Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 2

message: The article states in the opening that PETA is opposed to guide dogs for the blind.  However, searching the PETA website for the phrase "guide dog" only produced hits for a case in which a blind person abused a guide dog.  A search for "helper animal" turned up nothing.  Google produced similar results.  Unless someone can produce evidence (maybe cite a flyer or something), I think this phrase should be removed. Gwimpey 03:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One source would be Michael Spector's 2003 New Yorker article "The Extremist: The woman behind the most successful radical group in America": "She [Ingrid Newkirk] regards the use of Seeing Eye dogs as an abdication of human responsibility and, because they live as 'servants' and are denied the companionship of other dogs, she is wholly opposed to their use." - Nunh-huh 04:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section about PeTA being opposed to guide dogs and pets because it is not true.  Ingrid Newkirk is the president of PeTA not the organization as a whole.  She has her own views seperate of PeTA's own manifesto.  PeTA is against animal breeding, and "puppy mills" to be sold as pets but they heavily advocate the adoption of pets from local humane shelters.  There is also no official reference to guide dogs at all in any of PeTA's literature or websites, and has no official stance on it.  Whatever Ingrid Newkirk thinks is her own opinion and is autonomos of PeTA.  Also at the top of the page it says the page is in violation of the neutrality view of wikipedia, what then are we supposed to do to fix this.  I mean who is disputing it and which way are they disputing it? Baumstev 15:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Newkirk is the president of PeTA and thus is certainly speaking for them when she talks publically.  --Mr. Vernon 04:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not necessarily true.  Ingrid Newkirk has in the past said things in public that contradicts PETA's polices or lack there of.  Her individual opinion does not always reflect the organization.--Steele 07:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've disputed this because the article is over 2/3 criticism, with only cursory information on the organization or its beliefs. The campaigns section, for example, cherry-picks the most controversial or gimmicky campaigns while ignoring the great majority of the organization's active campaigns. The article is rife with factual errors and is in need of a major overhaul. The key point being that after reading this article one may not have the best idea of what PETA is, or does, but would understand that many people don't seem to like them very much. - Zerstuckelung 17:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the tag down yesterday because no one had posted here about it, and we're not supposed to do drive-by tagging. By all means put it back, but then you should post with some more details about things you feel need to be cleaned up to restore it to NPOV. I agree with you that there's too much criticism; or rather, it's not even so much the criticism as the tone. There's a kind of sneering quality throughout in the way it's written. People reading this page should not be able to tell whether the editors who wrote it were pro- or anti-PETA, and the problem with it as it stands, is that they could, quite easily. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PETA opposed to guide dogs? 

message: This article is thick with external links in the body of the text. This is not good wikistyle. I'd like to start changing the relevant ones to footnotes, and removing others. Any objections? Babajobu 09:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're there as references, and online references are best kept as links so the reader doesn't have to go to the bottom of the page. Most of the points linked to are ones that have been challenged, and a lot of this page has been challenged, which is why it's well-referenced. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think this is not good wikistyle? It's what we're meant to do. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought I'd read in the MOS that inline external links should be avoided, when possible. I'll have a look for it. Babajobu 16:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let me know if you find it, because it shouldn't say that. You may be thinking of how we're not supposed to link to external sources as though they're internal ones, like this PETA. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article follows all of the rules as far as I can see, but a lot of those unnamed links are unecessary, especially in the first paragraph. I think they could be cut down quite a bit. Archer7 14:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was just wrong about the inline external links. I was sure I'd read it somewhere, but I must have been having some weird wikinightmare in which I'm bedevilled by bizarre policies I can't figure out. Babajobu 16:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links in body of text

message: As far as the external links section at the bottom of the article goes — is it really necessary to have that many?  Seems like we don't need every site PETA's ever put up, and we don't need tons of anti-PETA sites.  A representative sample would surely do. —Cleared as filed. 03:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem a lot, but they're arguably quite useful. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: There's a lot of original research in this article. For example, the Jesus passage:
:Several PETA commercials have used Christian themes to promote vegetarianism, including one claiming that Jesus was a vegetarian, and another featuring a pig with the caption "He Died for Your Sins."  Some Christian leaders, such as the Reverend Andrew Linzey, support some of these ideas, but the majority of theologians cite passages in the Christian Bible that seem to support the view that Jesus ate fish and lamb.   
We argue against Jesus being a veggie. But we're not supposed to do that — that's not what NPOV means. We're supposed to include arguments only if other published sources have argued against PETA's use of Jesus, and then we quote them, not the BBC talking about a new diet. Using the latter is creating a new analysis or synthesis of established facts to advance an argument, something the NOR policy explicitly disallows. The inclusion of these kinds of arguments is making the piece look amateurish and badly written. We need to stick closely to what credible sources say about PETA, and what PETA say about themselves: not what the BBC says about a diet that we can press into service in advance of our own anti-PETA POV. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, that's much, much better, thank you and well done. Babajobu 07:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Baba. ;-) I also meant to say that we need a source for the pig caption claim. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: In the article's second paragraph, I found this:
"PETA focuses on four core issues: factory farming, vivisection, animal testing, fur farming, and animals in entertainment." 
Uh...that's five. 
PETA focuses on four core issues: factory farming (1!), vivisection (2!), animal testing (3!), fur farming (4!), and animals in entertainment (5!).
See?     67.165.87.40 23:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I'm glad someone can count. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since vivisection and animal testing are words for the same thing there are actually four issues. The sentence should read... , vivisection and animal testing, fur farming... Mostlyharmless 03:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked the sentence to reflect that. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Four''' Core Issues?

message: I reverted a large amount of material  added by a new account in part because it was repetitive (I believe everything mentioned is already in the article in one form or another) and in part because CCF was the source. And the POV language. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaining my revert

message: There are far too many external links on this article.  Someoen (maybe me, but I am not especially well informed on this) needs to take a scythe to them. Half of them seem to be serving as offsite POV forks, a load of them are "me-too" blogs.  Let's limit it to two or three critical sites wiht some serious credibility, one link to the PETA site and maybe a couple of partner / supporting organsiations. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Spiny, link to or otherwise cite your source after the sentence, or it will be deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the link is already in the article, but since you seem to be insisting, I'll copy and paste it. --SpinyNorman 06:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Several facts in this article are so outlandish it's difficult to tell if they're true or a spoof.  Did PETA really ask the cities of Hamburg, Frankfurt & Fishkill to change their names?
Yep - they did http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/22/national/main550557.shtml I believe that it is just for the inexpensive publicity (they make the offer and get on many news programs), not because PETA believes that the name Hamburg makes people eat hamburgers.
also is the 'your mommy kills animals' real or fake? i put it in once but it was deleted as vandalism. i keep saying its real but no one will believe me
Ilikefood 23:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Truth or Vandalism? 

message: To the latest anon: these issues are already dealt with. Please read the article before editing it. If you have something new to add, please use credible sources, cite them, and stick closely to what they say. Also, please watch the spelling. Finally, we don't call people "terrorists and extremists" in headers without qualification. Edits not in accordance with our policies will be reverted. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting of latest anon

message: Other than the 'controversy' section, this seems to be some PeTA loving crap. Even the 'controversy' section is a bit soft, I need an NPOV tag on here.
:I casually cleaned up some of the advocacy. PETA is only the largest animal rights organization in the world if one accepts their notion that only they and more radical groups really advocate animal rights. The Humane Society outsizes PETA 7:1 in membership, and only PETA and other radical groups claim Humane Society doesn't advocate for the rights of animals. 
: The claim that "nobody" has ever disrobed during a PETA protest is patently false, and if it weren't provably false, it could not be verified as true -- unless an independent and published researcher has attended all PETA protests or interviewed people who viewed those protests. To the contrary, the Go-Gos were fully nude and behind a banner in the 1990 kickoff of I'd Rather be Naked. At least one women in a series of images of nude zoo protests appears fully naked, Ronald Reagan's daughter Patti appeared nude in a PETA ad, and unless the specious claim is modified to "Nobody has ever presented full frontal nudity, this PETA ad features obvious, irrefutable complete nudity. SaintBernard 07:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuetrality 

message: This "controversy" page is pretty boring, so I'll add my opinion and probably get stabbed for it. Before I discuss previously mentioned topics, I'll describe who I am. I'm a 14 year old Hunter, Trapper, Fisherman, Hide Tanner, and all around Woodsmen. I find peta and it's terrorist associates (alf,elf,etc.) to be very dangerous, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna back down. 
TED NUGENT - Uncle Ted, the Nuge, whatever you call 'im, Ted is my blood brother. We need people like him. My life is seriously threatened because we live within 5 miles of one of peta's gestapo leader's homes. Uncle Ted has inspired me to take a stand and not back down. I'm not spineless about Hunting, Trapping, etc., because we've been walked on too long. If peta wants me, we have 14 guns, so come and kill us like you kill innocent people who work in restaurants, banks, labratories, fur farms, etc. I wouldn't kill them, like they'd do to me, because I respect all life and abide by the 10 comandments, but I'd do what it takes for defense. Me and my good Hunting buddy Dan Tucket. For those of you who don't know him, He's an unofficial Iron sights shooting champion. Which means he can put a hole in your war wagon's tire at 600 yards. Uncle Ted sees life like we do, and knows how "retarded", "sick", and "demented" these peta freaks are. They are so blinded with hate for something they don't understand. Listen to Ted's song Bow and Arrow, Search for "bow and arrow" in dogpile audio search and click on #9.
TIMOTHY TREADWELL - Remember this green peace freak, the one who loved bears so much that they ate him? He tried to live with them and they ate him. Probably because he was arrogant, abnoxious, immoral, and talked in an extremely annoying voice. Some bear experts say he wasn't eaten earlier because the bears probably thought he was retarded, which I'm sure he was. I honestly think he got what he deserved. Watch 'Grizzly Man' on the discovery channel, end paragraph.
WHY I HATE TERRORISM - Ingrid Newkirk (cough...hitler...cough)can spew her soul-less crap all she wants. peta's lifestyle and beliefs put animals and people equal, which is a blatant rebellion against God's word, "And let them (Man) rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." - Genisis 1:26. Why would all the animal rights activists go against their own Creator and Lord? Because they have formed their own cult religion from their organizations. Remember the hippies of the 60s and 70s? (i don't but you might) All these current yuppies have built upon that and established a godless religion in which they worship nature and the earth, directly or not. Any religion straying from the sound doctrine of God's Word is one bound for Hell. This new religion produces mind-less terrorists who see the killing of people like me as a holy war in a sense, and from the absolute spiritual un-fulfillment that comes with their religion, comes a worthless life. That Ingrid woman said it herself that she would rather not be living. She's obviously pyscho anyway, but that proves that spiritual depression is rather obvious as well. Want some proof of how crazy she is?: Meat eating infidel Humans like me "are the moral equivalent of cannibals, slave-owners, and death-camp guards", and “Humans have grown like a cancer. We’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” If that won't put you into a depressed funk, what will? In that second statement she took out all purpose in human life. Apparently we're worthless. Me and my buddy Mr. Tucket have seen through all this crap, and we live a fulfilled life in the Wild, living self-sufficiently. You all probably think we're crazy, and that's good. Insanity keeps terrorists away from us. Mr. Tucket's Dad got shot in the shoulder by these eco-terrorists because he owned a very succesful fur farm. These people will happily use firebombs, grand theft, stalking of scientists, and bloody physical assaults to get their point across. They fund two groups (alf and elf) that have comitted over 600 crimes in 10 years. The FBI calls them the “most serious domestic terrorism threat.” They have amassed a large group of celebrities and influential leaders who follow them. If you support peta, the humane society, or any other anti-hunting, free the animals groups, you could be supporting the guy who wants to slide a blade between my ribs. Guess what all this sounds like? Fascism. Think how we think or we'll kill you. They even brainwash 2 year olds by handing out offensive and violent propaganda. Want more proof of their insane bloodlust? I leave you with these quotes:
"In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It's a war, and there's no other way you can stop vivisectors." -- Tim Daley, British Animal Liberation Front Leader (BBC interview, 1987). 
"Fire is a tool. Nothing does the amount of damage that fire can. Arson works. Make sure that all buildings or vehicles are free of creatures before lighting one single match. Arson should only be used when it can be guaranteed that the fire will not spread to the sheds the animals are in." -- (In the ALF publication "The Final Nail", under section entitled "Smashing the Furriers"). 
"It would be really great if all these fast-food outlets, slaughter houses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow" -- Peta Spokesperson Bruce Friedrich. 
"If the feed barn, and processing barns are away from the animals, and downwind, then they could be burned down. Otherwise mink releases are the only way to go." -- J.P. Goodwin while executive director of the Coalition Against the Fur Trade (As quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group). 
"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." -- Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA. 
"I would be overjoyed when the first scientist is killed by a liberation activist." -- Vivien Smith of ALF (USA Today, September 3, 1991).
:Odd that this group considers humans the only animal that doesn't have a right to sustain itself by relying on other animals. MicroBrewer 08:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ted Nugent, Tim Treadwell, and a really long paragraph about peta 

message: I browsed past here to see if there was a category appropriate for famous supporters of PETA. I didn't find one, but I would suggest that those who maintain the PETA pages consider moving the list of famous supporters from this article to such a category, whcih would also make this article more concise. -- Jon Dowland 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of categories 

message: I deleted the entry about South Park because it has no place in this article.  South Park is a cartoon on comedy central, and it is clearly satirical.  To use South Park as a legitame source of information even if it is just opinion is ludicrous.  Saddam Houssein, Jesus, Haman, Satan, Santa Claus and many other historical people have been featured on there show and it makes no more sense to include South Parks view about Jesus on that page than it does here.  Any one disagree? Baumstev 16:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park 

message: I removed this section, consisting of "Ingrid Newkirk's morally equating humans and other mammals raises disturbing questions for some.", because it used weasel words and did not contribute any new information to the page as a whole. Chris Berry 17:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faux moral equivalence section 

message: Questioning the scientific validity of animal research is a tactic PETA is increasingly using and so I think it warrents a mention - but as the page is so long I'm keeping it brief!  I'm adding in literally one sentence in the intro of the 'Criticism of PETA' section, fully referenced of course :) after the following (my insert in italics)
:Adrian R. Morrison DVM PhD, has accused PETA of using edited and out-of-context video footage to allege cruelty to animals. In particular, he cites an example of videos purporting to show cats being embalmed alive by the Carolina Biological Supply Company being given to the USDA as evidence of animal cruelty. Subsequent testimony demonstrated that the cats had not been alive and that the video was being used an in an attempt to convey false information [31]. PeTA, along with other animal rights/antivivisectionist groups such as Europeans for Medical Progress , misrepresent the scientific validity of animal research according to the UK Advertising Standards Authority.
MedicalScientist 11:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (minor) insert

message: I took a look at one of the external links on this page and was led to ExposePETA.com. On the site, you can find an essay about PETA at this link (http://www.exposepeta.com/content/view/24/33/). It seems to bear a very striking resemblence to the article found here. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.118.55 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 April 2006
:You are right! There is much similarity with the ExposePETA article. In fact Lettuce Ladies and other sections are verbatim copies. -- 127.*.*.1 16:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through the history of this page (took a while - long, long history) I think the Expose PETA article plagiarized Wikipedia! I wonder what we can do about that? Would it not be plagiarism to copy an article without citing Wikipedia given the open liscencing system? -- 127.*.*.1 16:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism? 

message: I strongly suggest removing this section in its entirety, because the choice of campaigns listed is extremely unrepresentative. It does not mention their major campaigns against KFC, Ringling Bros., Covance, and so on, while listing non-active campaigns like the Holocaust one that PETA's enemies like to cite. The choice of campaigns is highly skewed towards those that the CCF likes to list. Until a lot more info is added which would make it more balanced, it should be removed. Pasio 16:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaigns 

message: Could editors please not use "< ! - -" and "- - >" (without the spaces) to leave messages in the article?  Use them sparingly to hide text that is already there, but please use the talk page for leaving messages to other editors.  It is much easier to actually discuss edits in the talk page.  Thanks, Jesuschex 03:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using "< ! - -" and "- - >" 

message: this is a major controversial topic. there should either be more criticism here or add another article, "criticism of peta".
Ilikefood 23:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Enough Criticism 

message: A fellow viewer of Wikipedia recently pointed out that the "Sites Critical of PETA" section is empty, and I've also noticed that the "Criticisms of Peta" section is rather dull and seems to be missing something. Why has most of the important information been deleted? The decision seems to skew the article. In fact, I think this article was purposely made biased. --Boxtop 04:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I last looked it was all there, but you had to click on something to see it. Take a look. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks like the content is still there, HOWEVER, it was commented out in this edit - .  If you click edit, you will see it, but it doesn't show up to someone just looking at the page. BigDT 18:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information? 

message: I think it's important to have represented critiques from all political spectrums.  Someone deleted the ecofem criticism of PETA a while ago, but it's prevalent among many radical feminist groups I have worked with.  Iammaggieryan 21:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critiques of PETA 

message: This is so frustrating. Why is information from the official PETA website, or PETA-friendly websites acceptable to use in this article, exactly? In my opinion, a large portion of this article is tainted. --Insertrandomname 03:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right.  If anything, most of the article is an advertisement for PETA, copied (with some words changed) straight from it's website.  The criticisms section is so small that it practically doesn't count. Jesuschex 22:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Organizations are allowed to be used as sources on themselves in articles about them. See WP:V and WP:RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: An ad?  I'd say the article puts them in a fairly bad light. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 13:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PETA is not a third-party source for this article!!! 

message: I've started my investigation on the claims made in the "Criticisms Gteting Deleted" section above. I have so far only been able to properly audit the Euthanasia criticism. it would be a lot better if people listed all of the criticisms instead of making me go through the history list. I have a life outside of Wikipedia too you know. ;( 
Anyways, diffs of its removal can be found here and here and possibly many other places as well. 
I found the following sources:
* http://www.animalliberationfront.com/News/2005_8/PETAeuthanizing.htm
* http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2004
** Note, the numbers on this page do not indicate a mortality rate of 86.3%. However, the numbers are still large.
* http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=153&year=2004
** This is data for Norfolk SPCA used in the comparison.
** Note that the percentage euthanized is less than 1/5th than what PETA has.
My conclusion is that the passage is not entirely incorrect and should be rewritten and added back into the criticisms section. -- 127.*.*.1 19:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euthanasia 

message: There were two sections on this which included much of the same information, including identical quotation of the ADL. Originally there was one under "Campaigns" and one under "Contraversy", and I combined then under the latter, because this is no longer a PETA campaign, and because the content is entirely about criticisms of the campaign and responses to the criticisms rather than a description of the exhibit itself. Seems to make more sense that way.Pasio 22:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust Campaign 

message: Hello. I'm trying to populate the aformentioned category. I was going to add the cat to the PETA article, but i'm not sure if they have ever been accused of terrorism (in a notable fashion). I know they have been accused of funding terrorists, but i'm not sure of that really counts. Anyone have any reliable sources either way? Thanks. Rockpocket 06:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Organizations accused of Terrorism 

message: Someone added to the Jesus campaign some statements arguing against it. This is not appropriate under NPOV. If you want to argue one way, you have to argue the other way as well, and PETA has responses to claims that Jesus ate fish. However, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place to debate every single claim every organization makes, so it's best to just leave this out. You can provide links for people who want more info, but do so both to pro- and anti- sites.Pasio 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus

message: http://www.peta.org/feat/petatomato/
Throwing any object at another person is considered assault or battery, depending on the language of the laws in the nation/state in which you live.
Might I add to the article that peta openly advocates assault being that this is a specific campaign within their website? It shouldn't be considered NPOV if it's a fact.
--Ollie Garkey 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Advocates of Assault/Battery? 

message: Sorry, I haven't been watching recently, and it's hard to go through all the history.  Who deleted the npov template, and why?
And come to think of it, who removed the PETA disambig link at the top, and why? Jesuschex 23:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like they were removed in this edit .  I'm assuming removing the disambiguation link was accidental.  I have restored it.  I have no idea whether removing NPOV was accidental or not ... but honestly ... is it serving any purpose?  BigDT 06:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV - Who removed it? 

message: the article says "PETA defended the comparison, saying that "the logic and methods employed in factory farms and slaughterhouses are analogous to those used in concentration camps," thereby attempting to justify their implicit claim that animal abuse is the moral equivalent of human genocide."
now, as you see, PETA says, the treatment of animals in factory farms is ANALOGOUS to the treatment of Jews during the holocaust; but then immediately afterward, this is characterized as "animal abuse is the moral equivalent of human genocide" - since when were analogous things equivalent??? i think that is a misrepresentation, & i doubt many people from PETA would agree with it. it should be kept close to PETA's intent: "analogous", not "equivalent". big difference, esp. in this situation.  lakitu 19:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a good point on principle, but it appears from other sources that PETA did use the term moral equivalent during their remarkably offensive "Holocaust on Your Plate" Campaign - "The leather sofa and handbag are the moral equivalent of the lampshades made from the skins of people killed in the death camps."   Rockpocket 20:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A publicity stunt  Rockpocket 04:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a small misrepresentation ("analogous" versus "equivalent") 

message: Is PETA really in favor of changing the names of cities like Hamburg, Fishkill, NY, etc.? I just checked their main Web site and I couldn't find any evidence of that. The paragraph on the subject in their page here just seems so over the top, I wonder if someone sneaked it in as a spoof. 
Chris 04:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A publicity stunt  Rockpocket 04:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change the names of cities ???