Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Netoholic (talk | contribs) at 19:28, 23 July 2023 (→Requested move 23 July 2023: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:28, 23 July 2023 by Netoholic (talk | contribs) (→Requested move 23 July 2023: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Article policies

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: 2 months

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 26, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed

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.

Organizations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
High	This article has been rated as High-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

	Virginia portal 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.

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.

Veganism and Vegetarianism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism 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.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from PETA Asia-Pacific was copied or moved into PETA with this edit on July 30, 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

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

Archives by topic:
Insulin, POV tag

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Euthanasia

Why is there nothing in the Controversies about Peta's allegedly high rate of euthanasia at shelters, which seems to have been going on for years. Even on its own site it says 'about half' of animals it rescues are euthanized. 2A04:CEC0:1000:8DE4:0:5B:15B3:D401 (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

By the time the Controversies section begins, the controversy over its euthanasia practices has already been covered extensively in the article. So perhaps there's no need to cover it all over again? Perhaps some of the detail covered earlier could be broken out and covered in the Controversies section so that it's at least mentioned there. Largoplazo (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I think whatever controversies that PETA has been involved in should be covered exclusively in the Controversies section in order to maintain cohesion. In addition I also feel it would be worth adding a section to Controversies about the time that PETA stole a 9 year old girl's dog and killed it. The case is briefly mentioned in the larger Euthanasia section, but it could use additional focus for it's impact on the public's perception of the organization.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-for-taking-girls-dog-putting-it-down

https://time.com/4127919/virginia-family-dog-euthanized-peta/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9tWoFiFX4s ← security camera footage of the crime Cat-with-the-'tism (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not clarify the neutrality of this BS. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

We do not clarify anything, we repat what RS (youtube is not an RS) say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

then isn't that euthanasia RS? mostly true on Snopes. more general article I will put a link here. mostly a cover up Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:rs, a claim is not an RS, and RS (reliable source) is the source that makes the claim. Nor are we covering anything up. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

So is the killing of a pet chihuahua by PETA RS? No, it's not a claim.

https://time.com/4127919/virginia-family-dog-euthanized-peta/ Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

If there's word "claim" in this article, this isn't RS. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Read what wp:rs means. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

A really similar question (RS aside) what do people want us to add? Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Vegan SJWs are big. They have their own biased point of view. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Vegan does not even appear in the source, so do you have any RS that says that this case has anything to do with Vegans? Otherwise, it will fail wp:v, so we can't add that line (and read wp:or). Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No, but PETA-bribed person. Just close already. Stop convincing me. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

So unless anyone can actually suggest an edit they wish to be made backed by RS this looks like a violation of wp:forum and should be closed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 June 2023

This edit request to PETA has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

(this is for the PETA redirect, not the actual article)

change

{{R from acronym}}

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from acronym}}
{{R printworthy}}
}}

There is no other term for '"PETA" to be confused for and the category shell will describe and categorize its full protection. OfTheUsername (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this reliable?

Hi, this is Lelly. I'm covering some of things PETA wrongly done. @Slatersteven please check if this is RS https://time.com/4127919/virginia-family-dog-euthanized-peta/

Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The proper place to ask if something is an RS is at wp:rsn. Also, this is being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, as Slatersteven brought up, Time is considered reliable. That said, this instance is already mentioned in the article. Since this material is already covered outside of the controversy section, there isn't much of a reason to include it again. Unless more material is brought forth, I don't think it's necessary to repeat this information unless it has some serious due weight. In which case, I would advocate for a "Shelter" section or something that would briefly gloss over their history and actions. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 18:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Non-neutral lead

I've added a POV tag on the article's lead because it fails to mention any of the organization's gross controversies or the allegations of counterproductive measures such as the mass application of euthanasia. If added they should be complemented with achievements of the organization. I am not aware of any myself. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not knowledgable on the organization, though I still believe its wide criticism should be included somehow in the lead. Regular editors on this article will probably be able to come off with better suggestions. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I updated the lede with this. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2023

It has been proposed in this section that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals be renamed and moved to PETA.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals → PETA – Per WP:COMMONNAME as shown in this Ngram ("People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" is too long for Ngrams, so, when broken down into "People for the Ethical Treatment" and "Ethical Treatment of Animals", the two segments coincide with each other, confirming they're part of the same phrase). It's already a primary redirect. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

UNsure what the last part is all about, but yes PETA seems fine. Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: An Ngrams technicality. Don't worry about it. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment You can't go by that Ngram. For example, I clicked the button to see Google Books results for 2018–2019. The first ten results are:
- Being Peta: Living with Leukaemia
- Joe Peta's Tour Guide Presents a 2019 Masters Preview
- Peta, a Magic Cat
- Advanced Software Technologies for Post-Peta Scale Computing``
- a book by Peta Carlin
- a book by Peta Stapleton
- a book by Peta Dunstan
- a book by Peta Mathias
- a book by Peta-Gay McClure
- a book by Peta Credlin

An important consideration is whether there are references to this organization as PETA that appear without having, at some point, used the full name. Largoplazo (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Sources mentioning PETA solely by acronym are legion. Here are some:

I think this validates the Ngram well enough. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Also note: Ngrams are case-sensitive, book searches aren't. That's why you got false positives. Ngrams doesn't count them. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Let's walk through the steps. Recognizability: both names are recognizable. Naturalness: people are used to the short form. Precision: The short form potentially conflicts with a lot of other topics even though it's currently an active redirect. Concision: the shorter title is more concise, but also less precise. Consistency: Most organisations aren't known by their acronym, but some are (NASA, UNICEF). At the end of the day, you can make arguments for both titles - I simply prefer the official one. SportingFlyer T·C 15:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The second issue that needs to be considered regards WP:AT § Avoid ambiguous abbreviations and MOS:ACROTITLE, which state that they should only be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (as cited in the latter guideline, that is why NASA is where it is now, but CIA remains a primary redirect to Central Intelligence Agency). Regardless of any search engine test so far because of a WP:RECENTISM bias, the case was not made in the previous RM in 2014, and I am still not currently convinced. We still have topics listed on the Peta dab page that also use the "PETA" abbreviation or acronym. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Support. Subject is clear WP:PTOPIC for the PETA acronym and is its WP:COMMONNAME. C.f. FBI and CIA which are 3 letter acronyms and thus necessarily less unique by an order of magnitude. WPscatter /_c 17:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Zzyzx11. My reasons from the 2014 RM still reflect my thinking now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per stated reasons above. Unless an acronym has near-universal use, the expanded name should be used as the title. -- Netoholic @ 19:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Categories: