevant sections but as it stands it is a giant troll magnet. What do other people think?-Localzuk(talk) 10:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you calling me a troll? Not very civil at all. Maybe if the section was sourced in a half-way suitable manner there wouldn't be so many "trolls" concerned about citations. "Citation trolls" are the worst. Turtlescrubber 17:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am saying that the section is a magnet for trolls (a cursory glance at the history of that section brings up people putting unsourced information in there regularly). It doesn't add much to the article as a section, so should it be there? -Localzuk(talk) 19:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't mind it being there if the "sourcing" method is changed. However, if the method is not changed then it should probably be deleted. Turtlescrubber 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time-line sourcing/Citations tag

message: Okay, rather than being silly and edit warring over these, I'll just bring this here.  So, as of my writing, these are the links which are being discussed:
#PETA's website
#PETA's page at Network for Good
#Revelations — The Official Clive Barker Resource Read PETA and Clive's 1997 Open Letter...
#Excerpts from a talk in Washington DC by Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA - Speaking Up for the Animals PART 1
#Excerpts from a talk in Washington DC by Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA - Speaking Up for the Animals PART 2
#Excerpts from a talk in Washington DC by Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA - Speaking Up for the Animals PART 3
#No Kill Now!, a no-kill philosophy animal advocacy group opposed to PETA's broad support of euthanasia
#Craft, Nikki.  "PeTA: Where Only Women Are Treated Like Meat"
# PETA Kills Animals PETA criticism site
#ConsumerFreedom.com, a U.S. lobby group which actively campaigns against PETA. 
# Vegetarians Are Evil PETA criticism and satire site.
#I Heart Paws — Beware of the Bad Apples an informative article from personal experience opposing PETA's beliefs on Pit Bull breeds and other pets
#"PETA's Appeal for Jewish Community Support 'The Height of Chutzpah'", Anti-Defamation League.
Now, I think everyone can agree that (1) and (2) should be clearly kept.  However, lets go through the other ones.
(3) - This is an "open letter" by Clive Barker and PETA to a number of newspapers, that calls on them to start publishing animal deaths in the obituaries.  However, this has no context in this article -- a "Clive Barker" is never mentioned, nor is this letter ever discussed in the article.  In fact, Clive Barker's article doesn't mention this as even being signifigant.  I removed this item because the article gives it no context, something required by WP:EL, and the statements made by PETA are already covered in other respects in the article itself.
(4) - (6)' - These are three parts of a speech given by Ingrid Newkirk, edited by someone, and posted on Youtube.  They have no attribution, so their copyright status is highly dubious.  This alone is grounds to remove them.  However, they are also never given any context.  Is this an important speech?  Are the views in this speech novel, or atypical of PETA?  Did this speech garner some reaction which would merit including it?  Apparently, the answers to all of these are no.  This speech is never mentioned in the article, nor are the views explained to be in any way atypical of PETA.  There appears to be nothing unique about this speech.  As such, it's simply a statement of a number of things PETA believes -- but, these should, and indeed mostly are, covered in the article -- and will certainly be covered in an FA-class version of this.  This is specifically what should be avoided by external linking guidelines.
(7) and (9) - these are sites critical of PETA's stance on euthanasia.  They explains why, and how, they oppose PETA's policies.  However, this is not relevant for an article about PETA -- is "no kill now" or "PETA kills animals" prominent memberd of this community?  Do they have some special viewpoints which are not discussed in the large section about PETA and euthanasia?  Again, apparently not.  These add nothing to the page which is not already discussed in the section, or at the linked no-kill movement article.  Again, per guidelines they should not be included.
(8) - I actually feel that this should not be in an FA-class article, but since there is a dearth of discussion about the topics covered right now in the article, and it's by a recognized authority, I could definitely see this being retained; perhaps even in the future.
(10) - this is a general site which lobbies against a variety of different groups, including PETA.  However, their site is not specifically related to PETA, and the article already both links an article about them, at Center for Consumer Freedom and cites a news story about them as well.  This link add nothing which is not already included in the article -- however, of these links, this is the one I can most see retaining; but, since it is not specifically about PETA, I am having a hard time still.
(11) - this is a PETA satire and criticism cite.  However, this site is never mentioned in the article, nor is there any context given.  The satire group mentioned, People Eating Tasty Animals, is not the same as this one, and is already wikilinked.  However, this link is never given any context, or included in the article in any way.
(12) - this is an article written by Christina Harvey about why she opposes PETA's policies on certain dog breeds.  However, the article already explains PETA's policies, and the opposition to them.  The question which remains is "why is this important"?  I honestly don't know.  This appears to just be a non-notable person, who is not an expert on the subject, nor of any particular interest or qualifications, writing about how she likes her dogs in a blog about pit bulls.  This is specifically prohibited by guidelines, as Ms Harvey is not a recognized authority on the topic.
(13) - this should be the most clear-cut.  It's a press release by the Anti Defamation League which denounces PETA.  However, you already cite this in the article!  There's no need to include it as an external link, since it's already been entirely covered, and reference.
Anyways, those are just my thoughts on the issue.  --Haemo 21:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit confused: you're arguing the exclusion of some links because the subject matter is already discussed in the article, and some others because the subject matter is not broached in the article. I see both types of argument as mutually contradictory: regardless of actual policy (I'm just discussing this as a matter of logic), if some links should be excluded because the subject matter is discussed in the article, the fact that the subject matter of a certain link isn't discussed in the article (i.e. the opposite reason) shouldn't yield the same result (i.e. exclusion from the external links section).--Ramdrake 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me put it more simply; things not discussed in the article should not be included, since they have no relevance.  Things covered in the article should not be included, if they do not add anything which is already there.  What should be included is material which is relevant to the article, and discussed, but cannot be included.  For instance, if I was writing an article about Martin Luther King, and I discussed his speeches, I would include some of his speeches that were talked about as external links.  This is explained in the guidelines, and I thought I made the distinction clear above.  Apparently not.  --Haemo 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, since we mention that PETA has many detractors, shouldn't we include some of them in the external links? While I can side with some of your points, deleting all the ELs you mention leaves only a couple of pro-PETA links in the section. This was already discussed some time ago, and the consensus was that some sort of equilibrium should be sought between ELs praising and those criticizing PETA. Do you think we can trim down the list while preserving such an equilibrium? If we can do that, I'll remove my objection.--Ramdrake 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I understand where you're coming from.  As I mentioned above, I think the Nikki Craft article is a good one, especially given the lack of content on this page about the subject; so, that's a criticism.  This would give us 3 links; PETA's main site, a critical article, and a neutral article about their philanthropic practices.  The Center for Consumer Freedom link might also be good to keep, but I think 3 is good.  --Haemo 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The CCF link I can  live without, but I'd like the "No kill now" site link to also stay, as I feel it addresses a very serious criticism of PETA, namely its rather stringent pro-euthanasia stance, where it diverges even from most other animal rights organizations. Think we can agree on this? If you want to add another pro-PETA link for balance (like 2-2-1), please go ahead and pick one you feel is most relevant.--Ramdrake 22:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care about "balance", either way -- but I would prefer a site that is either recognized as authoritative or is mentioned in the article.  I'll go ahead and trim the section now; feel free to add that site, or another one, when you've decided what you want to use there.  --Haemo 22:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links clean-up

message: Okay, so I used my journal privileges and did some digging to clean up the trivia section.  So, we have the "timeline" and the "see also" section to fix.
Honestly, I don't see why you need a timeline to begin with -- shouldn't any and all notable event be in the "history" section? -- so I think I'll just deal with the "see also".  Honestly, right now, I don't see what the problem is.  You could, perhaps, add some more -- but just remember, only add things which are not already Wikilinked in the article.  --Haemo 23:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As suggested by Localzuk above, should we delete the timeline section? I am not opposed to that move.Turtlescrubber 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just kill it, IMO.  All of the important information should be covered in the "history" section; the rest is basically contentious trivia.  --Haemo 23:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup  

message: Details of the Michael Vick trial needs to be added PETA has/is victimising a person convicted of no crime
:The Michael Vick case has not yet gone to trial, so there would be nothing to add. The process is that a Grand Jury met, reviewed evidence and decided that there was enough evidence to likely get a conviction, so Vick was indicted (charged with a crime). Vick was arraigned (brought before a judge to plead). He claims that he is not guilty, although a co-defendant admitted guilt. There was sufficient evidence for the grand jury to believe that Vick fought dogs and beat, hung and electrocuted dogs. There is no doubt that a large number of dogs, many with previous injuries from fighting, were removed from property owned by Vick. Bodies of dead dogs were also removed from the property. The evidence will be presented at trial and a jury will decide if Vick is guilty of the charges against him. Do you think that the Nike, Inc page and the Reebok and the NFL pages should also be accused of victimizing Vick, since their suspension of his endorsements have cost Vick millions of dollars, even though he is not yet convicted? How exactly has PETA victimized Vick? I certainly wouldn't want to victimize an innocent person, but on the other hand, I'm not hiring Michael Vick as a dogsitter. The Vick secton was removed but because Wiki generally doesn't report day-to-day details of an ongoing case - just larger issues.Bob98133 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. So why is that worthy of inclusion in the Wiki article? I didn't look at the page, but I bet there are lots of other pages on the PETA website - do we want a separate section for every thing they are for or against? How is asking people to help support your POV victimizing? Nike dumped Vick's merchandise - so aren't they the ones victimizing Vick? PETA never had a contract with him. Please sign your comments. Thanks. Bob98133 13:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: PETA can decide if someone is guilty or not - it doesn't affect their legal status. Nike decided to dump Vick merchandise. Trading card companies and other businesses such as Reebok also dropped Vick. Why do you claim that Nike caved in to pressure from PETA? Do you have some documentation for this? Why not just put all this in the Michael Vick article where it belongs?  There already is some discussion of this controversy there. Or put it in the dog fighting article? Or the Nike article? The PETA article is already controversial and details of another high profile campaign doesn't really add to this article - it just adds to the controversy.Bob98133 16:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Vick 

message: This section now states:
:::These positions often face opposition from commentators and academics who hold differing political and cultural views. Matt Stone and Trey Parker have lampooned PETA in a number of the episodes of their cartoon South Park, including Douche and Turd; making the claim that PETA cares more about animals than humans. In addition, the duo Penn & Teller, known for their association with libertarianism, attacked PETA in a 2004 episode of their television show Bullshit! over a number of issues, including purported hypocrisy by PETA spokespeople and leaders.
I think that "commentators and academics" should be changed to "cartoonists and comedians" since that is who are used as examples. Otherwise it would need a citation about who these cultural "commentators and academics" are.Bob98133 18:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural influences and context section

message: PETA has been banned in Texas for harassing children with their "your dad kills" campaign.  75.2.223.253 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a reference for this? Was the first amendment repealed in TX? Bob98133 13:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you provide a full citation?  Unfortunately the LA Times online search and archive search are unable to locate the piece you are referring to without additional information. --Allen3 talk 06:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please cite the patent number for the nonsense? Or at least cite some verifiable source. The point is not whether you support someone's rights but rather if the information you'd like included in the article is appropriate and verifiable. Bob98133 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstood pygmy's point. Turtlescrubber 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CrimiNality 

message: Any reason why they are HQed in Virginia? just curious.
Arthurian Legend 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that having an HQ in Virginia places this large lobbying organization closer to Washington DC, thus cutting travel costs for lobby excursions, protests, etc.  RRM MBA (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why VA? 

message: "Many of the campaigns bear fruit for PETA. Burger King,[49] McDonalds,[50] Wendy's,[51] Petco,[52] and in 2006, after talks with PETA, Polo Ralph Lauren announced that it would no longer use fur in any of its lines.[53]"
McDonalds used fur??
I don't know what they convinced Bk, McD etc to do, but it ought to be made clear that they weren't in the furburger business 84.67.176.2 16:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaigning section 

message: It seems strange to me that an article on a group like PETA, a group which aims to create controversy to further its cause, has no section for legitimate criticism on the article page.  While I recognize that such a section could be, in some circumstances, a sort of 'open season' for heckling the group, it also seems to me that the article might seem a bit biased without one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.118.117.141 (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been repeated discussed in this talk page's archives, separating praise and criticism not only has the effect of creating the 'open season' mentioned but also removes the background and context needed to fully understand individual quanta of criticism or praise. --Allen3 talk 17:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, Wolfman - you've responded to an almost year old discussion. If you look at the top of this page you will see the current discussion about this (there's more inthe archives, too). If you have specific documented criticism you are welcome to add it to the body of the article in the appropriate place including good references (that means not CCF, petakillsanimals or other sites paid to criticize PETA). Statements such as "we all know..." something or other won't do though. Sincere efforts have been made to keep this article balanced and keep vandalism to a minimum. Please review the history of both this page and the article to see why the Criticism section was removed. If it is reinstated, criticism would have to be removed from each individual section and collected in one, which would mean an entire rewrite of the article. Can you please document your claim that "a lot of people on here work for PETA?" If their IP addresses trace back to PETA, I agree that they should not be working on this article. In any event, please discuss any specific changes you plan to make on this talk page to save being immediately reverted.Bob98133 (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No criticism section on main page?

message: Even as it stands the contested section is a jumbled mess. But if the numbers are to be presented (much less argued to mean something) we need to deal with the conspicuous irregularity of PETA's numbers. That "other" column which constitutes the overwhelming majority of animals passing into PETA's doors is a problem if not explained, because that column hardly figures for anyone else. In 2005, for example, PETA listed 7815 "other", versus 9843 for all humane societies. It's misleading to talk about the aggregate numbers without accounting for that huge number.
If you believe that the documents from petakillsanimals are auhtentic copies of PETA's submitted forms, then all is explained: the vast majority of the animals PETA handled were there strictly for spaying or neutering. Very few of the other agencies are doing that, so it would make sense to compare their numbers excluding these. We could also put a number on the size of their spay/neuter program.
The question of course is whether this is OR. Well, we could sort of cite petakillsanimals. Or we could just remove all the numbers, since there's no way to present them accurately without engaging in this "research". I have a big problem with how it is presented now, because it manages to be polemic in both directions at once. We could just note that they provided a human society in Norfolk, and that they had this spay/neuter program (giving the actual number if we're willing to trust petakillsanimals). The implication that they are just like the SPCA carries a moral judgement that they ought not to be like them, which is a big NPOV issue. Mangoe 14:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual forms that PETA submitted are online at the VDACS database, so there doesn't seem to be any point in referencing petakillsanimals since that source is obviously POV. However, the numbers referenced for 2004-2005 were somehow used as a reference for numbers going back to 1998. I agree that the numbers can just be left out. But since PETA's euthanasia policy is already detailed in the Community Animal Project section, why would it also appear in the Profile section since animal sheltering seems to be a very small part of anything that PETA does. The numbers are really small and also confusing, so why not leave these numbers out as Mangoe says? If this info can be quantified or would improve the Community Animal Project section, it could be added there or just left out.Bob98133 14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument you're referring to has been made, by petakillsanimals, a site openly critical of PETA. However, as it can be construed as biased site (with potentially biased information), inclusion of the argument was refused (when based solely on the petakillsanimals source), on the basis that they might be using possibly biased info. However, that info is independently verifiable on the VDACS website, therefore authenticated. Thus, should we discount reporting the argument, (when we can independently verify the data upon which it's based), solely based on the fact that the argument is being advanced by one of PETA's detractors, when we know the argument is based on valid data, which can be obtained independently?--Ramdrake 15:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Made a change to clarify and qualify the statement. How's that? change made NathanLee 22:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Turtlescrubber: this is the place you give feedback on the edit as requested (see the "How's that?" section above). Revert is not a substitute for discussion and is against the recommendations on dispute avoidance. The edit was in there, someone chopped it out, I've addressed (I think) any complaint anyone has raised above. Correct me via discussion if that's not the case. "How it plays out in discussion" isn't a justification for a revert if you've added nothing new. Dejavu. NathanLee 19:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nathan, watch your manners. You did not discuss anything on this page. Do not lecture me on anything. I was in on this conversation from the beginning but am letting the discussion play out on the page without my interference. You want feedback? You added that to the intro. You didn't discuss anything on this page. You didn't look for consensus. Another edit has already reverted your edit. I have added way more to this discussion than you have so keep your condescending two days later editing style to yourself. Turtlescrubber 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you are going to quote someone, get it right. It's common courtesy. Please look that up. Turtlescrubber 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's try again

message: A section about Peta's dispute with Friends of Animals and Primarily Primates, Inc. is necessary. Here are a few quick links.
http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/october/open-letter-to-mary-.html
http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/october/ppis-response-to-pet.html
I'm new to this Wiki thing so I'll let someone with a bit more experience write the entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxmatt (talk • contribs) 02:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Matt. This should be added. Turtlescrubber 02:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine to add something about PPI, but since PPI is a division of Friends of Animals, it would have to be sourced from someplace reliable and not involved.Bob98133 12:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That too. Turtlescrubber 19:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing about Primarily Primates, Inc. 

message: http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=10328 - in the letter at the bottom of this PETA page, it says that they have 1.8 million members. I don't think it needs a reference since it's just what PETA is claiming. They also didn't make an announcement about it that I saw, it's just mentioned in this letter. Just wanted to explain why I was making the change. If someone thinks it needs a reference in the article, either put it in or let me know and I will. Thanks. Bob98133 15:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Membership

message: I will be interviewing Ingrid Newkirk on Tuesday, November 13.  Leave questions on my Talk page.  --David Shankbone 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that not "Original Research" ? 65.163.112.205 (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do you have a question for PETA's founder?

message: I've heard accusations that PETA has ties or is a front organisation for the communist party.  Anybody else seen any sources claiming or supporting this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.215.78.126 (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible that someone may have accused PETA of this, but it doesn't make any sense to include accusations even if they are referenced. If there were some statement to this effect by PETA that would be different. Since the group is pretty controversial, they've probably been accused of lots of things but that doesn't make them true. If you find references for this, please post them to this discussion. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of Communist/Marxist/Socialist ties 

message: :Image:Your Mommy Kills Animals co.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Your Mommy Kills Animals co.jpg

message: Can someone who knows more about this article clean this up:
"Many of the campaigns bear fruit for PETA. Burger King, McDonalds, Wendy's, Petco, and in 2006, after talks with PETA, Polo Ralph Lauren announced that it would no longer use fur in any of its lines."
It doesn't ever say what Burger King et al. did, it just cuts to Ralph Lauren stopping fur usage. I know there are links to the stories, but a brief synopsis here is important, as some of the links appear to be dead or require a subscription. 
Surfbruddah. 155.188.247.6 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Campaigning" confusion 

message: The HBO Documentary I Am An Animal stated that PETA does indeed support terrorists like ALF, Earth First!, Elf, and that the FBI has infiltrated PETA, and that in the founder's will, she is to be dismembered and barbequed. Can this be stated under anything about PETA in this article ? The documentary aired yesterday and today, CST. 65.163.112.205 05:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this is already explained at Ingrid Newkirk. Rockpocket 08:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HBO Documentary

message: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204753,00.html PETA: Sacrifice Human, Not Animal Life for Medical Research, July 20, 2006 By Steven Milloy
The reference above is used in support of statements in the Animal Testing section of this article. This source is an OpEd, not a news article, by a clearly biased, and paid, source Steven Milloy. PETA's support of stem cell use is fine, but I think the rest of the ph, including the recent attempt to clear it up, be deleted. Thoughts? Thanks.Bob98133 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable reference #107

message: Is there a reason the animal testing section doesn't contain a reference to MaryBeth Sweetland's insulin-dependence? There's an article here http://www.goveg.com/diabetes_controlled.asp written by her downplaying her use of animal-based insulins which might prove a good reasonably un-biased quote (all the links to quotes I could find from her were all inflammatory and on anti-PETA sites). Given PETA's stated policies on animal testing, this seems like a pretty important fact, because without animal-harvested and animal-tested insulins, she'd would have died at age 25 when she became insulin-dependent. 
Actually I just re-read the article, and right after the quote from Newkirk about them opposing a cure for AIDS based on animal testing would be the perfect place for it. Max.inglis (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MaryBeth Sweetland has not worked for PETA for sometime, so not sure how a quote about her insulin use would be relevant to PETA article. Bob98133 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because at the time of that quote (2005) one of the VPs of PETA, and close confidante of hers was dependent on medication derived from animals and animal testing, and the quote clearly says that she wouldn't support something that saved lives if it was based on animal testing. You can pretty reasonably extrapolate this to mean that if Sweetland had AIDS, she (Newkirk) would prefer she didn't take a medication derived from animal testing, and therefore die. This is a very clear and repeated criticism of Newkirk and PETA, and previous discussions have specified that criticisms should be mixed into the article. I think inclusion here is appropriate.Max.inglis (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using this logic, it would be correct to quote Carl Rove about Bush's current policies? Sweetland, speaking as a VP of PETA, seems reasonable to include; but claiming any relationship between her and Newkirk or PETA, other than employee/boss (now both ex)seems like a stretch. Newkirk might speak for herself and PETA, but it isn't reasonable to assume that she is speaking for all the hundreds of employees of the organization unless she specifically indicated this. Why not come up with something new or current that makes the same point, or was this an isolated case? Bob98133 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well bob: we have quotes from ingrid newkirk scattered throughout the article. Are they relevant to Peta? I certainly think that if a high ranking official in an organisation is probably relevant, just like for a CEO or board member with respect to a company. NathanLee (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well if its in the wrong place, where to put it then? You yourself have numerous times posted that a criticism section is a target for vandalism, so where else to put mention of a very specific and well-known criticism of PETA? Placing it directly after a quote from Newkirk about not accepting cures that would save lives if based on animal testing seems like the perfect place for it - since its an animal-based and animal-tested cure. The section is titled "Position on Animal Testing", perhaps a seperate paragraph? It was made in very neutral language, and included a quote from MBS herself, as well as a link to her article about reducing her dependence on animal-based insulin. Max.inglis (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why anything an ex-employee did or does has anything to do with the organization's position about animal testing. For all we know, Sweetland was fired for taking insulin or violating some PETA rule. If Newkirk was taking insulin, you're right, it would fit. If Sweetland still worked there - sure. But since this is entirely in the past and not directly attributable to anyone setting policy at PETA, it seems out of place. I didn't mean that the entire position on animal testing is out of place - that's fine - and if there is current or relevant examples (such as Newkirk's quote) I have no problem with those. Including Sweetland just says "someone who used to work at PETA didn't agree" which isn't really wiki worthy info.Bob98133 (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we separate it from the AIDS comment then? The section is titled animal testing, yet you think the fact that an ex-VP (all the docs I could find show her as director, research and rescue, but perhaps thats out of date) of PETA owes her continued living to the existence of a product derived from animal testing isn't relevant? Any reasonable person can assume that Newkirk, at the time the quote was made, knew MBS was insulin-dependent, yet the quote was still made. From the quote given, the organization, by definition, (Newkirk, being the head of said organization, gets to make up the policies) doesn't support her continued living. This isn't a choice she was making (although I guess it is, the choice would be to allow herself to die), it was a fact about her existence. I would put this sort of thing in a "criticism" section, but we know where that gets us - vandalism by anonymous. The fact was added in neutral language and included links to her own article downplaying her dependence on animal-based testing, and included a quote from her giving justification. It could possibly be made into a separate paragraph to remove it from direct reference to Newkirk's quotation.  Max.inglis (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Max - I understand what you're saying. Quotes from Newkirk are certainly relevent. She is the founder and current president of the organization. If you feel that it somehow adds to the article to include that a former employee used insulin that may have been derived from animals (although I believe that Mary Beth Sweetland claimed that her insulin, and most insulin these days, is not derived from animals)or developed or tested with animals, then include it, but it should be stated that Sweetland no longer works for PETA. However, this is the same logic that paid lobbyists use to attack PETA - that they once gave money for the legal defence of someone who was later convicted of a crime, and whose affiliations were later ruled illegal. So PETA once employed someone who may have disagreed with Newkirk about her position. If a McDonald's employee (even a VP) uses drugs, even though it is against company policy, is that newsworthy or deserving mention in condemning McDonalds in an encyclopedia article? PETA can be criticized for many things but I just think this one is a stretch.Bob98133 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well everything I've read about the relationship between MBS and newkirk was "close friend" and "confidante" - to say that you wouldn't support animal testing if it leads to a cure for AIDS when your close friend's living depends on a drug originally derived from animal testing seems hypocritical. I'm not a big fan of animal testing but I'm also not a big fan of lots of people dying either - which is probably why I feel so strongly that this should be in here.  It's another example of PETA valuing the lives of animals over people - not to say there aren't lots of people who shouldn't be valued over animals, or that animal testing is by any means right in every situation (testing makeup and vanity things on animals drives me nuts) but when it saves lives on the scale of these examples (a cure for AIDS would be astronomical, as was the cure for diabetes in its time). Humulin is what MBS uses now from her own account, but her assertion that its "more appropriate for the human animal" is of course ignoring the fact that without the original animal testing and derivative insulins, humulin wouldn't exist. That being said, I'm not happy with the wording having re-read it. It does seem tacked on, and I think I can find a clearer way to include that information, keeping its tone as neutral as possible, and relevant. Max.inglis (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read an interview with the guy who did the HBO movie about Newkirk and he said that she doesn't have any friends, and I tend to believe that. She has lots and lots of employees, including a half dozen or more Vice Presidents. If you can add the Sweetland stuff back in so it makes sense - fine, but it seems with so many employees there ought to be something more current and relevent. I think if Sweetland was a "close friend" with Newkirk then she wouldn't have a similar job for In Defense of Animals now (unless she just wanted her Wiki info moved to that page :)Bob98133 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an example of Peta valuing the lives of animals over those of humans, it's an example of Peta valuing neither over either... for you see, the cure of aids as a result of animals testing would kill many more non-human animals in one year than humans at the hands of the aids virus probably in the entire next century... so I can't see how you say that. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ  Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well according to avert.org, an organization dedicated to worldwide AIDS reduction, 2.1 million people died from AIDS in 2007 alone. I would be surprised if the research for an AIDS cure reached that number over the span of its entire research cycle (assuming a cure is ever found).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max.inglis (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Insulin Use

message: I cant find any valuable informations at  "PETA's page at Network for Good" What is the use of this link? --Arcy (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem pretty general and pointless. Maybe if it was in the article referencing finances or something, but I'd say remove it. Bob98133 (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Weblinks

message: Why got the imgage ", used in article Your Mommy Kills Animals deleted? Who deleted it?. --Arcy (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: probably because it is a copyrighted image, and the fair use rationalle was not accepted. Bytebear (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can verify that the image was deleted because it did not have a proper fair use rationale. It was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#I7, and the bot tagged the article due to WP:NFCC#10c. The rationale always was lacking. The image could be undeleted or even re-uploaded if it had a proper fair use rationale.-Andrew c [talk] 17:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Deletion

message: Why has the image :Image:Holocaust_plate.png contributed by PeTA such a litte dimension? The PeTA-Posters must have been much more readable --Arcy (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review the rules regarding using copyrighted material on Wikipedia. Bytebear (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Dimensions contributed by PeTA - Image:Holocaust_plate.png

message: I'd like to see more information about the rumors that PETA was/is on the Terrorist Watch List.  --4.224.84.90 (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe on the rumors page? This article should stick to items that can be referenced. Even just being on a terrorist watch list wouldn't be that appropriate an addition unless they were watched doing some terrorism and there would be references for that if it happened.Bob98133 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Fbi.gov/SEARCH: Domestic Terrorists and/or Single Issue Terrorists: PETA. 65.173.105.118 (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that help ?! 65.173.105.118 (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Information On Rumors About PETA Being On Terrorist Watch List 

message: To me including the info from the secretary/activist/former employee makes the whole section less strong. The other criticisms are from recognized groups or spokespeople whereas this one sounds like a disgruntled employee. I think there is justification for keeping it or getting rid of it, but I think the article reads better without it.Bob98133 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: conflicts w/other activists

message: This article is pro-PETA, hardly anything criticising them. Typical liberal, far left loony crap, as Bill O'Reilly would state. 205.240.144.195 (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fix it or delete it. 205.240.144.195 (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your demands, we'll get right on it. Not. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia which everyone can edit. If you think something is missing, please add it, ensuring that you follow the rules regarding verifiability, reliability, neutrality, and remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a soapbox. Thanks. (I've copied this to the user talk page as well)-Localzuk(talk) 16:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro PETA

message: Is PETA eco-terrorists?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiketsu (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't. Bob98133 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No but they do have connections to them. Bytebear (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All the documented stuff I've seen dated back years and years ago to before ELF or ALF were considered terrorists. I think maybe they agree on some things, but I think "connections" implies something more formal like working together on projects which I don't think happens at all. There are probably supporters of PETA who also support ELF or ALF but that doesn't mean the organizations have connections.Bob98133 (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article, as it stands, discusses the connections in a way that implies them.  That seems appropriate since the connections themselves are implied and not official. Micahmedia (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECO-Terrorists 

message: The notes section appears to be corrupted from item number 75 on.  Doesn't display properly on Firefox or MSIE and displays coding in the article.  I'm new to wiki markup, so I'm sure what the issue is.  Micahmedia (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My pleasure! Micahmedia (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes section corrupt? 

message: http://www.masskilling.com/ seems like spamdexing to me... --Vesal (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like that link was changed or dropped. I changed the link in the article to a PETA website with the coreect video on it.Bob98133 (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote #7 

message: With all the talk of PETA being viewed as "extremist" in the U.S., something that might be worth noting in the article, if there's an appropriate space, is that the British government seems not to take that view.
In 2004, a British Home Office minister was asked in the House of Commons whether the government had made contact with animal rights groups. The response was:
:"Home Office Ministers have not made any visits to extremist groups involved in the harassment and intimidation of individuals or companies licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
:"Home Office Ministers are, however, willing to meet groups prepared to engage in reasoned debate and discussion about the use of animals in scientific procedures, whatever their point of view, provided they do not support extremist activity. Ministers have, therefore, met groups involved with the protection of animals, such as the RSPCA, as well as groups opposed to animal experimentation, such as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, the National Anti-Vivisection Society, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Uncaged Campaigns, Animal Aid and Naturewatch, and organisations seeking humane alternatives to animal experiments, such as the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments." 
SlimVirgin talk|edits 20:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: British government

message: This article was not objective at all. It failed to state critisisms of PETA and disputes against PETA. Not only that, another blaring omission is not having more information about their connections to eco-terrorism and sponsoring such acts. I expect more neaurality from Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.168.195.109 (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the discussion pages and revise your expectations. Wiki is a collaborative effort and if you can make a postive contribution to the article by adding properly referenced material, please do. I don't think omissions blare - might want to check that.Bob98133 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Objective 

message: Go to this site, click on the SEARCH icon, type in it:Single Issue Terrorists and/or Domestic Terrorists, and you'll see under these Eco-Terrorists: Earth First!, Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, and of course PETA. Been there, seen it. This should be stated. Is that WP:OR or not? 205.240.144.214 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been told to do this a few times, I've done it, and I still have not seen anything like what you're describing.  I'm skeptical that this page exists.  If PETA was explicitly identified as a terrorist organization, it would not have 501(c)(3) status, or any official status at all.  Give me an actual link to an FBI web page that I can look at.  Vague directions that are supposed to show me to some vaguely described page are not going to cut it for whatever you're arguing for (which is what, by the way?).  Djk3 (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that probably originates here: Washington Post: FBI Papers Show Terror Inquiries Into PETA; Other Groups Tracked.  The FBI later (sorta) denied it. While PETA denies links to violent activist groups, some continue to suspect them. Addendum: Here is a FOIA file on PETA that contains intimations of links with ALF.  The FBI has certainly called SHAC a terrorist group, and although many PETA members probably act with or sympathize with SHAC, PETA denies the link. -- Tom Ketchum 23:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What link? Bob98133 (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A link between SHAC (a group they have labelled "terrorist") and PETA, which supported SHAC and co-protested for a while, but stopped when SHAC people started (e.g.) firebombing businessmen. -- Tom Ketchum 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Nice finds, with those links.  I looked through the FOIA release and it didn't seem like anything as serious as what the Washington Post article was suggesting.  It didn't seem to indicate any particular investigation; it just looked like some miscellaneous notes.  I wonder what else has been released, and if it's online.  Djk3 (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Tom,when I asked "What link?" it was in reference to PETA denying the link between PETA and SHAC. If no link exists, except possible overlapping membership or sympathies as you say, the phrasing of your sentence "PETA denies the link" implies that such a link exists. Other than apparently inconclusive investigations to determine this, there is no reference to support it.Bob98133 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry -- I would never say such a thing in the article, because of the confusion you cite.  There are citations of PETA disavowing SHAC (see the SHAC article).  That is what I was referring to.[  This quote: "With such deep pockets Peta is able to disburse millions of dollars every year across a global network of interest groups, including the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), which opposes animal experiments on scientific grounds and whose members (95 per cent of whom do not have medical degrees) have well docu mented links with Shac and other militant animal rights groups." makes the link -- it is from The Guardian (UK).  It is quite a good read and might inform this article. -- Tom Ketchum 19:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll look at that. Yeah, that's not much of a link. It would be like saying PETA supports child molestation because they donated money to a church group some of whose officials were convicted of that crime. Bob98133 (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the "war on terror" has brought us much worse nonsense -- see Global Relief Foundation. -- Tom Ketchum 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: www.fbi.gov

message: I have a different problem with this article -- the lengthy section on "Other campaigns".  It's really a laundry list, and few of them add anything encyclopedic to the article - it is more like a brag list.  I think this should be cut down, or perhaps moved into a separate article.  -- Tom Ketchum 18:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about some of these. I don't think a separate article would make sense, but shortening and consolidating might. For example, some of these are ongoing campaigns (anti-fur, circus, vegetarian) but others are either part of some other campaign or something that happened to be in the news (like Michael Vick).Bob98133 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other campaigns" section 

message: I have a few problems with this section which I thought I'd discuss prior to changing. It links to Humane Society and claims that PETA is part of "the modern humane movement" which began in the 1970s. The link does not support this, or diferentiate between "modern" and other humane movements. As well, the summary of the source cited (the article is only available if you pay $15), does not appear to mention PETA at all, but talks of animal rights activists, not the humane movement, in general. Perhaps the article is talking about PETA, but again, there does not seem to be anything specific. Are we to believe that the demographics and political point-of-view of every humane society or organization in the US are democrats or independents, distrust capitalism, etc.? The source seems overly generalized and certainly not specific to PETA. I think it should be removed, but it could also be replaced by information which is more specific. I think that context is probably estalished in the article, but I see no problem with it being clearly defined in this section too, but it should cite specific references, not a generalized summary of animal rights which is not readily available to all editors. Bob98133 (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural influences and context  

message: Re: revert of item by Ramdrake about why PETA would get more animals in poor condition. This page offers some explanation []. My understanding is that their Community Animal Project actually goes out looking for dogs or cats in poor condition - chained, left outside, sick, etc. while they distribute free dog houses and straw for animals living outdoors. I have seen pictures of some of these animals with chains embedded in their necks, open sores, etc. Since they don't run a "traditional" shelter (from the stats they obviously don't do many adoptions and euthanize a high percentage of animals)where people can go to adopt animals, they pretty much go looking for animals in miserable conditions. Whether someone agrees with this or not doesn't change the fact that they get a lot of animals near death. In that case, expecting their statistics to be similar to a traditional shelter would be like expecting hospitals and hospices to have equal death rates. I couldn't find really good references for this, so I don't object that strongly to your deletion, but I think there are reasons for the difference. Bob98133 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Find references, and I'll withdraw my objection. However, what was there this morning 1)looked very much like a cop-out and 2)wasn't even supported by the cited ref. There are two possible situations: indeed they get more animals near death (which one should be able to document using a reliable source) or they get pretty much the same mix of animals as many other shelters and they really euthanize way more animals than should be warranted. I won't speculate as to which, but any statement should be properly and ideally independently verifiable.  Bob, regarding your ref specifically, it doesn't say anywhere that PETA gets more animals in poor condition than other shelters - it would be nice if we could find that claim written somewhere rather than any of us making it up.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. It definitely needs a real reference. Bob98133 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PETA tends to take animals that other shelters avoid, and it goes looking for animals rather than waiting for them to be delivered, which most shelters don't. I'm pretty sure we had a source from PETA explaining this, so perhaps someone has removed it. SlimVirgin talk|edits 18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why PETA gets more animals in poor condition