Jump to content

Talk:Ingrid Newkirk/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Quotations

Where do these quotations come from? Are they legit? It looks like a selection of out-of-context quotes designed to nail her - not NPOV. Secretlondon 01:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Diabetic

Penn & Teller's show, "Bulls%&t," did an episode on PETA, where they make a case for medical testing on animals. They pointed out that Ingrid Newkirk is a diabetic, and as such she takes insulin. P&T reasoned that if it weren't for the development of insulin (which was developed w/ animal testing) she, along with all other diabetics, would be dead. The fact that she continues to benefit from a medical treatment which was developed through animal testing, P&T claim, makes her a hypocrite.

Now, I know that the 'hypocrite' label is an opinion, so it shouldn't be included on the page. But, It is true that

1) she takes insulin 2) without insulin, she'd die from her condition 3) insulin was developed (at least in part) through medical animal testing 4) She opposes animal testing.

These 4 facts, I think, warrant a little mention, perhaps in a "criticisms" or "controversy" section, because I'm not sure if she has ever commented on this disconnect between her views and her actions.

Actually it is not her, but a VP of PeTA,Mary Beth Sweetland) who is diabetic. Bytebear 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know they aren't both Diabetic? Its a common condition among adults of 40 years of age.

PETA's stance on medications is that taking them is a personal choice that must be made by the patient. All medications (prescription and non) were tested on animals at some point and you have to weight the benefits yourself. Here's a link to one of the pages where this is stated (this site is owned/maintained by PETA and it's members) http://www.askcarla.com/answers.asp?QuestionandanswerID=261 Snackar 10:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It isn't just that she uses insulin, but that she uses synthetic insulin which still contains animals products. Here's a quote from her about it... ""I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals." " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.97.26 (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating discussion but Ingrid Newkirk does not have diabetes and does not take insulin, plant or animal based. One of the PETA Vice Presidents, who no longer works for PETA, takes insulin. I wouldn’t think her insulin use would be relevant in an article about Ingrid Newkirk.Bob98133 19:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How to term ALF connection

I'm surprised to see that nothing is mentioned about Ingrid's links to crimes committed by animal activists. There are plenty of websites out there documenting them. I have added one case, I will add more as I have time. --129.173.105.28 00:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Her "crimes"? If she's been convicted of something, by all means add it, but don't use websites like activistcash.com, as you just did. Mainstream newspapers will have reported anything that happened in court, and more accurately, so they should be used instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Please read my comments carefully. I said links to crimes. I have since added US congree testimony that provides information of her links from Conorado's case. This reference is valid. She is linked to Conorado's crime.--129.173.105.28 02:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
In the Senate testimony link I added they provide an excerpt from Excerpt (pp. 8-10) from Government Sentencing Memorandum of U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer, in the case of USA v. Rodney Coronado (signed Michael H. Dettmer, U.S. Attorney, July 31, 1995). This is the only place I can find this electronically. I do not have time to dig up the full case, though it is publically available.--129.173.105.28 02:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
(after two edits conflicts) You need to be very careful with your editing. The Center for Consumer Freedom is not a reputable source; they're the same ones who run activistcash.com. If there was evidence that Newkirk knew of an arson attack in advance of it happening, she'd be convicted, so we need to confirm this with a second, good source. Also, please stick closely to what the sources say, and say who your source is. If you have an axe to grind with PETA, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Please look at my source carefully. That letter has copies of the court case transcripts from USA versus Coronado. See EXHIBIT 10 in the PDF file (pages 23-25). These are the ACTUAL court transcripts. Next to me going and obtaining copies of the transcripts, scanning them and adding them to wikimedia, this is the best anyone can do. --129.173.105.28 02:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Then you have to make clear what your source is exactly either in the links that you give, or here on talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I've just looked at the document, and exhibit 10 is testimony from Martosko himself, unless I'm missing something. Martosko is with the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a dodgy organization funded by the tobacco, meat, and alcohol industries that campaigns against groups like Mothers against Drunk Drivers, and of course PETA. CCF is NOT a reputable source. I also couldn't see anything about Newkirk asking for a videotape of the arson attack. Did I miss something? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you might have. Exhibit 10 looks like it was material used by the prosecutor in the trial of Coronado, and it's identified as such in the document. However, it remains an allegation; it doesn't seem to me its truth or falsehood would have been the subject of the trial. And the statement (by the prosecutor) isn't attributed. Demi T/C 19:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me the current version could be improved in the following ways, and I'd like others to weigh in on it:

  • Remove the word "possibly" from "...possibly having advance knowledge...". The sentence is about what Newkirk was criticized for, and she wasn't criticized for the possibility, but for having advance knowledge.
  • Unless there's some reason to dispute the provenance of the exhibit from the document given, I think we can say "According to U.S. Michael Dettmer (in a sentencing memorandum in the trial of Rod Coronado, an ALF activist convicted of an arson attack at Michigan State University) Newkirk "arranged ... days before the MSU arson occurred" to have Coronado send her stolen documents and a videotape from the attack."

I think this adequately identifies the source of this particular allegation (the D.A., not CCF). What do you think?

Demi T/C 19:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I've read the document incorrectly. Is it not testimony from Martosko? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a memorandum written by the prosecutor, Michael H. Dettmer, in the Coronado case. It's used as a support document for Martosko's presentation to Congress (i.e., Martosko is citing it). The relevant footnote on "page 9" (page 24 of the PDF) doesn't say what source or evidence is used to make the assertion, but I read it that Dettmer is making the assertion. Demi T/C 22:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


Controversial

Regarding your statement "she is controversial in your opinion, but not in the opinion of PETA's 800,000 members(Terrorists), for example"... I hope you take this as I intend it... (I mean it as a good-natured way - a friendly ribbing if you like), but I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously if you are going to claim that you know what each and every one of PETA's members believe.  ;->


I think that the whole group is a bunch of terrorists. They are also BETRAYING humanity. I think that we should kill the animal over population. I think that the human population could use a good trimming too. We have a huge stupid human population too. And as for MADD which was also mentioned in this. Their founder left the group because they went so far off the end. This is the exact problem we have with peta. PETA needs to go away and put in jail and on trial for crimes against humanity. That is my 2 cents. and issues with what I say can be emailed to elroacho123@muchomail.com. This is a free email account and this is not my real IP address I am at a friends house for this post. Thank you for your time.


The truth is that you can't possible know what even a handful of PETA members think about the organization. For all you or I know, most of the PETA folk joined the organization *because* it was controversial. However, the fact remains that PETA has built its reputation on outlandish publicity stunts like dressing attractive young women in lettuce bikinis to promote veganism, or intimidating high-school kids with shock-tactics like that stunt with the cards. These stunts are part of PETA's public image and they were endorsed by (and apparently many of them instigated by) Ingrid Newkirk. So, sorry, your claim that she's not controversial just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I'm not saying "controversial" is a bad thing. Many noble organizations are controversial. Many reprehensible organizations aren't controversial. What's your problem with calling PETA and Newkirk controversial? --SpinyNorman 05:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Virtually all famous people have some controversy about them. That's why it's best to avoid mentioning it specifically, just as it's best to avoid calling them "famous". It is better to show the controversy. Doing otherwise it spoonfeeding the reader. -Willmcw 08:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Why is it necesary or helpful to call Newkirk "controversial" in the lead sentence? -Willmcw 23:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Why? Because she is the controversial head of a controversial organization. PETA thrives on controversy as I made clear above. It isn't "spoonfeeding". It would be like calling Rush Limbaugh "conservative". --SpinyNorman 23:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
No, they are different matters. Rush Limbaugh is controversial too. Everybody who is notable is controversial in some way. If you want to describe Newkirk's core political values then that might be suitable. But it does nothing for the article to call her "controversial" and its use appears to be intended to smear her. -Willmcw 23:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Spiny, would you change the intro of George W. Bush to read: "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the controversial 43rd and current President of the United States"? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


Bush is extremely controversial, so is Bill Clinton - I woudn't see any problem calling them that. In fact, every president in the last 50 years has been controversial with the possible exception of Gerald Ford. But back to Newkirk, she is especially controversial because she deliberately provokes controversy with her actions and the actions of her organization. It is one of their defining characteristics. --SpinyNorman 23:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, perhaps you should try to add it to Bush's or Clinton's page, and see how many seconds it survives. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, everybody notable is controversial, that's is why it is irrelevant and misleading to call only some people controversial. As for your latter statement, that's a POV assertion. If we have a source saying that Newkirk is deliberately controversial then we should include it among criticism of her. -Willmcw 00:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This may sound like splitting hairs but I believe there is a difference between someone who is controversial but didn't necessarily court the controversy (e.g. Richard Nixon) and those who actively and deliberately make controversy part of how they conduct their daily business (e.g. Ingrid Newkirk). Note I'm not making a value judgement about whether one of those people is a better person than the other. But wouldn't you describe someone who repeatedly engages in the sort of publicity stunts in which Newkirk engages to be "controversial"? Then there is the documented fact that Newkirk's organization supports and defends alleged terrorists. Wouldn't you agree that's pretty controversial? I suspect most people would consider the support of alleged terrorists to be controversial. --SpinyNorman 01:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Some people think it's controversial, and some don't, which is why it's unattributed POV stated as fact, which isn't allowed. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Slim, are you seriously trying to argue that there are people out there who don't consider PETA to be controversial? A while ago you claimed to know that none of the 800,000 members do. Forgetting them for a second, what about you? Do YOU consider PETA to be uncontroversial? --SpinyNorman 03:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


In addition, some of what SpinyNorman describes is common to any activist. -Willmcw 02:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


I'm not saying that her tactics are unheard of outside PETA. I'm simply saying that they're controversial. Intimidating school-kids isn't exactly uncontroversial behavior. Neither is supporting terrorists. Here, maybe this will help... what's your definition of controversial? Mine is "engaging in activity which arouses strongly contrasting opinions" (I cheated, I cribbed it from the OED). That does seem to be a fair and objective description of Ms. Newkirk. Do you disagree? --SpinyNorman 03:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This isn't going to end up in WP:LAME, is it? CanadianCaesar 09:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
"Controversial" is meaningless in this context. "Activism" covers the topic sufficiently. The proposed usage could "poison the well" about the subject rather than usefully inform readers. Let's think about Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy and make sure that the subject's POV is handled sympathetically (followed by a sympathetic treatment of the critics' POVs). Cheers, -Willmcw 09:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


<reset indent> Not at all... "controversial" is precisely on point here. The definition "engaging in activity which arouses strongly contrasting opinions", is absolutely applicable to Newkirk. I don't see how you can say that an accurate description can "poison the well". --SpinyNorman 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Because "controversial" is a potentially pejorative term that is being selectively applied, one which is unnecessary in the current context. All activists are controversial, as are most other notable people. -Willmcw 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't follow you. Should any potentially pejorative term be removed from a wikipedia article? Other people might consider the term "activist" to be pejorative. In the PETA article, it is pointed out that Newkirk and her organization support terrorist groups. Isn't that far more pejorative than the word "controversial"? As for most famous people being controversial, there is (as I pointed about above) a difference between someone who is considered controversial by others but does not actively seek it out, and those who actively court controversy and use that controversy to further their agenda. --SpinyNorman 03:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Her beliefs

Dennis Prager has often stated that he once interviewed her on his show, and that when he asked her if she made any moral distinction between the Holocaust and the slaugter of chickens for food, she said no. She has often been quoted as saying, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" [1]. Should these be mentioned on her page, given that they are profoundly radical comments? -- Gerkinstock 19:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, never mind-- I missed her Wikiquote page the first go round. -- Gerkinstock 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This needs to go in her bio somewhere. It's her will. She wants to have various things done to her body (like make a handbag from her skin, grill her meat, etc) to demonstrate her point about animal rights. The will is linked on PETA's website even: http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html Snackar 10:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather eat a rat. I'm sure there are folks down in the Amazon basin who wouldn't mind eating an Ingrid Newkirk steak.. so what's her point exactly? Humans used to eat each other, prehistorically.. but that's not considered polite anymore, so we just kill and leave them for the buzzards. Or blow them into vapour with high explosives.59.167.93.236 (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
She explained it in the New Yorker interview that it originates from. I think her point is that Ingrid Newkirk, or human, meat is no different from cow meat or pig meat. The idea is that it's supposed to make you think about how all animals are made from meat so you shouldn't eat any of them. That's what I recall she said. It's like her quote that Gerkinstock mentions above, but he only has half of the quote, as do many who repeat it. I believe the entire quote was "When it comes to suffering, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." So she isn't saying that they are equal, just that they have equal capacities to experience suffering. If Newkirk believes that and bases her actions on reducing animal suffering, then a lot of her other far out comments make more sense. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, just that she seems fairly consistent within her stated belief system. As to eating a rat or Ingrid Newkirk: How were you planning to cook the rat? Bob98133 (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad stuff about her

I'm surprised and disappointed that there's no bad stuff about her on this page. People need to be made aware that she isn't universally liked and respect and why. I'm too lazy to find anything, of course, or I wouldn't be posting this. I know other Wikipedia users aren't though.Somatomy 07:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you surprised when your administrators are activists?68.46.183.96 (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP demands that we be very careful of adding "bad stuff" to biographies of living persons. Much of the criticism of her is not from reliable sources and therefore we cannot use it. However, it seems to me, for a pretty short article, there is already some critical content there. Should the article expand, then more critical content can be added, but we have to keep it balanced so it doesn't turn into an attack page. If you are looking for further "bad stuff", you may find it at PETA. Rockpocket 08:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. I don't know why I felt such a need to post that. Somatomy 15:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Exploding Donkey

Althought I understand the connection, that article has very little relevance to Ingrid Newkirk. I have deleted the link in the "see also" section.--C civiero 08:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My revert

I reverted because the edits were a violation of BLP and NPOV. For example, to call her statement that she used to euthanize animals herself "shocking," is POV, appears designed to insult her, and anyway makes no sense. Why would it be shocking that she was trying to do kindly what was about to be done to them anyway by others less kind? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would it not warrant a mention, since another statement on her take on animal testing and AIDS is fully cited? Maybe you could have changed the tone and not remove everything that you may not want to be seen. Nobody is insulting her unless u see it that way and ok it's probably not shocking but it does need to be said, povs toned down. It's not as if I'm making up things or statements. Pl read sources before responding. Thanks. Idleguy 18:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not acceptable English: "Critics of PETA point to this statement, that the organization, like its leader, has double standards in advocating others to refrain from killing animals while have indulged in killing of animals instead of finding a home for it." And you are violating BLP.
Do you even know the context in which she made the statement you are quoting? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Please read the columnist`s take on that statement. It is frequently cited by her and PETA critics. The source also mentions that it is from the New Yorker profile on her. Its sourced from a reliable news outlet. Make language and tone changes if neeeded. Exactly which part of BLP has been violated here? is it an unreliable source? has ingrid newkirk ever denied making such a statement, given that its a pretty important one? ive goen through BLP and its well sourced. i can add other sources too if needed. so dont keep removing quotes. Idleguy 06:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but do you know what it means? Do you know what she was saying? You're not providing that context. You're violating BLP because you're misrepresenting what she said; you appear not to have understood it properly.
Also, the English really can't stay like that. Which critics are you referring to and what do they say exactly? Please provide a citation. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It's already cited. SF Chronicle's columnist cites that statement and I just reworded it. And the context is, from what the source says about it, about her job back then. Pl change the english if needed. Idleguy 07:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I revised the ungrammatical sentence in an attempt to make it more specific. I changed the subject from "critics of PETA" to "Debra J. Saunders" since Saunders's editorial is criticism of Newkirk and PETA rather than documentation of criticism. Michael Slone (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It makes no sense to quote random people. Does every editorial get a quote in here? If you want to mention this, do it in a balanced way, by giving both the criticism and the defense. In this case, Newkirk would undoubtedly say there is a big difference between killing out of mercy for the animal's benefit and killing to hurt the animal for our own benefit. Newkirk has never said that killing is always wrong, so this is hardly hypocritical on her part. But it is obvious to me that whoever put this in here is trying to slant the article against Newkirk -- try to keep in neutral. 207.38.214.63 00:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Saunders is a notable columnist, thus it is a reliable source of criticism. What Newkirk would "undoubtedly" say is irrelevent unless she actually said it. If she did, add it for balance. Rockpocket 01:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Just because she is a notable columnist doesn't necessarily mean that her editorial is a reliable source of criticism much less needs to be included. Where are Saunder's (or any other) sources that shows Ingrid Newkirk or PETA believes that killing is wrong? --Steele the Wolf 21:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Its reliable (in that we can be pretty sure she said it since its her own column) and its clearly a source of criticism, hence its a reliable source of criticism. Whether she is notable enough for her criticism to be relevant is open to debate, of course, but I don't think there can be any serious debate about the reliability of the source. Rockpocket 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotation

I changed the title of the section "Controversial quotations" to "Quotation". Only one quotation was provided, and no citation of a controversy over the quote was provided. The section also included commentary on the quote, which I removed. Michael Slone (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist?

Since the Animal Liberation Front is considered to be a terrorist group by the United States government and Ingrid has been known to support them should she be categorized as a terrorist? The Fading Light 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe expressing support for those accused of terrorism makes one a terrorist oneself, nor does the opinion of the US government define who is or is not a terrorist in the first instance. Newkirk, has remained firmly in the legal domain with regards to her activism, so labelling her as a terrorist would be very misleading. Rockpocket 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Saunders' criticism

I tried to make changes to this page by adding more information about Ingrid and her motivation behind starting PETA and all of my changes were immediately deleted. I think this page is being watched by people who have a problem with Ingrid and PETA and this is unacceptable. Debra Saunders is married to a vivisector who frequently writes anti-PETA articles so she is not a NPOV. Her quote should be removed, which I tried to do, but was prevented. Chrissymatt 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sure this page is being watched by those who "have a problem" with Newkirk. Just as it is being watched by those that support her. There is two reasons your edits were reverted. Firstly you removed sourced critical material and a template. Critics, by definition, do not adhere to NPOV. Who Saunders' husband is or the frequency of her criticism is not relevant. What is relevant is that she is notable, the source of her comments is reliable, she expresses what a frequently held criticism of PETA and, by extention, Newkirk and that the criticism is balanced. Secondly, the material you added was not sourced. If you have a reference for that, then by all means replace it. Rockpocket 05:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to insert a reference for the text I was adding, but everything was reverted before I was done. Frankly, it was creepy how fast my additions were deleted. I wasn't adding anything controversial, simply adding that she wrote another book (in addition to the ones listed) and adding her motivation behind starting PETA, which is relevant. I sourced IngridNewkirk.com, but that was deleted by someone, too.

I guess you're saying that Saunders is "notable" because her opinion piece appeared in a newspaper. I can't imagine that an opinion piece would be considered a reliable source when op-eds are, by definition, opinion. Quotes can be chopped, as we all know, and Saunders has been known to do that in the past. It's like saying Ann Coulter is a good source on Democrats. Chrissymatt 03:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 03:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the material was reverted before you could source it accurately. Its important on biographies of living people (WP:BLP) that all material is sourced, so if you add something without a source - even if you intend to source it later - is is liable to be reverted. The speed of reversion depends on a lot of factors, but controversial individuals like Newkirk tend to have a lot of people with it on their watchlist, and so reversions can happen quickly. There is nothing creepy about that: remember there are many thousands of Wikipedians out there and at any given time there may be hundreds watching the recent recent pages that log all edits as they happen.
I believe your edits (possibly by accident) removed some templates and a sourced quote, in addition to adding some unsourced material, which was why it was reverted. However, why don't you have another go (adding the source at the same time), or if you would like to work on it, you could draft it here first then copy it across to the article when you are happy with it.
Regarding the Saunders issue, I kind of see you point. However, her opinion is more notable than you or I, because she is paid by a newspaper to give that opinion. Also, I think her argument is one that is often used to criticise Newkirk. Its not as if she is misrepresenting her, as it is a fact that PETA euthanise animals.
Also, consider this: why would Newkirk's (or any other AR activists') opinion on animal testing be relevant (after all, she is a critic with no specific expertise but a definite agenda, a bit like Coulter on the Democrats, no?) Yet her and other critics get a lot of space in criticizing animal experimentation. And PETA are also experts at chopping quotes - see this discussion for a good example. So while there is an argument that articles should describe their subject only without any criticism, it tends not to work that way here especially in articles on controversial individuals. What we try to do, though, is use well sourced criticism and keep it relevant and in balance. I think the Saunders' criticism meets that criteria, but if you have some more appropriate criticism to replace it then that would be fine also. Rockpocket 04:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the help -- I appreciate the guidance. I apologize for removing a template -- I had no idea I did that. I'm still reading and learning. I think that I can add things that will balance the page and make it more informative about Newkirk, herself, without driving some agenda. I will read more on how to properly edit a page. Chrissymatt 04:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, and again, I apologize if your first forays into Wikipedia were somewhat rudely reverted without proper explanation. There is an ever growing amount of point-of-view pushing and vandalism to pages such as this. Sometimes well meaning editors, but novice, editors can feel bitten by the process of keeping it as encyclopaedic as possible. I'll keep an eye on the page and help you as best I can, so be bold and be careful, but don't worry too much about making mistakes, everything can be fixed. Happy editing. Rockpocket 05:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that Saunders' criticism really belongs in a criticism or controversy section, not in Newkirk's early history since it's not really about her early history. If this works for other editors, I'll create a Criticism or Controversy section and add the below to Newkirk's early history to round it out a bit.Bob98133 14:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Newkirk was born in England and grew up in New Delhi, India where her mother volunteered for Mother Teresa. She credits her early experiences in India,"packing pills for the lepers and rolling bandages for them, stuffing toys for orphans, and feeding strays" and her mother’s statement that "it doesn’t matter who suffers, but how"as contributing to her concern for all in need, including animals.
In the 1970s, she worked for Montgomery County, Maryland, and then for the District of Columbia, as an animal protection officer and deputy sheriff, before becoming D.C.'s first female poundmaster in 1978.

I'm new at this, but was wondering if Newkirk's MyPpace page is allowed to be linked here? I know her website certainly is allowed, but am unsure about MySpace pages in general (which is reported by other PETA members as actually being updated by Newkirk). The link to hers is www.myspace.com/ingridnewkirk. Like I said, I'm really rather new to this, but am interested in jumping right in and knew this was something that needed to be checked on first. Snackar 23:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a question for Ingrid Newkirk?

I will be interviewing Ingrid Newkirk on Tuesday, November 13. Leave questions on my Talk page. --David Shankbone 16:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

please see WP:BLP section on reliable sources prior to adding unreliably sourced material, and discuss first if in doubt.Bob98133 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ingrid's arrests

User:Bob98133 may have been right in removing my last edit mentioning her defacing Gandhi's statue in India and her subsequent arrest on the grounds that "are we going to list her other 99 arrests too?" But the article makes no mention on her other arrests on any other prominent or minor issues whatsoever, so should the reader just assume she was arrested several times or do we mention the point? I for one didn't know that she was arrested numerous times before! --Idleguy (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with noting she has been arrested numerous times, if you have a reliable source establishing that. However, a detailed synopsis of a single, recent arrest is a little bit recentist. Try and give a balanced overview of her, for want of a better word, criminal activities rather than documenting one incident. Rockpocket 02:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It does make sense to include that she has been arrested a number of times, I imagine it's always been for some sort of protest or civil disobedience, it was just focusing on the most recent one that seemed out of balance. If someone finds references, at least for some of the arrests, than those could be cited along with something general about her having been arrested. "Criminal activities" sounds a bit sinister particulary if she's doing stuff like putting a blindfold on a statue which is more like a symbolic protest, but the wording could be worked out.Bob98133 (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

English vegans

She is part of that category, if it could be added it would be much appreciated. The list for american vegans makes england look like an animal hating country which isn't true! Love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.242.239 (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Watch it; that was an extremely partisan comment. Not being vegan doesn't mean you hate animals. I eat meat, because humans are omnivores, but I most certainly do not hate animals. I even have two cats, and unlike PeTA I haven't killed them with pentobarbitol and thrown their bodies in a bin. FergusM1970 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Fergus, your soothing comment is more partisan than the one about which you are complaining. The issue of what you and/or PETA do or have done with your cats is not germaine to the discussion of being vegan.Bob98133 (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Block quotations

Please do not use {{cquote}} for block quotations. Not only do the template instructions make it clear that decorative cquotes aren't to be used for that purpose (they are meant as pull quotes), WP:MOSQUOTE requires it. No convincing argument has been made why we should ignore the rule in this case, so the default is to follow the guidelines. Large decorative cquotes are inappropriate for block quotations, as the whole point of block quoting is to be able to remove quotations marks and indent a large quote instead to make it stand out. Thanks, VanTucky 22:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Name of dog

I can understand why Mr. Man was removed from the image caption, but I think it's a shame. For those who don't know, the dog is David Shankbone's. Does anyone mind if I restore the name, or a reference to him being David's dog? SlimVirgin talk|edits 23:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I do. It looks amateurish to name the dog, especially if you point out that it's owned by a Wikipedian. People have a hard enough time taking our BLPs seriously, we don't need to start pointing out that our bio portraits were taken with such-and-such a person's dog (though the idea of posing Newkirk with a pet was genius). VanTucky 23:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I see no harm in the cutline saying the photograph was taken during an interview by David Shankbone for Wikinews, and that the dog is David's. It makes it quirky and unique, rather than yet another image of Newkirk with yet another animal. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
But still amateurish. This isn't a cutesy magazine profile, it's an encyclopedia-style biography. VanTucky 21:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It's precisely the opposite of amateurish. No professional publication would send a writer to take a photograph and do an interview, then publish the photograph without a credit and with no explanation of what the photograph showed. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If David requires a photo credit, one will be provided. But otherwise it's an unnecessary distraction, and it detracts from the seriousness of the biography to add in the darling name of the dog she is holding. It's of zero importance to the informativeness of the photo, the caption, or the article. VanTucky 21:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well I can see your point of view, so I won't argue, but I have to say I don't think we need to be so po-faced in order to be an encyclopedia. We didn't become popular for being boring. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
We certainly are thrice as exciting as Britannica already :) VanTucky 03:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Initially, I agreed with VanTucky that including the dog's name seems less serious, but in this case, Newkirk might prefer to share the billing because of her beliefs - after all, why should the human animal have a name and the non-human animal not? It's certainly not an important point for the article and I think it's OK either way.Bob98133 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
We're supposed to speculate on what Newkirk wants in our captioning options? Seems a little untoward to me. If she asked for something, that's another thing entirely, but guessing? VanTucky 17:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It's almost certain that Newkirk wanted Mr. Man in the photograph with her. If you look at other images of her, she's often photographed with an animal. SlimVirgin talk|edits 18:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey everybody. Ingrid loves Little Man. Before I aborted my trip to Brazil, I was having trouble figuring out what to do with him, and Ingrid wanted me to leave him with her Mom. She's a very giving, funny and kind person, and she does love animals. We don't converse where she doesn't ask how he's doing, and she held him for much of the interview (Little Man loved her, too). That said, I have too much of an obvious COI to take part on this discussion, so I will let you guys determine whether it stays or go. --David Shankbone 22:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I've restored it. Cutlines/captions are supposed to describe what's in the photograph, and there's no reason in this case to describe only half of what's in it. Also, it's good to be able to link in the cutline to David's interview. SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why specifically pointing out this is a Wikipedian's dog would not be a prima facia violation of WP:SELF? -- Tom Ketchum 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tom. I agree with you about not including info about the photographer or "Wikipedian". I don't know the policy that well, but it is a bit irrelevant to the article, so no need. I restored the name of the dog in the caption because of the above discussion. Apparently, Newkirk goes out of her way to be photographed with animals. If it were another human in the picture, the human would be identified and since Newkirk frequently equates humans and animals, it would seem appropriate to identify the dog by name. I think that this adds to the tone of the article without detracting from its content.Bob98133 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a position one way or the other on the name of the dog being there (though someone recently removed it). I'm just trying to understand and apply Wikipedia's many rules. -- Tom Ketchum 16:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I give up - you all have got to be kidding me. The name of the dog has nothing whatsoever to do with a biography of Ingrid Newkirk. --B (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Is someone going to give a reason beyond WP:ILIKEIT for having the name of the dog in there? I don't even see how this is defensible. --B (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, WP:IAR. When the rules get in the way of improving an article, ignore them. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And how does it improve the article to give the name of the dog? Is there any other Wikipedia article where such an "improvement" has been made? --B (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The name is accurate. As for other articles, see WP:WAX. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I never questioned that the name is "accurate". That has nothing to do with it. Lots of things are "accurate" but have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. In no real encyclopedia, real newspaper, or any professional publication would the name of the photographer's dog be used in the caption. That just isn't professional and if you and Slim Virgin don't see that, then there really isn't anything to discuss because we disagree at such a fundamental level. This is utterly silly and it's a disgrace to Wikipedia that we even have to have this discussion. --B (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
At the end of the day, accuracy is the only thing that matters on Wikipedia. I'm sorry you don't see that. As for your claim about "real" sources and what is professional or not, we will have to agree to disagree. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
How in the world is accuracy the only thing that matters? "Virginia Tech's colors are orange and maroon" is 100% accurate. If I were to add that statement to this article, at least one person might complain about it. RELEVANCE is also rather important. Nobody questions (even though the name of the dog is original research) that the name of the dog is accurate. The question is not whether the dog's name is Little Man - it's whether that has anything in the world to do with a biography of Ingrid Newkirk. There are infinitely many true and accurate statements in the universe. Only some finite number of them apply to an article about Ingrid Newkirk. --B (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Virginia Tech's colors are accurately represented in Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. This argument is not about relevance; the dog's name is relevant to identifying the animal in the photo, the name of which is mentioned by Newkirk in the interview. Viriditas (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Why does the animal need to be identified by name in an article about Ingrid Newkirk? It is a prop. The only reason for identifying the dog is if that somehow added meaning to the article. (ie, if it was her dog) If the photo itself were famous and the article were about the photo itself, then yes, identifying the dog would be important. But the article isn't about the photo - it's about Ingrid. It's not an article about David Shankbone, about the Wikinews article, or about the photo - it's about a person and the photographer's dog has nothing to do with a biography. That's pure ego stroking. --B (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:CAPTION#Clear_identification_of_the_subject. From the same guideline: "Group portraits of a few people (presumably related to the article) should list the names of the individuals so that readers can identify individuals." Are you claiming that an image of an animal with Newkirk isn't relevant to her bio? It is more than relevant - it is her life's work. Questioning the relevance is an exercise in absurdity. Try reading the bio. Viriditas (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Her life's work is caring for David Shankbone's dog? PETA's mission has changed since the last time I was out that way I guess. David Shankbone's dog is not one bit relevant to the article. --B (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think my point was well understood by most rational people. The so-called owner/guardian of the dog doesn't matter one bit to this discussion. Newkirk mentioned the dog by name in the interview and that is what matters. The dog has a name, Newkirk acknowledged that name, and the caption identifies the dog by name. And, the dog is relevant to the article - the entire article is about Newkirk's work with animals so the relevance cannot be disputed. I suggest giving this discussion a break and letting other people comment as the RfC was intended. Good night. Viriditas (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • RfC response: Kill the dog's name. Non-notable dog of a non-notable person, and the dog has no relation to the subject. It's obvious that she's holding a dog, and the name of the dog is not important, since that will lead the reader to wonder who the dog is. Since the answer is a stirring "nobody" his name need not be included. For the sake of comparison, if you take a picture of Madonna at a concert signing an autograph for a fan, do you include the fan's name, even if you know it's your cousin Jenny Kartowski that flew out from Boise and came with you to the concert? No, because Jenny's presence is purely incidental, she has no connection to the artist, and the inclusion of her name would actually dilute the focus of the image - to illustrate Madonna. Earlier someone argued that "At the end of the day, accuracy is the only thing that matters on Wikipedia." This notion is highly mistaken, or the article on Elvis or Britney Spears or John Wilkes Booth or JFK or Jesus would be would be at least 1 million words long; literally millions of pages of accurate information could and has been written on all of them, but all that information don't belong here at wikipedia. A good writer keeps a good eraser nearby so the objective of the writing is met, not just an accurate collection of facts. I suggest that those who are operating otherwise take a stroll around the articles being nominated for FA status, and you will see how judicious a good article must be (as well as make us all more productive contributors).--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "At the end of the day, accuracy is the only thing that matters on Wikipedia". Fact, not fiction: [2], [3], [4], [5] , [6] The notion is not mistaken, but the primary operating assumption behind the continued existence of Wikipedia, the ultimate measure of its success, and an idea that is entirely supported by reliable sources. The day the number one priority of accuracy becomes number two, is the day that Wikipedia disappears. You seem to be assuming that accuracy implies irrelevance for some reason. There is no such relationship, nor is any connection between the two implied here or elsewhere, and drawing such a conclusion is inaccurate. Rather than being "highly mistaken" as you claim, the striving for accuracy and accuracy alone is also the fundamental driving force behind every policy and guideline. That you or anyone else for that matter, would place accuracy beneath the number one spot is extremely worrying, and does not bode well for the future of this project. If an editor doesn't believe accuracy is the ultimate priority, they shouldn't be working on this project. There is nothing more important than accuracy on Wikipedia. Nothing. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • You have just used a classic straw man argument. I did not say accuracy was not the number one or any other number priority. I said that it is not "the only thing that matters" as you said. And it isn't.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 11:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • RfC response: Keep the dog's name. It is particularly apropos in this article as the subject of the article, Newkirk, is someone who personalizes and dignifies animals, and specifically talked about this dog, Little Man, by name in the interview. It aptly illustrates the point that Newkirk doesn't consider animals "nobodies". She didn't just pose with him as a decoration. --MPerel 17:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't believe this discussion is still ongoing. The obvious solution is to just get rid of the dog's name and link it to Chihuahua (dog) instead. It is somewhat distracting currently, because the way it is linked it appears there is an article on "Little Man" which would suggest that it is a notable dog. You click on the link and find that it is just some random chihuahua. In that case, just call it a chihuahua, rather than piping the link, and we can all go do something more productive. Rockpocket 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Imo, the better way to fix the illusion that there's an article on Little Man is to simply unlink the name. For example, in Amber Reeves, the picture caption states, " Amber Reeves, with daughter Anna-Jane." Anna-Jane isn't piped to Caucasian, and isn't linked at all, because she's not notable per Wikipedia standards. But she's in the picture, so she's named with plain text. --MPerel 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That is an alternative, certainly. But our goal is to provide useful, accessible and relevant information to our readers. As someone who doesn't give a toss about whether Mr Shankbone gets too much or too little credit/publicity for his work, I get a lot more value out of learning the type of dog in the picture than his name. I think most completely neutral third parties would agree. Rockpocket 18:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to name the photographer, I agree with you on that. I think the dog's breed in this case is probably less relevant than the dog's name, since Newkirk's philosophy would tend toward personalizing rather than objectifying animals. Here's an example of a professional news picture caption naming the animal shown with an animal professional: "Cesar Millan with Pit bull Daddy". In that case, the breed is also mentioned along with the dog's name, but it is probably because the breed is known to be an aggressive breed and Millan is famous for his successful approach with even aggressive breeds. In Newkirk's case, she mentions the dog's name, but not his breed, which probably makes more sense considering her outlook. --MPerel 19:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That article you linked is interesting. When you read that caption, who do you think the dog belongs to? You probably assume that it is either his own dog or perhaps one of his customers. You probably would NOT assume that the dog belongs to the photographer. --B (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not following where the photographer comes into the discussion. Perhaps I'm missing something? --MPerel 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The dog she is holding is not a notable dog, not her own dog, not a customer dog - the dog belongs to the Wikipedian that took the photo. That's the difference and that's the problem. No professional organization would allow their reporters/photographers/whatever to personalize in that way. If we're talking about a blog, ok, and there are plenty of blogs and columnists where the writer is a part of the story. But this isn't wikiblog - it's Wikipedia - and our writers/photographers and their dogs are NOT part of the story. --B (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That is all fine and well, but NPOV suggests our goal should not be to serve Newkirk's outlook in our article. To make a (rather insensitive) comparison. There are a number of images in KKK related articles of black individuals being lynched. We certainly do not reflect the KKK's outlook on those individuals in the caption, which would be to objectify rather than personalize. We should serve our readers in a consistently neutral and informative manner, not make allowances for the quirks or opinions the subject. Rockpocket 20:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't suggest we take her position, I think that providing the dog's name in the caption merely helps illustrate her position that she considers the dog a fellow being with a name. It's not such an unusual thing to do in any case, to provide the names of animals in pictures, especially since the dog's name came up in the interview, and it happens all the time in picture captions in newspapers. (In contrast, objectifying individuals in the caption of a KKK picture would certainly be out of the norm, and not something you'd see in newspaper picture captions). --MPerel 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Notwithstanding that it would be highly unusual for the photographer's dog to be featured and named in a caption (in contrast to, say, the subject's dog), I have a proposal that will at least clarify the situation (which is my major concern). Instead of Ingrid Newkirk and Little Man during an interview for Wikinews in 2007, we write Ingrid Newkirk and her photographer's chihuahua, "Little Man", during an interview for Wikinews in 2007. This way those who are so keen to share the name of the dog are happy, while the rest of us are at least made aware of what the little blighter is and why the hell she is holding him. Rockpocket 17:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm always in favor of a compromise, so I support this solution. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I support this too. SlimVirgin talk|edits
Make that three. --MPerel 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I am still in favor of keeping the dog's name but not the Wikipedian's in the caption. It doesn't matter that the dog is not particularly notable. If he's got a name, and we can document what it is, we may as well use it. I think it adds a nice touch to the article considering its subject. Maybe this exposure in Wiki will launch Little Man's celebrity-dog career! Bob98133 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • RfC comment: Shankbone's name is inappropriate. As B said well, "no professional organization would allow their reporters/photographers/whatever to personalize in that way." The dog's name is a closer call, but I think it's superfluous, random detail. It may be that Ingrid believes that dogs are not non-people, but articles are written in NPOV, not SPOV, and not her POV. It's the photographer's chihuahua. Cool Hand Luke 04:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Education?

This article fails to mention her college education or lack of it. Would you make that change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobSorington (talk • contribs) 00:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

KFC

The article states that her organization, PETA, has convinced fast food restaurants such as KFC to have more humane conditions in their factory farms. The PETA KFC campaign is ongoing so this citation should probably be changed to a chain where the organization's (and Newkirk's) goal has actually been meet. Burger King, Wendy's, or McDonald's are examples.

http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/h-timeline.asp

The timeline of the KFC campaign clearly shows that it is incomplete, and the date of suspension for the other campaigns are listed at the top of the page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nj. .jn. . r (talk • contribs)

I have removed the protection from the article so you can make this edit yourself. --B (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

HBO Documentary

Seen on one of these that the FBI has infiltrated PETA and were looking to charge PETA, her with charges such as "Terrorism, Criminal solicitation, Conspiracy to commit terrorism, fraud, you name it. The documentary was I am an Animal. Should the FBI matter be mentioned? 65.163.115.254 (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No. If those charges materialize, then I'm sure they will be documented and then they can be mentioned. Rockpocket 16:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just wanted I am an animal and I don't recall hearing those claims. SlimVirgin talk|edits 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon's addition to cutline

One animal tester claimed, without evidence, that there was a "strong suspicion" the Silver Spring monkey image was faked. Against that, it was accepted by the courts, the police, and the mainstream media as legitimate. So far as I know, not even Taub himself (the researcher who was prosecuted) claimed it was faked. There's no justification for giving such undue weight to one researcher's casually expressed opinion, when that person had nothing to do with the case, and has no specialist knowledge of it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi SV. I don't think anyone is claiming the images were faked, but what Taub said (and is supported by others, mainly within the scientific community) is that PETA purposefully set the photos up to look like the animals were mistreated. The courts did not rule on that either way (and Taub's convictions were overturned, remember). Taub is rather vilified in that section, largely on the basis of those iconic photos, so I think its only fair to have two sentences explaining his version of events. I also think it nicely sets up the dichotomy that we have continued to see between the claims of AR "investigations" and those being investigated. As with most things, the reality is probably somewhere in between. Rockpocket 03:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Taub's convictions were overturned only because an appeals court decided the lower court didn't have jurisdiction. There was never any suggestion of the images being faked, or made to look worse than they were (how could they have been made to look worse? — they're images of a monkey inside a contraption, one that everyone admits was being used). That particular image ended up on the front page of the Washington Post, as I recall. There's no way we should be suggesting it was faked. If you have more than that one source, please produce them. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
RP, you're mixing up issues. Taub said the lab had been deliberately allowed to get dirty while he was away, and that it normally didn't look as bad as that. He never mentioned anything about the images being staged. If I'm wrong about that, please produce a source that shows him saying that. Putting Taub's complaints next to Hubel's (who knows nothing about it) makes it appear that they're both complaining about the same thing. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In E Taub, "The Silver Spring incident: the untold story", The Coalition for Animals and Animal Research Newsletter, Winter/Spring, 1991. 4(1), 2-3. Taub states explicitly the photos were staged (not faked, there is a difference). On page 145 of The Brain that Changes Itself by Norman Doidge, Viking, 2007, Doidge writes "Taub always contended that Pacheco's photos were staged, the captions fabricated and that, for instance, one picture of a monkey that normally sat comfortably in a testing chair, was positioned grimacing, straining and stooped, in a way that could have occurred only if a number of nuts and bolts had been undone and the chair readjusted." This version of events is also recounted in a few Nature articles, and in some transcripts of Government discussions (I don't have access to these at the moment, so I can't provide direct quotes).

Oh, and 113 of the 119 charges were dismissed immediately because a Dept of Agriculture vet testified that he visited the lab unannounced during the period of time Pachco "documented" the "appalling" conditions and did not find those conditions described. The other six convictions were overturned because the appeals court found the anti-cruelty laws that Taub was prosecuted under was never legislated to cover animal research, the decision was unanimous.

Finally, sixty seven professional societies made representation's on Taub's behalf - which is why I wrote that much of the scientific community supported him. Other specific individuals who actively spoke out in defense of Taub were Neal E. Miller and Vernon Mountcastle. So its not just "one researcher's casually expressed opinion". I hope this addresses your concerns, I'm happy to add these as additional support if it pleases you. Rockpocket 07:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Doidge also writes that Taub was claiming "there was something fishy about the photos and that there were signs of complicity between PETA and Montgomery County authorities" (p. 145) (though he doesn't cite his source), which stretches credulity. The point is that the police were shocked by what they found when they raided the lab, as were the other professionals Pacheco had shown round it before the raid, and even the National Institutes of Health condemned the conditions and suspended his funding. Given the number of people, including police and the lower court, who agreed that the situation of the monkeys was appalling, we can't give undue weight to Taub, and to one animal researcher who has no firsthand knowledge of the case. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It may stretch your credulity but that really isn't particularly relevant, is it? Above you asked for other sources supporting Taub's, rather than Pacheco's, version of events. I have provided them. Now you argue that is insufficient? Rather than deal with rhetoric, it would be helpful if we discuss the facts.
  • You say: "the number of people, including police and the lower court, who agreed that the situation of the monkeys was appalling".
  • The facts simply don't support that, SV. The "lower court" found him not guilty of 113 charges of cruel or inhumane treatment of animals brought by the Montgomery County authorities. The judge stated this was because the independent vet's testimony of the conditions was not consistent with the "appalling" picture painted by Pacheco. What the judge did find him guilty of, was 6 misdemeanor charges of failing to provide adequate veterinary care, one for each monkey in his care. This was because he treated the monkeys himself rather than seeking outside treatment, not because "the situation of the monkeys was appalling". Under state law Taub was legally permitted to have misdemeanor charges reheard in a jury trial. In that trial, 5 of those charges were dismissed, leaving just one charge of the 119 brought by the Montgomery County authorities (that was a single count of failing to provide adequate veterinary care.) It was that single charge that was overturned on appeal, because the legislation the charges were brought under was found not to apply to research animals. The question that leaves me asking is how on earth did the police get it so wrong? They brought 119 charges based on Pacheco's "evidence" and not one was upheld by the legal process. That seems rather like the Montgomery County authorities were working from PETA's play-book to me too. Especially when you consider who the former animal protection officer for Montgomery County was... a certain Ms Ingrid Newkirk! That the prosecuting attorney in the case took a position with PETA after it was finished. That the authorities temporarily housed the animals, in violation of a number of city ordinances, in the basement of a house owned by Newkirk and that just before they were supposed to be handed back the animals were "stolen" from the Newkirk residence only to be returned with no questions asked when it was realized they were required to prosecute Taub. So, no. No chance of complicity there, right?
  • You say: "even the National Institutes of Health condemned the conditions and suspended his funding"
  • The NIH did do that, but you fail to note that they later withdrew their condemnation and reinstated his funding, when they realized there was no evidence against him and the charges were not upheld by the courts.
  • You say: "we can't give undue weight to Taub, and to one animal researcher who has no firsthand knowledge of the case"
  • If we are using Pacheco's account to demonize him, despite it being dismissed by the courts, then its certainly not undue to include one sentence stating Taub's defense. Its also not undue to note that Taub's version of events is largely supported in the scientific community, and provide a sourced example of this. Rockpocket 08:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Animal Shelter euthinizes animals

Should there be any mention of her animal shelter euthinizing animals? I found this quote about her shelter euthinizing over 1000 animals in 1999: "It is a totally rotten business, but sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever... It sounds lovely if you're naïve. We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn't do as much work." --The Virginian-Pilot, August 1, 2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by UncannyGarlic (talk • contribs) 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the article that she is not opposed to youth in Asia. Now this page is not the place for CCF propaganda, so I don't think more needs to be said. David Olivier (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Maybe I'm missing something here, but for someone as polarizing as this, why is there no criticism section? Is this a BLP thing? --Tarage (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably what you're missing is WP:BLP. Read that page since articles which are biographies of living people have specific rules about content. After you've read that, if you still think there are criticisms that should be added, please discuss the specifics on this page to avoid being quickly reverted. Thanks - Bob98133 (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in the page, Tarage. I want to expand on what Bob said. There has been a tendency to avoid a separate criticism section on this page, in favor of trying to present both sides throughout the page. In fairness to the page, I think it does present a good deal of criticism (in, for example, the public image section), but without grouping it under a separate heading of its own. Bob is absolutely correct that it is important to be careful that any edits introducing criticism stay strictly within policy, and that it is helpful to suggest them first in this talk. About that "quickly reverted" thing, some of that comes from the fact that vandalism is all too frequent on this page, and some of it comes from the fact that there are some editors (just to be clear, not Bob) who make a habit of reverting anything that can be construed as critical of the animal rights movement, and they are very skillful in basing their edits on policy and trying to paint editors who criticize as anti-policy. So, it's important to take the time to be careful, thoughtful, and constructive. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Poundmaster

Excuse my ignorance, but the term meant nothing to me, and I couldn't find an article to make an internal link to. A google search indicates that the term is sometimes used to mean a person responsible for collecting stray animals, and presumably organising their care/euthanasia. Is that what is meant here? If so, it might be better to explain this. The term does not appear to be widely used I had 43,500 google hits including various trade names, songs etc in the first 10 hits) Thehalfone (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your surmise about the meaning of this term is correct. It may be an infrequently used term, but its meaning seems obvious. I don't have the book source quoted, but I would guess that the original reference used this word. What suggestions do you have to make it more clear? Bob98133 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the passage, and I also think that, although the word may be used infrequently, it seems clear from the context that it means a person who is in charge of pounds. I started trying to think of synonyms, but then realized that, in context, it may be a D.C. government position, in which case it may be the "official" word used, and that makes me feel we should be cautious about changing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material

I've removed the unsourced section per WP:BLP. Please note that all criticism needs to be reliably sourced, and also must be about Newkirk herself, and not about PETA. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly you want to be fair. However, the article as presented paints her in an incredibly flattering light. In fact, most of the text comes directly from Newkirk's own website. To introduce some of the contraversy, why not simply add some of her more famous quotes.

“There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.” — Washingtonian magazine, Aug 1986


“I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.” — "National Animal Rights Convention", Jun 1997


“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.” — Newsday, Feb 1988


“Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses. [emphasis added]” — The Washington Post, Nov 1983


“I openly hope that it [hoof-and-mouth disease] comes here. It will bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment.” — ABC News interview, Apr 2001 “Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.” — Ingrid Newkirk, in the April 8, 2002 issue of US News & World Report , Apr 2002


“Perhaps the mere idea of receiving a nasty missive will allow animal researchers to empathize with their victims for the first time in their lousy careers. I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.” — The Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov 1999


“Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.” — PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, in the September 1989 issue of Vogue, Sep 1989


“Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” — Washingtonian magazine, Feb 1990 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.248.49.67 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think those are valid and helpful points. At the same time, we don't want to turn the page into a quotefarm, so adding at least some of these quotes will probably require removing some that are there already. Doing so potentially represents a shift in the POV balance of the page. I would agree with this shift if done properly, but I realize that some other editors might disagree. Therefore, I'm stating that I'm seriously thinking of acting on this, but I'm going to wait in order to allow other editors to comment here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with IP editor's rationale for these changes which is stated as "To introduce some of the contraversy..." I believe that edits to a BLP should not be done simply to introduce controversy but the focus should remain on improving the article within the existing guidelines. This rationale also assumes that these inclusions would only include "some of the contraversy" indicating that once done there would be a call for further changes. I have no objections to Newkirk's quotes being included, provided they don't fill up the article, as they once did, but their inclusion should be to improve the article or further explain her philosophy, not simply to introduce controversy. Bob98133 (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
No need to be bitey over the IP's spelling error. I think the point is to have NPOV, and the IP makes a reasonable observation that the current quotes tend to skew the POV a bit. I agree with Bob that we need to be careful not to skew the other way and not to create a quotefarm, so I want to discuss it here before making any edits. Bob, do you have any advice about which quotes to select, or about how to use them appropriately? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
One or two of the quotes above (assuming refs are correct) might fit in the Public image section. The other sections of this article are fairly well-referenced biography that don't really call for statements of opinion. Where she is quoted, it is directly about the section topic. These statements above might fit better in the PETA article, if they're not there already. Bob98133 (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, unless it paints her in a positive light, it can't be included. This whole page reads like promotional material. Everything's either out of her very flattering biography or websites she owns. Then, calling her biography "fairly well-referenced" is a lie. It is not fairly well-referenced, you didn't read it, that much is obvious. Or you did read it, because you worship her, and will do whatever you can to continue to keep this article as positive as possible. Go ahead and ddos my IP like last time now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.30.144 (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, that discussion was from a long time ago. I'm still receptive to correcting anything that's overly promotional, so long as it is done in conformance with WP:BLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The main article clearly omits her early work and her contiuining work as an animal exterminator

Why doesn't the page speak of he killing of countless cats and dogs? There are sources out there that not only have statistics but also pictures dates and data. Are cats and dogs not animals whose rights we should respect? He hypocrisy should also be listed to maintain the page free of bias. Here is a website to one of many pages describing her atrocities:

http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver.long (talk • contribs) 08:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're saying that Newkirk personally kills dogs and cats, you are probably mistaken, but if you have real references to show this, please provide them. The page of an advocacy organization opposed to PETA, which you've provided, is not a very good reference for this. There are referenced data on the PETA page, with statistics, about the euthanasia rate and policies of that organization. Perhaps this is what you meant. You may also want to check out the pest control article, since it appears that you are confusing controversial animal control policies with exterminators. Bob98133 (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The main article actually mentions it with clear detail, quoting her:

Newkirk took a job in the kennels, witnessing the mistreatment of the animals, including physical abuse. Kathy Snow Guillermo writes that Newkirk disinfected kennels by day, and by night studied animal care, animal behavior, and animal-cruelty investigations.[9]

...I went to the front office all the time, and I would say, "John is kicking the dogs and putting them into freezers." Or I would say, "They are stepping on the animals, crushing them like grapes, and they don't care." In the end, I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through that. I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day. Some of those people would take pleasure in making them suffer. Driving home every night, I would cry just thinking about it. And I just felt, to my bones, this cannot be right.[5]...

--dkoikadabra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkoikadabra (talk • contribs) 02:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Self Sterilization?

It seems to be a well-known fact that Ms. Newkirk had herself sterilized at the age of 22. On this review of the Newkirk biography (which is largely pro-PETA and Newkirk) at http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/i-am-an-animal-the-story-of-ingrid-newkirk-and-peta, it is stated openly by Newkirk that she had herself sterilized at the age of 22. Could someone add this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkoikadabra (talk • contribs) 02:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Credo

what is NOT included in this article is the phrase- "a rat is a pig is a boy is a dog." I heard her say that. A boy or girl, has no more relevance in this world than a rat or a pig or a dog??? Is she kidding or delusional. I knew, as an opponent, Dan Matthews, former spokes"man" of PETA, with his Mercerdes 500SEL and his friggin' Italian leather shoes and he was as much of a hypocrite as Newkirk is. PETA collects tons of money and all they do is advertising and misguided protests, but no actual animal protection- not like Greenpeace or the ASPCA or goverment Wildlife agencies. They only attack little entities, because they do not have the resources to attack the beef or chicken industries. It's just about the money. Talk about pigs and rats- that's all PETA is.24.146.168.81 (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that is a well-known quote of hers, one for which she is notable. Presenting the quote, with proper sourcing and without editorializing about it, would be entirely encyclopedic and appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely, and it would be quite relevant to the topic. I do agree that the top comment was rather soapish, but if sourced the quote is goodBeefcake6412 (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Tryptofish et al., Yep, this quote is used all the time. And it's also taken out of context all the time. It was originally said in an interview with Washingtonian magazine in 1986, and the full quote is "Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all mammals." While I have a pdf copy of that article (and would be happy to email it to anyone who wants to see it), titled "Who Will Live, Who Will Die," I can't find any access to it online. This book, however, does cite the full quote. [7] page: [8] I just feel like using the one part of the quote is not revelatory of the true the intentions of the speaker. Would anyone be objectionable to including the entire quote? Bob98133 (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. You found a better source than the one I found, and the context is appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Animal extermination revisited

The current article suggests that Newkirk's experience as a shelter employee in the 70s was part of the reason she became interested in animal protection. However, her 21st century actions conflict with her stated philosophies and should be more prominent in the article.

  • On the one hand, she says people should treat animals well and not kill them for food or clothing.
  • On the other, she is personally responsible (directly via signature and indirectly as policy director) for the fact that PETA's animal shelter in Virginia kills over 90% of the animals it impounds, specifically over 2,000 animals per year, i.e. at least five each day.

Sources:

And finally, PETA's own response does not refute any of the numbers. 75.37.21.54 (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, this is actually delt with under "Public Image" where it says "Newkirk has been accused of employing a double standard for her organization's practice of euthanizing animals for which it has neither the space nor resources to shelter." Pretty straightforward. Animal rights folks fall on both sides of the euthanasia issue, so it's not really a conflict to have worked in a shelter, support animal rights and believe in euthanasia. Also, you have to be careful with the petakillsanimals site (and their stuff which is used by a lot of the anti-PETA folks) because they have their own agenda, just as PETA has an agenda and you have to be careful with using them as a source. This issue was handled in a pretty balanced way on the PETA page, if you want to take a look at that. Otherwise, I'm not sure this needs to be expanded upon, but have at it if you'd like. Just be careful of your sources. We'll be glad to help if you have any questions. Bob98133 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a bigger deal than a single sentence suggests: 2,000 animals/year is killing at an industrial level (no where near the amount used to turn animals into clothes or food, of course). If you note the sources above, they include the state of Virginia's stats, not just "No Kill Now." Also, the article simple re-iterates PETA's claim that it only kills animals when their shelter runs out of room, but that's not supported by the evidence. Finally, this is about Newkirk's personality, not about PETA's stance (Newkirk is directly as well as indirectly responsible for the shelter deaths).
Yes, a lot of people have trouble separating PETA's ideals from its practices. And yes, many of those documenting those practices have their own agenda. But I think because the article makes much of Newkirk's claim to be interested in Animal Welfare, it's important that the article also rebut her claims with her actions. For example, the article does highlight her indirect (and alleged direct) support of ALF.
Put another way, I don't think this is a matter of her public image; it's about her actual behavior and should be accorded more attention. Her actions don't necessarily make her goals or her other actions wrong -- they demonstrate Newkirk's complexity as a person. Like all humans, she's a bundle of contradictions and I think some of the details have been lost in the current text. 75.37.21.54 (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I wonder: would it be better to move that passage from the public image section higher up on the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Tryptofish, whereabouts are you thinking? I feel it holds up fine as is and where it is, but I'm game for change should some willing party want to take a crack at it.Bob98133 (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a specific place in mind, more like I was just trying to suggest a compromise. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Went back and read the sources for that graph. So, actually, that comment about "running out of room" is by a "Newkirk critic" and, if I read the source correctly, is meant to be sarcasm. So we have the opening sentence, stating there is controversy. One sentence from a critic, then another with PETA's position. Again, I think we've got both sides here, so if an expansion is necessary, let's make sure both sides are equally expanded upon. Bob98133 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hubel again

The same two editors have repeatedly restored the same source to several articles for years claiming that Pacheco set up one of the Silver Spring monkey images. That they have only one source is itself telling. It is a BLP violation against Pacheco (and now Newkirk) and it can't stand. I have removed:

... his [Taub's] version continues to receive support from within the scientific community.[1]

It is fine to quote Taub himself if this was his defence (or his lawyers, or newspapers reporting that position, etc). It's not acceptable to pluck out one animal researcher writing in 1991 who has no direct knowledge of the situation, then make his view that of the "scientific community" in 2012. There is no reason to mention his view, while not mentioning the views of all the people who supported PETA (including the vets and other scientists who inspected the lab, and the police who raided it, and who saw the conditions for themselves).

This has been discussed elsewhere, where it was agreed that this source is not appropriate. It's particularly inappropriate in this biography (given that no one is making these claims about Newkirk), so I don't understand why it was added here in the first place, or why it has been restored. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added a better source for this (Washington Post), which makes clear that this was Taub's argument. [9] SlimVirgin (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I want to apologize for the tone of my first post here. I've just read it again, and I can see I sounded exasperated. It was frustration at seeing that that source had been added again, so my apologies for that. I hope the Washington Post article is an adequate substitute.
On the subject of sources, this needs a high-quality secondary source:

She has been accused of having had advance knowledge of one ALF action. During the 1995 trial of Rod Coronado, in connection with an arson attack at Michigan State University (MSU), U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer alleged that Newkirk had arranged, in advance of the attack, to have Coronado send her stolen documents from the university and a videotape of the action.

It's currently cited to "Government sentencing memorandum of U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer in USA v. Rodney Coronado, July 31, 1995, pp. 8-10." This is a primary source. BLP says:

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. ...

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

There was no charge, which means it's unlikely there was evidence of this, so it's important to source it carefully. I won't remove it for now to give people here a chance to find a secondary source, but I think it should be removed within the next few days if none is forthcoming. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Let me just give an initial reply to the part about Hubel, leaving the other material for a later discussion. First of all, I want to say thank-you for your addendum about the tone of what you said initially. I sincerely appreciate it, and I also sincerely appreciate the efforts you have been making in recent months to avoid bad feelings with other editors. I really mean that. Looking back to well over a year ago [10], the page had the quotation from Hubel, so it's been here in a stable fashion for quite a long time. The edit I made was this: [11]. I did not restore his quote to the page. All I restored was the wording "and his [Taub's] version continues to receive support from within the scientific community." It would be very improper to say, hypothetically, something like "Taub had, in fact, been set up by Pacheco and Newkirk" and source it to Hubel. But that's not what my edit said. It only said that there are people within the scientific community who support Taub. I forget if Taub is still alive or not, but if he is, BLP applies to him too, of course. Hubel isn't just some fringe figure. He is, legitimately, a mainstream spokesperson for the scientific community (unlike the scientists who initially inspected the lab). It would actually be UNDUE to omit this mainstream view. I think that my edit respected past discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hubel DH (1991). "Are we willing to fight for our research?". Annual Review of Neuroscience. 14: 1–8. doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.14.030191.000245. PMID 2031569.

Little Man

What is the relevance of Newkirk's photo with Little Man? Did her photographer abuse that chihuahua or something? Is there any double entendre, somehow, for her position with PETA and other activities? What would that name signify? This could be a point for inclusion in the article itself.--76.212.152.194 (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Bias/NPOV

The Silver Spring monkeys section and really, the entire article, is written in a style that glorifies and dramatizes Newkirk and the detailed events, rather just stating relevant facts. Also a lot of it has a prose that suggests the article is telling a story, rather than just providing information for reference. It would be nice to see it cleaned up a bit.The Exiled Fighter (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I consider this issue to be pervasive amongst pages having to do with animal rights. In the past, it's been a battleground, and because I've felt the need to pick my battles, I haven't pushed on this one (see the talk thread just above, in fact). However, if consensus changes, please count me in, for such revisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Especially when pertinent documents like those linked from this story exist: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html It appears that after being bitten by a Pitbull, Ingrid Newkirk became an advocate for Pitbull destruction. I feel the same way about horses, due to a traumatic incident involving a horse when I was very young, but I'm not claiming to be a universal friend to all animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.3.249 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how anyone who advocates for the eradication of pit-bull class dogs and feral cats can be called an animal rights anything. William J Bean (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Long Pacheco quotation

I am cutting that passage because it seems irrelevant to the topic at hand: "The Founding of PETA." Also, this page is about Newkirk rather than Pacheco, so the focus is wrong to have such a long quote from him about himself. There is a significant problem with both relevance and proportion, as the quote constitutes about a third of the text of this section and yet says nothing about the founding of the group. Given what this section and page are, it makes much more sense to go from the first sentence to "It was Pacheco who ...." If someone wants to retain this quote, it would make much more sense to place it on Pacheco's page rather than Newkirk's. This cut is not an act of "vandalism." It is a very reasonable change based on both proportion and relevance. Also, there are arguably too many quotes from that one "New Yorker" piece in this article. Wilbur777 (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Wilbur777 Bob98133 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. This article also needs significant work in terms of balance and neutrality, and I've started on that.Wilbur777 (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ingrid Newkirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ingrid Newkirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Not NPOV

There exist mountains and mountains of evidence about Ingrid and her organization killing massive numbers of pets, and even regularly committing crimes in order to go out of their way to kill as many dogs and cats as possible. There are many well sourced articles on this topic, and I am stunned that there is not even a footnote about it. I'm not good at writing encyclopedic entries, nor do I have the time, but here are two articles and sources on the subject: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/the-death-cult-of-peta/ and https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/killing-animals-petas-open-secret_us_59e78243e4b0e60c4aa36711 . It seems like this article is serving to whitewash the highly controversial nature of Ingrid and the organization she runs. HeroofTime55 (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the above. The whole page reads as if written by her publicists, no wonder Wikipedia is rubbished by so many people who don't trust it. Newkirk is clearly deranged, she has admitted to getting in early to work at the kill shelter where her 'theories' evolved, as she enjoyed her work so much. Her attitude to companion animals, who live twice as long as their wild bbrothers and sisters, is that they shouldn't exist, so humans should not be allowed to live with other species. Tell that to rainforest peoples! She's a professional psychopath and her organisation targets celebrities and is very rich and powerful, attracting the young with slogans and manipulating publicity stunts. Clearly Wikipedia has too many vegan followers for the truth to ever be included. 146.200.26.30 (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

We need RS to support a claim that she (or PETA) are deliberately killing animals. But you are correct, Wikipedia is not about truth, its about wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


The stuff you cited is bullshit made by the "CCF" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Organizational_Research_and_Education#Criticism Hell, even *if* everything they say is correct and Peta is putting down more animals then needed, is that really comparable to the 25 million animals mainstream meat industries kill across the world every day? BTW American meat industries fund the Center for Center for Consumer Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Organizational_Research_and_Education#Funding who just so happend to sponsor Nathan Winograd the same person who happens to be throwing these claims out at Peta.

some more sources on the CCF just to show how out for the truth and unbiased they are. https://www.consumerfreedom.com/ https://www.consumerfreedom.com/2022/05/washed-up-actor-james-cromwell-explains-deranged-vegan-milk-stunt/ https://www.consumerfreedom.com/2021/10/meat-and-climate-dont-have-a-cow-but-do-enjoy-a-burger/

JohnKonrad33Rd (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

THis article is about PETA, it does not matter what anyone else does. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

BLP violations

There are so many its hard to catch them all, how long has this article been in this state, and why?Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Propose that PETA be merged in to this article.

The PETA article is filled with too much primary sources. It should be merced into this article. Worra Mait Kosit (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Still notable in its own right (in fact I see more about it then her).Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ingrid_Newkirk/Archive_1&oldid=1195707369"