Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Peta and euthanization 2 Pet <-> Companion 3 Criticism section? 4 Celebrities 5 Article for PETA critcism 6 More Vandalism? 7 Page is a mess 8 Inappropriate revision on euthanasia 9 Euthanasia 10 ChristianVeg 11 Query 12 Stuff I removed 13 Steve Irwin Incident 14 Finances 15 External Links 16 Idleguy wholesale revert 17 Missing citations 18 Anti-wool Campaigns 19 Number of animals killed 20 Neuter/release 21 "Terrorist" in the lead 22 Article protection 23 Does PETA try to influence people? 24 Introduction is derivative work of PETA Mission Statement

[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)

What is becoming obvious is that PETA kills all the animals that it takes in, other than those brought in to be spayed or neutered. The "adoption" premise is clearly a fraud, as Peta operates no facilities for adoption. Peta is no friend to animals.208.1.231.224 13:06, 2 February 2007 (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)

I think this article has lost it's NPOV without a criticism section. Without one, it makes it look like this article supports PETA. It needs one, to retain neutrality. 72.83.118.187 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - with one it cuts the article into a 'pro' and 'anti' voice. It splits up information which makes it more difficult to balance the article. As L0b0t states, what criticism is missing? Our policy is clear on criticism sections as far as I can see - don't use them as they are troll magnets, they damage the flow of articles and they are inherently POV due to being all negative information. Please take a look through the full discussion on this matter through the archives. -Localzuk^(talk) 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the masses, is it not? And what is an encylclopedia? Probably something that provides information that people want to know about, right? And it's generally agreed that Wikipedia doesn't censor itself? So if the masses wanted a criticisms section (and I believe they do), for whatever reason, as a compliment to articles such as this one then would wikipedia decline to offer this to them because of silly arguments about neutrality or trolls? As far as neutrality goes, I'm quite sure that it would be understood that the section would be simply reporting observed criticisms, hopefully while continuing to cite sources, and if anyone still felt that their sensitive eyes could be harmed by something like that, they could close them as they scrolled past the section. As for the trolls, just protect the section, not the whole article. So now that that's all settled, this just leaves me with one question left, "Who comes up with these rules anyway, and why are they allowed near a computer in their state of mind?"GBMorris 13:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you give one good reason why the criticism should be lumped into one section instead of distributed throughout the article? — Omegatron 15:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to think of it that way, then why have sections at all? I think you will agree that is because it makes the information easier to find. Whether it's a "Criticism" section or a section on "Youth Outreach", the information might be contained in other parts of the article, but it should be amalgamated and focused in the section created for it. If that is what readers want to see--and I think the above outcries against the removal of this section suggest that they do--then that is what they should see. And not only should PETA have a Criticism section, but so should its opponents and every other article which warrants a look at public opinion. Perhaps it is the name that bothers people in that it is seen as inherently negative, so then relabel it as "Public Opinion" or "Popular Views" and make it a point to include both positive and negative standpoints on the subject. Public opinion is a very real part of our society and governs the action of everyone from large groups like PETA to even individuals, so pretending it doesn't exist isn't really a sound position for a public encyclopedia to take. GBMorris 02:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sections are a great thing. Why do you want to ruin that by making separate sections for arbitrary, non-neutral opinions? You're trying to make the article look like this:

• Philosophy
• Campaigns
• Finance
• Criticism
  • Criticism of philosophy
  • Criticism of campaigns
  • Criticism of finance

when it should look like this:

• Philosophy (including criticism of philosophy)
• Campaigns (including criticism of campaigns)
• Finance (including criticism of finance)

Why do you want to quarantine all the criticism in its own section where no one will read it? — Omegatron 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you should re-read my last statement, but to save you the time, the reason to make a separate section for "arbitrary, non-neutral opinions" is first and foremost because "If that is what readers want to see--and I think the above outcries against the removal of this section suggest that they do--then that is what they should see," and secondly because "Public opinion is a very real part of our society and governs the action of everyone from large groups like PETA to even individuals, so pretending it doesn't exist isn't really a sound position for a public encyclopedia to take." I did not say that "[I] want to quarantine all the criticism in its own section," in fact I recommended that "the information might be contained in other parts of the article, but it should be amalgamated and focused in the section created for it." And finally as far as no one reading it, again, see above protests against the removal of the article. GBMorris 16:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What you are asking for is the article to be split so that all positive information be in one part and all negative information in another. This is a really bad structure as it breaks linked information in half. If you make it a little more extreme, if you want a criticism section, you, using WP:NPOV to maintain an unbiased article, are also asking for a 'praise' section. This is plain ridiculous.

Again, why should the information be split so that a person reading the page has to read one section, say on the philosophy, for all the 'positive' info and then go to the criticism section to read the counter points. What happens when the criticism is responded to by something? Does this go into a 'counter-criticisms' section?

Also, as I have said dozens of times (in the past) - I would advise readers to look at this, this and this. I personally think our policy on this issue is very clear. Also note that Criticism sections lead to forks where the article is inherently POV, when the section gets too large.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask again. What criticisms are missing? People keep pissing and moaning about a section called criticisms, but no one has mentioned any criticisms that are not already in the article. Is there any valid sourced criticism that is missing from this article? L0b0t 16:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I came here to look for information about criticisms. This article's unusual lack of criticism section(s) in the TOC made this search slower than I would have expected and preferred. In the vein of Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia should strive to efficiently provide the information the reader is looking for. WP:MOS#Section management: "Be generous in adding sub-headings. They help readers to get an overview of the article and to find subtopics of interest." Indeed, the information is there, but it is not easily accessible. —Trevyn 22:21, 18 December 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: List_of_notable_supporters_of_PETA--Ramdrake 15:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course there's no List of notable detractors of PETA...

(And I wonder how many of those celebrities would be ok with being labeled "PETA supporters". Especially if they knew everything that PETA stands for. Several of them are clearly just in favor of being nice to animals; not in favor of PETA per se...) — Omegatron 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus, some of them are dead and incapable of supporting anything. That article is just as much POV trash as the timeline in this article. L0b0t 17:31, 15 December 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)

What basis do you have for saying that the actions of the Peta employees are not Peta policy? The NC shelter in question stated that different Peta employees picked up animals each week. Peta said only that the "dumping" of animals was not policy.208.1.231.224 13:29, 2 February 2007 (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)

There is no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to kitten killers. Whatever their intent was, it was clearly misguided. Further, they didn't adhere to accepted vet policies. Finally, Hinkle is specifically charged with "obtaining property under false pretenses". 208.1.231.224 13:42, 2 February 2007 (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)

A little discussion of opinions is fine. Especially if it results in people contributing to the article. — Omegatron 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't get out of hand, it's fine. Otherwise it'd be like people at work not talking to each other at all about non-work related things. When does that ever happen? BirdValiant 07:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[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. ([3]) — 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! ([4]) 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”)".[5] 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)

Go ahead and add it. — Omegatron 15:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of animals killed

We have two paragraphs saying how many animals PETA's shelter has killed ("In 1999, PETA took in 2,103 companion animals... / According to the Wally Swett, President of Primarily Primates, PETA killed...).

1. It used to have percentages of killed vs adopted, but those have been removed, leaving just the raw numbers. What's wrong with creating percentages from raw numbers? It's not original research, since it's quoted by several websites, and is too trivial of an extrapolation anyway. So it must have been removed as POV. Why?
2. The most concise and centralized way to display this data is a table, instead of prose. Here are the tables used on other websites:

---

Year	Received†	Adopted	Killed	Transferred	% Killed	% Adopted
2005	2,145	146	1,946	69	90.7	6.8
2004	2,640	361	2,278	1	86.3	13.7
2003	2,224	312	1,911	1	85.9	14.0
2002	2,680	382	2,298	2	85.7	14.3
2001	2,685	703	1,944	14	72.4	26.2
2000	2,684	624	2,029	28	75.6	23.2
1999	1,805	386	1,328	91	73.6	21.4
* 1998	943	133	685	125	72.6	14.1
Total	17,806	3,047	14,419	331	80.1	17.1
* figures represent the second half of 1998 only † other than spay/neuter animals » skeptical? click here to see the proof

---

Year	Received†	Adopted	Killed	Transferred	% Killed	% Adopted
2005	2145	146	1946	69	90.7	06.8
2004	2,640	361	2,278	1	86.3	13.7
2003	2,224	312	1,911	1	85.9	14.0
2002	2,680	382	2,298	2	85.7	14.3
2001	2,685	703	1,944	14	72.4	26.2
2000	2,684	624	2,029	28	75.6	23.2
1999	1,805	386	1,328	91	73.6	21.4
* 1998	943	133	685	125	72.6	14.1
Total	17,806	3,047	14,419	331	80.1	17.1
* figures represent the second half of 1998 only † other than spay/neuter animals -column G on PETA's paperwork See PETA's paperwork

— Omegatron 17:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I took your URL and removed the subpage part and got [6]. The title there is "PETA'S SHAME! INGRID NEWKIRK SHOULD RESIGN!" - right on the front page of the Web site. This seems like an anti-PETA site, hence not acceptable as a source. Crum375 03:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That PDF document is exactly the same one as http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf, only it has an annotation on it advertising nokillnow.com. NoKillNow was the subject of something of an advertising campaign a few weeks back ... see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Kill Now and Special:Contributions/Wikimaster111. Citing CCF websites is one thing ... they are obviously as biased as PETA is, but at least they are notable. But I really don't like linking to sites that use Wikipedia as an advertising medium.

In an ideal world, we could find the data on VDACS's website. For example, http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2005 has PETA's report for 2005 and[7] has it for 2004, but I can't find it for before 2004.

Regardless of the source cited, I don't know how much purpose a table would serve. PETA doesn't even deny that they kill animals. They are overtly critical of no-kill shelters. [8] [9] If you go to http://www.peta.org and type "no-kill" in the search box, you will find a ton of pages on their websites criticizing no-kill shelters and advocating euthenasia. [10] So it isn't like there's really a point of contention. I don't know that adding bulky tables to an already lengthy article is needed. Right now, we're already linking to the full VDACS report and the two years of online data available (references #73-75 as I type). Would a table really help to communicate that data much better? BigDT 04:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems like an anti-PETA site, hence not acceptable as a source.

I was going to leave a snarky comment about how the first comment in this section would be "ZOMG UNRELIABLE SOURCE", but I figured it was unnecessary, since we've already been through this.

The information is publicly available, and thus a verifiable and reliable source. Verifiability is the important concern. Just because it's conveniently collected for us in PDF form by an anti-PETA site doesn't make the information unreliable. It's obviously from real, official state reports. If we really weren't allowed to use information from biased websites, we wouldn't be able to write much of anything, would we?

For example, [11] has PETA's report for 2005 and[2] has it for 2004, but I can't find it for before 2004.

The website only contains information from 2004-2005, so you won't find anything else in online form. See the "Report Year" option on the main page.

adding bulky tables

A concise table would take up less room than the two paragraphs of text we currently have with the same numbers in them.

Would a table really help to communicate that data much better?

Yes. — Omegatron 16:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My own point regarding the source still stands. We cannot use an anti-PETA site as a source, unless the issue is that site or organization itself. If the document you want to cite is available elsewhere on a reliable and verifiable site, then please supply that link instead. Thanks, Crum375 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We cannot use an anti-PETA site as a source

We most certainly can. — Omegatron 17:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that a site that is clearly not neutral regarding an issue (and a screaming banner on the front page: "PETA'S SHAME! INGRID NEWKIRK SHOULD RESIGN!" certainly makes this one appear extremist and non-neutral to me), cannot be used as a source except to describe itself. Can we have some other opinions here? Crum375 18:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While neutral sources are best, it is not required for a source to be neutral for it to be included. It does, however, have to be reliable. —Trevyn 07:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please actually look at the references before trying to say they're an unreliable source. We're not citing the no kill shelter website. We're citing the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services animal reports. We've already been through all this when the references were first put into the article months ago.

What I'm suggesting is that the info for all years be rearranged into a table instead of written out as text. — Omegatron 19:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Omegatron, if you read the Talk page and/or its archives, you'll note we've already been through all those issues at some length. All I am saying at this point is that if you want to include a source, make sure it meets WP's requirements. Then we can move forward. Thanks, Crum375 19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read what I just said, you'll note that we've already been through all these issues at some length. The sources for this information were already discussed and are already in the article. They've been there for many months. I'm not suggesting anything about adding additional sources. I'm suggesting that we convert paragraphs of plain text into a table. — Omegatron 19:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I read all your messages above, and I hope you read mine. I am not addressing the issue of table vs. plain text format. All I am saying is that if you want to point at sources, they must be WP-acceptable. If you feel the same numbers can be obtained from a non anti-PETA site, please do so. Thanks, Crum375 19:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neuter/release

PETA also creates and airs numerous public service announcements and billboards urging people to help control the pet overpopulation through spaying/neutering

But doesn't PETA campaign against neuter-release programs? — Omegatron 19:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

PETA campaigns against neuter-release programs depending on location but they advocate the spaying and neutering of companion animals. I believe when they talk about the curbing of pet population by spaying and neutering it's referring to this and not trap/neuter/release. Falsetto 01:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Terrorist" in the lead

Please stop adding the word "terrorist" to the lead. The ArbCom has firmly ruled against guilt by association, and this is a classic case of it. PETA has been criticzed for its association with the ALF for a very long time (decades), long before anyone thought to use the word "terrorist" in relation to the ALF. Therefore, they are not being criticized for being associated with people deemed terrorists. They are being criticized for their association with the ALF, howsoever described. Adding the opinion of one department of one government about another organization to the article on PETA is pure POV and well poisoning, and a clear example of what the ArbCom ruled against. It's also a form of OR in that you're choosing which facts about the ALF to highlight. Why not add: "PETA has been criticized for its association with the ALF, some of whose members use drugs and are in jail," or "who are regarded as heroes within the animal rights movement," or "the group that rescued Britches"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a specific link to the ArbCom ruling you're referring to. So far, all I see is sourced, verifiable information. --Ramdrake 22:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the ArbCom case; I thought it was Nobs01 but I can't see it in there. However, here is the edit Fred Bauder made to WP:V in the wake of it, [12] so we can use that date to work backwards. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if we add any top level descriptive verbiage to a cited WP article, it should reflect the first few words of the cited article's lead, in the assumption that they best capture the 'essence' of the entry. In the ALF's case, the 'terrorist' labeling is currently mentioned at the very end of the lead section. Crum375 22:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the inclusion of the link between Peta and the ALF is being picky about what to include. As Slim says, why not include those other facts? I would quite like to see the ArbCom ruling though (will come in handy!).-Localzuk^(talk) 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

PETA is criticized for association with ALF/ELF, we agree on that. To which an uninformed observer quickly asks, "Why?" Because ALF/ELF advocate and engage in violent, illegal activities. Today, when in the furtherance of a social goal, that is called terrorism. In the interest of brevity, I think that is the best word to use. Either way, we need to answer the "why" question. —Trevyn 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that is for the ALF article to discuss, not this one. We should simply state that they have been criticised for association and leave the explanation about who they are to the ALF article. Also, the term 'terrorist' is a word to avoid, so as we do not need to go into detail as to who the ALF are the entire link with 'terrorist' should be dropped.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone reply to my point above, namely why we pick out the "terrorist" label as a way of describing the ALF. Why don't we pick some other facts too to add to the description? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom case was indeed Nobs01; link coming. In the meantime, we need a reliable source who says: "The organization has been criticized for ... its support of activists associated with groups subsequently deemed "terrorist threats" by the United States Department of Homeland Security, such as Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front." What you are currently doing is sourcing A (criticism and ALF) and sourcing B (terrorists), and putting them together as C (guilt by association). This is not allowed per NOR or the Nobs01 case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't brilliantly worded, but here it is — "Use in external activities of such tactics as "links & ties", or guilt by association may be properly reported in a article; however, use of guilt by association by any party on Wikipedia is unacceptable. Wikipedia requires verification of information by a reliable source, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research [13] — and if you read it in conjunction with Fred Bauder's change to WP:V [14] in light of it, you'll see what it means. Fred wrote: "Sources which rely on guilt by association, the Association fallacy are not considered verifiable. Only a source which specifically identifies a person or organization as having engaged in a behavior can be considered adequate. This is especially true of membership in an organization and associated activities."

Therefore, we need a reliable source that accuses PETA of terrorism, or that accuses PETA of wrongdoing for being involved with groups deemed terrorists. The reliable source must make that direct connection, not a Wikipedian. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The only part of the ArbCom ruling you are invoking is "use of guilt by association by any party on Wikipedia is unacceptable." Guilt by association says that "guilt by association...is the logical fallacy of claiming that something must be false because of the people or organizations that support it," which is nowhere even close to what is being said. —Trevyn 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom wasn't using it in its logical fallacy sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the ArbCom case, it still remains that the sentence implied that they were criticised for associating with the ALF/ELF because they are terrorists - without sources to state this. Add the ArbCom case in and we have a significant case for not having the info in the intro.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom specifically links to Association fallacy from their mention of "guilt by association". Twice. —Trevyn 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom aside, I don't think mentioning the 'terrorist' label, which appears last in the ALF lead, is a neutral way to present ALF. Even if we include the entire first sentence in the ALF article, it still would not include 'terrorist'. Hence, it seems to me that using that word is a way to promote one view well beyond its proper due weight, i.e inconsistent with maintaining a 'neutral tone'. Crum375 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not "presenting" ALF, we are characterizing the nature of the PETA criticism with regard to association with ALF. There are sources for this, e.g. "...ARL terrorists such as ALF...Indeed, the firewall that groups such as PETA have long maintained between themselves and ARL terrorists seems to be breaking down. PETA's tax-exempt status is being challenged because it admittedly paid $1,500 to ELF. (According to the FBI, ELF is one of the nation's largest terrorist groups.) According to the SPLC, PETA also provided funds to convicted animal- or environmental-rights terrorists..."[15] —Trevyn 00:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly an emotional and contentious issue. Your own citation just above is from an anti-PETA article. It would be best to find a neutral article, with no ax to grind, presenting PETA and saying "it is criticized for its association with ALF, a terrorist group" (or similar language). Short of that, if we as WP introduce that language, we are taking sides in the dispute, which would be inconsistent with a neutral presentation tone. If the ALF article had the 'terrorist' in the first few words, I could buy it, but since it's last, I find that promoting it from last to first is not neutral. Crum375 00:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, we are characterizing the criticism of PETA, and it self-evident that criticism will be in a critical article. The article I mentioned was from a Wikipedia:Reliable source. A tertiary source is not necessary. Wikipedia is not taking sides, it is reporting non-neutral opinions in a neutral manner. And again, this article is not about ALF, it is about PETA, and it is characterizing PETA's criticism, not defining ALF. —Trevyn 01:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Using a reliable source is only part of the equation. You also need a neutral presentation and due weight. If you promote an item, regardless of its source quality, beyond its due weight, that's not a neutral tone of presentation. Crum375 01:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I really have no desire to get involved in this WP:LAME edit war ... but honestly, using a National Review columnist? The National Review is a reliable source ... but a magazine columnist is not that great of a source. That aside, I don't think anyone really questions that ELF and ALF are terrorist organizations ... but is it really necessary to lead off with that? Wikipedia is not the place to push a POV. You can make a statement that is perfectly true, but has a negative connotation and it is going to have the desired effect - set a negative tone for the article. I'm a conservative Christian ... I've never voted for a democrat in my life ... and I only keep this page watchlisted because I revert so much vandalism on it ... but good grief, whether you are a PETA fan or not, make it a neutral article, not propaganda - and that goes both ways. BigDT 01:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. Trevyn, Crum is right when he says we need to find a reliable source that says PETA "is 'criticized for its association with ALF, a terrorist group' (or similar language). Short of that, if we as WP introduce that language, we are taking sides in the dispute, which would be inconsistent with a neutral presentation tone." That's the crucial issue. We as WP are not allowed to introduce that language. It's especially important not to do that in the lead, where there's no space for nuance, for other views, for pointing out that only one dept of one govt has made that designation, and so on. Also, no one has yet replied to my point above: why are we choosing to describe the ALF as terrorists and not as rescuers of Britches, or any of the other ways they could be described? Trevyn, could you address that point, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All of these points are addressed in my previous comments. WP:OR: "All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." We are choosing to describe ALF as terrorists because this is what the critical articles describe them as. —Trevyn 07:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Now it says:

"It was also criticized in 2005 by Senator James M. Inhofe for having acted as a "spokesgroup" for the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, after activists associated with those groups had committed what Inhofe called "acts of terrorism."

That's better than nothing, but that single incident of criticism is not really what should be mentioned in the lead. It needs to be more broad. It really should say something more like:

"It has been criticized by many people for supporting the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which are considered terrorist threats by the FBI('s Domestic Terrorism Section Chief (since 2002))." — Omegatron 17:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, unless you can provide a source showing that there has been 'criticism' by a broad range of organisations due to the ALF/ELF being terrorists then this is poisoning the well and borderline original research. The fact that the ALF/ELF are 'terrorist organisations' according the the FBI should not be on this page - it should be on their respective articles - especially so in the lead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Localzuk (talk • contribs).

[edit] Article protection

I notice this article is constantly under fire from unregistered users. Perhaps we should semi-protect it from being edited by the unregistered?

I have requested this twice in the past to be denied as the admins didn't think there was enough activity to warrant semi-protection... Maybe we should try again?-Localzuk^(talk) 17:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does PETA try to influence people?

I would have thought that PETAs main purpose was to influence people, but apparently not, since I have just had my edit reverted. I replaced the nonsensical line "The organization aims to inform the public of its position..." with one saying that the oranisation seeks to persuade the public that its position has merit. I have never seen a PETA ad which says "PETA believes the following is wrong". They do not seek to tell people what PETA thinks, but to advocate a position. Secondly, I added propaganda after adverstisements to the list of activities. Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. I realise this is not the most NPOV term, but I cannot think of a better one or two word shorthand which covers PETAs leafleting activities etc and their attempts at getting their message out through the (non-paid) media, both of which are at the heart of PETAs activities, and need to be referenced concisely. I will try reinserting my changes one more time. If you disagree that PETA tries to influence people, please explain why here. If you meerly disagree with the phrasing, please rephrase, don't delete. -81.79.242.103 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that is original research. Please provide sources for your additions. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 17:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Propaganda, "...instead of impartially providing information, propaganda is often deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid". This makes it clear that calling some organization's publication 'propaganda' is expressing an opinion that it's misleading or false and hence violates WP:NPOV. Crum375 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And I also agree with Localzuk's edit summary comment; using a pejorative such as propaganda is not absolutely prohibited, but it can only be quoted by a reliable source, not used as if it's WP itself saying it. Crum375 18:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The exact phrase "PETA propaganda" on Google gives ~3500 hits, against ~900 for "PETA advertisement", so I would submit that it is far from a new coinage. As separate keywords, there are >half a million results. NPOV means representing all viewpoints, not only a viewpoint everyone agrees upon. Including references to individual critics who have called PETAs work "propaganda" would go on for pages and pages, and not look very neutral at all. I would also point out that propaganda is not used exclusively to apply to factually inacurate material ("often missleading", above, not "always"), so using the term does not necessarily make up readers minds for them. Once again, I ask for an alternative term that encompasses these activities in a concise manner. In the meantime, I will replace the other elements of my edit, leaving out this contentious word. Please don't just revert if you only intend to delete one word. -81.79.242.103 18:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone 'unreliable' (for example) doesn't mean that someone can never be trusted, but is still clearly a pejorative. WP cannot denigrate or praise any subject X in an editorial sense: "X uses propaganda", but instead must rely on verifiable and reliable sources, e.g. "Y claims that X uses propaganda.[1]". That Google comes up with things is only a starting point, you must supply an actual quote from a reliable source. And I must say the overall tone of your edits, as well as your comments here, sounds very one-sided, you should try to aim for a neutral point as a WP editor. Crum375 18:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Here[[16]] is an example of a reliable source that refers to PETAs activities as propaganda in editorial voice (not quoting opponents). The problem with saying "Y claims PETA uses propaganda" (refering to critics) is that there are just too many Y's - how do you pick a notable one, since a list would surely look NPOV? Please assist me in finding a couple of notable critics who use the term, if this is the way you want to go. Apart from my wish to use the word 'propaganda' (nobody has yet suggested a better one), what are you calling one-sided? My other changes are very minor, and seek only factual accuracy and precision. -81.79.242.103 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your latest version uses 'publicity material' and 'advertisements' - these are synonymous. Please discuss before re-inserting anything else as there are 2 editors who disagree with your changes. I will revert this last time and hope you discuss first. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 20:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Publicity is one of the variables that comprise the promotional mix. The other components of promotions are advertising, sales promotion, and personal selling. So, no they are not synonyms. Please provide a better word or phrase: I have explained above the activities I am trying to represent by either term. If you agree they are important, then why delete rather than rephrase? Also why keep reverting instead of just deleting the one word you say you disagree with? Please explain what is wrong the wikilinks I tried to add, and provide citations which say that PETA does not seek to persuade people that their case has merit, since you keep deleting those things too. Please also explain why you are reverting 2+ other users edits and deleting a whole section every time you press revert, yet your edit comments relate only to my edits. Finally, all I knew before your last revert was that 2 editors objected to the word propaganda - you did not state disagreement with any other change, and I did not reinsert the word propaganda. -81.79.242.103 02:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Point 1: Publicity materials. The 2 terms should not be in the list together. Either we have 'advertisements' or 'publicity materials'. You state that 'publicity' is one component, but you are inserting 'publicity materials' - the materials part is the difference here. A publicity material is an advert (ie. look at a leaflet, it has a bunch of information on it and the details of PETA at the bottom. This is both an advert and publicity material).

Point 2: The wikilinks are a casualty of being able to revert to remove a variety of badly inserted material (and also, if the words are wikilinked in any other text relatively near to themselves in the article we shouldn't wikilink them per the manual of style, which brings me onto

Point 3: The 'seeks to pursuade that their position has merit', this simply requires a source.

Point 4: The large section that people keep removing is discussed in a section above. It is badly sourced and unsourced in most cases.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to argue further over publicity materials, because it's not a great phrase anyway. However, PETA are very well known for the literature they distribute and their skill at obtaining free media coverage, both of which deserve a mention. Propaganda is a good way to cover both in a single word. Publicity stunt covers part of the second element of this. Once again, suggest alternatives, please. Re persuiding people their case has merit, this is my phrase so I've not got sources that quote it verbatim. However, looking at various souces, it seems that the only people they are actually trying persuade of the merits are politicians. As far as the public goes, they are trying to change their actions more than their views. (eg. persuade people to boycott X or Y, persude people to become vegan). Media coverage tends to address a single requested change of action or view at a time, so sources tend to say "PETA is trying to persuade environmentalists to go vegan" or "PETA is asking shoppers to leave X on the shelf". "PETA trying to persuade us all to do what it says" would be an unlikely news story, but is the net result of 100 separate stories on different issues. So what would be the best way cite this large body of material?

Suggested edits:

The organization seeks to persuade the public to act in accordance with its views through advertisements, the distribution of persuasive materials, the generation of free media coverage, and political lobbying.

Persuasive materials above means leaflets, magazines, video in any format, posters for private use, stickers, essays, electronic versions of the above and any other materials that a hypothetical propagandist might use in addition to advertising (which here means the paid placement of a message in the media or on billboards)

The merit/propaganda version:

The organization seeks to persuade the public that its position has merit through advertisements, propaganda[17], undercover investigations, and political lobbying.

Animal rescue does not belong in any version of this line as it is not a method of informing or persuading the public. Undercover investigations only persuade or inform if PETA publicise the results, which would comes under the heading of persuasive materials and media coverage, but not necessarily under heading of propaganda, depending on how PETA represents them.

81.79.242.103 10:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction is derivative work of PETA Mission Statement

Wikipedia says: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the largest animal rights organization in the world. [1] Founded in 1980 and based in Norfolk, Virginia, it is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) corporation, with 187 employees as of April 2006, [2] and funded almost exclusively by the contributions of its stated one million members.[1] Outside the United States, there are affiliated offices in Canada, France, UK, Germany, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, and Taiwan. [3] There is also the peta2 Street Team for high-school and college-age activists. [4] Ingrid Newkirk is PETA's international president.

PETA says: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than a million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world. Founded in 1980, PETA is dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals.

Wikpedia says: PETA's slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." [1] In support of that position, it focuses on four core issues: factory farming,[5] fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment. It also campaigns against fishing, the killing of animals regarded as pests, abuse of backyard dogs, and cock fighting. The organization aims to inform the public of its position through advertisements, undercover investigations, animal rescue, and government lobbying.

PETA says: PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the abuse of backyard dogs. PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns.

This is bordering on copyvio, and considering we are meant to be integrating criticisms into the artcle (criticisms section removed) is surely a million miles from NPOV. It does not even state that they are "a controversial animal right group", which is surely indesputable, as well as the first thing anyone new to the subject would need to know. -81.79.242.103 02:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not copyvio as it is synthesis of material that is sourced to it. Second, yes it is not perfect. Please, if you can, add what you think is missing, ensuring it is sourced properly.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that PETA doesn't copyright anything, so there is no legal issue with using what they say (however, wiki policy might differ on that). It wouldn't hurt to change it up a little more to make it a little bit different from what PETA has done (but personally I think there are more areas in this article that need more work). If you put in the word controversial, that would make the article sound very POV. Do we put that the ACLU is a controversial civil rights organization, or that the NRA is a controversial gun organization?--Steele the Wolf 04:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say that all these organisations are controversial. Indeed, we do say that ACLU's views are controversial in its intro, and have a Controversy section in the NRA article, neither of which is the case here. Here are a handful of sources for PETA being a controversial organisation (as opposed to merely holding controversial views, or orchestrating controversail campaigns): [18] [19] [20]. I'm sure this is the tip of the iceberg of what could be found. I agree that the intro is only one of countless problems with this article, but I feel that introductions are important, and certainly don't have the time to deal with the whole article, baring in mind the significant effort it seems takes to insert a single word on this particular page. -81.79.242.103 09:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree about adding 'controversial' as a primary adjective to the lead of an article. If we did, then we would have to add it to religions, for example, as there is lots of controversy for any major religion, and I doubt that followers of a religion X would consider this statement as NPOV: "X is a major controversial religion with Y million (or billion) followers". Let's reserve controversies to a separate section - any large organization with ambitious goals will have them, regardless of its place in the spectrum. Crum375 14:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No one major world religion is substaintailly more controversial (globally) than another, so it is not part of what makes any of them notable. PETA is more controversial than any other large pro-animal organisation. If the introducation is to be useful to anybody new to the subject, it needs to make clear that PETA's approach is very different from that of, say, IFAW. At present, it does not. There is not even a controversies section for controversies to be reserved to. Finally, just a quick request for fact checking: 1. We need to cite a completely independant source for PETA being the largest animal rights organisation. 2. We say PETA has a million members, but PETA only claims a million "members and supporters". Supporters is a very ambiguous phrase, potentially including anyone who has ever dontated a couple of coins. Rather than reuse PETAs phrase, does anyone know the actual size of PETAs membership? -81.79.242.103 14:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding religions, or organizations, your statement "no one major world religion is substaintailly more controversial (globally) than another" is simply your opinion. I am sure we can find other opinions, in all directions. The same would be true for organizations in general, large ones with ambitious goals tend to attract controversy, which comes with the territory. If there is a neutral respectable reliable published source that says PETA is significantly more controversial than other similar organizations, and there appears to be a consensus by all neutral observers about this point (i.e. no opposing views by other observers), then I can see it being mentioned (e.g. quoted) with the proper attribution. But short of that, I don't think it belongs in the lead, any more than "religion X is controversial" belongs in article X's lead. Crum375 15:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)