Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:58, 24 June 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Animal rights Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Virginia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Template:Controversial groups

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Tightening

Just giving a heads-up that I'd like to go in soon and do one of my periodic sweeps for overlinking, over-referencing, over-quoting, and general wordiness. If anything of substance is removed, I'll move it here. Otherwise it will just be general tightening. SlimVirgin 04:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've not looked at this page for a while but I'm concerned to see some of the old attitudes have re-emerged, namely PETA-bashing instead of editing in a disinterested way. :) The stuff about a tofu cream pie being an act of terrorism, for example, and a PETA employee using insulin. If we're going to add every single detail we can find with Google searches that we think makes PETA look bad, then we'll also have to add every single detail we can find about the acts of alleged animal cruetly PETA uncovers, and we'd shortly need our own servers to host it all. Please let's stick to the most notable cases and incidents. SlimVirgin 05:49, 22 April 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 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#Discovery and characterization. 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 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 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 #Insulin, 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—and in particular the attack tone—doesn't seep into our article. SlimVirgin 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 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 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)

Throwing tofu cream pies = terrorism

I haven't removed the tofu cream pie, but I find it so silly. It's not at all notable, and was added next to the Anna Wintour thing, which really was notable. Does anyone have strong objections to my removing it?

In January 2010, PETA threw a tofu cream pie in the face of Canadian Fisheries Minister, Gail Shea, as part of its protest against the annual Canadian seal hunt; Canadian MP Gerry Byrne described it as "acting as a terrorist organization".

SlimVirgin 07:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. How many people have been killed this year by tofu cream pie throwing? Has anyone thrown a tofu cream pie at emself in a crowded bus, for instance, as a way to create massive creamshed and tofurrize the population? If so, the reference to such acts as tofurrism should remain. David Olivier (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You may be right that the dangers are wildly underestimated. :) SlimVirgin 08:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm now going through the article to adjust the flow. I'm sorry, I had to remove the tofu cream pie. It makes us look as though we want to produce a quotefarm of anti-PETA material, no matter how silly. SlimVirgin 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Commenting now on this point, I guess I have to begin by stipulating to the fact that it's pretty hard to treat this as anything other than laughable. But, after all the joking, let's consider whether it should be put back. If one follows the link to the Gail Shea BLP, the incident does appear to be a notable event. I do not see anything other than editor OR to justify a claim that it is more or less notable than the event with Anna Wintour. Please take a look at the discussion at Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 13#Terrorist Organization. Understandably, in light of the long history of page vandalism, editors may reflexively see the pie thing as an attempt to insert the PETA are terrorists claim into the page, but that is not what this is at all. Read soberly, it really does, as another editor said, put "the whole terrorist thing in perspective". I'm saying this with a smile, but I'm saying we ought to put it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days, and no one seems to be objecting, so I added a shorter version of it back to the page. I've lost track of when the version quoted above was added, but what I put back is shorter, and is what the page said just before the recent round of reverts started. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, Trypto. Short version is good. It says as much about Shea as it does about PETA. I only think it is more notable than the Wintour thing because it is an elected official calling PETA terrorists, not an individual, even a noted magazine editor. Bob98133 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, thank you. I appreciate working together in this way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm removed this. We can't add everything that everybody says about PETA, no matter how silly, and adding that throwing a cream pie is an act of terrorism is absurd. It would have to be a significantly better source. What is the point of using it? SlimVirgin 07:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Slimvirgin - I think that this incident, which I agree is silly, puts the accusations of PETA terrorism into perspective, since those,too, are silly. The fact that an elected official considers an attack with a cream pie to be terrorism is notable if only because of how loosely that word is used. Trypto's version is pretty NPOV. I haven't checked his source, but there was a lot of media coverage both about this incident and the official's accusations of terrorism. As I mentioned above, if Anna Wintour accused PETA of terrorism, I would agree with you, since her individual POV is not notable; but federally elected Canadian official, even if misguided, should carry some weight. Bob98133 (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add a few things to what Bob just said. As I understand it, there are two objections to the material I added back, two reasons for reverting it. One is that it is "silly", and the other is that the source is insufficient. It comes as news to me that "silliness" is a criterion for inclusion or non-inclusion of material, but if we are going to delete everything on this page that some editors regard as silly, then I can nominate an awful lot of what we quote PETA as saying. As for the source, it is the Toronto Sun, a mainstream newspaper. What's the problem with that? And finally, I want to note an asymmetry in the editing and discussion here. The moment I make an edit with which SV disagrees, she reverts it. When SV makes an edit with which I disagree, I take it here to talk, and I engaged patiently in talk before adding the material back. I would appreciate a little more talk before reversion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

SV just recently removed the claim citing objections - odd thing to do, since claim was there to begin and it was her removal of it that drew objections. I just reverted pending discussion. — TheHerbalGerbil, 19:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Source requests

I feel we really need to make an effort to improve the sourcing. This article should be based on disinterested secondary sources (newspapers, books) as far as possible, plus material from PETA because the article is about them. There's too much that's based on primary sources, minor columnists, or soundbites from lobby groups, which means we have no way of judging what's accurate, fair, or notable. It means the article always has a recentism flavour to it, because someone has added whatever latest thing they noticed on whichever website they tend to visit. A few months or years later, the comment looks out of place.

We should aim to publish material that really is notable when it happens, so that it doensn't look odd or overly detailed two years down the road. SlimVirgin 09:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate that the specifics come below, and I will try to go through each of them in time. But I have a general comment for now. It's easy to agree that independent secondary sources are often better than primary transient ones, obviously. But I want us to be careful about applying two standards, one for PETA as the topic of the page, and another for critics of PETA. Sometimes a primary source is entirely appropriate as sourcing for what a particular source, themselves, said. We need to be careful that we do not, selectively, delete criticisms in a manner that could make the page unbalanced. Obviously, I don't mean that that was the intention, but it could be an unintended consequence if we are not careful about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The danger of allowing primary sources is that any organization with a criticism can simply issue a press release and have their material appear on WP without a filter. I'm not keen on some of the local newspapers and guest columnists for the same reason. I think we can properly source criticism without using that kind of source—and if we can't, that ought to tell us something. SlimVirgin 19:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for going through the article so thoroughly for suspect sources. I'm still catching up on archived discussion. So I may have overstated the level of animosity here -- based on insufficient reading, some projection as well as my own history with an editor from the SSCS discussions (who seems to enjoy stirring the pot here, too). Overall, regular editors have been more civil than I'd expected. More feedback below.. PrBeacon (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that! It's really perfectly understandable, given that people have so many good reasons to feel strongly about the subject matter, but ultimately most editors just want, in their respective own ways, to find the best way of presenting the material. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I take the second part back. Upon further review Tryptofish is becoming increasingly unreasonable on this talkpage. And then he wonders why other editors don't engage. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Carolina Biological Supply Company

I remember asking for a secondary source for this years ago, and as we still don't have one, I've removed it. Can we have something showing this was notable? The current source is something called the National Animal Interest Alliance, a business/agricultural lobby group.

PETA was criticized in 1999 regarding undercover film it took inside the Carolina Biological Supply Company, which appeared to show wriggling cats being embalmed alive. An anatomist argued that the wriggling was the effect formalin has on freshly dead muscle tissue, and showed a video of the same writhing in a cat known to be dead; the case against the company was dismissed.

SlimVirgin 08:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Just noting so we can keep track: another editor has restored the passage, with the same source. As we work through the other issues already raised, I'd be happy to look into alternative sourcing, but since the concern about this source is its primary source status, not really it's basic verifiability, I would suggest not reverting any further until we have discussed it properly. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is POV with the current sourcing. Since this refers to a court case, there must be reliable sources. If those can't be found, I think this content should be reverted. Bob98133 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of looking for better sources, and I invite more editors to join me in actually doing so. I don't think that the section is written in a particularly POV way, and if we delete everything that is sourced to a POV source, we would have to delete everything that is sourced to PETA. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, except that PETA is a reliable source for stating their own positions. I'll look for a better source when I have time. Bob98133 (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As are critics for stating their own positions. But good, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Covance

Could we have a mainstream secondary source for this, please?

A German state prosecutor determined that Covance's European laboratories had broken no laws.

The source is a press release from the European Biomedical Research Association. We need a disinterested secondary source, not a press release from a lobby group. SlimVirgin 09:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting now to go through these one-by-one, and I realize that a lot more than that one sentence was changed.

The version now:

In 2003 and 2004, a PETA investigation inside Covance, an animal-testing company in the U.S. and Europe, obtained footage that appeared to show monkeys being hit and mistreated; PETA submitted a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Covance received 16 sanctions and agreed to a fine of $8,720, but said the citations were for minor administrative matters unrelated to animal cruelty, and that over 700 of the charges made by PETA had been rejected by the government. In 2005 Covance initiated a lawsuit charging PETA with fraud, violation of employee contract, and conspiracy to harm the company's business, but later dropped it.

The version of April 18, before the changes:

PETA sends its employees undercover into facilities such as research laboratories to document the treatment of animals, sometimes requiring them to spend months recording their experiences. Some of these investigations have led to legal action. It conducted an undercover investigation of Covance, an animal testing company in the U.S. and Europe, in 2003 and 2004, obtaining video footage that appeared to show monkeys being hit and mistreated, and submitted a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Covance received 16 sanctions and agreed to a fine of $8,720, but stated that all of the citations were for minor administrative matters unrelated to animal cruelty, and that over 700 of the specific charges made by PETA had been rejected by the government. Covance also claimed that PETA had edited film together in order to exaggerate the evidence. A German state prosecutor determined that Covance's European laboratories had broken no laws. Legal action has also been brought against PETA for invasion of privacy following undercover work, but a federal judge in the U.S. ruled in PETA's favor in April 2007 that undercover investigations often reveal misconduct.

I'd like to examine all of the changes that have been made. There was previous talk about this at Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 12#Covance image.

As for the question posed about the EBRA source, I've looked, and I do not find any non-mirror sources saying this. However, there are multiple sources indicating that the German state prosecutor had started looking into this, and then nothing besides this about the outcome of looking into it, nothing covering the filing of any charges, etc. It looks to me like the EBRA source is likely correct, and there just wasn't any "news" there, in that no prosecution took place. Had there been any charges, I'm sure there would have been some news coverage of it, and some mention of it by PETA or BUAV. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the changes more carefully, I see some introductory material that was deleted from the beginning of the passage, simply because there was a reorganization and the introduction is no longer needed. No problem there. But later in the paragraph, three things have been deleted: (1) the German prosecutor sentence, discussed above; (2) a rebuttal claim by Covance, questioning the accuracy of PETA's film editing (which, looking at it now, really should also include PETA's denial of the accusation, if we add it back); and (3) part of the image caption, containing Covance's balancing POV (which was previously the product of extensive talk here, and has not since been challenged in this talk). What bothers me about those three deletions is that they, together, largely remove Covance's rebuttals to PETA's accusations, and do so selectively and without prior talk here. Over and over in this talk, editors have, rightly, argued that any serious accusations must be accompanied by any sourced rebuttals, lest the page be an "attack page". That principle should be applied in an NPOV way, to the people PETA attacks, just as much as to the people who attack PETA. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The previous version was too long-winded, and the cutline contained OR. It currently makes Covance's position clear: "Covance received 16 sanctions and agreed to a fine of $8,720, but said the citations were for minor administrative matters unrelated to animal cruelty, and that over 700 of the charges made by PETA had been rejected by the government. In 2005 Covance initiated a lawsuit charging PETA with fraud, violation of employee contract, and conspiracy to harm the company's business, but later dropped it." Which rebuttal is important and missing, and is there a secondary source for it? SlimVirgin 18:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• About OR in the cutline, no, see the archived talk.
• About which rebuttals are missing: two of them, and they are listed, plainly, above. They are that PETA allegedly altered the film, and that the German prosecutor found no illegality.
• About which ones have secondary sources, I am not proposing pages, so this is not an AfD. There is reliable sourcing for both. I have responded to your question about the German prosecutor, and I have indicated that the film issue should include PETA's denial if it is to be added back.
• Once again, over and over in this talk, editors have, rightly, argued that any serious accusations must be accompanied by any sourced rebuttals, lest the page be an "attack page". That principle should be applied in an NPOV way, to the people PETA attacks, just as much as to the people who attack PETA. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you have the discussion here, please, rather than referring me to an archive? Also, can you post here the exact words you want to restore, along with the secondary sources if they exist, or primary sources if not? It speeds things up if I can see the exact addition that's being proposed. SlimVirgin 19:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's all just above, either copied or easily linked. I'm happy to discuss, but I'm not anyone else's private secretary. If I can read it, so can you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I correct that there are no objections to my arguments here? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

PCRM

I'm moving this here, as I can't find it in the source, and it seems to rely on guilt by association:

PETA is also alleged to have donated $1.3 million to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an organization that promotes the use of alternatives to animal testing, but which has been criticized for its links with Jerry Vlasak, a trauma surgeon who runs the North American Animal Liberation Press Office.

The source is this. I can't see where it talks of 1.3 million (sorry if it's there and I've missed it), or where it talks of "alleged to have donated" or any such term. PCRM is a completely respectable organization so far as I know, so we would need an excellent and unambiguous source for anything that makes them sound as though they're not. SlimVirgin 05:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The PCRM article has the source: Doward, Jamie (2004-08-01). "Focus: animal activists" (Observer.guardian.co.uk) .. But from my reading of it, the connections implied above are indirect and thus could be considered OR or Syn. Also worth noting: at the end of that Guardian article, PCRM is called "quasi-scientific" which seems POV. A corroborating source might be needed. PrBeacon (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP says that although the policy doesn't apply directly to groups, caution should nevertheless be exercised:

The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. With a small group or organization it is easier to draw a distinction between statements about the group's members (where BLP might apply) and statements about the organization itself (where it would not). This is harder to do with larger groups and organizations. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.

If we're going to accuse living people of serious allegations we need high-quality sources, preferably secondary sources, making specific allegations; in-text attribution; and writing that's fully policy compliant. The guilt-by-association thing has been ruled against several times in ArbCom cases. Here it seems to be: PETA gave money to PCRM (mostly a bunch of doctors advising on vegan diets, so far as I can tell). PCRM used to have surgeon Jerry Vlasak of the ALF as a member (though no longer), and he has made statements in support of violence. Ergo PETA supports violence. SlimVirgin 21:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Milk

Could we have a better source than the unlinked Tallahassee Democrat in the dairy section for "PETA halted the campaign, but later revived it"? SlimVirgin 06:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

BBB Wise Giving Alliance

Could we have a secondary source for this, to show that it's worth including? "The BBB Wise Giving Alliance said in 2008 that PETA does not meet three of its accountability standards. SlimVirgin 07:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Josh Harper

(Removed until we find a source). "PETA gave $5,000 to the Josh Harper Support Committee, before Harper was convicted of 'animal enterprise terrorism' in the U.S. in connection with the SHAC campaign." The source is a Times article about Harper, but I can't see where it mentions a PETA donation. SlimVirgin 12:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sentencing memorandum

(Not removed) Could we find a secondary source for: "During Coronado's trial, U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer said Newkirk had arranged before the fact to have Coronado send her documents from the lab and a videotape of the raid." It's currently sourced only to a government sentencing memorandum of U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer in USA v. Rodney Coronado, July 31, 1995, pp. 8–10.

It seems a little unfair to publish an allegation made by one side based on a primary source, and not any kind of rebuttal or overview. SlimVirgin 13:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a more verifiable source for Dettmer's memorandum, from exhibits in U.S. Senate testimony, following testimony by a POV primary source: . (I'm not arguing that Martosko is a source we should use, but this is verifiable sourcing for the Dettmer material as an exhibit, as opposed to the unlinked text in the reference now.)

And, for secondary sourcing with rebuttal, here is a newspaper article in which Newkirk is quoted in making some rebuttals: . --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no rebuttal there of the material we've added about her. We need a secondary source for this. No more reliance on primary sources alone for serious allegations. SlimVirgin 19:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. It's a secondary source, a newspaper that covers the issues surrounding the trial. And it quotes what Newkirk says about it (you have to scroll a bit to the right). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What does it say about "During Coronado's trial, U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer said Newkirk had arranged before the fact to have Coronado send her documents from the lab and a videotape of the raid"? SlimVirgin 20:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I can go back and re-read it, but then again, so can you. I seem to remember her saying things including that the charge was "inane". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I just did read it, and that is why I'm asking. Please stop relying primary sources, or provincial secondary sources such as the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, especially ones that have little or no bearing on the material. We're looking for a high-quality secondary source for "During Coronado's trial, U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer said Newkirk had arranged before the fact to have Coronado send her documents from the lab and a videotape of the raid." That's a very serious allegation. We need to know it wasn't something no one else paid any attention to. Bear in mind that it originated with activistcash. SlimVirgin 20:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with a source, that's fair debate, but it's underhanded to insinuate that I keep relying on substandard sources. Anyway, I was not saying the newspaper should be cited to support the sentence you quote. You had asked, above, for rebuttals from PETA, and I suggested this source as containing news coverage of the trial (said trial happening to take place in a "provincial", to use your word, location) in which Newkirk is quoted as providing that rebuttal. The source for what Michael Dettmer said is the memorandum that Dettmer wrote, and there is nothing wrong with using a primary source to report what that source said. I would think that an official court document by a U.S. Attorney is notable and reliable. It isn't tainted, as you imply, by the fact that it "originated" with activistcash. Allegations by activistcash are not, to my knowledge, admissible in U.S. courts as official exhibits, so the U.S. Attorney is a source independent of activistcash. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I correct that there are no objections to my arguments here? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Fran Trutt

(Not removed) We need a better source for this:

According to writer Kathleen Marquardt, vice-president of the American Policy Center, PETA donated $7,500 in 1989 to the legal defense of Fran Trutt, sentenced to one year in jail and three years' probation after planting a crude bomb near the car of Leon Hirsch, the CEO of the United States Surgical Corporation; Trutt maintained she had been set up but accepted a plea bargain, and pleaded guilty to attempted murder.

The donation currently relies on Kathleen Marquardt of the American Policy center, a right-wing, free-enterprise lobby group, writing in her 1993 book Animal Scams, where she published it without a source. SlimVirgin 09:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As this has been here since April with only Marquardt as a source, I'm going to remove it until we find a reliable secondary source who mentions the donation. SlimVirgin 18:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, we haven't gotten to it yet, but we will. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

KKK

At another event, PETA members dressed up in Ku Klux Klan regalia at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and passed out fliers saying that the American Kennel Club was like the KKK, in that it wanted to create "pure bloodlines".

It seems to be a "and another thing" entry. Unsure what to do with it, if anything. SlimVirgin 06:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest adding it back to the section that discusses pet ownership. ("At another event" would have to be changed to "In 2009".) It relates directly to PETA's opposition to the breeding of animals to be pets (as opposed to the rescuing of animals from shelters and pounds), and it seems to be pretty prominent, having been broadcast as it occurred on U.S. national TV. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this is nonsense. We can't add every single thing a newspaper has ever reported PETA as doing. If we're going to do that, we'd also need to focus on the good and sensible things they do, no matter how little coverage they got. SlimVirgin 19:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, no need to call my comment nonsense. I'm making a suggestion, in talk, in a thread that you began by saying "Unsure what to do with it". It's one thing, not every single thing, and no one is objecting to adding good and sensible things, nor claiming that this was not good or not sensible. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the KKK thing is nonsense, the kind of thing PETA does every day to attract attention. We can't list them all. You certainly would object if I were to start adding every story about every outdoor dog that PETA buys a new house for, and all the other little things they do that make the local press but otherwise aren't noticed. We can't have a page full of trivia, good or bad. SlimVirgin 20:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just discussing this here, where you raised the issue (and I'm not speculating preemptively about what other editors would or would not object to). Given that it's "the kind of thing PETA does every day", that's the kind of thing that is representative of the subject, and this is a single incident, not 365 of them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

T, you've been getting a lot of your own way here recently, inching the article in the direction you want to take it. Please don't keep pushing it. If you want to add material about PETA's typical day-to-day operations, please add more about all the dogs they buy houses for. That's a big part of the non-flashy stuff they do. If I see you keen to add that sort of thing too, it would make a big difference. SlimVirgin 20:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Please don't keep pushing it"??? This isn't about anyone getting their way me getting my way, and it isn't about keeping score. Prior to late April, you had been away from the page for some time, of your own choosing. You made a huge number of edits in a few days when you came back. Since then, I have been slowly and methodically responding to those changes, one by one, and I am continuing to do so now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is about you getting your own way, as I see it. You've managed to get arson into the lead (though I'll be reviewing the sources for that), and "total animal liberation". That's fine, we agreed to it. The point I'm making is that you require everyone else to edit neutrally, from both perspectives—and you rightly complain if you feel it's not happening—but you're not willing to do it yourself. The day I see you write, "Hey, there are some important PETA undercover investigations we don't mention," is the day I'll fully retract and joyously apologize. I'm very serious about that. Please make more of an effort to write for the enemy, and stop adding stuff about tofu cream pies, terrorism, and Newkirk wanting to confiscate people's pets while dressed as the KKK. SlimVirgin 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the KKK item in the article now. I agree with SV that this is just one more stunt to attract attention, but I can also see Trypo's view that this demonstration speaks to PETA's view about pet breeding. It wouldn't make sense to include and describe all of PETA's demos or stunts, from a costumed celery stalking Al Gore to sheep following Australian politicians, unless they fit a particular larger campaign such as the I'd rather go naked than wear fur thing, or the vegetarian campaigns. The doghouse thing and community work is already mentioned. I would think that if the KKK demo was used at all it might be cited as a reference for PETA doing controversial stunts or opposing purebreds, rather than as an entry per se. As for who's pushing what, I think we all have our own thoughts about what is important or should be included, but discussing the points is likely to be more productive than discussing each others' views or editing styles. I've edited articles with SV & Trypto before and you both seem to be reasonable in wanting articles to be reliably referenced and NPOV, as soon as we can figure out what that is. Bob98133 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Bravo Bob for saying that. My thinking is that it does speak to their view on pet breeding, and it can be mentioned in the section about pets to flesh that out. Just suggesting it, in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking some more about Bob's suggestion about using it as a reference, perhaps an approach would be to use the citation (from USA Today) as sourcing for a sentence that simply says that PETA has protested at the dog show against pure breeding of dogs, without going into a description of the KKK theatrics. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a primary source from PETA, explaining their view: . --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Look folks, there is a reason why it is important to accurately and completely present PETA's position on pets, regardless of whether we do or do not cover the Westminster protest. The public, and our readers, relate to animals particularly through their interactions with pets, and this page has historically not given much attention to PETA's views on the subject, beyond describing some of their welfare activities, even though PETA themselves indicate that pets are very important. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What more do you think should be added to the existing section? It seems fairly complete to me. I think the first ph indicates that they think that pets are important. Bob98133 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I worded that poorly, when I said that pets are important. Of course, you are right about that. What I meant is that they consider their position about pets to be an important position, and that position includes opposition to breeding animals to be pets. Not that pets shouldn't be rescued from shelters, but that animals should not be bred or sold to be pets. Their welfare work on behalf of animals who need help is only one part of what PETA says they stand for. They also oppose the breeding of animals to be pets. I think their criticism of the American Kennel Club is important in that regard, and is not something one would know from reading that PETA supports neutering and provides shelters. I thought (and actually still do think) that the KKK protest is a clear and notable way of reporting that, but I'm happy to discuss other ways of communicating it. (And another thing. It occurs to me that an implicit assumption in some of this talk has been that the protest is "bad", even though PETA obviously did not consider it to be bad. If editors think something PETA did is bad even though PETA does not think so, it seems a flawed approach to exclude it from the article, as if to protect PETA. It's like saying we know better than they do.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa - now you've lost me. What makes you think that PETA thinks their position about pets is an important position? Or do you mean it's important for people who want to know about PETA to know their position? My guess would be that they think that all their positions are important, but their credo about eat, wear, experiment, entertain, doesn't seem to include pets, at least not in the top 4, although my dog does entertain me occasionally. Bob98133 (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I didn't specifically mean either of those two things. More like it's certainly something that PETA makes no secret of, and draws attention to via such protests, and in part, yes, I do also think that readers who want to know about PETA would want to know about this. But I just meant, more generally, that it's notable, it's worth including. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something like this: a sentence added to the first paragraph of that section, saying that "PETA campaigns against the breeding and selling of animals to be pets." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To flesh this out, maybe extend the sentence at the end of the first paragraph, sourced to the USA Today article, saying: ", and campaigns against organizations such as the American Kennel Club that promote the breeding of purebred strains." Also, it might make sense to change the title of the section to: "On pet welfare and ownership". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you're working on the pet section, but the sentence above doesn't really need the "to be pets." I can't think of an instance where they are in favor of breeding and selling any animal. Leaving that in makes it appear that in some other context they have a different position. Bob98133 (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Woops, I didn't mean that, so I better clarify what I said. I'm no longer advocating that tentative suggestion about "PETA campaigns against....". When I said that, I was just floating the idea here. What I meant after the outdent was to put this more specific wording, as an actual proposal, at the end of the last sentence of the first paragraph, as it is on the page. So, here is what I mean:

Now, the last sentence of the first paragraph of the section reads: "PETA also finances public announcements urging people to control the pet population through neutering and adoption from shelters." I propose to change that period to a comma, and, after the comma, add: "and campaigns against organizations such as the American Kennel Club that promote the breeding of purebred strains.", and source it to the USA Today article about the KKK protest. So, the full sentence would be: "PETA also finances public announcements urging people to control the pet population through neutering and adoption from shelters, and campaigns against organizations such as the American Kennel Club that promote the breeding of purebred strains." I think that wording bends over backwards to not make a big deal about the theatrics of the KKK protest and is extremely fair, while also adding a very relevant aspect of what PETA says they stand for. And, while we're at it, I also suggest changing the section title to "On pet welfare and ownership". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

An adverse side-effect of discussing this so carefully is that I noticed the wording "PETA also finances public announcements..." at the beginning of that sentence. I'd also like to suggest deleting the word "public", so it would just be "announcements", instead of "public announcements". That's because the present wording makes it sound like public service announcements, which (at least in the U.S.) are usually run by broadcasters for free or at reduced cost, as a public service. Unless there is sourcing that this is the case here, I think the fact that PETA "finances" these indicates that they are, strictly, advertisements, not PSAs. Dropping the word "public" would remove the ambiguity. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

From this it looks like at least some of these are PSAs. Maybe it should be something like "PETA also produces public service announcements and paid advertisements..." ? Bob98133 (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If there's sourcing that they include PSAs, I'd be inclined to just leave the wording as it is. But, here, I'm going to have to ask what other editors have been asking me: do secondary sources confirm this? I wonder whether PETA is describing ads as PSAs as part of the way they present them at their website. Not that there's anything sinister about that, just that it might not meet Misplaced Pages's requirements for sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they call them PSAs whether they are paid to air or not. This PETA page gives info on how to promote free and paid PSAs. Here TV Guide refers to PETA PSA (coincidently about pet overpopulation). But these would still technically be different from a paid bus ad, or billboard or print ad, even though the subject matter might be similar. Just "Public announcements" without the Service sounds somewhat odd, more like public pronouncements. Bob98133 (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that "public announcements" just sounds odd. It seems to me that the line between "public service announcements" and "advertisements" is going to be unnecessarily difficult to delineate in this instance, and I would suggest that simply saying "announcements" would be the easiest way to do it. "PETA also finances announcements urging people to control the pet population through neutering and adoption from shelters, and campaigns against organizations such as the American Kennel Club that promote the breeding of purebred strains." Does that sound OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Even just "announcements" sounds odd. Why not "advertisements"? Or if that is confusing, how about "materials"? And why do you prefer finances to produces? In the context of an ad or PSA, the producer would coordinate things including costs; PETA has made a big deal on occasion about ads or materials being donated by ad agencies, celebrities, etc., so "financing" could be a bit misleading if it was a donated ad (or materials). Bob98133 (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, "produces advertisements" would be fine with me. I was worried that some editors would object to "advertisements" on the grounds that they really are PSAs, but I have no objection to that. "Finances" was just the word that was there before. I do think it would read better your way. "Materials" may be a bit vague, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Great. Let's hope other editors concur. Bob98133 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And how! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I correct that other editors have no objections? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been following this thread closely. But since you & Bob seem to agree I see no big problem. I read the last few replies and the wording is not a big deal to me. PSAs are ads, if you think about advertising/marketing in the broader sense. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: I see why SV stopped replying. Trypto- I agree with the general point about balance, the give&take of collaborating when views don't mesh, i.e. pulling one way and letting others pull back. There's a better way to say that, please just re-read SV's comments. Thanks. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow that second part, sorry. I think I've read everything carefully, and replied to everything. We can't read anyone's mind if they don't reply to us. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Direct quotes

I can't see the point of using so many direct quotes here. Direct quotes should be restricted to issues where the particular words are important or distinctive enough to be highlighted, but everything here is very ordinary and could easily be paraphrased, or used without the quotation marks. SlimVirgin 19:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As discussed just above, I was concerned that some of the meaning of the original was being lost in some of the paraphrases. Actually, I think the quoted material is not at all ordinary, and is really quite important in order to understand what PETA thinks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop moving my posts. I'm going to remove the quotes, because it's poor writing to have so many. Which ones do you feel are important and why? SlimVirgin 00:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a list of all of them, important or not:

1. "selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them": It's a non-ordinary and vivid statement of what they believe. If you choose to paraphrase it, you need to do so in a way that does not lose the meaning.
2. "immeasurable suffering" I do not care either way about the quote marks. It is a direct quote, and you had it in your paraphrase. I see no harm in recognizing that it is their words.
3. "their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to." Another non-ordinary and vivid statement. I don't feel too strongly about it, but it might be better, instead, to cut the paraphrase that you wrote, just before it.
4. "never from pet shops or breeders" Important for the same reasons that I discussed with Bob in #KKK, above. If paraphrased instead, must retain the meaning.
5. ""contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and 'set them free.'" I thought it was good to give PETA the last word on this. Ironic, in light of your complaining that I allegedly never write for the "enemy", whoever that is.

Bottom line: I'm not married to having all of these direct quotes, and I don't understand the level of emotion my edit apparently elicited. But if we are going to paraphrase, then the paraphrase has to be accurate, not watered down or otherwise inaccurate. Other editors have been saying in this talk that we have to be careful to avoid SYNTH, and I think that quoting directly is one way to avoid that. And I discussed this in talk above, before I made the edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the passage was fine as it was. SlimVirgin 00:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? I've given you a point-by-point answer, that you asked for. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've explained why twice. It's poorly written now with so many quotes, and none of them are distinctive. Why would "never from pet shops or breeders" be in quotation marks, for example? SlimVirgin 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

About the version on the left:

1. Why is "pets" in quotation marks?
2. How does the paraphrase of "selfish" capture the selfishness of seeking love from animals?
3. The paraphrase about pet shops and breeders seems to water down the "never" that PETA uses.
4. Why not let PETA say, in their own words, why they feel it is a "myth", an unfair criticism of them, to allege that they want to confiscate pets? I thought that NPOV would indicate that we need to get that across clearly.

I do not see this as a binary choice between either version left or version right. Something in between, with fewer quotes and better paraphrases, would be fine with me. For me, this isn't about "your" version versus "mine". --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My guess would be that pets was in quotes since it is not a word that PETA typically uses - they use companion animals. Not sure I understand why you think the "never" waters down some other part of this. Their POV is that it would have been better if pet ownership hadn't evolved the way it did, but since it has, then the "never" buy thing makes sense. I actually prefer the synopsis to the direct quotes, but I think it may be hard to arrive at a synopsis that works as well - however, all the short quotes make it look a bit like an email argument. I'm never sure on this one, but I think that the punctuation should always go inside the quotes at the end of a sentence. Agree that the part about them not wanting to free or confiscate animals should be included for clarity. The selfish thing is more clear in the quote, but I'd have no objection if a paraphrase could capture the same meaning. Hope this helps. Bob98133 (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a very fair assessment overall. It's not important to me to have quotes, but rather, to capture the meaning accurately if we do paraphrase. Two things: About "never", I'm arguing in favor of including the "never", not against including it. And about the punctuation, this seems like a perennial at MOS, but the last time I checked, the punctuation goes inside the quote marks if it was part of the original punctuation, outside if it wasn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the previous version as I can't see the point of including lots of quotes. I did change it to say "never" buy from stores or breeders, because T wanted that emphasized, though I don't understand why. Bear in mind that these are not unusual positions. I can't think of any animal welfare group, even the conservative ones, who think that buying from pet stores and breeders is a good idea.

The only word in scare quotes is "pets," because it's a word that PETA doesn't use unless in scare quotes. SlimVirgin 08:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for considering "never". I'm going to look at this, and at the comments here by Bob and me, and possibly make some further revisions, since "I can't see the point" isn't really an explanation, more like a summary dismissal. As for the remarkable claim that conservative animal welfare groups oppose the existence of pet stores, wow! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that a remarkable claim? I see it as pretty pedestrian. Picking one of the conservative ones at random, RSPCA Australia, this is a pretty standard policy. Avoid pet stores and go first to shelters; if you must buy a specific breed, go directly to a breeder, but do try the shelter first. That's a polite and generous way of saying what PETA says. SlimVirgin 20:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see what you actually meant, sorry. I agree that welfare groups say to go to shelters first. But welfare groups would generally reject PETA's position that breeders who raise purebred dogs are, at least metaphorically, like the KKK, which is why I think it is helpful to report that position of PETA's. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There's increasing concern about breeders, partly because of in-breeding, partly because of over-population and puppy mills. Even the BBC decided not to broadcast Crufts in 2009. This is the thing about PETA. What it says one year (and everyone shouts, oh my god how radical!), the conservative groups will be saying in five, ten, 15 years. The difference is that PETA is rude and flamboyant where the others want a broader appeal. But the end result is increasingly similar. That's why the industry lobby groups dislike PETA so much. And that's why we have to be careful not to let this page reflect the attacks from those quarters. SlimVirgin 21:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether that's entirely true or not, what I've been advocating is not to report what lobby groups say about PETA and pets, but what PETA says. And we have to be careful about not presenting both sides of a controversy simply because editors predict that it will stop being controversial in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that. My concern is that we're focusing on all the things activistcash focuses on, and we need to watch out for that. SlimVirgin 21:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we really all agree that we have to be careful about sourcing things only to activistcash. There's really no disagreement about that. At the same time, it would be a mistake to preemptively rule out sourcing something to a more reliable source when it happens to have also been commented on by activistcash or similar groups. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about using activistcash as a source. I'm saying the page is veering toward their agenda, in that all the issues being highlighted here are issues they try to focus on. PETA has taken on multi-billion-dollar vested interests. Fast food, factory farming, animal research, pharmaceutical industry, circuses, the fur trade. That adds up to a lot of enemies, who can easily promote their position via provincial newspapers on slow news days. That's why it's important to stick to high-quality sources that don't allow themselves to be easily influenced. SlimVirgin 20:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Veering towards their agenda?? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Using the Wikinews interview

I'd like to use the Wikinews interview (audio) as a source for some of Newkirk's views. We currently link to it, but don't use it as an RS. Does anyone object to its use? SlimVirgin 08:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No objection here. Bob98133 (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with it either, if there is material not available elsewhere. I notice she mentions her opposition to arson, which is important since the lead implies that PETA supports it. But on the whole, I think it's a primary source, so we need to be careful in the way we use it. Crum375 (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly an appropriate primary source. For what is it to be used? Sourcing anything in particular? (I made an edit to try to address Crum's point about "arson".) (And I'm shocked, shocked :-) to see talk threads being moved around!) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about moving things after asking you not to, but my thinking was that we'd discussed the lead so much it made sense to keep the threads together, for the benefit of future generations. :)

I'll go ahead and write up some stuff based on the interview. I wasn't thinking of any particular part, but she addresses quite a few of the issues we cover, so I thought I'd add some stuff wherever relevant. SlimVirgin 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

aside on organizing talkpage

(feel free to move this comment. or remove.) Since you've mentioned it, I thought I'd just chime in that the TOC is one of the best I've seen lately as far as keeping the many discussion threads orderly. Housecleaning is such thankless work, but the instant gratification is a nice tradeoff. One side effect though is how long the talkpage has become, maybe you've noticed: 287k at the moment. I assume that's partly due to the non-archiving of active threads with inactive subthreads -- does that make sense? One solution may be to consider additional/alternative methods: collapsible boxes for subthreads that are resolved, for example, or collaborative efforts to quickly decide which threads can be archived manually. Another consideration is whether these threads will be archived with usual frequency since the timestamps may change (?). As you folks probably know by now I'm not the best coder, so I'll have to look into that. And I apologize if this has already been discussed before. On that note, another idea i might suggest is a sort of prepping for archival use, especially summaries of consensus, FAQs, etc. I'm still researching the efficacy of this -- like how often folks even use archives anyway -- and I'm willing to help when I can. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The subthreads mean the bot doesn't archive, and that means the page gets too long. I'll archive the lead thread now as that seems to be dealt with. SlimVirgin 13:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was fine with me too. And I think that it's worth taking a moment to notice that, after all of that very long talk about the lead, it appears that we have reached a consensus about it. That's no small accomplishment, and I hope that we can continue to progress that way through the rest of the page (maybe quicker, but that remains to be seen). Since it is now archived, I'll also note that Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 13#Middle lead paragraph: pet ownership contains some discussion that, although no longer relevant to the lead, is relevant to some of the continuing discussion about pets. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I was thinking the current lead has too much criticism, or really too much wording of criticism -- can it be tightened through editing while retaining the key points agreed upon? I could suggest something along those lines if someone wants to start up a new thread, or tell me which current thread I should use. Personally I don't mind the current proportions, I know PETA is controversial and I know they try to be in raising public awareness, but I think new readers or infrequent editors will see this and wonder why the undue weight. Then they will make an edit and/or post here without seeing the work done to reach consensus. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to start a new section, if you'd like. It's easiest if you suggest specific edits to make. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 21 June 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 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)

Activists independent of PETA are irrelevant

If activists threw a dead raccoon at a Vogue editor and they acted independently of PETA, why mention them in this article? PETA was not affiliated with that. Including them here is biased against PETA to make them seem like terrorists. If a New York Yankee fan vandalized Fenway Park, would that go in the Yankees article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.191.235 (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

PETA makes use of this incident, as on this page ], so apparently it's not irrelevant to them. Bob98133 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I can see objections to these on this page, yet they've been added en masse. Could we go through them one by one, please? SlimVirgin 18:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I could say the same to you, actually. I cannot speak to the edits by Bob and Crum, but for all of my edits, the edit summaries include links to the relevant talk. I did not make any changes (aside from minor things) that had not been discussed here first, with all objections raised so far replied to, and no further rebuttal to those replies. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Tryptofish, you have a habit of insisting that people on talk respond to your every concern, and when they don't, you mark that down as "no objection," even when they've earlier made their objection clear. That's not the way to proceed. Please don't restore that material without active consensus. SlimVirgin 19:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

T, you're engaging in poor behavior here. It isn't appreciated. SlimVirgin 19:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not characterize me as having a "habit" like that. What you say is not accurate. I have responded to concerns that you have raised. I have, in some cases, shown that your reasoning is mistaken. If you do not come back and present an argument why you think that you are still correct, and if other editors agree with my argument, you should not be surprised when I object to your reverting all of us without first discussing why. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not "all of us." It's just you. You can't hold editors hostage to your talk-page preferences. When people say they object to an edit of yours, a failure to respond doesn't signal agreement, or that your argument is a better one. SlimVirgin 19:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that "all of us" agree with my arguments, so let me clarify that. I'm saying that you reverted, for example, some changes that Crum made, entirely independently of me, in the course of reverting a whole lot of stuff at once. That's what I meant by "reverting all of us".

What a failure to respond does signal is a failure to respond. When people object to an edit of mine, I have always come here to talk and explain my reasoning. When others then disagree with me, I then always respond to their comments, either conceding the point and agreeing with them, or explaining why I disagree with them. In the latter case, I try to respond point-by-point to their comment and specifically refute what they said. If they continue to think that they are correct and I am mistaken, I expect them to return to talk and say so. If they do, I patiently continue to discuss it with them, and I do not make any edit to the page with which they disagree. That has been what I have been doing here, all along.

In contrast, if someone declines to respond, even though I can see that they have been logged in because they are editing other pages, there comes a point where I am entitled to conclude that they no longer object or do not have an argument that refutes mine. If anyone simply walks away from the page for a while and then comes back and makes mass reversions without first explaining why, they should not be surprised if their edits get treated as WP:BRD, and they should be prepared to come to talk when they are reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is my revert. It only undoes work by you that I can see, and all of it was objected to several times that I recall. If you look at talk pages you edit, you regularly post to yourself after others have objected. In those situations you can't assume that silence means assent. It's not okay to go to the page and add the material that others oppose, just because they didn't repeat their objections the requisite number of times. SlimVirgin 20:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not accurate. I don't ask people to repeat the same objections. And I don't assume that silence means consent. But if I can show that their objections are mistaken, and they then become silent, the situation is that their arguments have been shot down until such time as they provide a supporting argument. It's not about having to say the same thing over and over. It's about responding anew when the first argument has been refuted. Suggestion: instead of arguing about process or complaining that I did not refute your arguments and give you an opportunity to refute mine, how about going to the parts of this talk where these edits were discussed, and discuss the content instead of the editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You show that their objections are mistaken in your view. You may be right or wrong. If they don't repeatedly return to reply, it doesn't mean they agree with you. The content was already discussed, the objections are already there. There's no need for anyone to repeat them. SlimVirgin 20:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If I'm wrong, they can say so. There is a need for editors to engage in discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

To an extent, yes. But if editor A says: "I'd like to make change X." And editor B says, "No, because of this and that and the next," and editor C says, " I agree with B," that means they object. A can't continue posting to no response and assume B and C have left the page, or somehow changed their minds, and then go ahead and insert the edits regardless, then restore it when B or C revert. SlimVirgin 20:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

But if editor A says: "I'd like to make change X." And editor B says, "No, because of this and that and the next," and editor C says, " I agree with B," that means they object. Then if editor A says: "But your argument for disagreeing is incorrect, because of xyz", and, as occurred here, editor C says, "Actually, you, editor A, are partly correct, come to think of it, but you should also consider this", and editor A replies, "Yes, that's OK with me, let's do it that way. Does anyone else object to that?", and waits a day before actually making the edit, it is somewhat unreasonable for editor B to come along, revert the whole thing, and then indignantly make personal attacks on editor A while insisting that the original objection still stands. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Example of the problem

The following is a recent example. There have been multiple objections going back years to including the view of a right-wing lobbyist that a former PETA employee who 17 years ago took animal-derived insulin is therefore a hypocrite. Despite the objections it has been repeatedly reinserted. I raised this yet again recently:

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 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 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)

From June 18 to June 22, Tryptofish responds to herself, then takes the silence to mean no one objects; restores the material; and reverts three times when I try to remove it. This despite the fact that no editor other than Tryptofish (that I have seen) supports its inclusion, and many have argued against it over the years. Common sense alone says it's a senseless thing to add. The source is dubious. The employee is no longer with PETA. She no longer uses animal-derived insulin. She last took it 17 years ago. And anyway it's a BLP issue and no one else's business what she takes for her health. Every Misplaced Pages editing policy and best practice strongly points in the direction of removal. But if we're not willing to argue against it endlessly, Tryptofish interprets that as no objection. SlimVirgin 20:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Marquardt, Kathleen; Levine, Herbert M.; and LaRochelle, Mark. Animal Scam, Regnery Publishing, 1993, p. 37. For Sweetland's response, see Sweetland, Mary Beth. "I Learned to Control my Diabetes!", GoVeg.com, accessed June 4, 2010. Also see Newkirk, Ingrid. The Peta Practical Guide to Animal Rights, St. Martin's Press, 2009, p. 219.
2. Marquardt, Kathleen; Levine, Herbert M.; and LaRochelle, Mark. Animal Scam, Regnery Publishing, 1993, p. 37. For Sweetland's response, see Sweetland, Mary Beth. "I Learned to Control my Diabetes!", GoVeg.com, accessed June 4, 2010. Also see Newkirk, Ingrid. The Peta Practical Guide to Animal Rights, St. Martin's Press, 2009, p. 219.
3. Pie tossing is terrorism, MP says, The Canadian Press, January 26, 2010.
4. Morrison, Adrian R. "Pogo Revisited: Caring about animals and creativity", National Animal Interest Alliance.
5. Covance cleared of primate charges, European Biomedical Research Association, 2004, accessed June 20, 2009.
6. Photo gallery, Covance Cruelty, March 26, 2001.
7. Video footage from inside Covance; "Covance fined for violations of the Animal Welfare Act", PETA; Benz, Kathy and McManus, Michael. PETA accuses lab of animal cruelty, CNN, May 17, 2005.
8. Covance Announces Conclusion Of U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture Inspections of Its Vienna, VA Facility, Covance press release, March 31, 2008, accessed April 22, 2010.
9. Buske, Jennifer. PETA Urges Withdrawal Of Support for Drug-Test Lab, The Washington Post, August 3, 2008.
10. ">> Photo Gallery". Covance Cruelty. Retrieved 2010-03-26.
11. ^ "Covance Announces Conclusion Of U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture Inspections of Its Vienna, VA Facility" (PDF). Covance. 2008-03-31. Retrieved 2008-08-10.
12. ^ Covance cleared of primate charges, European Biomedical Research Association, 2004. Retrieved June 20, 2009.
13. ^ Rood, Justin. "Undercover Cameras OK, Judge Rules", ABC News, April 13, 2007.
14. Video footage from inside Covance; "Covance fined for violations of the Animal Welfare Act", PETA; Benz, Kathy and McManus, Michael. PETA accuses lab of animal cruelty, CNN, May 17, 2005.
15. Doward, Jamie. "Kill scientists, says animal rights chief", The Observer, July 25, 2004. Vlasak caused controversy in 2004 when he told The Observer: "I don't think you'd have to kill too many . I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, two million, 10 million non-human lives."
16. PETA's `Got Beer?' ads return to college campuses," Tallahassee Democrat, September 20, 2002.
17. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Better Business Bureau, accessed June 20, 2009. The report states that standards 1 ("Organizations shall have a board of directors that provides adequate oversight of the charity's operations and its staff."), 2 ("Soliciting organizations shall have a board of directors with a minimum of five voting members") and 17 ("Include on any charity websites that solicit contributions, the same information that is recommended for annual reports, as well as the mailing address of the charity and electronic access to its most recent IRS Form 990") were not met.
18. Bohlen, Celestine. Animal-Rights Case: Terror or Entrapment?, The New York Times, March 3, 1989; Tracking a Corporate Spy, The Washington Post, September 28, 2008; Marquardt, Kathleen; Levine, Herbert M.; LaRochelle, Mark (1993). AnimalScam: The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights. Regnery Publishing, p. 31. ISBN 0895264986; Liddick, Don (2006). Eco-terrorism: radical environmental and animal liberation movements. Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 50. ISBN 0275985350;
19. Farris, Gene. PETA dresses in KKK garb outside Westminster Dog Show, USA Today, February 10, 2009.
20. ^ Animal Rights Uncompromised: PETA on 'Pets', PETA, accessed February 14, 2010. Cite error: The named reference "pets" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
21. Marquardt, Kathleen; Levine, Herbert M.; and LaRochelle, Mark. Animal Scam, Regnery Publishing, 1993, p. 37. For Sweetland's response, see Sweetland, Mary Beth. "I Learned to Control my Diabetes!", GoVeg.com, accessed June 4, 2010. Also see Newkirk, Ingrid. The Peta Practical Guide to Animal Rights, St. Martin's Press, 2009, p. 219.

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Animal rights articles
• Top-importance Animal rights articles
• WikiProject Animal rights articles
• B-Class Virginia articles
• Mid-importance Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics