Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/POV tag

Too much criticism

Since Wikipedia is not the place to debate whether a group is right or wrong, it seems like there is far too much criticism of PETA on this page, as others have pointed out. Do we really need a criticism section on several individual campaigns, so that they can be individually criticised? We could condense the criticisms down to a paragraph, with references to webpages that conduct in-depth criticisms. Or the "Campaigns for a Vegan Diet" section already has a line of criticism after each campaign - isn't this sufficient? This isn't the place to go into detail about criticisms and counter-criticisms, as otherwise Wikipedia would just turn into a giant debating forum. --Raye 14:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since one of the main features of PETA is those contivesal campains probably. Do you have evidence to support your final assertion?Geni 14:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or debating forum [1], it's an encyclopedia. If we allowed debates here the situation would get out of hand - this page would say "Peta did A. critics say this is wrong because of B. Peta say that B is wrong because of C. Critics say that C is wrong because of D . . . " and so on forever. We do need important criticisms to be noted, but we can't allow this to get out of hand. This is difficult to resolve I admit, but the amount of criticism on this page certainly seems disproportionate, as others have also noted. If you look at the "Comparison with other organisation's Wikipedia pages" above, the difference is striking. --83.216.154.56 19:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article is already listed as disputed, and the edit history shows many comments regarding campaigns.

The article's title and subject is PETA. Perhaps the article is of sufficient length now that any criticism of specific PETA campaigns belongs on articles devoted to those campaigns. This also cuts down on the overabundance of debate as issues may be settled on seperate articles talk pages and described more sublty and in greater length than allowed on this article. Hyacinth 19:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good, but do the campaigns really warrant their own pages? I'm not sure what the guidlines are for what deserves its own page, maybe you are right and they do warrant individual pages. But also, if we deleted the campaigns from this page then there would be very little on this page! However, perhaps the most contraversial ones at least warrant their own page (I'm thinking of the Holocaust on your Plate campaign . . .) --83.216.154.56 20:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course some of these individual campaigns deserve an indepth discussion. PETA is deliberately controversial, and their actions have a significant effect on much of the American community. (The effect isn't always what they wish, but that's another story.) Remember - we are writing about a large and well-funded group that is trying to change the entire world in a revolutionary way (whether we like their goal or not.) Of course the result will be major controversies that deserve in-depth discussion. The same is true for reporting criticism. RK 16:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 13:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I've toned down the crit a bit, and removed the NPOV tag: discussion seems to have stopped. From my POV, there is too much unsourced stuff in the crit section, and too much flinging around of "terrorist", most of which I've removed.

(William M. Connolley 15:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Geni has re-inserted the "listed" terrorist orgs bit. The ref given doesn't convince: to me, a listed terrorist org implies an official list, and a place on that list.

I agree that "listed" implies a list. Actually the FBI does regard ALF/ELF as eco-terrorists [2]. There is a problem with using such evidence alongside the 1991 quote, however. We'd need to establish that ALF was known to be involved in identified acts of eco-terrorism in 1991--their later listing wouldn't really be relevant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)) A fair point. Also the link you quote isn't a list... its rather vaguer. Does in fact a "list" of terrorist orgs exist? This is what is wanted to support the text on the page - as well, as you point out, some evidence that they were "listed" in 1991.

Nuetrality

Other than the 'controversy' section, this seems to be some PeTA loving crap. Even the 'controversy' section is a bit soft, I need an NPOV tag on here.

I casually cleaned up some of the advocacy. PETA is only the largest animal rights organization in the world if one accepts their notion that only they and more radical groups really advocate animal rights. The Humane Society outsizes PETA 7:1 in membership, and only PETA and other radical groups claim Humane Society doesn't advocate for the rights of animals.

The claim that "nobody" has ever disrobed during a PETA protest is patently false, and if it weren't provably false, it could not be verified as true -- unless an independent and published researcher has attended all PETA protests or interviewed people who viewed those protests. To the contrary, the Go-Gos were fully nude and behind a banner in the 1990 kickoff of I'd Rather be Naked. At least one women in a series of images of nude zoo protests appears fully naked, Ronald Reagan's daughter Patti appeared nude in a PETA ad, and unless the specious claim is modified to "Nobody has ever presented full frontal nudity, this PETA ad features obvious, irrefutable complete nudity. [3][4]SaintBernard 07:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV - Who removed it?

Sorry, I haven't been watching recently, and it's hard to go through all the history. Who deleted the npov template, and why?

And come to think of it, who removed the PETA disambig link at the top, and why? Jesuschex 23:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like they were removed in this edit [5]. I'm assuming removing the disambiguation link was accidental. I have restored it. I have no idea whether removing NPOV was accidental or not ... but honestly ... is it serving any purpose? BigDT 06:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag

This article is replete with assertions that are "documented" only by means of references to the PETA web site. It gives one the impression that this page has been written by the PETA PR department, as such it is reflecting a decided pro-PETA bias. The assertions need to be documented from sources outside of PETA and until the whole article is carefully sources and references, it represents a violation of WP:NPOVPtmccain 01:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you L0b0t 01:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

POV Issues

Alright, a few problems here:

-The criticisms section is gone. Some people are attempting to justify this by arguing that the criticisms "should be weaved into the article" instead of having their own section. I have issues with that. Firstly, a number of criticisms which used to appear on this page are gone. They seem to have been deleted rather than moved. Secondly, the absense of a criticisms section only makes it more difficult to find such content. As a result of this recent "reformatting", the article reads like an advertisment for PETA.

-The links to anti-PETA sites are gone. I'll re-add a few and see how long they last.

-Most of this article seems copy-and-pasted from PETA websites.

I think it would be appropriate to have a POV tag on this article. --C civiero 04:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like I'm in way over my head here. The article is long and confusing and criticisms are buried. This article was much better a few weeks ago, it should be reverted. If not, throw on a POV tag. --C civiero 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the criticisms being weaved in - they are going to stay like that. IIRC, Jimbo Wales stated that this is how it should be done, rather than splitting the article as it is difficult to discuss an issue if it is spread out.

Please feel free to add back in criticisms that have vanished, in the correct place with verifiable, reliable sources.

A lot of the information is sourced to PETA websites, and is allowed to be as under the guidelines mentioned above.

We have discussed the 'anti-peta' links in detail, and some were removed under the above guidelines and policies due to them not adding anything to the article. The links section is not meant to be a section to advertise pro and anti websites, it is supposed to be to link to useful sites that add something to the article.-Localzuk ^(talk) 12:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism should definitely be "weaved into the article". Criticism sections are bad, as Jimbo himself once stated. Removing all criticism from the article, of course, is even worse. — Omegatron 07:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The majority of controversial articles have "criticisms" sections. "Weaving in" the criticisms only hides them from a anyone who isn't looking hard for them. I find it very hypocritical that many of the contributors here dismiss the idea of a proper criticisms section for PETA, but have no problems with the state of the animal testing article. Here are a few other examples:

-KFC has a "controversy" section, which FEATURES CRITICISMS FROM PETA

-There is an Ethics of eating meat aritcle, half of which CONSISTS OF CRITICISMS FROM VEGETARIANS.

-The Fur clothing article includes a "criticisms" section, which mentions campaigns made BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS.

This is ridiculous and amazingly hypocritical. The "animal rights" related articles are in terrible shape because a handful of hippies hijacked wikipedia and won't allow any valid criticisms of their stance to show. I have presenting a good, solid argument, citing precedents to show why a "criticisms" section should be included. PETA should not be exempted from the standards applied to other articles. --C civiero 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, lots of articles have Criticism or Controversy sections, but good articles generally don't. To be neutral, you have to present the information in a neutral way. Please read Wikipedia:Criticism.

Oh, and, generally, there are more than two sides to every issue. You might want to look into that. — Omegatron 23:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand why "criticism" and "controversy" sections would contribute to POV, but the criticisms that are buried in this article are greatly foreshadowed by copy-and-pasted PETA propaganda. --C civiero 02:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So add more. — Omegatron 12:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha! - adding more will likely result in a revert war and a 3rr warning from the high priestess of tofu and her vegan minnions. Nevertheless, I have gone through dozens of controversial and other articles here in Wiki and have decided quite the opposite: controversy sections are far superior to weaves and even a good article becomes a better article when so contstructed. Let's get to the meat of the issue. Firstly, I can read throught those articles (let us take a film for an example) and learn what the film is about and who was in it and who created it, etetera. Then I can read about secondary things like how much money it made, the impact it had on specific groups, and the short-lived or perhaps long term cultural impact it had locally or even globally. Then I can read about what the press thought, whether good, indifferent, bad or just descriptive. Then I can read about any conroversy the film generated; sections like this contain everthying I need to know about how and why a controversy existed and the criticims that are germane. Having a section like this allows me to quickly find out about the relevant controversy without having to read throught the whole article. I realise that, of course, if I had an agenda to recruit people to my cause I'd certainly want the opposite: I'd want to make them read everything about my cause and I'd hope that my inflammatroy rhetoric, photos and biased viewpoints would ring a bell in the reader and he'd sympathise with my ideas. I'd also want to make it difficult for dissenters to makes edits, keep track of all that work and maintin a proper perspective regaring controversy & criticism --- better to hide it where it can be surreptitiously de-clawed. Worse, controversy & criticism sections might just contain too much common sense and force the reader to scoff at the cause! In the case of PETA and animal (so-called)rights, all this is indubitably the case. I don't want to leave any meat on the bone here: what we want here is to BE encycloepedic by describing the truth, which involves laying it out so that all sides to a story receive proper attention. Wow - when common sense is a headwind, your cause is fruitless. DocEss 17:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This article REALLY SHOULD HAVE A POV TAG. If you skim through this talk page, its obvious that the POV IS DISPUTED. --C civiero 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please notice the article intelligent design, a candicate for Good Article. It has a controversy section, a situation whicj adds markedly to its roundness and objectivity. It is well written and is happilly devoid of the 'criticsm-weave' technique.DocEss 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem here is. This is an article about an organisation that has several, widely held, specific criticisms. A section detailing these criticisms (explaining them, not saying they're right or wrong) is not POV. -- Desire Campbell 140.184.32.65 02:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is definitely POV to hide the criticisms amidst all the propaganda in the article. Someone put the section back. --LifeEnemy 22:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I've decided to put up a NPOV tag due to the bias content of this article. It needs to be rewritten into a neutral point of view. The critism should be seperate of that from the different parts of the article. Kjones1985 16:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but to notice you're not giving any example whatsoever of bias. As for complaining about the criticism not having their own section, what has this to do with neutrality? The criticism is there where it's relevant and has nothing to do with the neutrality of the article. It would be a waste of time removing the tag, I suppose. Jean-Philippe 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be more specific. What do you find biased? Why do you think the criticism should be seperate, even though our guidelines and Jimbo Wales advise otherwise? Also what do you mean by bias? Do you mean unbalanced? If so, this is not the same as POV.-Localzuk ^(talk) 18:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia and NPOV tags including the SEE ALSO SECTION

I added a tag to the trivia section, also known as cultural influences, as per Localzuk^(talk)'s suggestion and my complete agreement. This section needs to be "integrated into the article." Also, as per Bob98133 suggestion above, the Center for Consumer Freedom should be removed from the see also section as undue weight. I wholeheartedly agree and have added a npov tag. Turtlescrubber 16:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree that the article should be re-written to make known PETA's gestapo propaganda tactics, eco-terrorism, and conspiricy to make everyone miserable. What about PETA and the dems money laundering scandall? That was thouroughly covered by the news butisn't mentioned once in the article. 75.1.249.181 17:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the trivia and npov tags that I added. Turtlescrubber 22:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased Removal of Criticism

...[snip]

I have addted the NPOV tag to this article. I came here to see what information Wikipedia had on the criticisms and negative aspects of PETA, and have found nothing but a PR article. Bob98133 has scrubbed this article of any criticism, claiming that the reason is that was a magnet for vandalism and supposedly unsubstantiated claims. What Bob failed to realize is that Wikipedia has a procedure for this, and it isn't Scrubbing the article of all criticism, its called locking and protecting the article. There are numerous sources online that describe PETA and its UNETHICAL treatment of animals to balance out this article. I dont have time to put together a section, but a simple Google search on "PETA KILLS" is a good start, as is petakillsanimals.org. This and numerous other sites will site facts, such as in 2006 PETA killed 97% of the animals brought to its shelter in Norfolk, while the state average was less than 35%, and the Norfolk SPCA less than 3%. That is just one example of the numerous criticisms against PETA that are WELL DOCUMENTED and can be found online. --Goosedoggy (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but if you read the article you will find a good amount of criticism - such as the whole euthanisia stance, the animals in the dumpster, the conflicts with various people/groups etc... A lot of unsubstantiated nonsense is removed, as is getting information from petakills, as it is an unreliable source. Please read the article before commenting in future.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag. These two sections directly address what you're objecting to. The source is the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. In 2006 PETA euthanized 97% of the animals brought to its shelter? Looks more like 31%. Djk3 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

This "article" (or perhaps PETA PR Press Release) is incredibly POV. Is this a Wikipedia bias? Or do the PETA Nazis patrol this article and delete any content that doesn't fit their POV? There isn't even a "Criticism" section even though honest people know that it exists... I'm going to put a POV tag on the article, please do not start a revert war, I don't want to have to file an arbitration complaint.

It has been suggested above that a "Criticism" section attracts vandalism. Well those are the breaks for having an article that does not risk being accused of POV, of glossing over "Criticism", an article that avoids the reality that "Criticism" exists.

The fact is "Criticism" does exist, and an unbiased article doesn't try to hide it withing a body of POV PR-style writing. This whole article comes off as no more than an extension of the PETA web site or much of their promotional material. I'm not against PETA, but this whole article is so obviously POV.

Proxy User (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is every few paragraphs in the article (starting in the lead), with topics including them euthanizing animals, to giving money to arsonists, to minimizing The Holocaust... a far cry for a PR sheet. Maybe it's true that POV pushers prefer a vandalism (I mean, Criticism) section, in the same way that other POV pushers want a different vandalism (I mean Praise) section, but on one article on my watchlist, this devolved into no less than 6 sections, Including "Criticism", "Responses to Criticism", "Rebuttals to Responses of Criticism", "Praise", "Responses to Praise", "Rebuttals to Responses of Praise", (and so on) and generally made the article unreadable in the end. In addition, it makes the article *less* readable in some ways, because a praise/criticism section is then possibly taken totally out of context. Perhaps, if there are praises/criticisms that you aren't seeing in the article, you could find sources and add them in? Ronabop (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that those who want a "Criticism" are all "vandals"? Or is it that an organized "Criticism" section tends to have more impact on readers than having it all spread out, and that fits your POV? It is almost a standard format for Wikipedia articles where there is "Criticism" that is has its own section. Why should this article be different unless you wish to sweep "Criticism" under the rug (so to speak), and make it appear as though there is no "Criticism"? The current format without a "Criticism" section is not only out of sinc with other Wikipedia articles, it is devicive, or has the appearance of deviciveness. That some may abuse a "Criticism" sections does not mean there should not be one. Regardless of the glaring lack of a "Criticism" section, the article as it is is wildly POV Proxy User (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not equating those who contribute to "Criticism" with vandals, or "Praises" with vandals, but that those sections tend to get slammed by vandals. Or is it that an organized "Criticism" section tends to have more impact on readers than having it all spread out, and that fits your POV. Yes, my general editor POV is that we should not organize articles to support a Criticism section, or a Praise section. We are not a dumping ground for opinions, blogs, and editorials. It is almost a standard format for Wikipedia articles where there is "Criticism" that is has its own section --nope. Actually, for many of the more contentious articles, we don't. Intelligent_Design, God, Abortion, The Holocaust, Adolf_Hitler,Jews, Republican_Party_(United_States), Jesus etc., we don't. Current social critique ranks a few levels lower in WP than cited historians, and scholarly study. When that level of critique and study has passed muster, sure, we add in sections and articles like (to address one topic) Historicity_of_Jesus, Jesus-myth_hypothesis, Life-death-rebirth_deity, but adding a sub-section to the Jesus article like Jesus:Criticism? Not Gonna Happen, unless the content is scholarly, substantial, reliable, and informative. Now, seeing those articles as templates, there might be hope for a Controversy about PETA sub-article, but only if such an article merited its own space, because it was overloading the main PETA article. For that to happen, such an article would have to be not about criticism, but the controversy over the criticism. Anyways... if you have sources not in the article, new topics to introduce, new sources which might overload the article, to where it needed it's own article, that's one thing, but to demand an article to be re-structured is another. Ronabop (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is merit for a "Controversy about PETA" article that could draw this topic away from the main article. But that supports my idea that most controversy should be isolated in a section and not spread out over the whole article (as if to disperse it in a POV way, to minimize). Thus, this section becomes an article. I don't care if policing is an issue because of vandals, that's irrelevant to how the article should be formed. There is "Criticism". The "Criticism" is fairly well defined. Such well defined substance should have a section. Without a "Criticism" section, the article is clearly POV. This is not in alignment with Wikipedia theology of unbiased critique. Proxy User (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really contributing with this comment here, but it is really amazing how people don't recognize their own POV. I guess an article on PETA would draw an emotional response, but still, please try and recognize "PETA is evil" is not a NPOV comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.223.249 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is sometimes hard to recognize what is POV, but can you please explain how "PETA is evil" is NPOV? Who exactly decides what organizations are evil? And how evil do they have to be to be called evil and have it not be POV? What if those making the accusation are equally evil? Maybe if they're both evil it cancels out? I appreciate that you realize that you weren't really contributing with your comment. If you have something else not to contribute, please do so.Bob98133 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Bob, you owe the anon above an apology. Before you ask people not to contribute to the project, make sure your own reading comprehension is up to snuff. Reread the anon comment above and then see how much of an ass you made out of yourself. 96.231.105.2 (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bob, I've noticed you make another strange comment like this about "patent nonsense". It would be better to read comments more carefully before responding to them. 137.122.200.15 (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not me. Thank you very much for pointing this out so I can improve. Bob98133 (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This article makes PETA look like saints. I put a neutrality tag on the article, but some PETA dude put it down. User:Thewritingwriter17 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC).

I removed your POV tag because there has been a lot of discussion about POV on this page. Numerous editors have been working to integrate criticism into the text and to keep it balanced. Since it is about PETA it seems reasonable that their positions be stated which may seem POV but they are clearly written to explain PETA's POV rather than to support or condemn it. There are many instances where opposing views or other POVs are presented. A controversy section has been added and removed several times with various rationales. Because the page is controversial and subject to a lot of vandalism, it makes sense to discuss what in particular you find unacceptible POV and how you would change it with references to support the changes. I don't think that this page makes PETA look like saints, but I'm not all that religious. How do you think it does that and what should be changed? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

POV template removed

I have removed the POV tag from the top of the page. I think that there has been real progress in improving the page over recent months, and so I no longer consider the tag to be needed. There have been a number of content improvements, and these have been discussed in the talk above. In addition, the Unnecessary Fuss image has been deleted; although that occurred as a result of a file deletion, it ended up satisfying a POV concern as well. In my opinion, the page is now fairly balanced, and the edits that have made it so appear to be stable so far. In the event that these improvements might be reversed or "compensated for", I might decide to put the tag back. Thank you to the editors who have worked together on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting allegations of evidence fabrication

In the Profile > History section: after reviewing the main article on Silver Spring monkeys and cited sources, I object to the way these allegations are presented in the summary here -- not to mention how the first paragraph seems to give too much weight to so-called value of the research. As it was discussed before [6] Hubel is inherently biased as an animal researcher. I don't agree with supporters of Hubel as a source and I'm surprised that user:SV is the only editor who objected then. Even the title of his paper [7] is about researchers fighting against AR activists (!). Furthermore, the two sources listed at the monkey article in body text [8] & [9] are both from animal research outlets. I think we really need secondary (third-party) sources not invested with either side. By the way, I've also posted this in the talkpage for the SS-monkey article. PrBeacon (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You make such a big deal out of Hubel being a researcher and having a title of his paper that carries a POV. Of course he has a POV, but it does not follow that this page does, simply because he is cited here. Would you seriously argue that sources from PETA do not have POVs? It is worthwhile that, in the source cited here, Hubel was speaking as president of the Society for Neuroscience, a professional organization that represents a very large number of scientists, and therefore, his allegations, whether true or not, represent the views of a sizable population of stakeholders in the subject matter of this page—just as PETA's views, whether true or not, should be and are presented here. The page, as currently written, does not take a side as to whether the allegations are true, but presents them neutrally. In other words, it does not say that PETA fabricated evidence, but rather that PETA was accused of fabricating evidence. And the page hardly gives too much weight to the "so-called" value of the research. Now having said that, I actually have no objection to adding sourcing from third parties. What, specifically, would you propose to add? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the whole article.
Just this section.
And I don't see how it's "such a big deal" to raise an objection -- simply because I'm disagreeing with you, among others. Frankly it's an odd & somewhat dismissive reply to what some of us see as a legitimate concern.
          Besides, Hubel wasn't president when his paper was published. Thus you're assuming he's speaking (as former president) with the authority of his organization which is not necessarily true. And as SV rightly pointed out before, Hubel is not a direct party to the lab case, whereas PETA is. Furthermore we have no source for Hubel's claims of "strong suspicion" (p.7) other than his vested interest in animal research and his confrontational stance against animal rightists.
          So, as it stands this section seems to be unbalanced -- the intervention is presented and countered with research value, then we have the allegations of evidence tampering. If the mention of tampering stays, then we should qualify the value of research with a counterclaim. PrBeacon (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But the wording is neutral as to the accuracy of Hubel's accusation, and you appear not to have a third-party source to cite. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say i had a secondary source and I dont think the onus is on me to produce one. I'm simply questioning the validity of Hubel as a source for the tampering. Futhermore, the line in question reads "Some scientists..." when in fact it is only Hubel. Just because someone makes the accusation doesn't mean WP must include it. So I'm replacing the Hubel reference with a cite tag.PrBeacon (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I accept your point about it being just Hubel, as sourced. However, it was illogical of you to delete the source as "biased", which is what you said in your edit summary, or because you feel, as you say here, that the accusations may be incorrect. The source is not cited to claim that PETA actually fabricated evidence. The source is cited to document that Hubel made the accusation that they did, and it is clearly verifiable that Hubel made this accusation. Strictly speaking, Wikipedia's standard for including information is verifiability rather than truth, and it is of interest and relevance that this accusation was made. We don't hold PETA to the standard that what they say must be true or we cannot include it on this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Try to contain your scorn. Just because an edit seems 'illogical' to you doesn't make it so. You cite WP:verifiability as though it backs up your position. It doesn't -- precisely because of Hubel's lack of NPOV. "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with 'No original research' and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three." PrBeacon (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't being scornful, and I certainly don't need to be lectured about policy. I was saying, very correctly, that Hubel's accusation does not need to be correct in order to be encyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure you were, you've been dismissive from the start. And yes apparently you do need to be reminded of the threefold guideline. Or are you intentionally ignoring the NPOV part? PrBeacon (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Wikipedia has to be NPOV. Sources do not. If you want to insist, wrongly, that we cannot cite any sources that have POVs, then we cannot cite PETA as a source anywhere in the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not what i said. And we already know what you think. Perhaps you can wait for other editors to contribute to the discussion. PrBeacon (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To repeat: to delete the source on the grounds that Hubel has a POV is not valid. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. Repeating it doesn't make it right, or even 'very correct'. You keep bringing up PETA as a comparable source. Yet they are primary. Hubel is not. And apparently you prefer to bully the argument rather than wait for others to weigh in. I think it's time for admin action. PrBeacon (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to have impartial, third-party sources. I might as well put it right out in the open that I think bias against the animal researchers is an even bigger problem than bias for them. For example, the article talks about PETA's "investigations". Next thing you know, we'll be talking about the ELF's actions as "missions".... — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 06:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point. "Investigations" is POV. Would "activities" or "work" be better word choices for the section header? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue of which side has more bias for/against is open to your own interpretation. Taking the example given of "investigation" -- it may seem loaded to you because of its legal connotations, but it seems ambiguous enough to me: "as, the investigations of the philosopher and the mathematician; the investigations of the judge, the moralist." I also note that the section's summary of the legal proceedings is incomplete/inaccurate. The Supreme Court ruled in PETA's favor and returned the case to Louisiana for trial. This article only mentions that the SC rejected custody claims.PrBeacon (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed that allegation. I removed it a long time ago but didn't realize it had been restored. This was added ages ago to various articles by a former editor who was an animal researcher, and who was keen to discredit PETA. It's a misuse of primary source material. If we want to add anything about that we need to find a secondary source who cites a primary source, and not just randomly pick an animal researcher who has no direct knowledge of the situation, who's opposed to PETA, but who counts as a primary source because he's a player in the general debate. The Washington Post was the lead newspaper on this case, so if a fabrication allegation was made, they'll have it in one of their stories. They can be found in the Post's archives on its website. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary reply, about recent edits in general and not only that one. You'll see that I've restored the POV tag to the page, but, in fact, I'm quite hopeful that we can work out these issues in a positive way without too much drama. In fact, I think many of SV's edits the past two days have been very good and helpful. It's going to take me a little time to bring together the parts of the edit history that are relevant, so I'll explain in detail as I do so, and I'll refrain from any further reversion until we've discussed it in this talk. I would urge editors to look carefully at talk over the past several months here, and not simply dismiss it. We don't get anywhere when we regard one another as pro- and anti-PETA crowds. As for the Hubel thing, it seems to me to be appropriate to include statements from critics, although I also think the secondary source point is a worthwhile one. As for the lead, it's something that quite a few thoughtful editors, not just me, not just "drive-bys", have worked on, and, while I myself would like to see some tightening of it, I'm not happy with such a full rollback, for several reasons. For one, sourcing the last section to Seantor Imhofe is very weak compared with the more recent version, for, in fact, some of the same reasons that editors have expressed concerns about David Hubel as a source. Also, there is quite a history going into the discussion of pets in the lead. The most recent wording strikes me, personally, as having become too wordy by way of compromise, but, as discussed previously, there are compelling reasons to include it some of it in the lead, particularly if we are careful to source it directly to PETA themselves and not take anything out of context. But, as I say, I'm pretty confident we can work together to sort this out. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for an alternative to Hubel: I followed SV's advice about looking back through the Washington Post's archives, and an alternative presented itself that I think may work better. I suggest leaving Hubel out, and, instead, citing this [10], to support a statement that there were accusations of fabrication in both directions. In my opinion, it's important to acknowledge that scientists had concerns about the veracity of what Pacheco reported, regardless of whether those concerns were correct or incorrect, and this may be a way to report that in a more properly NPOV way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Good find. I added it here. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Tag

Does anyone else feel this should have the POV tag on it? It was added by an anon a year ago. [11] Tryptofish reverted when anyone tried to remove it, but finally removed it herself in March this year, but with the words, "In the event that these improvements might be reversed or "compensated for", I might decide to put the tag back," which I feel isn't really an appropriate use of the tag. [12] And indeed she has now restored it without explanation. [13]

We're not supposed to engage in drive-by tagging, or to use tags as bartering chips. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. Tryptofish did leave an explanation above, which I missed. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. Yes, I did explain, and I have also said that I am planning to explain in more detail, point by point, as we go along. Please understand, the page has been relatively quiet for several months with the content that is only now being changed, but there was a lot of agreement and little or no objection until a few days ago. The changes over the past few days have in some ways been excellent and in some ways have disregarded talk here over the past few months. These changes are so many, so fast, that it is difficult for anyone to go through them quickly and take it all in. So the process of examining them and responding where necessary will have to be deliberate, and that is what is going to happen. There is a talk section, probably now archived, where I said that I removed the POV tag because of what appeared at the time to have been consensus over edits that had been made up to that point. See? The POV tag had been here a very long time, over a year, and I removed it, myself. I also made very clear my reasons for removing it, and said explicitly that if those reasons were to be undone, the tag would come back. The page was stable in that form until a few days ago. I'm very happy that we are discussing the changes now in this talk, and I especially thank SV for making careful lists of some of the issues most likely to require some give-and-take. As seen above, that approach has already been very fruitful with respect to the Hubel/fabrication issue, and I am very confident that, as we work through this, we can continue to find good solutions with which we will all be happy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Trypto, if editors added tags on articles they disagreed with, all contentious articles on WP would be permanently tagged, because there will never be a version which satisfies everyone. If you want to improve the article, then keep trying to find the right balance, but to slap on a tag as soon as you don't get your way is WP:POINTy, and doesn't help anything. The right way to improve the article is by collaboratively searching how best to present what the sources say, not by disfiguring the article when your view is rejected. Crum375 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum, you are mischaracterizing. If you have a problem with the existence, use, or appearance of the template, take it up at WT:NPOV. I don't know about other editors, but I did not add it back because I disagree with something. I did it because I genuinely believe that there are POV issues. A case can be made that your removal without having addressed the concerns that I raised in this talk was out-of-policy. You imply that I am not collaboratively searching for the best sources? Please reconcile that claim with the sourcing I just provided in the Hubel-related thread. And please do not write about me as though I were some kind of vandal. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Trypto, I did not say or imply you are a vandal. I am sure your motivation is good, but your method is wrong. If you truly want to improve the article, you don't need to disfigure it. All you need do is to keep working collaboratively to modify the contents to your way of thinking. The act of slapping on the template is essentially telling the others: I'll mess up this article unless I get my way! Consider that contentious articles will never completely satisfy everyone, so if everyone behaved like you, we'd have these disfiguring templates everywhere. Crum375 (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If everyone behaved like me, we would have a lot of careful, responsible editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

But even careful, responsible editors can become better editors. Crum375 (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sure you will. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully both of us. :) Crum375 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]

At the moment I'm undecided about the flag. Personally I think PETA is so controversial (and understandably so, given their confrontational tactics) that any fair portrayal here will be automatically viewed as pro-PETA by some while anti-PETA by others. I'm no expert but I also think there is often some misperception about neutrality and balance, especially on different scales -- single incidents, small campaigns, historical patterns, overall direction(s). Even a quick review of the talkpage discussions at WP:NPOV (38 archives and counting) reveals the wide variety of opinions as to what we collectively see as middle ground.
      On a side note, is there an official way to stamp the article as contentious? I've looked through the templates but found nothing appropriate. I'm thinking something like the Controversial [14] tag applied to talk pages. I could be mistaken but this might actually (1) add to discussion of divisive topics and (2) reduce vandalism. PrBeacon (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

Seems like this thread Talk:PETA -Archives # Tag stalled and got archived so I'd like to ask folks what we need to do to remove this tag. I can see both arguments: PETA is intentionally controversial and there will always be disagreements .. but the article has undergone some big changes recently with serious efforts at collaboration etc... Thoughts? -PrBeacon (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I particularly owe an answer to this question, since I was the editor who placed the tag. In fact, I was already thinking that we are getting very close to where I will remove it on my own. In my opinion, as I said recently, we have, together, accomplished a lot of good with the lead. In the thread to which you link, I point to a slightly earlier thread in which I gave my reasons for putting the tag back on the page. To make a long story short, it was because the large number of edits in late April had altered the POV balance that had been achieved on the page over the preceding several months. Since then, it has been a slow process of going back over those changes, and finding ways to address them that we can agree upon enough for consensus. ("Slow": just consider the number of talk threads about the video.) As of now, the lead is done, and we are part way through the things in the rest of the page. If we get through most of those remaining issues in pretty much the same way as we did so far (maybe quicker, in an ideal world, but consensus is more important than speed), then I would agree that "the dispute has been resolved", which is the policy basis for removing the tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. It's been there for over a year, perhaps more, with a break of only a few weeks, at the behest of one editor. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Which it will be as soon as we do what I discuss immediately above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to you alone. These tags should never be on a well-attended article because of just one person. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As the template itself says, please do not remove it until there is a resolution of the issue. And that is not determined by a vote. Instead of wasting time discussing editors, how about discussing and fixing content? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel you've been holding the page hostage with the tag for over a year (perhaps longer, I'll need to check when you first added it), restoring it and removing it depending on whether things are going your way. It's not supposed to be used like that. Does anyone other than Tryptofish feel the tag ought to remain? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should check before you make personal remarks about me. And there you go again with the "anyone other than Tryptofish" line. It isn't a vote. To repeat: Instead of wasting time discussing editors, how about discussing and fixing content? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I checked. The tag was added by an anon in April 2009, then restored by you in June 2009, [15] removed by you when you got your own way about the lead in March 2010, [16] then restored by you in April 2010 when someone (probably me) made edits you didn't like. [17]

When removing the tag in March, you wrote (March 12): "In my opinion, the page is now fairly balanced, and the edits that have made it so appear to be stable so far. In the event that these improvements might be reversed or 'compensated for', I might decide to put the tag back." [18] And you restored it shortly afterwards (April 22) when edits appeared that you didn't like. That's a statement of intent to use the tag as a weapon or bargaining tool, which is clearly a misuse. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Trypto, as I mentioned when we last discussed this issue, there isn't a single controversial article on WP where everyone is happy. In fact, it's very likely almost everyone is unhappy in such articles. If anyone who felt unhappy with the POV balance in an article were to slap on a POV tag, virtually all controversial articles would be so tagged. But they are clearly not, which is because that tag is used for a short time, to raise attention to a specific issue. If it remains on for a long time, almost by definition it's improper, because a reasonably stable article over a long time ipso facto represents the POV balance among the various editors. If you feel an issue is critical, you need to escalate it to an RfC or some other broad forum, but you can't just slap POV templates and leave them on forever. Again, a long time (months) effectively means a balanced version, at least among the involved editors. So in conclusion, I think you need to escalate this if you feel it's unbalanced, and otherwise remove the tag. Crum375 (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My reply to this:

• I notice the comment about "I feel you've been holding the page hostage..." Oh no! Call in the hostage negotiators! Get out the bulletproof vests! Surround the building! Oh! Oh! There is no need to be so melodramatic about this (nor to react as though it's something personal, which, for me at least, it most definitely is not). Wikipedia is a website. PETA is a page at that website, the visual representation of some files on a server in Florida. The template is a small amount of code near the beginning of that file. The code indicates that one or more editors believe that there are issues about POV that need to be addressed, not that anyone's sky is falling.
• "When you got your own way." "When someone (probably [SV]) made edits you didn't like." (Probably? Are you unsure?) Sheesh! Anyone around here read WP:NPA? Poor editors, choose of your own free will to go away from a page for a while, and when you come back, you find to your horror that other editors worked collaboratively in your absence to edit the page in a way that they felt improved it, and horrid evil Tryptofish removed a POV tag that had been there longer than Tryptofish has been an editor, and congratulated the other editors who had worked together productively. Seeing, perhaps, that you didn't get your way, you immediately reverted the edits that had been made in your absence, so the page would again be your way (and yet again, now: [19]).
• I do not consider the tag to be a bargaining tool, despite the attempts to paint me as saying that. My explanation of my reasons for removing the tag when I did, were a straightforward explanation of the situation. In retrospect, my concern that someone would later come and undo the improvements that had been made may have been a bit beansy, but alas proved accurate. It's not a weapon, unless someone takes it so personally that they feel wounded by it.
• With respect to the several statements about how editors believe the template should or should not be used (that there should never be just one editor arguing for a tag, but instead some unspecified number greater than one; that the tag may only be used for short periods of time; etc.), this talk page (Talk:PETA) is not the place to propose changes in policy. WT:NPOV is that-a-way. Here, we are going to deal with it according to the policies that exist, not the wishes of editors who are unhappy with policies or templates.
• Let's underline that, really, this tag is nothing personal. From WP:DRIVEBY (I figured you'd like that shortcut!): "It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."
• About that issue of it being such a long, long time (Are we there yet?), and the need to "escalate": When I restored the tag after the April edits, I stated in this talk my reasons for doing so. Since then, I doubt that a single day has passed without my participating in this talk to either find more sources (I've been doing more of that than anyone else here), explain specific points that are issues as I see them, and respond to editors who, in turn, have views opposite to mine. Precisely because I think that drama can be reduced and productive editing increased by not escalating the process, I have chosen (and still choose) to refrain from making edits to the page that would revert the April edits, until there appears to be consensus in this talk (or, alas, the absence of a response from those who disagree, since I cannot force other editors to engage if they choose not to), and I have always tried to answer, specifically, the points made by other editors (even when some other editors, certainly not all, kept repeating themselves after I had offered counterarguments to what they had said). Take a look at that archive of Video, part 1, through Video, part gazillion. Yes, it took a long, long time, but that was because that was how long it took to reach consensus. But the good news is that we did reach consensus, and that is something to feel proud of! And if you just read what I said near the top of this thread, we are already so close to no longer needing the tag that I have to wonder why so much affect is being expended complaining about the small time remaining.
• For those who are eager to get rid of the tag and move one, a suggestion (again): instead of wasting time in this thread, how about discussing the actual content that needs to be worked on?
• It's interesting to see the new POV tag archive. Editors long before me have been concerned about POV on this page. In fact, it would be useful to have another archive, of the perennial requests for a criticism section, which, when one thinks about it, are actually also a symptom of long-time concerns about this page, whether one agrees with those concerns or not.
• And for anyone who hasn't figured it out yet, trying to make this talk about me, instead of about content, ain't gonna work. I don't get intimidated by it, and I don't fall for it. It won't make me go away. If you have concerns on either side of the issue of POV at this page, focus your comments on content and sources, not on editors, not on wishes for policy change. Do that, and you'll find that I'm very happy to work with you constructively. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't accuse others of overreacting then post another overly long response filled with inane asides and defensive counteraccusations. Or you can, but you lose credibility. Your first response was more reasonable, even though it sounds like you're still saying The POV Tag Stays Until I Get My Way. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing that I said was inane. As for others.... --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As no one else has said they support the tag, I'm going to remove it. It's been there for almost 13 months at the behest of Tryptofish, except for four weeks in March/April this year. Tags aren't meant to be long-term additions. I also think the article is now neutral by any reasonable standard, and I'm continuing to work on it by adding good secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I object. No one has had any possibility of evaluating all of the edits you have just made. You are, in effect, saying that you have decided that your edits are sufficient, so you get to unilaterally decide when to remove it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No one else supported the tag before, after, or during the edits. No single person can keep an article tagged for over a year—even a group of editors doing it for that long would be inappropriate. We could all go round to articles we don't like and tag them, but it isn't fair or reasonable to do that unless there are major concerns that can't otherwise be fixed. But the current version really is as neutral as this page has ever been. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your characterization of me is incorrect, and your proclamation about the current version is unilateral. I'm not saying that you are wrong, or right, about whether the POV issues have been fixed. I'm just saying that it is premature for you to unilaterally declare that you have fixed them. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No one supports the tag but you. You're the one who's been acting unilaterally in that regard. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Over time, that has not been true. And it wouldn't matter if it were true. This isn't a vote. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been true for many months, and it's not a question of a vote, but of consensus and of being reasonable. If you read the current version, I think you will agree that it's neutral. It's not perfect by any means, but it really is quite balanced. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been very reasonable. It will also be reasonable to give me and anyone else enough time to read and evaluate the current version. My objection was that you seemed to be saying that you weren't going to give anyone enough time to do that. WP:There is no deadline. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

The way POV tag situations are handled is that, when someone feels there are POV issues, they write a list on the talk page, a specific list of concerns that are actionable within the content policies. Discussion and attempts to compromise then ensue. If they can't be sorted and there's consensus that the article needs to be tagged because of them, then it becomes appropriate for a reasonable period as the issues are dealt with. So Tryptofish, please write up your list of issues below, and we can try to deal with them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I have been doing for months now. You change the page so much, so rapidly, that it becomes impossible for me or anyone else to keep up. I just said above, a few days ago, that we were already very close to having the issues, as of that time, fixed, and that I was very close to removing the tag myself, if we just addressed a few more issues. Now, over these past few days, I find a radically altered page. This puts me in the position of being back at step one. Now, I have to go through an entirely new page and see what it says and how it compares to past versions. I'm going to do so, and will, indeed, indicate any concerns that I have here. I also indicated below, earlier today, that I hoped you would indicate in this talk when you feel your revisions are at a stage where other editors can take the time to look at them. I interpret your comments here about POV being fixed as indicating that you are ready for me and anyone else to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve the page because it's been in a poor state for years. I'm trying to think as I write it what I would do if I were submitting it for featured article status—I have no intention of submitting it, because it would be a horrific amount of work, but I'm approaching it from that perspective.That's the reason for the changes, and I hope to continue refining it. But the issue of balance won't be changing significantly, because I'm trying to balance as I go along. If you write up specific objections to this version, they'll almost certainly still pertain in some form. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will write them up, or fix them myself where I can. If "they'll almost certainly still pertain in some form", then the ones I've already raised in this talk, that have never been replied to, just might still pertain. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

T, with respect, I see this as unreasonable, and I ask that you remove it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is the nature of POV disputes that some editors will always feel that the POV of the page is alright. It is reasonable that I can disagree with you. I have already answered you that I will remove it when the issues are addressed. I have already answered you that I am not saying that the current version is right or wrong, but that no one other than you has yet had an opportunity to read it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In case it got overlooked, I also want to underline that I said, a little while ago, in this talk, that a quick look at the newest changes appears to me, at first glance, to include a lot that is very good. Thank you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)In fairness to SV, I want to note that there was an edit conflict, such that my comment here appeared just after her comment below did. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Below is the lead that caused Tryptofish to remove the POV tag in March. It's poorly written, it relies almost entirely on primary sources—including Penn and Teller as the source of a Newkirk statement—and it contains several of the things CCF likes to focus on about PeTA: total animal liberation, domestic terrorist threats, and an emphasis on pet ownership, even though PeTA doesn't focus on that at all. The current lead is significantly better written, more comprehensive, neutral, and it relies on secondary sources. The same applies to the rest of the article. Yet it's the current version Tryptofish feels ought to be tagged.

Lead in March when Tryptofish removed the POV tag [20]

Current (now tagged) [21]

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an animal rights organization based in Norfolk, Virginia, USA. With two million members and supporters worldwide, it claims the status of the largest animal rights group in the world. Ingrid Newkirk is its international president. Founded in 1980, the organization is a nonprofit, tax exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation with 187 employees, funded almost entirely by its members. Newkirk has said "our goal is total animal liberation." According to its website, PETA focuses on four core issues: factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment. Their website also says of the ownership of pets: "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of 'pet keeping'—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as 'pets'—never existed", and attributes pet ownership to a "selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them", while not endorsing "set[ing] them free". PETA also campaigns against the killing of animals regarded as pests, the abuse of backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, bullfighting, hunting, and fishing. It aims to inform the public through advertisements, undercover investigations, animal rescue, and lobbying. Its slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." The organization has been criticized for the confrontational style and content of its campaigns, and for the number of animals it euthanizes. It has also been criticized for providing financial support to persons associated with the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which were listed in a draft planning document as domestic terrorist threats by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) is an American animal rights organization based in Norfolk, Virginia, led by Ingrid Newkirk, its international president. A non-profit corporation with 187 employees and two million members and supporters, it says it is the largest animal rights group in the world. Its slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." Founded in March 1980 by Newkirk and animal rights activist Alex Pacheco, the organization made its name in the summer of 1981 during what became known as the Silver Spring monkeys case, a widely publicized dispute about experiments conducted on 17 macaque monkeys inside the Institute of Behavioral Research in Silver Spring, Maryland. The case lasted ten years, involved the first police raid in the U.S. on an animal laboratory, triggered an amendment in 1985 to the Animal Welfare Act, and established PeTA as an internationally known organization. Since then, in its campaigns and undercover investigations, it has focused on four core issues—opposition to factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment—though it also campaigns against fishing, the killing of animals regarded as pests, the keeping of chained backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, and bullfighting. The group has been the focus of criticism from both inside and outside the animal rights movement. Newkirk and Pacheco are seen as the leading exporters of animal rights to the more traditional animal protection groups in the United States, but sections of the movement nevertheless say PeTA is not radical enough—law professor Gary Francione calls them the new welfarists, arguing that their work with industries to achieve reform makes them an animal welfare, not an animal rights, group. Newkirk told Salon in 2001 that PeTA works toward the ideal, but tries in the meantime to provide carrot-and-stick incentives. There has also been criticism from feminists about the use of scantily clad women in PeTA's anti-fur campaigns, and criticism in general that the group's media stunts trivialize animal rights. Newkirk responds by arguing that PeTA has a duty to be what she calls press sluts. From outside the movement, the confrontational nature of PeTA's campaigns has caused concern, as has the number of animals it euthanizes. It was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe for having given grants several years earlier to Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists. PeTA responded that it has no involvement in ALF or ELF actions and does not support violence, though Newkirk has elsewhere made clear that she does support the removal of animals from laboratories and other facilities, including as a result of illegal direct action.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And to Crum: edits in the last few hours are certainly short-term. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that I am outnumbered, if not out-reasoned: [22]. However, it seems a bit inaccurate to imply that I "go around slapping tags everywhere". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)