![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
PETA is one of the most controversial activist groups operating today. The group's contentious media campaigns, undercover operations, infamous advertising, and high profile demonstrations have made them perhaps the most infamous--and most polarizing--nonprofit organization there is. But are they terrorists? According to the US Department of Agriculture, they are now. [1]
So why no controversy section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.66.246 ( talk) 05:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
First off lets be blunt about this. We're talking about Rod Coronado, and PETA's gift of money both to his defence fund, his family and him directly via "loans" which were never expected to be repaid. So for the sake of arguement, if ALF was noted in a 1993 report to the US congress as an organization which "claimed to have perpetrated acts of extremism in the United States", and PETA gave money to that organization or its members after that point (1996 I believe, their tax records for that year will indicate) is that enough of a link? Is it reasonable to think that PETA knew the goals and ambitions of ALF at that point? Max.inglis ( talk) 22:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Well folks, I've looked, and it seems to me that what can be reliably sourced is already on the page, in the section about support for the ALF. If there's something I've missed (very possible) that needs to be added to that section, I'm all ears, but I have a feeling that we've been arguing about material that is already included on the page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that, unless other sourcing shows up, the issue has been pretty much exhausted. However, I want to bring up again something that went by quickly just above. I'm sympathetic to the concern raised by the IP editor, that the issue seems to be downplayed in the way the page currently reads. The information is there, but it seems to be downplayed. Where this strikes me the most is in the lead. The current wording tends to give the impression that criticism of PETA with respect to its interactions with these other groups rests upon it being the "spokesgroup" for them, as raised by one individual Senator. Of course, this is one of those instances where that Senator is really one specific example of multiple critics, and, on the one hand, we cannot say "critics say..." without sourcing, so it is better to quote and source a specific critic, but, on the other hand, this is definitely not just a case of a single Senator being concerned about the issue, plus, there is actually more sourced information for PETA repeatedly supplying financial support than for it actually being just a spokesgroup (cf: Animal Liberation Press Office).
So, I propose modifying the third paragraph of the lead, to shift the wording more towards summarizing what the main text currently says about financial activities. Recognizing that editors feel strongly about such changes, I'm floating the idea in this talk, first. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest, instead of redirecting PETA to you-know-where, this page should be used as a disambiguation page to differenciate between People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and People eating tasty animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.45.55.114 ( talk) 19:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there anywhere that we can add that members of the Canadian government are considering classing PETA as a terrorist organization because of its "criminal behaviour to impose a political agenda on each and every other citizen of Canada" source, or is it not relevant? RA0808 ( talk) 19:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
PETA is not a terrorist organization. Terrorism is when someone makes death threats and deliberately sets things up in order to kill or injure people. I also include animals in this: Terrorism is when people set things up in order to deliberately injure or kill animals. PETA is very careful with their activism. They believe in peace and love and in not harming any living being. This needs to be made clear to the public on Wiki as an addition to the statement that the charges against PETA had been revoked. Another important fact for the public to read is that AETA, Animal Enterprises Terrosism Act, established during the last year of the Bush Administration, squeezed in when nobody was paying attention in Washington D.C., is a law that is going against the Jefferson constitution and against civil rights. Under this law people who throw pie in the face can be detained without a court order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaandpink ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html
I include it on this page as it's on the PETA website. Otherwise, I would have included it on Ingrid Newkirk's website. I think a link to it as well as multiple references could be pulled from it.
Jebrady03 ( talk) 03:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, what an amazing woman. Thank you so much for posting this link to her will. I would have never seen it if it was not posted here. I am very deeply impressed with her, more than ever now. Yes, I sure believe that the link should be posted in the main article. She is super and she has a huge sense of humor as well. Her life is fully dedicated to the animals and she truly walks her talk. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nicolaandpink (
talk •
contribs)
08:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the campaigns section. It is good content, well-referenced, but was mis-placed and too long. Sounds to me like a mention of this might fit in Graphic pamphlets section, maybe if that section were renamed Graphic materials, or something like that. Bob98133 ( talk) 14:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
-
- In February 2010 the Advertising Standards Authority banned the use of a poster featuring one of the people jailed for the death of Baby P. [1] [2] [3] The poster had appeared in Haringey, where Baby P had lived and had featured the photograph of Steven Barker with the text "Steven Barker: Animal Abuser, Baby Abuser, Rapist. People who are violent towards animals rarely stop there." [1] [3] A complaint had been made about the poster using "offensive and distressing" shock tactics. [1] [2] [3] PETA claimed that the poster was to prevent such events happening again, but the ASA stated that PETA "should not cause fear or distress without good reason", noting that the death of Baby P had been a very high-profile case that had been extensively covered and that the photo and text had been used merely to attract attention. [1] [2] [3]
I have removed the POV tag from the top of the page. I think that there has been real progress in improving the page over recent months, and so I no longer consider the tag to be needed. There have been a number of content improvements, and these have been discussed in the talk above. In addition, the Unnecessary Fuss image has been deleted; although that occurred as a result of a file deletion, it ended up satisfying a POV concern as well. In my opinion, the page is now fairly balanced, and the edits that have made it so appear to be stable so far. In the event that these improvements might be reversed or "compensated for", I might decide to put the tag back. Thank you to the editors who have worked together on this. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The 'Conflicts with other activists' section should probably mention PETA's many conflicts with feminist organisations, who have repeatedly accused them of misogyny in their campaigns and advertising. I'm looking for mentions of this in reliable sources, which seem to be thin on the ground, but there are many, many blogs that discuss the subject: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8], amongst others. Robofish ( talk) 16:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
this article needs to be current on what peta's done recently and it should include the mike tyson and pidgeon racing activity.
source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tv_mike_tyson_pigeons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.32.209 ( talk) 03:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
What do the Catholic League, the Ant-Defamation League, the NAACP, radical feminists, evangelicals, fat people and lesbians have in common? They have all been offended by PETA! I think it would be appropriate to add a controversies section listing these by type.-- Dudeman5685 ( talk) 21:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
One other thing -- this page definitely needs a controversies page. Its activities have created numerous controversies regarding the groups use of sexual, racial, religious and other imagery; these debates have often overshadowed and obscured the actual animal-rights aspect in any given incident. Take the "Save the Whales" ad -- much more comment was raised about how this insults fat people that was devoted to the supposed benefits of vegetarianism. PETA propensity for offending people in the course of their animal advocacy campaigns needs to be addressed.-- Dudeman5685 ( talk) 01:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree. PETA offends everyone at some time or other, and this should be included, but devoting a section to it is less worthwhile and encyclopedic than using these sources as references to point out that PETA uses controversy as a tactic to promote their point of view; which the refs would support and which is an interesting facet of this org that I don't think is currently stated in the article, although it is implied. I think putting this info in that type of format, plus including whatever of it seems worthwhile in appropriate sections, would be a better presentation and less likely to be a magnet for vandals. Bob98133 ( talk) 14:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made an edit as described above. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
source: http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp
Note the first sentence: "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed."
This is blatant opposition to pet keeping of all kinds and at every level, a stance of PeTA's which most people are unaware of.
Jebrady03 ( talk) 03:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been distracted at some other pages for a few days, but now, I have come back and checked the sourcing. It absolutely holds up: it is PETA's own statements, at their own website. And it's about as notable as notable can get. I thank Jebrady03 for finding this information, and, personally, I'm embarrassed that it has taken so long for this page to find and add this information. I have added the information to the page, as a brief addition to the lead, and a section lower on the page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Just giving a heads-up that I'd like to go in soon and do one of my periodic sweeps for overlinking, over-referencing, over-quoting, and general wordiness. If anything of substance is removed, I'll move it here. Otherwise it will just be general tightening. SlimVirgin talk contribs 04:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the issue of the PETA employee taking insulin. [9] Every time this has been raised it's been rejected to the best of my knowledge as OR, not to mention somewhat below the belt. It also begs the key question as to whether insulin could only have been made available via animal testing. SlimVirgin talk contribs 05:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
While we wait on the edits concerning the lead, I am now going to move on to other sections, and I will start here first. I can see both sides in the talk about insulin here. SV makes some very good points about being careful about BLP issues, and about the flimsy sourcing of the deleted passage, and Max also makes some very good points about the need to discuss this material, and about the need to address this notable matter for POV balance. I've looked at this carefully, and I cannot support restoring the passage with the sourcing that it had previously: a Zoominfo profile of MaryBeth Sweetland (which seems to me to be a gotcha way to source her diabetes), and an article from Glamour Magazine (which is difficult to track without a web link and seems a marginal source in any case). I've looked into better sourcing, and I've found these: [10], an article by Sweetland herself about the issue; [11] (scroll down slightly), a book section written by Ingrid Newkirk, which goes into some more detail including a contrast between human and non-human insulin (more on that below); and [12], a source for the statement that PETA has been criticized for this issue. About that third source, yes, it clearly has a strong POV (as indeed do the other two sources), but its purpose would be to provide WP:V for the claim that this is a criticism that has been covered by secondary sources. There are lots of Google hits for such criticism, so it's notable, not trivial, but this one seems to me to be more RS than letters to the editor and such.
Let me suggest that editors who are unfamiliar with the science of this issue take a look at Insulin#Discovery and characterization. Please note how Charles Herbert Best's experiments first discovering insulin were done by way of highly invasive procedures on dogs. The first insulin treatments used in patients came from non-human animals, as did the insulin first used by Ms. Sweetland. My point about that is to give context to what the sources from Sweetland and Newkirk say, so that we can discuss them knowledgeably. I fully agree that we need to write whatever we add back to the page in a way that does not take cheap shots, but I also insist that we not leave it out entirely, and of course I'm happy to discuss how to word it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
This is the kind of thing that makes this look like an attack page:
Kathleen Marquardt, vice-president of the American Policy Center, accused PETA's former director of Investigations and research, Mary Beth Sweetland, of hypocrisy in 1993 for having used insulin derived from animals to control her diabetes. Sweetland responded that she controls her condition with a vegan diet and exercise, and uses synthetic human insulin. [4]
A right-wing lobbyist wrongly accused a PETA staff member 17 years ago of using animal-derived insulin to control her diabetes. It strikes me as absurd to mention this, per UNDUE, common sense, and decent writing. Does anyone mind if I remove it again? SlimVirgin talk contribs 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Since there seems to be some confusion about this, the animal-derived forms of insulin that were used in the past really were derived from animals. They were not synthesized in a lab, but were extracted from the pancreases of cows and pigs that had been slaughtered. In contrast, synthetic human insulin, branded commercially as " Humulin" by the Eli Lily Company, is produced in a laboratory using recombinant DNA methods and the known amino acid sequence of human insulin. I've simply been trying to make sure that we use wording that is accurate when describing the two forms here, and I realize that not all editors will be familiar with that background. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I've removed this again, because I'm not seeing a consensus to include it. Does anyone other than Tryptofish want to see it in the article, and if so can you explain the reasoning? Also if yes, it's not about animal testing, so which section should it be in?
Kathleen Marquardt, vice-president of the American Policy Center, accused PETA's former Director of Investigations and Research, Mary Beth Sweetland, of hypocrisy in 1993 for having used insulin derived from pigs and cows to control her diabetes. Sweetland responded that she controls her condition with a vegan diet and exercise, and uses Humulin (synthetic human insulin), which she says helped her regain the muscle mass she lost when on animal-based insulin." [5]
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If it goes anywhere it should go into a criticism section at the very bottom of the article. Since PETA was and is criticized almost constantly by various politicians and media there should definitively be a section devoted to it (as with Monsanto and every other controversial organization), otherwise you end up with people dumping criticism all over the article and it just looks very bad and biased. 99.236.221.124 ( talk) 21:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't removed the tofu cream pie, but I find it so silly. It's not at all notable, and was added next to the Anna Wintour thing, which really was notable. Does anyone have strong objections to my removing it?
I'm now going through the article to adjust the flow. I'm sorry, I had to remove the tofu cream pie. It makes us look as though we want to produce a quotefarm of anti-PETA material, no matter how silly. SlimVirgin talk contribs 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Commenting now on this point, I guess I have to begin by stipulating to the fact that it's pretty hard to treat this as anything other than laughable. But, after all the joking, let's consider whether it should be put back. If one follows the link to the Gail Shea BLP, the incident does appear to be a notable event. I do not see anything other than editor OR to justify a claim that it is more or less notable than the event with Anna Wintour. Please take a look at the discussion at Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 13#Terrorist Organization. Understandably, in light of the long history of page vandalism, editors may reflexively see the pie thing as an attempt to insert the PETA are terrorists claim into the page, but that is not what this is at all. Read soberly, it really does, as another editor said, put "the whole terrorist thing in perspective". I'm saying this with a smile, but I'm saying we ought to put it back. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
SV just recently removed the claim citing objections - odd thing to do, since claim was there to begin and it was her removal of it that drew objections. I just reverted pending discussion. — TheHerbalGerbil( TALK), 19:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have it down from 74 kilobytes, 5736 words, and 135 refs to 58 kilobytes, 4283 words, and 98 refs. Will continue later. SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
In the Profile > History section: after reviewing the main article on Silver Spring monkeys and cited sources, I object to the way these allegations are presented in the summary here -- not to mention how the first paragraph seems to give too much weight to so-called value of the research. As it was discussed before [13] Hubel is inherently biased as an animal researcher. I don't agree with supporters of Hubel as a source and I'm surprised that user:SV is the only editor who objected then. Even the title of his paper [14] is about researchers fighting against AR activists (!). Furthermore, the two sources listed at the monkey article in body text [15] & [16] are both from animal research outlets. I think we really need secondary (third-party) sources not invested with either side. By the way, I've also posted this in the talkpage for the SS-monkey article. PrBeacon ( talk) 00:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed that allegation. I removed it a long time ago but didn't realize it had been restored. This was added ages ago to various articles by a former editor who was an animal researcher, and who was keen to discredit PETA. It's a misuse of primary source material. If we want to add anything about that we need to find a secondary source who cites a primary source, and not just randomly pick an animal researcher who has no direct knowledge of the situation, who's opposed to PETA, but who counts as a primary source because he's a player in the general debate. The Washington Post was the lead newspaper on this case, so if a fabrication allegation was made, they'll have it in one of their stories. They can be found in the Post's archives on its website. SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Preliminary reply, about recent edits in general and not only that one. You'll see that I've restored the POV tag to the page, but, in fact, I'm quite hopeful that we can work out these issues in a positive way without too much drama. In fact, I think many of SV's edits the past two days have been very good and helpful. It's going to take me a little time to bring together the parts of the edit history that are relevant, so I'll explain in detail as I do so, and I'll refrain from any further reversion until we've discussed it in this talk. I would urge editors to look carefully at talk over the past several months here, and not simply dismiss it. We don't get anywhere when we regard one another as pro- and anti-PETA crowds. As for the Hubel thing, it seems to me to be appropriate to include statements from critics, although I also think the secondary source point is a worthwhile one. As for the lead, it's something that quite a few thoughtful editors, not just me, not just "drive-bys", have worked on, and, while I myself would like to see some tightening of it, I'm not happy with such a full rollback, for several reasons. For one, sourcing the last section to Seantor Imhofe is very weak compared with the more recent version, for, in fact, some of the same reasons that editors have expressed concerns about David Hubel as a source. Also, there is quite a history going into the discussion of pets in the lead. The most recent wording strikes me, personally, as having become too wordy by way of compromise, but, as discussed previously, there are compelling reasons to include it some of it in the lead, particularly if we are careful to source it directly to PETA themselves and not take anything out of context. But, as I say, I'm pretty confident we can work together to sort this out. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion for an alternative to Hubel: I followed SV's advice about looking back through the Washington Post's archives, and an alternative presented itself that I think may work better. I suggest leaving Hubel out, and, instead, citing this [17], to support a statement that there were accusations of fabrication in both directions. In my opinion, it's important to acknowledge that scientists had concerns about the veracity of what Pacheco reported, regardless of whether those concerns were correct or incorrect, and this may be a way to report that in a more properly NPOV way. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't get this to work anymore. Is it okay for everyone else? SlimVirgin talk contribs 11:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Could someone more adept at coding than me please adjust this talkpage's archive tags at the top? Ideally the two boxes would be combined and appear to the right of the TOC box. Btw, I'm changing the 'age' field to 30days. PrBeacon ( talk) 21:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Some threads from around the beginning of the calendar year got deleted but not archived, so it would be good to bring those back. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel this should have the POV tag on it? It was added by an anon a year ago. [18] Tryptofish reverted when anyone tried to remove it, but finally removed it herself in March this year, but with the words, "In the event that these improvements might be reversed or "compensated for", I might decide to put the tag back," which I feel isn't really an appropriate use of the tag. [19] And indeed she has now restored it without explanation. [20]
We're not supposed to engage in drive-by tagging, or to use tags as bartering chips. SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I've restored an earlier lead as the one I found on the article really isn't good. It was:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an animal rights organization based in Norfolk, Virginia, USA. With two million members and supporters worldwide, it claims the status of the largest animal rights group in the world. Ingrid Newkirk is its international president. [7]
Founded in 1980, the organization is a nonprofit, tax exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation with 187 employees, funded almost entirely by its members. Newkirk has said "our goal is total animal liberation." [8] According to its website, PETA focuses on four core issues: factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment. Their website also says of the ownership of pets: "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of 'pet keeping'—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as 'pets'—never existed", and attributes pet ownership to a "selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them", while not endorsing "set[ing] them free". [9] PETA also campaigns against the killing of animals regarded as pests, the abuse of backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, bullfighting, hunting, and fishing. It aims to inform the public through advertisements, undercover investigations, animal rescue, and lobbying. Its slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." [10]
The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [11] It has also been criticized for providing financial support to persons associated with the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. [12] [13]
The last point about providing financial support needs in-text attribution, so I've restored that. The long section about pets is odd and OR. PETA doesn't focus that much on pets, so there's no reason our lead should. And it's completely inappropriate to have a quote cited to Penn and Teller in the lead.
The two leads side by side:
Old | Current |
---|---|
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an
animal rights organization based in
Norfolk, Virginia, USA. With two million members and supporters worldwide, it claims the status of the largest animal rights group in the world.
Ingrid Newkirk is its international president.
[14]
Founded in 1980, the organization is a nonprofit, tax exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation with 187 employees, funded almost entirely by its members. Newkirk has said "our goal is total animal liberation." [8] According to its website, PETA focuses on four core issues: factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment. Their website also says of the ownership of pets: "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of 'pet keeping'—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as 'pets'—never existed", and attributes pet ownership to a "selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them", while not endorsing "set[ing] them free". [9] PETA also campaigns against the killing of animals regarded as pests, the abuse of backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, bullfighting, hunting, and fishing. It aims to inform the public through advertisements, undercover investigations, animal rescue, and lobbying. Its slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." [10] The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [11] It has also been criticized for providing financial support to persons associated with the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. [12] [15] |
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an
animal rights organization based in
Norfolk,
Virginia. With two million members and supporters worldwide, it says it is the largest animal rights group in the world.
Ingrid Newkirk is its international president.
[16]
Founded in 1980, the organization is a nonprofit, tax exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation with 187 employees, funded almost entirely by its members. It focuses on four core issues: factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment, and also campaigns against fishing, the killing of animals regarded as pests, the keeping of chained backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, and bullfighting. It aims to inform the public through advertisements, undercover investigations, animal rescue, and lobbying. Its slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." [10] The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [11] It was also criticized in 2005 by Oklahoma senator Jim Inhofe, who said it had acted as a "spokesgroup" for the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, after those groups were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. [11] [17] |
SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
There's so much to work through, so I'm going to start with something that I think may be an easy place to start. I'd like to consider the last paragraph of the lead, the part currently with Senator Imhofe and so forth, and just focus on that for the moment. Let me draw attention to this edit that I made [22], which accounts for much of the difference between the two versions of that particular paragraph shown just above. The change centers on replacing the allegation by the Senator that PETA was a spokesgroup, with the criticisms of PETA for providing financial support. This edit was made only after a considerable amount of discussion in talk, and with what appeared at the time to have good consensus and no objections. Here is a combined diff of that discussion, with the most directly relevant part coming at the end, below the "break": [23]. It was difficult for me to track this discussion down, because it appears that it was deleted from this talk page, but never archived, which is, to say the least, unfortunate. Anyway, I think there were very good reasons for the edit, and I see no good reason for having reverted that particular paragraph back to what it had been before. Let's note that there is really very hazy evidence as to whether PETA was actually a spokesgroup, whereas the financial relationships are, even now, discussed in detail and well-sourced within the body of the page; these points are discussed more extensively in the earlier talk. Please attend to how the previous talk was very careful about accuracy, and very cordial. My hope is that we can agree now that this particular paragraph needs to be fixed again. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Without in-text attribution (money) | With in-text attribution (spokesgroup) |
---|---|
The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [11] It has also been criticized for providing financial support to persons associated with the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. [12] [18] | The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [19] It was also criticized in 2005 by Senator Jim Inhofe, who said it had acted as a spokesgroup for the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, after those groups were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. [20] |
SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Inhofe mentions money too, so we could use him as a source for both. I removed the part about PETA doing this "after those groups were listed in a draft planning document" because the source we used (the Rood article) doesn't mention PETA or say anything about one thing happening after another. I've just looked around for more specific secondary sources, but I couldn't find anything. Suggestion to be going along with:
The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [21] It was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, who said PETA had given money to Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front activists, and had acted as a spokesgroup for them. [22]
SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
If the Post is citing activistcash, and they are talking about tax returns that Inhofe has, then we should (and do) use Inhofe as he's the most authoritative source. We should then back up the use of him with a high-quality secondary source that reported his claims. The Post is not a high-quality secondary source. Look, if these claims were specific and serious, they'll have been reported clearly by responsible news organizations, and we should find and use those reports. If they're not specific and serious, they won't have been reported in that way, and that should tell us something. I'm concerned that after several years of these claims being in the article we still don't have very clear, very good secondary sources.
The CSM article is again sourced to the activistcash people. That's a lobby group that represents the fast food, tobacco, and alcohol industries. They've taken on PETA and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, among others. We can't use them as a source, just as we can't use PETA as a source on activistcash. And the CSM claim is the same as the Inhofe claim anyway: same money, same allegations, same tax returns, and we already use Inhofe. So I'm not really sure where you're going with this. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
1. Spokesgroup: Inhofe took this from PETA itself, which he cites if you look at the source.
2. The activistcash, New York Post, and CSM all cite the same tax records, which is what Inhofe based his investigation on. It is Chinese whispers. Someone got hold of them, activistcash issues press releases, Inhofe picked up on it. The same claims, the same payments, the same source material. Not multiple sources. One source (tax records). One investigation (Inhofe's committee). That's partly why we cite him. The other reason is he's the only serious source who went on the record that I'm aware of. The rest are lobby groups and press releases. If PETA has been engaged in serious issues like this, the W/Post will have reported on them; their archives are always the best bet for PETA stories.
3. If someone other than Inhofe looked into this, or if there were payments he didn't look into and others did, we can expand the in-text attribution. But at the moment you're looking at sources that are mirroring each other, and making the mistakes of thinking that means there are lots of them. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any of this issue discussed in the article's body text. I think it should be developed within an existing section or subsection, after finding additional sources of course -- I agree with SV that both The Post and CSM are basing their (weak) reporting of it on the same source. And if we're going to financially link PETA with terrorists, we need to be very careful in the lead. Criminal lawyers (ie, lawyers representing accused criminals) are not criminals themselves -- despite what Liz Cheney & others say about civil liberties. Likewise, paying (part of) the lawyer's fees is not a crime. I can see it being qualified by context in the article's body, but not in the lead as it reads now -- that wouldn't stand up to peer review. This seems like another case of alleged guilt by association. PrBeacon ( talk) 21:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The source [27] talks only about one ELF donation not being denied. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this very carefully, and I do agree now that there is a valid argument in favor of mentioning Inhofe by name in order to have in-text substantiation for serious accusations. (Parenthetically, such an argument probably also applied with respect to David Hubel. After all, falsifying evidence is a more serious accusation than providing help to pay for a defendant's defense.) But anyway, it seems clear that we will be at an impasse if we continue to argue the point, so I'm going to try to solve this by re-thinking the wording to account for concerns on all sides.
Taking all these points together, I am hopeful that wording can be crafted that we can all be satisfied with. I'm going to BOLDly make a try at that. If it doesn't work, I remain happy to discuss. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to turn next to the other material that was deleted from this paragraph. The discussion about it was at quoted stance on "pet keeping", now archived. I made the first edit adding some of the material: [28]. Then another editor expanded the passage: [29]. I accepted that this addition might help with context and NPOV, although I also feel that, strictly from the point of view of good writing style, it tended to fill all available space, like an ideal gas. Subsequently, I made some minor fixes, and then a larger correction, intended to avoid a misleading juxtaposition with the "liberation" quote: [30].
I want to explain why I think this material should be included on the page, and how it should be included. First, there is no issue of sourcing, as it comes entirely from PETA's own website. It is important to include it, for much the same reason as it is important to include the material from Ingrid Newkirk's speech: it accurately situates PETA as an animal rights organization, not an animal welfare one, and provides a philosophical context for their programs, in their own words. I really do understand the concerns that have been expressed about what critics of PETA might want to highlight or about creating the misimpression that PETA would confiscate people's pets. But that is not the point. PETA does not feel that the material reflects badly on them, because they themselves put it out there on their website. And I am entirely supportive of presenting it in a way that makes clear the fact that this is not an upcoming agenda item, but rather, a question of philosophy. Indeed, that is the point. It is an important part of PETA's underlying rationale, and addresses a matter of broad public interest.
Originally, I felt that this material needed to be in the lead, and perhaps it still should be. However, depending on how we end up deciding to write about the video, above, it may be possible to address underlying principles in sufficient detail in the lead that way, and instead place this material in the main text. The section on "On neutering, backyard dogs, and pets" already refers a little vaguely to what PETA says, in the second paragraph. (The first paragraph of that section reads like an animal welfare organization.) Perhaps we will decide to incorporate some of PETA's text into a rewrite of that section, instead of the lead, depending on what the lead becomes. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
With the new edits to the lead, this is no longer an issue for me, with respect to the lead. We now situate PETA within the AR movement in the lead, which I think removes any reason to linger on pets there as well. As I mentioned above, I think it would be a good idea, in the main text, to paraphrase PETA's website a little less, in favor of direct quotes, but this does not seem to be a big deal. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I see the quote of Newkirk stating "our goal is total animal liberation" is gone as well. It was in place, in to balance the publicly stated goals you've left in. Max.inglis ( talk) 19:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Moving now to this issue, this is the next matter that I feel needs to be discussed. I share Max's concern about deleting the quotation. In my opinion, there are two issues that need to be discussed: the Ingrid Newkirk quote discussed here, and the opinions by PETA about pet ownership, to which I will come back after we discuss the first issue.
First, let's get one thing out of the way, about the few breathless editors. I, for one, am breathing just fine, thank you. Please, let's stay away from making disparaging comments about other editors' supposed motivations, and focus instead on the merits (or lack) of the edits themselves. I'm sure the people saying these things would not like it if the tables were turned. OK, then, I think there are two issues to examine with regard to the appropriateness (or not) of including the Newkirk quote.
If the sourcing were OK, is it appropriate to include the content? I notice how Max said there was a contrast between the quote and PETA's publicly-stated goals, and SV disagreed. I think you are both correct, but seeing different aspects of the question. SV is absolutely correct that, as an animal rights organization, there is nothing surprising about Newkirk saying that their ultimate (although not short-term) goal would be total liberation. Basically, that is what makes AR thinking AR, what distinguishes it from animal welfare. Thus, there is a POV inherent in supposing that it is somehow a negative reflection on PETA for them to say it. Some people would consider it a negative, but others, including PETA themselves, consider it a foundation of what they believe. Therefore, it is not POV to simply report that this is what PETA believes, regardless of what editors here might think of it. But Max is also on to something about that apparent contrast. What the page quotes now is what PETA has said are their practical goals in the short term. It's entirely appropriate for the lead to include that, and no one is arguing to delete it. But look at the way it sounds on our page right now. There are 4 core issues: factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment, and then there is also fishing, the killing of animals regarded as pests, the keeping of chained backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, and bullfighting. Is there anything on that list that animal welfare advocates would disagree with? (Yes, if the page said that these things were to be banned in their entireties, but no if, as it seems to imply, they only need to be modified to remove cruelty.) As written by Wikipedia, PETA sounds almost like an animal welfare organization, albeit a dramatic and confrontational one. The part of their slogan that says "are not ours" alludes to ownership issues that do indeed differentiate animal rights from animal welfare, but our current lead soft-pedals that. It's inaccurate, and is actually misrepresenting PETA. Obviously, this is not intentional, but it comes from the fact that PETA's immediate goals are things they consider to be attainable in the foreseeable future. As I said, it's appropriate to report that, but I would argue that it is inappropriate to omit mention of PETA's underlying philosophy or principles. That's why the explicit inclusion of animal liberation, not as a short-term political agenda, but as what Newkirk herself said, as an ultimate goal, is simply presenting PETA accurately and fairly, and we need to do it.
Is the sourcing OK? First, let us note that it is Ingrid Newkirk herself saying it. That's important. If it were Penn Gillette putting his words into PETA's mouth, I'd oppose including it, but it isn't. There is no reason to question that this is what she said. It's entirely verifiable by viewing the video, and there is nothing surprising about her saying such a thing. So is it unacceptable to have the video come from a Penn and Teller episode? No, not if it is Ingrid Newkirk, not Penn and Teller, whom we are quoting. The fact that Penn and Teller are not, themselves, reliable sources for characterizing PETA, does not make Ingrid Newkirk's own words invalid. The facts that Penn and Teller make jokes and use four-letter words are beside the point. It happens that there is verifiable proof that these words are Newkirk's, and it happens that this is the available way to link to them. Perhaps there would be a copyright issue if we were to upload and post the video on-Wiki, but there is no copyright issue (at least for us) if we have a reference citation that directs readers to the website where the video resides. It makes good sense to include the citation. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
And here's another source for the same speech! [32]. There is no issue about Penn and Teller, and there is no issue about copyright. It is her speech in full. The quote about total liberation comes at the very end, and she states very clearly that this is something fundamental to what PETA wants to do. It is posted as a film prepared by PETA, released without copyright restrictions, and is labeled as such explicitly at the end. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Reforms move a society very importantly from A to B, from B to C, from C to D. It's very hard to take a nation or a world that is built on seeing animals as nothing more than handburgers, handbags, cheap burglar alarms, tools for research, and move them from A to Z. But as we keep whittling away, we will move them finally from R to Z. There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders "what's this with all these reforms?", you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitative purpose.
You're welcome, all, for finding it. I'm still concerned about the placement of the quote, as though burying the lead. Something that stands out to me is that Newkirk says very clearly as she leads up to the quoted passage that she is distinguishing between PETA's short-term goals and PETA's ultimate principles, and that PETA considers it to be very important to be clear about the latter, to speak it clearly, to not try to hide it. So I ask, why present it as a debate between PETA and Gary Francione, when it is clearly much more than that? It belongs in the lead. Describing PETA as standing only for its short-term goals misrepresents it. Ingrid Newkirk says very clearly that she intends the liberation statement to be something that should be said conspicuously. Making the lead read like it's virtually an animal welfare organization is inaccurate and wrong. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an American animal rights organization based in Norfolk, Virginia, led by Ingrid Newkirk, its international president. With two million members and supporters, it says it is the largest animal rights group in the world. Newkirk has stated "Our goal is total animal liberation and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose."
I'm having difficulty seeing how it would fit into the lead. Whenever Newkirk says things like that, it's always in response to the criticism that PETA isn't radical enough. They are seen within large sections of the AR movement (whether most of it is hard to tell, but a great deal of it) as very conservative, a media-savvy version of the RSPCA. Whenever faced with that criticism, Newkirk affirms "we are here to hold the radical line," or "our feet are on the ground, but our heads are in the sky" etc. It's difficult to portray that debate succinctly in the lead, and to use one of those quotes out of context would give a false impression of the group. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the way to approach this is to add the AR criticism to the lead that PETA is not radical enough, then have Newkirk's affirmation in there. I'll look around to see who best represents that criticism, and see if we can write it up fairly but succinctly. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
A suggestion: How about (1) going back to the longer version of the quote [37], in hopes of providing that elusive "context", and also (2) deleting the the last sentence of the first paragraph, which states the motto, since the motto is also right alongside in the infobox, in order to remove the repetitiveness to which SV correctly objected? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The way you are flopping around like a trout on a fishhook to avoid actually explaining why it is unrepresentative, it would seem easier if you would just explain why this particular quote is unrepresentative. But I can see that we are not going to get anywhere unless I humor your request to do it your way. So, herewith, courtesy of Tryptofish, is CliffsNotes for Crum:
I think that it is absolutely clear that the passage, "Our goal is total animal liberation", is representative of the speech as a whole, is a clear statement of PETA's long-term agenda, long-term goal. It is not cherry-picked, nor is it out of context. The idea of animal liberation is a consistent theme throughout the speech. I think I have done a very careful job of presenting Newkirk's speech, but if anyone notices anything that I have missed, I'm listening. If anyone thinks they can point to some way in which the quote is not representative, I'm listening there too. Actually, I think the context is as much about encouraging activists not to be daunted as it is a response to critics like Francione, but I have no objection to placing it as a response to the latter. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Newkirk says many things and makes many points in her speech. You seem to think they are all consistent with "eventual total liberation", because you are combining her speech with other sources to help you interpret her words and meanings. But doing this type of combination of sources to arrive at a new conclusion (in this case that Newkirk's main theme is "total liberation") violates WP:SYN. On the pet issue for example, you are ignoring my point of contrasting the way she implores her audience to go vegan and swear off dairy products, while being totally mum on the pet buying issue, and even joking affectionately about cat ownership. If, as you say, her main theme is "total liberation", why not say what you say she believes? By mentioning spaying/neutering and laughing about a pet cat, she is clearly sending a message that pet ownership is OK, as long as you neuter/spay. So as I see it, this, as well as many of her other points which seem to be focused on kindness to animals, is not part of a clear theme of "total liberation". If you only listen to this speech, without synthesizing other bits from other sources, her message is mostly "be kind to animals" and "don't eat or wear them". And yes, towards the end, she gets excited and says "our goal is total liberation", but when taking in the entire speech, I don't see that statement as representative of all the rest. Crum375 ( talk) 01:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that a PETA-released video (or any material) is a reliable source for WP purposes, although if it's about PETA and their views, as this one is, it would be primary. And as I noted above, primary sources have to be handled with care, so as not to selectively either overemphasize or downplay parts of it, which could sway the NPOV balance or change the meaning or thrust of the complete work. In this situation, you feel that you've made a "convincing case" that your interpretation that "total liberation" is the main underlying theme, is correct, while you find my own case that the theme is "kindness" and "don't eat, wear or test", not convincing. Needless to say, I see the situation and the "convincing" aspect exactly opposite, or else I'd be sharing your view. So the bottom line is that we have a difference of opinion, and as I noted above, to be able to quote only one part of a primary source requires a broad consensus, which we don't have at the moment. Crum375 ( talk) 20:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
But that (about SYN) is just an aside. My larger points stand. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Just suggesting this in talk, not doing it yet. I'm looking forward to the academic summary discussed just below, but I'm also concerned about this talk seeming to have moved on to other issues. So, for now, I want to raise the following possibility, which, to my understanding, now answers all of the concerns that have been discussed so far:
1. Delete the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, the one about the motto. It is exactly duplicated right alongside, in the box, and deleting it removes the concern that the quote below would be redundant with this paragraph.
2. Add the following as a last paragraph of the lead:
Ref 6 could be the recent book by Francione (just below in this talk), and Ref 7 would be the video of Newkirk's speech.
Thoughts? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I still AGF that SlimVirgin was actually basing on sources (with which I just happen to not be familiar myself, and which haven't been identified here) when she said in this talk that Newkirk was making her statement about total liberation as a response to critics such as Francione, and not simply as an exhortation to the audience to not be discouraged. But, until that gets clarified, I have to agree with Crum that it would be SYNTH and OR to assume that without sourcing.
So, until such time as that gets cleared up, I suggest postponing that approach. My primary concern remains that the lead should report PETA's stated position on long-term goals and philosophy, and not only their short-term practical agenda. So I propose that we do this as follows:
1. Delete the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, the one about the motto. It is exactly duplicated right alongside, in the box.
2. Replace it with this sentence:
It would be referenced to the video of Newkirk's speech.
I think that all the concerns that have been raised in this talk so far have been answered. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I saw those newspaper articles, but none of them makes the point you are making about PETA's long term goals, and none of them quotes the part you are quoting, so it's still OR. Crum375 ( talk) 15:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have heard no objection here, and I am not aware of any that has not already been answered. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 13:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
To repeat: I have heard no objection here, and I am not aware of any that has not already been answered. One cannot simply revert my edit without a reason. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Given the lack of reply here, I will ask once more. Does anyone have an objection to this, that has not already been answered? I'm happy to continue to discuss any concerns, but I think that all concerns that have been raised so far have been answered. If any editors are not willing to justify why they object to the edit, they should not simply revert it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Personally I would not object to having a final lead paragraph that read something like this (which is basically just picking up from the section about criticism from within the movement):
The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [23] It was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe for having given grants several years earlier to Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists charged with offenses including arson. PETA responded that it has no involvement in ALF or ELF actions, and that it does not support violence. [24] PETA has also been criticized from within the animal rights movement for not being radical enough. Animal rights advocate Gary Francione, professor of law at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, calls PETA the "new welfarists," arguing they have become an animal welfare group because they work with industries to achieve incremental reform. [25] Newkirk responded in 2002: "If anybody wonders 'what's this with all these reforms?', you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose." [26]
Problems are:
But from my own perspective it would work, though if we insert it I'd like to be able to switch to more up-to-date secondary sourcing if we find it in the future. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
There's little doubt that she's responding to Francione et al (he's the academic leader of the abolitionist position), but we could say instead:
Animal rights advocate Gary Francione, professor of law at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, calls PETA the "new welfarists," arguing that they have become an animal welfare group because they work with industries to achieve incremental reform. [25] Newkirk clarified PETA's position in 2002: "If anybody wonders 'what's this with all these reforms?', you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation, and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose." [26]
I would like to retain who Francione is, as we do with Inhofe, because he's is a senior academic and a key critic. I think it's important to make that clear. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Where there's disagreement about how to interpret primary sources or which parts to highlight we should turn to secondary sources. I have a few academic books here mentioning how PETA is perceived by other parts of the AR movement (which as I recall is what we want the extra lead sentence to be about). The only reason I haven't already added something is that they're not the most up-to-date books, and I've not found the time to look for something more recent. I'll try to take a look over the next few days, and perhaps others can do the same. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've started making my own try at looking for some sources that might help. With respect to more recent sources for criticisms of PETA for being too welfarist, there is this 2008 book by Gary Francione: [48]. If you enter "PETA" in the search box at the left of the screen in that link, and then go to the link on page 110 of the book, there is a relevant section. As for secondary sources that point to the passage in Newkirk's speech about total animal liberation as being an important theme of PETA's position (and I thought there wouldn't be any!), there are multiple news reports that do so: [49]*, [50]*, [51], [52], [53], *the starred ones are pay for full text, but abstracted at [54]. Some of those also confirm the venue and date of her speech in the video, which I added to the page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if we've discussed this before, but if we did I forget how it concluded. It's about this sentence in the lead:
Critics including U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe further said in 2005 that PETA had donated money to the legal defense of Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists accused of violent offenses.
Which is the source that talks about "ALF and ELF activists accused of violent offenses"? SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
How about: "charged with offenses including arson"? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the last paragraph of the lead may currently be inaccurate or poorly sourced, partly because it say "critics" when it seems this was Senator Inhofe and activistcash.com, a fast-food lobby group, and partly because we leave out that others felt the criticism was absurd (e.g. Senator Lautenberg). So I think we need at least to list here who the critics were, plus the sources (preferably secondary sources) and what they say. This is for the sentence saying PETA was criticized for donating money to the legal defense of ALF and ELF activists.
Who else? SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been taking a closer look at this, and I'd like to made a couple of points:
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
T, before getting into detailed discussions, could we please just list the critics, with sources? I started above with Inhofe, and gave a primary and secondary source for his views. Could you briefly list here who else is included in "critics", together with explicit sources? That way we can quickly see who we're dealing with. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This is for the sentence in the lead:
Critics, including U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe, further said in 2005 that PETA had donated money to the legal defense of Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists.
1. Senator Jim Inhofe. The secondary source is Inhofe cited by CNN: "Inhofe said there was "a growing network of support for extremists like ELF and ALF," and he singled out People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for giving money to members of both groups." [68] The primary source is the statement Inhofe made to the hearings he held. [69]
As Inhofe is the only critic we've identified so far who discusses grants to the ALF/ELF, I've changed the lead back to reflect that:
The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [27] It was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe for having given grants several years earlier to Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists. PETA responded that it has no involvement in ALF or ELF actions, and that it does not support violence. [28]
It may even be a little UNDUE to mention it in the lead at all, but we can leave it for now. If there are other critics saying the same thing, we can expand the sentence to include them, but we need to be very specific so that it's not hand-waving or weasel wording. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm repeating here the response I gave a few days ago, with one refactoring: where before I had two links to source searches on Google, I now have a (needlessly) long list of the individual sources for those who complain about having to click through (fourth bullet point). If you disagree with my arguments, fine, but please do not pretend that I have not made them. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been taking a closer look at this, and I'd like to made a couple of points:
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
T, you've been asked a very simple question, and instead of replying you're repeatedly posting links to make us search for the material ourselves. You are the one who wants the sentence: "Critics, including U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe, further said in 2005 that PETA had donated money to the legal defense of Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists." Therefore please name the "critics" here with secondary sources, so we can see it's not just Inhofe. The onus is on you to tell us who these critics are. Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So:
1. Senator Jim Inhofe.
Primary source;
secondary source.
2.
3.
SlimVirgin talk contribs 18:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
2. [102].
3. [103].
I've repeatedly provided the answer to the question you ask here, and have explained very clearly. You are repeatedly pretending that I have not. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 13:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
And I would like to know how you respond to my explanations. I made six (6) bullet points. Please state here whether you agree or disagree with them, and if you disagree, why:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 13:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Herbal for the support. I no longer see this as an issue, since we have added Francione to the lead. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the addition of an image of a purported comic book cover, and its subsequent reversion by Bob. I fully agree with Bob's reversion, and the image caption was clearly POV. However, I have a question: is the image authentic, that is, from an actual campaign by PETA? If not, it clearly has no place here, but if so, it may, perhaps, be worth including (with a neutral caption) if in fact it truthfully illustrates a "graphic campaign". Just asking. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys... There's been some pretty powerful criticism of PETA in the past, yet any note of this seems to be missing... Would you like me to create a controversy section? Have a good one, yoman82 ( talk) 20:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes In fact I would last time I heard Norfolk PETA kills 84% of its dogs and cats, for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.233.69 ( talk) 11:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
One of the edits I then made: [105]. I realize that we have consensus, later, to not including the Sweetland/insulin part, but this is something else, the military testing part (admittedly, not as big a matter of contention in this talk, but something still appropriate to discuss). Reverted three times: [106], [107], [108]. Then slipped back out again: [109]. I've read all of those edit summaries, and I do not see anything substantive that replies to the discussion here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I remember asking for a secondary source for this years ago, and as we still don't have one, I've removed it. Can we have something showing this was notable? The current source is something called the National Animal Interest Alliance, a business/agricultural lobby group. [110]
PETA was criticized in 1999 regarding undercover film it took inside the Carolina Biological Supply Company, which appeared to show wriggling cats being embalmed alive. An anatomist argued that the wriggling was the effect formalin has on freshly dead muscle tissue, and showed a video of the same writhing in a cat known to be dead; the case against the company was dismissed. [29]
SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Somehow this ended up back in the article, so I've removed it again. Please do not restore unless we have a secondary source. It's currently sourced to an agricultural lobby group. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
RodCoronado$
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
PETA is one of the most controversial activist groups operating today. The group's contentious media campaigns, undercover operations, infamous advertising, and high profile demonstrations have made them perhaps the most infamous--and most polarizing--nonprofit organization there is. But are they terrorists? According to the US Department of Agriculture, they are now. [1]
So why no controversy section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.66.246 ( talk) 05:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
First off lets be blunt about this. We're talking about Rod Coronado, and PETA's gift of money both to his defence fund, his family and him directly via "loans" which were never expected to be repaid. So for the sake of arguement, if ALF was noted in a 1993 report to the US congress as an organization which "claimed to have perpetrated acts of extremism in the United States", and PETA gave money to that organization or its members after that point (1996 I believe, their tax records for that year will indicate) is that enough of a link? Is it reasonable to think that PETA knew the goals and ambitions of ALF at that point? Max.inglis ( talk) 22:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Well folks, I've looked, and it seems to me that what can be reliably sourced is already on the page, in the section about support for the ALF. If there's something I've missed (very possible) that needs to be added to that section, I'm all ears, but I have a feeling that we've been arguing about material that is already included on the page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that, unless other sourcing shows up, the issue has been pretty much exhausted. However, I want to bring up again something that went by quickly just above. I'm sympathetic to the concern raised by the IP editor, that the issue seems to be downplayed in the way the page currently reads. The information is there, but it seems to be downplayed. Where this strikes me the most is in the lead. The current wording tends to give the impression that criticism of PETA with respect to its interactions with these other groups rests upon it being the "spokesgroup" for them, as raised by one individual Senator. Of course, this is one of those instances where that Senator is really one specific example of multiple critics, and, on the one hand, we cannot say "critics say..." without sourcing, so it is better to quote and source a specific critic, but, on the other hand, this is definitely not just a case of a single Senator being concerned about the issue, plus, there is actually more sourced information for PETA repeatedly supplying financial support than for it actually being just a spokesgroup (cf: Animal Liberation Press Office).
So, I propose modifying the third paragraph of the lead, to shift the wording more towards summarizing what the main text currently says about financial activities. Recognizing that editors feel strongly about such changes, I'm floating the idea in this talk, first. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest, instead of redirecting PETA to you-know-where, this page should be used as a disambiguation page to differenciate between People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and People eating tasty animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.45.55.114 ( talk) 19:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there anywhere that we can add that members of the Canadian government are considering classing PETA as a terrorist organization because of its "criminal behaviour to impose a political agenda on each and every other citizen of Canada" source, or is it not relevant? RA0808 ( talk) 19:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
PETA is not a terrorist organization. Terrorism is when someone makes death threats and deliberately sets things up in order to kill or injure people. I also include animals in this: Terrorism is when people set things up in order to deliberately injure or kill animals. PETA is very careful with their activism. They believe in peace and love and in not harming any living being. This needs to be made clear to the public on Wiki as an addition to the statement that the charges against PETA had been revoked. Another important fact for the public to read is that AETA, Animal Enterprises Terrosism Act, established during the last year of the Bush Administration, squeezed in when nobody was paying attention in Washington D.C., is a law that is going against the Jefferson constitution and against civil rights. Under this law people who throw pie in the face can be detained without a court order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaandpink ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html
I include it on this page as it's on the PETA website. Otherwise, I would have included it on Ingrid Newkirk's website. I think a link to it as well as multiple references could be pulled from it.
Jebrady03 ( talk) 03:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, what an amazing woman. Thank you so much for posting this link to her will. I would have never seen it if it was not posted here. I am very deeply impressed with her, more than ever now. Yes, I sure believe that the link should be posted in the main article. She is super and she has a huge sense of humor as well. Her life is fully dedicated to the animals and she truly walks her talk. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nicolaandpink (
talk •
contribs)
08:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the campaigns section. It is good content, well-referenced, but was mis-placed and too long. Sounds to me like a mention of this might fit in Graphic pamphlets section, maybe if that section were renamed Graphic materials, or something like that. Bob98133 ( talk) 14:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
-
- In February 2010 the Advertising Standards Authority banned the use of a poster featuring one of the people jailed for the death of Baby P. [1] [2] [3] The poster had appeared in Haringey, where Baby P had lived and had featured the photograph of Steven Barker with the text "Steven Barker: Animal Abuser, Baby Abuser, Rapist. People who are violent towards animals rarely stop there." [1] [3] A complaint had been made about the poster using "offensive and distressing" shock tactics. [1] [2] [3] PETA claimed that the poster was to prevent such events happening again, but the ASA stated that PETA "should not cause fear or distress without good reason", noting that the death of Baby P had been a very high-profile case that had been extensively covered and that the photo and text had been used merely to attract attention. [1] [2] [3]
I have removed the POV tag from the top of the page. I think that there has been real progress in improving the page over recent months, and so I no longer consider the tag to be needed. There have been a number of content improvements, and these have been discussed in the talk above. In addition, the Unnecessary Fuss image has been deleted; although that occurred as a result of a file deletion, it ended up satisfying a POV concern as well. In my opinion, the page is now fairly balanced, and the edits that have made it so appear to be stable so far. In the event that these improvements might be reversed or "compensated for", I might decide to put the tag back. Thank you to the editors who have worked together on this. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The 'Conflicts with other activists' section should probably mention PETA's many conflicts with feminist organisations, who have repeatedly accused them of misogyny in their campaigns and advertising. I'm looking for mentions of this in reliable sources, which seem to be thin on the ground, but there are many, many blogs that discuss the subject: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8], amongst others. Robofish ( talk) 16:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
this article needs to be current on what peta's done recently and it should include the mike tyson and pidgeon racing activity.
source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tv_mike_tyson_pigeons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.32.209 ( talk) 03:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
What do the Catholic League, the Ant-Defamation League, the NAACP, radical feminists, evangelicals, fat people and lesbians have in common? They have all been offended by PETA! I think it would be appropriate to add a controversies section listing these by type.-- Dudeman5685 ( talk) 21:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
One other thing -- this page definitely needs a controversies page. Its activities have created numerous controversies regarding the groups use of sexual, racial, religious and other imagery; these debates have often overshadowed and obscured the actual animal-rights aspect in any given incident. Take the "Save the Whales" ad -- much more comment was raised about how this insults fat people that was devoted to the supposed benefits of vegetarianism. PETA propensity for offending people in the course of their animal advocacy campaigns needs to be addressed.-- Dudeman5685 ( talk) 01:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree. PETA offends everyone at some time or other, and this should be included, but devoting a section to it is less worthwhile and encyclopedic than using these sources as references to point out that PETA uses controversy as a tactic to promote their point of view; which the refs would support and which is an interesting facet of this org that I don't think is currently stated in the article, although it is implied. I think putting this info in that type of format, plus including whatever of it seems worthwhile in appropriate sections, would be a better presentation and less likely to be a magnet for vandals. Bob98133 ( talk) 14:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made an edit as described above. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
source: http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp
Note the first sentence: "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed."
This is blatant opposition to pet keeping of all kinds and at every level, a stance of PeTA's which most people are unaware of.
Jebrady03 ( talk) 03:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been distracted at some other pages for a few days, but now, I have come back and checked the sourcing. It absolutely holds up: it is PETA's own statements, at their own website. And it's about as notable as notable can get. I thank Jebrady03 for finding this information, and, personally, I'm embarrassed that it has taken so long for this page to find and add this information. I have added the information to the page, as a brief addition to the lead, and a section lower on the page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Just giving a heads-up that I'd like to go in soon and do one of my periodic sweeps for overlinking, over-referencing, over-quoting, and general wordiness. If anything of substance is removed, I'll move it here. Otherwise it will just be general tightening. SlimVirgin talk contribs 04:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the issue of the PETA employee taking insulin. [9] Every time this has been raised it's been rejected to the best of my knowledge as OR, not to mention somewhat below the belt. It also begs the key question as to whether insulin could only have been made available via animal testing. SlimVirgin talk contribs 05:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
While we wait on the edits concerning the lead, I am now going to move on to other sections, and I will start here first. I can see both sides in the talk about insulin here. SV makes some very good points about being careful about BLP issues, and about the flimsy sourcing of the deleted passage, and Max also makes some very good points about the need to discuss this material, and about the need to address this notable matter for POV balance. I've looked at this carefully, and I cannot support restoring the passage with the sourcing that it had previously: a Zoominfo profile of MaryBeth Sweetland (which seems to me to be a gotcha way to source her diabetes), and an article from Glamour Magazine (which is difficult to track without a web link and seems a marginal source in any case). I've looked into better sourcing, and I've found these: [10], an article by Sweetland herself about the issue; [11] (scroll down slightly), a book section written by Ingrid Newkirk, which goes into some more detail including a contrast between human and non-human insulin (more on that below); and [12], a source for the statement that PETA has been criticized for this issue. About that third source, yes, it clearly has a strong POV (as indeed do the other two sources), but its purpose would be to provide WP:V for the claim that this is a criticism that has been covered by secondary sources. There are lots of Google hits for such criticism, so it's notable, not trivial, but this one seems to me to be more RS than letters to the editor and such.
Let me suggest that editors who are unfamiliar with the science of this issue take a look at Insulin#Discovery and characterization. Please note how Charles Herbert Best's experiments first discovering insulin were done by way of highly invasive procedures on dogs. The first insulin treatments used in patients came from non-human animals, as did the insulin first used by Ms. Sweetland. My point about that is to give context to what the sources from Sweetland and Newkirk say, so that we can discuss them knowledgeably. I fully agree that we need to write whatever we add back to the page in a way that does not take cheap shots, but I also insist that we not leave it out entirely, and of course I'm happy to discuss how to word it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
This is the kind of thing that makes this look like an attack page:
Kathleen Marquardt, vice-president of the American Policy Center, accused PETA's former director of Investigations and research, Mary Beth Sweetland, of hypocrisy in 1993 for having used insulin derived from animals to control her diabetes. Sweetland responded that she controls her condition with a vegan diet and exercise, and uses synthetic human insulin. [4]
A right-wing lobbyist wrongly accused a PETA staff member 17 years ago of using animal-derived insulin to control her diabetes. It strikes me as absurd to mention this, per UNDUE, common sense, and decent writing. Does anyone mind if I remove it again? SlimVirgin talk contribs 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Since there seems to be some confusion about this, the animal-derived forms of insulin that were used in the past really were derived from animals. They were not synthesized in a lab, but were extracted from the pancreases of cows and pigs that had been slaughtered. In contrast, synthetic human insulin, branded commercially as " Humulin" by the Eli Lily Company, is produced in a laboratory using recombinant DNA methods and the known amino acid sequence of human insulin. I've simply been trying to make sure that we use wording that is accurate when describing the two forms here, and I realize that not all editors will be familiar with that background. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I've removed this again, because I'm not seeing a consensus to include it. Does anyone other than Tryptofish want to see it in the article, and if so can you explain the reasoning? Also if yes, it's not about animal testing, so which section should it be in?
Kathleen Marquardt, vice-president of the American Policy Center, accused PETA's former Director of Investigations and Research, Mary Beth Sweetland, of hypocrisy in 1993 for having used insulin derived from pigs and cows to control her diabetes. Sweetland responded that she controls her condition with a vegan diet and exercise, and uses Humulin (synthetic human insulin), which she says helped her regain the muscle mass she lost when on animal-based insulin." [5]
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If it goes anywhere it should go into a criticism section at the very bottom of the article. Since PETA was and is criticized almost constantly by various politicians and media there should definitively be a section devoted to it (as with Monsanto and every other controversial organization), otherwise you end up with people dumping criticism all over the article and it just looks very bad and biased. 99.236.221.124 ( talk) 21:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't removed the tofu cream pie, but I find it so silly. It's not at all notable, and was added next to the Anna Wintour thing, which really was notable. Does anyone have strong objections to my removing it?
I'm now going through the article to adjust the flow. I'm sorry, I had to remove the tofu cream pie. It makes us look as though we want to produce a quotefarm of anti-PETA material, no matter how silly. SlimVirgin talk contribs 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Commenting now on this point, I guess I have to begin by stipulating to the fact that it's pretty hard to treat this as anything other than laughable. But, after all the joking, let's consider whether it should be put back. If one follows the link to the Gail Shea BLP, the incident does appear to be a notable event. I do not see anything other than editor OR to justify a claim that it is more or less notable than the event with Anna Wintour. Please take a look at the discussion at Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 13#Terrorist Organization. Understandably, in light of the long history of page vandalism, editors may reflexively see the pie thing as an attempt to insert the PETA are terrorists claim into the page, but that is not what this is at all. Read soberly, it really does, as another editor said, put "the whole terrorist thing in perspective". I'm saying this with a smile, but I'm saying we ought to put it back. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
SV just recently removed the claim citing objections - odd thing to do, since claim was there to begin and it was her removal of it that drew objections. I just reverted pending discussion. — TheHerbalGerbil( TALK), 19:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have it down from 74 kilobytes, 5736 words, and 135 refs to 58 kilobytes, 4283 words, and 98 refs. Will continue later. SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
In the Profile > History section: after reviewing the main article on Silver Spring monkeys and cited sources, I object to the way these allegations are presented in the summary here -- not to mention how the first paragraph seems to give too much weight to so-called value of the research. As it was discussed before [13] Hubel is inherently biased as an animal researcher. I don't agree with supporters of Hubel as a source and I'm surprised that user:SV is the only editor who objected then. Even the title of his paper [14] is about researchers fighting against AR activists (!). Furthermore, the two sources listed at the monkey article in body text [15] & [16] are both from animal research outlets. I think we really need secondary (third-party) sources not invested with either side. By the way, I've also posted this in the talkpage for the SS-monkey article. PrBeacon ( talk) 00:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed that allegation. I removed it a long time ago but didn't realize it had been restored. This was added ages ago to various articles by a former editor who was an animal researcher, and who was keen to discredit PETA. It's a misuse of primary source material. If we want to add anything about that we need to find a secondary source who cites a primary source, and not just randomly pick an animal researcher who has no direct knowledge of the situation, who's opposed to PETA, but who counts as a primary source because he's a player in the general debate. The Washington Post was the lead newspaper on this case, so if a fabrication allegation was made, they'll have it in one of their stories. They can be found in the Post's archives on its website. SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Preliminary reply, about recent edits in general and not only that one. You'll see that I've restored the POV tag to the page, but, in fact, I'm quite hopeful that we can work out these issues in a positive way without too much drama. In fact, I think many of SV's edits the past two days have been very good and helpful. It's going to take me a little time to bring together the parts of the edit history that are relevant, so I'll explain in detail as I do so, and I'll refrain from any further reversion until we've discussed it in this talk. I would urge editors to look carefully at talk over the past several months here, and not simply dismiss it. We don't get anywhere when we regard one another as pro- and anti-PETA crowds. As for the Hubel thing, it seems to me to be appropriate to include statements from critics, although I also think the secondary source point is a worthwhile one. As for the lead, it's something that quite a few thoughtful editors, not just me, not just "drive-bys", have worked on, and, while I myself would like to see some tightening of it, I'm not happy with such a full rollback, for several reasons. For one, sourcing the last section to Seantor Imhofe is very weak compared with the more recent version, for, in fact, some of the same reasons that editors have expressed concerns about David Hubel as a source. Also, there is quite a history going into the discussion of pets in the lead. The most recent wording strikes me, personally, as having become too wordy by way of compromise, but, as discussed previously, there are compelling reasons to include it some of it in the lead, particularly if we are careful to source it directly to PETA themselves and not take anything out of context. But, as I say, I'm pretty confident we can work together to sort this out. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion for an alternative to Hubel: I followed SV's advice about looking back through the Washington Post's archives, and an alternative presented itself that I think may work better. I suggest leaving Hubel out, and, instead, citing this [17], to support a statement that there were accusations of fabrication in both directions. In my opinion, it's important to acknowledge that scientists had concerns about the veracity of what Pacheco reported, regardless of whether those concerns were correct or incorrect, and this may be a way to report that in a more properly NPOV way. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't get this to work anymore. Is it okay for everyone else? SlimVirgin talk contribs 11:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Could someone more adept at coding than me please adjust this talkpage's archive tags at the top? Ideally the two boxes would be combined and appear to the right of the TOC box. Btw, I'm changing the 'age' field to 30days. PrBeacon ( talk) 21:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Some threads from around the beginning of the calendar year got deleted but not archived, so it would be good to bring those back. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel this should have the POV tag on it? It was added by an anon a year ago. [18] Tryptofish reverted when anyone tried to remove it, but finally removed it herself in March this year, but with the words, "In the event that these improvements might be reversed or "compensated for", I might decide to put the tag back," which I feel isn't really an appropriate use of the tag. [19] And indeed she has now restored it without explanation. [20]
We're not supposed to engage in drive-by tagging, or to use tags as bartering chips. SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I've restored an earlier lead as the one I found on the article really isn't good. It was:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an animal rights organization based in Norfolk, Virginia, USA. With two million members and supporters worldwide, it claims the status of the largest animal rights group in the world. Ingrid Newkirk is its international president. [7]
Founded in 1980, the organization is a nonprofit, tax exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation with 187 employees, funded almost entirely by its members. Newkirk has said "our goal is total animal liberation." [8] According to its website, PETA focuses on four core issues: factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment. Their website also says of the ownership of pets: "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of 'pet keeping'—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as 'pets'—never existed", and attributes pet ownership to a "selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them", while not endorsing "set[ing] them free". [9] PETA also campaigns against the killing of animals regarded as pests, the abuse of backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, bullfighting, hunting, and fishing. It aims to inform the public through advertisements, undercover investigations, animal rescue, and lobbying. Its slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." [10]
The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [11] It has also been criticized for providing financial support to persons associated with the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. [12] [13]
The last point about providing financial support needs in-text attribution, so I've restored that. The long section about pets is odd and OR. PETA doesn't focus that much on pets, so there's no reason our lead should. And it's completely inappropriate to have a quote cited to Penn and Teller in the lead.
The two leads side by side:
Old | Current |
---|---|
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an
animal rights organization based in
Norfolk, Virginia, USA. With two million members and supporters worldwide, it claims the status of the largest animal rights group in the world.
Ingrid Newkirk is its international president.
[14]
Founded in 1980, the organization is a nonprofit, tax exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation with 187 employees, funded almost entirely by its members. Newkirk has said "our goal is total animal liberation." [8] According to its website, PETA focuses on four core issues: factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment. Their website also says of the ownership of pets: "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of 'pet keeping'—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as 'pets'—never existed", and attributes pet ownership to a "selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them", while not endorsing "set[ing] them free". [9] PETA also campaigns against the killing of animals regarded as pests, the abuse of backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, bullfighting, hunting, and fishing. It aims to inform the public through advertisements, undercover investigations, animal rescue, and lobbying. Its slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." [10] The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [11] It has also been criticized for providing financial support to persons associated with the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. [12] [15] |
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an
animal rights organization based in
Norfolk,
Virginia. With two million members and supporters worldwide, it says it is the largest animal rights group in the world.
Ingrid Newkirk is its international president.
[16]
Founded in 1980, the organization is a nonprofit, tax exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation with 187 employees, funded almost entirely by its members. It focuses on four core issues: factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment, and also campaigns against fishing, the killing of animals regarded as pests, the keeping of chained backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, and bullfighting. It aims to inform the public through advertisements, undercover investigations, animal rescue, and lobbying. Its slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." [10] The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [11] It was also criticized in 2005 by Oklahoma senator Jim Inhofe, who said it had acted as a "spokesgroup" for the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, after those groups were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. [11] [17] |
SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
There's so much to work through, so I'm going to start with something that I think may be an easy place to start. I'd like to consider the last paragraph of the lead, the part currently with Senator Imhofe and so forth, and just focus on that for the moment. Let me draw attention to this edit that I made [22], which accounts for much of the difference between the two versions of that particular paragraph shown just above. The change centers on replacing the allegation by the Senator that PETA was a spokesgroup, with the criticisms of PETA for providing financial support. This edit was made only after a considerable amount of discussion in talk, and with what appeared at the time to have good consensus and no objections. Here is a combined diff of that discussion, with the most directly relevant part coming at the end, below the "break": [23]. It was difficult for me to track this discussion down, because it appears that it was deleted from this talk page, but never archived, which is, to say the least, unfortunate. Anyway, I think there were very good reasons for the edit, and I see no good reason for having reverted that particular paragraph back to what it had been before. Let's note that there is really very hazy evidence as to whether PETA was actually a spokesgroup, whereas the financial relationships are, even now, discussed in detail and well-sourced within the body of the page; these points are discussed more extensively in the earlier talk. Please attend to how the previous talk was very careful about accuracy, and very cordial. My hope is that we can agree now that this particular paragraph needs to be fixed again. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Without in-text attribution (money) | With in-text attribution (spokesgroup) |
---|---|
The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [11] It has also been criticized for providing financial support to persons associated with the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. [12] [18] | The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [19] It was also criticized in 2005 by Senator Jim Inhofe, who said it had acted as a spokesgroup for the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, after those groups were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. [20] |
SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Inhofe mentions money too, so we could use him as a source for both. I removed the part about PETA doing this "after those groups were listed in a draft planning document" because the source we used (the Rood article) doesn't mention PETA or say anything about one thing happening after another. I've just looked around for more specific secondary sources, but I couldn't find anything. Suggestion to be going along with:
The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [21] It was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, who said PETA had given money to Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front activists, and had acted as a spokesgroup for them. [22]
SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
If the Post is citing activistcash, and they are talking about tax returns that Inhofe has, then we should (and do) use Inhofe as he's the most authoritative source. We should then back up the use of him with a high-quality secondary source that reported his claims. The Post is not a high-quality secondary source. Look, if these claims were specific and serious, they'll have been reported clearly by responsible news organizations, and we should find and use those reports. If they're not specific and serious, they won't have been reported in that way, and that should tell us something. I'm concerned that after several years of these claims being in the article we still don't have very clear, very good secondary sources.
The CSM article is again sourced to the activistcash people. That's a lobby group that represents the fast food, tobacco, and alcohol industries. They've taken on PETA and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, among others. We can't use them as a source, just as we can't use PETA as a source on activistcash. And the CSM claim is the same as the Inhofe claim anyway: same money, same allegations, same tax returns, and we already use Inhofe. So I'm not really sure where you're going with this. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
1. Spokesgroup: Inhofe took this from PETA itself, which he cites if you look at the source.
2. The activistcash, New York Post, and CSM all cite the same tax records, which is what Inhofe based his investigation on. It is Chinese whispers. Someone got hold of them, activistcash issues press releases, Inhofe picked up on it. The same claims, the same payments, the same source material. Not multiple sources. One source (tax records). One investigation (Inhofe's committee). That's partly why we cite him. The other reason is he's the only serious source who went on the record that I'm aware of. The rest are lobby groups and press releases. If PETA has been engaged in serious issues like this, the W/Post will have reported on them; their archives are always the best bet for PETA stories.
3. If someone other than Inhofe looked into this, or if there were payments he didn't look into and others did, we can expand the in-text attribution. But at the moment you're looking at sources that are mirroring each other, and making the mistakes of thinking that means there are lots of them. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any of this issue discussed in the article's body text. I think it should be developed within an existing section or subsection, after finding additional sources of course -- I agree with SV that both The Post and CSM are basing their (weak) reporting of it on the same source. And if we're going to financially link PETA with terrorists, we need to be very careful in the lead. Criminal lawyers (ie, lawyers representing accused criminals) are not criminals themselves -- despite what Liz Cheney & others say about civil liberties. Likewise, paying (part of) the lawyer's fees is not a crime. I can see it being qualified by context in the article's body, but not in the lead as it reads now -- that wouldn't stand up to peer review. This seems like another case of alleged guilt by association. PrBeacon ( talk) 21:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The source [27] talks only about one ELF donation not being denied. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this very carefully, and I do agree now that there is a valid argument in favor of mentioning Inhofe by name in order to have in-text substantiation for serious accusations. (Parenthetically, such an argument probably also applied with respect to David Hubel. After all, falsifying evidence is a more serious accusation than providing help to pay for a defendant's defense.) But anyway, it seems clear that we will be at an impasse if we continue to argue the point, so I'm going to try to solve this by re-thinking the wording to account for concerns on all sides.
Taking all these points together, I am hopeful that wording can be crafted that we can all be satisfied with. I'm going to BOLDly make a try at that. If it doesn't work, I remain happy to discuss. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to turn next to the other material that was deleted from this paragraph. The discussion about it was at quoted stance on "pet keeping", now archived. I made the first edit adding some of the material: [28]. Then another editor expanded the passage: [29]. I accepted that this addition might help with context and NPOV, although I also feel that, strictly from the point of view of good writing style, it tended to fill all available space, like an ideal gas. Subsequently, I made some minor fixes, and then a larger correction, intended to avoid a misleading juxtaposition with the "liberation" quote: [30].
I want to explain why I think this material should be included on the page, and how it should be included. First, there is no issue of sourcing, as it comes entirely from PETA's own website. It is important to include it, for much the same reason as it is important to include the material from Ingrid Newkirk's speech: it accurately situates PETA as an animal rights organization, not an animal welfare one, and provides a philosophical context for their programs, in their own words. I really do understand the concerns that have been expressed about what critics of PETA might want to highlight or about creating the misimpression that PETA would confiscate people's pets. But that is not the point. PETA does not feel that the material reflects badly on them, because they themselves put it out there on their website. And I am entirely supportive of presenting it in a way that makes clear the fact that this is not an upcoming agenda item, but rather, a question of philosophy. Indeed, that is the point. It is an important part of PETA's underlying rationale, and addresses a matter of broad public interest.
Originally, I felt that this material needed to be in the lead, and perhaps it still should be. However, depending on how we end up deciding to write about the video, above, it may be possible to address underlying principles in sufficient detail in the lead that way, and instead place this material in the main text. The section on "On neutering, backyard dogs, and pets" already refers a little vaguely to what PETA says, in the second paragraph. (The first paragraph of that section reads like an animal welfare organization.) Perhaps we will decide to incorporate some of PETA's text into a rewrite of that section, instead of the lead, depending on what the lead becomes. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
With the new edits to the lead, this is no longer an issue for me, with respect to the lead. We now situate PETA within the AR movement in the lead, which I think removes any reason to linger on pets there as well. As I mentioned above, I think it would be a good idea, in the main text, to paraphrase PETA's website a little less, in favor of direct quotes, but this does not seem to be a big deal. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I see the quote of Newkirk stating "our goal is total animal liberation" is gone as well. It was in place, in to balance the publicly stated goals you've left in. Max.inglis ( talk) 19:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Moving now to this issue, this is the next matter that I feel needs to be discussed. I share Max's concern about deleting the quotation. In my opinion, there are two issues that need to be discussed: the Ingrid Newkirk quote discussed here, and the opinions by PETA about pet ownership, to which I will come back after we discuss the first issue.
First, let's get one thing out of the way, about the few breathless editors. I, for one, am breathing just fine, thank you. Please, let's stay away from making disparaging comments about other editors' supposed motivations, and focus instead on the merits (or lack) of the edits themselves. I'm sure the people saying these things would not like it if the tables were turned. OK, then, I think there are two issues to examine with regard to the appropriateness (or not) of including the Newkirk quote.
If the sourcing were OK, is it appropriate to include the content? I notice how Max said there was a contrast between the quote and PETA's publicly-stated goals, and SV disagreed. I think you are both correct, but seeing different aspects of the question. SV is absolutely correct that, as an animal rights organization, there is nothing surprising about Newkirk saying that their ultimate (although not short-term) goal would be total liberation. Basically, that is what makes AR thinking AR, what distinguishes it from animal welfare. Thus, there is a POV inherent in supposing that it is somehow a negative reflection on PETA for them to say it. Some people would consider it a negative, but others, including PETA themselves, consider it a foundation of what they believe. Therefore, it is not POV to simply report that this is what PETA believes, regardless of what editors here might think of it. But Max is also on to something about that apparent contrast. What the page quotes now is what PETA has said are their practical goals in the short term. It's entirely appropriate for the lead to include that, and no one is arguing to delete it. But look at the way it sounds on our page right now. There are 4 core issues: factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment, and then there is also fishing, the killing of animals regarded as pests, the keeping of chained backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, and bullfighting. Is there anything on that list that animal welfare advocates would disagree with? (Yes, if the page said that these things were to be banned in their entireties, but no if, as it seems to imply, they only need to be modified to remove cruelty.) As written by Wikipedia, PETA sounds almost like an animal welfare organization, albeit a dramatic and confrontational one. The part of their slogan that says "are not ours" alludes to ownership issues that do indeed differentiate animal rights from animal welfare, but our current lead soft-pedals that. It's inaccurate, and is actually misrepresenting PETA. Obviously, this is not intentional, but it comes from the fact that PETA's immediate goals are things they consider to be attainable in the foreseeable future. As I said, it's appropriate to report that, but I would argue that it is inappropriate to omit mention of PETA's underlying philosophy or principles. That's why the explicit inclusion of animal liberation, not as a short-term political agenda, but as what Newkirk herself said, as an ultimate goal, is simply presenting PETA accurately and fairly, and we need to do it.
Is the sourcing OK? First, let us note that it is Ingrid Newkirk herself saying it. That's important. If it were Penn Gillette putting his words into PETA's mouth, I'd oppose including it, but it isn't. There is no reason to question that this is what she said. It's entirely verifiable by viewing the video, and there is nothing surprising about her saying such a thing. So is it unacceptable to have the video come from a Penn and Teller episode? No, not if it is Ingrid Newkirk, not Penn and Teller, whom we are quoting. The fact that Penn and Teller are not, themselves, reliable sources for characterizing PETA, does not make Ingrid Newkirk's own words invalid. The facts that Penn and Teller make jokes and use four-letter words are beside the point. It happens that there is verifiable proof that these words are Newkirk's, and it happens that this is the available way to link to them. Perhaps there would be a copyright issue if we were to upload and post the video on-Wiki, but there is no copyright issue (at least for us) if we have a reference citation that directs readers to the website where the video resides. It makes good sense to include the citation. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
And here's another source for the same speech! [32]. There is no issue about Penn and Teller, and there is no issue about copyright. It is her speech in full. The quote about total liberation comes at the very end, and she states very clearly that this is something fundamental to what PETA wants to do. It is posted as a film prepared by PETA, released without copyright restrictions, and is labeled as such explicitly at the end. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Reforms move a society very importantly from A to B, from B to C, from C to D. It's very hard to take a nation or a world that is built on seeing animals as nothing more than handburgers, handbags, cheap burglar alarms, tools for research, and move them from A to Z. But as we keep whittling away, we will move them finally from R to Z. There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders "what's this with all these reforms?", you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitative purpose.
You're welcome, all, for finding it. I'm still concerned about the placement of the quote, as though burying the lead. Something that stands out to me is that Newkirk says very clearly as she leads up to the quoted passage that she is distinguishing between PETA's short-term goals and PETA's ultimate principles, and that PETA considers it to be very important to be clear about the latter, to speak it clearly, to not try to hide it. So I ask, why present it as a debate between PETA and Gary Francione, when it is clearly much more than that? It belongs in the lead. Describing PETA as standing only for its short-term goals misrepresents it. Ingrid Newkirk says very clearly that she intends the liberation statement to be something that should be said conspicuously. Making the lead read like it's virtually an animal welfare organization is inaccurate and wrong. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an American animal rights organization based in Norfolk, Virginia, led by Ingrid Newkirk, its international president. With two million members and supporters, it says it is the largest animal rights group in the world. Newkirk has stated "Our goal is total animal liberation and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose."
I'm having difficulty seeing how it would fit into the lead. Whenever Newkirk says things like that, it's always in response to the criticism that PETA isn't radical enough. They are seen within large sections of the AR movement (whether most of it is hard to tell, but a great deal of it) as very conservative, a media-savvy version of the RSPCA. Whenever faced with that criticism, Newkirk affirms "we are here to hold the radical line," or "our feet are on the ground, but our heads are in the sky" etc. It's difficult to portray that debate succinctly in the lead, and to use one of those quotes out of context would give a false impression of the group. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the way to approach this is to add the AR criticism to the lead that PETA is not radical enough, then have Newkirk's affirmation in there. I'll look around to see who best represents that criticism, and see if we can write it up fairly but succinctly. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
A suggestion: How about (1) going back to the longer version of the quote [37], in hopes of providing that elusive "context", and also (2) deleting the the last sentence of the first paragraph, which states the motto, since the motto is also right alongside in the infobox, in order to remove the repetitiveness to which SV correctly objected? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The way you are flopping around like a trout on a fishhook to avoid actually explaining why it is unrepresentative, it would seem easier if you would just explain why this particular quote is unrepresentative. But I can see that we are not going to get anywhere unless I humor your request to do it your way. So, herewith, courtesy of Tryptofish, is CliffsNotes for Crum:
I think that it is absolutely clear that the passage, "Our goal is total animal liberation", is representative of the speech as a whole, is a clear statement of PETA's long-term agenda, long-term goal. It is not cherry-picked, nor is it out of context. The idea of animal liberation is a consistent theme throughout the speech. I think I have done a very careful job of presenting Newkirk's speech, but if anyone notices anything that I have missed, I'm listening. If anyone thinks they can point to some way in which the quote is not representative, I'm listening there too. Actually, I think the context is as much about encouraging activists not to be daunted as it is a response to critics like Francione, but I have no objection to placing it as a response to the latter. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Newkirk says many things and makes many points in her speech. You seem to think they are all consistent with "eventual total liberation", because you are combining her speech with other sources to help you interpret her words and meanings. But doing this type of combination of sources to arrive at a new conclusion (in this case that Newkirk's main theme is "total liberation") violates WP:SYN. On the pet issue for example, you are ignoring my point of contrasting the way she implores her audience to go vegan and swear off dairy products, while being totally mum on the pet buying issue, and even joking affectionately about cat ownership. If, as you say, her main theme is "total liberation", why not say what you say she believes? By mentioning spaying/neutering and laughing about a pet cat, she is clearly sending a message that pet ownership is OK, as long as you neuter/spay. So as I see it, this, as well as many of her other points which seem to be focused on kindness to animals, is not part of a clear theme of "total liberation". If you only listen to this speech, without synthesizing other bits from other sources, her message is mostly "be kind to animals" and "don't eat or wear them". And yes, towards the end, she gets excited and says "our goal is total liberation", but when taking in the entire speech, I don't see that statement as representative of all the rest. Crum375 ( talk) 01:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that a PETA-released video (or any material) is a reliable source for WP purposes, although if it's about PETA and their views, as this one is, it would be primary. And as I noted above, primary sources have to be handled with care, so as not to selectively either overemphasize or downplay parts of it, which could sway the NPOV balance or change the meaning or thrust of the complete work. In this situation, you feel that you've made a "convincing case" that your interpretation that "total liberation" is the main underlying theme, is correct, while you find my own case that the theme is "kindness" and "don't eat, wear or test", not convincing. Needless to say, I see the situation and the "convincing" aspect exactly opposite, or else I'd be sharing your view. So the bottom line is that we have a difference of opinion, and as I noted above, to be able to quote only one part of a primary source requires a broad consensus, which we don't have at the moment. Crum375 ( talk) 20:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
But that (about SYN) is just an aside. My larger points stand. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Just suggesting this in talk, not doing it yet. I'm looking forward to the academic summary discussed just below, but I'm also concerned about this talk seeming to have moved on to other issues. So, for now, I want to raise the following possibility, which, to my understanding, now answers all of the concerns that have been discussed so far:
1. Delete the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, the one about the motto. It is exactly duplicated right alongside, in the box, and deleting it removes the concern that the quote below would be redundant with this paragraph.
2. Add the following as a last paragraph of the lead:
Ref 6 could be the recent book by Francione (just below in this talk), and Ref 7 would be the video of Newkirk's speech.
Thoughts? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I still AGF that SlimVirgin was actually basing on sources (with which I just happen to not be familiar myself, and which haven't been identified here) when she said in this talk that Newkirk was making her statement about total liberation as a response to critics such as Francione, and not simply as an exhortation to the audience to not be discouraged. But, until that gets clarified, I have to agree with Crum that it would be SYNTH and OR to assume that without sourcing.
So, until such time as that gets cleared up, I suggest postponing that approach. My primary concern remains that the lead should report PETA's stated position on long-term goals and philosophy, and not only their short-term practical agenda. So I propose that we do this as follows:
1. Delete the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, the one about the motto. It is exactly duplicated right alongside, in the box.
2. Replace it with this sentence:
It would be referenced to the video of Newkirk's speech.
I think that all the concerns that have been raised in this talk so far have been answered. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I saw those newspaper articles, but none of them makes the point you are making about PETA's long term goals, and none of them quotes the part you are quoting, so it's still OR. Crum375 ( talk) 15:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have heard no objection here, and I am not aware of any that has not already been answered. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 13:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
To repeat: I have heard no objection here, and I am not aware of any that has not already been answered. One cannot simply revert my edit without a reason. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Given the lack of reply here, I will ask once more. Does anyone have an objection to this, that has not already been answered? I'm happy to continue to discuss any concerns, but I think that all concerns that have been raised so far have been answered. If any editors are not willing to justify why they object to the edit, they should not simply revert it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Personally I would not object to having a final lead paragraph that read something like this (which is basically just picking up from the section about criticism from within the movement):
The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [23] It was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe for having given grants several years earlier to Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists charged with offenses including arson. PETA responded that it has no involvement in ALF or ELF actions, and that it does not support violence. [24] PETA has also been criticized from within the animal rights movement for not being radical enough. Animal rights advocate Gary Francione, professor of law at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, calls PETA the "new welfarists," arguing they have become an animal welfare group because they work with industries to achieve incremental reform. [25] Newkirk responded in 2002: "If anybody wonders 'what's this with all these reforms?', you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose." [26]
Problems are:
But from my own perspective it would work, though if we insert it I'd like to be able to switch to more up-to-date secondary sourcing if we find it in the future. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
There's little doubt that she's responding to Francione et al (he's the academic leader of the abolitionist position), but we could say instead:
Animal rights advocate Gary Francione, professor of law at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, calls PETA the "new welfarists," arguing that they have become an animal welfare group because they work with industries to achieve incremental reform. [25] Newkirk clarified PETA's position in 2002: "If anybody wonders 'what's this with all these reforms?', you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation, and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose." [26]
I would like to retain who Francione is, as we do with Inhofe, because he's is a senior academic and a key critic. I think it's important to make that clear. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Where there's disagreement about how to interpret primary sources or which parts to highlight we should turn to secondary sources. I have a few academic books here mentioning how PETA is perceived by other parts of the AR movement (which as I recall is what we want the extra lead sentence to be about). The only reason I haven't already added something is that they're not the most up-to-date books, and I've not found the time to look for something more recent. I'll try to take a look over the next few days, and perhaps others can do the same. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've started making my own try at looking for some sources that might help. With respect to more recent sources for criticisms of PETA for being too welfarist, there is this 2008 book by Gary Francione: [48]. If you enter "PETA" in the search box at the left of the screen in that link, and then go to the link on page 110 of the book, there is a relevant section. As for secondary sources that point to the passage in Newkirk's speech about total animal liberation as being an important theme of PETA's position (and I thought there wouldn't be any!), there are multiple news reports that do so: [49]*, [50]*, [51], [52], [53], *the starred ones are pay for full text, but abstracted at [54]. Some of those also confirm the venue and date of her speech in the video, which I added to the page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if we've discussed this before, but if we did I forget how it concluded. It's about this sentence in the lead:
Critics including U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe further said in 2005 that PETA had donated money to the legal defense of Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists accused of violent offenses.
Which is the source that talks about "ALF and ELF activists accused of violent offenses"? SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
How about: "charged with offenses including arson"? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the last paragraph of the lead may currently be inaccurate or poorly sourced, partly because it say "critics" when it seems this was Senator Inhofe and activistcash.com, a fast-food lobby group, and partly because we leave out that others felt the criticism was absurd (e.g. Senator Lautenberg). So I think we need at least to list here who the critics were, plus the sources (preferably secondary sources) and what they say. This is for the sentence saying PETA was criticized for donating money to the legal defense of ALF and ELF activists.
Who else? SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been taking a closer look at this, and I'd like to made a couple of points:
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
T, before getting into detailed discussions, could we please just list the critics, with sources? I started above with Inhofe, and gave a primary and secondary source for his views. Could you briefly list here who else is included in "critics", together with explicit sources? That way we can quickly see who we're dealing with. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This is for the sentence in the lead:
Critics, including U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe, further said in 2005 that PETA had donated money to the legal defense of Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists.
1. Senator Jim Inhofe. The secondary source is Inhofe cited by CNN: "Inhofe said there was "a growing network of support for extremists like ELF and ALF," and he singled out People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for giving money to members of both groups." [68] The primary source is the statement Inhofe made to the hearings he held. [69]
As Inhofe is the only critic we've identified so far who discusses grants to the ALF/ELF, I've changed the lead back to reflect that:
The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [27] It was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe for having given grants several years earlier to Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists. PETA responded that it has no involvement in ALF or ELF actions, and that it does not support violence. [28]
It may even be a little UNDUE to mention it in the lead at all, but we can leave it for now. If there are other critics saying the same thing, we can expand the sentence to include them, but we need to be very specific so that it's not hand-waving or weasel wording. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm repeating here the response I gave a few days ago, with one refactoring: where before I had two links to source searches on Google, I now have a (needlessly) long list of the individual sources for those who complain about having to click through (fourth bullet point). If you disagree with my arguments, fine, but please do not pretend that I have not made them. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been taking a closer look at this, and I'd like to made a couple of points:
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
T, you've been asked a very simple question, and instead of replying you're repeatedly posting links to make us search for the material ourselves. You are the one who wants the sentence: "Critics, including U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe, further said in 2005 that PETA had donated money to the legal defense of Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists." Therefore please name the "critics" here with secondary sources, so we can see it's not just Inhofe. The onus is on you to tell us who these critics are. Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So:
1. Senator Jim Inhofe.
Primary source;
secondary source.
2.
3.
SlimVirgin talk contribs 18:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
2. [102].
3. [103].
I've repeatedly provided the answer to the question you ask here, and have explained very clearly. You are repeatedly pretending that I have not. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 13:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
And I would like to know how you respond to my explanations. I made six (6) bullet points. Please state here whether you agree or disagree with them, and if you disagree, why:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 13:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Herbal for the support. I no longer see this as an issue, since we have added Francione to the lead. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the addition of an image of a purported comic book cover, and its subsequent reversion by Bob. I fully agree with Bob's reversion, and the image caption was clearly POV. However, I have a question: is the image authentic, that is, from an actual campaign by PETA? If not, it clearly has no place here, but if so, it may, perhaps, be worth including (with a neutral caption) if in fact it truthfully illustrates a "graphic campaign". Just asking. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys... There's been some pretty powerful criticism of PETA in the past, yet any note of this seems to be missing... Would you like me to create a controversy section? Have a good one, yoman82 ( talk) 20:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes In fact I would last time I heard Norfolk PETA kills 84% of its dogs and cats, for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.233.69 ( talk) 11:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
One of the edits I then made: [105]. I realize that we have consensus, later, to not including the Sweetland/insulin part, but this is something else, the military testing part (admittedly, not as big a matter of contention in this talk, but something still appropriate to discuss). Reverted three times: [106], [107], [108]. Then slipped back out again: [109]. I've read all of those edit summaries, and I do not see anything substantive that replies to the discussion here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I remember asking for a secondary source for this years ago, and as we still don't have one, I've removed it. Can we have something showing this was notable? The current source is something called the National Animal Interest Alliance, a business/agricultural lobby group. [110]
PETA was criticized in 1999 regarding undercover film it took inside the Carolina Biological Supply Company, which appeared to show wriggling cats being embalmed alive. An anatomist argued that the wriggling was the effect formalin has on freshly dead muscle tissue, and showed a video of the same writhing in a cat known to be dead; the case against the company was dismissed. [29]
SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Somehow this ended up back in the article, so I've removed it again. Please do not restore unless we have a secondary source. It's currently sourced to an agricultural lobby group. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
RodCoronado$
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).