(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) at 17:57, 23 March 2014 (→‎Requested move 15 March 2014: closed as NOT MOVED). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 26, 2006Peer reviewReviewed

Template:Controversial groups

Wikipedia quality standards?

This article is lower than average with regards to quality and could be improved. Most notably, the sections are not well organized. The language is verbose and filled with pictures of celebrities. The lack of a criticism section means that each topic is written as if it were a debate between positions. On the whole, the article is well below the quality of a normal article. Proposal: create a reverse outline -- for each topic collect the summary points. Then reorganize the content. Keep pictures of supporting celebrities to a minimum, it diminishes the credibility of the writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4F00:19:5CE9:D2C8:83F1:D34E (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the points you raise have been discussed before, and I would suggest looking at those earlier talk sections. However, I think that you raise an interesting new point: that the page may be over-heavy on celebrity photos. I think that's a leftover from the earlier days of editing this page, when a few editors were determined to include what may amount to press release material from PETA. I would be receptive to removing some of the celebrity photos. Which ones? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Tryptofish @ the old topic of not having a criticism section. Been over and over this. As to the photos, I would argue that celebrity participation is such a huge part of PETA's m.o. that I don't know how we can avoid it. I counted 4 pictures of celebrities and 3 have to do directly with campaigns, not with the celebrity him/herself. The exception is the pic of Alec Baldwin. I suppose if one needs to go, that would be the one. Cheers! Bob98133 (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's quality and organization seem fine to me, considering the edit history and push-pull of advocates and critics. I encourage the OP to peruse the talkpage archives to see more details about the longterm collaborative process. 76.17.125.137 (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing thing reads like a manefesto

The whole thing reads like a manifesto.Irishfrisian (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only to someone who is anti-Peta. A more neutral, discerning reader will see there is sufficient criticsm and controversy, as summarized in the lead and covered within the body text. 76.17.125.137 (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Animal killings???

Okay someone check this out...

I didn't see anything in the article about this but then again I just skimmed through it. If it's not in there, someone should seriously put it in. CrowzRSA 05:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You would have a far more successful discussion if you actually made a point here, rather than trying to force readers to click on a string of links for an unexplained reason. I say "trying", because I saw no reason to and couldn't be bothered. Please tell me why I should, and what your point is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright...If the title "animal killings" wasn't enough for you, PETA has been accused of killing thousands of animals by several sources and this article neglects this topic. CrowzRSA 20:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We already have PETA#Euthanasia of shelter animals. Is there something we should add there? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 15 March 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals → PETA – Per WP:COMMONNAME 71.59.58.63 (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support No reason not to based on COMMONNAME. --JOJ Hutton 15:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I looked at the examples at COMMONNAME and, in each case, they are cases where the less-common name is unambiguously a lot less common. That's not the case here. "PETA" is more like a convenient abbreviation. Spelling it out is more precise and informative. Readers won't have any problems finding the page, because PETA is a redirect. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the examples at COMMONAME is hardly a strong argument for an oppose. Precision and informative is not the basis of Wikipedia article titles. We use the most common name used in sources. JOJ Hutton 18:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised that you feel that strongly about it. NIH is a redirect to National Institutes of Health, UN is a redirect to United Nations, and US is a redirect to United States, not the other way around. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    PETA is the most common name used in reliable sources. Not hard to come to a conclusion on that one. In your examples, those articles are already using the most common name for those subjects. You are trying to make this into an initials vs full name question. It's only based on common name. In this case, PETA is the most common name. JOJ Hutton 19:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In all four cases, the longer name is the most encyclopedic name, and the abbreviation is used very commonly because it is quicker. You will find that most sources that make extensive use of the abbreviations will define the abbreviation at first usage, so such sources are not really using the abbreviated name "more" than the full one. You are also somewhat oversimplifying WP:Article titles. WP:NC not only points to precision, but it cites as a specific example the use of United Kingdom instead of either United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or UK. It also says: "These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus." So, you can't reduce this to a strict or rigid rule. Consider also pages that are closely related to this one. We use Animal Liberation Front, not ALF, and Earth Liberation Front, not ELF. Partly, that's because the abbreviations are ambiguous, but it also is done despite the fact that it's a lot more common to say ALF than the full name. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. With Tryptofish on this. But since Hutton mentioned "reliable sources," i just did a cursory Google search for PETA and every single good news source that popped up used People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals first, with PETA used in subsequent mentions. I think that the title should stay as is with PETA redirect. Bob98133 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Tryptofish and Bob98133. Bob98133 clearly shows that "PETA" needs to be spelled out in reliable sources to explain what it is before being used. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Tryptofish. Using the full name is perfectly appropriate to ensuren clarity for all readers. Xoloz (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

There's also the collision with People eating tasty animals which is rapidly gaining land rights for gay whales status, and whose merchandise remains globally available ( Google ) despite the US court decision. Andrewa (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals&oldid=600906205"