This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Intellectual property, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Intellectual property on Wikipedia.Intellectual propertyWikipedia:WikiProject Intellectual propertyTemplate:WikiProject Intellectual propertyIntellectual property articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This page is being revised over the next week as part of the
IP WikiProject. Changes will include dividing into sections, using standard court template, adding discussion and defenses under Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act,
Davidyuzhu (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm proposing the merger of People Eating Tasty Animals into this article because that page is little more than a stub after several years. When the other page was up for deletion, voters only cite the court case significance as reason to keep it. And judging from talkpage comments, there also seems to be an attempt to use Wikipedia in order to keep up the parody effect from a defunct site. PrBeacon (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It makes no sense to have two articles on this. SlimVirgintalkcontribs 07:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's hard to come up with a good reason to keep it (I've tried! :-) ). Although I guess a case can be made that the page's existence heads off a perennial source of vandalism. :-) . --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I've commented regarding this before. The site is dead. The creation of the site was illegal. The intentions of the site were (borderline) criminal as well. While the case should remain separate, for the moment, this could easily be merged into the end of the PETA page with an internal link to the case.Lostinlodos (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if this subject could be discussed without it devolving into defamatory false accusations that one of the subjects did something "illegal" and "criminal," neither of which was part of the court's finding. That said, the merger is overdue. Mike Doughney (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a moment to realize who the user just above is. I have struck through the comments in question, and, frankly, this is much the same thing as why we do not allow defamation in BLP articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read the case holdings then? Both courts held that the site's operation and use were illegal, and affirmed violations as trademark infringement, trademark dilution. In other words, they broke the law. One may not agree, but that's exactly what the courts stated. Lostinlodos (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait a few more days before proceeding, then. For the record I don't agree that the parody site was borderline criminal. Yes it was "illegal" in the sense of trademark infringement but the courts ruled that it was not malicious. As controversial as PETA is itself, keeping a sense of humor seems important too. PrBeacon (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2010 (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.
.svg){kind=icon}
