" 

 == Enduring negative POV pushing. == 

 A quick look at the article history reveal that ever since this article was created last year, the article has been under pressure from one source attempting to drown what little information on the subject exist in favor of a massive amount of negative information. 
 It's an open secret that 90%+ of those edits come from one source using a multitudes of sockpuppets. A simple look at the contribution histories confirm this.          

 I'm open to assuming good faith. Criticism most certainly belong on any controversial topic and from what little I know of subject of the article, it basicly scream controversy. Ideally, it should be weaved carefully, neutrally into the narrative of a subject. 
 Here's a nice little graph that someone (with whom I disagree but is almost always right afaik) made a few days ago. I'll leave the graph as is out of respect, so replace ""Peta"" with ""CSPI"".  

 This is how it is right now. 
 
 * PETA 
 ** General info about PETA 
 *** History 
 *** Campaigns 
 *** Policies 
 *** Relationships 
 ** Why PETA sucks! 
 *** Criticism of campaigns 
 *** Criticism of policies 
 *** Criticism of relationships 

 This is what it should have: 

 * PETA 
 ** History 
 ** Campaigns 
 **: Criticism of campaigns 
 ** Policies 
 **: Criticism of policies 
 ** Relationships 
 **: Criticism of relationships 

 Now we have a dilemma here. There is no narrative to speak off in the first place! The article is barely more than a stub. I suspect any attempt at writing one have been disprupted by the POV pushing source, but that's just speculation on my part P So we have a problem. We have an article that says very, very little on the actual topic and so very much criticizing it, by as much to 5 to 1. I know little about the topic myself, but I'll research it and should come up with something by the end of next week hopefully. No promise as I'm quite unreliable ^^ In the meantime, I won't hesitate to seek and probably obtain article semi-protection to protect the article if the POV pushing gets out of hand again. Remember, criticism is well and good when appropriate, well sourced and written neutrally, but giving it undue weight is inherently NPOV.  "