This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from PETA Asia-Pacific was copied or moved into PETA with this edit on July 30, 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 |
Insulin, POV tag |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Given that this move discussion came in only 3 months after the previous move discussion in July 2023 and that there are references to the previous move discussion on both sides of this discussion, the points raised in the previous discussion are considered as well.
Both supporters of both sides have compelling reasons for either of the titles here, with both citing the same guidelines (COMMONNAME, ACROTITLE, etc.). However what is inconclusive here is the extent of which the the acronym is primarily used for this subject. As such I am unable to determine which title should the article rest at.
Given the usage of ngram had been questioned before (in the previous discussion), we should not simply rely on trends and charts. Perhaps a more comprehensive analysis of recent sources can be carried out before a consensus can be reached conclusively. This would take some time for interested editors to dive into, hence it would be preferrable that the next move discussion not to be opened so soon, at least for the next six months (per standard gap between move discussions in general) unless there's pertinent information that can conclusively tip the scale. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky ( talk) 06:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals → PETA – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and MOS:ACRONYM, see above. Unlike the requested move of RSPCA via talk page. 49.150.4.134 ( talk) 13:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
In 2008, industry lobby group Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) petitioned the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, requesting they reclassify PETA as a ' slaughterhouse.'
I have read the overall article IMO. I agree to tha particular article, in my personal opinion (for personal non-Wikipedia related purposes) but overall messages such as (“It is absurd to classify PETA as a ‘humane society’ when its employees are slaughtering nearly every companion animal they bring in,” said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. “PETA has killed over 17,000 pets since 1998. Given the group’s astonishing habit of killing adoptable dogs and cats with such ruthless efficiency, it’s only fair that the state of Virginia refer to PETA as a slaughterhouse.”)
[1], which cannot
Assume good faith of PETA, and are overtly biased to the overall agenda of CORE/CCF.
Lellyhatesanimals (
talk) 02:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
References
In the infobox it says animal rights and "animal welfare". I think animal welfare should be removed. There is no strong sourcing describing this as a welfare organization or that they focus on welfare. I thought I would raise this issue here as I know this is a controversial article. Unfortunately there has been a lot of confusion on Wikipedia regarding animal rights and animal welfare in regard to organizations. I have fixed many of these in the last few days. We need to follow the sourcing, it would be WP:OR to cite welfare on this article. It's rare to find an organization that supports both rights and welfare. Most are clear cut, they either advocate for rights or welfare. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 22:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Removed CCF-related articles in "high euthanasia rates", see WP:NOTADVOCACY. keep the paragraph as a matter of fact. Lellyhatesanimals ( talk) 07:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The following does not look like NPOV to me: 'The organization has been widely criticized for its controversial campaigns and euthanasia use, the latter of which has resulted in legal action and a response from Virginia lawmakers.'
Only hostile views of the organisation are mentioned in the introduction, giving a false impression of the relative prominence of opposing views. Seems to me criticism is given undue weight [1] in the introduction relative to support for PETA. Knot Lad ( talk) 18:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from PETA Asia-Pacific was copied or moved into PETA with this edit on July 30, 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 |
Insulin, POV tag |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Given that this move discussion came in only 3 months after the previous move discussion in July 2023 and that there are references to the previous move discussion on both sides of this discussion, the points raised in the previous discussion are considered as well.
Both supporters of both sides have compelling reasons for either of the titles here, with both citing the same guidelines (COMMONNAME, ACROTITLE, etc.). However what is inconclusive here is the extent of which the the acronym is primarily used for this subject. As such I am unable to determine which title should the article rest at.
Given the usage of ngram had been questioned before (in the previous discussion), we should not simply rely on trends and charts. Perhaps a more comprehensive analysis of recent sources can be carried out before a consensus can be reached conclusively. This would take some time for interested editors to dive into, hence it would be preferrable that the next move discussion not to be opened so soon, at least for the next six months (per standard gap between move discussions in general) unless there's pertinent information that can conclusively tip the scale. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky ( talk) 06:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals → PETA – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and MOS:ACRONYM, see above. Unlike the requested move of RSPCA via talk page. 49.150.4.134 ( talk) 13:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
In 2008, industry lobby group Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) petitioned the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, requesting they reclassify PETA as a ' slaughterhouse.'
I have read the overall article IMO. I agree to tha particular article, in my personal opinion (for personal non-Wikipedia related purposes) but overall messages such as (“It is absurd to classify PETA as a ‘humane society’ when its employees are slaughtering nearly every companion animal they bring in,” said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. “PETA has killed over 17,000 pets since 1998. Given the group’s astonishing habit of killing adoptable dogs and cats with such ruthless efficiency, it’s only fair that the state of Virginia refer to PETA as a slaughterhouse.”)
[1], which cannot
Assume good faith of PETA, and are overtly biased to the overall agenda of CORE/CCF.
Lellyhatesanimals (
talk) 02:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
References
In the infobox it says animal rights and "animal welfare". I think animal welfare should be removed. There is no strong sourcing describing this as a welfare organization or that they focus on welfare. I thought I would raise this issue here as I know this is a controversial article. Unfortunately there has been a lot of confusion on Wikipedia regarding animal rights and animal welfare in regard to organizations. I have fixed many of these in the last few days. We need to follow the sourcing, it would be WP:OR to cite welfare on this article. It's rare to find an organization that supports both rights and welfare. Most are clear cut, they either advocate for rights or welfare. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 22:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Removed CCF-related articles in "high euthanasia rates", see WP:NOTADVOCACY. keep the paragraph as a matter of fact. Lellyhatesanimals ( talk) 07:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The following does not look like NPOV to me: 'The organization has been widely criticized for its controversial campaigns and euthanasia use, the latter of which has resulted in legal action and a response from Virginia lawmakers.'
Only hostile views of the organisation are mentioned in the introduction, giving a false impression of the relative prominence of opposing views. Seems to me criticism is given undue weight [1] in the introduction relative to support for PETA. Knot Lad ( talk) 18:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)