:'''Support''' - clear [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. MOS:ACROTITLE says {{xt|Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject}}. Well, the commonname argument would clearly prove that the subject is commonly known by its abbreviation, and the existing primary redirect shows that the abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. Most of the opposition appears to be based on prior requests, but [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. [[User:Estar8806|estar8806]] ([[User talk:Estar8806|talk]]) [[Special:Contributions/Estar8806 |★]] 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:'''Support''' - clear [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. MOS:ACROTITLE says {{xt|Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject}}. Well, the commonname argument would clearly prove that the subject is commonly known by its abbreviation, and the existing primary redirect shows that the abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. Most of the opposition appears to be based on prior requests, but [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. [[User:Estar8806|estar8806]] ([[User talk:Estar8806|talk]]) [[Special:Contributions/Estar8806 |★]] 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I came convinced looking at the sources in the article that the subject is much more commonly referred to in reliable sources as simply PETA. I think the primary topic argument is a bit of a furphy, {{no redirect|PETA}} has pointed uncontroversially to this page since it was moved in 2002. [[User:Jenks24|Jenks24]] ([[User talk:Jenks24|talk]]) 08:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I came convinced looking at the sources in the article that the subject is much more commonly referred to in reliable sources as simply PETA. I think the primary topic argument is a bit of a furphy, {{no redirect|PETA}} has pointed uncontroversially to this page since it was moved in 2002. [[User:Jenks24|Jenks24]] ([[User talk:Jenks24|talk]]) 08:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[WP:COMMONNAME]] et al. The argument about the [[Peta]] disambiguation page doesn't hold because none of those are as commonly abbreviated as PETA, and some aren't even using the same capitalization (Peta ≠ PETA). <b>[[User:Alexiaa|<span style="color: #ff69b4">alexia</span>]][[User talk:Alexiaa|<span style="color: #ffc0cb">a</span>]]</b> 15:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofVirginia 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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
Text and/or other creative content from PETA Asia-Pacific was copied or moved into PETA with this edit on July 30, 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
On 23 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be movedtoPETA. The result of the discussion was not moved.
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Euthanasia
Why is there nothing in the Controversies about Peta's allegedly high rate of euthanasia at shelters, which seems to have been going on for years. Even on its own site it says 'about half' of animals it rescues are euthanized. 2A04:CEC0:1000:8DE4:0:5B:15B3:D401 (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the time the Controversies section begins, the controversy over its euthanasia practices has already been covered extensively in the article. So perhaps there's no need to cover it all over again? Perhaps some of the detail covered earlier could be broken out and covered in the Controversies section so that it's at least mentioned there. Largoplazo (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think whatever controversies that PETA has been involved in should be covered exclusively in the Controversies section in order to maintain cohesion. In addition I also feel it would be worth adding a section to Controversies about the time that PETA stole a 9 year old girl's dog and killed it. The case is briefly mentioned in the larger Euthanasia section, but it could use additional focus for it's impact on the public's perception of the organization.
As someone who's expanded a larger portion of the Controversies list, @Largoplazo's right: I was having trouble figuring out where to put the information, as it could also fall into the Positions section. I've tried (since your post) to split the information so PETA's justification is under Positions, but the actual numbers and some info on the chihuahua incident are placed under Controversies. The new problem is that the chihuahua incident also qualifies as falling under Legal Proceedings, so I'm not really sure how best to split the chihuahua information, specifically. Taurterus (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vegan does not even appear in the source, so do you have any RS that says that this case has anything to do with Vegans? Otherwise, it will fail wp:v, so we can't add that line (and read wp:or). Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know what Lellyhatesanimals is on about, but I think the ideas discussed earlier on in this thread should be implemented by the proper authorities. Cat-with-the-'tism (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a POV tag on the article's lead because it fails to mention any of the organization's gross controversies or the allegations of counterproductive measures such as the mass application of euthanasia. If added they should be complemented with achievements of the organization. I am not aware of any myself. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not knowledgable on the organization, though I still believe its wide criticism should be included somehow in the lead. Regular editors on this article will probably be able to come off with better suggestions. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment You can't go by that Ngram. For example, I clicked the button to see Google Books results for 2018–2019. The first ten results are:
Being Peta: Living with Leukaemia
Joe Peta's Tour Guide Presents a 2019 Masters Preview
Peta, a Magic Cat
Advanced Software Technologies for Post-Peta Scale Computing``
a book by Peta Carlin
a book by Peta Stapleton
a book by Peta Dunstan
a book by Peta Mathias
a book by Peta-Gay McClure
a book by Peta Credlin
An important consideration is whether there are references to this organization as PETA that appear without having, at some point, used the full name. Largoplazo (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo: Sources mentioning PETA solely by acronym are legion. Here are some:
Oppose Let's walk through the steps. Recognizability: both names are recognizable. Naturalness: people are used to the short form. Precision: The short form potentially conflicts with a lot of other topics even though it's currently an active redirect. Concision: the shorter title is more concise, but also less precise. Consistency: Most organisations aren't known by their acronym, but some are (NASA, UNICEF). At the end of the day, you can make arguments for both titles - I simply prefer the official one. SportingFlyerT·C15:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per stated reasons above. Unless an acronym has near-universal use, the expanded name should be used as the title. -- Netoholic@19:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So they are. My mistake. I think those should probably be moved as well. But there are still plenty of other examples of organizations that use acronyms as the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much ambiguity with most of those. PETA does, especially since it's also a name. However, I still think the strongest argument so far is that many sources still opt to spell out the entire name, which is how the organization seemingly prefers it. It seems common to spell out the name, "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" and then refer to it as PETA from then onwards. Other articles may have the acronym as the title, but their having it does not necessarily mean all articles need to follow it, since this is something that we have to discuss on a case by case basis. Maxx-♥talk and coffee ☕16:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling out acronyms in full is the usual, expected norm. The existence of article without the full name is the unusual part that proves the acronym's popularity. 〜 Festucalex • talk16:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JTTF is four letters. JTTF redirects to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces page. Is there a policy or something that establishes a letter amount as reasoning for name changes? Maxx-♥talk and coffee ☕15:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Controversial" in lead sentence
I've removed "controversial" from the first sentence of the article twice, and User:Ltbdl has twice restored it.
My reason for removing it is that, while it's true, it isn't a primary, defining characterization of the organization. It isn't notable for being controversial. Ltbdl's reply on the second reversion was honestly, how does it *not* define it? and bonus: whenever someone edits this article they are alerted to this being a controversial topic.
It doesn't define it insofar as, as I noted in my first edit summary, the controversy around it is ... not what defines it or the reason it's a notable subject. Further, many, many subjects are controversial. Imagine opening sentences like "Facebook is a controvesial online social media and social networking service ..." or, at Sinéad O'Connor, "Sinéad Marie Bernadette O'Connor (8 December 1966 – 26 July 2023) was a controversial Irish singer, songwriter, and activist ...". These subjects are associated with controversy, but being controversial isn't what they are. PETA is no different, and it isn't an article's job to alert anybody to anything. We don't do trigger warnings. It seemes to me a WP:NPOV problem, expressing a value judgement.
I think that it is controversial, and that it seeks controversy in a way that is a defining characteristic, and that these things are well supported by sources. That said, looking at recent edits, the word "controversial" is rather clumsy in the lead sentence, and I'd prefer to say it in a subsequent sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing: I do agree that something being controversial is not the main thing to know about it, the kind of thing you would want in a one-sentence summary.
BUT: It is controversial, and that needs to be said. I would vote that it should be mentioned in the first discussion of PETA's views and actions. Language Boi (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Well I suppose it has been a few months since this was last rejected, no new arguments have been made, so my opinion remains unchanged from the last time. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose vehemently because the same move failed to achieve a consensus three months ago and I hate when talk pages and their entries on my watchlist become monopolized with the same discussions leading to the same arguments leading to the same outcomes. The vehemence is in reaction to the lack of respect for the time and effort of others that goes into putting us through this again with full knowledge (inferred from "see above"; if I misinterpreted that, then I'm sorry) that it's a repeat. Largoplazo (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:AT § Avoid ambiguous abbreviations and MOS:ACROTITLE state higher standards than WP:COMMONNAME. You have two criteria for abbreviations in page names: they should only be used "if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject" (emphasis added). We still have some topics listed on the Peta dab page that also use the "PETA" abbreviation or acronym. Therefore, using the full name is appropriate to ensure that it is clear for all readers worldwide. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone identify a source which only uses the name "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals", without clarifying that they mean PETA? Most sources call this organization PETA, then a few say the full name. Not only is PETA the WP:COMMONNAME, but "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" is not even a name used without saying PETA. I think previous discussions about this move July 2023, July 2021, and March 2014 are in error for assuming that some sources say "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals", and some say "PETA". I want to call this out for anyone to demonstrate - I think either no sources only say the full name, or it happens only rarely in strange conditions.
Here is easy-to-check evidence: look at the sources we cite in the references of this article. Many of the titles say "PETA", one is a primary source court case which uses the full name, one source uses both names, and none only use the full name. These sources are our foundation for building this article, and that makes them good enough also to guide our decision for naming this subject.
PETA is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "PETA", as Pageviews Analaysis shows that the traffic to this article is more than the traffic to all other articles with this name, combined.
Support - clear WP:COMMONNAME. MOS:ACROTITLE says Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. Well, the commonname argument would clearly prove that the subject is commonly known by its abbreviation, and the existing primary redirect shows that the abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. Most of the opposition appears to be based on prior requests, but consensus can change. estar8806 (talk) ★04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I came convinced looking at the sources in the article that the subject is much more commonly referred to in reliable sources as simply PETA. I think the primary topic argument is a bit of a furphy, PETA has pointed uncontroversially to this page since it was moved in 2002. Jenks24 (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME et al. The argument about the Peta disambiguation page doesn't hold because none of those are as commonly abbreviated as PETA, and some aren't even using the same capitalization (Peta ≠ PETA). alexiaa15:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
