Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 8

message: Minor, but I'm curious as to what editors think so I'll ask away. Since liberationists are fundamentally opposed to the idea of pet ownership, and this article is about such a group, shouldn't we favor the term "companion" over "pet". Sorta like we would favor american english over british english in the United States article? AFAIK both term means the same to most people anyway, so it seems like a nice touch. Jean-Philippe 23:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would use the term that is most familiar to most people, which is 'pet' by far. One could make a note of the term 'companion', e.g. "PETA provides a neutering/spaying service for pets, which they prefer to call 'companions'," etc. Crum375 23:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Crum375's idea.-Localzuk(talk) 21:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pet <-> Companion 

message: Why is the "profile" section completely WRONG?! I think bits of the article have been vandalised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simsimius (talk • contribs) 19:45, November 4, 2006 (UTC)
:Fixed.  During the last round of vandalism an InterWiki bot hid one of the vandal edits from the people doing reverts. --Allen3 talk 20:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Vandalism? 

message: It looks like all the rv's lately have gummed up the sources, external links, and see also sections.  Could an editor more familiar with the state of those sections than I take a stab at it?  Cheers. L0b0t 04:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have reverted back to a version on the 3rd... It seems that we haven't had any real constructive edits to the article in quite some time. Most of the edits seem to be vandalism.-Localzuk(talk) 12:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  What is it about this page and Boston Tea Party that seems to engender so much abuse?  Is there a list ranking the most vandalised articles in Wikipedia?  Thanks again.  Cheers. L0b0t 12:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats just not true. Information about PeTA's own actions are very important for those attempting to learn more about the organization. The problem is that this article does come off as very pro-PeTA (I just read the whole things, trust me) and the only things that (poorly) balance it out are facts like that. I'll stay out of the criticism section debate, but this article does seem to start very pro, they become more fair, the con, the back to pro. Especially the timeline. PeTA's own timeline should not be used as such. 64.185.122.250 08:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is a mess 

message: This euthanasia thing keeps causing arguments because some editors are trying to use it to show that PETA is evil. This is the situation, it's very simple, and no one is evil:
PETA believes that it is far crueler to keep unwanted animals in small cages in pounds for months, and sometimes for years, than it is to kill them humanely. The conditions that animals are kept in by some pounds are atrocious by any standard. PETA's argument is that the unwanted animal problem is cause by irresponsible pet ownership: people buying cute puppies but chucking them out when they grow; people failing to neuter pets so that unwanted babies are produced; people deliberately breeding expensive pedigrees so that pets in pounds have even less chance of being re-homed; people giving money to animal welfare societies who run the pounds without checking to make sure the pounds are being run humanely; veterinarians charging large fees for simple neutering surgery which discourages people from having their animals neutered.
This is the pet ownership problem as PETA sees it, and they therefore take the position that unwanted animals are better killed than left to rot in cages. You can argue that this position is wrong, either on moral or factual grounds, but there's no point in continuing to use it as a stick to beat PETA with, because it's a perfectly respectable position, which is held by many other animal protection organizations too. So please, if there's something worth adding about this, by all means do so (sticking closely to what reliable sources say, which does not include petakills.com), but there's no point in cherry-picking material from bad sources in order to make PETA took bad, because all we succeed in doing is making Wikipedia look bad. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point, and you are right that PETAs stand is just as you stated. But clearly it is not always done in a humane way and these references show situations where employees of PETA have been downright cruel to these animals. It's not that PETA is evil, but they do have a history of hypocracy.  Bytebear 01:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Do we have any sources as to the disposition of the case against the PETA employees? The trial was supposed to take place on August 16, that's 3 months ago. Shouldn't we presume the employees innocent until convicted? Crum375 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another good point.  I would also like to know if PETA is funding the defense of the employees and what official statements they have made (if any) regarding the incident.  The article should make three things clear.  1) These were PETA employees, 2) they were arrested as individuals and nothing was done to PETA as an organization, and 3) the outcome is pending. Bytebear 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  We cannot, however ignore the issue because the case is pending. Otherwise, for example the Michael Jackson article would have nothing on his aligations.  Bytebear 02:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this indicates a possible November 13, 2006 trial date (today). Also has some interesting PETA explanations. Crum375 02:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bytebear said:"But clearly it is not always done in a humane way and these references show situations where employees of PETA have been downright cruel to these animals." PETA was never found guilty of any mistreatment of animals in it's care, and I challenge you to prove me wrong with even one reference, one guilty verdict, anything so long it's verifiable. AR admit animals were euthanized the right way and his entire "case" rest on PETA supposedly not being qualified for it, while all the sources in the article points to the contrary. As for the trial date, I remember AR adding something about the trial being recently being rescheduled to sometime in 2007, but I can't find the mention of it in the article. Jean-Philippe 02:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As i said, employees of PETA were arrested.  Look at the three facts I presented above.  They are not POV, and clearly verifiable.  They should be mentioned in the article.  I don't care how you present them, but they should not be swept under the carpet because you feel they make PETA look "evil". Bytebear 02:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who's trying to sweep it under the carpet? Jean-Philippe 02:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right.  The only thing missing is the outcome of the trial.  The article says the trial date is set for August of 2006, clearly out of date. I also would like to see more quotes in the article from the references listed in this discussion.  Bytebear 02:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Euthanasia

message: The claim that the website "doesn't mention" these things is flat-out false: see http://www.jesusveg.com/qow.html. Plus, it is an obvious attempt to smear their argument, and Wikipedia should not be a debate forum.Pasio 15:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ChristianVeg 

message: In the Silver Springs monkey description, we use the phrase "the primate center blue ribbon panel of animal care experts." Is this phrase used by the source? If so, it needs to go in quotes; if not, it needs to be removed. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what the source says. The adjective "blue ribbon" is in quotes, not the entire phrase. Your call how to handle it. Crum375 22:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Crum, I just saw this. It's fine to use it if the source said it, although it might be good to attribute it in the text: a "blue ribbon" panel of animal care experts, according to X. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: I have removed a lot of information added by IdleGuy for the following reasons:
*Center for consumer freedom are not an acceptable, reliable source
*Animalscam is part of CCF
*Some of the US senate stuff was worded in a POV/weasel wordy way (using terms such as 'even')
*Changes to some of the sentence wording made little sense
I do not object to the US Senate stuff in general, as long as it is worded according to our policies.-Localzuk(talk) 13:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the source says who is saying what, it isn't violating anything. In fact the US Senate was actually backing up what CCF is saying.  Book sources mention the shady facts of PETA, then why remove it irrespective of its association with anyone? If you find that anything is not properly worded then edit to make them NPOV. Pl don't remove reference to a court cases. It's like telling only half the story. Simply reverting changes enmasse serves nothing. Idleguy 13:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Idleguy, your edits weren't acceptable: poor sources, oddly written. If you write the material properly, use good sources, and make sure it's relevant, I'm sure no one will object. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Books from different authors aren't poor sources. I've not used CCF exclusively, where it's used, it's backed up by another totally different source either in the form of a news or book citation. I suggest you read that the Covance judgement doesn't reflect what the German courts had to say. Interestingly, it appears that even the US Senate committe is not a "good source"? Pl edit where needed, but I've only added material that reliably sourced. Idleguy 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you try to re-insert your edits without relying on unacceptable sources such as CCF or AnimalScam, which is CCF. I am sure a US Senate committee is a "good source" per se, but it has to be cited in the proper NPOV way, and in the right context. Crum375 19:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I reverted to the latest/newest version that did not include your changeset with CCF/AnimalScam sources. As I suggested above and in your Talk page, please try to create a changeset that does not include CCF/AS, and much of your material may stay, possibly with tweaked (more NPOV) wording. AS is part of CCF, hence it is unacceptable just like CCF. Crum375 19:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to understand that CCF uses IRS and that is used by the US Senate. It's both intertwined. Consider this: PETA does NOT provide IRS disclosures on its site a fact that an online charity review has highlighted in its report. Only tag lines that you feel need a better cite instead of slaughtering all the edits in one stroke. If i can't find a better and reliable site they can be removed soon. I suggest tagging such lines temporarily as "better cite needed". Thanks. Idleguy 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed something that may be disputed and added another independent source for that quotation by the PETA person on blowing up things etc. Others, if any can now be reworded because as said above some CCF statements are backed by US Senate etc.. and because PETA refuses to provide any detailed info themselves. Idleguy 20:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the facts from an unacceptable site are 'backed up' by an acceptable site, then only the acceptable site may be used. Once a site is inadmissible, it cannot be used to 'relay' any evidence. So in this case if you want to use U.S. Senate records, get them from the media or the Senate directly but via an unacceptable site such as CCF. Crum375 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed animalscam sources and added others in lieu of it. Also added Ohio State University's statement for year ending 2005 on the animal killings. Actually pretty much everything seems to be saying what the CCF said. So, then why CCF is inadmissible beats me. Idleguy 19:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Your recollection is incorrect. A source has to meet our criteria regarding reliability at WP:RS and verifiability at WP:V. CCF is a biased organisation with unknown sources and funding. It falls far short of the requirements. PETA is acceptable on a page about PETA but not on other pages (unless it is specifically about something related to peta directly).-Localzuk(talk) 08:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff I removed 

message: The president said that it wasn't a surprise that Steve was killed provoking an animal. The president and PETA activists should realize that Steve Irwin wanted to preserve animals and would rather get himself hurt than an croc. He was more ethical towards animals than they are. -Yancyfry jr
:I agree, actually. PETA is doing the equivilent of dancing on a grave.-- ABigBlackMan 16:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read our guidelines as to what the purpose of article talk pages is. We do not want discussion of your opinions, we want discussion of the content within the article. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 16:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A little discussion of opinions is fine.  Especially if it results in people contributing to the article. — Omegatron 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it doesn't get out of hand, it's fine.  Otherwise it'd be like people at work not talking to each other at all about non-work related things.  When does that ever happen? BirdValiant 07:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Irwin Incident 

message: The second paragraph is badly written and it's completely unclear who is saying what. First, stop referring to groups as "terrorist." Example of lack of clarity: "The foundation states that its support of , stealing trade secrets, encouraging arson and assaulting business executives are all reasons to revoke its tax exemption. () — Which foundation? Which trade secrets? Assaulting which business executives? Encouraging which acts of arson, and encouraging in what way?
:The foundation is the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, continuing from the previous line that states the CDFE. And you have quoted the source yourself! () Yet you haven't bothered to read it and remove it outright. Idleguy 04:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have also been criticism over PETA's finances, with many questioning its nonprofit, tax exempt status, because its "leaders and personnel have been involved in criminal activities", according to the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.[99] The foundation states that its support to US declared terrorist groups, stealing trade secrets, encouraging arson and assaulting business executives are all reasons to revoke its tax exemption.[100] According to Center for Consumer Freedom, PETA does not publish how much it spends on litigation, and it states that based on the tax returns for the past 20 years, only a tiny fraction of the millions goes to animal help programs.[99] Its support to eco terrorist outfits, arsonists and other illegal activities have also been question by the center, and asking to remove its tax exempt status.[101] The United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has also pointed to these terrorist links by showing tax return claims for funding terrorist organizations.[102] Steven P Kendall, also corraborates this, stating that the majority of the donations are spent on fundraising, administrative costs and salaries[103] PETA, however denies these charges, though the CCF's executive director Richard Berman, pointed to more "donations" to convicted felons, citing PETA's tax returns.[104] The BBB Wise Giving Alliance in its evaluation of PETA observed that it does not meet a couple of Charity Accountability standards.[105]
It's hard to know where to begin with this. We don't use CCF as a source on PETA, just as we don't use PETA as a source on CCF. If a newspaper quotes CCF, our source is the newspaper, or you can say  according to CCF quoted in The New York Times, but don't use them directly, because it's an attack website. And who is Steven P. Kendall?
Sentences like "Its support to eco terrorist outfits" are POV and badly written.
I'm not objecting to a section on finances, because it's an important issue, but it has to be written with care, in neutral language, using good sources correctly, saying who the sources are, and making clear which source is saying what. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noted some suggestions and removed almost all except the one you said should be reworded to "according to CCF quoted in..." I sincerely hope you could have done such minor edits instead of writing here then deleting then having me to do the edits and replying. This actually makes Wikipedia look like a bureaucratic-style functioning. As for the "terrorist" word, well, the US Senate seems to use it every time they refer to ALF and ELF in their releases, so it would be right to use exactly what they describe the outfits as. note what they say "The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security agree that eco-terrorism is a severe problem naming the most serious domestic terrorist threat in the Untied States today as the Earth Liberation Front (“ELF”) and the Animal Liberation Front (“ALF”)". It is cited in the lead para in the article with the source. So I don't see any problem. Idleguy 04:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The recent additions to the euthanasia section had some of the same problems, and material already in the article was being repeated. Please read the article before editing. I've tried to copy edit, but some of it was unclear and was removed, and two paras were moved higher, out of the criminal charges section as they weren't about the criminal charges. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If by mistake they are repetitive, then remove only those and not blank the entire sourced statements. See the sources first before questioning the NPOV nature of the edits. I find that you've conveniently edited out only what I'm adding. I suspect that you may be supporting PETA and want to push only the positive aspects while deleting anything that you don't want to be seen. If you continue to edit trying to snuff out information in order to push your POVs, I would have to report this matter. If you really see that NPOV is the issue, then edit statements and DO NOT blank them. Idleguy 03:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if the edits are in such a state that they are creating work then that simply isn't viable. We shouldn't have to mop up large scale grammatical and POV edits because they have a small amount of good in them. Instead you should simply write in a npov manner. If you can't then you should post the information on here and let one of the other editors add it (as there are many editors who will add the info). WP:NPOV is not a negotiable policy, you can't simply say "I'll post it and you have to fix it".-Localzuk(talk) 16:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finances

message: Should the external link for the PETA 2 official website be added to the article page? Future...Destination 00:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I've gone to great length to document each one of my edits, and I've pointed out glaring errors in his recent additions. I'll leave it at that. Jean-Philippe 15:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read prior discussions. You have merely reverted back to an old version, only that instead of an wholesale revert, you have made small incremental changes amounting to a revert. You are misrepresenting information by removing sourced statements. Almost all the sources are reliable. pl. read wikipedia policies on WP:CITE before you edit. Also don't start personal attacks by pointing me out in talk pages and saying "glaring errors" when your edits attempt an error by omission of facts. Idleguy 15:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be silly, you haven't even read my changes (obviously), and now you've place a bogus warning on my talkpage. I'll talk to you again when the situation has cooled off. Jean-Philippe 15:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That warning was not a bogus. You have to comment on the content and not use my username as a talk page subheading like a punchbag to resolve issues You are continuing to abuse me calling me "silly". I have no time for those who don't even read the sources and only wish to retain "facts" that suit one's viewpoint in the face of contrary evidence. Idleguy 15:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, let's take a breather, we'll discuss this later with cooler heads. Jean-Philippe 15:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idleguy wholesale revert 

message: Notes # 19,65,67,70 point to empty notes without anything in them. Idleguy 12:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing citations 

message: I've heard alot about PETA's anti-wool campaigns, theres even an entire website devoted to the cause, but theres nothing to say on it in this article. I think its worthy of of getting a mention, any thoughts on it? Goldfishsoldier 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and add it. — Omegatron 15:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-wool Campaigns 

message: PETA also creates and airs numerous public service announcements and billboards urging people to help control the pet overpopulation through spaying/neutering
: But doesn't PETA campaign against neuter-release programs? — Omegatron 19:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PETA campaigns against neuter-release programs depending on location but they advocate the spaying and neutering of companion animals.  I believe when they talk about the curbing of pet population by spaying and neutering it's referring to this and not trap/neuter/release. Falsetto 01:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neuter/release 

message: I notice this article is constantly under fire from unregistered users. Perhaps we should semi-protect it from being edited by the unregistered?
:I have requested this twice in the past to be denied as the admins didn't think there was enough activity to warrant semi-protection... Maybe we should try again?-Localzuk(talk) 17:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article protection

message: Wikipedia says: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the largest animal rights organization in the world. [1] Founded in 1980 and based in Norfolk, Virginia, it is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) corporation, with 187 employees as of April 2006, [2] and funded almost exclusively by the contributions of its stated one million members.[1] Outside the United States, there are affiliated offices in Canada, France, UK, Germany, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, and Taiwan. [3] There is also the peta2 Street Team for high-school and college-age activists. [4] Ingrid Newkirk is PETA's international president.
PETA says: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than a million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world. Founded in 1980, PETA is dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals.
Wikpedia says: PETA's slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." [1] In support of that position, it focuses on four core issues: factory farming,[5] fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment. It also campaigns against fishing, the killing of animals regarded as pests, abuse of backyard dogs, and cock fighting. The organization aims to inform the public of its position through advertisements, undercover investigations, animal rescue, and government lobbying.
PETA says:  PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the abuse of backyard dogs. PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns.
This is bordering on copyvio, and considering we are meant to be integrating criticisms into the artcle (criticisms section removed) is surely a million miles from NPOV. It does not even state that they are "a controversial animal right group", which is surely indesputable, as well as the first thing anyone new to the subject would need to know. -81.79.242.103 02:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not copyvio as it is synthesis of material that is sourced to it. Second, yes it is not perfect. Please, if you can, add what you think is missing, ensuring it is sourced properly.-Localzuk(talk) 13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would point out that PETA doesn't copyright anything, so there is no legal issue with using what they say (however, wiki policy might differ on that).  It wouldn't hurt to change it up a little more to make it a little bit different from what PETA has done (but personally I think there are more areas in this article that need more work).  If you put in the word controversial, that would make the article sound very POV.  Do we put that the ACLU is a controversial civil rights organization, or that the NRA is a controversial gun organization?--Steele the Wolf 04:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should say that all these organisations are controversial.  Indeed, we do say that ACLU's views are controversial in its intro, and have a Controversy section in the NRA article, neither of which is the case here.  Here are a handful of sources for PETA being a controversial organisation (as opposed to merely holding controversial views, or orchestrating controversail campaigns):   .  I'm sure this is the tip of the iceberg of what could be found.  I agree that the intro is only one of countless problems with this article, but I feel that introductions are important, and certainly don't have the time to deal with the whole article, baring in mind the significant effort it seems takes to insert a single word on this particular page. -81.79.242.103 09:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree about adding 'controversial' as a primary adjective to the lead of an article. If we did, then we would have to add it to religions, for example, as there is lots of controversy for any major religion, and I doubt that followers of a religion X would consider this statement as NPOV: "X is a major controversial religion with Y million (or billion) followers". Let's reserve controversies to a separate section - any large organization with ambitious goals will have them, regardless of its place in the spectrum. Crum375 14:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one major world religion is substaintailly more controversial (globally) than another, so it is not part of what makes any of them notable.  PETA is more controversial than any other large pro-animal organisation.  If the introducation is to be useful to anybody new to the subject, it needs to make clear that PETA's approach is very different from that of, say, IFAW.  At present, it does not.  There is not even a controversies section for controversies to be reserved to.  Finally, just a quick request for fact checking: 1. We need to cite a completely independant source for PETA being the largest animal rights organisation.  2. We say PETA has a million members, but PETA only claims a million "members and supporters".  Supporters is a very ambiguous phrase, potentially including anyone who has ever dontated a couple of coins.  Rather than reuse PETAs phrase, does anyone know the actual size of PETAs membership? -81.79.242.103 14:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding religions, or organizations, your statement "no one major world religion is substaintailly more controversial (globally) than another" is simply your opinion. I am sure we can find other opinions, in all directions. The same would be true for organizations in general, large ones with ambitious goals tend to attract controversy, which comes with the territory. If there is a neutral respectable reliable published source that says PETA is significantly more controversial than other similar organizations, and there appears to be a consensus by all neutral observers about this point (i.e. no opposing views by other observers), then I can see it being mentioned (e.g. quoted) with the proper attribution. But short of that, I don't think it belongs in the lead, any more than "religion X is controversial" belongs in article X's lead. Crum375 15:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction is derivative work of PETA Mission Statement