Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Peer review People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archives

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Contents



[edit] Peta and euthanization

There was a previous edit that said PETA euthanized most of the animals they take in, which was reverted b/c the PETA source did not say this. I have provided another source that it, in fact, does. See also Penn And Teller: Bullshit! episode about PETA.74.108.47.35 21:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't find a source that shows that PETA euthanizes most animals they take in. Can you provide it here for us? Crum375 18:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
My source was in the article, from www.petakillsanimals.com. Also, as I said, the Bullshit! show provided more figures (although I'm not sure where they obtained them from) 74.108.47.35 21:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Try here. PETA kills most animals it takes in that aren't reclaimed by their owner.--Ramdrake 19:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, a site called 'PETA sucks' wouldn't meet my criteria for reliable source about PETA, as I would not consider it neutral. In any case, you would have to find a reliable source that showed over the last 5 years for example, how many total animals they received and how many they euthanized. Only then can you make that statement. Crum375 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Please go look at the pdf file itself. It's a scan of several reports from the Virginia Department of Agriculture, filed by PETA, that demonstrates exactly what you claim you can't find. Unless you want to argue these are a forgery, in which case the electronic equivalent of these forms is also available on the site of the VDACS site, and on several other sites that are critical of PETA, such as [1], which can be found in the references of this very article. So, exactly what more do you need to see that PETA kills most animals surrendered to them by their owners?--Ramdrake 19:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
My undertstanding is that we cannot accept sources from sites that are non-neutral. In this case your references are 'peta sucks' or 'peta kills animals'. If you had a site that is neutral, I would have no problem accepting any of this. As I said, it would also have to show total numbers, of all animals. I am not sure if even these improper/unacceptable sources show the actual totals over (say) the last 5 years. What I would like to see, if at all possible, is PETA's own statement on this issue (their site gives no numbers to arrive at 'most'). If it's not clear, I have no agenda here, I just want a proper source to support that statement. Crum375 19:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not talking about the site they're on, I'm talking about the act that these are scans of the official VDACS forms PETA filled out. It doesn't get more neutral or more reliable than that, except maybe in a court of law, where we certainly aren't. Please trouble yourself to at least read those reports. And BTW, if you must consider every site that is critical of PETA as a non-reliable source because it isn't neutral, well then neither is PETA itself in this controversy. Your objections would be valid if they justr reported the numbers. However, both sites report copies of the very VDACS animal shelter reports that PETA filed over the last 5 years or so (just like you asked). Consider the reports (scan and electronic form both) compare their numbers to judge their validity and then judge them on the value of the information they carry, not on a neutrality judgment about whichever site carries them.--Ramdrake 19:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll stop going at this the hard way. Here is a link directly to the VDACS for at least 2004 and 2005. I trust you will find this source neutral enough. My apologies if my previous replies may have betrayed my emotions about this matter. I hope I didn't offend you, and if I did, I apologize.--Ramdrake 19:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) Ramdrake, not to worry, I myself feel awful that I have to be a stickler for the rules. And thanks for the better sources (I would not formally accept anything from attack sites - PDF copies or not). Now in these documents I see numbers filed in Virginia, USA. Are these also the US or worldwide totals? (please forgive my ignorance if this is somehow obvious) Crum375 20:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware that there are any records regarding euthanasia rates for PETA outside of their home state of Virginia. I am assuming these numbers relate to their headquarters activities in Norfolk, Virginia. That is to my understanding the only shelter they run. The numbers would be indicative of a shelter about the size of a typical local SPCA shelter (for comparison:[2]). I don't have any additional info, sorry.--Ramdrake 21:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
These references have been in the article for months.
Also, common sense and official policies trump guidelines, especially messy disputed ones like WP:RS. The major quality a reference needs is that it can be verified, and these numbers can easily be verified by writing to the parties identified in the PDF, just like a scientific paper could be verified by going to a university library and getting a copy, etc.
Potentially biased sources should be treated with caution and clearly marked, but if they show verifiable neutral information, they're fine. "neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." - WP:RS — Omegatron 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, giving the reference straight from the VDACS should close this debate for good. :) --Ramdrake 21:39, 18 October 2006

(UTC)

I am sorry in case I missed something, but do we know from a reliable source what the world wide stats are for PETA regarding ratios of animals euthanized vs. given to them? I know we have the VA numbers, but do we know what the big picture is? Crum375 02:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we don't know that they run any other shelter than the one in Virginia, or that they accept animals anywhere else in the world.--Ramdrake 02:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
In that case, shouldn't we limit the statement to clarify that this statistic is from the state of VA only, and we really have no idea what the world wide numbers are? After all, we say above that PETA has "world wide affiliations". Crum375 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that would be the best thing to do, based on the fact that we can be pretty sure that PETA doesn't really take in animals anywhere else in the world (they used to say they don't run ANY shelters but those reports contradict this, although they make a point of saying caring for animals in shelters is NOT their priority). So, until we have information to the contrary, we can assume these ARE PETA's worldwide numbers.--Ramdrake 16:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thats not how things work here though - we prove things with facts and sources, we don't include things until disproven.-Localzuk(talk) 17:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Localzuk; what you say is logical and I personally would buy your logic, and of course I have no reason not to trust your knowledge on a personal level. OTOH, my understanding of WP rules is that any fact we include must be properly sourced, per WP:V. What you say above would not meet that requirement, IMO. All I think is needed is to just add a limitation, such as: "in the state of VA, PETA has taken in X animals and euthanized Y over the last 2 years", or anything else that would meet WP's sourcing requirements. Crum375 17:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it not be more acceptable to go with what information we have?ABigBlackMan 17:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely correct. And the only information we have at the moment, reliably sourced per WP's WP:V requirements are those numbers from the state of Virginia. Crum375 17:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Which are reported as being for "PETA", not "the Virginia chapter of PETA", so unless there is evidence to the contrary, we can't say these numbers are limited to the State of Virginia, this would be OR and/or speculative as the available data suggests otherwise.--Ramdrake 17:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Please remember that PETA, unlike say the SPCA, is NOT in the business of animal shelters. There is no reason to suppose they have even one other shelter anywhere else in the world, unless you have information that says otherwise.--Ramdrake 17:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) We say that PETA has offices in 10 countries, that Newkirk is the "International President" - this is clearly an international organization. The VDACS report clearly documents in-state activity only, as it mentions "out of state" transfers etc. and in general we have no information, or at least I haven't seen any, that would tell us that:

  1. VDACS report applies to out of state activities
  2. PETA being international, it has no animal shelter activities outside VA

Therefore, we can only report on what we currently know, and that is: PETA is international, and its VA animal intake and euthnasia numbers are such and such for a given year. Anything else would require conjecture or speculation by editors, both unacceptable in WP. Crum375 17:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look and read here. From the automated response this site received fropm PETA, it is very clear they run no other shelter than the one in Virginia. PETA stated over and again, they are NOT in the business of animal shelters, AFAIK they probably didn't even have a single shelter until a few years ago. (I remember them making a statement they "didn't run any shelter" (singular) back in 2000-2001). So please, bring me evidence they run ate least ONE other shelter and I'll accept it. Otherwise, from their own words, we must assume that's the only one they run.--Ramdrake 20:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Ramdrake, the link you gave me to read in your message above is an online forum. It has a link to an animal rights organization apparently at odds with PETA, that criticizes PETA for its euthanasia policies but provides no additional evidence that I can see, that would address the issues I raised above, about PETA's animal shelters activities outside VA and/or any hard numbers about its animal intake vs. euthanasia rates. What you tell me "you remember" I really and truly believe you - I have no reason not to. But at WP we need hard reliable sources - we can't just say in a footnote: "Per Ramdrake's recollection" - it just won't fly. And again, being an international organization, for logic and clarity we need information about their total worldwide activities, or else restrict the statement to a specific area. So please, if you have hard info, just quote the words here and provide the links to a reliable source - preferably not an anti-PETA site. Ideally a good source should be a neutral newspaper, government agency (VDACS was good, though 'primary'), etc. Crum375 20:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
These references have all been in the article for months, in the section about its policy on euthanasia. In any case, I used a wording in the article that makes the point moot. It states the source and the years for the reports. Primary source was VDACS (which is now cited in the article), secondary source was the "PETA sucks" and the "PETA kills animals" website. As the numbers check with one another, there is no reason except POV to reject those sources.l As per WP:RS:"neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source."
A source from a web site dedicated to criticizing the subject of an article is not neutral. The issue is not politics or religion - it's neutrality. The more neutral a site or publication is about the subject matter, the higher the quality of the reference. Crum375 21:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, as long as the information is verifiable. — Omegatron 21:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This is silly, you can't elaborate on what you think those statistics mean when clearly numbers alone don't paint an accurate picture of the situation. Those sites you named are hopelessly biased against PETA, their agenda will obviously drive them to use those numbers however they like. Jean-Philippe 21:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that the VDACS site looks reliable - and although primary in nature, we are not precluded from using it when the numbers are clear and overall conform to PETA's philosophy. The peta-sucks sites etc. are useful only to point us to other reliable sites, if any, IMO. Crum375 21:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. Nobody is disputing the factuallity (spelling?) of the numbers, but Mandrake is trying to use them to draw conclusions, which is to my knowledge considered OR without the use of a credible, secondary source. Jean-Philippe 21:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Focusing on the article, you inserted PETA's policy about euthanizing animals that cannot be adopted and are not reclaimed by their owners and are likely to spend their lives in a cage. The VDACS reports back up that policy. I don't see where anyone is drawing any conclusion or using any WP:OR. If the statement can be crafted better, go ahead and change it. Crum375 21:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Huh, no, that would be a pointless waste of time as it's all already covered up in the euthanizia section. Except of course that when I rewrote it some time ago, I didn't left out any information out to weasel by point of view into the article. Not to mention the fact that Mandrake is well aware that the euthanizia section exist and paint the real picture. He took bits and left out some others bits just so he could say his own "PETA kills animals" blurb, that's my 2cent. Jean-Philippe 22:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you that if we already say that PETA euthanizes the 'rejects', then adding the VDACS data in the lead, which only confirms it, is a little overkill (pun unintended). If necessary, it could be done in a separate section. Any disagreements? Crum375 22:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
As pointed out, the numbers are already in. What do you suggest, exactly? Mmm... maybe I wasn't clear, when I meant the section I rewrote, I was speaking of the third paragraph of the euthanasia section. Jean-Philippe 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem I see with this is that PETA says it euthanizes only rejects. The dumpster incident tends to prove this is not the case. The VDACS data in the lead proves unequivocally that they euthanize the MAJORITY of the animals given to them. The animals reclaimed by owners are specifically animals they take in to spay or neuter and then give back to their owners. These animals were never really given to them, so they don't count. Also, they euthanize the majority of ALL animals given to them as per the VDACS report, as the columns "animals adopted" is smaller than "animals euthanized". For all these reasons, the reports say they euthanize MOST animals GIVEN to them, no matter how adoptable or not. While I can't contest the statement from PETA that they only take in rejects, since some doubt is cast on it by the available info, the majority euthanasia bit should I think stay.--Ramdrake 22:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It's just that the intro started by stating that PETA euthanized most anmals given to them. That was changed on the basis that one editor was unable to find references that proved the poitn about a majority. I supplied the references, and then it was debated whether this represented a worlwide number for PETA or not. Then, that criticism got blanked out of the intro, and a blurb about them taking in only "rejects" was inserted in its place. I then added back the majority bit, wording it so that whether this represented worldwide numbers or not became irrelevant. But I think this may be one of PETA's chief criticisms, and as such, I think it should remain in the intro where it used to be (which says nothing about the section on euthanasia).--Ramdrake 22:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jean-Philippe that this issue should be addressed in detail in its own section, not in the lead. The lead should be a brief summary of the article. In the lead it should only say (about this subject) that PETA promotes euthanasia as a last resort for rejected animals, after adoption and reclamation by owners. In the section we can go into details and numbers. In any case it's better to hash out these issues here then get into unsightly edit wars. Crum375 22:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yay, but then again it's fairly obvious to me, and should be to anyone else reading Ramdrake's comment here that he's admitting to inserting his sentence about "PETA killing a majority of animal in it's care" as a way to express his and others negative point of view about PETA, and he's using it by selectively leaving out crucial pieces of informations. Jean-Philippe 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This edit summary is a perfect example of why Wikipedia editors shouldn't be allowed to draw and express their own conclusions about primary sources: This is WAAAY too much detail for the intro. Besides, the animals "reclaimed by owner" were never given to them: they were brought to PETA fro spaying and neutering (that's what column C is for
The report mention nothing of the sort, no spaying, no neuteuring, not the conditions of the animals and how many of them are sickly. It's non-descript, without a credible second party source anyone can make any claim they want about what the numbers mean.Jean-Philippe 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) In any case, only the WP:NPOV version will survive in the long run. At this point I prefer the short version without the VA stats in the lead, but if it is there it should be correctly phrased. Crum375 22:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this really doesn't belong in the intro, but it is definitly important information about PETA. give it it's own section.ABigBlackMan 22:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, earlier, the complete (and by consequence honest and NPOV) version is already in the article. Anything more than that, such as opinions as to what the numbers mean, we really do need secondary sources. Jean-Philippe 23:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This sentence does not seem right-- "PETA does not adhere to a no-kill policy and euthanizes the majority of animals that are given to them that are not reclaimed by their owners or adopted." It seems to say that PETA only kills the majority of animals left over after reclaims and adoption. Do they not instead kill most of all the animals brought in, with THE REMAINDER being reclaimed or adopted out? That is to say X animals are brought in,Y animals are returned or adopted out, X - Y animals are killed, and X - Y is greater than Y. Should it not say something like "the rest" or "the remainder" being reclaimed or adopted? L0b0t 02:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is the data for 2005. You can do your own math - if you can suggest a better wording it would be appreciated. (Here is my own attempt at X,Y,Z analysis) Thanks, Crum375 03:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that made my head hurt. Any idea what the Other category is? Are they animals brought in for servicing or boarded? L0b0t 03:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pet <-> Companion

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)

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)
I agree with Crum375's idea.-Localzuk(talk) 21:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section?

Ok am I missing something here? Why does such a large article about a very controversial and divisive group such as PETA, have no section on the many criticisms leveled against it? I mean not having one for certain types of topics may sometimes be ok. but for a subject and group like PETA, it's completely intolerable (unacceptable). So much so that I'm going to have to tag it as POV. - James xeno 08:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something. As discussed above and in the talk page archives, the page has intentionally interwoven both positive and negative information together in an effort to present all information in full context. This does have the apparent drawback of requiring people to actually read the article to find information supporting their original prejudices, but as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is probably a good thing. --Allen3 talk 10:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. I am in agreement with your viewpoint, Allen3. Reworded due to confusion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
We have discussed this subject many times now and it is getting very old. Please take some time to read through the talk page archives as to why we should not have a criticism section. Also, take a look at out guideline on structures that can imply a view, this essay on the subject and also this guideline on this subject. Such a section would be inherently biased and as such violate our policies. Also, using an argument that other articles have these sections would be flawed as those articles are also breaking policies. If you can provide a valid reason to counter these many different arguments, please provide it.-Localzuk(talk) 15:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Why, why, WHY must people keep deleting the criticism section I've been trying to put in? I've tried to put one in about seven times and someone keeps deleting it! And just how the hell does a criticism section "violate" Wikipedias NPOV policy? Why don't we get rid of criticism sections for ALL articles in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goldfishsoldier (talk • contribs) 10:37, October 26, 2006 (UTC).

We are slowly but surely working on removing criticism sections from every article on wikipedia. you can help if you like. L0b0t 12:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not feed the trolls. --72.251.13.144 10:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Which honestly is not warrented, as it is important to know about criticism of a subject as well as praise, but.. If you say so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ABigBlackMan (talk • contribs) 09:40, 26 October 2006.

(personal attack against an editor removed as per WP:NPA and WP:RPA.--Ramdrake 23:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


This is really a joke! Wikipedia is starting to have immense quantities of "red-tape". Bureaucracy in development.--59.93.195.113 18:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Bodhi

What do you mean? Any policies and guidelines are there to help produce a quality encyclopedia. Criticism sections are bad for many reasons and should be avoided in 99% of cases. What do you mean?-Localzuk(talk) 16:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was, people should be aware of the various criticisms of a particular subject. Too many policies and guidelines result in a very "bureaucratic" way of function. No initiative, everything has set rules and templates! Wikipedia was meant to be a "different" encyclopedia; something that people were supposed to rely on as various factions edited the article and presented a completely unbiased yet "all revealing" article. The criticism section was a good way to give an idea about the views of sections of people who were in minority (or were marginalised).--59.93.195.113 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Bodhi
I understand that we should be working towards the best articles possible, regardless of policies in some cases. However, in the case of criticism I have to say that not having one is the best possible way of doing things. I won't bother to restate the reasons (as I have stated them on this page several times), but if you ask I will do.-Localzuk(talk) 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No that wont be necessary. I was just monitoring how the "integration" of criticisms is being done in the main articles. It is quite good actually. I saw Allen3's message a few paras above and so I think I understand why this is being done as I never thought of it that way. Fueling prejudices is not what the encyclopedia should do. I stand corrected and I take back what I said earlier (except ofcourse the rigid policies thing.. but we both agree on that count).--59.93.244.254 06:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Bodhi

We realy should have a separate section on critasism, we shoudld realy just stop avioding PETA's rath. I mean its pretty bias to try & hide critasism. buts thats just my two cents. Evicorator666 02:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't hiding anything, it is to try and prevent trolling (which is what criticism sections lead to), to aid the flow of text (so a reader doesn't have to go through an article, read a fact, then have to find it's matching criticism). The only possible arguments for criticism is that it helps people who have already got the anti-PETA pov add more unsourced criticisms and also to avoid reading any of their responses.-Localzuk(talk) 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Are there any criticisms of PETA that are not in the article? All these people want to add a criticicism section but so far no one has mentioned any criticisms that aren't already in the article. Do you have any? L0b0t 19:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrities

Should there be a list of celebrites who are supporters of PETA as many other celebrites are mentioned throughout the article who are not.

There is. see: [3]--Ramdrake 15:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article for PETA critcism

If there can't be a section on criticism of PETA maybe another article should be created. Any thoughts?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goldfishsoldier (talk • contribs) 06:48, 26 October 2006.

Yes, thought #1: that is a very bad idea. It's called a POV fork and it is not allowed. Thought #2: please see WP:SIG. Cheers. L0b0t 13:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Christ this is going to be a long hall. As far as I have seen, Communism and the Family Guy have entire articles devoted to knocking the shit out of them. It just doesn't make sense that PETA doesn't even have a section criticising its actions. Goldfishsoldier

Wikipedia is by definition a work-in-progress. That means that no article is ever perfect, but we constantly try to improve every article. We do have ideal targets to aim for, and the ideal article does not have a criticism section (for reasons discussed elsewhere) nor a separate criticism article. This PETA article is therefore closer to that ideal than the articles you mentioned. But of course even PETA can always stand more improvement, and if you have a well sourced criticism (or praise or other relevant fact) that you believe is missing, you are encouraged to insert it. Thanks, Crum375 23:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, I guess thats theres plenty of websites devoted to Criticising PETA.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.84.124.173 (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2006

The criticism of PETA belongs in this article, where people will actually read it. Creating a new article for it so that this article can be nothing but good things would be a WP:POV fork. Pro-PETA, anti-PETA and neutral people all think that this kind of splitting the content apart is a bad idea. If you want to criticize PETA, this is the article to do it. (But you have to follow Wikipedia policy; write in a neutral way with references and citations.) — Omegatron 18:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The good and the bad have to be presented on the same page and in context. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going to point out two things. 1) the WP:POV fork is a guideline, and not an official policy. See more in Wikipedia:Criticism, an essay on the subject. 2) Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is an official policy, so if it improves Wikipedia, then do it. I personally think this article is so rediculously pro PeTA, that I want to vomit. The timeline, for example, lists things directly from the PeTA website with no balance. "PeTA started campaign X against company Y" tells the reader nothing. Did company Y tell PeTA to shove it? You won't find out here, and that is sad. Bytebear 05:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If it makes you "want to vomit", that should be sufficient motivation to do something about it. For example, if you are so sure the article is heavily "pro Peta", logically it means that you are aware of some "anti Peta" facts that are missing. Well, just insert them into the article, at the proper location, along with their reliable sources. Regarding the 'timeline', it is specifically a list of achievements from Peta's perspective, as it starts with the statement 'according to Peta'. IOW, it gives the reader an understanding of what Peta thinks are its accomplishments, which explains its rationale for doing things in an "in your face" manner. If any of the "accomplishments" are disputed, that should be addressed separately, with proper sourcing, if available.
Bottom line: don't be "sad", just find the missing important facts that you believe exist, along with their proper sources, and improve the article. That's what WP is all about. Crum375 13:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Did company Y tell PeTA to shove it? If so, and you can find a reference, please add it to the article. Don't just complain; do something about it.
The article has quite a bit of criticism in it. Did you actually read the article, or just skim it for Criticism sections? You shouldn't find any; that's not how we do things. — Omegatron 14:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't take things personally. I am not an expert on PETA and I don't have a particular interest in the subject. I am looking at it from an outsider who wants to learn more, but I feel that the article is only giving me half the story. That is why I am requesting that those of you who are interested can take some time to do the research I request. Funny, you say "we" (refering to "that's not how we do things") as if all Wikipedians should follow your rules, but one of the rules of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, so please don't speak for all of Wikipedia, or even the contributors of this page. Just because a few people lay stake on an article doesn't make it theirs, yours, or mine. If and when I find time to look for references I will. In the meantime I have bigger fish to fry. Bytebear 21:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You mention 'gnore all rules' here but don't bother to show how it applies. IAR should only be used if it were to improve the article, but I would seriously doubt that ignoring our other policies would improve it in any way - that is why we have those policies in the first place. We cannot simply use IAR whenever you disagree with the policies.
As people have said, we welcome any edits that are sourced, so long as they are throughout the article and not in a single section.-Localzuk(talk) 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that I think that criticism of PETA should have a very small presence in the article, if any presence at all. Those motivated to add criticisms are critics who want to express their point of view. This should be a purely descriptive article, neither pro- or anti- PETA. It is fine to say "PETA asked company X for Y" without saying what happened, if the purpose is to show things that PETA does. (Of course, because PETA is contraversial, it is fair to say that PETA is criticised and give some examples, but these should be describing the criticisms, not making their case.) The problem is that some people think a neutral description of PETA (e.g., "Organization devoted to helping animals") is pro-PETA. If we start to get into including everything for and against PETA, the article will be ridiculous -- and look at it, it is!

[edit] More Vandalism?

Why is the "profile" section completely WRONG?! I think bits of the article have been vandalised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simsimius (talk • contribs) 19:45, November 4, 2006 (UTC) (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)

[edit] Page is a mess

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)

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)
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)

This page is ridiculous, full of nonsense added in by partisans that have no place in an encyclopedia article. My gosh, who cares that some employees dumped dead animals and were suspended (for example)? I'm sure people have emotions about this, but it doesn't belong here any more than it belongs in an entry on North Carolina or on dumpsters. It is a detail clearly put in by someone with an axe to grind. This whole thing is way too long, bloated by people who want to make PETA "look bad" or "look good". This is not the place for it!

I would be quite willing to rewrite this entry, but I'm sure it would be vandalized.Pasio 16:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)Whitman Student

[edit] Inappropriate revision on euthanasia

The AVMA policy on euthanasia states sodium pentobarbital is not an appropriately humane form of euthanasia administered alone, as recommended by PETA. It may be part of a humane form of anesthesia if death is verified professionally, or ensured via physical manipulation. When administered alone, before stuffing the animal into a plastic sack, animals MAY not actually die, and may instead wake up many hours later to be subjected to a slow suffocation, which is brutally inhumane. This is set forth in http://www.avma.org/resources/euthanasia.pdf. The relevant section does not come in the table, but in the paragraph discussing necessity of verifying death. "An animal in deep narcosis following adminstration of an injectable agent may appear dead, but might eventually recover. Death must be confirmed by examining the animal for cessation of vital signs, and consideration given to the animal species and method of euthanasia when determining the criteria for confirming death." In practice, at US regulated animal research centers, overdose of pentobarbital followed by 1) KCL bolus 2) bilateral thoracotomy 3) decapitation 4) verification of heart stopping via EKG would all be acceptable. But simply giving an animal a shot of pentobarbital and not verifying death is unacceptable. The PETA operatives were not trained professionals, and the list of charges indicates the description that the animals were administered pentobarbital and stuffed into plastic bags. This is inhumane by AVMA standards, and is not acceptable policy at veterinary clinics, in research labs, or pet shelters. Bilateral thoracotomy may be performed in about 10 seconds and ensures humane euthanasia in these procedures. --Animalresearcher 15:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The current article states: "PETA recommends the use of an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital provided it is administered by a trained professional.[6]".
The AVMA reference includes sodium pentobarbital as a recommended euthanasia method, when administered by a trained individual. 'Training' needs to include, among others, the ability to differentiate actual death from narcosis. The rest of your points may be all true, but they don't necessarily belong in an article about PETA. Crum375 16:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The point is that the killing of the animals in North Carolina did not constitute euthanasia, and violates animal cruelty laws. It is inappropriate for the text to refer to those animal deaths as euthanasia, as they were not killed in a manner accepted as humane by the AVMA. PETA does not adhere to standards of humane treatment of animals required of others that work with animals and yet pose as an agency that protects animals from cruelty.--Animalresearcher 17:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
WP is not here to make judgments, but to provide verifiable and reliable information attributed to sources. According to the AVMA source that you provide, a recommeded method for euthanasia is sodium pentobarbital, administered by a trained individual. 'Training' needs to include, among others, the ability to differentiate actual death from narcosis. PETA promotes this method for euthanasia, and we state so with an appropriate source. It seems that PETA and AVMA are in agreement. Regarding the specific incident involving PETA operatives, that has to be addressed separately. If you can provide reliable/verifiable sources stating that they did not follow PETA's guidelines, or were improperly trained to either inject or determine death, that has to be stated along with the appropriate sources. The rest of what you say sounds like a personal viewpoint, which is unacceptable for a WP article. And 'euthanasia' refers to 'mercy killing'. The focus is on intent, not method, since 'mercy' is a motivation. If you have sources showing the operatives' intent was not mercy killing, then please provide them. Crum375 18:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I sit on an IACUC in the USA and oversee approval of euthanasia techniques, and have to check every proposed method for legal validity, so this is a process I am very familiar with. It is never acceptable for individuals without veterinary degrees to simply administer pentobarbital at a euthanasia dose and toss the body in a trash bag. Instead, even very simple adjunctive methods must be used, such as bilateral thoracotomy. It would never be acceptable to train someone without a veterinary degree of some sort to "verify death" when thoracotomy may be done in 10 seconds and is 100% reliable and easy. In the state in question, North Carolina, there are laws that state that veterinary training, or specific certification is required to administer euthanasia. The charges filed against the individuals note that they lack veterinary education, or licensing, and they are specifically charged with "malicious killing" of the animals. In addition, only individuals with specific approval may administer scheduled drugs to animals, and toxicology tests revealed pentobarbital (Schedule II) and ketamine (Schedule IV) were administered by the two kitten killers. They could only kill the animals by breaking the law. The trial charges include the specific text "unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously did maliciously kill an animal, a dog..." and specifically notes the method of death was pentobarbital injection and placing the animal in a trash bag. Malicious killing is not the same as mercy killing - it speaks directly to motivation. All of this was included in the references I had already included, and already explained at length above. PETA does not set the guidelines by which something is appropriately humane euthanasia, the AVMA does. PETA's guidelines for euthanasia meet the AVMA standards, they were simply not followed in this case. --Animalresearcher 23:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Looking at the existing sources, it would be IMO ok to change the word from euthanised to killed. We may need a very brief explanation of this to explain why, but not too lengthy as it seems that the incident is being given undue weight.-Localzuk(talk) 00:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
In any case, we would have to separate out PETA from those specific individiuals, as they don't necessarily represent PETA. Additionally, the AVMA document does not specify that a vet degree is required to administer the drugs. I am not saying that it's not logical, and it may well be illegal to administer without it. All these issues have to be addressed properly with appropriate sourcing and in the correct place in the article. Just in case anyone gets the wrong idea, I am not a PETA advocate, but I am a WP advocate, and I want this article to be presented in the best NPOV balanced and well sourced way possible. Crum375 00:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) To me the acts carried out by the PETA activists, even if illegal, could still be acts of euthanasia according to the WP definition, as well as several dictionaries I checked. I understand Animalresearcher's opinion that if euthanasia is not carried out by the book it is not 'euthanasia' but a 'killing', but given that this is an emotionally charged and controversial topic, I don't think WP should editorialize this way. To me personally, if an individual intends to euthanise, that's what counts. I am personally against euthanasia except possibly in very extreme cases, but my personal opinion relates more to the definition of the word than to my own attitude to the subject. Crum375 00:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How can it possibly be euthanasia when two highly adoptable perfectly healthy kittens are removed from a shelter, given lethal overdoses of drugs, and placed in a dumpster before leaving town? There is no reason to kill those animals. They can have homes found. For ANYTHING to be euthanasia, there must be a reason to show mercy and remove life. In this case there was none. In addition, the euthanasia was inhumane according to accepted standards of euthanasia in the USA. If we euthanized animals like that at my facility we would have our AAALAC approval removed, get cited by our USDA inspector, lose our federal funding, and have animal rights advocates all over us for our inhumane euthanasia techniques. You could argue most of the animals were older and dubious adoption candidates, but the PETA employees duped the shelter representatives into thinking they would be finding them homes. You should not sugarcoat the truth for criminals in your editorial power at WIKI, it is very POV. --Animalresearcher 11:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess here we go into the 'emotionally, morally and politically charged' area of euthanasia, which I think we should try to avoid. Unless you can provide evidence that the employees actually enjoyed killing the animals, or somehow benefitted financially from the killing, I would give them the benefit of the doubt that their intent was to spare the animals some kind of future misery. This is a good test of my own neutrality, as I already mentioned that I am personally opposed to animal euthanasia in virtually all cases (as animals cannot consent to it), but depsite my own personal views I try to assume good faith (even for non WP editors) on the part of those employees. BTW, if you read the WP verbiage in this case, it provides a fairly detailed and objective description of what happened, letting readers come to their own conclusions, which is exactly our goal. It's the editorializing we want to avoid. Crum375 13:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that in this case, using the legal definition of euthanasia provided within the law in North Carolina is probably the best option. Trying to define the employee's intent is an exercise in original research. Also note that I am going to look at the overall length of the article and how much space this incident takes up to see if it is being given undue weight. If it is, I will trim it down. -Localzuk(talk) 13:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Using the euthanasia definition from WP or from a dictionary is not original research. Note that most readers live outside of NC, hence to them euthanasia is more likely to convey the WP or dictionary definition than the NC legal one. Of course we can also note the NC legal definition if available. Crum375 13:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
WP is not a dictionary, it does not define terms. A dictionary defines euthanasia as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable or painful disease, or in an irreversible coma. The AVMA refers to it as inducing painless death in an animal, and doing so with the highest degree of respect possible for the animal. It requires use of the most humane methods possible. I brought up the point that the killers did not verify death in this case because it is a point brought up at IACUCs nationwide in the USA wrt euthanasia. If you blow a vein while injecting the pentobarbital, you can anesthetize but not kill the animal. This is particularly easy to do in small animals like kittens. Stuffing the animal in a plastic bag ensures that when it regains consciousness, and this has been demonstrated to be a very real possibility, the animal will slowly suffocate, which is regarded as one of the most anxious and painful ways to die. I mentioned bilateral thoracotomy, this procedure deflates both lungs while the animal is unconscious, and ensures it dies of loss of oxygen long before any consciousness is regained. Decapitation, cervical dislocation, or other physical means are acceptable substitutes. As an IACUC, we cannot accept that anyone without formal veterinary training can verify death, we instead require people performing euthanasia to use simple physical methods. There is no tolerance for this procedure outside the norm in regulated animal welfare activities. I suppose you feel differently about it when a couple of college kids do in in a parking lot instead of a veterinary clinic. Euthanasia is one of the most heated topics in animal welfare, and one in which there is little room for debate about topics that fall outside the AVMA acceptable methods.--Animalresearcher 15:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
As to never accepting euthanasia, it is a requirement in today's world. Seven million dogs and cats are euthanized each year in the USA. If we tried to shelter them all using PETA's and the HSUS' combined budgets, both would go bankrupt in less than a year. The problem is utterly intractable, and is the reason that HSUS advocates against puppy mills. I work in local animal rescue, and we euthanize far more animals than we save. However, we do save some. --Animalresearcher 15:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
WP is not a dictionary, but it does define or rely on many terms based on reliable sources, including dictionaries. When there are multiple conflicting reliable sources, it includes all the major points of view, but uses a neutral tone. As to the intractability of this problem, I am not disagreeing, and I do appreciate that you do what you feel you need to do. I also understand fully that amateur 'euthanasia' can bring a lot of suffering to an animal. Nevertheless this is an ethical/moral dilemma, and like religion (to which it is closely related) has many views. WP cannot adopt any single one of them without losing its neutrality. Note that PETA seems to accept the AVMA guidelines also. The employees appear to have violated PETA's rules, but it's still possible that in their own minds they felt they were 'mercy killing' the animals. I think the narrative in the current article allows readers to reach their own conclusions, and that's our mission at WP - not to editorialize or moralize. Crum375 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
But that is exactly what you have just said we should do. How can we make a judgement that these individuals felt they were 'mercy killing'? We do not have a source to state that it was euthanasia so any such claim would be original research (as we would be coming up with ideas about their intent). With such a touchy subject as euthanasia we cannot make editorialisations such as those you are requesting - we can simply use the most neutral term - which in this case is 'killed' - and provide evidence as to why it is 'killed' and not 'euthanised'.-Localzuk(talk) 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Crum, you misinterpreted my statement there. I said making claims about the people's intent is original research. We have a legal definition from the place where the killing took place which states it wasn't euthanasia and nothing more. If we have a statement saying that the individuals thought it was humane then we can say that. But as it stands, we have a set of documents outlining that it specifically wasn't euthanasia according to the law. We shouldn't use wikipedia definitions for something like this, as AR points out - it is not a dictionary.Localzuk(talk) 16:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of the distinction and what you said. All I am saying is that one jurisdiction cannot re-define what most people accept as a definition. For example, if some place on earth believes that killing a person in some ritual is "blessing" him/her, we wouldn't report such a killing as (simply) a blessing. If there is a conflict between the common definitions and a specific jusridiction, we can include both definitions and explain. But we can't just blindly adopt the local definitions for these moral/ethical issues, any more than we can ignore them. Crum375 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
But one jurisdiction is our source for the crime - and we can only state what the source says... -Localzuk(talk) 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


We can do better than that. We can look at news sources as POV-neutral - see below. The point remains that they are being charged with killing the animals with malice. In the state, it is illegal for non-veterinarians to administer euthanasia. At the very least, it is illegal euthanasia. And, given that they are charged for doing it maliciously, the use of the term euthanasia is extreme POV and downright insulting to people who wrack their minds about this process on a regular basis. It is written the way I would expect a PETA representative to sugarcoat this event, not the way it was reported in the press, or the way that aligns with people concerned with animal welfare.

Here is an article on the event. It does not refer to the actions of these two as euthanasia but killing, although it does note that PETA euthanizes animals at its shelters. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL

Here is another article that refers to it as killing, and inhumane. http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/articles/2005/06/21/opinion/column1.txt

There are dozens of charges of animal cruelty for these two - how can that be consistent with calling it euthanasia? Can euthanasia be animal cruelty?

This National Review article also refers to the actions of these two as killing, calls their tackle box a "death kit", and notes they are charged with animal cruelty. http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/smithw/smith200507130830.asp

Why won't news sources call what those two did euthanasia - are they all POV? Each of them refers to what happens when veterinarians perform the procedure at the PETA shelter as euthanasia, but none of them refer to what happened in that van as euthanasia. --Animalresearcher 17:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. — Omegatron 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted to euthanize. As stated in my edit summaries, mob rule isn't a good enough reason to introduced slanted material in a article and beside, none of the news article we use as reference call those killing but point out how PETA regularly euthanize. Opinions column like those provided by AR don't count for anything. Jean-Philippe 22:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Having read the references, I cannot see how your revert is anything but slanted. Bytebear 23:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The mob is getting bigger, but it's still a mob. Those are the references which you claim to have read.
The Virginians says: Bertie and Northampton officials cut ties to PETA pending the trials. The counties are now euthanizing animals without help from PETA. One veterinarian in Ahoskie is continuing to receive financial support from PETA to euthanize animals from Hertford County and some from Northampton County.
The Roanoke-Chowan News Herald says: Both Northampton and Bertie currently use PETA for those services. Officials in both counties said they were under the impression that PETA would first have the animals fully evaluated by a veterinarian and then attempt to find them a good home. If that effort failed, they understood that PETA would euthanize the animals.
If the mob insist on using opinion pieces as references to the article, then what about this one, which is already in the article? It's from the Washington Post sport section: The same sanctimonious animal-rights group that pleads for donations so it can stop us "blood-thirsty" hunters and fishermen once and for all is in the middle of a smelly affair involving the euthanization of pets picked up at animal shelters. Incidentally, they were pets PETA reportedly promised it would find good homes for.
The only instance you see that word kill or killing in any of our references is when it's used by the smear lobby Center for Consumer Freedom. Jean-Philippe 23:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
While the word euthanasia is also used in these articles, the word "killing" is also used, as was described above:
Here is an article on the event. It does not refer to the actions of these two as euthanasia but killing, although it does note that PETA euthanizes animals at its shelters. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL
Here is another article that refers to it as killing, and inhumane. http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/articles/2005/06/21/opinion/column1.txt
BTW, a majority of editors agreeing to the same thing is still a consensus, even if you'd prefer calling it a mob. Please be careful as this can also be construed as a weasel word. Just to remind you this works both ways.--Ramdrake 23:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Those are both opinion column as clearly indicated on both sites. They have no merit whatsoever other than expressing the opinions of the writers. Are you disputing this? Jean-Philippe 23:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
quoting from a verifiable source is "opinion"? Where do you come up with this? Find a source that states otherwise and we can discuss the merits of each source. Otherwise, you just have your opinion. At least the mob has sources. Bytebear 23:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Jean-Philippe, please don't switch the subject. You were saying these articles referred to what PETA did as euthanasia rather than killing. Now that it's obvious that they refer to it as killing, you claim these are opinion pieces. Please re-read this entire section to see how the group consensus was arrived at that opined it was more appropriate to use "killing" rather than "euthanasia" in this specific context. You may not agree with the group consensus, but I would like you to please respect it.--Ramdrake 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ramdrake, what part of opinium column don't you get? The first opinion column you quoted url ends with "opinion/column1.txt". The second one says "Debra J Saunders, Recent Columns". If you want to call me a liar, do it here and now. As for your comment about consensus, Wikipedia policies are crystal clear. An article talk page serves to dicuss what to include and what not to include in an article, not discuss the merit of the subject which has clearly been the case here. I say we include what we can reference, not what editors are making up on a talk page. Jean-Philippe 23:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The crucial point is, an editorial piece is still a reference, reliable and verifiable. It doesn't have to be neutral. What editors are writing in their column is something we can and should reference. The talk page is to discuss what to include and not to include, granted, but that decision must be based on something. The merits of the subject (as per the references and discussion brought forth by User:AnimalResearcher) seems like an excellent starting point. --Ramdrake 23:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to write a gentle response to your argument, but quite frankly, I don't know what to answer to someone who give precedence to opinion pieces over reliable news sources. I drop the matter, the mob win. By the way, did you know that that the author of the San Francisco Chronicle you quoted is the wife of the the National Review editorial AR quoted? It's true. Better yet, did you know the opinion piece you quoted from the Roanoke-Chowan News Herald isn't even signed? An unsigned opinion piece, wow, is there anything more reliable ^.^ Jean-Philippe 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
According to AR: Here is an article on the event. It does not refer to the actions of these two as euthanasia but killing, although it does note that PETA euthanizes animals at its shelters. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL. Since the article now states that PETA "killed" animals, the real news source is invalid, so I'll switch to the opinion piece which has consensus on that talk page :) Jean-Philippe 00:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Mmm.. not sure if it's edit conflicts or cache issues, but when I click edit nothing change, but I can read my edit summaries while looking at the histories but when I click on the article the changes don't appear. It's making editing difficult to say the least. Jean-Philippe 01:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Euthanasia

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Well, this indicates a possible November 13, 2006 trial date (today). Also has some interesting PETA explanations. Crum375 02:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Who's trying to sweep it under the carpet? Jean-Philippe 02:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
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)

[edit] ChristianVeg

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)

[edit] Query

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Stuff I removed

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
  • You are in danger of violating the 3rr. while i keep on adding more and better cites with each edit, you keep reverting to an old version from hours back. I suggest you read the sources, exclusing CCF. Here's what i'm citing from.

Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Steven P Kendall's book
German Court verdict on Covance - conveniently being deleted by you
Southern Poverty Law Center
Audio recording
san francisco chronicle

None of these are doubtful ones. The CCF statements are backed up the US Senate and the statements of CCF comes from the IRS audit which is also added. btw, why is AnimalScam not a reliable source? Idleguy 19:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


If I recall a source of information can come from an offical organization, which is in fact CCF is a registered organization therefore the information from their website is acceptable. Its like saying that a PETA site and information is unacceptable because they lie so much, but nonetheless you see it as a source for alot of this page even if the information is misrepresented.

~ anynomous

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)

[edit] Steve Irwin Incident

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)
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)

[edit] Finances

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. ([4]) — 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! ([5]) Yet you haven't bothered to read it and remove it outright. Idleguy 04:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And the rest:

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)

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”)".[6] 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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] External Links

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

[edit] Idleguy wholesale revert

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)

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)
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)
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)
As I said, let's take a breather, we'll discuss this later with cooler heads. Jean-Philippe 15:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing citations

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

[edit] Anti-wool Campaigns

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)

Oh, and one more thing, is PETA an internationaly recognised NGO? Goldfishsoldier 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/o/Talk%7EPeople_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals_b192.html"