Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 4

Timeline
Why is Peta protected from critical views????????????????????

Lobot, why did you remove all that material from the timeline? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything removed from that cut and paste list is already covered in greater detail elsewhere in the article. That list is the last (I think) piece of really bad writing left in the article.  The source for the kosher slaughter blurb is misquoted.  If you want to put things back in that's one thing but by just blindly reverting you also replaced a lot of typos I fixed.L0b0t 03:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The material below from the time line is already in the article.
 * PETA's undercover investigation of a primate laboratory in Silver Spring, Maryland, resulted in the first conviction of a research scientist on charges of animal cruelty (overturned on appeal), the first suspension of federal research funds for alleged cruelty, and the first animal-rights related case to be heard by the United States Supreme Court. (See Silver Spring monkeys.)
 * released video footage shot at the University of Pennsylvania head-injury laboratory, showing the alleged treatment of primates there. The Secretary of Health and Human Services subsequently cut off all funding to the laboratory and the experiments were stopped.
 * exposed the alleged beating of orangutans by Las Vegas entertainer Bobby Berosini, who used the primates in a nightclub act. His captive-bred wildlife permit was suspended by the U.S. Department of the Interior, and his show closed. Four years later, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously ruled in PETA’s favor and overturned a Las Vegas jury’s $3.2 million defamation award to Berosini.
 * released video of shechita (kosher slaughter) at the AgriProcessors slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa allegedly showing cattle appearing to survive for minutes after slaughter with their tracheae and esophagi dangling from their throats and some of them even standing up with their throats slit.  A subsequent USDA investigation found that AgriProcessors had "engaged in acts of inhumane slaughter" while the agency's inspectors were playing computer games and sleeping on the job.
 * How would you say the USDA report is being misquoted? Jean-Philippe 05:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The report does not say anywhere in it that Agriprocessors "engaged in acts of inhumane slaughter while the agency's inspectors were playing computer games and sleeping on the job". Those were 2 different sections of the report edited together and taken out of context.  PETA's own website says this instead:"AgriProcessors—the largest glatt kosher slaughterhouse in the world—repeatedly violated provisions of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) while federal inspectors looked on and did nothing.".L0b0t 10:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Websites critical of PETA --> Center for Consumer Freedom
We don't need 4 links to it. Before someone say there's a number of link to PETA websites, remember that this article is about PETA and to provide information relevant to PETA. CCF is relevant to PETA as a notable critic, but this isn't CCF article. Unless you can demonstrate those websites as independant from CCF, please don't link to them anymore. Thank you. Jean-Philippe 05:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's POV.....why is there no heading of criticisms??????????
 * The criticisms have been worked into the body of the article.L0b0t 03:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Article length
Well, in the few weeks I've been away this article has seen much improvement (and considerable argument). However it now has a major problem in that it is 62Kb in size! That is double the recommended page size on WP:SIZE. We need to maybe split the article into 2. How about a page with the contents of the rather large timeline on? Also, the reference section contains a lot of duplicate references (I refer to 'Notes' and 'References' as the references section). I will have a go at tracking down the duplicates and fixing them. Another section that would be possible to split would be the 'Some PETA campaigns' section as this could work as its own article. What do people think?-Localzuk (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How about we delete the timeline altogether. With the exception of a couple blurbs it is nothing but a cut and paste from the british PETA website.  Some of it is redundant and covered in greater detail in other parts of the main article anyway.
 * I don't support that idea. If it is sourced, it should be included. So long as it is written in such a way as to indicate its source (if it is sourced to a PETA site) then it should be here. -Localzuk (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lots of articles are bigger than the recommended size. It's just a recommendation.  Don't worry about it.
 * If the timeline is kept, it needs to be expanded so it's not just a cut and paste from their website. The first google result for "peta timeline" finds a critic's POV with some other events we should list for neutrality. — Omegatron 16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I am going to worry about it. 62Kb + the extra overhead of a wikipage brings the page to around 70k. That is a very large page and on a dialup line will take a while to load. Also, for readability's sake it is far too long! Guidelines shouldn't just be brushed aside, they should be read and understood - that is why they are guidelines.
 * I have heard many complaints about the timeline but have seen very little actual change being made to it by those who are making the complaints. If you want to expand it, do so but add sources.-Localzuk (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've tried to edit the list but a certain editor just reverts anything she considers to be anti-PETA.L0b0t 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right about the guidelines thing, we should consider it, altough the modem concern is largely irrelevant. I don't think the images are included in that size count. The section used to be adequate when it was just a short list on the top of the article, but now a lot of the stuff is already covered and redundant as l0b0t said. It might be better to split the list into a new article or simply archive it. We shouldn't rush it, article size isn't a reason to move or delete a contensious section, and we don't know if it is yet. Jean-Philippe 19:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, now that I have actually downloaded the complete page, it comes to a total of 780Kb. That, on a 56K modem would take 2.5minutes to download... True, most of it is files that are re-used by other pages on WP but if we can reduce the page size down, every little helps! I personally think that we should split the timeline and the peta campaigns off into their own articles and focus on more general info here.-Localzuk (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't cut content out of our articles to make them easier for modem users to download. That's absurd, considering the images alone are more than 200 KB.  If you're on a limited modem connection, set your default thumbnail size to small, use low-bandwidth skins, etc.
 * Article_size clearly says "There is no need for haste", and "certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information."
 * Of course, whether this article is actually valid and useful is also subject to debate...  We've tried updating the timeline and POV pushers find a reason to revert it, no matter how well sourced. — Omegatron 20:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please can we all try and focus on what I am suggesting! I am suggesting that we split the article. This is not deleting, removing or any such thing. It is following the guideline regarding improving readability.
 * As over half the worlds users still use 56k modems, I think it is a perfectly good thing to think about them using the site. Why become elitist? I am not making these suggestions as I am on a slow connection (I have a connection that most businesses would be envious of) but instead by thinking about other peoples POV's - which it is evident on this talk page that people here are finding hard to do.-Localzuk (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The timeline and PETA campaigns would fit nicely into a sub-article I think. Jean-Philippe 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Edit Come to think of it, the article would see quite bare without the section about PETA's campaign. I suggest we leave that in and move only the timeline. Edit #2Hehe, I dunno. You're right in that the article is quite long when inluding the article main body, the campaigns and the timeline. SlimVirgin did a good job with the rewrite, it's relatively small AFAIK but packs a lot of information. We could move both of them to their sub-articles after all. Jean-Philippe 19:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Advertisements
They are not public service announcments. PSAs are broadcasted for the public good, the propaganda-filled PETA advertisements do not do that. Skinmeister 10:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends on your view point really. Peta believe that leaving animals alone etc... is good for the world. So using your definition they are Public Service Announcements.
 * However, your definition is incorrect. It does not cover the other aspects of a PSA:
 * They are produced for non-profit
 * They usually do feature the company/organisation that produced it
 * They are usually broadcast free of charge
 * As well as being for the public good


 * So, I would say that the fact that you think they are propoganda is irrelevant. They meet 3 of the 4 criteria there (and I only don't know about whether they were published for free). Take a look at Public service announcement for some information. Also take a look at the definitions provided by google.
 * I will revert your change as it is based purely on your POV of the PSA's being 'propaganda filled'.-Localzuk (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How exactly do they meet number 4, for the public good? The circus one for example is for the good of elephants and what-not, not the general public. Saying it is a public service announcement is POV in itself. Skinmeister 11:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is your view that not eating chickens is good only for chickens. It is their view that it is good for the chickens, environment, and population in general. The fact remains that you are simply changing it because you think it is propaganda rather than being based on any factual information.
 * I could make a video calling for the extermination of all Jews, and say it's the the good of the environment and population in general. If I called it a public service announcement, would that make it true? Skinmeister 11:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the reference for the PSA by Dick Gregory states that it was a PSA. Therefore, it should be left as it was, as the reference does not state it was an advertisment - that is your opinion.
 * On the second advertisment/psa change. I would settle for the following instead:
 * PETA also creates and airs numerous public service announcements, advertisments and billboards
 * What do you think?-Localzuk (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, as it appears you have changed your comment - which makes mine seem odd - I'll just repeat what I said. It is your view that the adverts are only for the elephants - not the creators of the PSA.-Localzuk (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, so as you do not seem willing to compromise at all on this, it is difficult to discuss. Are you or are you not willing to keep the statement that the Dick Gregory PSA was a PSA due to the source stating it was. And are you willing to use a compromise solution to the second point? What we really need is to find out if they items were broadcast as PSA's by the tv stations.-Localzuk (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * According to this, advertizement is 'a public promotion of some product or service'. Since PETA does not offer products or services, I don't see why their messages should be called advertizements. Crum375 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Advertisment and commercial are synonyms in English in this context. If a spot is aired on television and someone (PETA) paid for it, then it is a commercial, or an advertisment.  Using a Wikipedia definition does not cut the mustard as one CAN NOT USE WIKIPEDIA AS A REFERENCE.  To advertise means to call attention to. A commercial is a commercially sponsored ad on radio or television.  Peta's spots are both advertising (They call attention to the ideas that PETA is trying to sell to the public.), and commercials (PETA paid television stations to air the spots.).  To be a PSA the spot must air for free under the FCC's rules for broadcast.L0b0t 15:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The reference I provided is from dictionary.com, not WP. Crum375 16:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The rules for PSA may be different in the UK, I'm not qualified to comment on limey law, but in U.S.A. PETA airs commercials.L0b0t 15:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Within Wikipedia, it is perfectly fine to quote other wikipedia pages!
 * Can you provide some references stating that PETA paid for the PSA's/adverts to be aired?-Localzuk (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Burden of proof is on people who claim it's a PSA. Since when do broadcasters give away airtime unless forced to by FCC provision. The established method of airing your views on T.V. is to pay for the airtime.  If PETA did not have pay stations for airtime let PETA prove it.


 * Did PETA sell anything? No, they didn't. PETA didn't engage into commerce of any kind. We don't have to prove anything to refute original research attacking the subject of the article. Jean-Philippe 15:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Sorry but you are slightly wrong there. Whoever makes a change to the page has to prove that their change is true. Ok, the people who added 'PSA' haven't proven it (except for the one that is referenced, by Dick Gregory) so that was their problem and should be amended, but changing it to something else needs proof. What I am saying is can you prove that PETA paid for the air time and it wasn't under the FCC's regulations for PSA's? You are the one wanting to make changes. If you think there is a reference missing, add an unreferenced tag - don't just change it to another unreferenced view. Also please sign your posts by using 4 tildes.-Localzuk (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right Localzuk, I did a mistake here I think. But I'm not going to argue over the finer point of a dictionary definition over something so trivial. I just looked at PETA's website. Peta call it a PSA. http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=dick_gregory_psa. Jean-Philippe 16:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is one more definition of PSA on the Web. The common theme to all the definitions I have seen is that PSA is non-commercial, in the sense that it is not selling or promoting a product or service. OTOH, a plain 'advertizement' normally tries to get the audience to buy something. Crum375 20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My two cents': I think it needs to be corroborated by a third party that it is for the public good (one could very successfully demonstrate that several authorities agree spaying and neutering are for the public good - therefore the spots on spaying/neutering could definitely be called PSAs). However, the elephant/slavery issue responds to a very different definition:  a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information. That is neither an advertisement, nor a public service announcement, it is propaganda pure and simple. Please see Propaganda if you don't believe me.--Ramdrake 23:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Per my neutral (i.e. sources unrelated to any specific topic or cause) references above, I am quoting from the latter:"A short film or videorecording presented by a nonprofit organization which attempts to persuade the audience to take some specific action or adopt a favorable view towards some service, institution, issue, or cause."
 * Note that the requirement you mention to have a 'third party verification' is your own (unless you can cite a reference for it). Note that one person's 'propaganda' is another person's 'public good' and vice versa. The criteria I see are simply: is the message being delivered trying to sell something; and is the promoting organization non-profit. There are classical examples of PSA's by a religious group - in their eyes converting the public to 'see the light' their way and 'be saved' is 'public service'. Neutering an animal is viewed by many as an abomination - while viewed as 'public service' by others. I suggest we follow established definitions. Crum375 23:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The definition I quoted above is also neutral (well, as neutral as Wikipedia can be). To answer your question, I consider the message is delivered very much trying to sell an idea (e.g.: use of animals=slavery). I would also consider religious, proselytizing messages as propaganda, not public service announcement, no matter what the emitting party says. Also, propaganda messages are always just PSAs for whoever makes them. The 3rd party verification is relevant to judge whether the information is impartially provided or not. However, if you want to make the point that encouraging people to spay and neuter their pets is also propaganda for some, I can live with it.

However, you pushed me to go to a proper authority on the matter of this definition, the FCC. Here is how the FCC defines a PSA:"Public Service Announcements: A public service announcement is any announcement for which no consideration of any sort (including, but not limited to, cash, goods or services, in-kind contributions, endorsements, favorable treatment) is made to the licensee or any organization or entity associated with the licensee and which promotes programs, activities or services of federal, state or local governments or the programs, activities or services of nonprofit organizations." Similarly, a:"Paid Public Service Announcements: A paid public service announcement is any announcement where consideration of any sort (including, but not limited to, cash, goods or services, in-kind contributions, endorsements, favorable treatment) is made to the licensee or any organization or entity associated with the licensee but which otherwise meets the definition of a public service announcement" These defintions can be found here:. Looks like you were right after all; I concede.--Ramdrake 00:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Websites critical of PETA?
Why is the list of links headed 'Websites critical of Peta'? Surely it should be slightly more wide ranging than that and be something such as 'Organisations critical of Peta' or 'Critics of Peta'?

Also, we do not need links to the following:


 * PETATV.com
 * www.peta2.org
 * PETAKids.com
 * PETA Kills Animals
 * ActivistCash.com

My reasons for thinking these should be removed are:


 * 1) The peta sites are subsites of the main Peta organisation. They are part of a huge network of sites so why these specific ones? The main site(s) only should be kept (ie. peta.org, peta.org.uk).
 * 2) The activist cash/peta kills animals for the same reason - both the sites are part of the CCF group of sites and are accessible from the main ccf website. We should choose one of their sites to link to not as many as possible.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?-Localzuk (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If we curtail the number of PETA sites, then I don't mind linking just to CCF instead of the current 3 CCF-related sites.--Ramdrake 13:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't matter if there are more PETA sites though. Each site that is linked to should be based on its own merits and not on numbers of links. The sites I list above do not deserve to be on here simply because they do not provide anything additional to the page as they are all accessible through their respective organisations main pages. Please try and leave your bias at the door when editing articles as it will save an awful large amount of time and effort.-Localzuk (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of bias. I just happen to think that the number of links for each of the two major positions should roughly balance in order to achieve some kind of neutrality to the article. Also, please assume good faith and remain civil. I could have explained all this to you if you'd just asked.--Ramdrake 14:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been civil and I have assumed good faith. I am asking all editors to leave bias at the door, not just you. You stated that you would have no problem removing half of the links if the other half were removed based on your view that it should be balanced by number. This is not the purpose of my request and shows your bias. An article can be unbiased and neutral without having an equal number of links for and against a subject. Please don't wikilawyer, as it appears to me, even looking at it from a good faith view, you are trying to do.-Localzuk (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest we omit the mentions of "pro" and "anti" altogether. We rename it external links and bundle them together. This way we'll have decent guidelines to adhere to. As it is now, people completely ignore those criterias even tough I added a comment with a link to them in it :(


 * Localzuk, if you've seen the peta site list before you'd see there was some 30 sites some days ago. I shrinked it quite a bit, but nobody touched it since except for that link to CCF critic.. Anyway, I'm ditching them all now except for a link to PETA which is relevant, appropriate and notable. Mandrake, if balance is you're main concern, wouldn't merging the two together and let them adhere to guidelines solve the problem? No more room for such an obvious editor bias and no more making websites notable solely of it being a critic of something notable. Jean-Philippe 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jean-Philippe, I'm happy as long as the same criteria are applied on both viewpoints. I'd buy that. --Ramdrake 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I removed most links, and since we already had a CCF article I linked to that instead. 2 sites were CCF's, I removed that as they are already listed in their article. I removed the news site, as it had no claim to notability or an opposing point of view. Also, I couldn't find any information as to who operate the website. I removed the forum, very much like the news site, notability is an issue as well as an opposing point of view. I think that's it. I left in the no-kill "advocy group", but I'd really like someone to try and identify the operators of the website. I tried quite hard and all I could find was the address at the end of the page, but maybe I missed something. "Advocacy group" is too vague for my taste.
 * If you revert me on some of those links which are critical of PETA, please remember to identify WHO they are and explain their opposing point of view as per guidelines. (eg.:they oppose something and propose something else instead.). Thanks. Jean-Philippe 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the reorganization, but I would really like to keep the No-Kill site - but that's my POV. :) --Ramdrake 12:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too, in a way. Just would like someone else to try and find who they are 'is all. Anyway, my description of CCF was changed to "PETA's anti-consumer agenda". It's unnecesarly inflammatory. That's what they claim. Saying their argument is for "consumer choice" is decent enough, but making the jump to saying they are right about PETA is another thing. It's akin to saying "CCF oppose PETA because it's a radical terrorist organization and must be stopped at all cost", just because that's what CCF said. No, I don't think they said that, in so many words, but it's to illustrate my point. Jean-Philippe 18:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with your objections, but I have some of my own: saying that PETA is for consumer choice in my opinion ignores the fact that they want to push people into a vegan diet, into not owning pets, and a number of other things. Thus, I have a problem calling them "pro-consumer choice", while I accept that saying they are anti-consumer is maybe pushing the envelope the other way. Can you think of another alternative? I'd like something that's acceptable to both POVs.--Ramdrake 19:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not very good with words, I didn't want to imply PETA as pro-consumer choice. PETA agenda is animal rights, CCF claim this restrict consumer choice as a result. Anyway, I don't mind anti-consumerism to be used as CCF position, but if do we gotta make it sure to read something like claims that PETA is "anti-consumer". I prefer my version better, 'cause using the word "claim" seem detrimental as opposed to using CCF own words. It's minor, as long as we don't give credance to any pov I'm ok with it Jean-Philippe 20:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Personal responsability doesn't seem to me to be an opposite point of view to PETA's animal rights agenda. Like, CCF oppose smoker legislation and it would be appropriate there. Maybe that part about the "right to eat, drink and enjoy themselves etc..." Heck it's npov enough and I'm starting to feel silly arguing about that. Cause the only reason we have that link in the first place is to provide reader with an opposite pov. At least it's the only acceptable use of it under guidelines. Enough wikilawering for now =P Jean-Philippe 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jean-Philippe, I don't think we're arguing at all on this. I think we're both trying to find a mutually acceptable wording, and it seems to work fine for me so far. Are you saying the "personal responsibility" bit doesn't oppose PETA enough (I may misunderstand)? I personnally don't think we have to depict the CCF and PETA as two diametrally opposite factions. They may be at odds, but I think the opposition is more circumstancial than anything else.--Ramdrake 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, personal responsability doesn't address the issue at hand with PETA. At least, it doesn't if personal responsability implies what it does. It's the right of people to choose what is good for them without interference from the state, right? This doesn't seem to apply to PETA's agenda of pushing for animal rights. It's not what's good for people but what's good for the animal. It clash with CCF, who lobby against anyone who would try to restrict "consumer choice/freedom", an inevitable consequence of animal gaining increasing protection under the law. Jean-Philippe 02:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

AIDs section, the quote and the reference.
Hi, I see I've been reverted on that. I think there's confusion on the part Melanie Hunter of csnews about the ad campaign. Why? First of all, the reference I gave quote a PETA representative as saying Ingrid was misquoted on that aid quote. Second, the news clipping of csnews is essentialy a CCF press release. CCF has advantage in harboring the confusion, which is basicly what their ads is all about, confusion. PETA would never run an ad they wouldn't approve off, particularly about a quote they deny. See section 25 about the aids quote above. Jean-Philippe 19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In case I'm not clear enough, what I meant is that the section was claiming PETA ran the ad, while I changed it to saying CCF ran the ad which is more more likely and that's what I referenced.Jean-Philippe 19:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jean-Philippe, if you look at the date on both references, you will see that the CCF campaign occured in Washington DC in Februrary 2004, whereas the PETA campaign is reported in May 2006, again in the Washington DC area (why Washington?). The difference in dates tell me these are likely two separate but opposing events although I'm open to suggestions.--Ramdrake 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't believe that for one second. Like I said, PETA wouldn't run an ad about something they deny, at least I don't think they would. No sane person would, but that's original research on my part, isn't it? Mmm.. here's what I found. This is a letter to the editor from PETA to CSNnews. . At the end of the article there is "(Editor’s Note: A correction was published on the above referenced news article.)" So, I was unable to find that corrected article using their search engine, unfortunately. Let me know if you'll object reverting back to what I added yesterday. Thanks. Jean-Philippe 20:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Found the corrected article . From the looks of it, we might be better off still using this reference, so we could also also incorporate PETA's version on the quote thing. "Even if animal experiments did result in a cure for AIDS, of which there is no chance, I'd be against it on moral grounds." I dunno, what do you think? Jean-Philippe 20:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd buy the complete quote, with the appropriate background info as per the article you just put in reference. Excellent research job, BTW!


 * Well, I corrected that the best way I know how but feel free to edit mercilessly :P Jean-Philippe 20:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

CCF external link description
Personally I have no problem with the phrasing "while promoting consumer choice", given that PETA promotes a restrictive Vegan diet. I think that "trying to promote personal responsibility" makes it sound like PETA is not, which would make it POV. But if the first choice is objectionable, just saying CCF is opposed to PETA and letting the interested reader learn more by following the links is acceptable too, IMO. Crum375 01:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Crum375 on this. Adding 'while trying to promote personal responsibility' is not acceptable because it is POV, implies that PETA don't do this etc... Leave it as 'CCF oppose PETA'. An interested reader can find out more by exploring their site.-Localzuk (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Localzuk, the reason I don't want external links to be introduced into the article without an opposite point of view, is that it's the only guideline permitting links to critics (External Link). New editors will invariably ignore those guidelines in the future if we don't provide a good template and introduce new links based solely on them being anti-peta sites. It's what been happening before, just check the discussion here or the archives.
 * Anyway, promoting consumer choice was my idea from the start, I just didn't like the idea of giving credence to them be letting it go in without either quotes or "a claims to". But I agree that PETA animal rights agenda restricting consumer choice is an obvious result, so I don't think those quotes are necessary anymore. Mandrake, I believe, also don't have a problem with the sentence as long as there's no quotes. Jean-Philippe 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cruelty to animals
Needs compare and contrast with "traditional" cruelty-prevention organizations like ASPCA. PETA goes way beyond enforcing 'human use' ethics to a 'no-use' stand. Without saying whether this is a good stance to take, the article should still tell the reader how this is different from traditional anti-cruelty movements.

Nearly everyone is against cruelty, especially pet-owners and people who ride horses. There is even an 'ethical code' among many hunters, like "Take a clean shot, always finish off the animal so it doesn't suffer, never kill more than you plan to eat".

Many people draw the line at (non-mammalian) fish. Some even think they are doing a good deed by fishing rather than hunting or ranching (so they're not slaughtering mammals).

Is there any way to compare and contrast the ethical views of PETA with other (traditional?) ethical views, without creating an NPOV violation? --Uncle Ed 14:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, first and foremost, I would suggest you read up on the difference between an "animal rights" and an "animal welfare" movement. Also, this article is about PETA, its goals and its campaigns. Maybe if you want to dwell on the differences of ethics between an animal welfare movement (such as ASPCA or HSUS) and an animal rights movement (such as PETA or ALF), that may be deserving of its own article. --Ramdrake 14:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was hoping to read about the difference right here at Wikipedia. Would you like to help me develop this worthy aspect? It could be a section of either animal welfare or animal rights. If it gets too big, we can split it off to Animal welfare and animal rights (see also race and intelligence. --Uncle Ed 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm not in agreement with the sentence you inserted. There are no such things as "traditional" animal welfare organizations. There are animal welfare organizations, and animal welfare groups. That the two are different goes without saying. So yes, PETA contrasts with say the HSUS, but has affinities with the ALF. But all that is beside the point of what PETA does. It is just belaboring a matter of definition. I don't think it's appropriate in this article.--Ramdrake 16:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, you'd be engaging in original research contrasting animal rights and welfare here or on either of those pages. You'll have to start a separate article. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is PETA radical?
John Philip: Why did you instantly take out the word 'radical' when refering to PETA? By definition, they are a radical group becasue their agenda is radical, their methods are radical and most of all their pholosphy is radical. Look up the word 'radical' and try to avoid an edit war. DocEss 19:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jean-Philippe"
 * Why did you put a message on my talk page and then one here too? Now I have to answer again o.O Since you just copy-pasted I'll do the same :)

"It's like I said in my edit summary, you tried to introduce your pov by inserting a weasel word into the article. Be real, PETA is as mainstream as it gets, else it wouldn't have the broad support it has and be classified as a non-profit under the law. Don't try and patronize me by telling me not to start an edit war and then immediately reverting yourself. Jean-Philippe 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"


 * The notion that PETA is radical is pretty fringe-y. As I said in my summary, if we call any non-centrist group "radical," the word is going to be useless. IronDuke  20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's better. Let us discuss. The Concise Oxford English dictionary that I have here says that radical (in this regard I must assume political, right?) is defined as 'advocating thorough reform; holding extreme political views; revolutionary.' Now how does advocating that nobody eats, wears, rides or tests animals not claissify as thorough reform? Explain it to us all, all non-1 million PETA members, who love a good steak? Go.DocEss 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By your definition, Republicans could be tagged as radicals, as could Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, etc. For WP purposes, we don't define what is and is not radical -- POV terms like that are rarely used, and AFAIK always cited when they are used. And I'm not a PETA member or affiliated with any animal rights group in any way, FWIW. I'm just interested in the topic. IronDuke  20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The only definition I have is the one I qoted and I didn't write it - Oxford dictionary people wrote it. And, no, repuclicans or any of those yankee groups yopu mentioned would not be included in this definition by any means --- thorough going reform, revolution, extreme views? I don't think so (except perhaps the greens). Now, back to the point: please tell me how PETA, advocating that nobody eats, wears, rides or tests animals, not claissify as thorough reform?DocEss 20:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You previously linked to many more definitions than "thorough reform." That is not a WP definition of radical, I promise you. IronDuke  20:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. Stating that " blah blah is not a WP definition of blah blah, I promise you" is not very clever on two fronts. Firstly, what Wikpedia and its sister projects state is up for debate and editing (whih is the whoile point of it!). Secondly, you assurance is misplaced and flat wrong. Ya. The Wiktionary definition is: "Thorough going or fundamental." Looky here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/radical. Silly rabbit - look before you leap.DocEss 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I wasn't cleverer. As I say, there are many definitions of "Radical." One definition I've seen here is "atomic or molecular species with unpaired electrons on an otherwise open shell configuration." Does PETA fit that? But seriously, if you're trying to argue that "fundamental" things are radical, you'll have your work cut out for you slapping the word "radical" on everything at WP that is fundamental or "thorough-going." But ask around, get some more opinions. Maybe your definition will win the day. IronDuke  20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh goodness gracious be sensible. It is a radical movement that advocates that everyone should wear green everyday, or that scientists not be allowed to vote, or that vegetarians should be made into soylent green or that people should not eat animals. Logic dictates that relevant definition of radical be applied to PETA. Now, let us ask around, since you were unable to axplain why PETA's advocating that nobody eats, wears, rides or tests animals should not be classified as thorough reform, as extreme political view or as revolutionary. How do we start a vote thingy?DocEss 20:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You do it by starting one, plain and simple :P But in any case WP doesn't have votes per se, only means be which discussion is furthered or consensus is identified. A vote that as been initiated as a mean to achieve consensus can be simply ignored, afaik. Jean-Philippe 21:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll start one. IronDuke  21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we've discussed similar issues when using 'terrorist' with regards to the ALF. We cannot simply call PETA 'radical' or the ALF 'terrorists'. We can say 'xyz think that PETA are radical'.-Localzuk (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're just avoiding the issue. It's hard to assume good faith here, since my last comment got answered by a nazi comparison as well as what I consider personal attacks. Radical in this context is a weasel word. While I wholeheartily agree with you on the question as weither or not PETA endgame agenda advocate a radical shift from current societal norm, it doesn't change the fact that the means by which those are achieved aren't. Advertisement campaigns and peaceful demonstrations don't appear to me radical to me, but I've got a bias toward PETA. Anyway, it's my pov, and all that is fairly beside the point since I'm pretty sure Wikipedia editors don't get to pass this kind of judgment in their articles. Jean-Philippe 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm judging nothing. I am merely stating that radical is the proper word. Please stay on target here while we figure out the word 'radical', ya?DocEss 21:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll
Question: Should PETA be characterized as a "radical" organization?


 * Oppose It is not for us to make such designations and even if it were, PETA would fail that test, being relatively mainstream. IronDuke  21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree The definition of the word radical is defined in the Concise Oxford English dictionary as 'advocating thorough reform; holding extreme political views; revolutionary.' PETA advocates that nobody eats, wears, rides or tests animals --- that classifies as thorough reform, extremism and revolutionary.DocEss 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree Giving animals rights is pretty extreme. Heck, if you beleive that rights and responsibilities must balance, then giving animals rights is downright loopy, as that would require domesticating all animals.  After all, you have to make all those nasty, evil meat eating predators become vegans as well, otherwise they're above the law...  scot 21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The discussion seems to me to be ongoing, so there's really no rush to have a vote as of yet. Jean-Philippe 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a "vote," in the sense that it is non-binding. EssDoc requested it, and I think it can give us a sense of where we are right now in the discussion. That doesn't mean the discussion is over, however the straw poll goes. IronDuke  21:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it. Non-binding is not an issue. Knowledge. Let us have an agressive debate here. Thuper thtuff.DocEss 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We both agree on what a vote on WP is, no question there. I'm just saying we'll be giving DocEss the wrong idea here, that a vote can be used as as mean to achieve consensus. Jean-Philippe 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree Their philosophy is marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional and therefore clearly "radical". Their activities, however, should not be called "radical" unless they include acts of civil disobedience or vandalism (like throwing red paint on mink coat to ruin it, or breaking into a lab to release the animals) - or if PETA itself advocates such actions. --Uncle Ed 21:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't want to mislead users with "radical", any more than we want them misled by attempts to blur the distinction between "animal welfare" (we love our pets) and "animal rights" (we abstain from ownership or use). --Uncle Ed 21:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree To meet NPOV guidelines, of course, we should provide a reference of someone who says it's "radical".  Hmmm...  but who should we pick?  Let's see...  picking a name completely at random....   How about its founder and president, Ingrid Newkirk? “Probably everything we do is a publicity stunt ... we are not here to gather members, to please, to placate, to make friends. We're here to hold the radical line.” (USA Today, September 3, 1991) — Omegatron 02:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Makes me happy. JoshuaZ 02:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as it's cited and sourced, no objection whatsoever. --Ramdrake 17:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was in the article a while ago. It was removed, of course... — Omegatron 18:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As well it should have been. Being cited and sourced is well and good, but WP isn't a list of quotes (or a list of whatever you can copy-paste from an attack site where your quotes came from). Proper context is primordial, such as the "even if animal research resulted in a cure for aids, we'd be against it", which we used in section about the aids research "coalition" . Jean-Philippe 19:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Too bad people would rather delete information than add proper context. — Omegatron 20:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Quotes isn't information. Jean-Philippe 20:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

View that PETA is "radical" in some way
Steven Milloy (who is notable enough to have a wikipedia article) wrote:


 * ...the bulk of TeachKind's educational efforts are actually crafted so as to make children believe that everyday behaviors, such as eating a diet that contains meat or animal products, are unmistakably, unequivocally acts of animal cruelty.

He refers to:
 * ... PETA's own radical, catch-all definition of what constitutes "animal cruelty."

This is in the context of Milloy's explanation of how animal cruelty traditionally has meant torture but has been expanded by PETA. --Uncle Ed 14:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you can quote that Steven Milloy (insert reason for notability) has "a radical definition of what constitutes "animal cruelty".--Ramdrake 14:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, I'm not saying that Milloy has a radical definition. Milloy is saying that PETA has a "radical definition". Anyway, I've taken off the inuse tag so revert if you want. But I was hoping we could collaborate a bit. --Uncle Ed 15:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Radical = POV
Why did no-one take note of what I said a few minutes ago? We cannot use the word radical unless it is referenced and cited as someone/some group saying this! It is against the POV policy if we do. Regardless of the outcome of any such straw poll or discussion on the meaning of radical we cannot use it. The fact that there is so much disagreement on it shows it is a POV statement!-Localzuk (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do a web search for "peta" and "radical" and see what you find. Here's just one example:  http://fishing.about.com/od/fishermensside/a/aa052905peta_2.htm  scot 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which bring us back to my initial summary describing the introduction of radical as a weasel word. If you would like to include this editorial be example, you should improve it as per the suggestion on Avoid weasel words. It would read something along of the line of Ronnie Garrison, in an editorial for about.com about freshwater fishing, called PETA's agenda "radical and ridiculous". Jean-Philippe 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can say that party X called PETA 'radical' or almost any other adjective, if it's properly sourced and otherwise relevant. You cannot just say, while describing PETA, that it is radical, as that would be WP:POV. WP itself must remain neutral and not use negative or positive adjectives or opinions itself about a subject. Crum375 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Slight disagreement, if an organization is commonly called "radical" and self-identified as "radical" it would probably be ok to call it radical. But I agree, we need a citation from an RS. If we could find a major newspaper calling them radical, like the NYT, I would probably be fine with calling them radical with just a citation and considering that NPOV. In any event, this is not something that can be decided by a straw poll. JoshuaZ 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Radical is a loaded, pejorative term. Organizations identifying themself as such are rare and they don't use it lightly. PETA isn't one of them. Jean-Philippe 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My tuppence' worth: "radical" is also a matter of degree and comparison, IMHO. If PETA were to call itself an "animal welfare group", I'd call them radicals. They stand out from other animal welfare groups (ASPCA' HSUS) in their views. However, compared to other "animal rights groups" (ALF, ELF), they are relatively tame, almost "mainstream". To me, it very much depends on what you compare it with. In conclusion, as an animal rights group, I don't consider PETA radical.--Ramdrake 23:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So this once again all confirms what I said. We should only include it if it is in the format of 'According toFred blogs/GiantGroup Peta is a radical group' - anything else is POV and weasel wordy.-Localzuk (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just thinking here, but if we are doing the USA article, for instance, should we say that it has been called 'the great devil' by some party X? How big or notable should party X be for it to be cited at all? Do we include that info in a special section of 'enemies of the US'? Do we also include other parties that praise the US and call it land of our dreams or whatever? Are all these adjectives absolutely needed? And where do they go? I ask it in the context of another article as I think that the answers should be standard and consistent across WP, and stepping back may help (at least me) gain perspective. Crum375 23:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the measure of when a group is relevant is one that needs to be discussed in each case. For example, if a small, relatively unknown group were to call Peta radical, I would argue it is irrelevant. If it were someone like 'Animal Aid' or the like then it would be pertinent. Likewise in the USA, if it were a country or a large terrorist group calling the USA 'the devil' then it would be included but if it were '6 guys in a pub who call themselves 'the new police'' or something then it wouldn't be.-Localzuk (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds logical to me. Crum375 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What do these radicals want?
We need to highlight the connection between PETA and the larger current of which it as part:


 * The deep ecology and the animal rights movements are helping to change consciousness, away from human-centeredness and the automatic assumptions of "resource rights" to exploit wildlife and the natural world. Both movements pose major threats to the continuation of industrial capitalist society and the status quo.

Is this just some crackpot POV, or a verifiable school of thought? What's the connection between PETA's campaigning and, say, radical environmentalism, Environmentalism or the Environmental movement? --Uncle Ed 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it's just a crackpot--we do need to stop the continuation of industrial capitalist society and the status quo ;) Beyond that, PETA isn't really radical in terms of the animal right's movement. They're very tame. Radical would be ALF or the Justice Department. The Ungovernable   Force  04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * PETA is not even slightly radical within the movement. On the contrary, it is regarded as staid and middle of the road. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons
PETA opponents Murry and Osorio say this quote illustrates Newkirk's views. Derbyshire said she was "famous" for saying it. What do PETA's supporters say is the context of this quote? --Uncle Ed 19:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Philippe, the article quotes Newkirk's 'rat is a boy' statement. Why not the 'Billions chickens slaughtered' statement? Why are they different? Crum375 20:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They're not, but WP isn't a list of quotes. One is good enough to illustrate a point (in this case, peta's president view). Where do we draw the line? Jean-Philippe 20:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that we shouldn't have a list of, say, 10 quotes, or even 5 may be too much. But 2 or 3 are still OK as long as they are not redundant and as long as they are important to illustrate Newkirk's and PETA's views. I think both the Rat and the Chickens are in that category. Crum375 20:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There's entire lists of controversial statement by Ingrid and plenty of pov pusher waiting at the corner for an excuse to include as many of them as they can. This article is about PETA, and as easy as it might be for them to attack PETA through it's president, it only detracts from the subject of the article. Jean-Philippe 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I for one am not a POV-pusher, and I agree with you that too many quotes are unnecessary. I do think that Newkirk and PETA are intimately related, and her public statements are representative of the views of the organization as a whole. I think the Chickens quote is very important to help understand Newkirk's as well as PETA's views. In a way, that quote is clearer to the average reader than the Rat quote. I think both are famous and needed. Not having them will detract from the quality and utility of the article. Crum375 20:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of attacking PETA through its president. It's more a matter of contrasting PETA's views with other views. Our readers would like to know where PETA stands on the issues it addresses, and its president's statements are pertinent. If PETA (through Newkirk) compares people to chicken or rats, that's relevant.

PETA takes the perspective that humans and animals are on the same 'level' ethically or morally, and the article should not conceal this. The article should not praise PETA for its stand; nor should it condemn them for its stand. It should merely describe what it stands for as clearly as possible.

I for one would like to know whether PETA intends to bring humans down or animals up as it aims to bring them into the same "moral community". --Uncle Ed 21:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I now realize that the Chickens statement appears also later in the article. I think one appearance is enough. I leave it to others to decide which one to leave in. My own inclination is to leave in the later one, as there it appears after quotes from Jews who imply support of that view, making it seem more WP:NPOV and less anti-Semitic. Crum375 21:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * An article should definitely not be a list of quotes. Each quote should be worked into the text to mean something. Otherwise, this belongs in Wikiquote.--Ramdrake 23:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, you appear to be here to push a POV rather than write an article. The article states clearly in several places that PETA is an animal rights organization, not animal welfare. It says that PETA opposes any form of "use" of animals, or any sense of animals being property. It says that PETA supports the ALF. It says that PETA's president believes that rats, dogs, pigs, and humans are all mammals, and therefore all feel pain, and the point of her saying that is as part of the argument that all pain is morally relevant, and equally so, which is a central tenet of the animal rights movement.


 * These are not radical ideas within the animal rights movement. On the contrary, they are perfectly standard, and the article makes clear that PETA is part of the animal rights movement. Therefore, I'm unclear about the point of saying that in a thousand different ways. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, SV. I'm not trying to start a fight. I think I'll go out and put more seed in my bird feeder now. See ya. :-)--Uncle Ed 01:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuance
Someone has tried to separate out some of the criticism from the first few sections again. The whole point of writing it the way I did is so that criticism and praise are intertwined throughout the article, each explaining the other, rather than having two pro- and anti POV magnets. Please don't keep trying to create sections that are entirely positive or entirely negative. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." &mdash; Jimbo Wales. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, it makes more sense to put "Campaigns" and "Some campaigns" together. There's also no reason not to give "Holocaust on your plate" it's own heading. You say you don't want to have criticisms separate but that's not what you're reverting. It looks like your trying to hide the "Holocaust on your plate" information by denying it a heading even though it has more material than many of the sections in the article. Are you a member of PETA? If not, I can't understand the reason behind your edit since it looks like you are trying to hide the "Holocaust" information by denying it a header. If the Lettuce lady campaign gets it's own header there's no reason for "Holocaust on a Plate" not to since it's PETA's most notorious campaign. 68.100.120.34 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's because it was an important campaign that I had it in the main section. The "Other campaigns" section is a remnant from before the rewrite, and in it, I left the unimportant campaigns. Any significant criticism and praise should be incorporated into the main part of the text. Please don't assume people are trying to "hide" things. I am trying to ensure that a good article is written. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you say, please, which IP addresses and accounts you're editing Wikipedia as? It's getting hard to follow your edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Double Picture
The picture of the two women in lettuce bikinis is on the page twice. Is that really neccessary? BlueWiz7 18:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course! Actually, no it's not, thanks for noticing and removing one of them. Keep two pictures of the guy though ;) Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 20:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

PETP
Any idea on putting the "counter spoof (critisism)" against PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants? Its the same as the Meat Ball Spagetti creator as a counter for creationism. 69.158.18.101
 * If you want to start a new article on this (PETP) site, you may do so. However, I don't think the PETA article is the right place for it. --Ramdrake 23:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So now the PETA article is not an appropriate place to mention parodies of PETA? — Omegatron 07:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say there's a question of notability and relevance involved. We're already mentioning People Eating Tasty Animal in our timeline by example, thanks to it's domain name dispute with PETA. Dunno the guidelines exactly. Did you at least look at their (non-fonctioning) website? Maybe it's just me, but I think it downright suck, for lack of a better word ^^ Anyway, when it get's it's own article, I guess that's when we'll discuss it again :P Jean-Philippe 07:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the issue boils down to a question of verifiability via reliable sources. The domain name dispute with People Eating Tasty Animals is documented by multiple non-trivial news stories in the main stream and technical press.  PETP, on the other hand, is documented on a personal website hosted by a free web hosting service.  It seems fairly clear as to which of these meets the Wikipedia guidelines and policies as to article content. --Allen3 talk 10:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Penn & Teller opposition
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7562800910863882593 206.156.242.36 14:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd call that more of an expose than opposition...they seemed to be pretty diligent about citing sources and laying out facts. Quite entertaining, too, especially the chickens eating the KFC...  scot 15:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro
Someone has been constantly removing important information and twisting meaning of sentences. I'm not going to list them all since it's a waste of time, but some examples are; from "almost exclusively by the contributions of its stated one million" to "and funded by its members". Not true. "The organization has been criticized for some of its campaigns, for the actions of some of its employees regarding their treatment of animals" was changed to "PETA has been criticized for its campaigns, for the actions of its employees," obviously an attempt at introducing his POV into the article by removing important adjectives. The example list 2 employee out of almost 200!

Obviously no research or care was put with those edits, but someone who's way more experienced than me reminded me that "misguided or ill-considered" edits aren't considered vandalism. He told me to discuss it here on the talk page. So hum yay, I don't see why those edits are necessary, let alone justifiable. Jean-Philippe 21:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, the problem being that there are so many of them it's hard to straigthen everything short of a full revert. Considering the intricateness of the edit and the inappropriateness of most of it, I would support a revert.--Ramdrake 22:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm on the verge of requesting semi-protection. The anon editing on this page is becoming very disruptive. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. You guys are so wedded to your own POV that even a relatively content-neutral edit gets called "POV"!. This WP:LEAD does not use summary style, is full of weasel words, and is simply written poorly. Here is a change-by-change explanation:
 * "funded almost exclusively by the contributions of its stated one million members" -> "is funded by its members" -- simplification. If you think the lead needs to say "1 million members", then say that.  PETA is member-funded (rather than, e.g. foundation- or government-funded) - can't see how this is POV;


 * Yes, we want to add that it has a million members. This is a good way to do it. SlimVirgin (talk)  03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "affiliated offices in Canada, France, UK, Germany, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, and Taiwan." -> "affiliated offices in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere." -- clear violation of summary style to list these in the lead -- a long list adds nothing to the point that PETA is a global organization. Also a simplifying NPOV edit;


 * It has nothing to do with summary style, and anyway, summary style is not policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "the killing of animals regarded as pests" -> "pest control" -- this is what its wiki-linked to! The killing of animals regarded as pests is a long-winded way of saying pest control, and its spelled out in the article.  Again, summary style!!


 * Pest control is a POV way of putting it. They are not pests as a matter of fact, but of opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "aims to inform the public of its position through" -> "activities include" -- "aims to inform the public" ?? what an awkward piece of double-speak. What is advertising other than public influence/information.  Is there any chance of misunderstanding in the shorter, pithier wording??


 * Well, no, it tries to inform the public. It rarely succeeds. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "criticized for some of its campaigns, for the actions of some of its employees" -- "some of", "some of" -- clear weasel words. Virtually all of PETA's campaigns have been criticized, but that's not the point.  "Some of" is a useless weasel phrase, and isn't needed.  Again, the meaning does not change;


 * It has not been criticized for all its campaigns or for the actions of all its employees. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The only change that could be argued is the identification in the LEAD of ALF as a terrorist org. It has been so designated, and we include that in the lead for many, many other orgs, so it seems appropriate here, as it is important to the summary style. So, don't just revert -- try to read the change and then read WP:LEAD and then take a writing class. Not every copyedit is a challenge to your sacred POV. -- 207.118.2.207 23:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This article isn't about the ALF. This intro is perfectly consistent with WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've read your changes alright. It's not copyedit, it's removal of information and POV pushing excused by twisting a policy's intent. I'm no wikilawyer, but I'd call this gaming the system. Jean-Philippe 03:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User:207.118.2.207 is, who is trolling because I blocked his most recent sockpuppet. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

ALF
Could people please stop trying to add information about the ALF to the lead about PETA? You wouldn't add details about PETA to the introduction of ALF. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem at all with your current version, in fact I think it's better not to get into ALF details in the lead. But if the reference to 'Terrorist' is mentioned, the mitigating factors belong there too. Crum375 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it's only the ALF that says it's non-violent and takes every precaution etc etc, so the mitigation would be a POV magnet for someone else wanting to "correct" it. Best to leave both points for discussion in the ALF article. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Crum375 03:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've put the detail about Singer's Treblinka quote having been spoken by one of his characters into a footnote, because that's a detail about Singer, not PETA. The important point is that it's a very famous quote and is attributed to Singer, because he wrote it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Employees
Someone added that they have 100 employees using this as a source, but I can't see where it says 100. All I can see is an entry in the table on the right saying 101-500, which is an odd way to give the figure. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It used to say "almost 200". Someone (anon IP) added to it, so I researched it and the best I found was that source and that 101-500 range, so I changed it to "over 100" and removed the  . Crum375 11:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's simply the most reliable estimate currently available. Maybe I'm the one who added it earlier, I remember researching it. Talk about a coincidence, I was currently browing another of their entry in my search for an headcount for Physicians_Committee_for_Responsible_Medicine. Anyway I was reading their (PETA) 2005 irs report about an hour ago looking exactly for that, but now I can't access it anymore, I get redirected to justgive.org in some browser cache mixup. Jean-Philippe 04:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay what I was referring to was [GuideStar.org], it's the people who justgive.org and network for good borrow their content from. It's the site you have to go to consult irs form records, but you need to be registered. Anyway, doesn't really help much I guess. Jean-Philippe 05:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I recall seeing 200 somewhere, but now I can't find it again. I'll take another look around later. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * According to this financial report, they have 187 paid staff members. Also, according to , 53% of them earn between 14.5K and 28K. BigDT 14:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good job o/ Jean-Philippe 21:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work finding the source. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust on your Plate
Why did someone delete the heading for "Holocaust on your Plate"? This is a prominent campaign and there's enough material for a subsection. 172.210.202.216 04:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On the subject, I've reorganized the section 3 paragraphs into 2. See the diff for all the changes, but the thing worth mentioning here is that I've removed an editorial comment.. I hesitated a bit cause I figured I'd be accused of silencing criticism, but I felt it really had no weight as compared to what the ADL did, and didn't add anything new while making the paragraph longer. Anyway, feel free to re-insert it if you feel it add something the ADL doesn't already cover. Jean-Philippe 10:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see which comment you removed. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 10:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yay I know, I was hoping the diff would be clearer. Its -- Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute wrote in The San Francisco Chronicle that: "Making odious moral equivalencies between animal husbandry and the worst crimes against humans has become a PETA trademark." -- Also worth of note is that I've removed a reference to Singer grandson supporting the campaign since it didn't seem appropriate/pov. Jean-Philippe 10:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Philippe removed the following sourced material:
 * Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute wrote in The San Francisco Chronicle'' that: "Making odious moral equivalencies between animal husbandry and the worst crimes against humans has become a PETA trademark."

and
 * ''The Anti-Defamation League urged animal-rights groups to avoid holocaust comparisons, saying that "the issue should stand on its own merits, rather than rely on inappropriate comparisons that only serve to trivialize the suffering of the six million Jews and others who died at the hands of the Nazis."

There is no justifiable reason to remove the above. It is sourced material and the first part shows that it's not just the ADL that found the campaign outrageous. Please stop silencing crticism and removing material you think hurts PETA. 85.159.88.60 17:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh, I don't see why you copy pasted the first one, I already did ^.^
 * I think the reason I gave is perfectly valid, it's the same criticsm as that of the Anti-Defamation League, an editorial comment which has no weight compared to the reprimand of the ADL. The second portion I deleted is a no-brainer, it's simply not about peta. Check the reference. Jean-Philippe 22:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone created a content fork using old material which is already under discussion here. I've created a temporary redirect and left a message on the editor's talk page hoping he will come and discuss it here. I think the creation was innapropriate since it used contested material. I'm also against it since it seemed to fit in nicely with the article's narration, but it's really a subject open for discussion. It's a long article so it's reasonable to fork some of the content I suppose, altough I'd say mainspace material shouldn't be. Jean-Philippe 00:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there is enough information for this article to be split out, with a brief precis here. This would also set the scene for articles about other well-known campaign ("I'd rather etc...") to have their own articles. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 05:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be spun off into its own article. Several other articles point to Holocaust on your Plate, redirecting them here does not help wikipedia readers since they have to search through the article to look for the Holocaust on your Plate content. Farnsworth J. 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * At the current moment, there is neither:
 * Any article text in PETA about the holocaust comparison; nor,
 * Any article text in Holocaust on your plate (which is now just a redirect to PETA
 * What is the consensus of editors here? Should Wikipedia have any information about this campaign? --Uncle Ed 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it should. It would be biased to not cover it. — Omegatron 18:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are three paragraphs about the Holocaust comparison. Why do you say there are none? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry! I missed it, because I was looking in the TOC instead of using my browser's Find command. There's actually much more info on the HoyP campaign than I'd care to read. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I will now delete the section I added.... --Uncle Ed 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And ... self-revert done. --Uncle Ed 18:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

After discussion with Slim on two other pages, I think the best thing to do would also be the hardest: create a spin-off article on Animal rights and the Holocaust. This would combine material from PETA as well as from Animal_rights.

It's easier to propose this than to do it, so don't hold your breath. When I have a spare hour or so, I might try it. Until then, it goes on my to-do list.

Thanks to all for creative collaboration. Wikipedia works best when we help each other in good faith! :-) --Uncle Ed 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I've started it, so good luck! Animal rights and the Holocaust SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't there be a link from the PETA article to Animal rights and the Holocaust? Otherwise, what's the point in having an offshoot article nobody can find? Nrets 01:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the Holocaust on your Plate campaign is important enough to have its own section in the PETA article, particularly since other, less important campaigns like the "Lettuce ladies", have their own sections. Farnsworth J. 04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's because the Lettuce Ladies aren't important that they have their own subsection in "Some PETA campaigns" and aren't one of the issues that's discussed as part of the main text. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 11:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus was vegetarian section
Given that Jesus was not a vegetarian, and that it is so stated even in the reference site for that section, I would remove the entire section, or rephrase the title and contents. If someone thinks differently, please speak up. Crum375 01:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If I had to rephrase it, assuming that site is the only source for the 'campaign', I would say that "PETA believes that Christian values of compassion extend to all living creatures and are inconsistent with cruelty to animals." Anything beyond that walks a slippery slope of POV-ness and arguments. Crum375 02:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 10:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Could we bring up Saint Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals? --Uncle Ed 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Message from
"Animals only have the right to be tasty"

THAT is the POV of billions of people. Any alteration in the belief is, by definition, radical. There was certainly no consensus the PETA's being radical is questioned. They are radical because their pholiosphy is radical. Why do people assume radical is negative? Lech Welesa was a radical! He was a radical because he called for the end of communism - a wholesale change for Poland. Marks & Engels were radicals because they called for the onset of communism. Anyone wanting wholsesale change at a fundamental level is a radical. It is a simple statement of fact, not an insult, just as a anyone who doesn't want whoelsale change is called a conservative. DocEss 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have moved your message from my Talk page to here, as I think it is not a personal issue. My own response is as follows: I consider the adjective 'radical' as an expression of opinion, and possibly a pejorative. As such, I think for WP to remain neutral it should only include such an adjective if it is used or preferred by the subject of the article. Unless this is shown to be the case here, I would refrain from using it. Also, I suspect that having a million supporting members means you are not unique in your views, if that is one of your definitions. Crum375 20:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I think adding "X has been called Y by Z" is OK, assuming that it is relevant to the article about X, Z is notable and important, and the source is reliable. Crum375 20:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But PETA defines itself as radical according to Newkirk (We're here to hold the radical line). Radical is NOT perjorative it is just a major deviation from normalcy.L0b0t 02:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On the assumption of non-trolling, or for the benefit of others otherwise: even if Newkirk said that, that doesn't necessarily mean that she considers PETA as a whole a 'radical organization'. Also, a lot of people, maybe most, would consider being described 'a major deviant from normal' as offensive. Crum375 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Inferring offense in something doesn't make that something less true. Newkirk did say that, it used to be in the article.  You are correct in that I don't know if she considers PETA radical, but just as I can't speak for Newkirk, neither can you speak for 3 billion something people.  What do mean by non-trolling?L0b0t 03:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I speak for no one but myself, but I try my best to follow WP guidelines and rules. Assuming for the moment that there are 3 billion people who hold an opinion that is counter to PETA, and even consider PETA radical, still does not allow WP to call it radical. For all we know there may be another billion people who consider its views very reasonable. In fact, for almost a billion Hindus eating animals is against their religious beliefs and there may be lots more non-Hindus with similar views. But even if there were only a few such believers, I would still consider the adjective 'radical' a pejorative, and WP cannot label an organization or person as such unless it is totally undisputed or the subject clearly prefers that label. To my knowledge this is not the case here. Crum375 13:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry when I mentioned speaking for billions I was reffering to your comment about most people finding radical an offensive term. As for the Indians, what about their use of work animals, if PETA gets their panties in a knot over a little circus they better stay away from the subcontinent, talk about beating elephants.  BTW most Hindus are not vegetarian they just don't eat beef, some of the best chicken, lamb and seafood dishes I've had were in India.  The vegetarian Krsna sect is not Hindu it is inspired by some Hindu teachings.  There are about 900 million Hindus worldwide not a billion in India.  I'm sorry you find the word radical offensive, there are many things that offend me as well; MTV, young people, SUVs, rock and or roll music ;) I guess we will both have to suck it up and drive on.L0b0t 14:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As a correction, only 30% of Hindu are vegetarian according to this. Of course it's still almost as many people as the total popluation of the US. My point is that vegeterianism (and related respect for all life forms) is not radical or extreme, and fairly common in the sub-continent. Crum375 17:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * May I ask, once again, what the purpose of this debate is? If Newkirk says 'Peta is a radical organisation' then it could be included as such: According to Ingrid Newkirk, PETA is a radical organisation. However, if she does not say that, making any assumptions further than what she said is not allowed as it is OR and POV. Stating anything about 'x billion people oppose PETA and hold a view that they are radical' is not acceptable unless you can find a reliable, verifiable source for it. Any assumptions, no matter how obvious you think they are, are simply not welcome in any Wikipedia article. -Localzuk (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What is so troubling about the word radical that everyone spits the bit when he hears it and rears up against it? It is neither a positive word nor a negative one and has nothing to do with popularity. The word only describes the relative amount of change that the group desires. Look, let us stick to dictionary definitions of words so that we may use them correctly. Anybody's opinion about radical's or even any word's meaning is wholly irrelevant. In this regard, Lech Welesa (sp?) was a radical because he called for wholesale, fundamental change, the end of communism in Poland. Lenin was a radical because he called for wholesale, fundamental change, the beginning of communism in Russia. The introduction of the gutta percha golf ball was radical. The inventions of the motor car and aeroplane were radical. Mastery of fire was radical. I can list dozens of radical things and people and still not be offering any value judgements. Similarly, PETA is radical because it calls for wholeseale, fundamental change. The definition of the word radical from the Concise Oxford English dictionary is: 'advocating thorough reform; holding extreme political views; revolutionary.' PETA advocates that nobody eats, wears, rides or tests animals --- that classifies as thorough reform, extremism and revolutionary. No value judgement, no assessment, no analysis, no emotion --- just a raw definition. Simple story that you needlessly complicate with emotion. I submit y'allll are lacking in essential fatty acids and proteins from not eating enough Bambi, Nemo and Fido.DocEss 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See my comments above. If you were in India you would be less inclined to call PETA 'radical'. Crum375 17:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ummm Ya, I guess you're right. If I were an Indian and someone started advocating we eat ole Bessy, then I'd be a radical and PETA-like thoughts would be the norm. So, from the standpoint of being a global orgaisation, PETA is likewise radical. You see? Your counterpoint only serves to support the PETA=radical argument. Radicalism is a matter of distance from the norm.DocEss 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not following your logic as to why PETA would be radical in India, where similar views are held by 30% of Hindus. In any case, as Localzuk mentioned above, WP cannot declare anyone or anything radical unless it is properly sourced and undisputed. I don't see that here. Crum375 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand --- I said anyone advocating a burgers and t-bone policy in India would be a radical, in India. Why? Because doing so would be advocating a wholesale, fundamental change for Hindus in India. Now, anyone advocating that nobody anywhere eats, wears, rides or tests animals is a radical (notwithstanding the fact the Hindus might agree). You miss the point: it is a matter of how much change is being advocated, and PETA advocates so much change that they are radicals by definition. Sourced? Fine - I'll have someone publish an article and I'll get back to you.DocEss 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand WP policies: after your friend publishes the said article, assuming it is accepted for publication in a prominent and respectable journal, all we would be able to say is "PETA has been called radical by X". We still would not be able to just say: "PETA is a radical organization" as that would be WP expressing its own POV which is not neutral. Crum375 18:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Crum you are missing the point completely. Radical is a neutral word that you for some reason are INFERRING to be POV or anti-PETA.  As an aside if 1/3 of the worlds Hindu population is vegetarian then 2/3 are not veg. so by definition most Hindus are not vegetarian.  Thirty percent of Hindus is still about 28,444,215 less than the population of the United States.  How did you correct me?L0b0t 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I corrected myself, not you, that only 30% of Hindus are strict vegeterian, not all as I implied. And radical means 'extreme' - it can be viewed as a pejorative. In any case, as it is disputed, it must be supported by reliable sources. Crum375 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Crum, I too quickly assumed you were talking at me. No worries.L0b0t 23:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * DocESS, do you understand that using a word such as radical must come with a citation and be used in a style such as those shown? We cannot state PETA is radical, nor can we say that al qaeda are terrorists, hezbolla are freedom fighters/terrorists etc... This discussion is not going anywhere and I think it should end, unless it changes to a discussion about actually adding a citation such as those types suggested.-Localzuk (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Localzuk, did you even read the Al-Qaeda article before you posted that last? We do call Al-Qaeda RADICAL.  This seems to be a problem for leftists more so than for centrists or conservatives, the need to give equal weight to all opinions without regard for facts.  While I tend to think this is done to provide a feeling of fairness or impartiality, in many cases it makes one look naive and unlettered.  Yes, I agree we should cite sources for adjectives but not because some readers or editors don't fully understand the English language or because someone might feel bad if their pet cause is called radical.  The idea of a heliocentric world was so radical at the time that it took the church 400 years to admit it.  The germ theory of disease was very radical in a time when people thought illness was caused by bad smells.  I have often found that those who get the most upset when their world view, philosophy, beliefs are challenged are the ones whose ideas rest on the shakiest intellectual foundation.L0b0t 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not bring personal beliefs into this argument! I have not stated whether I want it included or not, what my views on calling PETA radical or not, or whether I think it is a good or bad word to use. My statement has been simple. We cannot include the term 'radical' without a reference stating who says they are. With regards the use of 'radical' in the Al Qaeda article, you can expect me to remove that use of the word when I get a chance and post this exact same argument on the talk page there. Please keep your personal views on the 'intellectual foundation' of philosophy/beliefs/views to yourself as it is not wanted here. We want facts and facts only. Why can't you accept that we should not be using a word such as 'radical' to describe any group? I personally think that the idea of building new roads all over the UK is radical, or the sending of troops to iraq to back up our existing troops is radical, or believing that eating meat is ok is radical. These are personal beliefs and as such have no place here. I use them only as examples to show that everyone has different views and as such we must avoid using words that can be construed as giving Wikipedia an opinion on a matter as per WP:POV, WP:NOR and WP:V.
 * That is exactly my point. We should not bring personal beliefs into this argument, one of those being the personal belief that the word "radical" is pejorative. Argument should be backed up with fact not solipsism or emotion.  Fact: PETA advocates not using our animal friends for anything, not food, not scientific modeling, nor fashion.  Fact: the majority of the English speaking world (This is the English WP.)does not endorse PETA's viewpoint.  Therefore PETA is radical in that they advocate a wholesale change from the status quo.  That is neither good nor bad just a descriptive adjective.  If someone INFERS some sort of insult from that then they need to consult a dictionary and grow up.  Of course personal views on the intellectual underpinnings of our arguments are welcome here, this is a discussion page, that's why we have discussion pages.  As for those things you listed that you believe to be radical they are not they are the status quo and you are the radical for advocating change.  THAT'S NOT A BAD THING!

Our neutrality policy prohibits us from directly labeling any group or person as 'radical'. We may rely on a reliable source stating that the group is radical, but in even that case we can only say 'X has been called radical by Y', not 'X is radical'. And BTW, lots of people, in India and in the rest of the world, read English, and the English WP is meant to be read by everyone, not just people in English speaking countries, or reflecting the views of English speakers. In any case, neutrality applies world wide by definition. Crum375 16:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I don't know what happened there, but somehow I managed to wipe half the page instead of posting my actual response... Anyhow...
 * What I did say was that the term radical comes with various different meaning ranging from 'extremist' to 'revolutionary'. This leads to the idea that different people will interpret the word differently, thereby making it a useless word. To use it would be to give Wikipedia an opinion (as stated before).
 * I also stated that personal opinions should only be included in the talk page to forward an investigation into an issue. Your comment regarding thinking 'leftists' etc... do not come under this and are not appropriate. See the guidelines on this. (Bah! That response was nowhere near as good as my one which vanished and took the page with it.)-Localzuk (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yawn. Localzuk is trying to tell us that we cannot use adjectives to describe groups or causes. I hope he understands that I'm now going to go delete all adjectives regarding PETA and animal rights and all of these movements whether these adjectives are postiive or negative or neutral.DocEss 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Making such a WP:POINT, especially when you have just indicated you plan to do so, would be inadvisable.  Rockpock e  t  18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again I must point out that other people's misinterpretation or inference of offense is a personal problem for those people, not for the rest of the English speaking (or reading) world. We should not be dumbing down our language just to accommodate some people's misunderstanding of language.  The adjective "RADICAL" is not pejorative if someone INFERS that it is that is that person's problem, suck it up and drive on.L0b0t 18:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so here are 2 dictionary definitions of the word extremist: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative" and revolutionary: markedly new or introducing radical change; "a revolutionary discovery"; "radical political views". So that means, that using the definitions set out in a dictionary (princeton wordnet, ie. go to google and search for 'define:radical'). That means that the word is completely open to interpretation and using it in an article is a bad idea. -Localzuk (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How is any of the above open to interpretation?  All of the examples you listed mean a marked difference from the status quo.  What is "bad" or POV about that?  If anyone can find anything pejorative from Localzuk's suggestion here  I would love to hear about it.L0b0t 21:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of those definitions are pejorative. Note also, the context the term is used is used by the reader to interpret its definition. On its own, the word "radical" can have a number of interpretations; used in a good sentence its meaning can, and should, be prefectly clear.  Rockpock e  t  21:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe - PETA wants to radically alter the social contract between man and beast. Or how about - PETA feels a radical improvement in planetary wellbeing would arise from a global shift to a vegan lifestyle. I don't know, I'm sure someone can compose a more artful sentence than I.L0b0t 23:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you have a link to that 'contract' we can reference it. I wonder who the signatories were. Crum375 00:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea, but I still contend that a group advocating a radical departure from 10,000 plus years of domestication and animal husbandry is a radical group and that implies no value judgment at all.L0b0t 01:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are still missing the point. The guidelines and rules regarding words such as 'terrorist' and 'radical' are there to prevent things from occuring such as revert warring, articles becoming POV and giving wikipedia an opinion. If we state that 'x is radical' that is a judgement by wikipedia and should not be made. We must use it in the way stated 'according to y, x is radical'. The term radical is used to describe extremist organisations (hence that definition above) and as such gives unfair weight to a negative POV. This is simply against WP:NPOV as it is an opinion of a group. Please either drop this (as it obviously is not wanted by a selection of users on here, so you won't get consensus) or use a different word which doesn't have negative connotations. What about using 'revolutionary'? I would also be against that for the exact same reason (although it would be portraying them in a positive light instead). The terms revolutionary, extremist and radical all, according to the dictionary, mean the same thing. However, as stated they do not have the same connotations as each other.-Localzuk (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your reasoning, I just don't agree with it. If a reader infers something from a word that is a personal issue for that reader and they need to consult a dictionary and stop being so damn sensitive.  Stating "x is radical" is NOT a value judgment.  If someone INFERS a value judgment then they need to brush up on their reading comprehension skills.  Revolutionary, extremist, and radical are NOT negative terms, they are neutral terms.  Frankly I don't care if the word is in the article, I have never tried to put it in.  I'm just very worried at the lack of basic English skills shown by many editors of WP and I don't think wikilawyering or policy wonking should be used to excuse terrible writting.

Further reading section
What is the point in the "Further reading" section? As it just seems to be a list of links, why aren't they in the the "External links" section? Or if they are notes or references, they should be in one of those sections. Some of them seem to be redundant duplication anyway - eg their is already 2 links to similar statements from the Anti Defamation League in the notes. --Vclaw 02:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms section?
Why is this article exempt of a proper "criticisms" section? Other controversial topics seem to have them, NRA for example... &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 13:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See above. It 's always better to weave praise and criticism throughout the article, rather than creating separate sections that turn into POV magnets. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "... it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." — Jimbo Wales. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 13:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * WHY is it better to have criticsm weaved into the article rather than as a section in its own right? Please explain.DocEss 20:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Because praise and criticism sections become magnets for trolls and POV pushers. With a criticism section, people will just keep turning up, slapping any old piece of negative stuff they find on Google, with no attempt to evaluate it or place it in context. Ensuring that both praise and criticism are woven into the text produces a more nuanced and three-dimensional piece of writing that's almost certainly closer to reality, because not black-and-white. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that certainly serves the agenda of someone who'd like everyone to read the whole article instead of focussing on criticisms, thereby absorbing and hopefully sympathising with the author's viewpoint and its popularity with his cohorts. If this was an article about something with which you disagreed or were negatively pre-disposed, then I surmise you'd just love to have a big 'ol cricism section, wouldn't you? I can see through your agenda. Nonetheless, this PETA/Animal Rights/Animal Welfare/Animal Saute/Vivisection/Rodeo issue has a massive amount of criticsm to it, as you can plainly see. I think it would be wise to create exactly that - a critism section where the issues can be illuminated and dealt with professionally. Just admit it to yourself that criticism here is pervasive and that the endless, fruitless editing and reverting will continue no matter where the criticisms are written. You are wrong to believe 'it is always better to scatter them'; indeed, it would be better for all involved if the criticisms were deposited in one, whole, controllable place that can be more easily edited and re-edited than to force editors to scan through already verbose prose. Unless you have an agenda, of course. [I mean that this idea should apply to whatever article, not justy this one.] Also, I think you should perhaps become a less intractable and bend a little.DocEss 20:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you can't see through my "agenda." Whenever possible I try to incorporate criticism and praise into articles, regardless of my personal views. It's harder to write like that, and it isn't always possible, but I do it whenever I can. The "endless, fruitless editing and reverting" has been going on ever since this article existed, including when it had a criticism section, because people like you come along and want to turn it into an attack page. You want a big POV magnet so you can easily add attacks without having to write properly. That's why it's being resisted. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no desire to attack anything (except stupidity, of course), especially the impresssive amount of work you've put into this very well written material, which is deeply sourced and organised. You get an A or A- for all that. But you fail to see that your beloved cause has detractors and it is blatantly obvious to the casual observer that this article is clearly focussed on forwarding its beliefs; so you get an F for objectivity. Hey - I am only here to expose the truth, aren't you? The truth is simple here: massive criticism exists - it is logical, legitimate, pervasive, common, and not at all unreasonable. Your vigourous attempts to repress it are silly and unworthy of someone with your obvious intelligence. Now --- impress me and let's get this cricism section done right. Don't worry about POV Magnets or all that other Wiki garble - let's just get on with it.DocEss 20:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. But there is in fact an enormous amount of criticism in this article. It's just doesn't have a big illuminated sign pointing to it, and that's a good thing, because the world isn't black-and-white. PETA isn't the big, bad bogeyman you think it is, and it's not pure as the driven snow either, as many of its supporters think it is. This nuanced article reflects the situation quite well, in my view. An organization with one million paying supporters around the world can claim to have pretty broad support, and the various celebrity supporters and financers show that it's a fairly mainstream group. Within the animal-rights movement, PETA is regarded by many as moderate and mainstream, to the great annoyance of many activists, in fact. So things are not as simple as you think. And it is not my "beloved cause." SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see both sides. I like the idea, in fact, I'm going to put that on the todo for the NRA article - remove but disperse. And if I was pushing my agenda, I'd be adding this article to this. But alas, I'm just trying to make things better everywhere, and at first look (correct - I did not read the entire article) I didn't just see the section. Thanks SlimVirgin. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 03:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. :-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)