Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Serious Problems

This article has serious problems. There is too much POV and there is too much fluff from the PETA website. I am adding the POV tag, and it should be left up until things have been sufficiently corrected. I am making this list based on the talk page as well as looking through the history of the article.

  1. There definitely needs to be a separate Controversies and Criticisms section. The "weaving" of crtiticisms should be moved or cited to this section. i.e. the euthenasia section should have a blurb on the criticism with a "See below" link.
    1. The Cultural Influences section is just a way to bring in the Penn & Teller info without letting the reader know the controverial points brought up by the show. This should be moved to the Controversies and Criticism section and elaborated with references (see next).
    2. Penn & Teller’s BullSh*t should be used as a reference when appropriate in the criticism section. If you need to go to their original sources, so be it, but it should be IN and complete.
    3. As for the South Park reference, it should be put under Controversies and Criticisms section with specifics on how they portray the animal rights activists.
    4. Among other things, The fact that Mary Beth Sweetland uses insulin and her quote should be stated in the criticisms section.
    5. The Jewish reaction to the Holocaust campaign should be noted.
    6. The dead animals in dumpsters should also be in this section.
    7. People Eating Tasty Animals should be mentioned and a link should be included (maybe in the See Also section).
    8. PETA made the news today with statements about Steve Irwin. This should go in the Controversies section. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14626178/
    9. Other criticisms should be noted as well with references, even to anti-peta websites.
  2. The Other Campaigns sections is way too big for this article and has very little information other than to promote PETA. If anything, it should be moved to a separate article called “Campaigns of PETA” or something similar, and references. Then, you can have it be a factual list, and nothing more. If you want to mention criticisms of a specific campaign then mention it in the Campaign page as well as the Criticism section of this page with a “See Also” link.
  3. A See Also section would be nice with links to other animal rights groups, and topics related to animal rights but not specific to PETA.
  4. The Timeline section is a total waste of time. If you want to weave this stuff into the article you can, but to say “According to PETA” is completely inappropriate for this article and is a huge POV violation. If I were to add “1992 – Dead cats found in dumpster”, then I could see it staying, but I think it is useless as it stands now.
  5. The section Further Reading should be renamed External Links, and the list of links should be a balance between pro and con sites.

Finally, this article really does seem have been hijacked by vegans. I have no issues that position, but you should not remove the truth when it doesn't suit your needs. That is just unfair, and hurts your credibility. If you are ashamed of what PETA has done, or what their supporters have said, then do something about it within the organization, but do not censor. The anti-peta vandalism is easy to clean up, but it is much harder to find the removed line here or citation lost there. Please, let's play fair. Bytebear 18:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll cover the criticism section. We have a policy regarding naming sections. That policy is not to give them weight so as to provide a POV. By using a section titled 'criticisms' we are doing just that. Also, as we all should know by now, Jimbo Wales has also said that he dislikes the concept of criticm sections. We will not be adding one as far as I can see.
Second, we do not need to provide a balance of links between pro and anti peta sources as that is just ridiculous.
Personally, I do not see many of your complaints as reasonable.-Localzuk (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I must agree that the recreation of a criticism section is inappropriate and discouraged by current guidelines. Implementing the People Eating Tasty Animals could even be considered pro-PETA because it would remove context demonstrating possible hypocrisy by PETA.
A better complaint about the article is that it describes PETA as the sole active agent in everything it becomes involved with. Considering PETA's views and the people and groups PETA has had less than favorable exchanges with, it seams highly improbable that every significant event PETA has been engaged during 25+ years of existence has been initiated by them. Instead of pushing for a criticisms section, efforts would be better spent tracking down reliable sources describing opposition to PETA from various agricultural, medical research, and religious/ethical organizations. With such sources it would be possible to create a verifiable section dealing with who opposes PETA's goals and philosophies and the reasons for the opposition. Such a section would also have much greater encyclopedic quality than just a long list of people who don't like PETA. --Allen3 talk 20:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Allen3: FYI, here is one religious organisation's viewpoint on how animals should be treated. This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (I hope this link works: (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P8B.HTM#LZ). Look near bottom of page re 7th Commandment. It is the Church's view of our responsibilities towards animals. What makes it noteworthy is that it actually represents the views and approach of billions of people, unbeknownst to themselves, who somehow get through life treating animals in amaner consistent with this belief system without feeling any guilt whatsoever for believeing that animals have nothing but the right to be tasty. They probably never even knew a written position existsed! This verifiable link is but one source that exists; other religious organisations too issue clearly enunciate viewpoints. Good luck convincing vegan, bunny-luvin gate-guarders that these types of viewpoints are entrenched, widespread and valid.DocEss 17:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact that an organization such as the Vatican has views that differ from PETA's is hardly surprising. I am still looking for sources showing how such a group has engaged in some form of action relative to PETA before adding any type of opposition section. --Allen3 talk 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I see many articles with Criticism sections. I also asked it to be "Controversies and Criticisms". I think if you must limit it to Controversies then by all means do so, but it still should be a separate section. There are whole articles called "Controversies regarding XYZ". As for Jimbo Wales, you should not invoke his name just to gain sympathy to your position.
As for a balance of pro and con (I said CON, not ANTI), what I mean is that one of the complaints has been that there are 20 or so links to peta run websites and in the peer reviews it was suggested to remove them. Also there are several sites critical to peta that are missing. This is POV that has been mentioned several times in the talk pages.
Finally, my complaints are not mine. I am not anti-peta and I don't think the arguements againt peta should be against animal rights, veganism or the causes that peta champions. They should be against the organization and the policies, practices and affiliations that it holds. I simply see a very poorly organized page that needs work, and have gathered common complaints from the sources available to me. Some of these suggestions come logically from what people are saying on the talk page. Others come from peer reviews done on the page, so these are not my opinions, but the opinions of many, many people who have been trying to make this page viable to the reader. Go through the archived talk pages. Go through the peer reviews, and then present your suggestions. Bytebear 21:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said, we do not want (and many people agree with me) anything resembling a criticism section for the mentioned reasons. These things should be woven in else we end up with a junk magnet.
As you say, there are many articles with such sections but if I had the time I would go and rework them for the same reason as here. As for articles which are entirely criticism then it would probably be best to work through them and provide counter arguments to everything to provide a balanced article.-Localzuk (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Loco: Be a good chap and list the reasons for not having criticism sections. In your response, please point out any problems, pitfalls and inadequacies involving those reasons.DocEss 17:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is my understanding of the reasons that a Criticism section is frowned upon at WP:
  • It creates an easy target for drive-by POV editors to pile on critique, without creating a proper NPOV balance
  • It separates the 'good' from the 'bad' in a way that's harder for the reader to compare, since they are farther apart and disjointed
  • For NPOV balance, a 'Praise' section would also be needed, which renders the article even less readable
  • It ends up being non-encyclopedic by having separated lists of pros and cons, instead of a combined encyclopedic work, that is a well balanced narrative, with pros and cons perspectives on each controversial item
Forgive me if I missed a few, I am sure others will add them. Thanks, Crum375 17:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Gladly.
  1. A single section containing criticisms is an example of a poorly structured article as it means that people reading about a subject have to look in the section about it for the 'non-criticism' and then a second section to see if there is any criticism.
  2. Naming a section 'Criticisms' or something similar is giving Wikipedia a POV - this is in a policy somewhere, but where is evading me. So it is bad. As is POV Forking, so for example creating a seperate article titled 'Criticisms of Blah' is not acceptable. Instead, we should have articles split by section rather than by stance on a subject.
  3. As stated, many times, by me and other editors, the idea of a criticism section is opposed by Jimbo Wales also. This is due to the fact that such a section is normally just a troll magnet and POV magnet, making things difficult to manage.
I do not oppose reliable, verifiable and sourced criticism, presented correctly, being included in the article but including it all in one spot is not a good idea.
DocESS, you constantly comment on talk pages - more so than actually editing the articles you are arguing about. Please provide us with some content that you feel could improve the article.-Localzuk (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I have randomly sampled many articles in the Featured Articles page, which are some of the best articles Wiki has to offer (wow, some are good!). (N.B., I don't see PETA listed.) I found that many articles have criticism sections. Many have controversy sections. Many have Trivia sections. The articles provide all the info the reader requires in a well-laid out format. Look at this one: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for example; I could care less about what the article says (as with PETA, to be sure) --- but I care deeply that it says it all and it says it right. The crtisicsm/controversy sections do not seem to be attracting undue attention in those articles. I suggest the reason for their excellence is that these articles are written correctly, being unbiased, balanced and written by authors who have no agenda. In short, the reasons you list do not withstand scrutiny, even though you make think they do --- that is the definition of specious. DocEss 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
So your argument is that just because other articles are ok, we should ignore policy, guidelines and common sense and do it anyway? This article, as you well know, is a very controversial subject. Look at Mozilla Firefox and the hassle the criticism section has on that page, and the problems the forked article has. Tell you what, why not log into the IRC channel and ask what people on there think? I did that yesterday and the overwhelming response was against criticism sections. (Note that you shouldn't copy anything on there to here though).
Also, you actually ignored my response - please respond to each with why you think they don't apply.-Localzuk (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Ignore policy? You can't even point us to the relevant policy! Nonetheless, how could Wiki possibly decide an article that has a criticism section could be a Featured Article? Controversial subject? PETA? Really? - list all the controversial items for me please.

I did not ignore your response; I thought my answer was clear -- but I'll ride the donkey for ya.

  • A single section containing criticisms is an example of a poorly structured article as it means that people reading about a subject have to look in the section about it for the 'non-criticism' and then a second section to see if there is any criticism. This is a statement to which I have refuted wholly by showing you an example of an article that is not porrly (rather, superbly) written; also, the criticism section does nothing but DESCRIBE the criticism involved with the topic (eg. why/how/what re criticism of the Canadian Charter...) See?
  • Naming a section 'Criticisms' or something similar is giving Wikipedia a POV. Specious. We wish to DESCRIBE the criticisms, not create them. We therefore need a section do do so. (I concur, though; forking is counter-productive. Man you got a little pet name for everything.)
  • ...such a section is normally just a troll magnet and POV magnet, making things difficult to manage. First, that is tantamount to cutting off your nose to spite your face: crappy articles because a good one would attract undue attention? That's silliness. Moreover, good articles are far less likely to be attacked by vandals. And lastly, protect the pages once well-written - don't make drivel out of the article just because writing it correctly (i.e., like the featured articles) would attract attention. Change the management method instead.

On top of all that, I submit that this PETA/AR debacle is so controversial for no other reason than that the articles are poorly written. They are biased, they are agenda-driven, they lack recognition (DESCRIPTION) of criticisms and they are quite obviously over-protected and coddled over by people who truly don't want criticism to see the light of day.

Now, please list all the controversial items re PETA for me please.DocEss 18:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than me having to explain every little thing to you, why not provide us with some edits to the article? All this argument is pointless unless you can back it up with actual content for the article.-Localzuk (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely NO reason to not have a controversy section, since PETA has plently of that to go around. I have sources to back it up, including an animal rights website.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ABigBlackMan (talk • contribs)

The arguments against it are:
  • Is inherently NPOV through the use of the word 'controversies'
  • Is a troll magnet
  • Will be constantly be under threat from people adding unsourced original research and opinion
  • Causes a POV fork, which is severely frowned upon in wikipedia, when the section is too large.
  • Causes the article to become disjointed - ie. a reader has to read all the pro stuff seperate from the anti stuff.
Instead, we weave the information throughout the article wherever it is relevant. For example, if a particular campaign was criticised or controversial, it should be discussed with the information about that campaign. This leads to a much higher quality of article without NPOV problems. It also allows for overly large articles to be forked without being inherently biased or problematic. (PS. Please sign your posts)-Localzuk(talk) 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of adding a "Criticisms" section. For people doing research on the pros and cons of PETA, it's extremely easy to find material supporting the organization, and pretty difficult to find well-cited criticism. This article could be a good resource, but the problem with the current editing is that it's such an emotional subject that people are being NPOV. RE it being a troll magnet...right now this article *needs* a bit of criticism - it's not reflecting how people truly feel about the organization. There are enough highly-publicized issues that it warrants its own section. This is coming from a vegan, so don't flame me. Drocra 01:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism sections are bad for many reasons, that you can find scattered on this Talk page and in WP in general. If you truly feel that this article 'needs' criticism that it doesn't already have in it, please provide a single specific incident or issue that you feel is inadequately covered in the current version. Please point us to a reliable source for it, and if it's missing it will be promptly added. Thanks, Crum375 01:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see from this Talk page and WP in general, the merits and demerits of Criticism sections are hardly clear. The fact that they are present in many controversial topics and generally accepted by peer review is evidence that in cases where there is a lot of controversy, a section to address it is needed. If you're worried about POV, users should add counter-citations defending PETA. Just because it's titled "Criticisms" doesn't mean it should only contain one POV, but it should rather provide a single area for users to view both criticisms and defenses of the organization. I've added the "List of PETA Criticisms" section below so we can get an organized idea of the controversies and how to address them adequately. Drocra 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

ORGANIZED List of PETA Criticisms + Counterarguments (rough draft: feel free to add criticisms and sources. I'm adding this so we can clarify exactly what would be contained if such a section were to be created)

Background section, including cultural references: Penn&Teller's Bullsh*t Video, Southpark episode, People for the Eating of Tasty Animals
1. Questions of PETA's animal welfare policies
  • Percentage of revenue used for directly helping animals is small. (citation needed)
  • Two PETA members, Andrew Benjamin Cook and Andria Joy Hinkle, acting on behalf of PETA, arrested June 15th, 2005, indicted with 22 counts of animal cruelty and 3 counts of obtaining property by false pretenses.
Indictments of PETA members
Freeman, Darren. "PETA workers face 25 felony counts in North Carolina", The Virginian Pilot, October 15 2005.
2. Criticisms of advertising
  • Alleged targeting of children in advertising campaigns
Rorholm, Janet. "Meat eaters confront Kernel Corn from PETA." Gazette - Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Feb 1 2002.
Guidestar.org [1]
4. Conflict with Religious Groups
"Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses." -Ingrid Newkirk, Washington Post, Nov 13 1983)
  • The Jewish reaction to the Holocaust campaign
Ephross, Peter. "PETA questions kosher slaughtering." Jewish News of Greater Phoenix, December 3 2004.
5. Alleged attack on mainstream scientific and charitable groups (March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society)
Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, "We'd be against it." -Ingrid Newkirk, Washington Post, May 30 1989
6. Alleged devaluation of human life -
"Humans have grown like cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the planet." -Ingrid Newkirk, Reader's Digest, June 1990
"We feel animals have the same rights as a retarded human child." -Alex Pacheco, New York Times, Jan 14 1989
7. Alleged support of violence and terrorist activity
"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are "acceptable crimes" when used for the animals' cause." -Alex Pacheco, Charleston, W. VA Gazette-Mail, Jan 15 1989
8. Alleged hypocrisy of members
Mary Beth Sweetland: Director of Research & Rescue, PETA. Type I diabetic, uses animal-tested insulin.
Conceded that her medicine “still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it…. I don’t see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.”
9. Steve Irwin statements
Walls, Jeannette. "PETA sheds no crocodile tears for Steve Irwin." MSNBC, Sept 19 2006.

This is only a rough draft. Some of these can probably be removed or added to other, more generic sections. Don't flame, please. Drocra 02:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully you won't consider this a 'flame', but I asked that you provide a single item that you think is missing, with appropriate sourcing. You have provided many, most without sources or poorly sourced, and most or all items (I believe) have already been discussed at length here. Posting a big laundry list will not work; if you really want to help improve the article by adding missing criticism, please provide one item at a time with a WP acceptable source and we can deal with it, one at a time. Please be sure the item is not already in the article. Thanks, Crum375 02:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Apologies - I was already in the process of writing this section when you replied. The reason I created this "laundry list" as you call it is because there currently isn't a cohesive list of controversies, which would be necessary if a "controversies" section were to be implemented. I am encouraging people to add sources to this list, and am in the process of adding them myself. Adding them one at a time would nullify the purpose of having a Controversies section. Drocra 02:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The items on your list are mostly already weaved in the article, so as I think Crum tried to point out you would have to come up with something new and solid to build up a criticism section upon. Might I suggest you take a minute and answer our concerns, some of which are summed up by Localzuk right before your first post? I think they properly sum up the current concensus, so we can build up on that :) Jean-Philippe 06:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

PETA have just criticised Steve Irwin - [2] - as a result may need to watch the article for vandalism from disaffected Irwin fans--Golden Wattle talk 11:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Operation Backfire (FBI)

This is (or was) a FBI initiated campaign to take out these organizations, incl. this one (it admits to supporting the Animal Liberation Front). Check out the article. Martial Law 19:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you imagine that a group is preparing for a protest, say against Burger King or KFC when a bunch of FBI SWAT personnel throw in "Flashbangs(stun grenades)", then barges in, yelling, "Get Down! NOW!", sticks guns in the members' faces, telling them, "Move, you DIE!" ? I've seen this sort of thing on COPS, on Spike TV's police shows. That is what Operation Backfire is about.Martial Law 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually the operation was nothing like that at all, it was all about putting pressure on one activist (probably by threatening him or her with life under the Patriot Act) to provide evidence against his or her alleged co-conspirators. Rockpocket 21:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Where can this police operation reference be placed in this article ? Martial Law 19:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
When you find a good source that connects it to PETA then it would belong here. Crum375 19:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Depends whether it has any relevance in this article. It doesn't seem to, to me. The article only mentions PETA once, as a see also link.-Localzuk (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions a new arrest for Rod Coronado, seems like a good enough link to PETA to be worth a mention. L0b0t 20:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOR. JBKramer 21:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I created the Backfire article and, in my research, can find no credible mention of its relevence to any group other than the ALF and ELF. There are two further reasons PETA's link to Backfire via Coronado via the ALF is not sufficient to link Backfire and PETA together:
  • Coronado's current arrest was for crimes other than those that he received funds from PETA to defend.
  • Technically speaking, the Coronado arrest is not even part of Backfire. The operation itself was focused in the Pacific North East. Rockpocket 21:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The feds are following the money trail of terrorists, and PETA is known to support ALF, thus is that they're being investigated, then later taken out. Martial Law 21:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOR. JBKramer 21:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
As JBK (clearly a Wikipedian of few words) suggests, please remember that articles should contain no original research, and that all links - such as those you propose - must be documented in reliable sources. Thanks. Rockpocket 21:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate the reminder. Where can I place the Earthshare link ?
According to the discussion, "You" donate $$$$ to them, the Feds will come after "you". I've been watching the news, the 'net concerning this matter, thus I (hopefully) avoid violating WP:NOR protocol. Martial Law 21:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC) :)
The problem with that argument is that PETA never contributed money to a terrorist organisation, nor to an individual to commit a terrorist act. What they did was provide money to a legal fund that was used to defend an activist who had acted on behalf of the ALF. Providing money to pay for a criminal's lawyer is not the same as funding criminal acts. Rockpocket 21:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, they have. Nearly $1500 was given to ELF but they claimed it was a mistake. Elf is a known terrorist group. So is ALF and ARM. The ELF claim is in the article. The other two are in a blue section on the right. Martial Law 22:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC):::::::::::Location of $1500 claim: Section header:Philosophy and activisim, 6th paragraph, 1st sentence. Martial Law 22:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a reliable, verifiable, source for a claimed link between this operation and peta, it is simply Original Research, which as has been stated is not acceptable.-Localzuk (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do. I do work with the police from time to time. Martial Law 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing the link to the FBI website, as irrelevant to PETA until referenced otherwise. Jean-Philippe 22:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

External links edit war

It look's like myself and l0b0t have gotten ourself into a little mess. I guess we should have discussed this earlier before the accusations of vandalism start flying away as they tend to do in matters like that.

L0b0t, you removed the "See Also" section and the wikilink to CCF and changed it to a direct link to their website. You also copy-pasted their own description of themselves from their website instead of using the previous one. Compare "a non-profit U.S. lobby group opposed to PETA's agenda" with "a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and consumers working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices". I think it's fairly obvious which one is more NPOV and desinterested, but you disagree and call me a vandal.

You also reinserted links to a number of PETA websites which is clearly redundant. You didn't explain that either, and a quick look into the archive brings up this comment by you leading me to believe you just didn't care what you were reverting anymore. --> "I agree, a link to peta.org should be sufficient. Maybe do a WHOIS on all the sites and remove any registered to the same people or groups?L0b0t 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)"

I also took the time [3] to point you to a link to meta supporting my edit [4], but you ignored me and reinserted the direct link anyway.

As noted, your edit summaries appears to be intentionaly deceitful, marked as minor and for the first two revert as "cleaned up links" and "fixed description" even though you knew your changes might be contested. Jean-Philippe 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "See also" section because 1) "See also" should be used for wikipedia links, and 2) it had the same link in the above "External Links" section so was redundant. Bytebear 01:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The link was a wikilink. L0b0t put a direct link to their website, against wiki convention. We have an article here about CCF, that's what we should be linking to, and like you said, "See also" should be used for wikipedia links. I'm I missing something here? Jean-Philippe 01:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I didn't realize one was a web link and the other a wikilink. I have reverted. However, I copied the description of the weblink to the wikilink to make them consistant and avoid POV. Bytebear 01:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You're trying very hard to ignore my comment above, aren't you? The whole point of a neutral designation as opposed to their own description of themselves is to favor NPOV. Detractors call them a front group for the junk food industry, they call themselves an alliance between food industries and consumers. I also support our wiki description if only for consistency --> "[ccf] is a non-profit U.S. lobby group and funded by the fast food, meat, and tobacco industries,". Anyway what's the point of including it if we're not going to say they oppose PETA? Jean-Philippe 01:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I am trying to be fair. You will notice that I just changed the wording (before I read your latest comments) of the description to the wording from the wiki article. I figure if you disagree with the description, then change the linking article and have it reflect back here. Let the editors there decide what this group is and does. Bytebear 01:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I just omited the funding part as it's out of context, changed agenda to something less POV. Now if only someone could remove the duplicate. Jean-Philippe 01:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought this was resolved, but I am too tired to argue right now, but I think saying "Opposed to PETA" is too POV and doesn't really define the group. I suggest reverting back to "primarily funded by the fast food, meat, and tobacco industries". It seems pretty clear that they would oppose PETA, so it seems redundant to say so, and it gives the reader no information about the link. I could link to a lot of articles that would oppose PETA, but the specifics are what tell the reader why. Bytebear 02:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
What about this? Jean-Philippe 02:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I can explain. Jean-Philippe said-

"L0b0t, you removed the "See Also" section and the wikilink to CCF and changed it to a direct link to their website. You also copy-pasted their own description of themselves from their website instead of using the previous one. Compare "a non-profit U.S. lobby group opposed to PETA's agenda" with "a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and consumers working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices"."
Yes I did. The see also section was silly down there at the bottom with only 1 wikilink in it; so I got rid of it, and put a direct link to their site in the external links section. I used the CCF's own description of themselves because it is a link to their website not an article about them. There is nothing POV about a self-description in the external links section. Just saying they are a group opposed to PETA" is a little too narrow a description for such a multi-faceted organization, that's like defining PETA solely as an anti-circus lobby group.
Jean-Philippe said-
"You also reinserted links to a number of PETA websites which is clearly redundant."
Umm, no, no I didn't. The only links to PETA sites in the external links section are to peta.org, and kentuckyfriedcruelty.com. I did not take them out, and I did not add any more.
A diff doesn't lie --> [5] Jean-Philippe 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You are the one who removed them they were put back in a revert. I did not take them out and I did not change them. You took them out and I rv. the whole section.L0b0t 03:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You're not making any sense. I took them out. They are redundant, and you agreed with that at an earlier date. "I agree, a link to peta.org should be sufficient. Maybe do a WHOIS on all the sites and remove any registered to the same people or groups?L0b0t 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)". That you put them back in is proved by the diff. Jean-Philippe 03:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Jean-Philippe said-
"I also took the time to point you to a link to meta supporting my edit [external links], but you ignored me and reinserted the direct link anyway."
Yes I did. Did you read the entire meta? The consensus on that page is that external links are fine, even POV external links. If external links are so bad, why is there an external links section?
You're just ignoring the facts. We have an article about CCF. You changed the wikilink to an external link needlessly and that's that. Jean-Philippe 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we do have an article about CCF. I'm editing however an article about PETA. What's your point? I changed no link, I removed the see also section. I put a link to CCF website into the external links section, where external links go.L0b0t 03:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Jean-Philippe said-
"As noted, your edit summaries appears to be intentionaly deceitful, marked as minor and for the first two revert as "cleaned up links" and "fixed description" even though you knew your changes might be contested."
As noted where? I feel they are minor edits, I was editing links not writing in the article. I did, in fact, clean up the links and fix descriptions. Several of the links were improperly formated and had url bits in the descriptions.
As noted in my own edit summary. [6]. You felt wrong. You reverted me twice using false edit summaries. Again, diff's don't lie. [7] [8]
Jean-Philippe posted this on my talk page-
"Why didn't you take my advice and reinserted the direct link to their website? Please post your comment on PETA's talk page. Thanks. Jean-Philippe 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)"
I'm not quite clear on what your 1st sentence means, and here I am on the talk page.L0b0t 02:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You know exactly what the conflict is. I've explained it explicitely in my comment aboves. Jean-Philippe 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
What "conflict" are you referencing? What I don't understand is this sentence: "Why didn't you take my advice and reinserted the direct link to their website". It does not parse. What does it mean?L0b0t 03:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking at your "diffs", what about them is deceptive? They are minor, very few words changed. I did clean up links, as I stated above some were formated poorly so tha some of the URL string was in the description. I fixed link descriptions. Where is the deceit?L0b0t 03:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You're quick to anger and throw around accusations of POV and vandalism, but when it come's down to it you just shy away and deny there is even a problem? That tells a lot about your character. Jean-Philippe 03:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Who is angered? I'm here on the talk page discussing edits with you like a gentleman. I have responded to all of your points in a civil, rational matter. What am I shying away from? Why is this a matter of character? Have we ever met? I would posit that you know as much about my character as I do about your's, which is to say nothing at all.L0b0t 03:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You participated in a revert war, created deceitful edit summaries to hide your reverts, called another user good-faith edits vandalism and "pov edits" and now you conveniently deny there even is a problem and that you're willing to discuss like a "gentleman". If that's not distruptive editing, I don't know what it is. Jean-Philippe 03:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Back and forth editing is hardly a "revert war", and weren't you the other participent? I am not denying your problem, I am just explaining my edits, discussing them on the talk page, as you asked me to do. You have accused me of being quick to anger and made a personal comment on my character. I ask you again who is angry? Not I, a little sleepy perhaps but not angry. You have accused me of deceptive edit summaries (people are deceitful, objects are deceptive), and then revert my edits, that I have discussed in detail above, with a summary that says I won't discuss them (see below). If that is what you consider to be disruptive editing then we will have to agree to disagree.L0b0t 04:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
"(Removed the external link to CCF per l0b0t unwillingness to discuss the issue.)" After all we've discussed above how can you say I am unwilling to discuss. Hi pot, I'm kettle, pleased to meet you.L0b0t 03:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the latest change is a fair compromise. I hope we can all agree. Bytebear 03:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist

I know you all don't like to have the word "terrorist" in your article, but the following is an indisputable fact:

  • PETA has donated money to individuals who are associated with groups that the FBI considers domestic terrorists.

It is even less disputable that:

  • PETA is criticized for supporting terrorist groups.

Stating this in the article is perfectly in line with WP:NPOV. Replacing "terrorist" with "direct action" to prevent PETA from "sounding bad" or trying to remove "guilt by association" is not neutral. They aren't being criticized for supporting "direct action groups". They're being criticized for supporting "terrorist groups". — Omegatron 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You can insert the fact that PETA supports X group which has been declared "terrorist" by Y governmental agency. You just can't call a group "terrorist" directly. Also, please take note that "guilt by association" is a logical fallacy which is discouraged in Wikipedia (as all logical fallacies are); accusations of guilt by association violate NPOV; their removal doesn't.--Ramdrake 21:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
If logical falsacy is a bad idea on WIKI then the Timeline section needs to go. It is full of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because a govt. agency or a private corporation does something that PETA wants, does not mean that PETA is the reason for doing the thing. Unless Department of Defence says they closed a lab because of PETA protests then we can not give PETA credit for it in a time line that is just C&P from peta.org.uk. L0b0t 01:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.animalscam.com/images/References/RodneyCoronado.gif | http://www.animalscam.com/images/References/PetaTaxRecords3.gif --132.241.189.251 (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

ALF

I changed the sentence "Provocative groups like the Animal Liberation Front" to "terrorist groups like the Animal Liberation front.". The word "terrorist" was then changed by another to the phrase "direct action". After a revert from myself, and another by the other user, its now reads "direct action".


From Wikipedia entry on terrorism:

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism[6]. In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

"..activities that involve violent... <or life-threatening acts>... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ...<if domestic>...(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States...<if international>...(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..."


From Wikipedia entry on Animal Liberation Front:

The ALF was named as a "terrorist threat" by the United States' Department of Homeland Security in January 2005. [7][8] (See below.) The FBI has reported that ALF members have been indicted under federal conspiracy and arson charges[9]

also.....

The ALF was named as a terrorist threat by the United States Department of Homeland Security in January 2005. [23] In hearings held on May 18, 2005 before a Senate panel, officials of the FBI and ATF stated that "violent animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists now pose one of the most serious terrorism threats to the nation," adding that "of particular concern are the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF)."

also...

The Daily Telegraph has called the ALF "the most active terrorist organisation in Britain," [27] a view echoed by Paul Wilkinson of St Andrews University who, in 1998, stated that the ALF and its splinter groups were the "most serious domestic terrorist threat within the United Kingdom," and are "very close" to killing someone. He added: "Keith Mann who was sentenced to 11 years for his extremist violence said in a message to ALF activists that sooner or later someone would die. He didn’t express any remorse about this or any regret. Now that does show to me a level of fanaticism which is very dangerous indeed." [16]


I do not understand the confusion, or the revisions removing the term "terrorist".

Terrorism is a word to avoid. Please follow our policies and guidelines. Thanks. JBKramer 21:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
"The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist." — Omegatron 21:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Said construction was not followed in this case. Please follow our policies and guidelines. JBKramer 21:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It is a violation of WP:NPOV to call an organization provocative or terrorist using wikipedia's voice. Find someone who calls them a terrorist, and say "which X calls terrorist because Y." This is clearly laid out on WP:WTA. JBKramer 21:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the "because Y" part isn't really mandatory.--Ramdrake 21:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I am following guidelines.
The reference for the FBI's designation used to be in the article, but it, like most criticism, seems to have been removed. I'll try to find it again. — Omegatron 21:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that it is wholey irrelevant to this article to go into detail about who and what the ALF are - as that is the purpose of that article. -Localzuk (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It is relevant because of the close ties between both associations.--Ramdrake 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is. It already was anyway. The article was already going on about that in the section about PETA's support for the ALF. I've moved the new wording and references by Omegatron there. Also removed the mention of direct-action/provocation/terrorist because frankly we're not going to achieve concensus on that anytime soon. In the end the article is about PETA and not the ALF so it seem reasonable, to me, to mention the terrorist label when the article actually discuss PETA relationship with the ALF at length. Jean-Philippe 23:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Federal Code

Cites do not support claim the ALF has been deemed "terrorist" by the US code. Please cite a source for this claim. JBKramer 03:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone even looking into this? JBKramer 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I've edited it to try to reflect what was actually said. The only assumption I made was that the testimony of the Section Chief reflects the FBI's actual position (I don't see any reason to reasonably doubt that).--Ramdrake 22:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see support for that statement either. Could you find a quote about them deeming something something else? Thanks. JBKramer 00:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism to Irwin

It's related to PETA, and a direct quote from a director of PETA. Not vandalism since is it is factual, so quit removing it.

It was also published in national news sources and is fitting under conflicts with other activist.

Sockpuppeter at work

One user is vigourously revert warring his POV laden edits back in the article using a number of accounts he created for this one and only purpose.

  • External link to petakillsanimal, a website of the center for consumer freedom which we are already linking, as explained times and times again
  • Dan Matthews quotes from an interview in which he criticize late Steve Irwin. He's obviously not speaking in his official capacity as spokesman for PETA and as such it's irrelevant in the context of this article. Jean-Philippe 10:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

RE:

Then atleast keep his quite that he said on his own behalf on his wiki then.

Absolutely not. The edit is clearly agenda driven to make the subject look bad: launched a verbal attack against the beloved star who had risen to fame as TV’s Crocodile Hunter. Puh-lease. Jean-Philippe 10:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

External links, again!!!

We have gotten back into a cycle of constant revert warring over the addition of external links. Can all editors who are involved in this take a look at our policies on external links? Also, in this case we do not need sites by the CCF for one reason - their organisation is wikilinked within this page and information about their views can be found there. All editors should also remember that we have rules about revert warring and breaking them will lead to blockings. So before re-adding links or removing them, can everyone start discussing it on the talk page?-Localzuk (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The disputed link is the one to a CCF website. As you just noted and I did earlier many, many times their organization is already wikilinked. Redundant links to PETA are probably not disputed. Jean-Philippe 17:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dan Mathews on Steve Irwin

  • one day after the September 10, 2006 funeral <- how is that relevant?
  • legendary Australian environmentalist <- he's not an environmentalist, legendary is subjective
  • quotes are only partial for added POV effect, by example "cheap tv star" omit the context completely
  • Director of Media Relations -> Vice-President, it's well known.

There is currently no link to any controversy altough I'm sure you can find some, it's probably on CCF site already. The burden is on you

Sorry, I don't mind you correcting my POV edits, but reverting me was clearly a rash decision. I hope you can see my point and revert to my section while correcting me where needed. Thanks. Jean-Philippe 20:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some answers
  • one day after the September 10, 2006 funeral <- how is that relevant?
Criticizing someone mourned by a large number of people just one day after their funeral sounds a tad callous to me.
  • legendary Australian environmentalist <- he's not an environmentalist, legendary is subjective
Agreed that legendary is somwehat subjective, but I guess it may depend on which part of the world you hail from. As far as environmentalist is concerned, I don't think it's too far off the mark. Wikipedia calls him a "conservationist", which in my book is close enough.
  • Director of Media Relations -> Vice-President, it's well known.
To me, that's four quarters to a dollar (i.e. the distinction is somehow irrelevant).
And the way you had it written was like it was a good thing that Mathews criticized Irwin just days after his demise (which in anyone's book, should be anywhere from insensitive to downright callous).--Ramdrake 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you go fishing for a reference for controversy? I was rewording the paragraph around something like "his comment, which came soon after Irwin's death, lead some to comment that "insert contraversy here", but then all I could find is a unsigned news plant copied in a variety of blog and news aggragetor actually inciting readers to be outraged. Just see for yourself all the top results from google [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21238908.shtml] [9] [10][11][12].
My point being, I'm trying to insert the so-called controversy, but I'm not finding any. A little help? Jean-Philippe 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
(1) The day after the funeral is factual -> How is that relevant? There's fact, and then there's relevance. Are you claiming "the late Steve Irwin" isn't factually correct either?
2)The fact it was reported on so many news services is part and parcel of the controversy. -> Your controversy up to now.
You have reverted me again alluring to a controversy but still haven't backed it up with an such controversy. It's starting to become obvious you're referring to your own feeling in this case, please do prove me wrong and give your references for this so-called controversy. Jean-Philippe 12:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is the link: [13]
And the quote:

Queensland Nationals MP Bruce Scott has told federal parliament that PETA should apologise to Steve Irwin's family and the rest of Australia.

He said he was disgusted by the comments.

"Isn't it interesting ... how they want to treat animals ethically, but cannot even think for a minute whether or not their outlandish comments are ethical towards their fellow human beings," Mr Scott said.

I've tracked down the quotes in that reference to the source on PETA's website [14], a reaction of sort to Irwin's death as it appears on PETA's main webpage. I've expanded as I saw fit again making sure facts are presented as if, not controversy as being the facts. Jean-Philippe 15:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

This is a bias article because it does not list the many, many criticisms that have been attributed to PETA. A bias warning must be posted on this article or a list of criticisms created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpainkiller7 (talk • contribs) 00:28, September 15, 2006

Could you please provide examples of some criticisms that are verifiable from reliable sources, not already in the article, and of a form that will allow us to still meet neutrality requirements (no name calling based on partisan sources allowed). I am sure that if you, or anyone else, repors any such criticisms then they will be incorporated into the article fairly quickly.
If your complaint is based on the fact that criticisms are scattered around the article so that information may be placed into context instead of clustered into a single section designed to allow POV-warriors to insert large volumes of unsourced accusations with a minimum of effort, please consult the multiple prior discussions on this talk page and its archives about the best method for organizing criticisms in an encyclopaedic effort. --Allen3 talk 14:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This article does not mention any criticism of PETA, of which makes up more then 50% of all articles on the net about PETA, if you claim not to have known that, then you are clearly a member of the PETA group censoring this article. See Every negative article on PETA

I'm sorry to be blunt about it, but stop complaining and do something about it!!!-Localzuk (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. More specifically, find one notable and verifiable source that slams PETA and is not already included in some form in the article, and add it. If it is reverted or modified, be prepared to defend it. If your reference and relevance are good, it will stay. Then repeat for any/all others you can find that meet these criteria. Crum375 19:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Here, copied from somewhere in the archive while searching for something else a while back, it's by SlimVirging. Put it in a .txt file cause I know some people would still complain about this article not having any criticism. Slightly updated. Took about 5 minutes so I can't really say if all of it is still accurate. The article say:
   * PETA funds ALF activists.
   * May have funded, or be funding, SHAC.
   * Has funded the ELF.
   * Have themselves engaged in arguably criminal acts (e.g. throwing paint at people, throwing a dead animal at Anna Wintour, leaving blood on her doorstep.
   * Was criticized for Holocaust on your plate.
   * Was criticized for its "Are Animals the New Slaves" campaign.
   * Was criticized for letter to Arafat.
   * May have had advance warning of a Rod Coronado arson.
   * Was criticized by the OPRR for producing a misleading video.
   * Was criticized for misinterpreting the effects of formalin on dead tissue.
   * Was criticized for its euthanasia policy.
   * Was criticized for employing people who were dumping dead animals.
   * Was criticized for equating the "life of an insect ... to the life of a human being."
   * Was criticized for handing graphic leaflets out to children.
   * Was ordered to discontinue ads about milk consumption.
   * Was criticized within the animal's right and animal's welfare movements.
   * Was criticized for it's opposion to animal research by an AID researcher "patient coalition". (Will probably edit that soon, look's like that so-called coalition is a one-women operation)
   * Was criticized by feminists for it's ad campaigns featuring naked womens.
   * Was criticized by a Australian MP for comment about Steve Irwin after his death.
Let's not forget the free ride we're giving to CCF as a reference. As Localzuk pointed out, be bold and write what you think will improve the article, providing references along the way. Jean-Philippe 20:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
A couple more have been added since the integration of criticisms, namely the advocation of underage alcohol consumption on college campuses and engaging in cybersquatting while simultaneously suing to block a cybersquatter that had targeted PETA. --Allen3 talk 20:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pop References

PETA on Penn & Teller

PETA on South Park

Pop References listed on the main article should be more then these two.

Timeline

Shouldn't the timeline go in the History section? A lot has been discussed about weaving in content, and it seems this list should be rewritten in a prose format. If no one object or offers to do it themselves, I will make the attempt. Bytebear 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Questionable sources & Neutrality

I would seriously question this article getting its sources from the PETA website. Considering the controversy surrounding the organisation, I believe the sources should be external and independent. There is a possiblity that Peta members could be altering the article to hide the criticism they receive. This article does not handle their questionable activities in a balanced manner or very comprehensively. It requires review. 83.71.102.18 22:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a new issue. Your points are very vague and sweeping. They also impugn many of the editors here, in violation of WP:AGF. If you have a specific item that you think is not WP:NPOV, then please state it, make a case, and we'll address it here. But you cannot just come in and declare the entire article as not WP:NPOV compliant unless and until we get to addressing it and you still feel it is not properly worded. Thanks, Crum375 23:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
And just to clarify, WP:RS rules do allow an article to rely on sources in the subject's web site - it depends on the specific situation. So you would need to be more specific to show a violation. Crum375 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I've tried to add in a criticism section several times and somone keeps deleting it! I'm really getting pissed off and if it happens again I'll delete the whole fucking article! I can't be held responsable for my actions...

Grow up. Did you even read the article? As per prefered style the criticisms are interwoven throughout the article.L0b0t 03:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
And as a matter of fact, nobody but you is responsible for your actions.--Ramdrake 12:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Not that tantrums are good, but the point raised may be valid. In some cases, interweaving the criticisms results in concealing them. A number of articles have Criticism of section, and there are even a couple dozen Criticism of articles.

If readers are having trouble finding the pro and con in the article, perhaps a section (or spin-off article) for criticism is warranted. I'm pretty good at seeing both sides of issues, so I can help ensure any such section or article remains neutral. --Uncle Ed 15:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but spinning off an article named "criticism of X" sounds to me like the very definition of a POV fork, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia.--Ramdrake 15:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Where in the definition of Wikipedia:POV fork does it say that? --Uncle Ed 15:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly here: [15]--Ramdrake 17:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

From Wikipedia:POV_fork: "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available. And the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article." scot 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, well, as long as the spin-off hasn't been "deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines" then it should be no problem. We already spun off the HOYP thing successfully into Animal rights and the Holocaust. I don't recall anyone worrying about neutrality with that spin-off, let alone placing a {pov} dispute tag. --Uncle Ed 15:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I fear that spinning off a criticism section might just invite some to remove ALL the criticisms from the original article. I was thinking just this morning that a good wikiproject might be to edit all articles to interweave the criticisms; as it makes for smoother reading, helps cut down on trolls and makes for an article that is balanced and nuanced throughout rather than heavily weighted with POV magnets at both ends. Any opinions? L0b0t 15:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If readers have "trouble finding the pro and con" as you say Ed, then I say great, we got ourselves an article that's NPOV. I don't have a definitive opinion on the fork idea, I've seen it work very well in the past and prompty dealt with when it didn't. If it's done with a cool head, it can be useful, but I can't support it as a reaction to unfounded accusations of censorship which is the case here. Jean-Philippe 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this sentiment. If an article is cut down the middle 'pro and con' then we have a very unbalanced article. If each subject is discussed individually including items of criticism and praise then this leads to an easier read about the subject matter (rather than an easy way to find out hat criticisms have been made, which is not the point of the article).
Also, it allows for the prevention of POV forks which are inherently POV and in most cases are full of unsourced speculation and revert warring. Instead, we would end up with forks discussing the different subtopics of this subject which is a much better situation.
No-one is being 'censored'. Instead, we are asking for every editor to follow policy and edit in a neutral, well sourced and level headed way. Ranting and unsourced opinion are simply not welcome.
Also, threats of disruptive activity are not welcome and can lead to being blocked.
I think this topic, the creation of criticism sections and spin off articles, needs to be discussed in more detail as a policy as this is causing issues across wikipedia and not just here. In the small scale, we could introduce it as part of the wikiproject.-Localzuk(talk) 17:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with all your points. The issue of inter-weaving criticism is crucial across WP, and really should be discussed in a main guideline, IMO. By sheer logic one can see that a 'Criticism section' is bad: if you have one, it can grow (for controversial subjects), and as it grows beyond a certain size, you'll want to move it to its own article, "Criticism of X" (CofX). Then, by definition, if all criticism moves to CofX, it means that the remaining article X is now essentially without (or with minimal) criticism, ergo it has only praise! so X will now become, effectively, "X and its praise", which to most of us would not sound very neutral. Bottom line: criticism (to any subject/article) should be weaved in from day one, and never separated. Crum375 17:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what happens, Crum; I've seen it a dozen times. It's bad for the parent article and for the sub-article/POV fork, and for any reader who has to jump between them to get the whole picture. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed on all points. Criticism should be interweaved with the things that are being criticized, not relegated to their own section (that will just be ignored by fans) and definitely not moved to their own article (which would be a POV fork, leaving nothing but praise in the article). I think this is a position that everyone can agree on. — Omegatron 21:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I have been unclear by what I mean by criticism. I do not mean only objections and opposition; I mean also praise and support. I was using "criticism" in the sense of "evaluation" -- analogous to literary criticism, i.e., comments from published authors and other "verifiable" sources who agree or disagree with the ideas or practices of PeTA.

If readers "have trouble finding" agreement and disagreement (as Jean-Philippe says), then this means the fact that there is controversy and dispute has been hidden or downplayed excessively. We are not supposed to come up with a consensus view or PETA. Rather, NPOV tells us to describe each side in the dispute fairly. PETA has supporters (like the models who pose furless) and opponents (like whom, I can't even think of one off the top of my head).

Readers need to know who supports as well as who opposes various ideas, movements, campaigns, etc. Wikipedia serves the community by reporting on:

  • what the idea, movement campaign actually is
  • who supports it (and why)
  • who opposes it (and why)

I'd like to see this neutral approach applied to PETA's goals and practices. --Uncle Ed 18:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've found the word "reception" to be a better fit for that concept than "criticism". Reception can be both positive (praise) and negative (criticism). But I think that content really belongs in this article.
A good thing to split out would be the list of campaigns. Leave a summary here and create PETA campaigns for all the details. It's a natural, neutral way to divide an article into subtopics that go into more detail than the main article. — Omegatron 21:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Using this argument, to me, adds more weight to not having a single section on the matter but instead interweaving the subject matter throughout the article (as the article is supposed to be exactly as you describe from top to bottom). -Localzuk(talk) 21:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Same here and let me say, by quotting me saying readers might have trouble finding the "agreement and disagreement" you've put words in my mouth (or on text rather) that I've never said, that you've said. It's your opinion, not mine. So keep straight and don't try to hide your POV pushing by lying about me. Thank you very much. Jean-Philippe 22:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

By moving criticism to it's own article, Ed is proposing a POV fork, something that is forbiden by policy. FeloniousMonk 12:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

ALF in intro

I removed again from the intro that the ALF has been labeled as a terrorist group; first, because I don't think the intro should contain the word "terrorist," which looks like an attempt to poison the well; secondly, because it's just one agency of one govt that has used the terrorist label for the ALF, so it's not a widespread view, at least not officially. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree to that. Has it been throughly revised on the ALF main page? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we still have it on the ALF page, but it's appropriate there because it's about them; this page isn't.
I believe, the last time I checked, the claim of them being a terrorist organisation was specifically attributed to the FBI.-Localzuk(talk) 15:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources

Lobot, the Bible is a primary source; the editor was doing original research by using a primary source to make an interpretive claim that advanced a position. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning. I understand how you reached your conclusion. L0b0t 15:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/Archive_7&oldid=1137078971"