Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 14

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.^[1]

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 ^{talk contribs} 05:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The

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)[reply

]

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 ^{talk contribs} 21:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milk

Could we have a better source than the unlinked Tallahassee Democrat in the

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.^[3] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove this until we find a reliable source that mentions it, or that makes clear this is a notable organization. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. [1] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 12:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored with The Observer as the secondary source. [2] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{talk contribs} 13:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more verifiable source for Dettmer's memorandum, from exhibits in U.S. Senate testimony, following testimony by a POV primary source: [3]. (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: [4]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 19:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 20:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 20:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Edit I then made: [5]. Reverted three times: [6], [7], [8]. Then slipped back out again: [9]. I've read all of those edit summaries, and I do not see anything substantive that replies to the discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Trutt

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

According to writer Kathleen Marquardt, vice-president of the

United States Surgical Corporation; Trutt maintained she had been set up but accepted a plea bargain, and pleaded guilty to attempted murder.^[4]

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 ^{talk contribs} 09:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 18:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 ^{talk|contribs} 19:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 00:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think the passage was fine as it was. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 ^{talk|contribs} 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

I've restored the previous version as I can't see the point of including lots of quotes. [10] 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 ^{talk|contribs} 08:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 20:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 21:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 21:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 20:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 ^{talk|contribs} 08:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 13:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Does anyone mind if I remove this?

In 2006 when Steve Irwin died, PETA's vice-president Dan Mathews said Irwin had made a career out of antagonizing frightened wild animals.^[6] Australian Member of Parliament Bruce Scott said PETA should apologize to Irwin's family and the rest of Australia.^[7]

It was an example of recentism at the time; the section is not about Irwin alone, but about conservationists in general; and the Bruce Scott aspect is supported by a dead link that's not in the Internet Archive. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 18:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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 ^{talk|contribs} 19:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T, you're engaging in poor behavior here. It isn't appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 19:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 20:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting: [11], and [12]. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 20:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 20:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(ec) But rather than dragging this thread along any longer, perhaps you might want to do what you alluded to at the top of the thread: go through the content issues individually. In all of my edits, I provided a link from the edit summary to the appropriate section of this talk. Anyone who has an objection is free to go there and say why. (But don't just say that you have the same objection as at the beginning of the talk thread, when that objection has already been replied to.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Humulin (synthetic human insulin), which she says helped her regain the muscle mass she lost when on animal-based insulin."^[8]

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

Has anyone here other than Tryptofish explained their reasoning, other than I don't like it.? Has anyone here other than Tryptofish discussed their concerns in talk before unilaterally reverting other editors' edits?

Actually, there are now 2 sections about animal testing, which maybe should be combined. I've explained above the relationship between animal research and the use of pig and cattle insulin; I don't see much point in parsing a distinction between medications tested on animals and medications obtained from animals, at least any distinction from an animal rights perspective. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

In response to what SV has said here now: Yes, animal testing is not only about medical applications, and it includes military testing as well, which is in a separate section that could possibly be merged into this one. But a significant part of it is about medical applications, including the very issue (Silver Spring) upon which PETA was founded, and also including the medical use of insulin. If this (insulin) were an instance in which groups like activistcash were the only ones discussing the issue, then there might be a case that it would not be encyclopedic to include it. But that's not true. According to the sources cited, it's something that Mary Beth Sweetland and Ingrid Newkirk have written about, very proudly and not at all defensively. They weren't simply saying the lobbying groups are unfair and here is how we rebut them, but they were saying Mary Beth Sweetland is in-your-face proud of what she has discovered about how to deal with diabetes. I'm increasingly getting the feeling that some editors are arguing that we cannot cite (well-sourced, in context, and not cherry-picked) what PETA says, because what PETA says somehow reflects badly on them. That's not for editors to judge. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any remaining rationale for leaving the passage deleted. And, for that matter, it would make sense to move the military testing paragraph into this section as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I correct that there are no objections to my argument here? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 ^{talk|contribs} 20:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This "example" is little more than a personal attack. I attempted to discuss it with you at your talk, and you declined to engage constructively. You leave out the involvement of other editors prior to the time period you quote, a number of whom expressed support for the material, and a number of whom participated in modifying the edit without arguing for its deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anyone agreeing with its inclusion. I saw people say that, if we must have it, it would be better expressed like this or that, but I don't recall anyone but you arguing for its inclusion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to want to make this discussion about me, instead of about the content. I would rather make it about the content, and not about you. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insulin again

If someone other than Tryptofish believes the Sweetland/insulin issue should be included, please say here. I've collected the posts about it at

So if we are going to ask SV's question above, I am going to also ask anyone who replies to not simply

say "me too", but to provide an explanation of why they think the reasons for inclusion given in all the talk before are incorrect. This is a discussion, not a vote, and one editor does not get to decide who the cool kids are. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

We've been thru this a few times. I've already said that I don't think it should be included 1) because she no longer works there and hasn't for years 2)it's a minor issue 3) it was the only example listed under hypocrisy & it is a very old ref. If hypocrisy exists, there must be newer refs. Perhaps Trypto and/or other editors objected, so the compromise was to state that this happened in 1993, Sweetland is a former employee, and that she is a long-time user of human-derived insulin. With those compromises, I could see having it in the article, although I don't think it adds much to it except as a platform for Marquadt's accusation. I think this may have been an attempt to integrate criticism into the article, but again, I think there must be a better issue to hang it on. Bob98133 (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think it that insulin section warrants inclusion, for the same reasons elucidated by the others above. The only reason I edited it is to add accuracy and balance; I didn't want to get into an edit war removing it, so I figured if it's there, it should at least be done correctly. But given a choice, I see no valid reason to include it. Crum375 (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have removed that segment since I don't think its inclusion is warranted. I think that something that happened years ago in the personal life of an ex communications director is not really relevant. It's also not making any clear point, since when a person is faced with a choice with a gun to their head, it's not a free choice, and therefore not really hypocrisy, even if some critic called it that. Crum375 (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to revert you at this time, but I want to make the following points. I think that I have already responded to each of the points that both of you make here, and neither of you has explained why you think I was wrong, saying instead the same things that I have already replied to, while not really engaging with my counter-arguments. To SV, people have repeatedly said things on both sides of this talk. As for things that should be said "if it has to be included", I am not aware of anything that anyone said needs also to be included that has not been. To Crum, I have explained already why I think it is not valid to delete the material because it happened some years ago. I have already explained why it is not valid to delete the material because it was in her "personal life". As for the argument that it is not really hypocrisy, that appears to me to be SYNTH and not an argument that is found in the sources, including the sources from Sweetland and Newkirk. In the end, I think you are both confusing a

vote with consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

T, there are three people here responding to you, not two (not "both"). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I previously replied to Bob. Here, I was replying to the two comments coming after my last comment, and to Crum's edit to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And whether 2 or 3, that has nothing to do with the substance of my arguments about the content. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

That clarification actually makes what I think is a valid point. Good. I'm not planning to revert you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insulin archive

I created

Tryptofish, because you have decided not to continue inserting something, the issue is concluded, and the archive is no longer needed? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to refactor that. Since I don't know how to read your mind, I did not know about your plan to create multiple archives until I saw your hangon tag, and, as soon as I saw it, I withdrew the CSD. Am I incorrect and, in fact, someone is still continuing this talk topic? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could have asked me. Or you could simply have left it and assumed I'd created it for a reason. Or you could have looked at the archive box at the top of the page. Why would you want to see an archive deleted (for any reason)? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? "This is a duplication of archived talk from Talk:PETA, created to provide background for a discussion that has now been concluded. This duplicate talk is therefore no longer needed." --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create it only to provide background for this discussion, and you can't know the discussion has been concluded, because you're not the only participant. So I just find it odd that you'd try to have it speedied. That's all I wanted to say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't know that you had reasons other than what you said here at the first time you mentioned that archive, because I'm not a mind reader. You said that you provided the archive to show previous talk about insulin, and it appeared to me that we were done discussing insulin. I think you are seeing oddness where it really isn't. Can we just get back to editing the page, instead of looking for reasons to be suspicious of other editors' motives? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I mention it is that several people have asked you to reflect on how you're coming across on this talk page, and I think this is an example of it (you have finished discussing something, ergo the discussion is over, period). In the interests of harmony, I won't give other examples, but please reflect on it, because it's not helping. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's way out of line, and rather

pointy. The reason that you mention it now appears to be that you want to make an innuendo about my intentions, instead of actually dealing with content of the page. I made a good faith interpretation of why you created the extra archive, I corrected my misunderstanding with respect to the CSD as soon as you explained it, and it is untrue that I have been taking the position in this talk that discussion is over because I said so. Indeed, quite the opposite: I explicitly asked if other editors agreed or disagreed, and I waited for responses before editing the page. This entire discussion about the archive is turning into yet another personal attack on me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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

I've created a few archives-by-topic on talk pages where the same points keep being raised. They take the place of an FAQ, but FAQs are contentious because they rely on editors summing up consensus, which almost never works well. By just listing the archives-by-topic, editors can look up the consensus for themselves. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Perhaps an archive box that would be more informative than "see also" would be helpful. (fixed) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the list of campaigns, which has been problematic for some time. It wasn't clear what to include, and they seem to have been picked out at random. I've summarized the key points, and added to them to the general campaign section here. That gives us a page size of 3,604 words readable prose with 71 footnotes, which is a more sensible length. When you download it, it's eight pages of text, and four pages of references. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think that this was a good idea. It did indeed seem rather unnecessary to have the campaigns separate from the positions. Given the large amount of material changed in a brief time, though, it will take some time for the rest of us to go through it and check all of the details. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

As the template itself says, please do not remove it until there is a resolution of the issue. And that is not determined by a

vote. Instead of wasting time discussing editors, how about discussing and fixing content? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Okay, I checked. The tag was added by an anon in April 2009, then restored by you in June 2009, [14] removed by you when you got your own way about the lead in March 2010, [15] then restored by you in April 2010 when someone (probably me) made edits you didn't like. [16]

When removing the tag in March, you wrote (March 12): "In my opinion, the page is now fairly balanced, and the edits that have made it so appear to be stable so far. In the event that these improvements might be reversed or 'compensated for', I might decide to put the tag back." [17] And you restored it shortly afterwards (April 22) when edits appeared that you didn't like. That's a statement of intent to use the tag as a weapon or bargaining tool, which is clearly a misuse. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

My reply to this:

• I notice the comment about "I feel you've been holding the page hostage..." Oh no! Call in the hostage negotiators! Get out the bulletproof vests! Surround the building! Oh! Oh! There is no need to be so melodramatic about this (nor to react as though it's something personal, which, for me at least, it most definitely is not). Wikipedia is a website.
  PETA
  is a page at that website, the visual representation of some files on a server in Florida. The template is a small amount of code near the beginning of that file. The code indicates that one or more editors believe that there are issues about POV that need to be addressed, not that anyone's sky is falling.
• "When you got your own way." "When someone (probably [SV]) made edits you didn't like." (Probably? Are you unsure?) Sheesh! Anyone around here read
  WP:NPA? Poor editors, choose of your own free will to go away from a page for a while, and when you come back, you find to your horror that other editors worked collaboratively in your absence to edit the page in a way that they felt improved it, and horrid evil Tryptofish removed a POV tag that had been there longer than Tryptofish has been an editor, and congratulated the other editors who had worked together productively. Seeing, perhaps, that you didn't get your way, you immediately reverted the edits that had been made in your absence, so the page would again be your way (and yet again, now: [18]
  ).
• I do not consider the tag to be a bargaining tool, despite the attempts to paint me as saying that. My explanation of my reasons for removing the tag when I did, were a straightforward explanation of the situation. In retrospect, my concern that someone would later come and undo the improvements that had been made may have been a bit
  beansy
  , but alas proved accurate. It's not a weapon, unless someone takes it so personally that they feel wounded by it.
• With respect to the several statements about how editors believe the template should or should not be used (that there should never be just one editor arguing for a tag, but instead some unspecified number greater than one; that the tag may only be used for short periods of time; etc.), this talk page (
  WT:NPOV
  is that-a-way. Here, we are going to deal with it according to the policies that exist, not the wishes of editors who are unhappy with policies or templates.
• Let's underline that, really, this tag is nothing personal. From
  WP:DRIVEBY
  (I figured you'd like that shortcut!): "It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."
• About that issue of it being such a long, long time (Are we there yet?), and the need to "escalate": When I restored the tag after the April edits, I stated in this talk my reasons for doing so. Since then, I doubt that a single day has passed without my participating in this talk to either find more sources (I've been doing more of that than anyone else here), explain specific points that are issues as I see them, and respond to editors who, in turn, have views opposite to mine. Precisely because I think that drama can be reduced and productive editing increased by not escalating the process, I have chosen (and still choose) to refrain from making edits to the page that would revert the April edits, until there appears to be consensus in this talk (or, alas, the absence of a response from those who disagree, since I cannot force other editors to engage if they choose not to), and I have always tried to answer, specifically, the points made by other editors (even when some other editors, certainly not all,
  kept repeating themselves
  after I had offered counterarguments to what they had said). Take a look at that archive of Video, part 1, through Video, part gazillion. Yes, it took a long, long time, but that was because that was how long it took to reach consensus. But the good news is that we did reach consensus, and that is something to feel proud of! And if you just read what I said near the top of this thread, we are already so close to no longer needing the tag that I have to wonder why so much affect is being expended complaining about the small time remaining.
• For those who are eager to get rid of the tag and move one, a suggestion (again): instead of wasting time in this thread, how about discussing the actual content that needs to be worked on?
• It's interesting to see the new POV tag archive. Editors long before me have been concerned about POV on this page. In fact, it would be useful to have another archive, of the perennial requests for a criticism section, which, when one thinks about it, are actually also a symptom of long-time concerns about this page, whether one agrees with those concerns or not.
• And for anyone who hasn't figured it out yet, trying to make this talk about me, instead of about content, ain't gonna work. I don't get intimidated by it, and I don't fall for it. It won't make me go away. If you have concerns on either side of the issue of POV at this page, focus your comments on content and sources, not on editors, not on wishes for policy change. Do that, and you'll find that I'm very happy to work with you constructively. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It appears that I am outnumbered, if not out-reasoned: [21]. However, it seems a bit inaccurate to imply that I "go around slapping tags everywhere". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We were using this primary source to say "PETA claimed a tax refund from the Internal Revenue Service for the donation after the arson took place," with reference to a grant they reportedly gave Rod Coronado. Is that sentence clearly supported (per NOR) by this document, or do we need a secondary source? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And related claims

Can we get this issue settled once and for all, please? I seem to remember several times requesting secondary sources, but the material's still there sourced to activistcash.

In 1995, Rod Coronado, a former ALF activist, received $64,000 from PETA and two months later $38,240, as a loan to fund his legal defense, after being convicted of setting fire to a Michigan State University research lab in 1992. 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.

• Refs are: Government sentencing memorandum of U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer in USA v. Rodney Coronado, July 31, 1995, pp. 8–10; Exhibit #11. PETA Gives Over $70,000 to ALF Member After Burning Down Michigan State Research Lab, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, accessed June 26, 2010.

The sources are a sentencing memorandum from a U.S. Attorney who bases his claims on activistcash, and a tax return. This is a serious allegation, so we need at least one high-quality secondary source (e.g. an article in a high-quality newspaper). We need this in part to check accuracy, and in part to check that the allegation is something secondary sources saw fit to pay attention to, and were confident about reporting. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This thread actually continues from #Sentencing memorandum, above, where some of these questions were already discussed, and new sourcing was added. As was a response from Newkirk, not shown here. Yes, we will go through this carefully, and thank you for discussing content. I also want to make note of this edit: [22], which, despite its bland edit summary, also reverted a lot of substantive edits that were discussed in various sections above. We'll discuss that too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if we could not refer each other to previous threads or archives, but start fresh with this query:

Do we have secondary sources for this edit?

In 1995, Rod Coronado, a former ALF activist, received $64,000 from PETA and two months later $38,240, as a loan to fund his legal defense, after being convicted of setting fire to a Michigan State University research lab in 1992. 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.

If so, we can post them here, please, so we can judge how best to summarize them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough. I'll look some more for those kinds of sources. About those archives, does that include topic archives? And, when I have already tried my best to answer questions that are asked again here, I, in turn, would appreciate it if other editors would not engage in

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know what you're referring to. I can only ask again: please no more referring people to your previous posts, or long responses, or repeated responses, or barbs. Just high-quality secondary sources, posted here, then we can discuss how to summarize them before restoring the material to the article. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm referring to: pretending that one cannot read previous posts, whether long or short, and repeatedly asking questions that were already addressed in those previous posts, and directing barbs at me instead of engaging with the content issues that were raised in those previous posts. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources needed for these edits

Just to clarify what we need, because there are three separate claims. Because these are serious allegations, one of them about a named BLP, we need high-quality secondary sources, per V, NOR, and BLP, not primary sources, and not material from lobby groups.

1. Secondary source =
2. Secondary source =

1. Secondary source =
2. Secondary source =

1. Secondary source =
2. Secondary source =

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead yet again

I wasn't happy with the way this sentence was written up for the lead:

It was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe for having given grants several years earlier to Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists charged with offenses including arson.

My understanding is that they may have given one or two grants to Rod Coronado in 1995; see section above. But we say "ALF and ELF activists charged with offenses". Who were the others? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this to say what the secondary source says. [23]

• The source (CNN, 2005) says: "[Senator] Inhofe said there was 'a growing network of support for extremists like ELF and ALF,' and he singled out People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for giving money to members of both groups." [24]
• We say: "[PETA] was further criticized in 2005 by U.S. Senate Environment Committee chairman Jim Inhofe for having given grants several years earlier to Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists."

The fact that we're having difficulty getting such a simple thing right using the primary sources shows in itself that they are unclear, and it's a serious allegation, so we need per V, NOR, and BLP to stick to secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noting that there have now been another very large number of edits, so we will have to go through those and see whether or not we did, in fact, get it right. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some history added to the lead

I've added something about the group's history to the lead, because it had become mostly criticism or the response to it. It's standard to have some minimal background in leads anyway; this article was a little unusual in not having any. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some of the account of the Silver Spring history could be shortened, with some of the details left for the main text. I'm ambivalent about which parts to shorten and which to retain. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last lead sentence

I took a look at the Center for Consumer Freedom websites today, and was a bit concerned to see the issues we've been discussing are issues they repeat, on the websites and in commercials, almost as though trying to create memes (terrorism, violence, arson, FBI, ALF, domestic terrorist threat, total animal liberation, anti-pets, insulin, hypocrisy).

I'm therefore going to try to re-source the last sentence in the lead, which didn't have full consensus when we added it anyway. I'll try to find something in a secondary source, or where Newkirk gives an interview that was reliably published, where she makes the same point in different words. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a 2001 Salon interview [25] where she makes the same point, and I've added that to the lead: "What I say to myself all the time is that we have our heads in the clouds looking for Utopia, but we have our feet firmly planted on the ground dealing with reality." [26] It's worth reading the rest of the quote, because it highlights some of the difficulties we've been having in avoiding original research:

What I say to myself all the time is that we have our heads in the clouds looking for Utopia, but we have our feet firmly planted on the ground dealing with reality. We make no bones about the fact that we want an end to all cruelty to animals. But I think the meat industry and the leather industry and the experimenters understand, especially if we're fighting them, that we will back off if they move society and their industry a step forward. We're not going to stop everything overnight, so while we work for the ideal we certainly wish to provide the carrot-and-stick incentives to move along toward that goal.

Animals are going to die by the millions today in all sorts of ugly ways for all sorts of ridiculous, insupportable reasons. If one animal who is lying in a battery egg farm cage could have the extra room to stretch her wing today because of something you've done, I think she would choose to have that happen.

Here she's emphasizing the animal welfare aspects, just as she did throughout most of the speech where we picked out "total animal liberation" (where she said kindness was the most important thing).

The fact is that PeTA straddles the line between AR and AW. Newkirk is a follower of Peter Singer for the most part, and he similarly straddles it. These are distinctions that are breaking down anyway, so we need to be especially careful not to engage in OR. For the same reason I've added that PeTA writes that it's an AR group, rather than stating in WP's voice that it is.

I've returned the old quote to the Francione section for now, though we should probably remove it entirely unless we can find a reliable secondary source who discusses it. I'll continue looking for a recent academic discussion about PeTA's place within the AR/AW spectrum. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm concerned that this is a bad reason to make that change. Obviously, Newkirk did not say the quote you deleted in order to provide fodder to CCF. If one makes the argument that, if a particular critic has commented on a particular point, then Wikipedia cannot repeat it no matter what, that can be misused to purge everything that is critical. The correct way to evaluate that is, as we just discussed, to look at secondary sources, not simply to quote the person in an interview (which comes close to being primary sourcing), but to determine for us that the quote is representative and notable. In response to Crum asking me to do so previously, I did just that, in the now-infamous Video archives. I provided a large number of secondary sources that singled out the quote you deleted as being one that is a noteworthy one. I added one of those, a newspaper covering the convention, as a source, which I think you subsequently deleted. Can you provide similar secondary sourcing that points to the quote you added in its place as being notable and representative? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go back and look to see which secondary sources mentioned it. My worry would be that they were all provincial papers; there was too much in this article sourced to the Honolulu Busy Bee and similar. Can I ask why you're so keen to have that particular quote in the lead? It's something you've been arguing for for several months.

I do like it myself, in the sense that it's rousing, and so I like it from the writing perspective. But to end the lead with it almost turns it into a PeTA rally, even ignoring the OR and CCF issues. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the sources you linked to before, but they're mostly local newspapers, we can't read most or any of what they say, one of them is dated from before she made the speech, and one of them is written by CCF: The Hartford Courant (2007), The Virginian-Pilot (1998), and Richmond Times (2002). Variety (2007) is a better source, but I can't see where it refers to that quote. And this link doesn't lead to anything and isn't in the Internet Archive. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the quote and paraphrased instread, and I also swapped the order of the criticism so we don't end with PeTA. Reading the leads over (the old and the new), it felt too much as though we were giving PeTA the last word, and in a rousing way rather than a factual one. I think the current lead (number 3) is more disinterested. All three (last two paras) side by side:

Also, the "carrot and stick" idea is PeTA's key approach when dealing with industry, which is the reason I picked out that particular phrase. It's Henry Spira's idea of "reintegrative shaming"—again, this goes back to Singer, Spira, and Newkirk's early relationship in the 1980s, something that I added to the history here recently. There's a little bit about it in the animal rights article here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each day that I login, I find scores of new edits to the page, so I'm finding that replying in this talk is like aiming at a moving target; I ask a question, and then find that the question is mooted before anyone can answer it. That's not necessarily a bad thing: a quick look at the version-du-jour of the page includes a lot of things that strike me initially as a big improvement, so thanks for that. Since there is no point in my stepping on your toes while you edit, I'm going to try to comment in this talk on red flags as I see them, but not make too many significant edits to the page until you indicate in this talk that you are at a point where you are giving the rest of us a little time to take it all in. But please understand that we will look at all of it thoughtfully, and edits that do not address issues that I've already raised in this talk do not moot the issues that I've raised.

You asked a question about my motivations concerning the "animal liberation" quote. I find that question a little strange, in that I have already explained why I think it is so well-supported by sources. I do not think that I have asked you about your motivations. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The end part of the third paragraph of the lead discusses criticism by feminists, and criticism that media stunts trivialize AR. This is in a paragraph about criticism from within the AR movement. The issue of trivializing AR clearly belongs here, but I would suggest that the criticism by feminists belongs, instead, in the next paragraph, about criticism from outside the AR movement. Some feminists support AR, others do not, and it is not really accurate to imply that feminism and AR are in any way linked. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the growing number of requests in this talk for secondary sources for material that might be seen as criticisms of PETA, including some that remind me of elementary school worksheets (fill in your answers here:). I'll be happy to help go through and work on those, but I want to make some overall points first. I've already said, just above here, that we need to be careful about setting a double-standard, with higher sourcing requirements for critics of PETA than for PETA and their supporters. And as I said about the POV template, this talk page is not the place for setting new policy. How we source this page should be based upon policy as it exists. I've just gone back and re-read

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

So I think that we need to adhere to that as it is, and not improvise alternative versions that exist for

If the material we want to add is truly notable, independent secondary sources will have covered it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right; I stand corrected. (I went back and looked at BLP, and noticed Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 26#Misuse of Primary Sources, where this is discussed, at it looks like you actually wrote much of the material you quote here. But, no matter, policy is policy, and I'm not going to argue with that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circular logic

But that leads me to ask about another aspect of primary versus secondary sources:

A: "This contentious matter is sourced only to a primary source. We need to have a reliable secondary source that also reports this."

B: "Good point. Here is a secondary source that also reports what the primary source says."

A: "No, that's no good. The secondary source clearly got their information from the primary source, so they are just mirroring it."

At first glance, that sounds reasonable, and in fact, at first I believed it. But there's a logical flaw, I think. The concept behind the first of those two paragraphs quoted from BLP just above is that, for something that might reflect badly on a person or persons, this encyclopedia should not report it unless it has already been reported in a reliable secondary source, because that secondary source will have (a) determined for us that the information is sufficiently notable, and (b) determined for us that the information is not just some sort of unfounded allegation. I can imagine situations where a low-quality secondary source might parrot a primary source without fulfilling those two tasks, but there are also plenty of reliable secondary sources that do what BLP asks. If they report something from a sleazy primary source, the more reliable secondary sources, regardless of where they originally got the "tip", will have done sufficient due diligence that they in fact identify the allegation as being notable and verifiable for our purposes. Even if they got it, originally, from the primary source. (Also, my reading of BLP is that the secondary source does not have to repeat every last detail in the primary source, because primary sources can be used, with care, to fill out information about something that has been reported in secondary sources. Nor does there appear to be any requirement for multiple secondary sources for a single statement.) Consequently, saying that the secondary source is invalid because they say the same thing as the primary source is circular logic, allowing any source to be disqualified, in a way that can potentially manipulate POV. Rather, the question for us should be: even if the secondary source has gotten information from the primary source, is the secondary source sufficiently reliable that we can be reasonably confident in their determination of the notability and verifiability of the claim made? Am I wrong? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd have to give an example, because I haven't seen any logical flaw. The page has several secondary sources in it, where we know what the primary source material is too, and we include both. But we can't just have the primary sources, because then it's Wikipedians judging what matters, and not independent reliable sources. Point is that we have to stick to the sourcing policies, BLP in particular.

As for using primary sources to augment secondary ones, yes, that's allowed where the latter have discussed the issues in the former, but you have to do so with caution and only if the material isn't contentious. The secondary source may have deliberately left out something libellous, for example, or something that was just wrong.

Example: until the latest edits, our article said of a circus and a named person:

In one specific case, PETA asked that "

elephants" be banned, after the animal care director of the Carson & Barnes Circus, Tim Frisco, was filmed allegedly attacking elephants with bullhooks and electric prods. PETA's videotape of one of Frisco's training sessions allegedly shows him attacking elephants with steel-tipped bullhooks and shocking them with electric prods.^[29] The elephants are shown screaming and recoiling in pain, according to PETA.^[30]

PETA also goes undercover into circuses. In 2006, they filmed trainers at Carson & Barnes Circus—including Tim Frisco, the animal-care director—striking elephants while shouting at them; The Washington Post writes that the video shows Frisco shouting "Make 'em scream!" A company spokesman dismissed PETA's concerns as 'Utopian philosophical ideology," but said the circus would no longer use electric prods.[31]

We still include the primary source in the footnote, because a secondary source referred to it, and readers can watch the video themselves. But in the text, we now frame the point the way The Washington Post did, and not how PETA did. This despite the fact that PETA actually describes it in a way that makes more sense; e.g. the W/Post says the circus won't use prods anymore without saying explicitly that they used them in this case.

The point always boils down to this: for anything contentious and newsworthy, do we want to be guided by how and whether The New York Times chooses to present primary-source material, or how and whether a Wikipedian does? The point of the policies is that we want the former, for legal and ethical reasons, because the NYT has a professional structure in place for checking facts and legal issues, and we don't. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand that. As for specific examples, I'll bring those up as we come to them. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttals of allegations

Also, to what extent does the secondary source requirement apply to rebuttals of potentially damaging allegations? If there is a serious accusation that is documented in secondary sources, but the rebuttal to it, the response that could be considered to defend or exonerate the person or persons, is only found in primary sources, does that mean that we can only report the accusation? I would think that common sense would dictate that a primary source could be used here for NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the allegation and the rebuttal. Again, this boils down to trying to find good secondary sources, because they will include a rebuttal. We wouldn't for example want: "Circus X accused PETA of invasion of privacy and distortion of material." (Source: NYT). "PETA replied that Circus X's management were career criminals who should have been locked up years ago." (Source: PETA).

Even rebuttals included by secondary sources aren't always appropriate for neutrality reasons. For example, I didn't include PETA's full rebuttal to the claim that they support the ALF and ELF, even though it was in the secondary source. They said they don't support violence (which I included), but went on to say something like, "we oppose the real violence, which is the daily terrorizing of helpless animals" etc. I left it out because it's polemic, and might trigger a need for a rebuttal to the rebuttal.

The danger with relying on primary sources for contentious material is that we give them a platform. They produce a press release saying whatever they want, and hey presto it finds its way into Wikipedia. To prevent that, we use secondary sources as a filter. If independent secondary sources felt the rebuttal was worth publishing and was accurate, they'll have done so somewhere if the story was worth publishing in the first place.

Also (apologies for the length of this), historians are extremely careful about using primary sources for this reason, because people involved in events have a tendency to want to rewrite history. A historian will not as a rule allow a person to say after the fact: "But I didn't do X or Y!" They will want to know what the documents say, what the independent sources say. That's a slightly separate point, because WP has a different outlook, but our approach to primary sources and that of historians is connected, if not identical. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these thoughtful explanations, which are very helpful in making me better understand your reasoning, and in making me revise my own in some important ways. By the way, I had to smile at your apology about the length of your post. No apology is needed; no such apology should ever be needed. I would also point out that I wasn't really so concerned with circumstances where, for example, PETA rebuts something in a way that would be hurtful to their critics, but more in cases where the rebuttal would simply counteract, in a non-derogatory way, a criticism that would itself have been hurtful if it were left unanswered. Perhaps an example would be an interview or speech by Newkirk in which she says that such-and-such critics were incorrect for so-and-so reason, but does not go on to malign the critics in any way. It seems to me that a big underlying concept of BLP is, first, do no harm. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the circumstances, how reasonable the rebuttal was, how contentious the issue was, and whether a secondary source had already covered it. Perhaps the person or group issuing the rebuttal simply doesn't like the secondary coverage, and therefore seeks to change it. That's the kind of thing we have to look out for. The key to relying on secondary sources is that we want to reflect the published record, for reasons of accuracy, notability, and disinterested writing.

There was an article I used to work on about a marginally notable neo-Nazi, someone the media had written about, mostly in connection with one event. So there were secondary sources we could use about him. But every so often he'd post a "Statement to Journalists," on his website to correct what they were saying about him, and accounts sympathetic to him would add the rebuttal to the article. Then he'd change the rebuttal, and they'd change it on WP too. Then he'd expand on it, and WP would expand on it too. After a few weeks, the article had turned into his blog, carefully tracking his every thought, his every change of mood. :)

It's to avoid situations like that—the rewriting of history by the participants in an event—that we stick to what secondary sources are saying for anything that might be contentious. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

PETA makes use of this incident, as on this page [[27]], so apparently it's not irrelevant to them. Bob98133 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think they did do it. I've seen several sources where Newkirk seems to take ownership of it, so I'm thinking of tweaking the writing of that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T, I'd ask you to consider the countless woman hours that have been wasted by discussions like this on AR pages. It doesn't benefit you, me, the article or the project. It's time neither of us will ever get back, and there's nothing to show for it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the page has improved a lot over the past year or so. But I find your comment rather strange. In the most recent talk thread, it was you who posed a long numbered list of questions to me. I suppose as an alternative to my seeking consensus in this talk, I could, instead, just revert you over and over, but that seems to me to be a bad idea. Let's keep in mind that no editor owns the page, and I have just as much right as you do to seek to improve the page. Perhaps you might find that it saves time, in the long run, if you make your own edits to the page more slowly, discussing the substantive ones in this talk before making them, and engaging promptly with the questions posed by me or anyone else, instead of either saying tl;dr or declining to engage at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has improved because I've rewritten it. That's unconnected to anything that happened here, except that it would have happened sooner had it not been for the time wasted on the talk page, or taking the article off my watchlist because of it. And I'm not just talking about this AR page as you know. But it's up to you. It's your life, your time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm happy to have helped point out things that led you to do such an excellent job of rewriting it! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can think of an example, I'd be happy to thank you for it. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to continue to discuss some of the edits that were made in late April. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted quote

At present, the "Campaigning" section of the page says:

Newkirk has said that the outrageous campaigns are the ones that grab attention, so PETA won't shirk from engaging in them, though she adds that the group has many quieter projects that are rarely heard about.^[32]

Before the April edits, the "Profile" section covered this in more detail:

Regarding PETA's controversial campaigns, Newkirk has said: "The fact is we are the biggest group because we succeed in getting attention. ... The fact is we may be doing all sorts of things on a campaign but the one thing that gets attention is the outrageous thing. It simply goes to prove to us each time, that that is the thing that's going to work; and so we won't shirk from doing that facet — in addition to all the other things we do that you never hear about because no one cares."^[33]

I appreciate the value of cutting back on the quotefarm attributes of the page, but I wonder whether this particular quote is important enough, and indeed goes to much of what gets argued about in this talk, that it might be good to put it back, in place of the paraphrase. If we want to cut back on direct quotes, I note that a large quote was added to the "Euthanasia" section, which maybe could be briefly paraphrased instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think covering this quote more fully would be useful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court decision

Before the April edits, the "History" section, discussing the Silver Spring monkeys, included this sentence:

It became the first animal-testing case to be argued before the

United States Supreme Court, which rejected PETA's application for custody.^[34]

Now, the second part of that sentence, indicating what the Supreme Court decided, is no longer on the page. I would think it ought to be added back. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it did reject the application for custody as such, or whether it rejected some other aspect of it. That's why I removed it. If you can find a good secondary source explaining what the final legal procedure was, by all means post it here. This is not the place to go into the legal issue in detail, but even a summary of a few words needs to be accurate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining that. I will look into that, now that I understand your reason, which makes sense. I think that you can see why removing just that part of the sentence draws attention in relation to figuring out the right NPOV. In any case, if the decision were a rejection in any form, we ought not to leave it without that information. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Fuss

In the section on "Undercover investigations", the description of Unnecessary Fuss was expanded some. If one clicks through to the main page, it includes some content partially rebutting the film. Perhaps a portion of that, very briefly summarized, should be included for balance. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly see that anything in the film is rebutted, although I haven't looked at the history of the changes. It seems like all of the abuses were admitted, and researchers' earlier assurances shown to be untrue. The fact that it gave the impression that the abuse was more common is a red herring. No one seems to deny that the abuse that was depicted actually happened; and impressions are hard to document. What sort of thing do you think should be added here? Bob98133 (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good question; I should have been more specific. At Unnecessary Fuss#OPRR investigation, first paragraph, there is a quote from Charles R. McCarthy, director of the OPRR at the time. Also, in the last paragraph, "The OPRR identified 25 errors in Newkirk's voice-over commentary." I'm thinking of a very brief paraphrase sourced to those two things. At present, the page says:

The ensuing publicity led to the suspension of funds from the university, the firing of its chief veterinarian, the closure of the lab, and a period of probation for the university.

I'm asking about adding to the beginning of the sentence:

Although the Office for Protection from Research Risks found errors and overstatements in the film, the conclusions of their investigation, and the ensuing publicity, led to the suspension of funds from the university, the firing of its chief veterinarian, the closure of the lab, and a period of probation for the university.

An additional advantage of this clarification, besides some balance, is that it makes clear that the sanctions against the university were not just a reaction to a firestorm of bad publicity, but to a substantive follow-up investigation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to think this modification to that sentence, or a similar modification, would be desirable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

Please see the ends of #Covance, #Sentencing memorandum, and #KKK, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, I can't see the point of the changes you're making, which are creating problems with the writing and/or changing what the sources are saying. For example:

1. The academic source that talks about them being leading exporters of AR to moderate groups doesn't mention animal welfare; your adding it caused welfare to be mentioned three times in one sentence. And the reason he didn't use it is he was referring to groups that straddle the AW/AR divide., i.e. the animal protection movement.
2. The offended sources are AR feminists, not feminists in general; at least our sources are.
3. Why move "new welfarists" from the lead, when that's what the academic source says?
4. Why paraphrase carrot-and-stick when that's what Newkirk says, that is the key point, and that why it's in the lead (as I said earlier)? And "to treat animals better" is poor writing, and not always accurate anyway.
5. Why remove Frisco's name, when it's in the W/Post and elsewhere, but not remove any other names (e.g. of PeTa staff accused of wrongdoing)? And repeating "the care director" twice in one sentence instead of his name is odd writing.
6. There's no need for scare quotes around "press sluts"; we already say "what she calls press sluts."
7. You created a Easter egg link with
   Your Mommy Kills Animals (film)
   . That film is not the same thing as the campaign, and it's once again promoting CCF, which financed it.
8. "Gained recognition" isn't an improvement on "made its name."
9. Why remove that it involved the first police raid of an animal lab in the U.S.? That is an absolutely key point.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff of you reverting, in a single edit, all of the edits that I made: [28]. First, I want to note that, for each edit that I made, I made a single change at a time, and provided an edit summary, which in several cases, would answer some of the questions that you ask. Second, I'll point out two comments that I made to this talk, to which you haven't replied, that would also be worth taking a look at: [29] and [30]. As a broad observation, please note that, when you make edits to the page (in great numbers), I am very cautious about reverting anything that you have done, but instead, take it to this talk page, where all too often, you have been reluctant to engage with what I have said, other than to question my motives or integrity. This pattern is creating an appearance, whether you intend it or not, of ownership of the page by you.

Let me also point out, broadly, that as I read the latest revisions you made before today, I see a lot of excellent work, which has been very helpful, so thank you for that.

Before I respond directly to your points, I want to make note of three additional things that you reverted, that are not listed by you above:

(a) You deleted "and" in the first sentence, which, though not a big deal, was a copyedit to make the sentence more syntactically correct.

(b) You unlinked macaque, also not a big deal, but seems a bit fussy to object to. I don't think it's overlinking, and it can be useful to some readers.

(c) Aside from the more substantive issue of Francione's terminology, you unlinked animal welfare. Regardless of what we decide otherwise, it makes entirely good sense to link from this page to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The continuation of my answer is refactored in the next sub-thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

Now to your questions, numbered as you did: --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(note from SV: SV's questions inserted below, followed by T's reply, followed by SV's reply to that): SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. The academic source that talks about them being leading exporters of AR to moderate groups doesn't mention animal welfare; your adding it caused welfare to be mentioned three times in one sentence. And the reason he didn't use it is he was referring to groups that straddle the AW/AR divide., i.e. the animal protection movement.

   You had already reverted me on that, and I accepted it, only adding back the link to animal welfare at a point in the sentence where it those words already occurred in your wording of the sentence, not changing anything you said about it except for providing the internal link. Why are we still discussing that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I was just wondering why you changed it. Making changes without checking the sources creates extra work. I have to re-check what the source said in case I misread it (and in this case it's a book, not online that I'm aware of, and not here with me right now, so that involved some extra hassle). Then I have to change the edit back. Then I have to post here explaining or enquiring. Then I have to respond to your response. It would save time, if you see a sourced edit that you feel isn't quite right and you've not seen the source yourself, if you could ask me to check it.

   If I had realized that it was something specific to the source, I would have done something like that. But it appeared to me to just be common sense. And I have not always gotten a response to my other inquiries in this talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. The offended sources are AR feminists, not feminists in general; at least our sources are.

   I see what you mean. Previously, this page included sources about feminists outside the AR movement who also objected; apparently those sources have been taken out during all the recent editing. I'll look for those, and we can see about whether it makes sense to put them back. If it does, I think that it is reasonable to consider that not all feminists are in the AR movement—some agree with it and some do not—but it may very well be the case that feminists broadly would find such campaigns objectionable. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   My recollection is that all the sources are and were animal rights feminists. That's why the material was included: criticism from within.

3. Why move "new welfarists" from the lead, when that's what the academic source says?

   You can see what I said in my edit summary. I was trying to tighten up the lead, make it a little less wordy. I didn't change the meaning, only shortened the sentence to indicate what Francione says about it without using his catchphrase. It's a judgment call: since the page is about PeTA rather than about Francione, is it important enough to put it in the lead, important enough as a phrase that is widely-repeated and notable, or is it enough to just have it in the main text and have a summary of his argument in the lead? I think it's OK to leave it out, but it's hardly a big issue for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   It's what he said. He's a key AR academic source, and as such he frames the debates and creates the vocabulary that others use, and yes this is widely used of PETA because of him.

4. Why paraphrase carrot-and-stick when that's what Newkirk says, that is the key point, and that why it's in the lead (as I said earlier)? And "to treat animals better" is poor writing, and not always accurate anyway.

   Another thing that just doesn't seem like a big issue to me. It sounded a little humorous to me (unintentionally humorous) to use this phrase (based on a metaphor of animal training) in this context, and I thought it would be better writing the way I did it. Just a paraphrase (and you've been arguing for paraphrases instead of direct quotes). If you see it as something important, I'm not interested in arguing about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Again, it's what the source said, and it's a key PETA concept (and key in general in certain sections of AR).

5. Why remove Frisco's name, when it's in the W/Post and elsewhere, but not remove any other names (e.g. of PeTa staff accused of wrongdoing)? And repeating "the care director" twice in one sentence instead of his name is odd writing.

   I indicated in my edit summary very clearly that I felt it was unnecessary to call this person out by name, and that it raised BLP issues. With you putting it back, it still does. As far as I know, this person is not otherwise notable, and putting his name there when there is nothing like a court conviction seems accusatory, regardless of whether the Post discussed him in their news coverage of the event. Frankly, I'm surprised that you would feel so strongly that he must be identified by name. When you bring up other people, PeTA staff, that were not in any way part of this edit, you appear to be making an innuendo about me. I cannot see anything wrong with discussing Ingrid Newkirk or Alex Pacheco on this page, since they are highly notable and public individuals. I think we still discuss Matt Prescott in the holocaust section, but I do not see a problem with how we do that. I assume you are, in fact, referring to MaryBeth Sweetland. Her name no longer appears on the page. That is because Crum made what I think was a very good argument against retaining the insulin material, and I was quite happy to change my opinion and agree to deleting it. Why are you bringing it up now? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   See the section below.

6. There's no need for scare quotes around "press sluts"; we already say "what she calls press sluts."

   It's a stylistic choice, not an issue to fight about. It's certainly an out-of-the-ordinary phrase. I don't care that much, if it's something you are going to make a big deal about. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Adding scares quotes means we're effectively saying "what she calls, what she calls."

   [31], noted, since it wasn't me who first added those. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I take your point about redundancy, but I also think it appropriate to note just how remarkable the phrase is. A solution could be to restore the quote marks but delete the words "what she calls." That also has the advantage of being more succinct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. You created a Easter egg link with
   Your Mommy Kills Animals (film)
   . That film is not the same thing as the campaign, and it's once again promoting CCF, which financed it.

   You are right. I stand corrected, and I agree with you. My mistake, but made in good faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. "Gained recognition" isn't an improvement on "made its name."

   Again, you think this is a big deal? My feeling was, and is, that the "gained recognition" language is a little (a very little!) less colorful and more professional sounding. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   It looks odd to my eyes.

   It looks odd the other way to mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   On thinking about this some more, it seems to me that "made its name" is typically used in contexts where the "name" is, in effect, a "good name". Here, the situation is (obviously) one fraught with controversy, and the word choice implies wrongly that it is not. (I'm not arguing for words that imply the opposite, just for words that are neutral either way.) There's nothing sacred about "gained recognition", and there are plenty of other word choices that covey the same thing, but without any implications either way. Surely, we can find one (became well known? caught the public's attention?). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9. Why remove that it involved the first police raid of an animal lab in the U.S.? That is an absolutely key point.

   Again, I provided an edit summary, and also indicated in this talk that I thought the section was a bit longer than it needed to be. Leading to a change in the law, and establishing PeTA as very well-known, those things are clearly lead-worthy. But a police raid on a lab? The sourcing says that it was the first such raid. Has there been a second? Is this (police raids on labs) a commonplace phenomenon, something that has become part of our world and PeTA started it? Do we have a page on Police raids on laboratories? I have no objection to reporting the raid in the main text, but is it so important that it needs to be in the lead? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   That's a key point. It shook up the research community at the time, had never happened before, and hasn't since that I know of. It was in large measure what made PeTA's name.

   That being the case, it needs, at a minimum, to be worded differently, because it implies that police raids of laboratories are an ongoing occurrence. If it was a one-time event, then the wording needs to reflect that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should go without saying that I'm perfectly happy to discuss any concerns about content in this talk. However, I don't think that I should feel like whenever I make an edit to the page, you will immediately revert everything that I did. There's also an option of reverting some of what I did, or changing some of it to an intermediate or compromise form, while retaining some of it, instead of single-sweep undoing it all. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T, I'd appreciate it if you'd remove those sigs. It's not a huge deal, but it looks odd, and I wouldn't have done it. Yet they're my sigs. It's also easier to read without them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove yours. I want mine to stay. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, but in future please add only your own. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did it because you had refactored my comment, and I want it to be clear to others what I did and did not say. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Including names

That's a lot to read. About the names: you removed Frisco (widely named, including W/Post, and what he did is on video, so not seriously in dispute), but you left in Maria Blanton (PETA, serious allegation, no charges ensued that I know of, based on one source). I just wondered why you approach them differently. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think when you have read it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please address the point about the names now? I would like the page to be consistent in that regard. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number 5. About Maria Blanton, I do not recollect that part. I haven't checked it yet, and I certainly am not the editor who added it, nor do I remember this coming up in talk before. I've already told you that it will take a long time for the rest of us to go carefully through all of the changes that you made. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the

direct action section, para 3. My approach has been to name anyone named by high-quality reliable sources (not just any old RS, but a particularly trusted one). But if you think we ought not to, we'll need to take the same approach for anyone in the article accused of something serious but not charged. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I see your point about being uniform in that regard. As I said, it is impossible for the rest of us to evaluate all of your edits in so little time, so I was unaware of it. I noticed the circus person while quickly scanning down the page, but not this one. Perhaps it will be a function of the specifics of the circumstances, and perhaps a function of us just being consistent. As I finish reading and thinking about the numerous changes to the page, I will keep you posted in this talk. As you finish reading and thinking about my answer to you just above, I suggest that you do the same. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'll restore Frisco until we come up with a consistent approach. I feel the best approach for BLPs is to include the name if and only if high-quality sources do. If we decide to remove all names regarding serious issues if no charges ensued, it opens up a can of worms and would affect quite a few names on the page.

But we certainly shouldn't name people that the very reliable sources haven't named. Frisco was in the W/Post, so that seems okay, and the writer who included Blanton has a background in law-enforcement research that seems very reliable—though I did worry that he was the only source for the name I could find, so I intend to look around for others to back him up, and if I can't find any I may well remove it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I found the part about her in the ALF section. My opinion (influenced a lot by the recent discussions of BLP and of the insulin matter): I think that we should treat both of them the same way, no matter what we do, because it would be POV to treat the two of them differently. And I would come down on the side of not naming either one of them by name. I don't think it adds anything, in either case, to provide the name, and I think that both instances are of marginal justification to name names, in part per

WP:PERP. My suggestion would be, in both cases, just to refer to them as "an employee" of the respective organization. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It's worth bearing in mind too that Frisco is on video doing what he did, so there's no disagreement about it (which is presumably one of the reasons the W/Post felt happy to publish his name), but with all the PeTA members accused of wrong-doing here, it's just people who disagree with them doing the accusing. No one has seen the evidence except the accusers (and even they may not have seen it, and it may not in fact exist). And no high-quality newspaper that I know of has repeated the claims. So there's a much stronger presumption against naming the PeTA people. SlimVirgin ^talk|contribs 20:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already commented about Pacheco above, in the first part of my subsequently refactored reply to you; there's a difference (per policy, not per me) between people who choose to be highly public and those who do not. And as I said here, I would lean towards doing the same with respect to PeTA people and people criticized by PeTA, rather than treating one differently than the other, whichever way we end up deciding this. For me, this is not a particularly big issue; rather, it's one that I only started to think about a lot after you pointed out BLP to me. At this point, it might be useful to hear from other editors, as to what they think about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{talk contribs} 09:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{talk contribs} 19:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[35]

The source is a press release from the European Biomedical Research Association. [32] We need a disinterested secondary source, not a press release from a lobby group. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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.[43] 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.^[44] 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.^[41] Covance also claimed that PETA had edited film together in order to exaggerate the evidence.^[42] A German state prosecutor determined that Covance's European laboratories had broken no laws.^[42] 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.^[43]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 ^{talk|contribs} 18:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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 ^{talk|contribs} 19:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Edit I then made: [33]. Reverted three times: [34], [35], [36]. Then slipped back out again: [37]. I've read all of those edit summaries, and I do not see anything substantive that replies to the discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: [38]. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that further edits have been made, here is what I think. There have been some very significant improvements, both to the Covance section in particular, and to the page as a whole. I no longer think that the Covance image caption is an issue, because there is no longer a situation where it is a part of a visually-accusatory pattern. I also think the disputed claim by Covance about improper film editing is no longer an issue, because of the more substantive aspects of Covance's responses in the way they are now covered.

However, I think we still need to look at the German prosecutor issue from the very top of this thread. At present, the page refers to Covance both in Europe and the U.S., but only presents information about the aftermath in the U.S., creating an impression that PeTA's accusations might, perhaps, have been correct with respect to Covance's European facilities. As discussed elsewhere in this talk, we have to be careful with respect to BLP/organization issues, and this involves a serious, potentially criminal, accusation against a present-day organization. As I have tried to explain above, there are valid reasons to use this primary source in this case. There is plenty of evidence, including statements from PeTA and BUAV, that the prosecutor looked into the case. There is zero news coverage of a subsequent prosecutorial action against Covance in Europe. Given what the trade group says, there is every reason to believe that no such action was ever taken, and every reason to believe that news organizations simply did not choose to cover a prosecution that did not take place. I would, however, change the unclearly-sourced claim that the prosecutor "determined that Covance's European laboratories had broken no laws" with the verifiable statement that they "did not pursue any legal actions against Covance in Europe". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't currently mention an investigation in Europe. The paragraph says:

In 2004 and 2005, PeTA shot footage inside Covance, an animal-testing company in the United States and Europe, that appeared to show monkeys being mistreated. According to The Washington Post, PeTA said an employee of the group filmed primates in Covance's lab in Vienna, Virginia, being choked, hit, and denied medical attention when badly injured.[47] After PeTA sent the video and a 253-page complaint to the United States Department of Agriculture, Covance was fined $8,720 for 16 citations, three of which involved lab monkeys; the other citations involved administrative issues and equipment. The company said none of the issues were pervasive or endemic, and that they had taken corrective action.[48] In 2005 Covance initiated a lawsuit charging PETA with fraud, violation of employee contract, and conspiracy to harm the company's business, but did not proceed with it.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first two sentences create the impression that PeTA shot footage inside Covance's facilities in the U.S. and Europe, and then goes on to give details of the film from Virginia. Perhaps we could solve the whole problem by just calling Covance "an animal testing company in the United States and Europe". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this?

In 2004 and 2005, PeTA shot footage inside Covance, an animal-testing company with bases in the United States and Europe, that appeared to show monkeys being mistreated in the company's facility in Vienna, Virginia. According to The Washington Post, PeTA said an employee of the group filmed primates there being choked, hit, and denied medical attention when badly injured.[47] [And so on.]

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's good. I made a few, very minor I hope, further tweaks to the wording, and I'm satisfied with that. If that is OK, then I think we have settled the Covance-related issues. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Animal testing#PETA or PeTA?. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]