Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Animal welfare

In the infobox it says animal rights and "animal welfare". I think animal welfare should be removed. There is no strong sourcing describing this as a welfare organization or that they focus on welfare. I thought I would raise this issue here as I know this is a controversial article. Unfortunately there has been a lot of confusion on Wikipedia regarding animal rights and animal welfare in regard to organizations. I have fixed many of these in the last few days. We need to follow the sourcing, it would be WP:OR to cite welfare on this article. It's rare to find an organization that supports both rights and welfare. Most are clear cut, they either advocate for rights or welfare. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and I just removed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

removed CCF related-article to revert neutrality

Removed CCF-related articles in "high euthanasia rates", see WP:NOTADVOCACY. keep the paragraph as a matter of fact. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I reverted that before I saw your note here in talk. I'm willing to reconsider, but I don't see that our reporting that amounts to advocacy in Wikipedia's voice. If there is reason to believe that the data cited are not accurate (ie, that PETA does not have high euthanasia rates), that could be a different matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

On further reflection, I partly changed my mind. I think you are right, that we should not include the part about claiming that PETA is a slaughterhouse. That's just advocacy, and I removed it. But I think we can keep the euthanasia statistics. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

eyep, it's "only" a 80%-97% slaughterhouse. straight up libel. --23:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Introduction not written from a neutral point of view

The following does not look like NPOV to me: 'The organization has been widely criticized for its controversial campaigns and euthanasia use, the latter of which has resulted in legal action and a response from Virginia lawmakers.'

Only hostile views of the organisation are mentioned in the introduction, giving a false impression of the relative prominence of opposing views. Seems to me criticism is given undue weight [1] in the introduction relative to support for PETA. Knot Lad (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

its one line in a 4 line intro. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Right, but again why only mention criticism in the intro when there is a mix of views on a controversial subject? Including the claim that it 'has been widely criticized' as the only reference to other people's views gives the impression that this is something like a consensus. Knot Lad (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Do we nor mention that they also " The organization opposes factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and other activities it considers to be exploitation of animals", if not feel free to add it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That is just a description of their policies though, I'm talking about viewpoints about the organisation. Wikipedia policy is that an article should indicate the relative prominence of opposing views, but here we only have criticism. Knot Lad (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The lede is not the article, but if you can think of a positive thing to say about them you want in the lede suggest it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Again it's not about what we think of them but rather reflecting fairly the relative prominence of opposing views. I think a simpler way to do that would be to remove that sentence. Knot Lad (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No, if there are opposing views we put both sides, we do not remove one side. I think this has now be exhausted, I do not support this suggestion, and until I say otherwise that remains the case, I will not be continuing this other then to say I have changed my mind if I do. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay I take the point. I agree that reference to criticism should remain, obviously it is a controversial organisation. What about something like this: 'The organization’s controversial campaigns have been credited with drawing media attention to animal rights issues, but have also been widely criticized. Its use of euthanasia has resulted in legal action and a response from Virginia lawmakers.'

Seems to me a fair reflection of the body. Knot Lad (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Title change

Change the title to just “PETA” it is the name much more people are familar with. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please see the references above to three previous discussions about the same proposal, where you can see why they failed. Largoplazo (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Did we not reject this idea recently, nothing has changed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)