Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/insulin

animal research
can we include a section on peta's stance on animal testing? including the fact that the VP of peta uses animal based insulin? IreverentReverend 2 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)


 * Would you mind providing sources for the edits you've made already, rather than suggesting new ones? SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 07:43 (UTC)

hpw about this one? doesnt say the insuline comes from animals, but that the insulin was derived from animal testing, also some goon peta/anitmal testing info...http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2343 IreverentReverend 2 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1730 has a juicy quote at the end....IreverentReverend 2 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)

Penn and Teller

 * Ingrid Newkirk's use of drugs and treatments that were developed from animal research ("I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals") (This is incorrect. It's the vice president Mary Beth Sweetland mentioned on the show. I didn't notice the error when I appended the quote)
 * "As an insulin-dependent (type I) diabetic who also cares deeply for animals, diabetes experiments on animals doubly assault my senses and sensibilities. I became insulin-dependent when I was 25." "Being able to cut my dosage from more than 50 units of insulin in the morning when I first became diabetic to taking only 15 units today can be directly attributed to not eating any animal products."
 * '"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals." --Glamour, January 1990'
 * "PETA vice president Mary Beth Sweetland has diabetes and injects herself daily with insulin that was tested on animals. Yet she campaigns against experiments on animals -- making her a veritable poster-child for hypocrisy. She concedes that her medicine "still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals"
 * 'Mary Beth Sweetland, senior vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is a diabetic who injects herself daily with insulin developed through animal testing. Just as Ms. Sweetland doesn't believe that is hypocritical -- "I need my life to fight for the rights of animals"'
 * ultimately putting its political agenda of animal rights over the welfare of human beings.
 * "PETA has donated over $150,000 to criminal activists - including those jailed for arson, burglary, and even attempted murder."
 * 'PETA President Ingrid Newkirk's comment: "Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."'
 * I'm sorry but anything that you are citing as from www.targetofopportunity.com is not acceptable. They are not an acceptable source as they provide no valid sources for their claims. Also, CCF shouldn't be used as a tertiary source as they are a very politically motivated organisation. Instead, anything that you wish to use from them should be stated in a way such as The CCF says. -Localzuk (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. If that were true, then we couldn't use PETA as a source, since they're a politically motivated organization. We couldn't use anything as a source because everything has motivations.
 * Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We make statements, attribute them to their sources, and the reader decides whether they think those sources are reliable or not; not you. — Omegatron 13:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me. They can be used as sources but they must be correctly attributed. We have discussed this somewhere before (I can't find it at the moment) and the general agreement was that if the CCF claimed that a group did something then it should be written in a way such as 'The CCF claim' rather than 'this group did this' followed by the reference. At some point there was some talk of disallowing comments by politically motiviated groups unless they were actually their words rather than their research (so primary rather than seconday or tertiary sources only). I would not like to see claims on any article by any group being portrayed in a way which isn't honest (for example if the KFC article said 'KFC have factory farms where millions of chickens are treated inhumanely' without a specific statement saying 'PETA states'. -Localzuk (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, this site works on consensus, so based on this there is a guideline with a lot of helpful advice on this issue at the WP:RS page. It is not a policy but it should be followed as it prevents a lot of arguments.-Localzuk (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at WP:V there is a section on this very subject saying the same thing I am saying. Further, the site www.targetofopportunity.com has no fixed address for contacting regarding their information, are registered anonymously and seem very unprofessional (that, I think, is apparrant from their site). It should, in my opinion, be treated as a blog would be. Further, I think this covers another aspect of my argument WP:RS.-Localzuk (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PETA's website is shinier, but it's just as partisan. — Omegatron 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So? Don't argue that this site should include your reference just because it includes another one. This article is about PETA so it is granted within WP:V that it is acceptable as a source so long as it is stated that they claim this themselves. I certainly wouldn't just add them as a source on another article without stating it was them that made a claim.
 * On the website front, I could go and set up a website right now stating all sorts of things but it would not be acceptable to use it as a reference as it wouldn't have sources of its own. The site in question contains mostly unverifiable information. There is no way other than an anonymous email address with which to conact the people that run the site - it is, as I said before, classable as a blog and therefore shouldn't be included at all.-Localzuk (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If the Penn & Teller claims are credible they should also be made by other more reliable sources. Perhaps one should simply take what they say claim by claim and find alternate citations. That's all I have to say on this article. Bye. Homey 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section
There was a bit in the article a while ago about Mary Beth Sweetland of PETA using insulin derived from animal testing, but it's been removed, of course. "I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals." — Omegatron 21:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not an experiment, it's medication. Even hypocrites benefit from animal testing. PUT it back in the article in the criticsim section where it should be.DocEss 21:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no criticism section. — Omegatron 23:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. There should be a criticism section. And don't tell me good articles are better with 'weaves' of criticism. For example, please notice the article intelligent design, a candicate for Good Article. It has a controversy section, a situation which adds markedly to its roundness and objectivity. It is well written and is happily devoid of the 'criticsm-weave' technique. Even so, why don't you make a sugestion as to where the Sweetland quote should go?DocEss!


 * Wherever their stance on animal research is mentioned, of course. — Omegatron 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

...[snip]

Criticisms?
= ...[snip] You wouldn't need a "praise" sections.....to answer the question...I'm sure people have tried to create one..only to be edited back, buy the brainwashed, hypocritical people that are attached to PETA. If you we're to put that PETA killed dogs and cats for no reason, or that the company is totally against anyone owning pets whatsoever (sure the pet loving supports of the organization would love that, eh?.....nah this statement will be critisised and told to be false) or that the Vice President fights and condones harmful activities to labs and other things that test stuff on animals, yet she uses Pig Insulin. (they have to kill the pig) Oh, but she has an excuse....the pigs "willing give up their lives so she can continue the fight." I'd really like to see someone argue that that's not hypocritical in any way, yet it seems like any PETA supporter that works for or knows the ends and ours of the organization can't put together any reasonable arguements, the just spew out bullshit lies and try to disprove any critism the organization gets. Unfortunately, too many mindless kids and adults listen to them. There's nothing wrong with loving animals, but you should join other Animal care orginizations....not corrupt PETA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * Wow. What a poorly thought out and unsourced rant. Please try to support your comments with references, as it stands you simply look like you want to slag off PETA but don't actually back anything up. If there is anything which is sourced, by reputable sources and it isn't in the article, then by all means add it.-Localzuk(talk) 19:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Insulin Use
Is there a reason the animal testing section doesn't contain a reference to MaryBeth Sweetland's insulin-dependence? There's an article here http://www.goveg.com/diabetes_controlled.asp written by her downplaying her use of animal-based insulins which might prove a good reasonably un-biased quote (all the links to quotes I could find from her were all inflammatory and on anti-PETA sites). Given PETA's stated policies on animal testing, this seems like a pretty important fact, because without animal-harvested and animal-tested insulins, she'd would have died at age 25 when she became insulin-dependent.

Actually I just re-read the article, and right after the quote from Newkirk about them opposing a cure for AIDS based on animal testing would be the perfect place for it. Max.inglis (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * MaryBeth Sweetland has not worked for PETA for sometime, so not sure how a quote about her insulin use would be relevant to PETA article. Bob98133 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Because at the time of that quote (2005) one of the VPs of PETA, and close confidante of hers was dependent on medication derived from animals and animal testing, and the quote clearly says that she wouldn't support something that saved lives if it was based on animal testing. You can pretty reasonably extrapolate this to mean that if Sweetland had AIDS, she (Newkirk) would prefer she didn't take a medication derived from animal testing, and therefore die. This is a very clear and repeated criticism of Newkirk and PETA, and previous discussions have specified that criticisms should be mixed into the article. I think inclusion here is appropriate.Max.inglis (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Using this logic, it would be correct to quote Carl Rove about Bush's current policies? Sweetland, speaking as a VP of PETA, seems reasonable to include; but claiming any relationship between her and Newkirk or PETA, other than employee/boss (now both ex)seems like a stretch. Newkirk might speak for herself and PETA, but it isn't reasonable to assume that she is speaking for all the hundreds of employees of the organization unless she specifically indicated this. Why not come up with something new or current that makes the same point, or was this an isolated case? Bob98133 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well bob: we have quotes from ingrid newkirk scattered throughout the article. Are they relevant to Peta? I certainly think that if a high ranking official in an organisation is probably relevant, just like for a CEO or board member with respect to a company. NathanLee (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just reread that section - position on animal testing - and it really looks like the info about Sweetland is inappropriately tacked onto a paragraph about AIDS. She is also cited as Director of Research and Rescue - which was not correct even based on the reference provided. Personally, I don't see that the info about Sweetland has any place in this article, but even if it does, it currently is in the wrong place. Does this article need a section on PETA employees who wear leather shoes or do other things that PETA says are wrong?Bob98133 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if its in the wrong place, where to put it then? You yourself have numerous times posted that a criticism section is a target for vandalism, so where else to put mention of a very specific and well-known criticism of PETA? Placing it directly after a quote from Newkirk about not accepting cures that would save lives if based on animal testing seems like the perfect place for it - since its an animal-based and animal-tested cure. The section is titled "Position on Animal Testing", perhaps a seperate paragraph? It was made in very neutral language, and included a quote from MBS herself, as well as a link to her article about reducing her dependence on animal-based insulin. Max.inglis (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why anything an ex-employee did or does has anything to do with the organization's position about animal testing. For all we know, Sweetland was fired for taking insulin or violating some PETA rule. If Newkirk was taking insulin, you're right, it would fit. If Sweetland still worked there - sure. But since this is entirely in the past and not directly attributable to anyone setting policy at PETA, it seems out of place. I didn't mean that the entire position on animal testing is out of place - that's fine - and if there is current or relevant examples (such as Newkirk's quote) I have no problem with those. Including Sweetland just says "someone who used to work at PETA didn't agree" which isn't really wiki worthy info.Bob98133 (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Should we separate it from the AIDS comment then? The section is titled animal testing, yet you think the fact that an ex-VP (all the docs I could find show her as director, research and rescue, but perhaps thats out of date) of PETA owes her continued living to the existence of a product derived from animal testing isn't relevant? Any reasonable person can assume that Newkirk, at the time the quote was made, knew MBS was insulin-dependent, yet the quote was still made. From the quote given, the organization, by definition, (Newkirk, being the head of said organization, gets to make up the policies) doesn't support her continued living. This isn't a choice she was making (although I guess it is, the choice would be to allow herself to die), it was a fact about her existence. I would put this sort of thing in a "criticism" section, but we know where that gets us - vandalism by anonymous. The fact was added in neutral language and included links to her own article downplaying her dependence on animal-based testing, and included a quote from her giving justification. It could possibly be made into a separate paragraph to remove it from direct reference to Newkirk's quotation. Max.inglis (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Max - I understand what you're saying. Quotes from Newkirk are certainly relevent. She is the founder and current president of the organization. If you feel that it somehow adds to the article to include that a former employee used insulin that may have been derived from animals (although I believe that Mary Beth Sweetland claimed that her insulin, and most insulin these days, is not derived from animals)or developed or tested with animals, then include it, but it should be stated that Sweetland no longer works for PETA. However, this is the same logic that paid lobbyists use to attack PETA - that they once gave money for the legal defence of someone who was later convicted of a crime, and whose affiliations were later ruled illegal. So PETA once employed someone who may have disagreed with Newkirk about her position. If a McDonald's employee (even a VP) uses drugs, even though it is against company policy, is that newsworthy or deserving mention in condemning McDonalds in an encyclopedia article? PETA can be criticized for many things but I just think this one is a stretch.Bob98133 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well everything I've read about the relationship between MBS and newkirk was "close friend" and "confidante" - to say that you wouldn't support animal testing if it leads to a cure for AIDS when your close friend's living depends on a drug originally derived from animal testing seems hypocritical. I'm not a big fan of animal testing but I'm also not a big fan of lots of people dying either - which is probably why I feel so strongly that this should be in here. It's another example of PETA valuing the lives of animals over people - not to say there aren't lots of people who shouldn't be valued over animals, or that animal testing is by any means right in every situation (testing makeup and vanity things on animals drives me nuts) but when it saves lives on the scale of these examples (a cure for AIDS would be astronomical, as was the cure for diabetes in its time). Humulin is what MBS uses now from her own account, but her assertion that its "more appropriate for the human animal" is of course ignoring the fact that without the original animal testing and derivative insulins, humulin wouldn't exist. That being said, I'm not happy with the wording having re-read it. It does seem tacked on, and I think I can find a clearer way to include that information, keeping its tone as neutral as possible, and relevant. Max.inglis (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I read an interview with the guy who did the HBO movie about Newkirk and he said that she doesn't have any friends, and I tend to believe that. She has lots and lots of employees, including a half dozen or more Vice Presidents. If you can add the Sweetland stuff back in so it makes sense - fine, but it seems with so many employees there ought to be something more current and relevent. I think if Sweetland was a "close friend" with Newkirk then she wouldn't have a similar job for In Defense of Animals now (unless she just wanted her Wiki info moved to that page :)Bob98133 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not an example of Peta valuing the lives of animals over those of humans, it's an example of Peta valuing neither over either... for you see, the cure of aids as a result of animals testing would kill many more non-human animals in one year than humans at the hands of the aids virus probably in the entire next century... so I can't see how you say that. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well according to avert.org, an organization dedicated to worldwide AIDS reduction, 2.1 million people died from AIDS in 2007 alone. I would be surprised if the research for an AIDS cure reached that number over the span of its entire research cycle (assuming a cure is ever found). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max.inglis (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Insulin
Ramdrake, that source you provided seems to be a personal website, which would not be an RS. Also, it doesn't mention what kind of insulin she takes, if any. We would need a reliable source that gives the information, clarifies that it's animal-based insulin, and alleges that it's hypocrisy. SlimVirgin talk| edits 18:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please address the issue here rather than continuing to revert? SlimVirgin  talk| edits 22:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved in this, because I don't think this issue is particularly relevant, but this source is a first-person article on a PETA-controlled website that seems to indicate that Ms. Sweetland uses Humulin, a synthetic insulin that is created using recombinant DNA processes, and is different from aniimal-derived insulin. While it seems implausible that it was not, at some point in its creation, tested in animal studies, I cannot at the moment find a source stating that. Without regard to its testing regime, there seem to be adequate sources that say it is not (in the clinical sense) "animal-derived". Whether the first-person account noted earlier in a reliable source under Wikipedia's arcane rules is far beyond me to determine. -- Tom Ketchum  22:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - This document, from the manufacturer's website, seems to indicate that a close relation to Humulin, Humalog, was in fact tested in animal trials. What this means for this argument I won't guess. -- Tom Ketchum  23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding that, Tom. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 23:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, while I wouldn't necessarily consider them reliable on the fact that Mrs Sweetland takes insulin or that her particular brand of insulin is animal-tested or not, the CCF has made allegations of hypocrisy regarding this issue. Since the basis for the story is confirmed by Mrs Sweetland herself, and the manufacturer's pamphlet confirms the product has been animal tested, this would count as a primary source for the allegation of hypocrisy, properly attributed, of course.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's another ref about it: . It's even used as course material reference here and again mentioned here . I'd say there are multiple suitable references for this fact.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All medicines in the West are tested on animals, so anyone who needs to take prescription medication has no choice. Indeed, that's one of the things PETA campaigns against &mdash; the fact that the consumer has no choice. You can't really accuse someone of hypocrisy because they're not willing to die. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 23:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the allegations were made, and rather widely publicized, and are therefore notable.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source accusing her of hypocrisy for taking insulin (i.e. not a college newspaper or an anti-PETA lobby group)? It would surprise me if any reliable source were to make such a claim. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 23:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The lobby group in question constitutes a reliable source in this case, since they are a source about themselves on this (i.e. they are the ones directly calling Sweetland a hypocrite), as per WP:RS.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That lobby group is not a reliable source on PETA, because they're in effect an anti-PETA website, which seems to be written largely by one man, and is financed by the fast food, alcohol, and tobacco lobby. I know they have targeted others in the past (e.g. Mothers Against Drunk Driving), but they seem to focus mainly on PETA nowadays. They're not a source about themselves in this case because they're writing about a living person. Per BLP, we need a mainstream source for that. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 23:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we need sources for two claims. The CCF is not a reliable source for the claim that Mrs. Sweetland uses animal derived insulin.  They are a reliable source for the claim that there are allegations of hypocrisy.  They're a notable group, and they themselves are making the claim.  Djk3 (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that either side will consider me impartial, but after looking over the Center for Consumer Freedom's website, while they are an interest/lobbying group (like PETA), they don't seem to be a PETA attack site or a single-issue site in general. It would seem consistent with other articles that a "The Center for Consumer Freedom says ..." citation of this could in fact be used, if I understand WP:SELFPUB correctly. I will repeat, however -- why??? There are much bigger issues with this article, why bother with the subject of one woman's insulin? -- Tom Ketchum  02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's a cheap point to make &mdash; that animal rights advocates, in order not to be hypocrites, should choose to die rather than take life-saving drugs that have been tested on animals, when there are no equivalent non-tested medicines to choose from, which is hardly their fault. Animal rights supporters often do avoid taking these drugs whenever they can, but when the alternative is death, you can't fault someone for caving in.


 * It's in part because that lobby group makes points like these that it's very hard to regard them as a reliable source (although that's not the only reason). SlimVirgin  talk| edits 17:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me ask: are other AR organizations also adopting the stance of being steadfastly against animal research even when it is aimed at saving lives (such as AIDS research, which PETA adamantly opposes)? If it can be shown that it is also routinely the position of other AR groups, then I would agree with you: it's a specious, cheap shot. However, if other AR groups don't oppose animal research when it is to save lives, and PETA is the only one doing it, then I believe it would be a notable fact.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the stance of BUAV, AnimalAid, the Dr Hadwin Trust, the SHAC campaign, the SPEAC and now the SPEAK campaigns. All of these have their goal on their websites. These pretty much sum up the largest animal rights organisations and campaigns.-Localzuk(talk) 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ramdrake, all animals rights group oppose the use of animals in research &mdash; to talk about "research that saves lives" is to miss the point of their argument that the research is not necessary to save lives, and that (they say) it sometimes or even often actually slows down the search for life-saving treatment, because it costs a lot of money and time, and may produce misleading results. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 19:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The arguments above all strike me as being entirely partisan, and not involved -- on either side -- with what should be in a creditable encyclopedia. If the point to be made is that PETA, or AR activists in general, take what many would consider extreme positions regarding the use of animal-tested or animal-derived products, that seems to be adequately covered in the article. That some of these activists find themselves involved in actions -- hypocritical actions, in some views -- seemingly at odds with those positions, whether animal euthanasia, use of animal-tested drugs, or violent and human-life-threatening protests, also seems covered. My view is that the partisan bickering here is over different, but equally unacceptable, versions of undue weight POV violations. It is (in my view) undue weight to reference that Sweetland uses animal-tested insulin (especially in the absence of what would be an out-of-place explanation that all insulin is animal-tested). However, it is also undue weight, and entirely unencyclopedic, to have an article of which over 60% is tiresome repetition of the group's many campaigns. In my view the way these bloated articles get this way is that one "side" adds their (sourced) piece of partisan POV, then the other side (perhaps trying but failing to take it out), retaliates by adding their countervailing POV, and on and on it goes.

The Britannica has seven (short!) paragraphs about the entirety of "The moderns animal rights movements", in which PETA is briefly mentioned and described in one (!) paragraph, in the same breath as the Humane Society. Admittedly, Wiki("not paper")pedia take a more inclusive direction, but in my view this is way too far. This article should be 5 to 7 paras long, covering the organization, its history, aims, principals, example campaigns, and major critics -- then this argument would be moot, and we wouldn't be arguing about Ms. Sweetland's insulin or most of the rest of what's on this page. Fini. -- Tom Ketchum  22:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tom, there is no wiki rule that says that the length of an article, or the amount of detail in it, is in any way related to WP:UNDUE. The only rule relating to length is WP:NOT paper, which tells us we may freely add information, as long as it's relevant, and the formatting limit on total article length which tells us to split overly long articles into sub-articles so they are easier to download. You seem to have made up your own private rule, which is "if I don't like something, the article about it should be very short." Until there is consensus for such a rule, which is unlikely (since our likes and dislikes are very different), we should continue to keep Wikipedia as informative as we can. Crum375 (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tom, the article is only 58 kb without the footnotes. That's well within reasonable limits compared to other articles. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 18:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It would appear that this article is one that strives -- and succeeds -- at keeping Wikipedia less informative, but being obfuscated with dreary partisan bickering. You have ignored the essence of my argument, focusing only on the secondary metric of length.  Perhaps you can contribute something to the substance of the discussion, rather than attacking me? --  Tom Ketchum  23:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tom, I don't know you, and have no reason to attack you. You may be a swell guy, for all I know, and by WP:AGF I'll assume so. My point is that we are actually encouraged to add information, not to remove it, as long as it's relevant, reliably sourced and informative. If your point is that the article is "obfuscated with ... bickering," I would respectfully disagree. The whole point of WP is to present both sides of controversial issues, and this is what we do here. If you'd like to add more relevant information, feel free to do so. Crum375 (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK then, if "we're encouraged to add things", and not take them away, then we should add this silly little fact about Ms. Sweetland's insulin. I personally think it makes for a worse, not better, article, one that is polarized and partisan in both directions, rather than informative.  However, your suggestion that one should fight obfuscation with -- wait for it -- more obfuscation reminds me an old Vietnam War saying: "Fighting for Peace is like f*cking for chastity".  It makes me laugh, and not in a good way. --  Tom Ketchum  00:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The "silly fact about Ms. Sweeland" is not related to the issue of article length. If it were properly sourced and not WP:UNDUE, there would be no problem to add it. I think in this case we would need a source that makes the case for us &mdash; that explains, for example, how her taking insulin reflects on PETA as a whole. That source would have to be a reliable mainstream source, since this is a WP:BLP issue, among others. Crum375 (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mary Beth Sweetland no longer works for PETA and hasn't in over a year - see discussion about insulin above.Bob98133 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mary Beth Sweetland
This page shows that she's working for In Defence of Animals in 2007. I'm sure she hasn't worked at PETA at least since then. I checked this out a long time ago, but can't find the source now. Bob98133 (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, so she's a former VP of PETA, but she was using insulin while working still for PETA regardless of why she left. It's still relevant.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That's fine and verifiable. I wasn't objecting to referenced stuff, just that she apparently no longer works there. Google hits on her almost disappear after early 2007, so she must have left some time around then since before that she was on lots of PETA press releases. As i recall, when I last looked into this, she claimed that her insulin wasn't animal derived - I think most of it is synthetic these days - but nonetheless it was animal tested and her quote explains her rationale. Bob98133 (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive of this page somewhere ?
Just wondering if there is an archive of the discussion page somewhere. I realize I can look through previous edits, but wondering if there's another easier place to find it. I had a previous debate about the inclusion of information about Mary Beth Sweetland in the article, her dependence on insulin, and its relevance to PETAs position on animal testing, however I don't see it here now. It led to eventual inclusion in the article, but has since been scrubbed. 206.75.198.6 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the right hand side of this page across from the contents box, you should see an archive box w/11 archived pages. Bob98133 (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * doh figured it was that easy. thanks. 206.75.198.6 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the previous discussion about Mary Beth Sweetland's insulin use. I agreed earlier that it seemed tagged on, and left it out. Reviewing section now, I see mention of PETA employees participating in volunteer testing. One of the previous disagreements with inclusion of Mary Beth's diabetes was its proximity to the quote from Newkirk about animal testing, and how it isn't relevant. I still believe it is, and is certainly as relevant as including info about employees participating in animal testing. I'm going to think about it and see if I can't clean up the statement about volunteer testing as well, it seems tacked on as well. Perhaps both in a new paragraph would be the best fashion. Max.inglis (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You might try to find some example other than Mary Beth Sweetland. She hasn't worked for PETA for years. Recent google hits says she works for the humane society.Bob98133 (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but she was the Director of Investigations at the time of that quote. We've had this argument before Bob, and you made that same point, looking back at the archive discussion. I left it out at the time because it felt tacked on, but since the paragraph is now written to include employee behaviour examples, mention of this fact in the same space is certainly relevant. When Mr VanValkenburg leaves PETA, will the mention of it stay with an addendum for its date? I tend to think so. Others have mentioned that her leaving may have been because she was breaking some PETA rule, but I tend to think it was probably because this quote came out, and it was revealed that Sweetland was insulin-dependent, and it became embarrassing when put in context with that statement. There are numerous notes that a criticism section is fraught with problems, and I agree, but we have to have leeway to include negative information and criticisms in appropriate places. This is a well-known, well documented criticism of PETA (that being the fact that the company made this broad reaching statement at the time when a Director - a senior-management position - was insulin-dependent.) Max.inglis (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead: PETA's position in relation to other AR groups
...[snip] from Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 13


 * I appreciate the other quote, but I'm not sure the public knows what "the radical line" is, and "Our goal is total animal liberation" is much clearer. I've asked for clarification on the WP:RS page from some more experienced editors on ease of access to source, but I stand by my assertion that its valid, sourced, and relevant. Max.inglis (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Max, I'm concerned about your involvement here. You've made only 96 edits to articles and 168 overall since 2006. Thirty-five of those edits have been to PETA and its talk page, which is a large percentage, and most if not all of those edits have been about adding criticism of living persons. Your fourth edit, for example, was to suggest we point out that a named PETA employee uses insulin. We have a policy called Biographies of living persons, which says we have to be extra careful when writing about living people, and regardless of that we don't use WP as a platform to attack people or groups. Adding criticism is fine, indeed necessary, but when an article or editor is overly focused on that aspect it becomes problematic. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 16:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * AgreedGreggydude (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * More ad hominems? I did very few edits in my first times at Wikipedia, because I was cautious unlike many editors. You yourself mention "the talk page" because I read, discuss, and then edit. I've only made 2 or 3 edits directly to the PETA page itself I think, the aforementioned insulin quote (which I see you've removed as well) and this quote from PETA. I've recently begun editing in earnest, and I edit what I know about (video games, Oil Industry, Animal Rights, Canadian Music). This quote is sourced, relevant, and valid, and I've struck down all your arguments against it, so I can only assume at this point its because you dislike the quote for its content, are a PETA supporter, and don't want it here. I was happy to win this with logic, but it appears that won't be enough in this case. I won't get to adding it succinctly today because I'm re-writing the article on the tragically hip, so maybe before that some others can chime in (again) with their opinion about this.
 * The thing about insulin was relevant too, but we'll have that argument again later I'm sure. Max.inglis (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * PrB, I realize that the reference was to other editors, not to me, but that does not matter. SV (I infer from past talk that Greggydude was agreeing with Max, despite the indenting), I have said to you before that I want you to comment on my edits, not on me personally, and we have made some very good progress recently in that regard. But it's not like it applies uniquely to me. I am very dismayed to see what you said here, directed at Max. I agree with Max, you disagree, but the number or locations of an editor's edits have no relevance to the merits or demerits of the edits, and that is policy. If comments about editors continue to be a distraction from the actual edits, I will make an issue of it.


 * Now as for the Penn and Teller sourcing, it seems to me that the criticisms of it, following my explanation of why the sourcing is valid, have likewise been nothing but ad hominems against them. It is what Newkirk said, not what they said, and it only makes her or PETA look bad if one believes that AR is bad. It doesn't lose validity if she said it as part of a pep talk. It does give substance to the very vague reference to ownership in the motto. The issue isn't that PETA does not adopt an AR position; it is that Wikipedia needs to accurately present PETA's public position, not bowdlerize it. If anyone has concerns about linking to the video on copyright grounds (which I still do not buy), we can leave the link out, and just source it to a speech by Ingrid Newkirk, giving the date and place. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Tryptofish, I don't appreciate what looks like a threat. If you want to make an issue out of something, please do, but do it now. I see your approach here as very anti-PETA. You're encouraging single-issue accounts, accounts with very few edits, accounts that use Penn and Teller as a source; accounts that add quotes from a living person out of context. None of this is good, and it should be discouraged, no matter how much you may agree with the POV. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 20:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My approach here is strictly NPOV. Accounts with few edits are still legitimate accounts, and editors may choose to concentrate in areas of interest without being denigrated as SPAs. If editors cannot make their case based on the content of edits, their cases are not strengthened by mischaracterizing the intentions of those with whom they disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Insulin
I've removed the issue of the PETA employee taking insulin. Every time this has been raised it's been rejected to the best of my knowledge as OR, not to mention somewhat below the belt. It also begs the key question as to whether insulin could only have been made available via animal testing. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 05:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Our discussion of it decided it was appropriate the most recent time. It was the previous time too, but got edited out later without discussion. It was included in reference to Newkirk stating being against all animal testing, despite the "at the time" director of investigations was insulin-dependent. It is relevant, your removal suggests POV frankly. Max.inglis (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

While we wait on the edits concerning the lead, I am now going to move on to other sections, and I will start here first. I can see both sides in the talk about insulin here. SV makes some very good points about being careful about BLP issues, and about the flimsy sourcing of the deleted passage, and Max also makes some very good points about the need to discuss this material, and about the need to address this notable matter for POV balance. I've looked at this carefully, and I cannot support restoring the passage with the sourcing that it had previously: a Zoominfo profile of MaryBeth Sweetland (which seems to me to be a gotcha way to source her diabetes), and an article from Glamour Magazine (which is difficult to track without a web link and seems a marginal source in any case). I've looked into better sourcing, and I've found these:, an article by Sweetland herself about the issue; (scroll down slightly), a book section written by Ingrid Newkirk, which goes into some more detail including a contrast between human and non-human insulin (more on that below); and , a source for the statement that PETA has been criticized for this issue. About that third source, yes, it clearly has a strong POV (as indeed do the other two sources), but its purpose would be to provide WP:V for the claim that this is a criticism that has been covered by secondary sources. There are lots of Google hits for such criticism, so it's notable, not trivial, but this one seems to me to be more RS than letters to the editor and such.

Let me suggest that editors who are unfamiliar with the science of this issue take a look at Insulin. Please note how Charles Herbert Best's experiments first discovering insulin were done by way of highly invasive procedures on dogs. The first insulin treatments used in patients came from non-human animals, as did the insulin first used by Ms. Sweetland. My point about that is to give context to what the sources from Sweetland and Newkirk say, so that we can discuss them knowledgeably. I fully agree that we need to write whatever we add back to the page in a way that does not take cheap shots, but I also insist that we not leave it out entirely, and of course I'm happy to discuss how to word it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the change you made. It's not clear why she says it's superior - probably because animals weren't used - but that's a minor point. Bob98133 (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bob. Seeing your comment here, I made another edit to clarify what she says in the source about why it's superior. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I recall the discussion prior to this one, the idea of dropping the Sweetland criticism was rejected since it can be referenced. I agreed with the version inserted around that time since I thought it was fairly NPOV. As time goes on, and since Sweetland hasn't worked for PETA for years, it does seem fairly irrelevant. If the underlying accusation of hypocrisy is valid, you would think there would be many more current examples that could be referenced. Bob98133 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you about that version. I'm going to change it back to that, because I think that it was better-referenced than the recent changes are. As for a more recent example, well, that would be nice, but we have the sources that we have. And there is nothing inherently wrong with reporting something from the recent past. After all, we report a great deal about the Taub incident (rightly so), even though present-day scientists would likely argue that Taub is no longer even remotely representative. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no comparison between mentioning one lobbyist's criticism of the personal life of one PETA employee 17 years ago with a major PETA undercover investigation that shocked the research community, led to a police raid, an arrest, and new legislation/amendments to protect animals. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Kathleen Marquardt
This is the kind of thing that makes this look like an attack page:

"Kathleen Marquardt, vice-president of the American Policy Center, accused PETA's former director of Investigations and research, Mary Beth Sweetland, of hypocrisy in 1993 for having used insulin derived from animals to control her diabetes. Sweetland responded that she controls her condition with a vegan diet and exercise, and uses synthetic human insulin."

A right-wing lobbyist wrongly accused a PETA staff member 17 years ago of using animal-derived insulin to control her diabetes. It strikes me as absurd to mention this, per UNDUE, common sense, and decent writing. Does anyone mind if I remove it again? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of removing it, how about changing it back to what it was before you changed the wording to be this way? --Tryptofish (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And please also respond to the discussion under, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it was not wrongly accusing. Sourced to Sweetland herself, she was using animal-derived insulin at that time. Right-wing or left-wing is not really the point in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see the relevance to PETA of an employee using insulin if she needs it to save her life. Or taking any other drug. Where people have a choice (a drug tested on animals versus one not tested on animals, for example), they are indeed hypocrites if they use the former. But where there is no choice, because the pharmaceutical industry tests everything on animals, accusations of hypocrisy are unfair. And in any event this is about one person, not the group, and it was a very long time ago.


 * I agree that right-wing/left-wing is irrelevant, but that the critic is a lobbyist is directly relevant. PETA is attacking vested interests involving billion-dollar industries. We need to bear that in mind so that the retaliation for that&mdash;and in particular the attack tone&mdash;doesn't seep into our article. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see an argument based on what the sources say, than on your personal opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not hypocritical if she had no other choice. Remember, our sources don't always have the same high standards of neutral, objective journalism. Their job is to sell a story, ours is not. Also there may be some concern over violations of BLP policy. - PrBeacon (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Our job is not to pass judgment on whether sources are hypocrites or not. Our job is to report what the sources have said. As for "some concerns" about BLP, the passage is sourced to what the LP herself has said very publicly and proudly about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some confusion about this, the animal-derived forms of insulin that were used in the past really were derived from animals. They were not synthesized in a lab, but were extracted from the pancreases of cows and pigs that had been slaughtered. In contrast, synthetic human insulin, branded commercially as "Humulin" by the Eli Lily Company, is produced in a laboratory using recombinant DNA methods and the known amino acid sequence of human insulin. I've simply been trying to make sure that we use wording that is accurate when describing the two forms here, and I realize that not all editors will be familiar with that background. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we are reporting what Sweetland said, I prefer to use her terminology, which is "animal based". Crum375 (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, I would suggest a verbatim quote, in quotation marks, instead of a paraphrase. What you are calling "her terminology" is not really the specific expression of a source, in the sense of being something where there is a nuance of the words chosen, and that nuance is essential to conveying the source's intended meaning, which would be lost if we use slightly different words. A verbatim quote, not longer than what we have now, would be superior to a paraphrase that is actually unhelpful to our readers' understanding. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed
I've removed this again, because I'm not seeing a consensus to include it. Does anyone other than Tryptofish want to see it in the article, and if so can you explain the reasoning? Also if yes, it's not about animal testing, so which section should it be in?

"Kathleen Marquardt, vice-president of the American Policy Center, accused PETA's former Director of Investigations and Research, Mary Beth Sweetland, of hypocrisy in 1993 for having used insulin derived from pigs and cows to control her diabetes. Sweetland responded that she controls her condition with a vegan diet and exercise, and uses Humulin (synthetic human insulin), which she says helped her regain the muscle mass she lost when on animal-based insulin.'"

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Has anyone here other than Tryptofish explained their reasoning, other than I don't like it.? Has anyone here other than Tryptofish discussed their concerns in talk before unilaterally reverting other editors' edits?
 * Actually, there are now 2 sections about animal testing, which maybe should be combined. I've explained above the relationship between animal research and the use of pig and cattle insulin; I don't see much point in parsing a distinction between medications tested on animals and medications obtained from animals, at least any distinction from an animal rights perspective. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Animal testing is not just about medications; in fact, most of it is not. And there is only one section about PETA's position on it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If it goes anywhere it should go into a criticism section at the very bottom of the article. Since PETA was and is criticized almost constantly by various politicians and media there should definitively be a section devoted to it (as with Monsanto and every other controversial organization), otherwise you end up with people dumping criticism all over the article and it just looks very bad and biased. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me like 99.236... agrees that criticism needs to be present on the page, as long as we, in effect, stick to NPOV so as not to be an attack page. As for a separate criticism section, this has been a perennial subject in this talk, and consensus has been that it is better not to have such a section, but instead, to present both sides to each section as it occurs.


 * So, in response to SV's question about "anyone here other than Tryptofish", I've tried to discuss with SV some concerns I have about that in her talk, but I do not see anyone here other than SV taking a position of deleting the passage. The other editors who have been active here recently have previously taken part in discussing the passage and taken part in modifying its wording, so it seems to me that, if they had wanted to argue for completely deleting it, they would already have done so, and they haven't.


 * In response to what SV has said here now: Yes, animal testing is not only about medical applications, and it includes military testing as well, which is in a separate section that could possibly be merged into this one. But a significant part of it is about medical applications, including the very issue (Silver Spring) upon which PETA was founded, and also including the medical use of insulin. If this (insulin) were an instance in which groups like activistcash were the only ones discussing the issue, then there might be a case that it would not be encyclopedic to include it. But that's not true. According to the sources cited, it's something that Mary Beth Sweetland and Ingrid Newkirk have written about, very proudly and not at all defensively. They weren't simply saying the lobbying groups are unfair and here is how we rebut them, but they were saying Mary Beth Sweetland is in-your-face proud of what she has discovered about how to deal with diabetes. I'm increasingly getting the feeling that some editors are arguing that we cannot cite (well-sourced, in context, and not cherry-picked) what PETA says, because what PETA says somehow reflects badly on them. That's not for editors to judge. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any remaining rationale for leaving the passage deleted. And, for that matter, it would make sense to move the military testing paragraph into this section as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I correct that there are no objections to my argument here? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Insulin again
If someone other than Tryptofish believes the Sweetland/insulin issue should be included, please say here. I've collected the posts about it at Talk:PETA/insulin. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "If someone other than Tryptofish". I have previously pointed out to you in your talk why this formulation is inappropriate. The posts to which you link include numerous editors, over time, saying that it should be included, and this goes back to before I was even an editor here. "Please say here": they said it there. In some cases, they make arguments that were then shown to be flawed. In other cases, they were subjected to personal attacks for making their arguments. In some cases, they have made arguments that have not yet been refuted, or where the refutations were, themselves, subsequently refuted. I have made arguments in favor of including the material, as well as in favor of correcting some bad sourcing and doing better at providing what Sweetland and PETA themselves say about it. I have been repeatedly subjected to personal attacks for doing so. Nonetheless, I have consistently replied to every objection to the material, and patiently and politely explained where I think the other person is mistaken. Even in the most recent discussions, multiple editors other than SV who had reservations about the material did not choose to argue for its complete removal, but instead, worked collaboratively to modify the wording of the passage, and I cooperated with them and their modifications are on the page now.


 * So if we are going to ask SV's question above, I am going to also ask anyone who replies to not simply say "me too", but to provide an explanation of why they think the reasons for inclusion given in all the talk before are incorrect. This is a discussion, not a vote, and one editor does not get to decide who the cool kids are. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We've been thru this a few times. I've already said that I don't think it should be included 1) because she no longer works there and hasn't for years 2)it's a minor issue 3) it was the only example listed under hypocrisy & it is a very old ref. If hypocrisy exists, there must be newer refs. Perhaps Trypto and/or other editors objected, so the compromise was to state that this happened in 1993, Sweetland is a former employee, and that she is a long-time user of human-derived insulin. With those compromises, I could see having it in the article, although I don't think it adds much to it except as a platform for Marquadt's accusation. I think this may have been an attempt to integrate criticism into the article, but again, I think there must be a better issue to hang it on. Bob98133 (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I also don't think it that insulin section warrants inclusion, for the same reasons elucidated by the others above. The only reason I edited it is to add accuracy and balance; I didn't want to get into an edit war removing it, so I figured if it's there, it should at least be done correctly. But given a choice, I see no valid reason to include it. Crum375 (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Yeah, we sure have been through this a lot of times. I appreciate that Bob, again, is focusing on the content and not the editors, and paying attention to both sides of the arguments in order to identify ways to compromise.


 * Looking up to, you actually said "I'm fine with the change you made. It's not clear why she says it's superior - probably because animals weren't used - but that's a minor point." We fixed the wording about that unclear point, and you then raised the three points you also raise here. I replied to that, "As for a more recent example, well, that would be nice, but we have the sources that we have. And there is nothing inherently wrong with reporting something from the recent past. After all, we report a great deal about the Taub incident (rightly so), even though present-day scientists would likely argue that Taub is no longer even remotely representative." SV much later responded to me that I should not equate Sweetland with Taub, because the Taub incident was so much more historically significant. However, I never said that they were of equivalent historical significance, only that it is reasonable to report something that happened in the recent past, even if some other things have since changed. I stand by that argument, and I do not think anyone has shown it to be incorrect.


 * So we still have the issue of whether the material still is what Bob calls a platform for Marquardt's accusation. I have already agreed that, in the past, that was a legitimate criticism of the way it had been presented on the page, but I went out and brought in other sources that I think provide much more balance. Look at what the page actually contains now. The accusation is mentioned quite briefly, and then there is a more lengthy passage showing what Sweetland says. And as I argued in the material that was copied just above to that "example" section, it's actually a situation where Sweetland and PETA are in-your-face proud of what they are saying. That's hardly a platform for Marquardt. I don't think that the arguments that it's somehow a BLP issue hold up in the face of that fact, or that "common sense" shows the material to be wrong, or that the (new) sourcing is dubious.


 * If there are further suggestions about how to revise the passage, I'm happy to work with those. And if there are any other arguments in favor of completely deleting the passage, that have not already been refuted, or if anyone feels that my arguments here are mistaken, I'm happy to work with that too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S.: If the concerns raised by Bob and Crum had been made in talk, even very briefly, after I asked if there were any more objections (copied just above), or even after SV first asked if anyone other than me..., I would definitely have refrained from making the edit to the page until I was sure that the editors had agreed that their concerns were satisfied. At those times, no one did. And now, I've tried to respond to what you have said. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * People have repeatedly said the insulin issue should not be included. But if they also say "but if it has to be included, it should say X," you act on the second point, but not the first. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed that segment since I don't think its inclusion is warranted. I think that something that happened years ago in the personal life of an ex communications director is not really relevant. It's also not making any clear point, since when a person is faced with a choice with a gun to their head, it's not a free choice, and therefore not really hypocrisy, even if some critic called it that. Crum375 (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not going to revert you at this time, but I want to make the following points. I think that I have already responded to each of the points that both of you make here, and neither of you has explained why you think I was wrong, saying instead the same things that I have already replied to, while not really engaging with my counter-arguments. To SV, people have repeatedly said things on both sides of this talk. As for things that should be said "if it has to be included", I am not aware of anything that anyone said needs also to be included that has not been. To Crum, I have explained already why I think it is not valid to delete the material because it happened some years ago. I have already explained why it is not valid to delete the material because it was in her "personal life". As for the argument that it is not really hypocrisy, that appears to me to be SYNTH and not an argument that is found in the sources, including the sources from Sweetland and Newkirk. In the end, I think you are both confusing a vote with consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * T, there are three people here responding to you, not two (not "both"). SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I previously replied to Bob. Here, I was replying to the two comments coming after my last comment, and to Crum's edit to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And whether 2 or 3, that has nothing to do with the substance of my arguments about the content. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Trypto, I am not denying that a PETA critic made that statement. And I am not violating SYN when I make a logical observation on a talk page, which I have no intention to add to the article. I only mention that point to explain that I consider that allegation of hypocrisy illogical, which means it falls under "exceptional claims", and would therefore require exceptional sources, per WP:SOURCES. That a single PETA critic makes that allegation is not an exceptional source, and in any case, the connection to PETA by what one of its employees did at home years ago, when faced with death, is tenuous at best. There is enough material, pro and against PETA, which is not in the category of "exceptional claims", and enough well-sourced criticism that we can focus on which does not criticize the action of a single ex-employee. Bottom line: this insulin material does not belong in the PETA article, in my view. Crum375 (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That clarification actually makes what I think is a valid point. Good. I'm not planning to revert you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Insulin archive
I created Talk:PETA/insulin, the first in a series of archives-by-topic that I intend to create for this page so that editors in future can see which arguments have been made before about which issues. Trytopfish has just placed the speedy-delete tag on it, on the grounds that "This is a duplication of archived talk from Talk:PETA, created to provide background for a discussion that has now been concluded. This duplicate talk is therefore no longer needed." 

Tryptofish, because you have decided not to continue inserting something, the issue is concluded, and the archive is no longer needed? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You may wish to refactor that. Since I don't know how to read your mind, I did not know about your plan to create multiple archives until I saw your hangon tag, and, as soon as I saw it, I withdrew the CSD. Am I incorrect and, in fact, someone is still continuing this talk topic? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You could have asked me. Or you could simply have left it and assumed I'd created it for a reason. Or you could have looked at the archive box at the top of the page. Why would you want to see an archive deleted (for any reason)? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? "This is a duplication of archived talk from Talk:PETA, created to provide background for a discussion that has now been concluded. This duplicate talk is therefore no longer needed." --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't create it only to provide background for this discussion, and you can't know the discussion has been concluded, because you're not the only participant. So I just find it odd that you'd try to have it speedied. That's all I wanted to say. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't know that you had reasons other than what you said here at the first time you mentioned that archive, because I'm not a mind reader. You said that you provided the archive to show previous talk about insulin, and it appeared to me that we were done discussing insulin. I think you are seeing oddness where it really isn't. Can we just get back to editing the page, instead of looking for reasons to be suspicious of other editors' motives? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason I mention it is that several people have asked you to reflect on how you're coming across on this talk page, and I think this is an example of it (you have finished discussing something, ergo the discussion is over, period). In the interests of harmony, I won't give other examples, but please reflect on it, because it's not helping.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's way out of line, and rather pointy. The reason that you mention it now appears to be that you want to make an innuendo about my intentions, instead of actually dealing with content of the page. I made a good faith interpretation of why you created the extra archive, I corrected my misunderstanding with respect to the CSD as soon as you explained it, and it is untrue that I have been taking the position in this talk that discussion is over because I said so. Indeed, quite the opposite: I explicitly asked if other editors agreed or disagreed, and I waited for responses before editing the page. This entire discussion about the archive is turning into yet another personal attack on me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the archive-by-topic index is a good idea since these same points keep coming up again and again. For most articles, it wouldn't be necessary, but I can see it's use for this one.


 * I don't disagree that it is reasonable to include incidents from the past provided they are still relevant. This is certainly the case with Taub material, but very much less evident with the Sweetland material. Bob98133 (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've created a few archives-by-topic on talk pages where the same points keep being raised. They take the place of an FAQ, but FAQs are contentious because they rely on editors summing up consensus, which almost never works well. By just listing the archives-by-topic, editors can look up the consensus for themselves. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Perhaps an archive box that would be more informative than "see also" would be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Her own words on insulin
http://www.peta.org/living/food/learned-control-diabetes/

Straight up, her own words. 15U a day of animal-tested, GMO (gene spliced) insulin: Humalin. Also, as a T1D myself, the usual dosage is U-100 (100 mg per 1ml), but Humalin is U-500, so five times the amount of insulin analog (it is NOT more “natural” to humans, it is still recombinant-DNA bacteria produced, i.e. GMO.) And was still animal tested. Her whole story lacks credibility, and deserves criticism.

Also, the most common diet that resolves or lessens-the-impact-of diabetes is a ketogenic diet, which means as little carbs as possible except fiber. (and sugar alcohols, they're not digested, but they do contribute to diarrhea, so… you know, limited use.) She's either taking GMO-derived multivitamins, or she's eating animal-derived protein. There's no other possibility.

Again, I'm a T1D that had to do all of this research to figure out what works best for me. Not in article because OR, but still… she's lying if she claims it's compatible with their “not even pets” animal rights position. --Puellanivis (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)