Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 7

message: PETA have just criticised Steve Irwin -  - as a result may need to watch the article for vandalism from disaffected Irwin fans--Golden Wattle  talk 11:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Irwin 

message: I know you all don't like to have the word "terrorist" in your article, but the following is an indisputable fact:
* PETA has donated money to individuals who are associated with groups that the FBI considers domestic terrorists.
It is even less disputable that:
* PETA is criticized for supporting terrorist groups.
Stating this in the article is perfectly in line with WP:NPOV.  Replacing "terrorist" with "direct action" to prevent PETA from "sounding bad" or trying to remove "guilt by association" is not neutral.  They aren't being criticized for supporting "direct action groups".  They're being criticized for supporting "terrorist groups". — Omegatron 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can insert the fact that PETA supports X group which has been declared "terrorist" by Y governmental agency. You just can't call a group "terrorist" directly. Also, please take note that "guilt by association" is a logical fallacy which is discouraged in Wikipedia (as all logical fallacies are); accusations of guilt by association violate NPOV; their removal doesn't.--Ramdrake 21:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If logical falsacy is a bad idea on WIKI then the Timeline section needs to go.  It is full of post hoc ergo propter hoc.  Just because a govt. agency or a private corporation does something that PETA wants, does not mean that PETA is the reason for doing the thing.  Unless Department of Defence says they closed a lab because of PETA protests then we can not give PETA credit for it in a time line that is just C&P from peta.org.uk. L0b0t 01:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist 

message: Cites do not support claim the ALF has been deemed "terrorist" by the US code. Please cite a source for this claim. JBKramer 03:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone even looking into this? JBKramer 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited it to try to reflect what was actually said. The only assumption I made was that the testimony of the Section Chief reflects the FBI's actual position (I don't see any reason to reasonably doubt that).--Ramdrake 22:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see support for that statement either. Could you find a quote about them deeming something something else? Thanks. JBKramer 00:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal Code 

message: One user is vigourously revert warring his POV laden edits back in the article using a number of accounts he created for this one and only purpose.
* External link to petakillsanimal, a website of the center for consumer freedom which we are already linking, as explained times and times again
* Dan Matthews quotes from an interview in which he criticize late Steve Irwin. He's obviously not speaking in his official capacity as spokesman for PETA and as such it's irrelevant in the context of this article. Jean-Philippe 10:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppeter at work 

message: Then atleast keep his quite that he said on his own behalf on his wiki then.
:Absolutely not. The edit is clearly agenda driven to make the subject look bad: launched a verbal attack against the beloved star who had risen to fame as TV’s Crocodile Hunter. Puh-lease. Jean-Philippe 10:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE:  

message: We have gotten back into a cycle of constant revert warring over the addition of external links.
Can all editors who are involved in this take a look at our policies on external links? Also, in this case we do not need sites by the CCF for one reason - their organisation is wikilinked within this page and information about their views can be found there.
All editors should also remember that we have rules about revert warring and breaking them will lead to blockings.
So before re-adding links or removing them, can everyone start discussing it on the talk page?-Localzuk (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The disputed link is the one to a CCF website. As you just noted and I did earlier many, many times their organization is already wikilinked. Redundant links to PETA are probably not disputed. Jean-Philippe 17:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links, again!!! 

message: Shouldn't the timeline go in the History section?  A lot has been discussed about weaving in content, and it seems this list should be rewritten in a prose format. If no one object or offers to do it themselves, I will make the attempt. Bytebear 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: I would seriously question this article getting its sources from the PETA website. Considering the controversy surrounding the organisation, I believe the sources should be external and independent. There is a possiblity that Peta members could be altering the article to hide the criticism they receive. This article does not handle their questionable activities in a balanced manner or very comprehensively. It requires review. 83.71.102.18 22:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a new issue. Your points are very vague and sweeping. They also impugn many of the editors here, in violation of WP:AGF. If you have a specific item that you think is not WP:NPOV, then please state it, make a case, and we'll address it here. But you cannot just come in and declare the entire article as not WP:NPOV compliant unless and until we get to addressing it and you still feel it is not properly worded. Thanks, Crum375 23:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And just to clarify, WP:RS rules do allow an article to  rely on sources in the subject's web site - it depends on the specific situation. So you would need to be more specific to show a violation. Crum375 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable sources & Neutrality 

message: Lobot, the Bible is a primary source; the editor was doing original research by using a primary source to make an interpretive claim that advanced a position. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning.  I understand how you reached your conclusion. L0b0t 15:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary sources