Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Introduction not written from a neutral point of view

The following does not look like NPOV to me: 'The organization has been widely criticized for its controversial campaigns and euthanasia use, the latter of which has resulted in legal action and a response from Virginia lawmakers.'

Only hostile views of the organisation are mentioned in the introduction, giving a false impression of the relative prominence of opposing views. Seems to me criticism is given undue weight [1] in the introduction relative to support for PETA. Knot Lad (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

its one line in a 4 line intro. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Right, but again why only mention criticism in the intro when there is a mix of views on a controversial subject? Including the claim that it 'has been widely criticized' as the only reference to other people's views gives the impression that this is something like a consensus. Knot Lad (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Do we nor mention that they also " The organization opposes factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and other activities it considers to be exploitation of animals", if not feel free to add it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That is just a description of their policies though, I'm talking about viewpoints about the organisation. Wikipedia policy is that an article should indicate the relative prominence of opposing views, but here we only have criticism. Knot Lad (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The lede is not the article, but if you can think of a positive thing to say about them you want in the lede suggest it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Again it's not about what we think of them but rather reflecting fairly the relative prominence of opposing views. I think a simpler way to do that would be to remove that sentence. Knot Lad (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No, if there are opposing views we put both sides, we do not remove one side. I think this has now be exhausted, I do not support this suggestion, and until I say otherwise that remains the case, I will not be continuing this other then to say I have changed my mind if I do. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay I take the point. I agree that reference to criticism should remain, obviously it is a controversial organisation. What about something like this: 'The organization’s controversial campaigns have been credited with drawing media attention to animal rights issues, but have also been widely criticized. Its use of euthanasia has resulted in legal action and a response from Virginia lawmakers.'

Seems to me a fair reflection of the body. Knot Lad (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Given PETA's 73% euthanasia rate (2022) and failure to actually achieve the goals they claim to aim for, I don't think it would be neutral to not highlight this controversy in the introduction.

(https://arr.vdacs.virginia.gov/PublicReports/ViewReport?SysFacNo=157&Calendar_Year=2022) 2A0D:3344:1508:EA10:F5B3:DD9F:A374:874E (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Title change

Change the title to just “PETA” it is the name much more people are familar with. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please see the references above to three previous discussions about the same proposal, where you can see why they failed. Largoplazo (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Did we not reject this idea recently, nothing has changed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Controversy: Seal Hunting

I think there should be a section about seal hunting and PETA's position/actions in the `Controversies` section. In particular, the Inuit community in Canada has often been at odds with PETA's anti-sealing campaigns. Tanya Tagaq mentioned PETA specifically in her 2014 Polaris Music Prize acceptance speech.

A few sources:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/shame-shame-nunavut-politicians-say-about-peta-s-anti-sealing-campaign-1.856892

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/peta-anti-commercial-sealing-inuk-critic-1.4078713

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/01/animal-rights-activists-inuit-clash-canada-indigenous-food-traditions

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/tanya-tagaq-fires-back-at-peta-over-polaris-award-speech-1.2776683 Angiepin (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"Got Beer?" I don't think so.

In the Philosophy and activism section, it is claimed that PETA ran a campaign called "Got Beer?" This is categorically false and possibly the result of an editor from the organization trying to reduce the controversy around the 2008/2014 campaign, which was actually called "Got Autism?" The relevant evidence is available at "Got Autism?" https://www.distractify.com/p/got-autism-peta and https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/the-bad-science-behind-petas-claim-that-milk-might-cause-autism/371751. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Or it was a different campaign as we also have a section (a whole section on its own) on the "Got Autism?" campaign", it might be a good idea to read the article in full. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I did, and I think it would be good idea for you to search the term "Got Beer?" as I did, finding nothing of any actual relevance except this article (plenty of hits on "got" and "beer", but only this article for the full phrase). 80.193.98.150 (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Anonymous above. It seems that this article is the only source for the phrase "Got Beer", probably because PETA is very unlikely to attack a beverage that is entirely plant-based (containing wheat, barley, and hops). 80.193.98.150 (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

None PETA sources [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, I retract my initial argument. It seems that the age of the articles you linked is what prevented them showing up in search results, so it may be an idea to add at least one of them to the article for clarification purposes. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)