Talk:People Eating Tasty Animals

message: who put the removal template on this page? someone from the real PETA? ...there is a censoring problem down there.
:Better question is "who put the above comment, useless as it may be?".  You didn't bother signing it.130.156.31.76 20:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not like an unregistered user is much better! Proxy User (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but not everyone is a UAR worshipper.  Live with it. 130.156.31.33 (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Of course. You wouldn't want the article kept strictly on its merits, would you? 130.156.31.76 20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Initial comments) 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/People_Eating_Tasty_Animals_%282nd_nomination%29  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostinlodos (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further discuss the deletion debate here please.  

message: I will be removing this ph - it is about paradies, not about the topic.
:Other parodies of the PETA acronym are the similar "People for the Eating of Tasty Animals", "People Euthanizing Thousands of Animals", and "Please Eat The Animals". There is also a website called "People Who Enjoy Eating Tasty Animals" at "pweeta.org", which is linked below. On Futurama there is an "anti-eating" organization called Mankind for Ethical Animal Treatment (MEAT).
He was forced to surrender the domain name - POV language - he lost a lawsuit, no forcing involved only obeying the law.
:the first significant case where parody was a meaningful potential defense, given the content of the site. - this either needs to be documented or dumped. I don't see that parody was the basis for the website losing its URL
This was parodied in the South Park episode Cartman Joins NAMBLA. - the cited Wiki page makes no mention of this, so how important could it have been, assuming it was really there?
:"Circus in domain trademark flap", CNET News.com, April 24, 1998.  — similar case where PETA registered the name ringlingbrothers.com, using the name of the Ringling Brothers circus. - this page isn't about similar cases, so why is this mentioned?
Please discuss if you have any problems with these changes, or if you can provide documentation for undocumented material.  Bob98133 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mention of other parodies may be appropriate to show that a certain organization has been the target of various forms of parody, and in the Ringling case, the organization has itself employed parody contemporaneous with this case. Technically speaking, "surrender of the domain name" occurred some years before the case went to court by unilateral action of the domain registrar, thus the current wording comes close to describing the actual circumstances. I have added a link to the law journal article with an in-depth discussion of parody as a legal defense and its relevance to this case. The erroneous South Park reference has already been removed. Mike Doughney 19:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Mike - I get your point about an organization being the target of parodies - that's what this web page is about. I don't know that listing other parodies of the same group adds much. I'm sure there are dozens of paradies on many organizations and companies but they don't require mention in Wiki articles. As for the Ringling reference - this article is about People Eating... not PETA or domain name disputes. As such, Ringling and PETA's domain name dispute are not relevant. Has this People Eating... group done anything? If the group has some accomplishments, membership, programs, etc. perhaps theose should be discussed. If the group has done nothing but a parody website, then the entire article can probably be dumped without great loss. Bob98133 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "group" associated with this website; full disclosure, if it wasn't already obvious, this is/was my website and I was the target of the lawsuit. For some reason you are the second editor recently to suggest deletion of the article as if its significance is somehow connected to an "Eating" group which doesn't exist. The primary significance of the site is as the subject of the legal case, which as I understand it is now a staple of Internet and intellectual property law education today, and has been frequently cited in other cases as can be instantly confirmed with this Google search. The case itself also generated a fair amount of press at the time, including in The New York Times, along with mention in at least one book. The Ringling case, as I recall, was mentioned in press coverage of this case because it was relevant at the time, that both parties to the dispute were using parody and that was newsworthy. This website and the case itself both satisfy Wikipedia notability guidelines. Now if you were to propose merging the articles on the site itself and the legal case, that may make some sense, particularly to place the emphasis on the legal matter as opposed to a (non-existent) activism perspective, but given some reasoning for that kind of major change beyond simply again raising the question of whether the non-group that wasn't behind the site has "done anything," the effort would probably not be worthwhile.  Mike Doughney 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: escaped deletion but not editing

message: Article states:
There is also a website called "People Who Enjoy Eating Tasty Animals" at "pweeta.org", which is linked below.
Link is missing. brob (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pweeta link missing

message: I removed the external link to the People Eating Tasty Animals website since it is already mentioned and linked in the article. Was this wrong? Why would it need an external link when there is an internal one?Bob98133 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about it, I agree. It makes sense, certainly for the web site of the subject of the article. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: EL for link included in article?

message: Glad to see the right decision was made (*bites into juicy, medium rare hamburger*) 68.185.167.117 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kept