This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Organizations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Virginia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Animal rights Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Veganism and Vegetarianism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

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

Archives by topic: Insulin, POV tag​

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are literally being painted in the best possible light, yet somehow still make autism speaks look like good people 49.3.1.177 (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not taking into consideration the pets that they are intaking. These are pets that are frequently terminally ill. They provide resources for those who otherwise could not afford euthanasia (See- https://www.peta.org/blog/euthanasia/#:~:text=Like%20any%20responsible%20open%2Dadmission,often%20can't%20afford%20the , ""Cherry-picking animals to only allow in the most adoptable at shelters with limited admission (otherwise known as 'no-kill') policies doesn't help and often leads to people dumping animals, or neglecting them in other ways," the email said." https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-peta-responsible-deaths-thousands-animals-1565532

Their euthanasia rates are high, making them controversial. However, I think briefly mentioning why these rates are so high could eliminate some question on the bias. Obviously, these numbers are still extreme for even a kill shelter. However, the defense from the group and their supporters could be worked in for more neutrality. Presenting one side of the argument has a biased connotation. Also, I feel like this controversy is important and controversies are central to who they are, but only highlighting the drama in the beginning of their Wikipedia page is biased and informal Geekwater (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done SpeakingUpForNonHumanAnimals (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is written- PETA is a strong proponent of euthanasia. They oppose the no-kill movement, and rather than adoption programs, PETA prefers to aim for zero births through spaying and neutering.[154] They recommend not breeding pit bulls, and support euthanasia in certain situations for animals in shelters, such as those being housed for long periods in cramped cages.[155]

What it should be changed to- PETA is a strong proponent of euthanasia. PETA prefers to aim for zero births through spaying and neutering, as animal births frequently increase the number of homeless animals. They oppose the no-kill movement, as they do not believe this is a viable strategy. The group argues that no-kill shelters lead animals to being abused, dumped, neglected for years, or left in poor situations, as these shelters can reject intakes. The group advocates for legislators to ban the breeding of dogs, especially pit bulls, as they argue pit bulls are the most abused breed of dog in the world. Due to the hostility the dogs are trained and bred for, and the group's opposition to breeding in general, they advocate for law makers to change breeding laws regarding pit bulls. They support euthanasia in certain situations for animals in shelters, such as those who have deteriorated mentally from being housed for long periods in cramped cages.[155]

^[1] , ^[2]

I understand not liking PETA's work, especially not their euthanasias and particular breed hatred, but there is a lot of missing context here. The group adopts out healthy animals in addition to advocating for zero births through spaying and neutering. These points do not need to be in opposition to one another. The group advocates against the breeding of ANY animal or ANY dog especially pit bulls, due to the constant abuse that is done to the animals, making them, in the group's words, "unpredictable." They are approaching this as a limit to cruelty, as they advocate against the breeding of particular animal breeds with genetic deformities that restrict their quality of life. I think some more clarity here is necessary, or at least the group's justification for this work. The shared view neglects much of their framework. Geekwater (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to mark this as "not done" as an edit request, but I also want to leave the discussion open for examining whether some sort of edit along these lines should be made.

I'm open to making some sort of further nuance about the issue, but I would be uncomfortable doing it exactly as proposed, as it seems to me to tilt the WP:POV too far the other way. For instance, PETA also has position papers advocating against any sort of pet ownership as an eventual goal, based on the animal rights concept of ownership as being immoral, whereas the proposed changes make it sound like it's simply an animal welfare concern. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think both things can easily be true. I am happy to accept edits to what I propose, I just think what is currently written on the page leaves out a lot of context, to a point where it isn't entirely true. Pet ownership won't ever end, and I think PETA is smart enough to realize this, which is why they take a welfarist position. They want mass breeding of cats/dogs to end, as they argue many animals are euthanized, neglected, and abused while people insist on breeding new designer animals. Newkirk herself has written books on keeping pets. Maybe, as a compromise, we could try something like this, but please feel free to suggest anything else! I think my formatting could be better too, but I am really just trying to get the ideas out there.

PETA is a strong proponent of euthanasia as a release for animals in poor conditions. PETA also advocates for "zero births" through spaying and neutering, as animal births frequently increase the number of homeless animals.[6]https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/no-kill-shelters/ They oppose the "no-kill" movement, as they do not believe this is a viable strategy. The group argues that no-kill shelters lead animals to being abused, dumped, neglected for years, or left in poor situations, as these shelters can reject intakes. The group also advocates for legislators to ban the breeding of dogs. They have found themselves in controversy due to this positioning, as they advocate for the banning of breeding pit bulls. To PETA, pit bulls are the most abused and unpredictable breed of dog due to the hostility they are trained and bred to exhibit. PETA supports euthanasia in certain situations for animals in shelters, such as those who have deteriorated mentally from being housed for long periods in cramped cages, however, this has led the group to be involved in high numbers of euthanasia, fueling controversies regarding the group's morals. Ultimately, as an animal rights group, PETA opposes many forms of pet ownership, while simultaneously advocating for better conditions for animals that currently need homes. Geekwater (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to add words? Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I answer this question in my original request. There is a lot of important context that is left out of statements being made. The statements being made (whether intentionally or not) are painting PETA in a negative light, which is fair, but we should critique them for the right things & not on wikipedia. Adding words is good. Gives readers more context, gives readers more info. Geekwater (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will it ever to be neutral? There seems to be both sides in the article. Doesn't it help the tag? 73.231.169.213 (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed as there seems to be no discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not do anything for it. 73.231.169.213 (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]