Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Requested move 31 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

• Well I suppose it has been a few months since this was last rejected, no new arguments have been made, so my opinion remains unchanged from the last time. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close per #Requested move 23 July 2023. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  As we shown here on Google Trends has been overwhemingly search preference for PETA. 49.150.4.134 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. It is in the same class as NASA, NATO, OPEC, YMCA, UNICEF, and FIFA in terms of being known by its acronym. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose vehemently because the same move failed to achieve a consensus three months ago and I hate when talk pages and their entries on my watchlist become monopolized with the same discussions leading to the same arguments leading to the same outcomes. The vehemence is in reaction to the lack of respect for the time and effort of others that goes into putting us through this again with full knowledge (inferred from "see above"; if I misinterpreted that, then I'm sorry) that it's a repeat. Largoplazo (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:AT § Avoid ambiguous abbreviations and MOS:ACROTITLE state higher standards than WP:COMMONNAME. You have two criteria for abbreviations in page names: they should only be used "if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject" (emphasis added). We still have some topics listed on the Peta dab page that also use the "PETA" abbreviation or acronym. Therefore, using the full name is appropriate to ensure that it is clear for all readers worldwide. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the move request of 23 July 2023; and per Largoplazo as a renomination of a recent request -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support
  • Can anyone identify a source which only uses the name "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals", without clarifying that they mean PETA? Most sources call this organization PETA, then a few say the full name. Not only is PETA the WP:COMMONNAME, but "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" is not even a name used without saying PETA. I think previous discussions about this move July 2023, July 2021, and March 2014 are in error for assuming that some sources say "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals", and some say "PETA". I want to call this out for anyone to demonstrate - I think either no sources only say the full name, or it happens only rarely in strange conditions.
  • Here is easy-to-check evidence: look at the sources we cite in the references of this article. Many of the titles say "PETA", one is a primary source court case which uses the full name, one source uses both names, and none only use the full name. These sources are our foundation for building this article, and that makes them good enough also to guide our decision for naming this subject.
  • PETA is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "PETA", as Pageviews Analaysis shows that the traffic to this article is more than the traffic to all other articles with this name, combined.

Bluerasberry (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

"PETA" is likely WP:COMMONNAME in all caps, but "Peta" is not the same in lowercase letters, I should move as "Peta (disambiguation)" and "PETA (disambiguation)". 49.150.4.134 (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Support - clear WP:COMMONNAME. MOS:ACROTITLE says Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. Well, the commonname argument would clearly prove that the subject is commonly known by its abbreviation, and the existing primary redirect shows that the abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. Most of the opposition appears to be based on prior requests, but consensus can change. estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I came convinced looking at the sources in the article that the subject is much more commonly referred to in reliable sources as simply PETA. I think the primary topic argument is a bit of a furphy, PETA has pointed uncontroversially to this page since it was moved in 2002. Jenks24 (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME et al. The argument about the Peta disambiguation page doesn't hold because none of those are as commonly abbreviated and widely known as PETA, and some aren't even using the same capitalization (Peta ≠ PETA). alexiaa 15:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Britannica. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Britannica probably has different naming guidelines internally than our's. I found that Britannica entries almost always prefer the full name rather than COMMONNAME guideline we have in Wikipedia. Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Reclassify PETA as a slaugterhouse" sounds so biased

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.”), 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

Animal welfare

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

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

removed CCF related-article to revert neutrality

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

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

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

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

Introduction not written from a neutral point of view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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