I'm moving this here, as I can't find it in the source, and it seems to rely on guilt by association:
PETA is also alleged to have donated $1.3 million to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an organization that promotes the use of alternatives to animal testing, but which has been criticized for its links with Jerry Vlasak, a trauma surgeon who runs the North American Animal Liberation Press Office. [1]
The source is this. I can't see where it talks of 1.3 million (sorry if it's there and I've missed it), or where it talks of "alleged to have donated" or any such term. PCRM is a completely respectable organization so far as I know, so we would need an excellent and unambiguous source for anything that makes them sound as though they're not. SlimVirgin talk contribs 05:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. With a small group or organization it is easier to draw a distinction between statements about the group's members (where BLP might apply) and statements about the organization itself (where it would not). This is harder to do with larger groups and organizations. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.
Could we have a better source than the unlinked Tallahassee Democrat in the dairy section for "PETA halted the campaign, but later revived it"? [2] SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Could we have a secondary source for this, to show that it's worth including? "The BBB Wise Giving Alliance said in 2008 that PETA does not meet three of its accountability standards. [3] SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
(Removed until we find a source). "PETA gave $5,000 to the Josh Harper Support Committee, before Harper was convicted of 'animal enterprise terrorism' in the U.S. in connection with the SHAC campaign." The source is a Times article about Harper, but I can't see where it mentions a PETA donation. [1] SlimVirgin talk contribs 12:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
(Not removed) Could we find a secondary source for: "During Coronado's trial, U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer said Newkirk had arranged before the fact to have Coronado send her documents from the lab and a videotape of the raid." It's currently sourced only to a government sentencing memorandum of U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer in USA v. Rodney Coronado, July 31, 1995, pp. 8–10.
It seems a little unfair to publish an allegation made by one side based on a primary source, and not any kind of rebuttal or overview. SlimVirgin talk contribs 13:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit I then made: [5]. Reverted three times: [6], [7], [8]. Then slipped back out again: [9]. I've read all of those edit summaries, and I do not see anything substantive that replies to the discussion here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
(Not removed) We need a better source for this:
According to writer Kathleen Marquardt, vice-president of the American Policy Center, PETA donated $7,500 in 1989 to the legal defense of Fran Trutt, sentenced to one year in jail and three years' probation after planting a crude bomb near the car of Leon Hirsch, the CEO of the United States Surgical Corporation; Trutt maintained she had been set up but accepted a plea bargain, and pleaded guilty to attempted murder. [4]
The donation currently relies on Kathleen Marquardt of the American Policy center, a right-wing, free-enterprise lobby group, writing in her 1993 book Animal Scams, where she published it without a source. SlimVirgin talk contribs 09:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't see the point of using so many direct quotes here. Direct quotes should be restricted to issues where the particular words are important or distinctive enough to be highlighted, but everything here is very ordinary and could easily be paraphrased, or used without the quotation marks. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's a list of all of them, important or not:
Bottom line: I'm not married to having all of these direct quotes, and I don't understand the level of emotion my edit apparently elicited. But if we are going to paraphrase, then the paraphrase has to be accurate, not watered down or otherwise inaccurate. Other editors have been saying in this talk that we have to be careful to avoid SYNTH, and I think that quoting directly is one way to avoid that. And I discussed this in talk above, before I made the edit. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I've explained why twice. It's poorly written now with so many quotes, and none of them are distinctive. Why would "never from pet shops or breeders" be in quotation marks, for example? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Previous | Current |
---|---|
PETA argues that it would have been better for animals had the institution of breeding them as "pets" never emerged. The group argues that the desire to own animals is selfish, and that their breeding, sale, and purchase can cause immeasurable suffering. They write that millions of dogs spend their lives chained outside in all weather conditions or locked up in chain-link pens and wire cages in puppy mills, and that even in what they call good homes animals are often not well cared for. They would like to see the population of dogs and cats reduced through spaying and neutering, and for people to adopt animals from shelters, rather than purchasing them from stores or breeders. The group makes clear that they have no desire to remove or set free animals who are well cared for. [5] | PETA argues that it would have been better for animals had the institution of breeding and owning them as pets never existed. The group argues that it is a "selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them", and that their breeding, sale, and purchase can cause "immeasurable suffering". They write that millions of dogs spend their lives chained outside in all weather conditions or locked up in chain-link pens and wire cages in puppy mills, and that, even in what they call good homes, animals are often not well cared for; "their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to." They would like to see the population of dogs and cats reduced through spaying and neutering, and for people to adopt animals from shelters, but "never from pet shops or breeders". The group also makes clear that "contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and 'set them free.'" [5] |
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
About the version on the left:
I do not see this as a binary choice between either version left or version right. Something in between, with fewer quotes and better paraphrases, would be fine with me. For me, this isn't about "your" version versus "mine". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the previous version as I can't see the point of including lots of quotes. [10] I did change it to say "never" buy from stores or breeders, because T wanted that emphasized, though I don't understand why. Bear in mind that these are not unusual positions. I can't think of any animal welfare group, even the conservative ones, who think that buying from pet stores and breeders is a good idea.
The only word in scare quotes is "pets," because it's a word that PETA doesn't use unless in scare quotes. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 08:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to use the Wikinews interview (audio) as a source for some of Newkirk's views. We currently link to it, but don't use it as an RS. Does anyone object to its use? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 08:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
(feel free to move this comment. or remove.) Since you've mentioned it, I thought I'd just chime in that the TOC is one of the best I've seen lately as far as keeping the many discussion threads orderly. Housecleaning is such thankless work, but the instant gratification is a nice tradeoff. One side effect though is how long the talkpage has become, maybe you've noticed: 287k at the moment. I assume that's partly due to the non-archiving of active threads with inactive subthreads -- does that make sense? One solution may be to consider additional/alternative methods: collapsible boxes for subthreads that are resolved, for example, or collaborative efforts to quickly decide which threads can be archived manually. Another consideration is whether these threads will be archived with usual frequency since the timestamps may change (?). As you folks probably know by now I'm not the best coder, so I'll have to look into that. And I apologize if this has already been discussed before. On that note, another idea i might suggest is a sort of prepping for archival use, especially summaries of consensus, FAQs, etc. I'm still researching the efficacy of this -- like how often folks even use archives anyway -- and I'm willing to help when I can. - PrBeacon (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I remove this?
In 2006 when Steve Irwin died, PETA's vice-president Dan Mathews said Irwin had made a career out of antagonizing frightened wild animals. [6] Australian Member of Parliament Bruce Scott said PETA should apologize to Irwin's family and the rest of Australia. [7]
It was an example of recentism at the time; the section is not about Irwin alone, but about conservationists in general; and the Bruce Scott aspect is supported by a dead link that's not in the Internet Archive. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I can see objections to these on this page, yet they've been added en masse. Could we go through them one by one, please? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
T, you're engaging in poor behavior here. It isn't appreciated. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This is my revert. It only undoes work by you that I can see, and all of it was objected to several times that I recall. If you look at talk pages you edit, you regularly post to yourself after others have objected. In those situations you can't assume that silence means assent. It's not okay to go to the page and add the material that others oppose, just because they didn't repeat their objections the requisite number of times. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec) But rather than dragging this thread along any longer, perhaps you might want to do what you alluded to at the top of the thread: go through the content issues individually. In all of my edits, I provided a link from the edit summary to the appropriate section of this talk. Anyone who has an objection is free to go there and say why. (But don't just say that you have the same objection as at the beginning of the talk thread, when that objection has already been replied to.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is a recent example. There have been multiple objections going back years to including the view of a right-wing lobbyist that a former PETA employee who 17 years ago took animal-derived insulin is therefore a hypocrite. Despite the objections it has been repeatedly reinserted. I raised this yet again recently:
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." [8]
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Has anyone here other than Tryptofish explained their reasoning, other than I don't like it.? Has anyone here other than Tryptofish discussed their concerns in talk before unilaterally reverting other editors' edits?
- Actually, there are now 2 sections about animal testing, which maybe should be combined. I've explained above the relationship between animal research and the use of pig and cattle insulin; I don't see much point in parsing a distinction between medications tested on animals and medications obtained from animals, at least any distinction from an animal rights perspective. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Animal testing is not just about medications; in fact, most of it is not. And there is only one section about PETA's position on it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:56, 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)
- It sounds to me like 99.236... agrees that criticism needs to be present on the page, as long as we, in effect, stick to NPOV so as not to be an attack page. As for a separate criticism section, this has been a perennial subject in this talk, and consensus has been that it is better not to have such a section, but instead, to present both sides to each section as it occurs.
- So, in response to SV's question about "anyone here other than Tryptofish", I've tried to discuss with SV some concerns I have about that in her talk, but I do not see anyone here other than SV taking a position of deleting the passage. The other editors who have been active here recently have previously taken part in discussing the passage and taken part in modifying its wording, so it seems to me that, if they had wanted to argue for completely deleting it, they would already have done so, and they haven't.
- In response to what SV has said here now: Yes, animal testing is not only about medical applications, and it includes military testing as well, which is in a separate section that could possibly be merged into this one. But a significant part of it is about medical applications, including the very issue (Silver Spring) upon which PETA was founded, and also including the medical use of insulin. If this (insulin) were an instance in which groups like activistcash were the only ones discussing the issue, then there might be a case that it would not be encyclopedic to include it. But that's not true. According to the sources cited, it's something that Mary Beth Sweetland and Ingrid Newkirk have written about, very proudly and not at all defensively. They weren't simply saying the lobbying groups are unfair and here is how we rebut them, but they were saying Mary Beth Sweetland is in-your-face proud of what she has discovered about how to deal with diabetes. I'm increasingly getting the feeling that some editors are arguing that we cannot cite (well-sourced, in context, and not cherry-picked) what PETA says, because what PETA says somehow reflects badly on them. That's not for editors to judge. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any remaining rationale for leaving the passage deleted. And, for that matter, it would make sense to move the military testing paragraph into this section as well. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Am I correct that there are no objections to my argument here? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
From June 18 to June 22, Tryptofish responds to herself, then takes the silence to mean no one objects; restores the material; and reverts three times when I try to remove it. This despite the fact that no editor other than Tryptofish (that I have seen) supports its inclusion, and many have argued against it over the years. Common sense alone says it's a senseless thing to add. The source is dubious. The employee is no longer with PETA. She no longer uses animal-derived insulin. She last took it 17 years ago. And anyway it's a BLP issue and no one else's business what she takes for her health. Every Wikipedia editing policy and best practice strongly points in the direction of removal. But if we're not willing to argue against it endlessly, Tryptofish interprets that as no objection. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
If someone other than Tryptofish believes the Sweetland/insulin issue should be included, please say here. I've collected the posts about it at Talk:PETA/insulin. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I created Talk:PETA/insulin, the first in a series of archives-by-topic that I intend to create for this page so that editors in future can see which arguments have been made before about which issues. Trytopfish has just placed the speedy-delete tag on it, on the grounds that "This is a duplication of archived talk from Talk:PETA, created to provide background for a discussion that has now been concluded. This duplicate talk is therefore no longer needed." [13]
Tryptofish, because you have decided not to continue inserting something, the issue is concluded, and the archive is no longer needed? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
I've removed the list of campaigns, which has been problematic for some time. It wasn't clear what to include, and they seem to have been picked out at random. I've summarized the key points, and added to them to the general campaign section here. That gives us a page size of 3,604 words readable prose with 71 footnotes, which is a more sensible length. When you download it, it's eight pages of text, and four pages of references. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 05:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems like this thread Talk:PETA -Archives # Tag stalled and got archived so I'd like to ask folks what we need to do to remove this tag. I can see both arguments: PETA is intentionally controversial and there will always be disagreements .. but the article has undergone some big changes recently with serious efforts at collaboration etc... Thoughts? - PrBeacon (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Trypto, as I mentioned when we last discussed this issue, there isn't a single controversial article on WP where everyone is happy. In fact, it's very likely almost everyone is unhappy in such articles. If anyone who felt unhappy with the POV balance in an article were to slap on a POV tag, virtually all controversial articles would be so tagged. But they are clearly not, which is because that tag is used for a short time, to raise attention to a specific issue. If it remains on for a long time, almost by definition it's improper, because a reasonably stable article over a long time ipso facto represents the POV balance among the various editors. If you feel an issue is critical, you need to escalate it to an RfC or some other broad forum, but you can't just slap POV templates and leave them on forever. Again, a long time (months) effectively means a balanced version, at least among the involved editors. So in conclusion, I think you need to escalate this if you feel it's unbalanced, and otherwise remove the tag. Crum375 ( talk) 01:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
As no one else has said they support the tag, I'm going to remove it. It's been there for almost 13 months at the behest of Tryptofish, except for four weeks in March/April this year. Tags aren't meant to be long-term additions. I also think the article is now neutral by any reasonable standard, and I'm continuing to work on it by adding good secondary sources. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The way POV tag situations are handled is that, when someone feels there are POV issues, they write a list on the talk page, a specific list of concerns that are actionable within the content policies. Discussion and attempts to compromise then ensue. If they can't be sorted and there's consensus that the article needs to be tagged because of them, then it becomes appropriate for a reasonable period as the issues are dealt with. So Tryptofish, please write up your list of issues below, and we can try to deal with them. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Below is the lead that caused Tryptofish to remove the POV tag in March. It's poorly written, it relies almost entirely on primary sources—including Penn and Teller as the source of a Newkirk statement—and it contains several of the things CCF likes to focus on about PeTA: total animal liberation, domestic terrorist threats, and an emphasis on pet ownership, even though PeTA doesn't focus on that at all. The current lead is significantly better written, more comprehensive, neutral, and it relies on secondary sources. The same applies to the rest of the article. Yet it's the current version Tryptofish feels ought to be tagged.
Lead in March when Tryptofish removed the POV tag [19] | Current (now tagged) [20] |
---|---|
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.
[9]
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." [10] 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". [5] 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." [11] The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [12] 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. [13] [14] |
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. A non-profit corporation with 187 employees and two million members and supporters, it says it is the largest animal rights group in the world. Its slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."
[11]
Founded in March 1980 by Newkirk and animal rights activist Alex Pacheco, the organization made its name in the summer of 1981 during what became known as the Silver Spring monkeys case, a widely publicized dispute about experiments conducted on 17 macaque monkeys inside the Institute of Behavioral Research in Silver Spring, Maryland. The case lasted ten years, involved the first police raid in the U.S. on an animal laboratory, triggered an amendment in 1985 to the Animal Welfare Act, and established PeTA as an internationally known organization. [15] Since then, in its campaigns and undercover investigations, it has focused on four core issues—opposition to factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment—though it also campaigns against fishing, the killing of animals regarded as pests, the keeping of chained backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, and bullfighting. [11] The group has been the focus of criticism from both inside and outside the animal rights movement. Newkirk and Pacheco are seen as the leading exporters of animal rights to the more traditional animal protection groups in the United States, but sections of the movement nevertheless say PeTA is not radical enough—law professor Gary Francione calls them the new welfarists, arguing that their work with industries to achieve reform makes them an animal welfare, not an animal rights, group. [16] Newkirk told Salon in 2001 that PeTA works toward the ideal, but tries in the meantime to provide carrot-and-stick incentives. [17] There has also been criticism from feminists about the use of scantily clad women in PeTA's anti-fur campaigns, and criticism in general that the group's media stunts trivialize animal rights. Newkirk responds by arguing that PeTA has a duty to be what she calls press sluts. [18] From outside the movement, the confrontational nature of PeTA's campaigns has caused concern, as has the number of animals it euthanizes. It was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senator 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 does not support violence, though Newkirk has elsewhere made clear that she does support the removal of animals from laboratories and other facilities, including as a result of illegal direct action. [19] |
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
We were using this primary source to say "PETA claimed a tax refund from the Internal Revenue Service for the donation after the arson took place," with reference to a grant they reportedly gave Rod Coronado. Is that sentence clearly supported (per NOR) by this document, or do we need a secondary source? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we get this issue settled once and for all, please? I seem to remember several times requesting secondary sources, but the material's still there sourced to activistcash.
In 1995, Rod Coronado, a former ALF activist, received $64,000 from PETA and two months later $38,240, as a loan to fund his legal defense, after being convicted of setting fire to a Michigan State University research lab in 1992. During Coronado's trial, U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer said Newkirk had arranged before the fact to have Coronado send her documents from the lab and a videotape of the raid.
The sources are a sentencing memorandum from a U.S. Attorney who bases his claims on activistcash, and a tax return. This is a serious allegation, so we need at least one high-quality secondary source (e.g. an article in a high-quality newspaper). We need this in part to check accuracy, and in part to check that the allegation is something secondary sources saw fit to pay attention to, and were confident about reporting. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
In 1995, Rod Coronado, a former ALF activist, received $64,000 from PETA and two months later $38,240, as a loan to fund his legal defense, after being convicted of setting fire to a Michigan State University research lab in 1992. During Coronado's trial, U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer said Newkirk had arranged before the fact to have Coronado send her documents from the lab and a videotape of the raid.
Just to clarify what we need, because there are three separate claims. Because these are serious allegations, one of them about a named BLP, we need high-quality secondary sources, per V, NOR, and BLP, not primary sources, and not material from lobby groups.
In 1995, Rod Coronado, a former ALF activist, received $64,000 from PETA and two months later $38,240, as a loan to fund his legal defense, after being convicted of setting fire to a Michigan State University research lab in 1992.
During Coronado's trial, U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer said Newkirk had arranged before the fact to have Coronado send her documents from the lab and a videotape of the raid.
PETA claimed a tax refund from the Internal Revenue Service for the donation after the arson took place.
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't happy with the way this sentence was written up for the lead:
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.
My understanding is that they may have given one or two grants to Rod Coronado in 1995; see section above. But we say "ALF and ELF activists charged with offenses". Who were the others? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I've added something about the group's history to the lead, because it had become mostly criticism or the response to it. It's standard to have some minimal background in leads anyway; this article was a little unusual in not having any. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 04:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I took a look at the Center for Consumer Freedom websites today, and was a bit concerned to see the issues we've been discussing are issues they repeat, on the websites and in commercials, almost as though trying to create memes (terrorism, violence, arson, FBI, ALF, domestic terrorist threat, total animal liberation, anti-pets, insulin, hypocrisy).
I'm therefore going to try to re-source the last sentence in the lead, which didn't have full consensus when we added it anyway. I'll try to find something in a secondary source, or where Newkirk gives an interview that was reliably published, where she makes the same point in different words. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
What I say to myself all the time is that we have our heads in the clouds looking for Utopia, but we have our feet firmly planted on the ground dealing with reality. We make no bones about the fact that we want an end to all cruelty to animals. But I think the meat industry and the leather industry and the experimenters understand, especially if we're fighting them, that we will back off if they move society and their industry a step forward. We're not going to stop everything overnight, so while we work for the ideal we certainly wish to provide the carrot-and-stick incentives to move along toward that goal.
Animals are going to die by the millions today in all sorts of ugly ways for all sorts of ridiculous, insupportable reasons. If one animal who is lying in a battery egg farm cage could have the extra room to stretch her wing today because of something you've done, I think she would choose to have that happen.
I've removed the quote and paraphrased instread, and I also swapped the order of the criticism so we don't end with PeTA. Reading the leads over (the old and the new), it felt too much as though we were giving PeTA the last word, and in a rousing way rather than a factual one. I think the current lead (number 3) is more disinterested. All three (last two paras) side by side:
(1) | (2) | (3) |
---|---|---|
The group has been the focus of criticism from both inside and outside the animal rights movement. The confrontational style of its campaigns and the number of animals it
euthanizes have come under scrutiny, and it was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senator
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 does not support violence.
[20]
Some sections of the animal rights movement see the organization as not radical enough. Law professor Gary Francione calls them the "new welfarists," arguing that their willingness to work with industries to achieve incremental reform makes them an animal welfare, not an animal rights, group. [21] Newkirk clarified the group'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 [on], and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose." [22]
|
The group has been the focus of criticism from both inside and outside the animal rights movement. The confrontational style of its campaigns and the number of animals it
euthanizes have come under scrutiny, and it was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senator
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 does not support violence.
[23]
Some sections of the animal rights movement see the organization as not radical enough. Law professor Gary Francione calls them the "new welfarists," arguing that their willingness to work with industries to achieve incremental reform makes them an animal welfare, not an animal rights, group. [21] Newkirk clarified PETA's position in a Salon interview in 2001: "What I say to myself all the time is that we have our heads in the clouds looking for Utopia, but we have our feet firmly planted on the ground dealing with reality. [24] |
The group has been the focus of criticism from both inside and outside the animal rights movement. Newkirk and Pacheco are seen as the leading exporters of animal rights to the more traditional animal protection groups in the United States, but sections of the movement nevertheless say PeTA is not radical enough—law professor
Gary Francione calls them the new welfarists, arguing that their work with industries to achieve reform makes them an animal welfare, not an animal rights, group.
[25] Newkirk told Salon in 2001 that PeTA works toward the ideal, but tries in the meantime to provide carrot-and-stick incentives.
[26] There has also been criticism from feminists about the use of scantily clad women in PeTA's anti-fur campaigns, and criticism in general that the group's media stunts trivialize animal rights. Newkirk responds by arguing that PeTA has a duty to be what she calls press sluts.
[27]
From outside the movement, the confrontational nature of PeTA's campaigns has caused concern, as has the number of animals it euthanizes. It was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senator 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, though Newkirk has made clear that she supports the removal of animals from laboratories and other facilities, including as a result of illegal direct action. [28] |
Also, the "carrot and stick" idea is PeTA's key approach when dealing with industry, which is the reason I picked out that particular phrase. It's Henry Spira's idea of "reintegrative shaming"—again, this goes back to Singer, Spira, and Newkirk's early relationship in the 1980s, something that I added to the history here recently. There's a little bit about it in the animal rights article here. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The end part of the third paragraph of the lead discusses criticism by feminists, and criticism that media stunts trivialize AR. This is in a paragraph about criticism from within the AR movement. The issue of trivializing AR clearly belongs here, but I would suggest that the criticism by feminists belongs, instead, in the next paragraph, about criticism from outside the AR movement. Some feminists support AR, others do not, and it is not really accurate to imply that feminism and AR are in any way linked. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I see the growing number of requests in this talk for secondary sources for material that might be seen as criticisms of PETA, including some that remind me of elementary school worksheets (fill in your answers here:). I'll be happy to help go through and work on those, but I want to make some overall points first. I've already said, just above here, that we need to be careful about setting a double-standard, with higher sourcing requirements for critics of PETA than for PETA and their supporters. And as I said about the POV template, this talk page is not the place for setting new policy. How we source this page should be based upon policy as it exists. I've just gone back and re-read WP:RS and WP:PSTS, to see what they say about primary versus secondary sourcing. I think it's worth reproducing here what WP:PSTS says about primary sources:
So I think that we need to adhere to that as it is, and not improvise alternative versions that exist for PETA only. Just the other day, I reversed my opinion 180° and accepted an argument that Crum made about the insulin material, because I found it compelling when Crum said that, to interpret Sweetland's activity as "hypocrisy" on the part of PETA would be an interpretive claim from a POV primary source that was not sufficient to allow that interpretive claim. On the other hand, it is not the case that every mention of a fact in this page must be sourced to a secondary source if it can be construed as a criticism. The policy I quote above makes it clear that one cannot source an entire page only to primary sources, but it does not come anywhere near to saying that Wikipedia does not ever source material to primary sources. For example, we will be discussing below a statement sourced to a sentencing memorandum by a United States Attorney. Based on the policy above, the wrong way to evaluate that would be to say that it is not RS unless there are secondary sources. Rather, the criteria should be whether it is being used to make an interpretation (as with the insulin claim), which would indeed require secondary sourcing, or whether it is reporting a "descriptive [statement] that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge", and whether it is sourced to a potentially unreliable source (perhaps activistcash) or to a more reliable one that is independent of, for example, activistcash. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.
Bear in mind that when dealing with groups, particularly very small ones, edits made to Wikipedia could have a bearing on living persons, so exercise caution. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP situation than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw any distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.
But that leads me to ask about another aspect of primary versus secondary sources:
At first glance, that sounds reasonable, and in fact, at first I believed it. But there's a logical flaw, I think. The concept behind the first of those two paragraphs quoted from BLP just above is that, for something that might reflect badly on a person or persons, this encyclopedia should not report it unless it has already been reported in a reliable secondary source, because that secondary source will have (a) determined for us that the information is sufficiently notable, and (b) determined for us that the information is not just some sort of unfounded allegation. I can imagine situations where a low-quality secondary source might parrot a primary source without fulfilling those two tasks, but there are also plenty of reliable secondary sources that do what BLP asks. If they report something from a sleazy primary source, the more reliable secondary sources, regardless of where they originally got the "tip", will have done sufficient due diligence that they in fact identify the allegation as being notable and verifiable for our purposes. Even if they got it, originally, from the primary source. (Also, my reading of BLP is that the secondary source does not have to repeat every last detail in the primary source, because primary sources can be used, with care, to fill out information about something that has been reported in secondary sources. Nor does there appear to be any requirement for multiple secondary sources for a single statement.) Consequently, saying that the secondary source is invalid because they say the same thing as the primary source is circular logic, allowing any source to be disqualified, in a way that can potentially manipulate POV. Rather, the question for us should be: even if the secondary source has gotten information from the primary source, is the secondary source sufficiently reliable that we can be reasonably confident in their determination of the notability and verifiability of the claim made? Am I wrong? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
In one specific case, PETA asked that " bullhooks, electric prods and other devices that inflict pain on, or cause injury to, elephants" be banned, after the animal care director of the Carson & Barnes Circus, Tim Frisco, was filmed allegedly attacking elephants with bullhooks and electric prods. PETA's videotape of one of Frisco's training sessions allegedly shows him attacking elephants with steel-tipped bullhooks and shocking them with electric prods. [29] The elephants are shown screaming and recoiling in pain, according to PETA. [30]
PETA also goes undercover into circuses. In 2006, they filmed trainers at Carson & Barnes Circus—including Tim Frisco, the animal-care director—striking elephants while shouting at them; The Washington Post writes that the video shows Frisco shouting "Make 'em scream!" A company spokesman dismissed PETA's concerns as 'Utopian philosophical ideology," but said the circus would no longer use electric prods. [31]
Also, to what extent does the secondary source requirement apply to rebuttals of potentially damaging allegations? If there is a serious accusation that is documented in secondary sources, but the rebuttal to it, the response that could be considered to defend or exonerate the person or persons, is only found in primary sources, does that mean that we can only report the accusation? I would think that common sense would dictate that a primary source could be used here for NPOV. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
If activists threw a dead raccoon at a Vogue editor and they acted independently of PETA, why mention them in this article? PETA was not affiliated with that. Including them here is biased against PETA to make them seem like terrorists. If a New York Yankee fan vandalized Fenway Park, would that go in the Yankees article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.191.235 ( talk) 23:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
T, I'd ask you to consider the countless woman hours that have been wasted by discussions like this on AR pages. It doesn't benefit you, me, the article or the project. It's time neither of us will ever get back, and there's nothing to show for it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to continue to discuss some of the edits that were made in late April. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
At present, the "Campaigning" section of the page says:
Before the April edits, the "Profile" section covered this in more detail:
I appreciate the value of cutting back on the quotefarm attributes of the page, but I wonder whether this particular quote is important enough, and indeed goes to much of what gets argued about in this talk, that it might be good to put it back, in place of the paraphrase. If we want to cut back on direct quotes, I note that a large quote was added to the "Euthanasia" section, which maybe could be briefly paraphrased instead. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I still think covering this quote more fully would be useful. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Before the April edits, the "History" section, discussing the Silver Spring monkeys, included this sentence:
Now, the second part of that sentence, indicating what the Supreme Court decided, is no longer on the page. I would think it ought to be added back. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
In the section on "Undercover investigations", the description of Unnecessary Fuss was expanded some. If one clicks through to the main page, it includes some content partially rebutting the film. Perhaps a portion of that, very briefly summarized, should be included for balance. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I continue to think this modification to that sentence, or a similar modification, would be desirable. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see the ends of #Covance, #Sentencing memorandum, and #KKK, above. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Tryptofish, I can't see the point of the changes you're making, which are creating problems with the writing and/or changing what the sources are saying. For example:
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The continuation of my answer is refactored in the next sub-thread. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Now to your questions, numbered as you did: -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
(note from SV: SV's questions inserted below, followed by T's reply, followed by SV's reply to that): SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a lot to read. About the names: you removed Frisco (widely named, including W/Post, and what he did is on video, so not seriously in dispute), but you left in Maria Blanton (PETA, serious allegation, no charges ensued that I know of, based on one source). I just wondered why you approach them differently. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I feel we really need to make an effort to improve the sourcing. This article should be based on disinterested secondary sources (newspapers, books) as far as possible, plus material from PETA because the article is about them. There's too much that's based on primary sources, minor columnists, or soundbites from lobby groups, which means we have no way of judging what's accurate, fair, or notable. It means the article always has a recentism flavour to it, because someone has added whatever latest thing they noticed on whichever website they tend to visit. A few months or years later, the comment looks out of place.
We should aim to publish material that really is notable when it happens, so that it doensn't look odd or overly detailed two years down the road. SlimVirgin talk contribs 09:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Could we have a mainstream secondary source for this, please?
A German state prosecutor determined that Covance's European laboratories had broken no laws. [35]
The source is a press release from the European Biomedical Research Association. [32] We need a disinterested secondary source, not a press release from a lobby group. SlimVirgin talk contribs 09:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting now to go through these one-by-one, and I realize that a lot more than that one sentence was changed.
The version now:
In 2003 and 2004, a PETA investigation inside Covance, an animal-testing company in the U.S. and Europe, obtained footage that appeared to show monkeys being hit and mistreated; PETA submitted a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. [37] Covance received 16 sanctions and agreed to a fine of $8,720, but said the citations were for minor administrative matters unrelated to animal cruelty, and that over 700 of the charges made by PETA had been rejected by the government. [38] In 2005 Covance initiated a lawsuit charging PETA with fraud, violation of employee contract, and conspiracy to harm the company's business, but later dropped it. [39]
The version of April 18, before the changes:
PETA sends its employees undercover into facilities such as research laboratories to document the treatment of animals, sometimes requiring them to spend months recording their experiences. [43] Some of these investigations have led to legal action. It conducted an undercover investigation of Covance, an animal testing company in the U.S. and Europe, in 2003 and 2004, obtaining video footage that appeared to show monkeys being hit and mistreated, and submitted a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. [44] Covance received 16 sanctions and agreed to a fine of $8,720, but stated that all of the citations were for minor administrative matters unrelated to animal cruelty, and that over 700 of the specific charges made by PETA had been rejected by the government. [41] Covance also claimed that PETA had edited film together in order to exaggerate the evidence. [42] A German state prosecutor determined that Covance's European laboratories had broken no laws. [42] Legal action has also been brought against PETA for invasion of privacy following undercover work, but a federal judge in the U.S. ruled in PETA's favor in April 2007 that undercover investigations often reveal misconduct. [43]
I'd like to examine all of the changes that have been made. There was previous talk about this at Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 12#Covance image.
As for the question posed about the EBRA source, I've looked, and I do not find any non-mirror sources saying this. However, there are multiple sources indicating that the German state prosecutor had started looking into this, and then nothing besides this about the outcome of looking into it, nothing covering the filing of any charges, etc. It looks to me like the EBRA source is likely correct, and there just wasn't any "news" there, in that no prosecution took place. Had there been any charges, I'm sure there would have been some news coverage of it, and some mention of it by PETA or BUAV. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the changes more carefully, I see some introductory material that was deleted from the beginning of the passage, simply because there was a reorganization and the introduction is no longer needed. No problem there. But later in the paragraph, three things have been deleted: (1) the German prosecutor sentence, discussed above; (2) a rebuttal claim by Covance, questioning the accuracy of PETA's film editing (which, looking at it now, really should also include PETA's denial of the accusation, if we add it back); and (3) part of the image caption, containing Covance's balancing POV (which was previously the product of extensive talk here, and has not since been challenged in this talk). What bothers me about those three deletions is that they, together, largely remove Covance's rebuttals to PETA's accusations, and do so selectively and without prior talk here. Over and over in this talk, editors have, rightly, argued that any serious accusations must be accompanied by any sourced rebuttals, lest the page be an "attack page". That principle should be applied in an NPOV way, to the people PETA attacks, just as much as to the people who attack PETA. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Edit I then made: [33]. Reverted three times: [34], [35], [36]. Then slipped back out again: [37]. I've read all of those edit summaries, and I do not see anything substantive that replies to the discussion here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Now that further edits have been made, here is what I think. There have been some very significant improvements, both to the Covance section in particular, and to the page as a whole. I no longer think that the Covance image caption is an issue, because there is no longer a situation where it is a part of a visually-accusatory pattern. I also think the disputed claim by Covance about improper film editing is no longer an issue, because of the more substantive aspects of Covance's responses in the way they are now covered.
However, I think we still need to look at the German prosecutor issue from the very top of this thread. At present, the page refers to Covance both in Europe and the U.S., but only presents information about the aftermath in the U.S., creating an impression that PeTA's accusations might, perhaps, have been correct with respect to Covance's European facilities. As discussed elsewhere in this talk, we have to be careful with respect to BLP/organization issues, and this involves a serious, potentially criminal, accusation against a present-day organization. As I have tried to explain above, there are valid reasons to use this primary source in this case. There is plenty of evidence, including statements from PeTA and BUAV, that the prosecutor looked into the case. There is zero news coverage of a subsequent prosecutorial action against Covance in Europe. Given what the trade group says, there is every reason to believe that no such action was ever taken, and every reason to believe that news organizations simply did not choose to cover a prosecution that did not take place. I would, however, change the unclearly-sourced claim that the prosecutor "determined that Covance's European laboratories had broken no laws" with the verifiable statement that they "did not pursue any legal actions against Covance in Europe". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
In 2004 and 2005, PeTA shot footage inside Covance, an animal-testing company in the United States and Europe, that appeared to show monkeys being mistreated. According to The Washington Post, PeTA said an employee of the group filmed primates in Covance's lab in Vienna, Virginia, being choked, hit, and denied medical attention when badly injured.[47] After PeTA sent the video and a 253-page complaint to the United States Department of Agriculture, Covance was fined $8,720 for 16 citations, three of which involved lab monkeys; the other citations involved administrative issues and equipment. The company said none of the issues were pervasive or endemic, and that they had taken corrective action.[48] In 2005 Covance initiated a lawsuit charging PETA with fraud, violation of employee contract, and conspiracy to harm the company's business, but did not proceed with it.
In 2004 and 2005, PeTA shot footage inside Covance, an animal-testing company with bases in the United States and Europe, that appeared to show monkeys being mistreated in the company's facility in Vienna, Virginia. According to The Washington Post, PeTA said an employee of the group filmed primates there being choked, hit, and denied medical attention when badly injured.[47] [And so on.]
Please see Talk:Animal testing#PETA or PeTA?. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
RodCoronado$
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page)."What I say to myself all the time is that we have our heads in the clouds looking for Utopia, but we have our feet firmly planted on the ground dealing with reality. We make no bones about the fact that we want an end to all cruelty to animals. But I think the meat industry and the leather industry and the experimenters understand, especially if we're fighting them, that we will back off if they move society and their industry a step forward. We're not going to stop everything overnight, so while we work for the ideal we certainly wish to provide the carrot-and-stick incentives to move along toward that goal.
"Animals are going to die by the millions today in all sorts of ugly ways for all sorts of ridiculous, insupportable reasons. If one animal who is lying in a battery egg farm cage could have the extra room to stretch her wing today because of something you've done, I think she would choose to have that happen."
"What I say to myself all the time is that we have our heads in the clouds looking for Utopia, but we have our feet firmly planted on the ground dealing with reality. We make no bones about the fact that we want an end to all cruelty to animals. But I think the meat industry and the leather industry and the experimenters understand, especially if we're fighting them, that we will back off if they move society and their industry a step forward. We're not going to stop everything overnight, so while we work for the ideal we certainly wish to provide the carrot-and-stick incentives to move along toward that goal.
"Animals are going to die by the millions today in all sorts of ugly ways for all sorts of ridiculous, insupportable reasons. If one animal who is lying in a battery egg farm cage could have the extra room to stretch her wing today because of something you've done, I think she would choose to have that happen."
"What I say to myself all the time is that we have our heads in the clouds looking for Utopia, but we have our feet firmly planted on the ground dealing with reality. We make no bones about the fact that we want an end to all cruelty to animals. But I think the meat industry and the leather industry and the experimenters understand, especially if we're fighting them, that we will back off if they move society and their industry a step forward. We're not going to stop everything overnight, so while we work for the ideal we certainly wish to provide the carrot-and-stick incentives to move along toward that goal.
"Animals are going to die by the millions today in all sorts of ugly ways for all sorts of ridiculous, insupportable reasons. If one animal who is lying in a battery egg farm cage could have the extra room to stretch her wing today because of something you've done, I think she would choose to have that happen."
NewkirkFree
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I'm moving this here, as I can't find it in the source, and it seems to rely on guilt by association:
PETA is also alleged to have donated $1.3 million to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an organization that promotes the use of alternatives to animal testing, but which has been criticized for its links with Jerry Vlasak, a trauma surgeon who runs the North American Animal Liberation Press Office. [1]
The source is this. I can't see where it talks of 1.3 million (sorry if it's there and I've missed it), or where it talks of "alleged to have donated" or any such term. PCRM is a completely respectable organization so far as I know, so we would need an excellent and unambiguous source for anything that makes them sound as though they're not. SlimVirgin talk contribs 05:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. With a small group or organization it is easier to draw a distinction between statements about the group's members (where BLP might apply) and statements about the organization itself (where it would not). This is harder to do with larger groups and organizations. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.
Could we have a better source than the unlinked Tallahassee Democrat in the dairy section for "PETA halted the campaign, but later revived it"? [2] SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Could we have a secondary source for this, to show that it's worth including? "The BBB Wise Giving Alliance said in 2008 that PETA does not meet three of its accountability standards. [3] SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
(Removed until we find a source). "PETA gave $5,000 to the Josh Harper Support Committee, before Harper was convicted of 'animal enterprise terrorism' in the U.S. in connection with the SHAC campaign." The source is a Times article about Harper, but I can't see where it mentions a PETA donation. [1] SlimVirgin talk contribs 12:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
(Not removed) Could we find a secondary source for: "During Coronado's trial, U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer said Newkirk had arranged before the fact to have Coronado send her documents from the lab and a videotape of the raid." It's currently sourced only to a government sentencing memorandum of U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer in USA v. Rodney Coronado, July 31, 1995, pp. 8–10.
It seems a little unfair to publish an allegation made by one side based on a primary source, and not any kind of rebuttal or overview. SlimVirgin talk contribs 13:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit I then made: [5]. Reverted three times: [6], [7], [8]. Then slipped back out again: [9]. I've read all of those edit summaries, and I do not see anything substantive that replies to the discussion here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
(Not removed) We need a better source for this:
According to writer Kathleen Marquardt, vice-president of the American Policy Center, PETA donated $7,500 in 1989 to the legal defense of Fran Trutt, sentenced to one year in jail and three years' probation after planting a crude bomb near the car of Leon Hirsch, the CEO of the United States Surgical Corporation; Trutt maintained she had been set up but accepted a plea bargain, and pleaded guilty to attempted murder. [4]
The donation currently relies on Kathleen Marquardt of the American Policy center, a right-wing, free-enterprise lobby group, writing in her 1993 book Animal Scams, where she published it without a source. SlimVirgin talk contribs 09:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't see the point of using so many direct quotes here. Direct quotes should be restricted to issues where the particular words are important or distinctive enough to be highlighted, but everything here is very ordinary and could easily be paraphrased, or used without the quotation marks. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's a list of all of them, important or not:
Bottom line: I'm not married to having all of these direct quotes, and I don't understand the level of emotion my edit apparently elicited. But if we are going to paraphrase, then the paraphrase has to be accurate, not watered down or otherwise inaccurate. Other editors have been saying in this talk that we have to be careful to avoid SYNTH, and I think that quoting directly is one way to avoid that. And I discussed this in talk above, before I made the edit. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I've explained why twice. It's poorly written now with so many quotes, and none of them are distinctive. Why would "never from pet shops or breeders" be in quotation marks, for example? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Previous | Current |
---|---|
PETA argues that it would have been better for animals had the institution of breeding them as "pets" never emerged. The group argues that the desire to own animals is selfish, and that their breeding, sale, and purchase can cause immeasurable suffering. They write that millions of dogs spend their lives chained outside in all weather conditions or locked up in chain-link pens and wire cages in puppy mills, and that even in what they call good homes animals are often not well cared for. They would like to see the population of dogs and cats reduced through spaying and neutering, and for people to adopt animals from shelters, rather than purchasing them from stores or breeders. The group makes clear that they have no desire to remove or set free animals who are well cared for. [5] | PETA argues that it would have been better for animals had the institution of breeding and owning them as pets never existed. The group argues that it is a "selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them", and that their breeding, sale, and purchase can cause "immeasurable suffering". They write that millions of dogs spend their lives chained outside in all weather conditions or locked up in chain-link pens and wire cages in puppy mills, and that, even in what they call good homes, animals are often not well cared for; "their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to." They would like to see the population of dogs and cats reduced through spaying and neutering, and for people to adopt animals from shelters, but "never from pet shops or breeders". The group also makes clear that "contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and 'set them free.'" [5] |
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
About the version on the left:
I do not see this as a binary choice between either version left or version right. Something in between, with fewer quotes and better paraphrases, would be fine with me. For me, this isn't about "your" version versus "mine". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the previous version as I can't see the point of including lots of quotes. [10] I did change it to say "never" buy from stores or breeders, because T wanted that emphasized, though I don't understand why. Bear in mind that these are not unusual positions. I can't think of any animal welfare group, even the conservative ones, who think that buying from pet stores and breeders is a good idea.
The only word in scare quotes is "pets," because it's a word that PETA doesn't use unless in scare quotes. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 08:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to use the Wikinews interview (audio) as a source for some of Newkirk's views. We currently link to it, but don't use it as an RS. Does anyone object to its use? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 08:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
(feel free to move this comment. or remove.) Since you've mentioned it, I thought I'd just chime in that the TOC is one of the best I've seen lately as far as keeping the many discussion threads orderly. Housecleaning is such thankless work, but the instant gratification is a nice tradeoff. One side effect though is how long the talkpage has become, maybe you've noticed: 287k at the moment. I assume that's partly due to the non-archiving of active threads with inactive subthreads -- does that make sense? One solution may be to consider additional/alternative methods: collapsible boxes for subthreads that are resolved, for example, or collaborative efforts to quickly decide which threads can be archived manually. Another consideration is whether these threads will be archived with usual frequency since the timestamps may change (?). As you folks probably know by now I'm not the best coder, so I'll have to look into that. And I apologize if this has already been discussed before. On that note, another idea i might suggest is a sort of prepping for archival use, especially summaries of consensus, FAQs, etc. I'm still researching the efficacy of this -- like how often folks even use archives anyway -- and I'm willing to help when I can. - PrBeacon (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I remove this?
In 2006 when Steve Irwin died, PETA's vice-president Dan Mathews said Irwin had made a career out of antagonizing frightened wild animals. [6] Australian Member of Parliament Bruce Scott said PETA should apologize to Irwin's family and the rest of Australia. [7]
It was an example of recentism at the time; the section is not about Irwin alone, but about conservationists in general; and the Bruce Scott aspect is supported by a dead link that's not in the Internet Archive. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I can see objections to these on this page, yet they've been added en masse. Could we go through them one by one, please? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
T, you're engaging in poor behavior here. It isn't appreciated. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This is my revert. It only undoes work by you that I can see, and all of it was objected to several times that I recall. If you look at talk pages you edit, you regularly post to yourself after others have objected. In those situations you can't assume that silence means assent. It's not okay to go to the page and add the material that others oppose, just because they didn't repeat their objections the requisite number of times. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec) But rather than dragging this thread along any longer, perhaps you might want to do what you alluded to at the top of the thread: go through the content issues individually. In all of my edits, I provided a link from the edit summary to the appropriate section of this talk. Anyone who has an objection is free to go there and say why. (But don't just say that you have the same objection as at the beginning of the talk thread, when that objection has already been replied to.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is a recent example. There have been multiple objections going back years to including the view of a right-wing lobbyist that a former PETA employee who 17 years ago took animal-derived insulin is therefore a hypocrite. Despite the objections it has been repeatedly reinserted. I raised this yet again recently:
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." [8]
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Has anyone here other than Tryptofish explained their reasoning, other than I don't like it.? Has anyone here other than Tryptofish discussed their concerns in talk before unilaterally reverting other editors' edits?
- Actually, there are now 2 sections about animal testing, which maybe should be combined. I've explained above the relationship between animal research and the use of pig and cattle insulin; I don't see much point in parsing a distinction between medications tested on animals and medications obtained from animals, at least any distinction from an animal rights perspective. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Animal testing is not just about medications; in fact, most of it is not. And there is only one section about PETA's position on it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:56, 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)
- It sounds to me like 99.236... agrees that criticism needs to be present on the page, as long as we, in effect, stick to NPOV so as not to be an attack page. As for a separate criticism section, this has been a perennial subject in this talk, and consensus has been that it is better not to have such a section, but instead, to present both sides to each section as it occurs.
- So, in response to SV's question about "anyone here other than Tryptofish", I've tried to discuss with SV some concerns I have about that in her talk, but I do not see anyone here other than SV taking a position of deleting the passage. The other editors who have been active here recently have previously taken part in discussing the passage and taken part in modifying its wording, so it seems to me that, if they had wanted to argue for completely deleting it, they would already have done so, and they haven't.
- In response to what SV has said here now: Yes, animal testing is not only about medical applications, and it includes military testing as well, which is in a separate section that could possibly be merged into this one. But a significant part of it is about medical applications, including the very issue (Silver Spring) upon which PETA was founded, and also including the medical use of insulin. If this (insulin) were an instance in which groups like activistcash were the only ones discussing the issue, then there might be a case that it would not be encyclopedic to include it. But that's not true. According to the sources cited, it's something that Mary Beth Sweetland and Ingrid Newkirk have written about, very proudly and not at all defensively. They weren't simply saying the lobbying groups are unfair and here is how we rebut them, but they were saying Mary Beth Sweetland is in-your-face proud of what she has discovered about how to deal with diabetes. I'm increasingly getting the feeling that some editors are arguing that we cannot cite (well-sourced, in context, and not cherry-picked) what PETA says, because what PETA says somehow reflects badly on them. That's not for editors to judge. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any remaining rationale for leaving the passage deleted. And, for that matter, it would make sense to move the military testing paragraph into this section as well. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Am I correct that there are no objections to my argument here? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
From June 18 to June 22, Tryptofish responds to herself, then takes the silence to mean no one objects; restores the material; and reverts three times when I try to remove it. This despite the fact that no editor other than Tryptofish (that I have seen) supports its inclusion, and many have argued against it over the years. Common sense alone says it's a senseless thing to add. The source is dubious. The employee is no longer with PETA. She no longer uses animal-derived insulin. She last took it 17 years ago. And anyway it's a BLP issue and no one else's business what she takes for her health. Every Wikipedia editing policy and best practice strongly points in the direction of removal. But if we're not willing to argue against it endlessly, Tryptofish interprets that as no objection. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
If someone other than Tryptofish believes the Sweetland/insulin issue should be included, please say here. I've collected the posts about it at Talk:PETA/insulin. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I created Talk:PETA/insulin, the first in a series of archives-by-topic that I intend to create for this page so that editors in future can see which arguments have been made before about which issues. Trytopfish has just placed the speedy-delete tag on it, on the grounds that "This is a duplication of archived talk from Talk:PETA, created to provide background for a discussion that has now been concluded. This duplicate talk is therefore no longer needed." [13]
Tryptofish, because you have decided not to continue inserting something, the issue is concluded, and the archive is no longer needed? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
I've removed the list of campaigns, which has been problematic for some time. It wasn't clear what to include, and they seem to have been picked out at random. I've summarized the key points, and added to them to the general campaign section here. That gives us a page size of 3,604 words readable prose with 71 footnotes, which is a more sensible length. When you download it, it's eight pages of text, and four pages of references. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 05:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems like this thread Talk:PETA -Archives # Tag stalled and got archived so I'd like to ask folks what we need to do to remove this tag. I can see both arguments: PETA is intentionally controversial and there will always be disagreements .. but the article has undergone some big changes recently with serious efforts at collaboration etc... Thoughts? - PrBeacon (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Trypto, as I mentioned when we last discussed this issue, there isn't a single controversial article on WP where everyone is happy. In fact, it's very likely almost everyone is unhappy in such articles. If anyone who felt unhappy with the POV balance in an article were to slap on a POV tag, virtually all controversial articles would be so tagged. But they are clearly not, which is because that tag is used for a short time, to raise attention to a specific issue. If it remains on for a long time, almost by definition it's improper, because a reasonably stable article over a long time ipso facto represents the POV balance among the various editors. If you feel an issue is critical, you need to escalate it to an RfC or some other broad forum, but you can't just slap POV templates and leave them on forever. Again, a long time (months) effectively means a balanced version, at least among the involved editors. So in conclusion, I think you need to escalate this if you feel it's unbalanced, and otherwise remove the tag. Crum375 ( talk) 01:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
As no one else has said they support the tag, I'm going to remove it. It's been there for almost 13 months at the behest of Tryptofish, except for four weeks in March/April this year. Tags aren't meant to be long-term additions. I also think the article is now neutral by any reasonable standard, and I'm continuing to work on it by adding good secondary sources. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The way POV tag situations are handled is that, when someone feels there are POV issues, they write a list on the talk page, a specific list of concerns that are actionable within the content policies. Discussion and attempts to compromise then ensue. If they can't be sorted and there's consensus that the article needs to be tagged because of them, then it becomes appropriate for a reasonable period as the issues are dealt with. So Tryptofish, please write up your list of issues below, and we can try to deal with them. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Below is the lead that caused Tryptofish to remove the POV tag in March. It's poorly written, it relies almost entirely on primary sources—including Penn and Teller as the source of a Newkirk statement—and it contains several of the things CCF likes to focus on about PeTA: total animal liberation, domestic terrorist threats, and an emphasis on pet ownership, even though PeTA doesn't focus on that at all. The current lead is significantly better written, more comprehensive, neutral, and it relies on secondary sources. The same applies to the rest of the article. Yet it's the current version Tryptofish feels ought to be tagged.
Lead in March when Tryptofish removed the POV tag [19] | Current (now tagged) [20] |
---|---|
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.
[9]
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." [10] 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". [5] 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." [11] The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. [12] 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. [13] [14] |
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. A non-profit corporation with 187 employees and two million members and supporters, it says it is the largest animal rights group in the world. Its slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."
[11]
Founded in March 1980 by Newkirk and animal rights activist Alex Pacheco, the organization made its name in the summer of 1981 during what became known as the Silver Spring monkeys case, a widely publicized dispute about experiments conducted on 17 macaque monkeys inside the Institute of Behavioral Research in Silver Spring, Maryland. The case lasted ten years, involved the first police raid in the U.S. on an animal laboratory, triggered an amendment in 1985 to the Animal Welfare Act, and established PeTA as an internationally known organization. [15] Since then, in its campaigns and undercover investigations, it has focused on four core issues—opposition to factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment—though it also campaigns against fishing, the killing of animals regarded as pests, the keeping of chained backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, and bullfighting. [11] The group has been the focus of criticism from both inside and outside the animal rights movement. Newkirk and Pacheco are seen as the leading exporters of animal rights to the more traditional animal protection groups in the United States, but sections of the movement nevertheless say PeTA is not radical enough—law professor Gary Francione calls them the new welfarists, arguing that their work with industries to achieve reform makes them an animal welfare, not an animal rights, group. [16] Newkirk told Salon in 2001 that PeTA works toward the ideal, but tries in the meantime to provide carrot-and-stick incentives. [17] There has also been criticism from feminists about the use of scantily clad women in PeTA's anti-fur campaigns, and criticism in general that the group's media stunts trivialize animal rights. Newkirk responds by arguing that PeTA has a duty to be what she calls press sluts. [18] From outside the movement, the confrontational nature of PeTA's campaigns has caused concern, as has the number of animals it euthanizes. It was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senator 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 does not support violence, though Newkirk has elsewhere made clear that she does support the removal of animals from laboratories and other facilities, including as a result of illegal direct action. [19] |
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
We were using this primary source to say "PETA claimed a tax refund from the Internal Revenue Service for the donation after the arson took place," with reference to a grant they reportedly gave Rod Coronado. Is that sentence clearly supported (per NOR) by this document, or do we need a secondary source? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we get this issue settled once and for all, please? I seem to remember several times requesting secondary sources, but the material's still there sourced to activistcash.
In 1995, Rod Coronado, a former ALF activist, received $64,000 from PETA and two months later $38,240, as a loan to fund his legal defense, after being convicted of setting fire to a Michigan State University research lab in 1992. During Coronado's trial, U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer said Newkirk had arranged before the fact to have Coronado send her documents from the lab and a videotape of the raid.
The sources are a sentencing memorandum from a U.S. Attorney who bases his claims on activistcash, and a tax return. This is a serious allegation, so we need at least one high-quality secondary source (e.g. an article in a high-quality newspaper). We need this in part to check accuracy, and in part to check that the allegation is something secondary sources saw fit to pay attention to, and were confident about reporting. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
In 1995, Rod Coronado, a former ALF activist, received $64,000 from PETA and two months later $38,240, as a loan to fund his legal defense, after being convicted of setting fire to a Michigan State University research lab in 1992. During Coronado's trial, U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer said Newkirk had arranged before the fact to have Coronado send her documents from the lab and a videotape of the raid.
Just to clarify what we need, because there are three separate claims. Because these are serious allegations, one of them about a named BLP, we need high-quality secondary sources, per V, NOR, and BLP, not primary sources, and not material from lobby groups.
In 1995, Rod Coronado, a former ALF activist, received $64,000 from PETA and two months later $38,240, as a loan to fund his legal defense, after being convicted of setting fire to a Michigan State University research lab in 1992.
During Coronado's trial, U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer said Newkirk had arranged before the fact to have Coronado send her documents from the lab and a videotape of the raid.
PETA claimed a tax refund from the Internal Revenue Service for the donation after the arson took place.
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't happy with the way this sentence was written up for the lead:
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.
My understanding is that they may have given one or two grants to Rod Coronado in 1995; see section above. But we say "ALF and ELF activists charged with offenses". Who were the others? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I've added something about the group's history to the lead, because it had become mostly criticism or the response to it. It's standard to have some minimal background in leads anyway; this article was a little unusual in not having any. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 04:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I took a look at the Center for Consumer Freedom websites today, and was a bit concerned to see the issues we've been discussing are issues they repeat, on the websites and in commercials, almost as though trying to create memes (terrorism, violence, arson, FBI, ALF, domestic terrorist threat, total animal liberation, anti-pets, insulin, hypocrisy).
I'm therefore going to try to re-source the last sentence in the lead, which didn't have full consensus when we added it anyway. I'll try to find something in a secondary source, or where Newkirk gives an interview that was reliably published, where she makes the same point in different words. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
What I say to myself all the time is that we have our heads in the clouds looking for Utopia, but we have our feet firmly planted on the ground dealing with reality. We make no bones about the fact that we want an end to all cruelty to animals. But I think the meat industry and the leather industry and the experimenters understand, especially if we're fighting them, that we will back off if they move society and their industry a step forward. We're not going to stop everything overnight, so while we work for the ideal we certainly wish to provide the carrot-and-stick incentives to move along toward that goal.
Animals are going to die by the millions today in all sorts of ugly ways for all sorts of ridiculous, insupportable reasons. If one animal who is lying in a battery egg farm cage could have the extra room to stretch her wing today because of something you've done, I think she would choose to have that happen.
I've removed the quote and paraphrased instread, and I also swapped the order of the criticism so we don't end with PeTA. Reading the leads over (the old and the new), it felt too much as though we were giving PeTA the last word, and in a rousing way rather than a factual one. I think the current lead (number 3) is more disinterested. All three (last two paras) side by side:
(1) | (2) | (3) |
---|---|---|
The group has been the focus of criticism from both inside and outside the animal rights movement. The confrontational style of its campaigns and the number of animals it
euthanizes have come under scrutiny, and it was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senator
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 does not support violence.
[20]
Some sections of the animal rights movement see the organization as not radical enough. Law professor Gary Francione calls them the "new welfarists," arguing that their willingness to work with industries to achieve incremental reform makes them an animal welfare, not an animal rights, group. [21] Newkirk clarified the group'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 [on], and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose." [22]
|
The group has been the focus of criticism from both inside and outside the animal rights movement. The confrontational style of its campaigns and the number of animals it
euthanizes have come under scrutiny, and it was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senator
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 does not support violence.
[23]
Some sections of the animal rights movement see the organization as not radical enough. Law professor Gary Francione calls them the "new welfarists," arguing that their willingness to work with industries to achieve incremental reform makes them an animal welfare, not an animal rights, group. [21] Newkirk clarified PETA's position in a Salon interview in 2001: "What I say to myself all the time is that we have our heads in the clouds looking for Utopia, but we have our feet firmly planted on the ground dealing with reality. [24] |
The group has been the focus of criticism from both inside and outside the animal rights movement. Newkirk and Pacheco are seen as the leading exporters of animal rights to the more traditional animal protection groups in the United States, but sections of the movement nevertheless say PeTA is not radical enough—law professor
Gary Francione calls them the new welfarists, arguing that their work with industries to achieve reform makes them an animal welfare, not an animal rights, group.
[25] Newkirk told Salon in 2001 that PeTA works toward the ideal, but tries in the meantime to provide carrot-and-stick incentives.
[26] There has also been criticism from feminists about the use of scantily clad women in PeTA's anti-fur campaigns, and criticism in general that the group's media stunts trivialize animal rights. Newkirk responds by arguing that PeTA has a duty to be what she calls press sluts.
[27]
From outside the movement, the confrontational nature of PeTA's campaigns has caused concern, as has the number of animals it euthanizes. It was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senator 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, though Newkirk has made clear that she supports the removal of animals from laboratories and other facilities, including as a result of illegal direct action. [28] |
Also, the "carrot and stick" idea is PeTA's key approach when dealing with industry, which is the reason I picked out that particular phrase. It's Henry Spira's idea of "reintegrative shaming"—again, this goes back to Singer, Spira, and Newkirk's early relationship in the 1980s, something that I added to the history here recently. There's a little bit about it in the animal rights article here. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The end part of the third paragraph of the lead discusses criticism by feminists, and criticism that media stunts trivialize AR. This is in a paragraph about criticism from within the AR movement. The issue of trivializing AR clearly belongs here, but I would suggest that the criticism by feminists belongs, instead, in the next paragraph, about criticism from outside the AR movement. Some feminists support AR, others do not, and it is not really accurate to imply that feminism and AR are in any way linked. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I see the growing number of requests in this talk for secondary sources for material that might be seen as criticisms of PETA, including some that remind me of elementary school worksheets (fill in your answers here:). I'll be happy to help go through and work on those, but I want to make some overall points first. I've already said, just above here, that we need to be careful about setting a double-standard, with higher sourcing requirements for critics of PETA than for PETA and their supporters. And as I said about the POV template, this talk page is not the place for setting new policy. How we source this page should be based upon policy as it exists. I've just gone back and re-read WP:RS and WP:PSTS, to see what they say about primary versus secondary sourcing. I think it's worth reproducing here what WP:PSTS says about primary sources:
So I think that we need to adhere to that as it is, and not improvise alternative versions that exist for PETA only. Just the other day, I reversed my opinion 180° and accepted an argument that Crum made about the insulin material, because I found it compelling when Crum said that, to interpret Sweetland's activity as "hypocrisy" on the part of PETA would be an interpretive claim from a POV primary source that was not sufficient to allow that interpretive claim. On the other hand, it is not the case that every mention of a fact in this page must be sourced to a secondary source if it can be construed as a criticism. The policy I quote above makes it clear that one cannot source an entire page only to primary sources, but it does not come anywhere near to saying that Wikipedia does not ever source material to primary sources. For example, we will be discussing below a statement sourced to a sentencing memorandum by a United States Attorney. Based on the policy above, the wrong way to evaluate that would be to say that it is not RS unless there are secondary sources. Rather, the criteria should be whether it is being used to make an interpretation (as with the insulin claim), which would indeed require secondary sourcing, or whether it is reporting a "descriptive [statement] that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge", and whether it is sourced to a potentially unreliable source (perhaps activistcash) or to a more reliable one that is independent of, for example, activistcash. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.
Bear in mind that when dealing with groups, particularly very small ones, edits made to Wikipedia could have a bearing on living persons, so exercise caution. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP situation than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw any distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.
But that leads me to ask about another aspect of primary versus secondary sources:
At first glance, that sounds reasonable, and in fact, at first I believed it. But there's a logical flaw, I think. The concept behind the first of those two paragraphs quoted from BLP just above is that, for something that might reflect badly on a person or persons, this encyclopedia should not report it unless it has already been reported in a reliable secondary source, because that secondary source will have (a) determined for us that the information is sufficiently notable, and (b) determined for us that the information is not just some sort of unfounded allegation. I can imagine situations where a low-quality secondary source might parrot a primary source without fulfilling those two tasks, but there are also plenty of reliable secondary sources that do what BLP asks. If they report something from a sleazy primary source, the more reliable secondary sources, regardless of where they originally got the "tip", will have done sufficient due diligence that they in fact identify the allegation as being notable and verifiable for our purposes. Even if they got it, originally, from the primary source. (Also, my reading of BLP is that the secondary source does not have to repeat every last detail in the primary source, because primary sources can be used, with care, to fill out information about something that has been reported in secondary sources. Nor does there appear to be any requirement for multiple secondary sources for a single statement.) Consequently, saying that the secondary source is invalid because they say the same thing as the primary source is circular logic, allowing any source to be disqualified, in a way that can potentially manipulate POV. Rather, the question for us should be: even if the secondary source has gotten information from the primary source, is the secondary source sufficiently reliable that we can be reasonably confident in their determination of the notability and verifiability of the claim made? Am I wrong? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
In one specific case, PETA asked that " bullhooks, electric prods and other devices that inflict pain on, or cause injury to, elephants" be banned, after the animal care director of the Carson & Barnes Circus, Tim Frisco, was filmed allegedly attacking elephants with bullhooks and electric prods. PETA's videotape of one of Frisco's training sessions allegedly shows him attacking elephants with steel-tipped bullhooks and shocking them with electric prods. [29] The elephants are shown screaming and recoiling in pain, according to PETA. [30]
PETA also goes undercover into circuses. In 2006, they filmed trainers at Carson & Barnes Circus—including Tim Frisco, the animal-care director—striking elephants while shouting at them; The Washington Post writes that the video shows Frisco shouting "Make 'em scream!" A company spokesman dismissed PETA's concerns as 'Utopian philosophical ideology," but said the circus would no longer use electric prods. [31]
Also, to what extent does the secondary source requirement apply to rebuttals of potentially damaging allegations? If there is a serious accusation that is documented in secondary sources, but the rebuttal to it, the response that could be considered to defend or exonerate the person or persons, is only found in primary sources, does that mean that we can only report the accusation? I would think that common sense would dictate that a primary source could be used here for NPOV. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
If activists threw a dead raccoon at a Vogue editor and they acted independently of PETA, why mention them in this article? PETA was not affiliated with that. Including them here is biased against PETA to make them seem like terrorists. If a New York Yankee fan vandalized Fenway Park, would that go in the Yankees article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.191.235 ( talk) 23:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
T, I'd ask you to consider the countless woman hours that have been wasted by discussions like this on AR pages. It doesn't benefit you, me, the article or the project. It's time neither of us will ever get back, and there's nothing to show for it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to continue to discuss some of the edits that were made in late April. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
At present, the "Campaigning" section of the page says:
Before the April edits, the "Profile" section covered this in more detail:
I appreciate the value of cutting back on the quotefarm attributes of the page, but I wonder whether this particular quote is important enough, and indeed goes to much of what gets argued about in this talk, that it might be good to put it back, in place of the paraphrase. If we want to cut back on direct quotes, I note that a large quote was added to the "Euthanasia" section, which maybe could be briefly paraphrased instead. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I still think covering this quote more fully would be useful. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Before the April edits, the "History" section, discussing the Silver Spring monkeys, included this sentence:
Now, the second part of that sentence, indicating what the Supreme Court decided, is no longer on the page. I would think it ought to be added back. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
In the section on "Undercover investigations", the description of Unnecessary Fuss was expanded some. If one clicks through to the main page, it includes some content partially rebutting the film. Perhaps a portion of that, very briefly summarized, should be included for balance. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I continue to think this modification to that sentence, or a similar modification, would be desirable. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see the ends of #Covance, #Sentencing memorandum, and #KKK, above. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Tryptofish, I can't see the point of the changes you're making, which are creating problems with the writing and/or changing what the sources are saying. For example:
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The continuation of my answer is refactored in the next sub-thread. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Now to your questions, numbered as you did: -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
(note from SV: SV's questions inserted below, followed by T's reply, followed by SV's reply to that): SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a lot to read. About the names: you removed Frisco (widely named, including W/Post, and what he did is on video, so not seriously in dispute), but you left in Maria Blanton (PETA, serious allegation, no charges ensued that I know of, based on one source). I just wondered why you approach them differently. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I feel we really need to make an effort to improve the sourcing. This article should be based on disinterested secondary sources (newspapers, books) as far as possible, plus material from PETA because the article is about them. There's too much that's based on primary sources, minor columnists, or soundbites from lobby groups, which means we have no way of judging what's accurate, fair, or notable. It means the article always has a recentism flavour to it, because someone has added whatever latest thing they noticed on whichever website they tend to visit. A few months or years later, the comment looks out of place.
We should aim to publish material that really is notable when it happens, so that it doensn't look odd or overly detailed two years down the road. SlimVirgin talk contribs 09:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Could we have a mainstream secondary source for this, please?
A German state prosecutor determined that Covance's European laboratories had broken no laws. [35]
The source is a press release from the European Biomedical Research Association. [32] We need a disinterested secondary source, not a press release from a lobby group. SlimVirgin talk contribs 09:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting now to go through these one-by-one, and I realize that a lot more than that one sentence was changed.
The version now:
In 2003 and 2004, a PETA investigation inside Covance, an animal-testing company in the U.S. and Europe, obtained footage that appeared to show monkeys being hit and mistreated; PETA submitted a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. [37] Covance received 16 sanctions and agreed to a fine of $8,720, but said the citations were for minor administrative matters unrelated to animal cruelty, and that over 700 of the charges made by PETA had been rejected by the government. [38] In 2005 Covance initiated a lawsuit charging PETA with fraud, violation of employee contract, and conspiracy to harm the company's business, but later dropped it. [39]
The version of April 18, before the changes:
PETA sends its employees undercover into facilities such as research laboratories to document the treatment of animals, sometimes requiring them to spend months recording their experiences. [43] Some of these investigations have led to legal action. It conducted an undercover investigation of Covance, an animal testing company in the U.S. and Europe, in 2003 and 2004, obtaining video footage that appeared to show monkeys being hit and mistreated, and submitted a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. [44] Covance received 16 sanctions and agreed to a fine of $8,720, but stated that all of the citations were for minor administrative matters unrelated to animal cruelty, and that over 700 of the specific charges made by PETA had been rejected by the government. [41] Covance also claimed that PETA had edited film together in order to exaggerate the evidence. [42] A German state prosecutor determined that Covance's European laboratories had broken no laws. [42] Legal action has also been brought against PETA for invasion of privacy following undercover work, but a federal judge in the U.S. ruled in PETA's favor in April 2007 that undercover investigations often reveal misconduct. [43]
I'd like to examine all of the changes that have been made. There was previous talk about this at Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 12#Covance image.
As for the question posed about the EBRA source, I've looked, and I do not find any non-mirror sources saying this. However, there are multiple sources indicating that the German state prosecutor had started looking into this, and then nothing besides this about the outcome of looking into it, nothing covering the filing of any charges, etc. It looks to me like the EBRA source is likely correct, and there just wasn't any "news" there, in that no prosecution took place. Had there been any charges, I'm sure there would have been some news coverage of it, and some mention of it by PETA or BUAV. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the changes more carefully, I see some introductory material that was deleted from the beginning of the passage, simply because there was a reorganization and the introduction is no longer needed. No problem there. But later in the paragraph, three things have been deleted: (1) the German prosecutor sentence, discussed above; (2) a rebuttal claim by Covance, questioning the accuracy of PETA's film editing (which, looking at it now, really should also include PETA's denial of the accusation, if we add it back); and (3) part of the image caption, containing Covance's balancing POV (which was previously the product of extensive talk here, and has not since been challenged in this talk). What bothers me about those three deletions is that they, together, largely remove Covance's rebuttals to PETA's accusations, and do so selectively and without prior talk here. Over and over in this talk, editors have, rightly, argued that any serious accusations must be accompanied by any sourced rebuttals, lest the page be an "attack page". That principle should be applied in an NPOV way, to the people PETA attacks, just as much as to the people who attack PETA. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Edit I then made: [33]. Reverted three times: [34], [35], [36]. Then slipped back out again: [37]. I've read all of those edit summaries, and I do not see anything substantive that replies to the discussion here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Now that further edits have been made, here is what I think. There have been some very significant improvements, both to the Covance section in particular, and to the page as a whole. I no longer think that the Covance image caption is an issue, because there is no longer a situation where it is a part of a visually-accusatory pattern. I also think the disputed claim by Covance about improper film editing is no longer an issue, because of the more substantive aspects of Covance's responses in the way they are now covered.
However, I think we still need to look at the German prosecutor issue from the very top of this thread. At present, the page refers to Covance both in Europe and the U.S., but only presents information about the aftermath in the U.S., creating an impression that PeTA's accusations might, perhaps, have been correct with respect to Covance's European facilities. As discussed elsewhere in this talk, we have to be careful with respect to BLP/organization issues, and this involves a serious, potentially criminal, accusation against a present-day organization. As I have tried to explain above, there are valid reasons to use this primary source in this case. There is plenty of evidence, including statements from PeTA and BUAV, that the prosecutor looked into the case. There is zero news coverage of a subsequent prosecutorial action against Covance in Europe. Given what the trade group says, there is every reason to believe that no such action was ever taken, and every reason to believe that news organizations simply did not choose to cover a prosecution that did not take place. I would, however, change the unclearly-sourced claim that the prosecutor "determined that Covance's European laboratories had broken no laws" with the verifiable statement that they "did not pursue any legal actions against Covance in Europe". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
In 2004 and 2005, PeTA shot footage inside Covance, an animal-testing company in the United States and Europe, that appeared to show monkeys being mistreated. According to The Washington Post, PeTA said an employee of the group filmed primates in Covance's lab in Vienna, Virginia, being choked, hit, and denied medical attention when badly injured.[47] After PeTA sent the video and a 253-page complaint to the United States Department of Agriculture, Covance was fined $8,720 for 16 citations, three of which involved lab monkeys; the other citations involved administrative issues and equipment. The company said none of the issues were pervasive or endemic, and that they had taken corrective action.[48] In 2005 Covance initiated a lawsuit charging PETA with fraud, violation of employee contract, and conspiracy to harm the company's business, but did not proceed with it.
In 2004 and 2005, PeTA shot footage inside Covance, an animal-testing company with bases in the United States and Europe, that appeared to show monkeys being mistreated in the company's facility in Vienna, Virginia. According to The Washington Post, PeTA said an employee of the group filmed primates there being choked, hit, and denied medical attention when badly injured.[47] [And so on.]
Please see Talk:Animal testing#PETA or PeTA?. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
RodCoronado$
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page)."What I say to myself all the time is that we have our heads in the clouds looking for Utopia, but we have our feet firmly planted on the ground dealing with reality. We make no bones about the fact that we want an end to all cruelty to animals. But I think the meat industry and the leather industry and the experimenters understand, especially if we're fighting them, that we will back off if they move society and their industry a step forward. We're not going to stop everything overnight, so while we work for the ideal we certainly wish to provide the carrot-and-stick incentives to move along toward that goal.
"Animals are going to die by the millions today in all sorts of ugly ways for all sorts of ridiculous, insupportable reasons. If one animal who is lying in a battery egg farm cage could have the extra room to stretch her wing today because of something you've done, I think she would choose to have that happen."
"What I say to myself all the time is that we have our heads in the clouds looking for Utopia, but we have our feet firmly planted on the ground dealing with reality. We make no bones about the fact that we want an end to all cruelty to animals. But I think the meat industry and the leather industry and the experimenters understand, especially if we're fighting them, that we will back off if they move society and their industry a step forward. We're not going to stop everything overnight, so while we work for the ideal we certainly wish to provide the carrot-and-stick incentives to move along toward that goal.
"Animals are going to die by the millions today in all sorts of ugly ways for all sorts of ridiculous, insupportable reasons. If one animal who is lying in a battery egg farm cage could have the extra room to stretch her wing today because of something you've done, I think she would choose to have that happen."
"What I say to myself all the time is that we have our heads in the clouds looking for Utopia, but we have our feet firmly planted on the ground dealing with reality. We make no bones about the fact that we want an end to all cruelty to animals. But I think the meat industry and the leather industry and the experimenters understand, especially if we're fighting them, that we will back off if they move society and their industry a step forward. We're not going to stop everything overnight, so while we work for the ideal we certainly wish to provide the carrot-and-stick incentives to move along toward that goal.
"Animals are going to die by the millions today in all sorts of ugly ways for all sorts of ridiculous, insupportable reasons. If one animal who is lying in a battery egg farm cage could have the extra room to stretch her wing today because of something you've done, I think she would choose to have that happen."
NewkirkFree
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).