` August 2006 (UTC)  ::::DocEss, as someone who is personally critical of the notion of animal rights, I must disagree with your assessment of the article. While I dont't think it's perfect (I have a few issues with it that I'll be raising on here) I think it's a gross mischaracterisation to say that it's a puff piece for PETA (gotta love aliteration). Stating what PETA's philosophy is without critiquing it is not POV, provided the statement is credited and not advocated it's the very epitome of NPOV. Note that the exact same format being used for The Foundation for Animal Use and Education's philosophy, which is critical of the notion of animal rights. As to the specific issue of the Catholic Church's attitude to animal rights, as others have stated to mention just the Catholic Church in isolation is to give undue prominence; to mention only one religion is to give the impression that only one religion has an attitude to the subject that is worth mentioning. An ``Animal rights and religion`` section would have merit in it, and would probably bring an interesting perspective to the issue, my one piece of caution on the issue would be that the issue should be limited to the specifics of animal rights, rather than animal welfare.   16:21, 7`