Talk:Ingrid Newkirk

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 coninues 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 shoukdn'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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)