Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 1

message: Jewish groups have also been upset at PETA for their stance on suicide-bombings against Jews in the State of Israel.
Please can this be expanded upon- what is their stance on this issue? (referenced if possible) Thanks quercus robur 12:09, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what he's referring to: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_748025.html and http://www.peta.org/feat/arafat/ -- Axlrosen 15:30, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it's clear now. Jeez these folk sure know how to shoot themselves in the foot.... quercus robur 22:22, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  suicide bombing 

message: I think the disambig block belongs at the top- but I'm not prepared to go to war over it- in the unlikely event that I should be searching for peta and accidentally type in PETA (not that unlikely that I should do the latter -I often search in lower case, others might in upper case- but unlikely that I would want to know anything about mathematics :-) ), I'd come to the page on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and think, 'hmm, nothing on wikipedia about these big numbers I was hoping to find out about', and wouldn't bother wading through an article I wasn't interested in on the off-chance there might be a disambiguation link at the bottom. I really can't see why it's a problem to have the disambig at the top, but perhaps I'm missing something? quercus robur 22:24, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation block 

message: The last few changes are bascially a sugarcoat, placing pro peta first, and softening critisams and putting them last. I am posting my intention to fix this here now to avoid a revert war. Dominick 20:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of waiting for my explination, why don't you just edit. Hyacinth 22:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dominick, I hope you can remaind calm about this -- I went to that article and saw nothing that looked horribly biased, but then I don't know the topic.  What needs changing?  Furthermore, I think this article is laid out exactly as Wikipedian standards would suggest -- it establishes who PETA are and what they do, and then explains the criticisms.  What do you think is wrong?  Can you copy specific passages here that need fixing?  I think people would be more willing to discuss possible changes with you if you were ready to talk things over here (rather than make unilateral changes, which it appears that you are threatening).  That's just my perspective.  I'm sure you do have some important criticisms of the article (most articles here need work of some kind), and I'm interested to hear what they are. Jwrosenzweig 22:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

text: That is correct. PoV should be out here, I don't want my own personal view to dominate the topic of PETA. I would prefer that my fellow Wikipedians know how much I think an original article falls short. First, I think by stating the claims that this organization makes in the Wiki gives them a free channel to present thier views. Second, this isn't a place to present them in a good light. This isn't a PR vehice, they have some real strong connections to ELF terrorists, and have had people accused of violent crime on the payroll. TO close this too long comment, (sorry folks), Jwrosenzweig, I posted here to discuss this, and did not make a single "unilateral" change. The changes User:Rosemaryameywere a departure from the original article, and were "unilateral" IMHO. I would like this to be a complete treatment of PETA, which would not just look like a pamphlet. Every comment she softened was a anti-PETA comment. Every thing she highlighted was pro-PETA. Did I answer you Eloquence? Dominick 03:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am new to Wikipedia, and was unaware that it was necessary to get into a discussion on the talk page before adding factual information to expand an article. I haven't removed any of the criticism of PETA, just moved it to its own section. I agree that there should be more on their links to ELF, etc. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done on this page. Rosemary Amey 14:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, welcome to WIkipedia. We cooperate to write articles, and people write about what they care about. I worry that people unknowingly put PoV into those organizations they are sentimental about. I didn't like your changes, which were widespread, and I complained here to get a better perspective and try to think through how to improve the PoV and empasize facts I think are objective and important. Unfortunatly, some critics are just "feces tossers" who edit and leave. I would prefer to make certain this article and the Center for Consumer Freedom one reflect NPOV. I have a PoV, I admit, I am a fur wearing, meat eating sportsman. :-) I would prefer to rise above the label and do a decent fact based job. Dominick 15:19, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to keep an NPOV in the parts I added, e.g. when I added the Jesus is a Vegetarian campaign, I mentioned that most Christian leaders disagree with PETA's claims. The CCF stub needs a lot of work, obviously. Go for it. Rosemary Amey 17:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

text: It's not necessary to get in a discussion on a talk page just to change an article. Usually the discussion on the talk page happens after the changes, when someone disagrees with the changes, and you need to decide what to do with it. :) - Fennec 15:24, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
===Reality check===
Checking one of Rosemaryamey's edits, 13:01, 4 May 2004, I find that she in no way altered the text so as to soften criticism. In fact, about the only real change besides sorting paragraphs I can find is the de-linking of chutzpah. Similarly her first edit to the article only rearranged paragraphs and added slightly more information. She herself added an article and a link to a group which is critical of PETA, Center for Consumer Freedom. Criticisms of the article may be entirely correct, but they have always been there, are not because of recent changes, and not because of Rosemaryamey. Hyacinth 17:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the support, Hyacinth. If anyone is wondering, I delinked chutzpah because there was no article to link to and also "chutzpah" seems like a definition that belongs in a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia. Rosemary Amey 17:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sugarcoating PETA 

message: Checking one of Rosemaryamey's edits, 13:01, 4 May 2004, I find that she in no way altered the text so as to soften criticism. In fact, about the only real change besides sorting paragraphs I can find is the de-linking of chutzpah. Similarly her first edit to the article only rearranged paragraphs and added slightly more information. She herself added an article and a link to a group which is critical of PETA, Center for Consumer Freedom. Criticisms of the article may be entirely correct, but they have always been there, are not because of recent changes, and not because of Rosemaryamey. Hyacinth 17:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the support, Hyacinth. If anyone is wondering, I delinked chutzpah because there was no article to link to and also "chutzpah" seems like a definition that belongs in a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia. Rosemary Amey 17:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reality check

message: I was wondering if the anonymous users who removed the links to Peta Sucks and Center for Consumer Freedom could explain their reasoning. Rosemary Amey 00:11, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It was going on before. Some anonymous users will continue to delete links. I think just because someone is anonymous, doesn't disqualify them from editing, but unfortunatly, some vandals are anonymous. Links both ways belong here. Censorship stinks! Dominick 10:04, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disappearing links

message: Listed in one of the links
" It gave $7,500 to Fran Stephanie Trutt, who tried to murder the president of a medical laboratory. It gave $5,000 to Josh Harper, who attacked Native Americans on a whale hunt by throwing smoke bombs, shooting flares, and spraying their faces with chemical fire extinguishers."
http://activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21
:Peta has of payed legal fees for people arrested in conjunction with ALF "raids". There is a stong link there. The ALF and ELF are wanted in acts of arson and criminal vandalism. Arson constitutes depraved indifference, since you can't be sure that nobody is in the building. Dominick 12:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: campaigns of violence against people

message: PETA's claim to have 800,000 members is bogus. PETA is incorporated, in fact, such that there are only a handful of members in order to avoid the risk of having an outside group take the organization over as PETA itself did to at least one animal rights organization.
The 400,000 or 800,000 members claim appears to be made up out of thin air. A running hypothesis is that they likely count anyone who has ever donated to them as members.
:Are these just allegations or do you have anything to back this up with?  Allot of non-profits work like this.  PETA is one of many top down (control) private non-profits.--Steele 05:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  PETA Does Not Have 800,000 Members 

message: Let’s look at some of the problems and compare this to the other organizations out there and on wiki.  How about the NRA, NAACP, Greenpeace, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party
Republican Party], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party
Democratic Party], KKK, Neo-Nazi’s, NAMBLA and the ACLU?
Size of complaints:
*PETA (1/2): before I even get half way there are critics and complaints until the end of the article.
*(worst case senerio) ACLU (1/5): for defense of various unpopular groups and strong church and state separation.
*Greenpeace (1/12):  Funny, this organization is the closest to PETA in its tactics.
*NRA(1/12):  Note these are bulleted and not detailed criticism like the others.
*Republican Party(NA): none
*Democratic Party(NA): one link at the end
*NAACP(1/28):  very mild ones at that
*KKK, neo-Nazi’s, NAMBLA(NA):  no criticism sections at all?
Interesting how you can learn more about what’s “wrong” with PETA then what they actually stand for.  
I also noticed how the link section is 11 to 6 against PETA. Funny, since PETA owns 114 different webpages.
----
Interesting how the only thing about PETAs executive director Bruce Fredric is not his success against corporate giants like McDonald’s, his famous “Got Beer” Campaign, not his life of community service, the fact that he is a devout Christian or even that he was one of the top 10 candidates for [http://www.sho.com/site/video/right.do?video=/172/2004/bruce_friedrich&player=WMP&speed=hi&seriesid=&episodeid=&include=172_profiles
 Showtime’s American Candidate] but his misquoted rant at a speech to fellow animal rights activist.
“Sponsorship of terrorism” isn’t POV, it is libel.  That is the first thing that needs to be removed.  PETA has never sponsored a “campaign of violence” against anyone.  Animal Rights is a nonviolent movement, humans are after all animals so the very idea would be hypocritical not to mention counterproductive.  Consumer Freedom isn’t anything close to a real source as they are just a partisan hack job for the corporations that make money off the exploitation of animals in addition to the many other things they do.  The money given to Rodney was to pay his legal fees.  That is legal, remember?  The money sent to the “Earth Liberation Front” didn’t go to terrorist.  That is the Earth Liberation Fronts Press office which maintains a webpage, support group and creates a magazine.  That is also legal.  The FBI would shut down PETA in a heartbeat if they ever did anything wrong.  
:the ALF and the ELF were described as a "serious terrorist threat" by  James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation.Geni 09:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ALF and ELF do not actually exist, there is no centralize organization or coordination.  To be an ALF member all you have to do is liberate animals from places of abuse, inflict economic damage to those who profit, and/or reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors.   The way it works is anonymous people carry out these actions and send proof of it (video or newspaper clippings) to the ALF Press office (which does not keep any contact information.)  The ALF press office, making sure the activist carried out the actions under ALF guidelines (must be a vegetarian/vegan and take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human or non-human) and if they did, the Press office will claim responsibility.  The money that PETA sent was to a self appointed PR/media relations firm that represents (but doesn't know) the people who carry out actions under the concept of ALF.  That is what the ALF Press office is.  There isn't any way to "support ALF" unless you are the one carrying out the action--Steele 21:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this in the main article "I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them, exploded tomorrow."  That could be construed as inciting people to commit acts of violence against places that a person does not agree with.  One thing I found was 18 U.S.C. § 1951 - Interference with commerce by threats or violence. See here for the text of the stature.
JesseG 03:11, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure how they consider it “sexism” when the celebrities volunteer and they use both men and women for their campaigns.
“Holocaust on your plate” section doesn’t talk about how the campaign was run by a Jew who lost family members in the Holocaust or that it was funded by a Jewish philanthropist who has spent the last 25 years working with prominent Jewish organizations that highlight the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust. Something I wouldn’t be able to back up if it wasn’t for the “Yahoo cache” and no thanks to the big media.  Please read the [http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=holocaust+on+your+plate&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&vst=0&vs=www.masskilling.com&dups=1&u=www.masskilling.com/lettocomm.asp&w=holocaust+plate&d=4E747B3A6D&icp=1&.intl=us
 fallowing] (you may have to highlight the text with your mouse to see it.) 
PETA also can’t take sides on issues outside of the Animal Rights movement.  So of course, condemning suicide bombing in her letter to Yasser Arafat could alienate the Muslim presence they also try to reach.  
What is the point of the domain name dispute? It looks like the only reason it was put up was for the old “people eating tasty animals” joke.  I don’t see any good reasons why it would be up there, so it seems to be just more pointless criticism.
----
Last but not least, one thing that is missing is a statement explaining why they always use these controversial tactics.  Did anyone here think that the people who read this article might have a better understanding of why PETA does these things if they had read this?
Since I am new to this whole “wiki” thing and the fact that I am a card carrying member of the group I will let others edit the article first if they do so within a reasonable amount of time.  Please feel free to tell me what you think or correct me if you feel I am wrong.  Sorry for the ranting but this has made me frustrated.
----
--Steele 09:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Then it's your duty as a member to do something about it.  If you want someone else to do something, be more specific, but if you want it done right, do it yourself.--Mylon 17:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with other organisations' Wikipedia pages

message: This article is in major need of restructuring.  Tensions seemed high so I thought I'd float some ideas here before making changes myself.
First, clearly and concisely, at the beginning of the article, state PETA's own claimed goals.  No annotation is needed.
Seccond, defer the animal rights controversy to the animal rights page.  Use PETA's distinction of animal rights vs. animal welfare and a link to the animal rights page.
Third, create a new page for the PETA/ADL debate; i.e., defer all of the anti-semitism acuasations to their own page and include a prominent link here.
Fourth, state criticisms and PETA positions without judgemental language.
Fifth, include a reference to monies given to convicted arsonists, etc.
It would be nice to have more factual/background/history information on the group.  Look at the greenpeace or ACLU articles for formatting examples.  I am sensitive to the argument that PETA is fundamentally different in both ideology and tactics from advocacy groups such as greenpeace, but that is a conclusion that in informed reader can reach on his or her own.  Most importantly, the flow of the article isn't very good.
--Selket 18:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major overhaul for NPOV. 

message: Any way we can incorporate this info into this article, or another specialized article, perhaps Timeline of PETA History? See . 205.217.105.2 17:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline of PETA history

message: "And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took [it], and did eat before them." - Luke 24:41-43 205.217.105.2 17:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this comment related to the article? Hyacinth 22:05, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   — Nathanlarson32767  (Talk) 00:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is your opinion that Jesus was not a vegan related to the article? Hyacinth 18:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus was not a vegan

message: The note alongside PETA donations to ALF, characterized as a "listed terrorist organisation" has been reverted twice now (see above).  That probably means it needs some backing to the claim here:
# "... the FBI classifies the Animal Liberation Front, for example, as a terrorist group, and describes it as 'one of the most active extremists elements in the United States'. The FBI classifies the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) with ALF as the two main groups that characterize special-interest extremism. In fact, ELF is actually modeled after ALF ... eight of what the law enforcement group deemed 'terrorist incidents' during 1999 were attributed to either ALF or ELF" Rick Ross Institute for study of destructive cults groups and movements, 2002
# "Despite Sept. 11, the ELF and ALF have committed at least five violent acts the FBI deems as crossing the line into terrorist activities ... The current spree started on Sept. 8, when militants torched a McDonald's restaurant in Tucson, Ariz. Four of the five action shave been claimed by the Animal Liberation Front and one by its sister organization, the Earth Liberation Front. Beth Anne Steele, an FBI spokeswoman in Portland, said it's 'pretty unbelievable' that the groups, considered terrorists themselves by the agency, have continued their sabotage during the nation's terrorism crisis." Associated Press, 2001
# "During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars ... In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States ... The ALF is considered a terrorist group, whose purpose is to bring about social and political change through the use of force and violence." FBI counterterrorism chief testimony to House Resources Committee, 2002
With this in mind I've re-asserted the comment in the article. FT2 03:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't dispute that ALF (or ELF) are "eco-terrorist" groups (appropriateness of this label aside, for groups which forbid violence against humans and animals).  However I do dispute the one-sided attempt to tar PETA as eco-terrorist by association with ALF and ELF.  The only support lent for this is a link to a website by the conservative corporate front group Center for Consumer Freedom.  First of all, donations to legal defense funds can hardly be conceived as supporting eco-terrorism, unless you take the view that lawyers are terrorists.  They should be disregarded.  Other than that there are some allegations of some pittances out of PETA's large budget given to ALF, which are poorly documented.  In my understanding there was only one actual transfer of cash from PETA to an [A/E]LF group, which was afterwards withdrawn.  If the article is going to mention ALF/ELF connections, it had better document them better and show the connection as being much flimsier than it suggests now.  130.91.64.52 19:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And what of PETA's VP of Communications who stated that they had indeed given money to ELF; "We did it, we did it. We gave $1,500 to the ELF for a specific program," said PETA President Lisa Lange. [[3] (http://www.cdfe.org/peta_fox.htm)] plain_regular_ham 19:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Got any more reliable sources for that? The "Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise" doesn't appear to be the most unbiased source (they have a page called 'PETA Probe'). Neither does Fox 'news', which the broken link on that page is apparently pointing to. Vclaw 02:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about ?  This from a bunch that also looks into activities by the American Corn Growers Association among several others including the Chefs Collaborative.  They don't appear to be after PETA specifically.  Are they reliable? plain_regular_ham 13:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the Center for Consumer Freedom again, who are opposed to a wide variety of enviromental activists. They are criticizing the American Corn Growers Association and the Chefs Collaborative because both are pro-organic / anti-GM etc. That quote is pretty meaningless anyway, as it says a "specific program", which does not equal supporting terrorism. And who at the ELF did this money go to, as they are not an organisation anyway. Vclaw 15:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You would have to ask Lange.  I didn't say that PETA gave money to ELF. (A front.  Not an organization.  True.)  She did.  Regardless, as I said, they aren't after PETA specifically.  Should we ban information about Republicans from organizations that endorsed John Kerry?  I don't think so.  plain_regular_ham 13:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALF 

message: An anonymous IP added the NPOV template, with no reasoning on the edit summary and no note on this page. I removed it for that reason. Feel free to add it again, but make sure you include a reasoning, otherwise I will assume vandalism. IreverentReverend 17:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov