Talk:People Eating Tasty Animals

(Initial comments)

who put the removal template on this page? someone from the real PETA? ...there is a censoring problem down there.

Better question is "who put the above comment, useless as it may be?". You didn't bother signing it.130.156.31.76 20:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not like an unregistered user is much better! Proxy User (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but not everyone is a UAR worshipper. Live with it. 130.156.31.33 (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Actually, I don't think there's a real formal "organization" -- just the webmaster, and various ephemerally loosely-aligned people who agree with his sentiments. AnonMoos 15:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like Wikipedia to keep this article because it's good to see that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have rivals. :D

Of course. You wouldn't want the article kept strictly on its merits, would you? 130.156.31.76 20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is relevant due to it status as the first example of a parody website losing domain rights. What the site is for or against is barely discussed, though obvious from the context. Still, this is a relatively well worded and concise summary of events, with links providing any other relevant info. I'm going to remove the stub reference. Nazlfrag 16:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ready for a nomination for deletion;

Ready for a nomination for deletion; no such organization exists. The website lost it's domain not because of what it was is but of what it wasn't. It didn't exist. It was far from the first time a parody lost it's domain as well. There is nothing historically or culturally notable about this non-existent group.--Lostinlodos 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was a prominent case of "domain squatting" which was fairly widely covered in the late 1990's, and which led to quasi-legal actions over the ownership of the "Peta.org" domain lasting several years. The main claim to fame is as a precedent-setting case in cyberlaw... AnonMoos 11:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I say keep. It was an important legal case. Definitely more important and notable than the thousands of wikipedia pages on anime/tv series/comic book minutiae. 219.94.81.219 14:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed to support any of those pages either, I simply chose which battles to fight.

Vote to keep. This is a prominent example of cyber-squatting legislation being applied in a way that is controversial because of the 'targets' position against a prominient and outspoken group. Additionally, the 'People Eating Tasty Animals' pages live on, although obiously sans-domain now. -SteveG 81.105.191.57 22:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I looked up the squatting case and wanted to find more and found this page. This page should not be deleted for lack of purpose. AvatarZ 22:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AvatarZ (talk • contribs)

Still say delete. If the only reason for keeping this is the debate about cyber-squatting than a position in cyber-law or about the person who bought the register would be more proper. The issue I have is not with the page, nor the content; rather that this page, as it is titled now, references a non-existent company. If it is strongly felt that the case is is important (to which I agree), then a delete of this article and the creation of Mike_Doughney which could cover this topic, or an expansion at Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act. Or both. Thoughts? I would argue that many would hold Mosaic Communications Corporation et al vs AOL LLC and Unnamed regarding Netscape.org and Mosaic-Netscape.com to be more important as two legal, and partnered companies fought over two names held by each-other. We could also look at the case of WWF vs WWF over the wwf.com site, which was later fought over when some teens bought and squatted the site wwf.com, the final ruling overturning many of the precedents previously set regarding cyber-squatting as the then WWFE pointed to the lack of use/update to the wwf.com site. Prior to this PETA case was NWA.com and NWA.org, and there is also the cases about shared legitimate names. The case itself is relevant, not the entity, or non-entity, in this situation. The information is in the wrong place and the non-company itself is not relevant. Lostinlodos 03:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"People Eating Tasty Animals" was never a company nor an organization, since it was/is a parody and a website. Articles about notable parodies and websites are appropriate for Wikipedia, with hundreds of articles in each of those categories linked at the bottom of the article's page, thus there is nothing here that suggests that deletion fixes some great wrong. I think your objection is rather pointless and unwarranted, but I will refrain from formally "voting" for obvious reasons. I will, however, strongly object to any suggestion that an article with my name on it be created as some remedy for whatever is bugging you, as I, personally, currently do not meet any reasonable standard of "notability" with respect to Wikipedia. Mike Doughney 03:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Further discuss the deletion debate here please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/People_Eating_Tasty_Animals_%282nd_nomination%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostinlodos (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

escaped deletion but not editing

I will be removing this ph - it is about paradies, not about the topic.

Other parodies of the PETA acronym are the similar "People for the Eating of Tasty Animals", "People Euthanizing Thousands of Animals", and "Please Eat The Animals". There is also a website called "People Who Enjoy Eating Tasty Animals" at "pweeta.org", which is linked below. On Futurama there is an "anti-eating" organization called Mankind for Ethical Animal Treatment (MEAT).

He was forced to surrender the domain name - POV language - he lost a lawsuit, no forcing involved only obeying the law.

the first significant case where parody was a meaningful potential defense, given the content of the site. - this either needs to be documented or dumped. I don't see that parody was the basis for the website losing its URL

This was parodied in the South Park episode Cartman Joins NAMBLA. - the cited Wiki page makes no mention of this, so how important could it have been, assuming it was really there?

"Circus in domain trademark flap", CNET News.com, April 24, 1998. — similar case where PETA registered the name ringlingbrothers.com, using the name of the Ringling Brothers circus. - this page isn't about similar cases, so why is this mentioned?

Please discuss if you have any problems with these changes, or if you can provide documentation for undocumented material. Bob98133 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Mention of other parodies may be appropriate to show that a certain organization has been the target of various forms of parody, and in the Ringling case, the organization has itself employed parody contemporaneous with this case. Technically speaking, "surrender of the domain name" occurred some years before the case went to court by unilateral action of the domain registrar, thus the current wording comes close to describing the actual circumstances. I have added a link to the law journal article with an in-depth discussion of parody as a legal defense and its relevance to this case. The erroneous South Park reference has already been removed. Mike Doughney 19:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mike - I get your point about an organization being the target of parodies - that's what this web page is about. I don't know that listing other parodies of the same group adds much. I'm sure there are dozens of paradies on many organizations and companies but they don't require mention in Wiki articles. As for the Ringling reference - this article is about People Eating... not PETA or domain name disputes. As such, Ringling and PETA's domain name dispute are not relevant. Has this People Eating... group done anything? If the group has some accomplishments, membership, programs, etc. perhaps theose should be discussed. If the group has done nothing but a parody website, then the entire article can probably be dumped without great loss. Bob98133 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no "group" associated with this website; full disclosure, if it wasn't already obvious, this is/was my website and I was the target of the lawsuit. For some reason you are the second editor recently to suggest deletion of the article as if its significance is somehow connected to an "Eating" group which doesn't exist. The primary significance of the site is as the subject of the legal case, which as I understand it is now a staple of Internet and intellectual property law education today, and has been frequently cited in other cases as can be instantly confirmed with this Google search. The case itself also generated a fair amount of press at the time, including in The New York Times, along with mention in at least one book. The Ringling case, as I recall, was mentioned in press coverage of this case because it was relevant at the time, that both parties to the dispute were using parody and that was newsworthy. This website and the case itself both satisfy Wikipedia notability guidelines. Now if you were to propose merging the articles on the site itself and the legal case, that may make some sense, particularly to place the emphasis on the legal matter as opposed to a (non-existent) activism perspective, but given some reasoning for that kind of major change beyond simply again raising the question of whether the non-group that wasn't behind the site has "done anything," the effort would probably not be worthwhile. Mike Doughney 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Pweeta link missing

Article states: There is also a website called "People Who Enjoy Eating Tasty Animals" at "pweeta.org", which is linked below. Link is missing. brob (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Nevermind I added it myself. brob (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

EL for link included in article?

I removed the external link to the People Eating Tasty Animals website since it is already mentioned and linked in the article. Was this wrong? Why would it need an external link when there is an internal one?Bob98133 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I moved the external link from the text of the article to the external links section. It's desirable to keep the external links there, when possible, rather than in the article body, where internal (i.e. Wikipedia) links are generally expected. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I agree. It makes sense, certainly for the web site of the subject of the article. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent POV change

Refering to a legal case as important is POV. Most lawyers would think this case inconsequential since they do not deal with cybersquatting. Nonetheless, "important" is POV.

Taunting - you would have to provide documentation that this phrase was used "to taunt" per its defintion, and there would have to be some relevance to the website and cybersquatting.

Mike, have you worked out the conflict of interest in editing a page about your own enterprise? I don't think you're doing this unfairly or for self-promotion, I just wondered. As with the two edits above, when one is so close to a topic, it is easy to let POV content slip through. We're all guilty of it sometimes. Bob98133 (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Without any substantiation, of course, "important" would be "POV." However, in the field of intellectual property law, the case is "important" by any common-sense definition of the term as the case is frequently cited in other case law, is frequently used in intellectual property law school courses, and published material used in those courses refers to the case (for example, as can be found in this Google search. If "important" is viewed by some as POV, perhaps the fully qualified phrase would be something like "significant in the field of intellectual property law." In any case, without finding some citable wording to characterize the case in any direction, which thus far I haven't been able to find, perhaps we are technically out in WP:SYNTH or WP:OR land here.

As for the "taunt" characterization, this is entirely within the realm of uncited material and perhaps the whole sentence should come out. I simply dislike the word "mock" regardless of context.

I'm quite aware of the Wikipedia conflict of interest guideline and I take care when editing this article, as with all articles, to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I work to bring whatever personal familiarity I have with a subject (which often includes familiarity with published work on that subject) to the task of improving articles here. It would certainly be incorrect to describe a website that's been dead for more than ten years, that has never earned a cent, for which have I never solicited money, as an "enterprise." Mike Doughney (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Mike. I agree you have been responsible about editing this article and watching for vandalism - I was just wondering and your explanation is fine.

something like "significant in the field of intellectual property law" works much better for me than "important" and is much more concise. It also explains its use and relevance without suggesting a POV, so I think that would be a good change, if you're OK with it.

I agree that taunt and mock are equivalent. They are probably correct but would be fairly difficult to document. Perhaps something could be added to my change, such as "While the name is not used by any formal organization, opponents of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have used it to parody the organization or some other way the phrase has been used that probably isn't necessary to document but that could be documented if need be. Bob98133 (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Kept

Glad to see the right decision was made (*bites into juicy, medium rare hamburger*) 68.185.167.117 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dang, this is terrible! I put a qoute similar to this "is now a member of PETA- People for the Eating of Tasty Animals", and I thought I had made it up! Looks like someone beat me to the punch... by thirteen years. Oh, well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.26.10 (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)