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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Personal website

Kerry, I removed that link because it seems to be someone's personal website. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

hello slimvirgin,

the reason why I added the site once again is because it is a site critical of peta. the websites presented in the list can be considered personal websites maintained by a small amount of indivduals. I thought the reason for having the "Sites Critical of PETA" was to list sites critical of them despite being a group or an indivdual? I've visited it and seems to be a good source of information presented by the owner whom maintains it. KerryJones

We don't normally use personal websites. We have no idea who runs it or how reliable s/he is. You didn't answer my question earlier by the way. Why wouldn't PETA be pleased to hear from you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, Kerry, would you please sign and date your posts? You can do this by typing four tildes after them — ~~~~ See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

PETA opposed to guide dogs?

The article states in the opening that PETA is opposed to guide dogs for the blind. However, searching the PETA website for the phrase "guide dog" only produced hits for a case in which a blind person abused a guide dog. A search for "helper animal" turned up nothing. Google produced similar results. Unless someone can produce evidence (maybe cite a flyer or something), I think this phrase should be removed. Gwimpey 03:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

One source would be Michael Spector's 2003 New Yorker article "The Extremist: The woman behind the most successful radical group in America": "She [Ingrid Newkirk] regards the use of Seeing Eye dogs as an abdication of human responsibility and, because they live as 'servants' and are denied the companionship of other dogs, she is wholly opposed to their use." - Nunh-huh 04:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the section about PeTA being opposed to guide dogs and pets because it is not true. Ingrid Newkirk is the president of PeTA not the organization as a whole. She has her own views seperate of PeTA's own manifesto. PeTA is against animal breeding, and "puppy mills" to be sold as pets but they heavily advocate the adoption of pets from local humane shelters. There is also no official reference to guide dogs at all in any of PeTA's literature or websites, and has no official stance on it. Whatever Ingrid Newkirk thinks is her own opinion and is autonomos of PeTA. Also at the top of the page it says the page is in violation of the neutrality view of wikipedia, what then are we supposed to do to fix this. I mean who is disputing it and which way are they disputing it? Baumstev 15:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Newkirk is the president of PeTA and thus is certainly speaking for them when she talks publically. --Mr. Vernon 04:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not necessarily true. Ingrid Newkirk has in the past said things in public that contradicts PETA's polices or lack there of. Her individual opinion does not always reflect the organization.--Steele 07:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've disputed this because the article is over 2/3 criticism, with only cursory information on the organization or its beliefs. The campaigns section, for example, cherry-picks the most controversial or gimmicky campaigns while ignoring the great majority of the organization's active campaigns. The article is rife with factual errors and is in need of a major overhaul. The key point being that after reading this article one may not have the best idea of what PETA is, or does, but would understand that many people don't seem to like them very much. - Zerstuckelung 17:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I took the tag down yesterday because no one had posted here about it, and we're not supposed to do drive-by tagging. By all means put it back, but then you should post with some more details about things you feel need to be cleaned up to restore it to NPOV. I agree with you that there's too much criticism; or rather, it's not even so much the criticism as the tone. There's a kind of sneering quality throughout in the way it's written. People reading this page should not be able to tell whether the editors who wrote it were pro- or anti-PETA, and the problem with it as it stands, is that they could, quite easily. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

External links in body of text

This article is thick with external links in the body of the text. This is not good wikistyle. I'd like to start changing the relevant ones to footnotes, and removing others. Any objections? Babajobu 09:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

They're there as references, and online references are best kept as links so the reader doesn't have to go to the bottom of the page. Most of the points linked to are ones that have been challenged, and a lot of this page has been challenged, which is why it's well-referenced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think this is not good wikistyle? It's what we're meant to do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought I'd read in the MOS that inline external links should be avoided, when possible. I'll have a look for it. Babajobu 16:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Please let me know if you find it, because it shouldn't say that. You may be thinking of how we're not supposed to link to external sources as though they're internal ones, like this PETA. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This article follows all of the rules as far as I can see, but a lot of those unnamed links are unecessary, especially in the first paragraph. I think they could be cut down quite a bit. Archer7 14:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I was just wrong about the inline external links. I was sure I'd read it somewhere, but I must have been having some weird wikinightmare in which I'm bedevilled by bizarre policies I can't figure out. Babajobu 16:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

External links

As far as the external links section at the bottom of the article goes — is it really necessary to have that many? Seems like we don't need every site PETA's ever put up, and we don't need tons of anti-PETA sites. A representative sample would surely do. —Cleared as filed. 03:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It does seem a lot, but they're arguably quite useful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of the links link to sites that have closed. Can they be deleted. user:jeffklib

Bible

Please don't revert to using "the Bible" to refer to the Christian bible. Either say Christian bible or New Testament. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It was a typo and since you fixed it you would have noticed that I mistyped Christian Bible|Bible, sorry I am new to editing. Can you also please not delete credible references I insert as well as be more diligent in correctly describing edits. Thanks.--129.173.105.28 01:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reverting. I don't care whether you call it the Christian bible or the New Testament, but don't call it the Bible, because that also refers to the Hebrew Bible. As for the rest, I don't see what distinction you're drawing between "some" theologians and "a minority" of theologians, and the BBC source you give seems to say neither (and a BBC source for theology is hardly appropriate). Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you over those small points, but I ask you again not to assume that "the Bible" is only the Christian one. Finally, please make sure in future that your invisible comments really are invisible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It was a typo and since you fixed it you would have noticed that I mistyped Christian Bible|Bible. Can you also please not delete credible references I insert as well as be more diligent in correctly describing edits. Thanks.--129.173.105.28 01:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Then stop reverting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a small minority of theologians that believe Jesus was a vegetarian. This is not just my opinion. There are no polls taken of theologians to determine this and there doesn't need to be as most theologians would refer to direct quotes from the bible. Also check out what Slate has to say No mainstream theologian buys the vegetarians' argument because the Gospels are fairly straightforward about the Messiah's tastes in food. Jesus said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish. ... And he took it, and did eat before them (Luke 24:41-43). The story of Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes, not to mention that Passover lamb, argues against vegetarianism, too. --129.173.105.28 02:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Please describe your edits in more detail SlimVirgin. In your last edit to PETA you decribe your changes as rv to New Testament; the "bible" doesn't only refer to the Christian bible). That's great, but you also deleted a reference I added as well as changing other text not related to the edit description. I accept your Christian Bible change, but it is fact that it is a minority of Christian scholars believe that Jesus was a vegetarian. I left you two references to this fact.--129.173.105.28 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop the unnecessary belligerence. The rv in my edit summary showed it was a revert. That means any change you made was reverted. Your reference is a poor one. It has no theological authority. It doesn't say (so far as I can see) what your edit says. And anyway, there is no meaningful distinction between "some" and "a minority": both mean "not most." It seems to me you're edit warring here for the sake of it. But fine. I don't care, and I've left your changes as you wanted them. The only thing I've changed, and will continue to change, is your use of the bible to refer to the Christian Bible. Enough already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The link from the BBC has the direct Bible quotes that support Jesus ate meat. That is why I added it. The slate article mentions that the veg Jesus people are in the minority. --129.173.105.28 02:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

PS - if you actually read my earlier comments, I said I AGREED with YOU about the Christian Bible point. --129.173.105.28 02:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is where I agreed with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SlimVirgin

I have to disagree with SlimVirgin in this case. Strictly speaking, the term "The Bible" does refer ONLY to the Christian bible: the Old and New Testament in combination. In Judaism, the Old Testament is referred to as the Thora, not the Bible. Thus, the accurate definition of the Bible is the book as it exists in the Christian faith: containing the Old and the New Testament. In addition to that, the term "Bible" usually already refers to the "Christian" Bible in common usage. -- Vargher, 8 January 2006, 11:55 (GMT)

Actually in Judaism the old testament is referred to as the Torah, however that is a hebrew word. In english it would be referred to as the bible, so specifying which bible you are talking about is necessary. Baumstev 09:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The Torah is only the first 5 books of the Old Testament. The Jewish word for the Old Testament Bible is Tanakh, which is actually an acronym for its three parts: Torah, Neviim, Ktuvim (Torah, Prophets, Sacred Writings). But yes, in English, the Tanakh is called the Bible, even though this term is also used by Christians to include the New Testament.

Original research

There's a lot of original research in this article. For example, the Jesus passage:

Several PETA commercials have used Christian themes to promote vegetarianism, including one claiming that Jesus was a vegetarian, and another featuring a pig with the caption "He Died for Your Sins." [1] Some Christian leaders, such as the Reverend Andrew Linzey, support some of these ideas, but the majority of theologians cite passages in the Christian Bible that seem to support the view that Jesus ate fish and lamb. [2] [3]

We argue against Jesus being a veggie. But we're not supposed to do that — that's not what NPOV means. We're supposed to include arguments only if other published sources have argued against PETA's use of Jesus, and then we quote them, not the BBC talking about a new diet. Using the latter is creating a new analysis or synthesis of established facts to advance an argument, something the NOR policy explicitly disallows. The inclusion of these kinds of arguments is making the piece look amateurish and badly written. We need to stick closely to what credible sources say about PETA, and what PETA say about themselves: not what the BBC says about a diet that we can press into service in advance of our own anti-PETA POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Slim, that's much, much better, thank you and well done. Babajobu 07:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Baba. ;-) I also meant to say that we need a source for the pig caption claim. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

what about

sourcewatch.org article

Four Core Issues?

In the article's second paragraph, I found this:

"PETA focuses on four core issues: factory farming, vivisection, animal testing, fur farming, and animals in entertainment."

Uh...that's five.

PETA focuses on four core issues: factory farming (1!), vivisection (2!), animal testing (3!), fur farming (4!), and animals in entertainment (5!).

See? 67.165.87.40 23:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad someone can count. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, since vivisection and animal testing are words for the same thing there are actually four issues. The sentence should read... , vivisection and animal testing, fur farming... Mostlyharmless 03:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked the sentence to reflect that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"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." http://www.peta.org/about/

I have changed "fur farming" in the article to "clothing trade" because the core position is animals in the clothing trade which includes animals raised for wool, animals hunted for fur, and factory farming - not exclusively factory farming.

Explaining my revert

I reverted a large amount of material [4] added by a new account in part because it was repetitive (I believe everything mentioned is already in the article in one form or another) and in part because CCF was the source. And the POV language. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Emily Rose?

I noticed Emily Rose (the link going to the Anneliese Michel article) in a list of famous peta members & supportors. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be there or is a bit of unnoticed vandalism. Anneliese died four years before peta was founded, so this is pretty suspicous. Phantom784 01:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, Phantom. We probably shouldn't allow any more names to be added without a source. I've left an invisible request to that effect. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

How about links for all the names? I'm not sure any names should be listed without supporting documentation. If any of those people are not members of PETA (or were once members of PETA but have since distanced themselves from the organization) there could be quite a to-do over it. So how about we establish a policy where any name listed has to include a reference to current membership in the organization? --SpinyNorman 03:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Famous supporters

I agree with SpinyNorman and SlimVirgin about requiring references for future additions to the list, but I question whether those already on the list should be allowed to stay there without references.

Emmylou Harris's FarmAid page says she supports PETA, and so does emmylou.net, which seems to be as close to an official Emmylou Harris site as there is. So I'm adding these references for her. On the other hand, a google search for "peta dalai lama" leads me to think that he is at most a partial supporter of one particular PETA campaign (against KFC). It appears he has clashed with PETA over their representations of his positions. I'm removing him from the list for now, but since I'm no expert on the subject I won't object if anyone adds him back with references.

--Allen 20:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I made that section invisible. Perhaps we can restore it when a sufficient number of sourced names have been found. There should be some on the PETA website.

I also removed the Virginia pound figures from the intro, because PETA's an international organization so it looked odd to have figures from one state in one country laid out in the intro. I also rewrote the sentence about their support for terrorists, because it wasn't clear what was being referred to. They support animal-rights activists who have destroyed property, but if that's what we mean by "terrorism," we need a good source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Links

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

Intro

Spiny, link to or otherwise cite your source after the sentence, or it will be deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

the link is already in the article, but since you seem to be insisting, I'll copy and paste it. --SpinyNorman 06:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Truth or Vandalism?

Several facts in this article are so outlandish it's difficult to tell if they're true or a spoof. Did PETA really ask the cities of Hamburg, Frankfurt & Fishkill to change their names?

Yep - they did http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/22/national/main550557.shtml I believe that it is just for the inexpensive publicity (they make the offer and get on many news programs), not because PETA believes that the name Hamburg makes people eat hamburgers.

also is the 'your mommy kills animals' real or fake? i put it in once but it was deleted as vandalism. i keep saying its real but no one will believe me Ilikefood 23:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting of latest anon

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

I know there are anti-government nuts out there, but I would call peta's tax documents filed and submitted by them, and reported by the US government to be fairly credible.

Here is a link to the PETA 2001 tax return: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/521/218/2002-521218336-1-9.pdf

PETA and Euthanasia

PETAs defense for their use of euthenasia doesn't exactly explain why they had to kill 86% of the animals they recieve; is it that all 86% are in such a bad shape that euthenasia is necessary? I kind of doubt this. This needs to be addressed in the article.

I don't think that PETA euthanizes. Are you thinking about the Humane Society? Dawn22 03:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Did not read the article did you? PETA admitted to euthanizing 86% of the animals in their care. There is also the mentioned scandal involving the dead animal dumping. -Thebdj 05:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Peta's response when confronted with the 86% number was that they do not run a typical shelter, which is plausible given the nature of the group (especially if you read about Peta's C.A.P. program in this wiki article about Peta. Also, Peta's ideology might lead them to take more abused/injured animals than the local SPCA.). I.E., Peta might be involved with a higher number of injured and abused animals than normal -- and as a result, might need to put-down an unusually high percentage of them; however, this would need to be confirmed. So I partially agree with the O.P. of this "PETA and euthanasia" section, because MORE INFO IS NEEDED and this should be addressed in the article (but with facts, not based on his speculative "doubts," nor based on my own speculation for why his doubts are likely to be unfounded). The source for Peta killing 86% of the animals in their shelter is State of VA records, and the State has never taken issue or investigated Peta based on these records submitted to them by Peta, which might also indicate that Peta's 86% euthanasia rate was acceptable; that might be one good place to start researching it.

Also, Peta's involvement in the Hinkle/Cook case should be updated in this section -- after the trial (which occurs next month, IIRC), since neither side has fully presented its case publicly, but court transcripits will hopefully be available online.

--J.Robb, 4/28/06

This is not a scandal. Responsible pet ownership is expensive. PETA is a charity (read: not rich). Fluffy cats and friendly dogs get euthanized so they don't die of hunger, fear and neglect. This is a non-scandal. Sometimes in 2005 a Web address petakillsanimals.com appeared in Times Square in New York, when this "scandal" broke. I did a little research and found that the organization that paid for and spread this "scandal" is the Center for Consumer Freedom (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/), which by its own account is "a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, [****]food companies[****], and consumers working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices." This is clearly an astroturf group of lobby-money thugs, just like the Swift Boat Veterans. Don't. believe. it.

Quotes from Ahoskie veterinarian Dr. Patrick Proctor told reporters that his staff gave a perfectly healthy cat and her two newborn kittens to Hinkle and Cook. "This cat and two kittens I gave them last week," he said, "were in good health and were very adoptable, especially the kittens." Dr. Proctor later added in the Virginian-Pilot: "These were just kittens we were trying to find homes for. PETA said they would do that, but these cats never made it out of the county."

[Any support for this?] [No - Bertie county has not used gas since 2001] http://www.gaschambers.freehomepage.com/photo3.html]

"The animals were from shelters in Northampton and Bertie counties, where they were going to be euthanized with gas - PETA picked them up to euthanize them by injection (more news at [[5]]), which is considered more humane."

Nuetrality

Other than the 'controversy' section, this seems to be some PeTA loving crap. Even the 'controversy' section is a bit soft, I need an NPOV tag on here.

I casually cleaned up some of the advocacy. PETA is only the largest animal rights organization in the world if one accepts their notion that only they and more radical groups really advocate animal rights. The Humane Society outsizes PETA 7:1 in membership, and only PETA and other radical groups claim Humane Society doesn't advocate for the rights of animals.

The claim that "nobody" has ever disrobed during a PETA protest is patently false, and if it weren't provably false, it could not be verified as true -- unless an independent and published researcher has attended all PETA protests or interviewed people who viewed those protests. To the contrary, the Go-Gos were fully nude and behind a banner in the 1990 kickoff of I'd Rather be Naked. At least one women in a series of images of nude zoo protests appears fully naked, Ronald Reagan's daughter Patti appeared nude in a PETA ad, and unless the specious claim is modified to "Nobody has ever presented full frontal nudity, this PETA ad features obvious, irrefutable complete nudity. [6][7]SaintBernard 07:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ted Nugent, Tim Treadwell, and a really long paragraph about peta

This "controversy" page is pretty boring, so I'll add my opinion and probably get stabbed for it. Before I discuss previously mentioned topics, I'll describe who I am. I'm a 14 year old Hunter, Trapper, Fisherman, Hide Tanner, and all around Woodsmen. I find peta and it's terrorist associates (alf,elf,etc.) to be very dangerous, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna back down. TED NUGENT - Uncle Ted, the Nuge, whatever you call 'im, Ted is my blood brother. We need people like him. My life is seriously threatened because we live within 5 miles of one of peta's gestapo leader's homes. Uncle Ted has inspired me to take a stand and not back down. I'm not spineless about Hunting, Trapping, etc., because we've been walked on too long. If peta wants me, we have 14 guns, so come and kill us like you kill innocent people who work in restaurants, banks, labratories, fur farms, etc. I wouldn't kill them, like they'd do to me, because I respect all life and abide by the 10 comandments, but I'd do what it takes for defense. Me and my good Hunting buddy Dan Tucket. For those of you who don't know him, He's an unofficial Iron sights shooting champion. Which means he can put a hole in your war wagon's tire at 600 yards. Uncle Ted sees life like we do, and knows how "retarded", "sick", and "demented" these peta freaks are. They are so blinded with hate for something they don't understand. Listen to Ted's song Bow and Arrow, Search for "bow and arrow" in dogpile audio search and click on #9. TIMOTHY TREADWELL - Remember this green peace freak, the one who loved bears so much that they ate him? He tried to live with them and they ate him. Probably because he was arrogant, abnoxious, immoral, and talked in an extremely annoying voice. Some bear experts say he wasn't eaten earlier because the bears probably thought he was retarded, which I'm sure he was. I honestly think he got what he deserved. Watch 'Grizzly Man' on the discovery channel, end paragraph. WHY I HATE TERRORISM - Ingrid Newkirk (cough...hitler...cough)can spew her soul-less crap all she wants. peta's lifestyle and beliefs put animals and people equal, which is a blatant rebellion against God's word, "And let them (Man) rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." - Genisis 1:26. Why would all the animal rights activists go against their own Creator and Lord? Because they have formed their own cult religion from their organizations. Remember the hippies of the 60s and 70s? (i don't but you might) All these current yuppies have built upon that and established a godless religion in which they worship nature and the earth, directly or not. Any religion straying from the sound doctrine of God's Word is one bound for Hell. This new religion produces mind-less terrorists who see the killing of people like me as a holy war in a sense, and from the absolute spiritual un-fulfillment that comes with their religion, comes a worthless life. That Ingrid woman said it herself that she would rather not be living. She's obviously pyscho anyway, but that proves that spiritual depression is rather obvious as well. Want some proof of how crazy she is?: Meat eating infidel Humans like me "are the moral equivalent of cannibals, slave-owners, and death-camp guards", and “Humans have grown like a cancer. We’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” If that won't put you into a depressed funk, what will? In that second statement she took out all purpose in human life. Apparently we're worthless. Me and my buddy Mr. Tucket have seen through all this crap, and we live a fulfilled life in the Wild, living self-sufficiently. You all probably think we're crazy, and that's good. Insanity keeps terrorists away from us. Mr. Tucket's Dad got shot in the shoulder by these eco-terrorists because he owned a very succesful fur farm. These people will happily use firebombs, grand theft, stalking of scientists, and bloody physical assaults to get their point across. They fund two groups (alf and elf) that have comitted over 600 crimes in 10 years. The FBI calls them the “most serious domestic terrorism threat.” They have amassed a large group of celebrities and influential leaders who follow them. If you support peta, the humane society, or any other anti-hunting, free the animals groups, you could be supporting the guy who wants to slide a blade between my ribs. Guess what all this sounds like? Fascism. Think how we think or we'll kill you. They even brainwash 2 year olds by handing out offensive and violent propaganda. Want more proof of their insane bloodlust? I leave you with these quotes:

"In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It's a war, and there's no other way you can stop vivisectors." -- Tim Daley, British Animal Liberation Front Leader (BBC interview, 1987).

"Fire is a tool. Nothing does the amount of damage that fire can. Arson works. Make sure that all buildings or vehicles are free of creatures before lighting one single match. Arson should only be used when it can be guaranteed that the fire will not spread to the sheds the animals are in." -- (In the ALF publication "The Final Nail", under section entitled "Smashing the Furriers").

"It would be really great if all these fast-food outlets, slaughter houses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow" -- Peta Spokesperson Bruce Friedrich.

"If the feed barn, and processing barns are away from the animals, and downwind, then they could be burned down. Otherwise mink releases are the only way to go." -- J.P. Goodwin while executive director of the Coalition Against the Fur Trade (As quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group).

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." -- Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA.

"I would be overjoyed when the first scientist is killed by a liberation activist." -- Vivien Smith of ALF (USA Today, September 3, 1991).

Odd that this group considers humans the only animal that doesn't have a right to sustain itself by relying on other animals. MicroBrewer 08:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow...well I am not sure what the point of that tyriad was but PeTA nor the ALF has ever killed nor even harmed anyone. In all of the ALF's "terrorist" actions no human was ever harmed, I am not sure about the ELF but I am pretty sure no one has ever been killed in any of their actions either (I am speaking of the North America factions of these groups). Most of the stuff you have stated is blatant lies that I feel no need to dispute because I believe most people reading this will have the common sense to check the facts for themselves. Oh and if you are "self-sufficient" and living in the "wild" how did you possible discover the internet? At least you didnt vandalize the page. Baumstev 09:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor Point, from somebody who hasn't editing the page, and isn't about to (and has only just figuring out the discussion pages), but it shouldn't be "ALF's "terrorist" actions", it should be 'ALF's terrorist actions'. The definition of terrorist is somebody who uses fear for force or coerce people. Agree with them or disagree with them, their actions ammount to terrorism.

EDIT: ok I ended up making one edit, simple to improve readability of one part that didn't exactly flow.

Ant, 18th April

use of categories

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

South Park

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

PETA: Are They Human Beings?

It's my personal belief that anyone stupid enough to have to think when asked to choose between their pets and their children isn't a human. Share your thoughts on this. --12.221.233.146 07:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal beliefs, you shouldn't try to be "provocative" and "controversial" on Wikipedia. Let people decide for themselves after reading these articles, not some smarmy asshole hiding behind an IP. Chris Berry17:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

When did PeTA ask anyone to choose between their pets and their children? Thats a great example of the crap logic used to debase peta, it is a logical phallacy known as the straw man attack and its laughable. Baumstev

They consider animals and people as having the same worth. While they may not have said anything specifically about choosing between children and pets, they still use the ideologies present in that statement. Ziiv 14:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the importance of humans over all else a fact or is it an opinion? If all the algae die, for example, anything and everything that depend on oxygen, directly and indirectly, will die, including humans. If half the human population dies, life on earth—including still over three billion humans—will persist just fine, almost certainly better (i.e. with less competition for resources, rigid social systems, global warming, chemicals, etc.). If the whole human population dies, it still would hardly matter if not stimulate the growth of the planet; we are only one species out of billions (discounting species not yet discovered) today and out of even more billions throughout the natural history of this planet that we all (mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, fish, trees, flowers, etc.) were given passage to. If a tree (humans) falls in the forest and no one's around (or no one needs), does it make a sound? Before jumping to conclusions about the value of human life based on an obscure scale created by humans and self-love (first party), which is likely the result of a primitive survival instinct, perhaps we should consult a third party: the universe and earth. The universe and earth show no evidence of the importance of humans to its survival, and is actually a threat, ironically. These are the logical facts. I cordially challenge anyone to challenge these points. Dihydromonoxide 14:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can prove to me the importance of humans, I will objectively reconsider. Otherwise, I objectively believe what humans need to learn is humility. Dihydromonoxide 15:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Faux moral equivalence section

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

(minor) insert

Questioning the scientific validity of animal research is a tactic PETA is increasingly using and so I think it warrents a mention - but as the page is so long I'm keeping it brief! I'm adding in literally one sentence in the intro of the 'Criticism of PETA' section, fully referenced of course :) after the following (my insert in italics)

Adrian R. Morrison DVM PhD, has accused PETA of using edited and out-of-context video footage to allege cruelty to animals. In particular, he cites an example of videos purporting to show cats being embalmed alive by the Carolina Biological Supply Company being given to the USDA as evidence of animal cruelty. Subsequent testimony demonstrated that the cats had not been alive and that the video was being used an in an attempt to convey false information [31]. PeTA, along with other animal rights/antivivisectionist groups such as Europeans for Medical Progress [8], misrepresent the scientific validity of animal research according to the UK Advertising Standards Authority[9].

MedicalScientist 11:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Plagiarism?

I took a look at one of the external links on this page and was led to ExposePETA.com. On the site, you can find an essay about PETA at this link (http://www.exposepeta.com/content/view/24/33/). It seems to bear a very striking resemblence to the article found here. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.118.55 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 April 2006

You are right! There is much similarity with the ExposePETA article. In fact Lettuce Ladies and other sections are verbatim copies. -- 127.*.*.1 16:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the history of this page (took a while - long, long history) I think the Expose PETA article plagiarized Wikipedia! I wonder what we can do about that? Would it not be plagiarism to copy an article without citing Wikipedia given the open liscencing system? -- 127.*.*.1 16:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of PETA section

I will be making some changes to this section, including:

Delete: Penn and Teller section - what two has-been comedians think is not NPOV, nor is it of any value. If you want to set up a section of celebrities who oppose PETA, then perhaps this would fit, but otherwise we'll have comments from Jay Leno's monologue appearing as fact.

Please also delete the Dick Gregory section. He is also a comedian (Irrelevent if washed up or not) and therefore not NPOV? Why you don't consider comedians to be NPOV I don't know.

Delete: PETA has also been accused of operating animal shelters that kill more animals than most publicly operated shelters in the United States. [31] The source for this is the Center for Consumer Freeedom, hardly NPOV. However, it is patently untrue. While PETA euthanasia stats may indicate that a higher percentage of animals given to the organization are euthanised, the number of animals in no way approaches the numbers killed in publicly operated shelters, nor do verifiable statistics exist to claim this.

According to PETA's own filings with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 86.3% of the animals in its care in 2004. [10]

Delete: Adrian R. Morrison DVM PhD, has accused PETA of using edited and out-of-context video footage to allege cruelty to animals. In particular, he cites an example of videos purporting to show cats being embalmed alive by the Carolina Biological Supply Company being given to the USDA as evidence of animal cruelty. Subsequent testimony demonstrated that the cats had not been alive and that the video was being used an in an attempt to convey false information [32]. The NAIA is an animal interest group with their own web pages to promote their point of view. This is the only source for this alleged misrepresentation and is not credible. If USDA documents can be produced to document this, let's see them, otherwise this is simply a statement of a point of view.

The NAIA article originally appeared in Lab Animal, Volume 28, Number 10 and is reprinted with permission on the NAIA website. see bottom of [11]

"The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration."

-Michael W. Fox, Vice President, The Human Society of the United States, The Inhumane Society, New York, 1990.

Regan when asked which he would save, a dog or a baby, if a boat capsized in the ocean: "If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog."

-Tom Regan, Q&A session following a speech, University of Wisconsin-Madison, October 27, 1989.

"Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, The Washington Post, November 13, 1983.

I think that these comments should be inserted so that people can see both sides of the issue, both the quotes that sound good and the quotes that sound bad. these are the bad quotes. Ilikefood 23:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: PETA, along with other animal rights/antivivisectionist groups such as Europeans for Medical Progress [33], misrepresent the scientific validity of animal research according to the UK Advertising Standards Authority[34]. Curiously, this decision appeared mere days after 6 healthy volunteers were almost killed by drugs previously tested on animals - one of the points that PETA was making.

This criticism of the ASA ruling is irrelevant; the ruling was not connected in any way to the clinical trial that went wrong (incidentally the decision on the ruling pre-dated the clinical trial). Have therefore reinstated it.

Anti Vegetarian page

Orthorexia nervosa

Campaigns

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

With no objection, I have now made this section invisible. It should only be included if it is made representative. Pasio 06:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Since someone made this section visible again, I have removed the segments on out-of-date campaigns that no longer exist (Holocaust and City name change), and added campains on KFC and circuses to give some degree of balance. This entire section is horrible. PETA has a ton of major campaigns that are ignored, while minor bits like the Lettuce Ladies are included. This really needs to be made far more thorough, and I still maintain that it should be eliminated in its entirety until that happens. I also took out some factually incorrect statements about the Jesus campaign, like the claim that Rev. Andrew Lindsey believes Jesus was veg. He does not.Pasio 19:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Using "< ! - -" and "- - >"

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

Not Enough Criticism

this is a major controversial topic. there should either be more criticism here or add another article, "criticism of peta".

Ilikefood 23:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

there's not much supporting peta either. too many people are trying to insert their own feelings, I think, and so we end up with a pretty bad article.Pasio 19:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi I just had a look at this article, and I realise,d the sites in support of PETA, I'm pretty sure 2/3rds of them are run by PETA themselves, they should probably be removed as its hardly an argument to authority quoting yourself. Ant

PETA and the dumped animals, PETA's euthenasia explanation

Hello.

• It is my understanding that two PETA volunteers were convicted of disposing of 100 dead animals in dumpsters over a four-week period, and not one hundred each Wednesday, as Wikipedia now states.
• PETA’s official response to one critic of its horrendous kill rate is at http://www.mail-archive.com/helptheanimals...m/msg00535.html - and it does explain why its euthenasia rate is so high.
• The PETA Kills Animals campaign is indeed run by the Center for Consumer Freedom, “a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and consumers’’ - http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ - this is easily established and might be reported since CCF is obviously a powerful lobby group with a strong vested interest in undermining PETA.

External links on Famous members and supporters of PETA

I recently removed all external links for Famous members and supporters of PETA. I believed that they served no real purpose since each person listed had an internal link. However it has been argued that they served as references. Is this really needed? References for every person? Joelito 04:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joel, yes we need references to show they are PETA supporters. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. If famous members are actively involved in promoting PeTA then there is a good justification for listing them. For example, it would be hard to write an article about Scientology without mentioning Tom Cruise as one of it's most prominent members. Perhaps not a complete roll-call but a list of celebrities who donate significantly with their time or money?--Thepreacher 15:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How about just link to Peta? They are quite proud of their famous supporters, and have no qualms about telling you who buys into (literally) their organization.

The only point served by hiding PETA supporters is to silence them. I am a steak-loving non-PETA member, myself, but still find Wikipedia censorship revolting.

What qualifies someone as "famous" enough to make this list? I'm old so I've only heard of 2 or 3 of those people, but maybe removing that whole section is a good idea. IMO we don't need lists of "stars" who like subject X, not really germaine to an encyclopedia. Perhaps a link to PETA's website, but as it stands it adds nothing but sawdust and filler (like a hot dog) to the article.L0b0t 12:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If they are notable enough for a WP article, it seems reasonable to me to have them on the list. People who support a controversial organization are relevant to an article. Check out any college or university article - they all have a list of famous alumni - this is no different, IMO. BigDT 15:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing information?

A fellow viewer of Wikipedia recently pointed out that the "Sites Critical of PETA" section is empty, and I've also noticed that the "Criticisms of Peta" section is rather dull and seems to be missing something. Why has most of the important information been deleted? The decision seems to skew the article. In fact, I think this article was purposely made biased. --Boxtop 04:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

^^he^^^ is correct. The last time I looked at this there was a request for confirmation of certain quotes. I went and spent half an hour tracking them down and putting up links., All gone now.....

When I last looked it was all there, but you had to click on something to see it. Take a look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the content is still there, HOWEVER, it was commented out in this edit - [12]. If you click edit, you will see it, but it doesn't show up to someone just looking at the page. BigDT 18:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Alex Pacheco

Alex Pacheco is not a PETA employee and has not been for years and years. I don't know what kind of "source" would have this, but I have checked with PETA and this is the case. Feel free to call them and ask them yourself. It is unfair to quote Alex Pacheco in the "Criticism" section without mentioning that he's not with PETA any more, giving a false impression that he represents PETA today in any way.70.169.132.169 03:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact that he made those statements is verifiable, as the article states. WP:V dictates that the policy is verifiability, not truth. So, if you can verify with a reliable source that he isn't with PETA anymore, please do so. Until then, the information cannot be in the article. Jesuschex 03:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like in 1999, he became the President of an animal rights fundraising company called All American Animals, which would imply, at the very least, that he's no longer working for PETA full time. BigDT 17:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a source, straight from PETA president Newkirk's mouth. That should settle it. It is really annoying that you openly state that you are not interested in truth, only verifiability. If you're not sure that Pacheco is still with PETA, you shouldn't be making misleading statements like this. But this is the way of PETA critics, it seems, all unfair smear. (My venting ends here.)

Critiques of PETA

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

Totally agree. I have no idea why that was deleted. --68.149.181.145 07:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms Keep Getting Deleted

This article is obscenely stacked. More and more pro-PETA contributions are being added, and criticisms keep getting deleted. Sections in support of PETA are numerous, ad very comprehensive and detailed. The criticisms section is small and badly put together. I'd add some criticisms myself to balance this, but about a dozen good criticism references have been struck down already. Additionally, there are about 50% more pro-Peta sites at the bottom than anti-Peta sites. Looking at the number of links, it's obvious that this is just a battle over who can get the most on the article. Having about 40 websites for each side is just tedious. I think that some criticisms (such as arguments in favour of animal testing, south park, ect.) should be added, and some of the less important links should be deleted. Also, if you're going to have a description of every single campaign PETA has carried out, you should individually list every single (relevant)criminal act by a PETA member. You cannot have one section consist of many specific examples, why an opposing section consists of only one small paragraph encompassing numerous individual examples. Since this would make the article overly long, it might be better just to condense the campaigns section. Any thoughts? --68.149.181.145 07:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just make sure that whatever you put in has references and is NPOV. If you aren't certain, you could always post it here first for comment/editing help. BigDT 12:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the problem that this all comes down to is the fact that everything in support of PETA can be found on PETA's website (or one of the 10 million other websites they own). The closest thing to a compilation of facts against PETA is consumerfreedom.org, but whenever someone posts something from there, other editors feel the need to remind readers that consumerfreedom.org is run by every evil industry that has ever existed (as if PETA has a halo over their head).

Instead of deleting things that aren't referenced, why can't people try to reference them (and if it can't be verified, of course, delete it). And if something is a copyvio, why not try to reword it instead of deleting it?

Oh, and on the topic of WP:V, recall that WP:V#Sources states that "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources ..." PETA itself is definitely not a third-party source, so I could delete all of the information that is from PETA's website. What do you say? Jesuschex 14:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see anything from consumerfreedom backed up by another source. Please don't think that I am taking PETA's side - I'm not, really - I am opposed to them - but just as PETA is one extreme, consumerfreedom is the other extreme. Also, a more or less neutral source just telling the facts (like a mainstream media report) would be better than the emotionalism that consumerfreedom can take.

IMO, this kind of edit is what I would avoid - [13]. User:86.138.48.142, I don't mean this as an attack on you. I just use it because it's right here on the page right now and needs to be changed to improve it. (1) It is completely unsourced. (2) It is not a single, coherent criticism, but, rather mentions two separate issues that are really more of a "suggestion box" type thing, than a criticism. (3) It uses weasel words ("something which is viewed by many") to justify the point. User:86.138.48.142, this is nothing against you. I thank you for your desire to contribute. We just need to (1) verify it and (2) improve it a tad bit. BigDT 16:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I have spent some time searching and I could not find any reference to this particular criticism. I have removed it and left a comment on the talk page of the contributor to that effect. I have no qualms with it being there - it just needs to be sourced. "Who" is making that criticism? "Who" says that PETA should be doing more active campaigning? BigDT 17:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

PETA has gone to school plays and handed out fliers saying "your mommy kills animals" to children whose mothers were wearing fur. This has (ovbviously) been severely criticized. Could I file this under the "targeting of vulnerable groups" without it getting removed? Normally I wouldn't even ask with something this obvious, but this particular article seems to be a bit...selective about criticisms. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36208

I can't answer what other people would do, but since you posted this directly under and apparantly in reply to me ... if you look at the diff I gave showing the passage I removed and look at the reason that I gave on the talk page for removing it, then apply that reasoning to the possibility of adding something about the contents of the article you cited, you will see they are two completely different sets of circumstances. I removed an unsourced, POV statement for which, after trying, I could find no sources. You are talking about putting in a sourced, hopefully neutrally worded, statement. BigDT 06:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, let's see how long this edit sticks. I cited 3 different news sources vs. the copy-and-paste PETA website junk that makes up the rest of the article. I also think that an image of the "mommy kills animals" pamphlet should be placed in the article, since every image on the article so far is postive.--Insertrandomname 06:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and the timeline in the "history" section as well as the whole "campaigns" section need to be compressed. It seems almost as if these sections were purposefully streched out just to make the pro-PETA sections larger. Most of the information included there is of little importance. --Insertrandomname 06:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The topic starter is right, are PeTA Members vsndalizing the page!!!?71.80.171.171 17:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

May be. I will investigate this after breakfast. If it seems that it may be occuring, I will alert the others. -- 127.*.*.1 16:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

PETA is not a third-party source for this article!!!

This is so frustrating. Why is information from the official PETA website, or PETA-friendly websites acceptable to use in this article, exactly? In my opinion, a large portion of this article is tainted. --Insertrandomname 03:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. If anything, most of the article is an advertisement for PETA, copied (with some words changed) straight from it's website. The criticisms section is so small that it practically doesn't count. Jesuschex 22:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Organizations are allowed to be used as sources on themselves in articles about them. See WP:V and WP:RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

An ad? I'd say the article puts them in a fairly bad light. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 13:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

3,500,000? I'm a little skeptical

-PETA2 dispatched activist, volunteers, and staffers on 61 summer concert and skateboard tours including the Warped, Phish, and Morrissey tours. At these events, PETA screened the "Meet Your Meat" video and spoke with and handed out information to approximately 3,500,000 youths.- Right...is that from the PETA website or just completely made up? Does anyone have ANY reference for this? If noone can come up with anything (PETA doesn't count as a source), this should be axed. --Insertrandomname 07:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Are there any pro-peta sources that are independant? --Gunny01 10:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Over-all an interesting question, and a catct-22 if you ask me. If you're pro, then you're not independent because you have got to be somewhat involved to know what PETA is about. Besides attempted-NPOV encyclopaedic articles like this one, you can only really learn about PETA through "PETA-friendly" sites or PETA themselves, or anti-PETA sites... User:Doc Daneeka 16 June 2006, 14:17 (UTC+1)

Euthanasia

I've started my investigation on the claims made in the "Criticisms Gteting Deleted" section above. I have so far only been able to properly audit the Euthanasia criticism. it would be a lot better if people listed all of the criticisms instead of making me go through the history list. I have a life outside of Wikipedia too you know. ;(
Anyways, diffs of its removal can be found here and here and possibly many other places as well.
I found the following sources:

• http://www.animalliberationfront.com/News/2005_8/PETAeuthanizing.htm
• http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2004
  • Note, the numbers on this page do not indicate a mortality rate of 86.3%. However, the numbers are still large.
• http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=153&year=2004
  • This is data for Norfolk SPCA used in the comparison.
  • Note that the percentage euthanized is less than 1/5th than what PETA has.

My conclusion is that the passage is not entirely incorrect and should be rewritten and added back into the criticisms section. -- 127.*.*.1 19:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's important to note that the Norfolk SPCA does NOT take in all animals that people offer up for adoption; in fact, if you read the fine print, there is a WAITING LIST and an APPLICATION PROCESS for giving up your pet to the Norfolk SPCA ( http://www.norfolkspca.com/services/surrender.html ). The Norfolk SPCA tends to accept only pets that it deems "adoptable"; not vicious dogs or unhealthy pets generally speaking. Also, the Norfolk SPCA does NOT take in stray pets (http://www.norfolkspca.com/stray.html). PETA, on the other hand, deals with all animals (strays or non-strays) it encounters regardless of health, behavior, or age. This is the reason that the Norfolk SPCA can call itself a "no-kill" shelter, and why the percentage of pets euthanized is so much less. This doesn't justify PETA euthanizing pets who perhaps were healthy and possibly adoptable, but it puts the numbers in perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.186.107 (talk • contribs)

• About the 80-something% above ... according to User:127's VDACS link above, PETA took in 10298 pets. They returned 7643 of them to their owners. That means that they had to decide what to do with 2655 pets. They euthanized 2278 pets, or 86% of the ones that they had to decide what to do with. My guess is that this is where the number comes from. It's not 86% of the total number of pets they got their hands on, but, rather, 86% of the ones that they had to decide what to do with. BigDT 21:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm assuming that the 7,643 pets returned to owners probably were taken in for PETA's spay/neuter program. On the Center for Consumer Freedom's anti-PETA website (petakillsanimals.com) they include a small asterisk saying that the euthanasia statistics do not include spay/neuter animals. So this probably accounts for the 74% of pets taken back by their owners.

• If one takes into account the total number of pets that PETA dealt with (i.e. spay/neuter pets), the mortality rate would actually drop to 22.1% (though I'll readily admit that's a misleading statistic). This mortality rate is still much higher than the Norfolk SPCA's (about 4.6%), but PETA doesn't turn down anyone's pets, irrespective of behavior, age, or health (as far as I know). The Norfolk SPCA has a waiting list and application process and only takes in the pets they feel are adoptable (likely due to limited resources and to help keep down the euthanasia percentage).

POV

For me, at least, there are a few reasons why this article is POV:

• The balance of support and criticism for PETA is definitely more towards the support side
• There are very few non-PETA sources for the support of PETA
• Support of PETA is often regarded as fact, while criticism is often "According to ..." or "[so-and-so] claims ..."

There are a some more reasons, and they can be found throughout the talk archives. Jesuschex 18:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can usually rely on a activist organization's own web site to tell you what their philosophy is:

• "PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. " [14]

I don't think there's any dispute over whether PETA really believes this.

For what it's worth, I'm not part of PETA and actually dislike it quite a bit. I'm "writing for the enemy" when I put its core beliefs in the article intro. (Not that it should matter, but I'm a "wise use" conservationist. I think using dogs to help blind people is good. And they make great pets for children, too!) --Uncle Ed 18:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle Ed. They're warping kids for their own sick purposes... KinseyLOL 20:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This section needs cleanup. It sounds redundant. "'PETA believes that animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardinterest in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use—for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other reason."

PETA's philosophy is that "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.'"

In my opinion, this whole article is a failure. This should not be a battle between the pro- and anti-PETA people. This is not supposed to be a debate forum. It should provide a straighforward description of PETA and what it's about. It can be useful to include some criticisms and responses as some additional info, but that should not dominate the article the way it does. Really, the "contraversy" section should be short, not include quotations and so on, just say "PETA has been criticized for X, Y, and Z. It's supporters respond A, B, and C." And be done with it. People can look elsewhere for more debate fodder. These pro- and anti- arguments have no place in other sections, like under "campaigns", and things like Penn and Teller are just stupid -- imagine citing every TV show that criticized the NRA in their article, or quoting each person who criticized George Bush in his article. I'd wipe out most of the entry on PETA and start afresh.Pasio 23:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust Campaign

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

Category:Organizations accused of Terrorism

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

• I don't even think PETA's most vocal opponents call them terrorists - they just accuse them, as you pointed out, of funding eco-terrorism. In terms of mention from legitimate sources, here's an article from cnn on the subject [15]. BigDT 07:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks, again. I'll leave off the category then. Rockpocket 07:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus

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

Open Advocates of Assault/Battery?

http://www.peta.org/feat/petatomato/

Throwing any object at another person is considered assault or battery, depending on the language of the laws in the nation/state in which you live.

Might I add to the article that peta openly advocates assault being that this is a specific campaign within their website? It shouldn't be considered NPOV if it's a fact.

--Ollie Garkey 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV - Who removed it?

Sorry, I haven't been watching recently, and it's hard to go through all the history. Who deleted the npov template, and why?

And come to think of it, who removed the PETA disambig link at the top, and why? Jesuschex 23:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like they were removed in this edit [16]. I'm assuming removing the disambiguation link was accidental. I have restored it. I have no idea whether removing NPOV was accidental or not ... but honestly ... is it serving any purpose? BigDT 06:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

a small misrepresentation ("analogous" versus "equivalent")

the article says "PETA defended the comparison, saying that "the logic and methods employed in factory farms and slaughterhouses are analogous to those used in concentration camps," thereby attempting to justify their implicit claim that animal abuse is the moral equivalent of human genocide."

now, as you see, PETA says, the treatment of animals in factory farms is ANALOGOUS to the treatment of Jews during the holocaust; but then immediately afterward, this is characterized as "animal abuse is the moral equivalent of human genocide" - since when were analogous things equivalent??? i think that is a misrepresentation, & i doubt many people from PETA would agree with it. it should be kept close to PETA's intent: "analogous", not "equivalent". big difference, esp. in this situation. lakitu 19:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good point on principle, but it appears from other sources that PETA did use the term moral equivalent during their remarkably offensive "Holocaust on Your Plate" Campaign - "The leather sofa and handbag are the moral equivalent of the lampshades made from the skins of people killed in the death camps." [17] [18] Rockpocket 20:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Change the names of cities ???

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

A publicity stunt [19] Rockpocket 04:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I'd like to comment on the recent semi-protection that has been applied to this page.

First of all, this is a popular, controversial article/organization. Before the semi-protection, I could safely say there was probably at least one vandalism a day.

However, that's not why it was semi-protected. SlimVirgin semi-protected the page, citing: anons and new users messing with images; adding corporate logos inappropriately against fair-use policy.

Is this in line with when to use semi-protection? Let's take a look-see: Semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page, if the amount of vandalism is difficult for editors to keep up with. Just like full protection, it is a last resort, not a pre-emptive measure.

First, we must find what SlimVirgin is talking about:

• One anon (24.247.234.195) deleted an image, citing JPG is showing up horrible on my screen--bad color shift; can we convert to a PNG? as the reason. Yes, that was far from the right choice. However, it happened once.
• One new user (Allisonhenry, first contribution 24 June) participated in a four-part rv-war with corporate logos that shouldn't have been on the page, according to WP:LOGO.

Now, we must see if the events of the past few days warranted semi-protection. What is semi-protection for? :

• ... if it is the only option left available ...: As far as I could see, no other options were used. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
• ... to solve the problem of vandalism of the page, if the amount of vandalism is difficult for editors to keep up with ...: Judging by the fact that the problems that SlimVirgin cited totaled a few editors with a few edits, I'd give this one a no. For the larger vandalism problem on this page, I can't speak for all the editors. However, in my personal opinion, I haven't seen anything that these editors can't keep up with. Once again, correct me if I'm wrong.

That being said, this page should have never been semi-protected, and SlimVirgin was misusing the semi-protection policy. Jesuschex

Wow, and when were you appointed specialist in the semi-protection policy and King of Bad Faith? You could have tried asking me to unprotect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Never, nor did I claim to be. And please, tell me how I earned those titles.

I think you made a bad choice, that's all. Plus, it's fixed now. Nothing worthy of being called names. Jesuschex 21:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Protection - Umm ... yeah ... and those two users, by the way, are almost certainly the same person. Look down around 23:53, 23 June 2006 ... the IP reinstates Allison's photo. There obviously wasn't any malice involved. It was good faith. I explained on the IP's talk page (User talk:24.247.234.195) and posted the link on Allison's page (User talk:Allisonhenry) that the problem she was experiencing with the image was probably due to her color depth and I told her how she could increase her color depth. She didn't try to re-upload the photo of Ingrid after that. I take that as an acceptance of my explanation. Later on, she made a good faith mistake with regards to a fair use logo - and actually, arguably was a legitimate fair use claim. She was using the McD's logo to illustrate McD. But at any rate, that's all moot - there is no vandalism and was no evidence of anything other than a good faith mistake. Protection is thus inappropriate and should be removed. I was actually surprised to see that it had been protected. BigDT 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: User:SlimVirgin has removed the semiprotection as requested. BigDT 12:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Can all editors please try to assume good faith. It is not likely that SV protected the page for some dark reason but more likely that it was due to the reasons posted. Please try and speak to the user before jumping on the issue and shouting about 'abuse' or 'misuse' as this will prevent abrasion in the future.-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said that she did it for "some dark reason." Nor did I claim "abuse." I did in fact claim "misuse," but claiming misuse is not assuming bad faith. If I'm "assuming" anything, it's that SV incorrectly used semi-protection, and it most likely wasn't out of malicious intent. Jesuschex 21:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember that there is also a concept Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules which states If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them.. I think this should work ok as it seems that the intent was to help protect the article and doing the semi-protection is likely an easier method than blocking various usernames/ip's. Also you seem to have ignored the part about speaking to the user - this is the most important part.-Localzuk ^(talk) 21:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)