Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

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

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)

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)

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.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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

There's a LOT of PETA controversies, and I think a new article should be made for them. TiggiePops (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I think we would have to consider carefully whether that would result in a WP:POVFORK. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Might have to agree based on sheer quanitity alone. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 11:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

(added notice in article) —Opecuted (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Support They get into a lot and more are coming. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Support Considering the many controversies they have been through over the years, splitting the section could be justified. MarcusAbacus (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

No, I think we have enough coverage, an (in effect) attack page is a POV fork. We do not need every stupid act, just the egregious ones. Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The controversies section is bigger than a lot of standalone articles. And since it is a big criticism of the entire organization, I think there should be a dedicated article. TiggiePops (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I made a comment above, that in retrospect might have been too tentative. Seeing that multiple people are supporting such an article, I want to come down as strongly opposing it, on much the same reasoning as Slatersteven, above. Just because there are, and will continue to be, a lot of controversies, it does not follow that we have to give equal WP:WEIGHT to each and every one. The fact that controversies make up a large part of this page is not, in itself, a problem, because PETA is by its nature an organization that courts controversy. And the issue of a POV fork is a serious one: it would be highly undesirable, and would attract a lot of needless drama, whether the page were an attack page, or an advertisement for PETA. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I will agree that not every controversy has to be listed, but the ones that are listed right now have enough coverage to warrant their place in this article. Looking at the section once more, my only concern would be that some are smaller than others, and that could contribute to WP:UNDUE as you mentioned.

However, PETA's track record is hard to ignore and it is, in my opinion, the most infamous part of the organization. I will still be holding on to my stance of supporting a split, but some adjustments may be needed to warrant it. MarcusAbacus (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Support, based on the size of the section, and the success of previous splits such as that at Controversies of Nestlé. I don't see this section getting any smaller any time soon and I imagine there will probably be more in the future given the organisation's track record. Encoded  Talk 💬 19:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Support, because this article is roughly 140,000 bytes in size, and may need to be created for the sake of stability. Angrythewikipedian (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Support We should name the article "List of PETA controversies" Christianhatley527 (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is currently 6000 words so by WP:SIZERULE this article's size alone does not justify splitting. What other reason is there to consider a split? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Support This section has 11 subsections, so I think it should be split. Also because there will probs be more to come. BillyTheConqueror (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Support The article is more than 140,000 bytes in size. I personally think this is more than enough to create a separate article and think the pros outweigh the cons. The controversies section is definitely not getting any smaller any time soon. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 15:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Now that it's been a year can someone start work on a draft article? ~2026-37077-78 (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD, but also be prepared for WP:AFD. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, the votes in support are mostly based on the size of the section by itself, and since there will likely be more controversies, it will not get any smaller. The votes in opposition are based on a potential POV fork due to the controversial nature of PETA as an organization. Essentially, it's a matter of keeping the article stable in size but also risk potential undue weight with the split. MarcusAbacus (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a section here titled "Controversies" but I think it should be titled "Campaigns", because everything listed there is an intentional media advertising campaign by PETA.

Controversies → Campaigns

The items here are not controversies or any mark of shame to PETA. These are marketing activities that they planned and want to promote. Compare to other items in Category:Criticisms of companies, such as for Controversies of Nestlé. There is listed "forced labour, modern slavery, child labour, incidents of contaminated and infested food products, preventing access to non-bottled water in impoverished countries" and on. Controversies are when an organization is accused and they hide the shameful act. These PETA activities are outreach campaigns to recruit support.

There is another "campaigns" section in this article. I think the parts of it that refer to media and advertising campaigns should be merged with the current controversies section. For example, some people call the "I'd rather be naked than wear fur" campaign as a controversy if they oppose nudity and protest.

• People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Controversies
• People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Campaigns_and_consumer_boycotts

I looked in the archives and previous commentators seem to think that PETA is trying to run bland ads like Coca-Cola, but then somehow through a marketing error, they accidentally mentioned bloody murder. The activities in these discussions were not errors or anything PETA avoids.

• Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/Archive_7#Criticism
• Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/Archive_11#Controversies
• Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/Archive_12#Controversy/Criticisms
• Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/Archive_15#criticism/controversy_section
• Talk:People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals/Archive_16#A_"controversy_and_criticism"_section_is_needed,_to_address_multiple_issues_and_events

Bluerasberry (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I'm necessarily opposed, but I think one aspect to consider is that PETA actually intended these campaigns to result in controversy. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The first subsection "High euthanasia rates" isn't a campaign. Also, PETA in general is a very controversial organization and all of these subsections talk about the bad reactions to PETA's campaigns and et cetera. BillyTheConqueror (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2026 (UTC)