Talk:Animal testing/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Recent changes 2

The recent changes have turned this article, that used to be reasonably neutral, into a very one sided presentation. This contradicts WP:NPOV and WP:V. For example, if an editor thinks that view point A is the "dominant" one, and B is the "minority", then he must provide a reliable source saying so. Crum375 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states quite clearly that distinguiging majority from minority points of view is desirable, and that viewpoints held by a very small majority need not be stated at all. In my edits (which were not the only ones reverted), I clarified majority from minority points of view in the LEAD controversy paragraph, and in the ethics section. By the WP:UNDUE section of WP:NPOV, this is highly desireable. The section on animals coming into testing from "circuses, zoos, and animal trainers" refers to a very very tiny fraction of primates (chimps), the last "claimed" case was in the early 1980s (as cited on the primate testing page), and the source for the reference does not meet Wikipedia reliability standards (the anti-vivisection society does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking). You deleted the relevant section on actual standards applicable to pain and suffering in testing (which are as NPOV as you get, they are government documents that actually regulate the process). You removed a condensing of euthanasia methods which makes it much tougher to read. And your massive integrative revert also impacted at least a half dozen edits by others made with careful consideraiton. All in all, undoing such a substantial portion of work by a revert for unjustified POV rationales is highly unprofessional.--Animalresearcher (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Distinguishing minority from majority is fine, and encouraged, if properly sourced. But you can't decide that your own view is "dominant" without attributing that conclusion to a reliable source. Otherwise, you'd be engaged in original research and violating the neutral point of view policy. Crum375 (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

They are attributed to legal statements by representative governments. In both the cases of the US and Great Britain (and the EU) these statements occurred after hearings including contirbutions from a broad spectrum of citizens. The references point at the consensus summaries (UK) and at the newly written law (new in the mid 1980s) in the case of the USA. In the case of the Ethics section, I also included the most salient difference between the US and UK systems - the cost-benefit analysis. --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sure there are governments that would call George Bush a "war mongering terrorist." Yet, we can't include that, without quotes, in Wikipedia. Similarly here — if some reliable source states that a certain point of view is "dominant" and another view is "minority," then we need to quote and attribute that statement. Otherwise, it would as if Wikipedia itself is taking a position on the issue, which violates WP:NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case of governments name-calling - that is a very different issue. In this case, after protracted hearings, legislators wrote summaries into law to be used as guiding principles in the regulation of animal testing. As I also pointed out, these are summaries from REPRESENTATIVE governments. There is a need for the representation of viewpoints in Wikipedia to reflect their prevalence outside Wikipedia. Whereas the animal rights viewpoints are particularly tenaciously proferred, there have not been major representative governments that have given rights to animals beyond limited rights for some primates (as noted in the Ethics section currently). Surely if the majority viewpoint were something else, there would be SOME major government that did not approve of animal testing to advance medical and scientific goals provided animal suffering and use is otherwise minimized?

Also, the vast majority of "rights" arguments were not deleted - only a very few very minor arguments that are held and argued by very small minorities. The major animal rights arguments are still included, although it is now noted which ethical position is occupied by the majority. --Animalresearcher (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, your attempt to replace the ALF links is unacceptable. This is against policy and against consensus. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The ALF links is one item of many. But specifically, I don't see that link as being either against policy or consensus. Crum375 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

None of the uninvolved editors who commented at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Animal_Liberation_Front_references agreed with the idea of including these links. You and SlimVirgin are alone in your opinion and cannot try to push this extreme view into the article against this consensus by revert-warring. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no "consensus" there. A more logical place to discuss this issue is here, in any case. Crum375 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a Reliable Sources noticeboard specifically so that policies on sources can be held across the whole of Wikipedia. Extremist sources are to be avoided EXCEPT in articles on the extremist group themselves, and even then should only be used with caution - and they should NEVER over-ride a source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See my comments about PETA and PetaTV below. Crum375 (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The mass revert by Crum375 is an example of the "overreliance on reverting as an editing tool, rather than collaboration" that brought this article to mediation. Six days of good-faith edits [which I'm not saying are beyond criticism] by three long-standing editors of this article have been dismissed without prior discussion or agreement. In contrast, Tim's removal of the ALF "source" was based on discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard where the argument for its inclusion was not only lost, but also made moot by the addition of an AP news item as a source. The link is now redundant and its restoration about as welcome as online pharmacy spam in an article on erectile dysfunction. Colin°^Talk 21:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you agree that the edits are not "beyond criticism," you can hopefully see that they have shifted the article away from the reasonably neutral balance it had before. It would be helpful if you could suggest ways to restore that balance. My suggestion is to start at the point to which I reverted, which was a relatively stable version, and to scrutinize each addition for neutrality. Regarding the Britches video, as I noted elsewhere, there are good sources for it that hopefully we can all agree on. Crum375 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute that my edits were biased - and indeed my rationale was clearly set out - it is pretty blatant WP:OWN to revert several editors back to your own preferred "stable" version. --Coroebus 18:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There are three, short, AP newswire articles on the Britches incident that come from reliable sources. Everything else is "what ALF told PETA" and was reported as such by the major news sources. Wikipedia contains five times more material on Britches than everything ever published about the topic in a major newspaper or magazine. I am 100% in agreement that "What ALF told PETA about Britches" does not meet standards for reliable sources or verifiability. --Animalresearcher (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my comment wasn't clear. By saying they were not "beyond criticism" I was merely saying that I neither supported nor rejected all the edits. Judging whether the article is neutral or not would require far more experience of the subject matter than I have. You'll have to sort that one out between yourselves. Colin°^Talk 22:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No Crumb375, this is an unreliable source produced by an extremist organisation. It has no place whatsoever in this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that PETA is not a reliable source? Crum375 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It was shot by the ALF, sympathetically edited by a campaign group and hosted on a blog. Which part of WP:V do you think this satisfies? Colin°^Talk 22:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The "shooter" or reporter is not an issue. It's the publisher that matters for meeting WP:V requirements. And are you saying that PETA or PetaTV are not a reliable and verifiable source? If they are, then we can't pick and choose what part of their published material is reliable. Crum375 (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This ALF video is a ALF video if it is hosted on a blog, and it remains an ALF video if it is hosted by PETA. However much lipstick you try to put on this pig, you ain't convincing anybody that its Madonna. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to watch out with that metaphor on WP nowadays. ;^) But joking aside, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:V. Once a publisher is accepted as verifiable and reliable, we can't pick and choose its material. In this case, we have a video shot by the ALF, published by PETA on its PetaTV site. Since PETA and PetaTV are accepted as verifiable and reliable, their material, regardless of who prepared it for them, is acceptable also, including the Britches video. Note that Wikipedia does not strive for truth, but verifiability, so all we need to establish here is that a reliable source published this video and claims it shows Britches being rescued. Crum375 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Other discussions by disinterested parties on this page do not consider PETA to be a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#stopanimaltests.com_as_source. In addition, the claim MUST be put forth that by the nature of the ALF, no one at PETA or PETA_TV could have any knowledge about the accuracy of the materials in ALF videos. The sources offers the video with no fact-checking or accuracy. Therefore I conclude that publisher cannot be considered reliable or verifiable. Given that the university has publicly claimed that sections of the video were staged for effect, it is unclear how the video can be used. On top of all that, it is a primary source. There are at least three AP newswire articles on the event, they DO meet the standards for reliable sources (as a major newspaper), the Wikipedia presentation of Britches should stick closely to what THEY say about the events. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with establishing PETA as a reliable source. It is a 501(c)(3) organization with 2.7 million members, founded 28 years ago, with a legal liability for libel or fraud. If it tells us that a video it publishes shows X, we are allowed to say that PETA says that video shows X. We don't need to establish that X is "true." You are incorrect by implying that a reliable source must be a major newspaper — it depends on the situation. If the university claimed that the video was doctored, then we can (and should) add that sourced statement. But once we establish PETA's reliability and verifiability as a publisher, all its material can be included as reliable. I think your basic mistake is that you are assuming that "reliable" or "verifiable" mean "true", where in fact all they mean is that we can be sure that the source really said it, and that the publisher generally has a legal liability, and multiple vetting layers for accuracy (not a one person operation like a blog). PETA clearly meets those requirements. Crum375 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The criteria are not about legal liability. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy....In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." AND "Questionable sources:Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."

You see the criteria have nothing to do with legal liability for libel or fraud. They have to do with having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This specific video is a GREAT example why PETA is not acceptable as a source. They published an anonymously produced video without any fact-checking. There cannot be any fact checking when the producer of the video is anonymous. Even the reporting on this particular incident by major newspapers (which ARE considered among the MOST reliable sources) would not back the claims of PETA/ALF - they merely reported that PETA had stated something to them in a phone call. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The criteria are for fact checking, and any organization that has been around for many years must do so to survive, especially in the very litigious environment of the US. You say "nothing to do with libel or fraud", but Wikipedia says: "the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." [emphasis added]

Clearly PETA meets all these requirements. The liability aspect is most important over time, because if a publisher gets its facts wrong, it gets sued (in the US anyway). If you can point to a history of PETA getting its facts wrong and losing suits for inaccurate information over its 28 years, please provide the sources. Crum375 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest, that for recent history, you can read the issues related to "Primarily Primates" and PETA. Also, in the Silver Spring monkey case, they were accused of staging photographs by the laboratory involved. In nearly every one of their undercover cases, they have been accused of misrepresenting the facts and staging photographs, whether it be Covance, or Huntingdon, etc. But in the Primarily Primates case there are many witnesses from PP that testified as to the manipulation of the animals by PETA and staging of photographs, including throwing dirty materials into enclosures to take pictures of the filthy living conditions - and these were chimpanzees. That case was dismissed because of misrepresentation and fraud by PETA operatives. --Animalresearcher (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Allegations are easy to make, and are common in contentious areas. My request to you is to provide a source that shows that PETA has a history of being successfully sued for libel, in relation to publishing inaccurate or false information. If you have a reliable source showing this, please provide it, and not a list of unsourced allegations. Crum375 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We're wandering away from the point here, wherever this ALF video is hosted, it can't be regarded as a reliable source, since its authors are an extremist/terrorist organisation. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tim, you are again confused. The publisher is PETA, which is a reliable and verifiable source. Their published material is the video prepared by X. We don't care about the photographer or producer, any more than we do about a specific author at any publisher, which may even be anonymous. It is the publisher that makes a given source reliable and verifiable, not the author of the material. So in our case, if PETA says the video shows Y, we may say that according to PETA the video shows Y. We are not claiming Y is true, only that PETA says it. This is what reliability and verifiability is all about on Wikipedia. Crum375 (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing reliable or verifiable about a video with anonymous admittedly criminal producers. The publisher did not perform ANY fact checking and its reliability is questioned by non-anonymous officials at the University of California, Irvine. It would be hard to admit there were any standards for reliability or verifiability if the video is referencable at all except on the Britches page itself. --Animalresearcher (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If ABC News received a video showing an Al Qaeda operation, let's say, and decided to include the video on its website, you could still include it on Wikipedia and say here is a video of Al Qaeda operation X, published by ABC News. The point is that ABC News staff, in procuring and vetting the video, have checked it out for us, and we then accept them as the source. Same with PETA — they procure the video, check it, and stand behind it by publishing it on their website. Again, what matters for WP's verifiable and reliable sourcing purposes is not the author but the publisher. Crum375 (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And if some other reliable source then questioned the authenticity of the Al Qaeda video, we would include that information also, as we could include the university's reliably sourced comments about the Britches video. Crum375 (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If PETA had a reputation for fact checking and accuracy I think you would have a point. --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, I have never seen anyone so totally misunderstand sourcing. Is the Catholic church a reliable source for "Is the Pope Catholic?" Is the Catholic church a reliable source for "Did the Catholic church conspire with Nazis?" WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, this discussion is moot because we have a reliable source for the text in the article. To press for its inclusion when it is neither needed nor wanted is just wasting everyone's time. Secondly, I am amazed at the question "Is [a publisher] a reliable source".

1. "A reliable source" is not an on-off switch that means a particular source can be used to support any statement based on it. A video by Al Qaeda on ABC News shows only that Al Qaeda have made a video and said certain things. It in no way can be used as evidence that an Al Qaeda operation did what they claim it did. A responsible news organisation will make it clear that this is propaganda, and would probably heavily edit it and/or talk all over it.
2. A publisher's reputation is only one of many factors used to decide whether a source is reliable for certain purposes. Channel 4 News is highly respected as a TV news program. Immediately afterwards, is some rubbish featuring Gillian McKeith. Is Channel 4 a reliable source? It isn't an appropriate question. They are a relatively responsible broadcaster, subject to regulatory standards and punishment if they fail. That doesn't stop them publishing nonsense from time to time. Is Penguin Group a reliable source? Is Elsevier a reliable source (publisher of The Lancet and Medical Hypotheses to take two extremes)?
3. The "libel or fraud" test is largely irrelevant as few publishers have deep enough pockets to dare fall foul of that one. (Tabloid newspapers may see this as a business expense and publicity.) It is quite possible to tell mountains of lies and remain within the law. It is called Marketing.
4. As a campaign group, almost everything PETA produces is "promotional in nature" (which is one of the "questionable sources" tests in WP:V). The video is propaganda and should be treated with suspicion (as should a press release from an animal testing lab). This is why such sources should generally be avoided when used as evidence for worldly facts. We need to cite an independent third party with a reputation, blah blah. Animal testing is a big enough subject that scraping the barrel for the dregs is unnecessary. If it is a notable fact, someone good will have written about it. If they haven't, it probably isn't, and we probably shouldn't either.

Colin°^Talk 13:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this then imply that major restructuring of some sections on the page is desired, because it consists principally of sources from BUAV, PETA, ALF, or a direct scientist reply to the same? In each case, the source is either propaganda or marketing in response to propaganda. --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Any organization promotes something is not a neutral source on that something. The Democratic party is not a reliable source on the honesty of the Republican party. Animal rights groups can be counted on to promote animal rights. For profit groups can be counted on to act to promote their profits. News organizations will over emphasize the attention getting aspects. Researchers will over emphasize the research value. Governments will over emphasize how everything is under control. Etc. One must read a variety of sources, take biases into account, then use the best sources for the most credible claims. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In general I agree with WAS here. There are two separate independent issues with sources: their reliability/verifiability, and their neutrality/impartiality. In addition, each source must be weighed for its particular use on Wikipedia. If a source is an advocacy group (i.e. non-neutral), but is otherwise reliable and verifiable, we can use it to present its point of view. If it publishes images it or its representatives took in connection to their activities, then we are allowed to present them, properly attributed. Crum375 (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For the particular source in question, you are proposing to use PETA as the publisher of the ALF video, because it hosts the ALF video, unedited, on its web server. As has been pointed out numerous times, PETA did not edit the video, and it was given to them anonymously by a group that is clearly extremist by any reasonable definition of the term (ALF) and has no reputation for fact checking or accuracy. I do not think this constitutes a source that should be used in Wikipedia, There are three articles in mainstream newspapers on the event (reliable, third-party sources). Some of these newswire articles were carried in slightly edited versions in different newspapers. Those are sources that should be used to refer to the event in question. Here are the three articles, in their entirety, from the Chicago Tribune. The section on Britches would still need to be editing substantially to bring its POV in line with these third party sources. Also, the mainstream press carried only slightly less than 300 words on the incident (the third article, 80 words, was indirectly about the incident. You can note in the second article, for example, that the third party source takes responsibility for the accuracy of the statement that years of medical research were lost, and for referring to the smashing of equipment and theft of the animals. --Animalresearcher (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, PETA is a reliable source to publish a video shot by the ALF, which depicts the ALF's rescue of Britches. If another reliable source disputes the authenticity of that video, or claims it was doctored in some way, that should be also included. Crum375 (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the entire point on sourcing. Potential crap should not be referenced in Wikipedia. Just because more potential crap refutes the initial potential crap does not mean both should be published. If something is stated by a good source on the topic, it should be included. Otherwise, it is just a crap-flinging war. --Animalresearcher (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(od) I fully agree that "crap" shouldn't be included. But one editor's crap is another's gold, and that's why we have the content policies that try to be more specific. In this case, PETA is the world's largest animal rights organization, with nearly 2 million members, founded 28 years ago. They have multiple fact checkers and legal counsel, to ensure their published data is accurate. I have asked you above for a single reliable source showing they have ever been successfully sued for libel, or that they have a history of losing libel suits. I am still waiting. Crum375 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I may not be following this argument properly - but is Crum really proposing that lack of history of losing libel suits should be our criterion of a reliable source? --Coroebus 20:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read this thread in its entirety. In short, a reliable source has multiple people doing fact checking and legal scrutiny of its published data. Lack of both will, over time, result in losing libel suits. A clean history is proof of good work, especially when you publish a lot of controversial material over 28 years, as does PETA. Crum375 (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a crock of shit. I'm not aware of the British National Party losing libel suits either, but that doesn't make them a reliable source (see here for some more fun discussion of what is a reliable source on animal testing articles)! --Coroebus 20:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the actual content being disputed here - Crum's crazy new criteria for allowing any old crap to be a reliable source not withstanding - I don't think we ought to object to PETA's video being linked to (as a primary source, showing PETA's allgation; and providing we can be sure that the website, which isn't PETA itself, is genuinely showing what it claims) but it certainly can't be cited as a reliable source reference to what we are saying did in fact happen (i.e. it is a 'see X for the claim that Y' type reference, not a 'Y is true (X)' type reference. --Coroebus 20:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring your poor and unhelpful choice of language, I am not advocating using PETA as a source for us to state that the videoed event actually took place — for that we need unrelated sources, such as news media. But to say "here is the video shot by ALF, during their claimed rescue of Britches, as published by PETA," is perfectly OK. Crum375 (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And scarily enough I'm agreeing with you (although I think the cite needs reworking to look more like what you've written above, perhaps saying 'a video that PETA say was shot by...' or similar). --Coroebus 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That there is a video shot by ALF is not noted by any reliable sources. If there was something significant in the ALF video, surely there would be SOME reliable source reference to it. If there is not, there is probably a good reason why - either it fails a reliable sources' test of verifiability, or it lacks significance. If it passes both, then SOME reliable source will include a reference to such a video. What is noted by reliable sources is that ALF took animals and vandalized the campus at UC-Riverside, and made phone calls to news sources claiming it was a rescue. There is similarly no reliable source for the transfer of Britches to a sanctuary, or for the outcome of any of the other hundreds of animals that were taken. --Animalresearcher (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen several reliable sources stating that a video was shot by the ALF, and some sources claiming it was doctored, or that the original bandages or sutures were replaced, etc. It makes sense for us to rely on third party sources to mention that the video was taken, and to show the tape as published by PETA, alongside any reliably sourced criticisms. Crum375 (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The only source for the ALF tape is PETA. The only other references to the tape occur in Newkirk's book (PETA, once again). If you have a reliable source that meets wikipedia standards saying that ALF gave a video tape to PETA, then it would be a referencable event. I have dug long and hard for third party references to the Britches event, and the only references I found are already included below (each of these may appear in slightly edited versions in other newspapers on the same days as they were newswire stories). Prior to my editing of the Britches event it was largely transcribed into Wikipedia from the PETA website and Ingrid Newkirk's book. That it was an event of marginal significance should be obvious by the fact that less than 300 words, total, were devoted to the event by reliable third party sources. Yet there are over 900 words on the Britches page (mostly derived from books written by Newkirk and Steve Best). The entire event should be removed from Wikipedia. Alternately, we could go the other route, and include 1000 words on Hanzie, Pablo, and JoJo from http://www.neavs.org/programs/brochures/brochures_chimp.htm. Currently the Britches event in Wikipedia is a glorification of a poster-child for the animal rights movement that bore marginal significance in third party references. This is obvious from the fact that three times as much text is devoted to the animal as all reliable references combined. --Animalresearcher (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(od)I think we are in agreement, that if we mention the Riverside ALF break-in, and the removal of Britches, we can use the sources that refer to the video. The Best book includes references to the ALF video, and the university sources also refer to it, claiming it was doctored. So as part of the Riverside ALF incident in the Animal Testing article, we need to present the video as published on PETA's website, as well as the reliably sourced criticisms. Crum375 (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The name and character "Britches" do not exist outside of PETA propaganda. There are no reliable third party references to "Britches". There are third-party reliable references to a breakin at UC Riverside, theft of animals, and smashing of equipment. The story of Britches was created, produced, and edited by ALF and/or PETA. The Britches page is not what writing an encyclopedia is about. This is in stark contrast to other controversy incidents such as the Silver Spring monkeys about which many thousands of words were written in reliable third party sources. The UC Riverside breakins were a very minor event, and Britches was a non-event in the context of animal testing, or in the context of third-party reliable source reports. --Animalresearcher (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The book, Terrorists Or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, by Steven Best, Anthony J. Nocella, published by Lantern Books, is a reliable source. It specifically mentions the Britches incident and the video shot by the ALF and presented by PETA. Crum375 (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Steven Best is a former Press Officer for the Animal Liberation Front. As I stated before, the ONLY places you can read about Britches are PETA, ALF, and their agents. And WIkipedia. There are NO reliable third party sources on Britches. --Animalresearcher (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, a reliable source is the publisher, not the author. So unless Lantern Books is owned by ALF or PETA, this source is perfectly acceptable. Crum375 (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is not Lantern Books. The only primary source for Britches is the Animal Liberation Front. Anyone who uses the video as THEIR primary source fails the test of being a source concerned with fact checking. And any publisher who publishes material that rely on anonymous extremist videos as their primary source does not meet Wikipedia standards for a source under WP:V. This is not really a difficult issue. If Britches were a significant incident, surely there would be SOME third-party reference on Britches. But there is not. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's separate out the issues of notability and source reliability. If we mention the Riverside incident at all, then clearly the Britches video becomes relevant, if we can establish via a reliable third party source that there was such a video. You say that Lantern Books does not fact check its published

books, can you substantiate that with a reliable source saying it? Crum375 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you published something that included a reference to the Britches incident in which you referred to the incident as anything other than something included on a video made by anonymous extremists, I would consider you an unreliable source too. In this incident, the only primary source for Britches is a video made by anonymous extremists. I dispute that if we mention the Riverside incident at all that the Britches video becomes relevant. The third party sources on the Riverside incident do not refer to the video, nor do they refer to Britches. But there is more to this, also. If you go into any major animal testing center, and ask them to tell you about the Riverside incident, or ask them to tell you about Britches, they will have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what you are talking about. Even at UC Riverside many current animal testing faculty have no idea who Britches is. Those same people know EXACTLY what the Silver Spring monkey incident is, because it was enormously significant. Historically the Riverside incident shows up in reliable third party sources as three very short newswire articles which I have included below so that everyone can see the full scope of the third party reporting on this incident. It is also tiny and insignificant compared to the U Penn raids (which were also quite notable both at the time and in historic context). Another main issue is WP:UNDUE. There are less than 300 words published on the Riverside incident by reliable third party sources. And 900 on Wikipedia. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(od) AR, in Wikipedia we follow reliable sources, not our personal likes and dislikes. I asked you a simple question: can you substantiate your claim that the Lantern Books publisher does not fact check its published books? I have read your above response, and can't find the answer there. Unless you can prove that Lantern is unreliable, it is a good source, and hence we follow it. And if Lantern tells us that the Britches video, taken by ALF and presented by PETA, was part of the Riverside incident, then we present that on Wikipedia. This is what WP:V is all about. Crum375 (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out, any source that refers to the details of the Britches video is not reliable by Wikipedia standards, because the only primary source for the Britches incident is a group of anonymous extremists. Reliable third party accounts of the Riverside incident exist, and those sources should be used, and any sources that refers to the details that are accessible only in the ALF video as facts should not be used. And if Lantern Books published books by Ingrid Newkirk and Steve Best that referred to the details of the Britches incident as facts, then they are unreliable. And at this point I will stop mudwrestling the pig. You only get dirty, and the pig likes it. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

AR, you are wrong on all counts. First, primary sources used by a secondary source are not a criterion of reliability, only whether the source does fact checking, legal scrutiny, etc. That a publisher has previously published information that a Wikipedia editor disagrees with, is also not a factor in our policy. So again, we focus on the publisher, Lantern Books in this case, which is a reliable source unless you can provide a reliable source telling us Lantern doesn't do fact checking on its published books. Once we accept Lantern as our reliable source, then the Britches video, made by the ALF and presented by PETA according to the Lantern book, can be included. Crum375 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, will you stop repeating this nonsense that "a reliable source is the publisher". I wont repeat what I said above, which gives examples of why this is ridiculous. If you wish to change WP policy such that we only examine the publisher in order to determine whether a source is reliable, please post your request to the relevant policy page. The issues surrounding Lantern books were handled very nicely at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lantern books references. Colin°^Talk 07:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Colin, you are simply wrong here: the reliability and verifiability of a source is predicated on the publisher, not the author. In fact, the author may even be anonymous, but if we find the publisher reliable, the source is acceptable. The link you gave above adds no new information to this point. BTW, a source being POV, e.g. supporter of one side of an issue, assuming it is otherwise reliable, has no bearing on its reliability unless the publisher is widely considered as "extremist." Crum375 (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me also emphasize, again, that accepting a source as reliable or verifiable doesn't mean that we accept as gospel what it says, only that we believe that the publisher has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Also, any reader should be able to access this published information to verify what it says. All we are really saying is "X said Y", not that Y is true. Crum375 (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Therein lies the difference. If you are completely comfortable saying "Y is true" and referencing it to a publisher, that is because that publisher is reliable. When you have to say "X said Y is true" and reference it to the publisher, it is because the publisher is not reliable - you don't trust their fact-checking and accuracy enough to write it in your own words. The encyclopedia entries should all consist of statements such as "Y is true", and references that require saying "X said Y is true" should simply not be included. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"The encyclopedia entries should all consist of statements such as "Y is true", and references that require saying "X said Y is true" should simply not be included." — in that case, AR, how would you handle a situation of some big political conflict, say, where you have two opposing camps, both with reliable sources (big reputable publishing houses), one saying Black, the other White? If all we are allowed to include here are statements that we as editors believe are true, we'd end up with a very small encyclopedia, I suspect. Crum375 (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to include the source for an opinion or result generated by and attributed to the source. That is using a primary source ie: "BUAV says that animal testing does not yield reliable results". On the other hand, if HSUS publishes that there are 1500-1600 chimpanzees in animal testing in the USA, and Science magazine publishes an article written by some heads of the US primate centers that say there are 1133, you use the more reliable source and omit the unreliable (or in this case probably outdated) source. There is only one truth on any issue, and Wikipedia should report what the most reliable third-party secondary sources say it is. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AR, I think you are totally confused about Wikipedia. I really suggest you take some time and read WP:V. You may want to pay extra attention to: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." When you come back, you may be better able to understand our issues here. Crum375 (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite right...inline citations for material most likely to be challenged. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's part of it, and yes, we need to identify the reliable/verifiable material, and provide citations if we feel it may be challenged. But "truth" is never part of the equation. Crum375 (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC

break 1

I dunno, I stop editing for a while hoping that all the POV pushing of the past would die down and we would have sensible people not trying to push their agendas by warping policies. But it seems that it is exactly the same as it was before. *Sigh*

Anyway, on the issue of whether organisations such as BUAV, PETA and the publisher 'Lantern Books' are reliable sources, it is quite simply acceptable that all 3 are. BUAV is used regularly by national media in the UK, along with a good number of national store chains in the UK (The Co-op being one of them). PETA, as has been said, is a large organisation with a long history. They do not have a history of getting facts wrong and as such this means they have a history of good fact checking practices. (And no evidence has been presented here to counter that). Lantern books is a 10 year old company which publishes hundreds of books in areas related to spirituality, the environment, rights issues, etc... If they didn't fact check their books, they as a publishing house would face significant legal problems when things were presented incorrectly. So, again, they are a reliable source.

Stating that simply because they organisations' interests lie within the subject area (ie. PETA is an animal rights organisation etc...) they are unreliable is nonsense. If this were the case then any research by a scientist in the field of neurology would be unreliable as that person has interests in their field!!

So, put simply, just because they aren't a national media organisation, scientific organisation or a government department doesn't mean they are unreliable.

The video hosted by PETA on their PetaTV site is as good a source as any simply because they are the publisher. Many programmes on tv are created by third party companies, but the source would be said to be the channel that aired it - as they are the publisher. This situation is just the same.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of whether organisations such as BUAV, PETA and the publisher 'Lantern Books' are reliable sources, it is quite simply acceptable that none of the 3 are for many claims, yet are acceptable for other claims. BUAV being used regularly by national media in the UK proves nothing for claims that the media has not seen fit to reproduce and the media, anyway, is a very poor source - note how many media sources have made mistaken claims about wikipedia or Wikia. PETA is an organization dedicated to promoting a specific agenda and is not reliable as an unbiased source about claims related to that agenda. "If they didn't fact check their books, they as a publishing house would face significant legal problems when things were presented incorrectly" is factually incorrect. WAS 4.250 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't make those judgements though. By saying that, you are saying that national media itself could be classed as a poor source - for example, the BBC has published incorrect information on many occasions, but those occasions would still be acceptable as reliable sources due to their history. The false information would simply have to be countered by other reliable sources.

If you start making value judgements on whether a source is reliable on such a small scale then we will end up with huge and ongoing arguments.

Also, you are getting bias confused with reliable. An organisation can be biased but still be reliable - BUAV is one such organisation. Their research has been used as evidence in government reports in the UK on a few occasions. It has also been used in criminal trials, as has information from PETA.

And no, it is not factually incorrect that a publisher is held liable for the contents of books they publish. As the publishing house, they are responsible for the reliability of the material they produce. Read up on liable law and you will see this is the case. An example of a comparable situation - Channel 4 is held responsible for the material it airs, and not the people in the shows.

The key thing is that you simply have to attribute the claims that are made to the source. So 'PETA say', 'BUAV say' etc...-Localzuk^(talk) 18:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The key to sourcing is getting the best source for claims that a wide reading of relevant reliable sources indicates is a valid claim. It is mere wiki-lawyering to claim that a source is reliable and thus any claim from it is acceptable. As for book publishers checking the book for accuracy, I have read sources that say it is too expensive to do that and nowadays it is usually not done, but is left to the author to fact check. Do you have a source that claims every book maker fact checks every claim in every book they publish? Do you have any source on this topic at all? Or are you just repeating stuff other people here at wikipedia have claimed? WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:V, a publisher with a reputation for fact checking and legal scrutiny is considered a reliable source. This is unrelated to the publisher's POV — they could be advocating some specific agenda, but as long they are not a fringe "extremist" group (Stormfront is an example for that), they would be considered reliable for WP purposes. If they are new with no track record, or if they have a clear pattern of published misinformation with resulting lost lawsuits, that would probably rule them out as a source. If they are used as a source by mainstream media, that would generally increase their perceived reliability. Crum375 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as it is you (and AR) who are saying that these sources are unreliable but haven't provided any evidence to show this, I would say it is you who should be providing sources. On my side I have the fact that liability law states that if someone prints something about someone or an organisation that is incorrect that they are legally liable (ie. it is a crime to lie about a person or organisation in print). I also have the fact that the BUAV has been around for 110 years, and has been consulted by the UK government on the forumlation of animal testing policy/law and human rights.[1] We also have the fact that again, PETA has been around for 28 years, and I can't find a successful libel or defemation case against them. Can you provide evidence to show that these organisations are not truthful, and don't check their facts? Can you counter with any examples of failures to check their facts?-Localzuk^(talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The evidence that PETA is unreliable in its making of videos about ALF raids in the 1980s is quite clear in third party references, which are now included on the Britches and Unnecessary Fuss pages. Briefly, an article in the ILAR journal (published by the USA National Academies) details how the Office for the Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) co-analyzed the video ALF took from U Penn in their raids, and the edited video "Unnecessary Fuss" which was produced by PETA (Newkirk and Pacheco) and has a Newkirk voiceover. OPRR identified 25 errors in the voiceover by comparing it with the unedited source footage, and clearly identified intentional attempts to mislead the viewer. Within AT LEAST the context of mid 1980s videos of ALF raids made by PETA, they are an unreliable source as established by a third party investigation, the results of which are published in third party reliable sources. --Animalresearcher (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As a further point, reliability is a function of AUTHOR, PUBLISHER, and CONTENT. Ingrid Newkirk may be reliable and authoritative on the animal rights movements tactics, but she has a history of lying and misrepresenting things that occur in ALF raids. Or, even more specifically, she has a history of editing source footage to intentionally misrepresent the source, and of making errors of fact (ie: lying) in her voiceovers in the videos as documented by third party sources. However, as noted, unreliability is a function of author, publisher, and content. These unreliability issues occurred with respect to PETA's coverage of mid 1980s ALF raids. I think it is fair to say that PETA is an unreliable source across the board with respect to the facts that occurred in these raids (Silver Spring, Riverside, and Unnecessary Fuss). There are plenty of third party reliable sources on each, and it is a simple matter to stick to them. You will see though, on the Britches page, that Crum and SlimVirgin refuse to acknowledge this evidence on PETA's unreliability. --Animalresearcher (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not "evidence of unreliability". Any organization or person can claim some information someone published is wrong. To legally prove it's wrong, you have to sue in court and win. Even if you do win, you'd have to show a pattern of deception, over time, since even mainstream news media get facts wrong and lose suits sometimes. Crum375 (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

When someone analyzes your source and your report and finds that you are intentionally misleading the viewer of the report, and making multiple errors of fact in your report, then, yes it IS evidence of unreliability. Reliable means that you are accurate and fact check. When someone finds not only that you are not doing that, but that it is clearly intentional, then there is a reliability problem.--Animalresearcher (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Virtually every contentious statement could have an opponent analyzing it and finding it "intentionally misleading." Just look at political campaigns. The only objective way to assess misleading statements is in court. Everything else is subjective and depends on the beholder. Crum375 (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OPRR is not an "opponent". They are a third party. They were investigating issues that might relate to sanctions against U Penn, and sanctions followed (ie: they were not protecting U Penn, but investigating them). Their findings on the PETA reliability were not the primary purpose of their investigation, but no one from U Penn was in the OPRR investigation, and no one from PETA, only third party veterinarians (mostly from NIH). The Wikipedia standards of "third party reliable sources" claims PETA is unreliable in its presentation of those events. This is particularly strong evidence, because it is a very rare incidence in which some third party can examine both the source of a report and compare it to the report itself. It should also be clear that the OPRR did not consider PETA reliable, because it refused to proceed in its investigation of U Penn based only on the PETA video. If PETA was reliable, the investigation would have gone forward nonetheless. This unreliability (from OPRR's point of view) is a legal statement, because a legal investigation refused to consider a PETA report as evidence. They would investigate only on the source video. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OPRR is not a court of law. To my knowledge, PETA was not able to cross-examine witnesses, to get discovery, or otherwise legally defend its material. In addition, the actual "25 errors" include things that seem very minor, such as a liquid being spilled which the researcher states is "acid", and Newkirk in the voiceover also calls acid. Later it turns out to have been water. This kind of "evidence" would get no attention in a lawsuit, and this is why the OPRR review of a PETA tape is far from evidence of overall lack of reliability. If you can point to someone suing PETA for publishing incorrect information and winning in court, and this happening as a pattern over time, you'd be able to show it's not reliable. I am still waiting to see evidence of one such lost lawsuit. Crum375 (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If sanctions had been brought against U Penn based on the PETA video, then they certainly would have been sued for libel (and lost). However, you maintain that because no one took PETA seriously from the beginning, that they should be considered reliable? It fails at many levels, especially at common sense. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(od) AR, this is Wikipedia. We don't judge reliable sources by what you like or don't like. We use objective criteria, spelled out in WP:V. PETA, a 28 year old publisher, the largest animal rights organization in the world, with almost 2 million members, including many celebrities, is considered a reliable source pending objective proof showing otherwise. The only objective proof in this case would be a history of lost legal suits over the publication of false information. I am still waiting for you to give us one such example. Note that "reliable" for us does not mean gospel truth, only that we may refer to it as a source. Crum375 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, this is Wikpedia. It relies on third party reliable sources for its information. The criteria for reliable are that the source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Reliability is related to AUTHOR, PUBLISHER, and CONTENT. It is clear that a third party reliable source states that PETA is unreliable with respect to its reporting on ALF raids in the 1980s. Furthermore, the Wikipedia criteria, as expressed in WP:V and WP:RS make it clear that the reputation of reliability of the author and publisher with respect to the content is the criteria for assessing reliability, and not anything requiring a statement of legal liability (instead, it refers to a reputation for fact checking and accuracy). It is clear that third party reliable sources consider PETA unreliable with respect to its reporting on 1980s ALF raids, and there is not any counter-evidence. There is no third party reliable source stating that PETA was wrongly accused of being unreliable by OPRR. Nor is there any third party reliable reporting of PETA defending itself against such accusations. That is simply because the evidence is undeniable. Any reasonable person could analyze the source and the edited video. In fact, PETA could have sued OPRR if it was wrongly accused for defamation. But there was no lawsuit. The authors are Ingrid Newkirk, Alex Pacheco, and PETA. The publishers are Lantern Books and PETA and PETAtv. And the content is mid 1980s ALF raid reporting. In any case when these three occur together, the criteria for an unreliable source are met. That is not to say that Lantern Books is unreliable in its other publications, or that the authors are unreliable on theirs. But this is strong evidence, and good encyclopaedia practice precludes using it. --Animalresearcher (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me please where in our policies it says that "reliability is related to AUTHOR, PUBLISHER, and CONTENT"? And can you show me where it says that if we find a third party who considers a source "unreliable," that source is no longer a reliable source for Wikipedia? Crum375 (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the footnotes in WP:V for reliability being related to author, publisher, and content. With respect to reliable sources, it says "The word "source," as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability." There is not a clear policy on when a source is definitively considered unreliable. I have asked at the reliable sources noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Britches_page for judgment regarding this specific issue, some time ago, and still have not received an answer. --Animalresearcher (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That footnote is a recent addition, AFAICT, that says these components "affect reliability", but gives us no guidance how to judge those effects. In the main text, however, we are told that "as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." Since we only accept published sources, the reliability criteria are generally those of the final publisher, who is legally and financially liable for errors. Again, having a reliable source X does not mean that we accept what X says verbatim, only that we can say that "X said Y." Crum375 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Crum, that is mere wiki-lawyering. Ignoring the point and spirit of the rules to made wikipedia a worse encyclopedia is against the rules, please stop it. Further your dismissal of policy and inventing your own unsubstantiated claims is beyond the pale. Just stop it. You are convincing no one and making yourself look bad. Stop it. Please. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense WAS, that is not wiki-lawyering - it is pointing out that you and AR are wrong. Having one source, the OPRR, say that there were inaccuracies in one video from so long ago does not automatically make PETA an unreliable source. Otherwise we could say that about any organisation or media source, as they are all said to publish inaccuracies from time to time. The issue is that overall PETA has a track record of publishing accurate information, which is backed up by the fact that they have not been sued by the organisations they publish said information about. The same goes for BUAV (which it is plainly ridiculous to argue are unreliable). And again for Lantern Books. You have not shown any evidence that these sources are unreliable or that they don't have a history of fact checking and accurate publications. All you have shown is that one video was analysed by one organisation (which, by the way was specifically set up to protect research, so would have a bias on this issue anyway (but that doesn't mean unreliable)) and said to contain inaccuracies. Any further arguing that they are unreliable without any evidence is simply hot air and pointless. Please provide evidence that PETA have not got a track record of good fact checking, that BUAV have not got a good record and that Lantern Books haven't.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(OD)The source is not OPRR. They were the first party investigating U Penn that issued findings about PETA. The source has author, publisher, and content. The authors are three academic faculty PhD bioethicists. The content is an article on "Roots of Concern with Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Ethics", and they are analyzing the contribution of incidents like the U Penn incident on the evolving ideas of ethics in animal testing. The publisher in the US National Academy of Sciences (it is ILAR journal). In other words, we have a highest reliability third party source stating that PETA is unreliable. Furthermore, there is no third party reliable source to provide any alternative explanation for the OPRR findings in the edited video tape. As I also pointed out, the degree to which reliability can be assessed in this case is extraordinary, because it is a very rare situation in which a legal investigatory body has both the source of a report, and the report itself, and opportunity to compare them. This does represent wiki-lawyering, because the evidence, and common sense, dictate that anything that is found in a PETA video about a 1980s ALF raid should not be considered to have been subject to much fact checking, and its accuracy can be expected to be intentionally misleading. That is against the spirit AND text of WP:V and WP:RS. I suspect that this situation is rare enough that the normal protocols are Wikipedia are not sufficiently strong to ensure adherence to policy, especially when multiple Wikipedia admins seem adamant about including unreliable sources. Wikipedia seems more tolerant of including both the unreliable source and the evidence that it is unreliable than not including it at all. --Animalresearcher (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You have missed the point - you are using a single example from ~20 years ago to say that PETA, as a whole, are unreliable. That is not sufficient.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not insufficient. It is limited in scope. The PETA of the early and mid 1980s is not the same as the PETA of today with respect to reliability. In the Silver Spring case, the U Penn case, and the UC Riverside case, allegations were made that PETA grossly overstated deficiencies in animal care programs. In the U Penn case this was proven to be true. In the UC Riverside case an eight month long investigation of the animal care program (by NIH) found it appropriate and not requiring correction. In the Silver Spring case multiple lines of evidence were introduced at trial to state that photos were staged and animal care was not as bad as Pacheco made it out to be. This is not to whitewash the animal care programs, because there were inadequacies found in Taub's program, and in the U Penn program, and action was taken against them. The point is that PETA unreliably reported the findings in each case, with very strong evidence in the U Penn case. Wikipedia policy dictates that in the cases when the author and content are PETA and 1980s ALF raids, that PETA be treated as an unreliable source. In cases in which the content is different, re-consideration of reliability would be required. --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Here is the relevant text from the Britches page which includes one reliable third party source on the unreliability of PETA.--Animalresearcher (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of PETA videos about ALF raids

A similar film was released after the ALF raid on the University of Pennsylvania one year earlier. The Office for Protection from Research Risks ran an investigation on the incident, due to concern about animal treatment in the labs. The investigation included comparing the video footage taken in the U Penn raid with the Unnecessary Fuss video produced by PETA and containing Ingrid Newkirk's voiceover. The PETA video "presented the case history of only one of approximately 150 animals that had received whiplash. By clever editing and inaccurate voice over, the viewer was led to believe that the inhumane treatment depicted on the film was repeated numerous times. In actual fact, one baboon was badly treated, and the film repeatedly showed the particular mistreatment while the commentator narrated that the mistreatment was repeated on a long series of different animals. In all, OPRR identified approximately 25 errors in the voice over description of what was taking place."

break last

---

260 TEST ANIMALS 'LIBERATED' FROM LAB Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext) - Chicago, Ill. Author: Chicago Tribune wires Date: Apr 21, 1985 The Animal Liberation Front claimed the "rescue" Saturday of 260 laboratory animals from a University of California research center. "Early this morning, (16 members of) the Animal Liberation Front rescued 260 animals" from laboratories at the university's Riverside campus, Vicky Miller of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said. She said the university "has been using animals in experiments on sight deprivation and isolation for the last two years and has recently received a grant, paid for with our tax dollars, to continue torturing and killing animals." Campus spokesman Jack Chappell replied, "The claims of animal mistreatment are absolutely false. There will be long-term damage to some of the research projects," including those aimed at developing devices and treatments for blind people.

RAID ON ANIMAL LAB 'SETS BACK' RESEARCH [SPORTS FINAL, C Edition] Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext) - Chicago, Ill. Author: Chicago Tribune wires Date: Apr 22, 1985 Years of medical research were lost when a group opposed to animal experimentation raided a university laboratory, smashing equipment and taking about 260 animals, officials said Sunday. The raid, on Saturday, for which the Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility, resulted in "several hundreds of thousands of dollars" damage, said Theodore Hullar, executive vice chancellor of the University of California's Riverside campus. "Research has been set back years," he said. Edward Carroll, an associate professor of biology, said the loss of about a dozen rabbits seriously undermined his research on fertility.

CRACKDOWN URGED IN ANIMAL THEFTS Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext) - Chicago, Ill. Author: Chicago Tribune wires Date: Apr 26, 1985 Thefts of laboratory animals by animal rights groups could be considered acts of terrorism and may require enactment of federal laws against such raids, says the director of the National Institutes of Health. "There are limits to civil disobedience we can tolerate as an expression of dissent," Dr. James Wyngaarden said Wednesday. He referred to a weekend raid by a group calling itself the Animal Liberation Front on the University of California's Riverside campus in which 467 animals were taken.

Of relevance to current discussion

Please see Talk:Britches_(monkey)#Proposal_to_move. --Animalresearcher (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Highlighted cases

I was considering replacing one of the older examples in this section with a brief outline of Dolly the sheep, probably the most notable example of a recent animal experiment, and one that raised several controversial ethical issues. It will also be useful that this experiment has been covered in many reliable sources, since it is much better-known than most of the other examples here. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would start by fixing up her article — it seems a little ragged — see Death as example. Crum375 (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That was just some vandalism, reverted. Another one to consider is the discovery of embryonic stem cells in mice in the 1980s, this is also a highly controversial and relevant result from animal testing and the basis of the current animal research into stem cell treatments. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dolly has been added. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

New Scientist

An opinion piece in the New Scientist may be of interest to editors here.

• Matthews, Robert (16 February2008). "Comment: Truth is the best defence". New Scientist (2643): 20. Retrieved 2008-02-21. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

In it, he investigates the claim "virtually every medical achievement of the last century has depended directly or indirectly [on research involving animals]", which is noted in the lead of this article. I suspect his views aren't notable enough for his opinion to be worth citing, but you guys might be interested in his argument, particularly the need to provide evidence for ones claims: an issue we all struggle with. Apparently his investigation results are due to be published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Colin°^Talk 18:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I'll read it when it comes out, but I guess the nub is what you mean by "indirectly", for example if you consider the production and use of antibodies in some part of the research process as an indirect use, then animal use is probably vital to much of biomedical research, but if you focus on "animal tests" in the more narrow definition, this statement is probably untrue. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Rollins

From what I've read Rollins seems to have extended Tom Regan's argument further then Regan originally contended, but I'm very conscious that philosophy isn't my subject. Could somebody check this is an accurate assessment of the two arguments? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

Hi everybody, thanks very much for all your work over the last few months. I think this article is now reasonably neutral, stable and well-referenced enough to be nominated as a Good Article. Are there any outstanding issues people think we should deal with before I put it forwards? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

SHAC video gives me a 404 not found error, is this the same on other people's computers? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the article does look good. One problem I see is that the "History" section still seems to give more of a history of the animal testing controversy instead of the actual history of animal testing itself. Otherwise, the article looks good. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I added a note on mouse transgenesis and condensed the text a bit. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cla68 still. The History section is problematic. It contains one timeline for science advances from animal testing, and another timeline for ethical debate and law changes for animal testing. This clue should make it obvious there are two topics contained in this history section, although this is not explicit. The ethical debate section relies far too strongly on empathetic quotations from specific people who do not speak authoritatively (ie: are not spokespersons for testing agencies or the law or animal protection agencies) on the debate in their time (particularly Charles Darwin and Edwin O'Meara), and is just disjointed. For example, it writes As the use of animals increased, so did criticism and controversy. In 1655, physiologist Edmund O'Meara is ... Notably, animal testing did not have substantial increases in the 1600s that are documented anywhere in any animal testing articles. If anything, advances in anesthetics made such studies far more common starting in the late 1800s. The American Physiological Society was founded in 1887 with 28 people. The Journal of Physiology (UK) was started in 1878. The section on the debate further completely ignores any history of debate or legislation outside western Europe, which is today a minority player in animal testing worldwide (and its presence is shrinking yearly as Asia ramps up its animal testing). --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph on toxicity testing, and reworded that problematic introduction to the controversy paragraph. Some good sources on non-European animal testing in the 18th and 19th centuries would let us write about it, but I'm not sure if there is anything addressing that subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find the ILAR article http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/40_1/40_1Roots.shtml provides a nice summary of the "modern" history of ethics in animal testing in the USA and UK. This is a broad summary written by academic biomedical ethicists. --Animalresearcher (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also interesting and of historical note in the antivivisection debates in the late 19th/early 20th century. http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/mole/c/cannon.htm --Animalresearcher (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 16, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: There is a section order issue, but I bring it up in the NPOV section because that is the policy I cite. Other than that, there were a couple little things I fixed. I might poke around and do some more copyediting. Take it as a very good sign that your most obvious breach of MOS is in image placement. If you're having trouble with dealing with this, I can take a crack at it if you want.The article violates some pretty basic principles of good image placement per WP:MOS#Images, if you have too many images to follow these guidelines some should be removed:

1. Images should never be facing each other directly on either side of the text (like in Drug testing), it seriously impairs the readability of the text.
2. Images shouldn't be stacked in long rows directly on top of each other. Please stagger them left and right or give some space between images placed on the same alignment. It can interfere with text formatting (depending on your browser I believe) and it just looks plain ugly.
3. When making left-aligned images, please avoid divorcing headers and text (like in Toxicology testing), this can be solved by simply placing an image right on top of the header markup (in the edit window) instead of just below. That way headers and text are both shifted to make way for the image.

2. Factually accurate?: Utilizes reliable sources and makes more than sufficient (for GA) citations to such sources. Good work!

3. Broad in coverage?: Broad in coverage.

4. Neutral point of view?: I'm personally neutral on animal experimentation, and this article almost reads entirely so too. However, saying "and killed during or after the experiments" in the second sentence of the article feels like it's trying to influence the reader. It may be true, but whether or not they are killed is a moot point at that juncture in the article: to me the sentence is supposed to be conveying the simple size and prevalence of animal testing, not how it's conducted. Noting that many of them are killed seems to me like it should come in the last paragraph, as death (with suffering, of course) is one of the basic arguments against it. Most importantly, WP:NPOV unequivocally advises against separate Criticism and Controversy sections. The contents of the section should be subsumed in to the History section, and the header "Controversy" replaced or removed. I personally think that "Highlighted cases" is a sufficient title, but whatever you want. I cannot in good conscience pass the article when the Controversy section is segregated against the strictures of our NPOV policy.

5. Article stability? No edit wars, etc.

6. Images?: Meets the criteria, as all images are accounted for with license tags and fair use rationales (where necessary).

Overall, I'm very impressed at the stability and quality of this controversial article. You should be proud!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. VanTucky 00:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!

• I've broken up the stacks of images and the left/right image-flanked text and tried to ensure none of them separate headers from the text of a section.
• Renamed the controversy section "Prominent cases", since it doesn't actually discuss the controversy directly, only lists some of the famous cases from the media. I've also moved the note in the lead on animals being killed to a separate sentence, but kept it in the first paragraph. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work! I've passed it now. VanTucky 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect information in History of Animal Use

The history section states that treatments for leprosy were developed in armadillos in the seventies and then used in humans. In fact, treatment for leprosy is antibiotics (dapsone, first used in 1941). A vaccine for leprosy was in fact developed in armadillos and seemed to hold great promise - but was shown in 1992 to be ineffectual (you will note that the citation in the history section is from 1981). See "Armadillo leprosy and a failed vaccine" by H.P. Burchfield, the scientist who (controversially, as Eleanor Storrs also claims the honor) first recognized leprosy in armadillos, in World journal of microbiology & biotechnology ISSN 0959-3993 1999, vol. 15, no6, pp. 653-667 (2 p.1/4). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dulcimerchristy (talk • contribs) 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See : Scollard DM, Adams LB, Gillis TP, Krahenbuhl JL, Truman RW, Williams DL (2006). "The continuing challenges of leprosy". Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 19 (2): 338–81. PMID 16614253.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

M. leprae has never been grown on artificial media but can be maintained in axenic cultures in what appears to be a stable metabolic state for a few weeks (414). As a result, propagation of M. leprae has been restricted to animal models, including the armadillo (415) and normal, athymic, and gene knockout mice (222). These systems have provided the basic resources for genetic, metabolic, and antigenic studies of the bacillus. Growth of M. leprae in mouse footpads also provides a tool for assessing the viability of a preparation of bacteria and testing the drug susceptibility of clinical isolates (364, 414)

i.e. you need to cultivate the organism so you can find which antibiotics are effective. This review also discusses how effective the various forms of the BCG vaccine are against leprosy, and the state of vaccine research. I'll add this reference to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Dapsone treatment pre-dates the use of the armadillo, but the emergence of dapsone-resistant leprosy, and patients who no longer responded to dapsone therapy, were troublesome. Multidrug therapy, which effectively cures most patients, is the current treatment, and it was first deployed on a broad scale on Malta in 1972 (before the armadillo) using rifampin, prothionamide, dapsone, and isoniazid (isoniazid is known to be ineffective today). The armadillo model was established in the 1970s (Leprosy in the Armadillo: New Model for Biomedical Research Storrs et al. Science 1 March 1974: 851-852). With the introduction of the armadillo model, large quantities of the bacilli were available for biochemical and metabolic research. Nearly all studies using "in vitro" supplies of M. Leprae after 1975 were using bacilli grown in, and purified from, armadillos. The drugs used on Malta were not the same as those recommended by the WHO in 1982, because cross-resistance of the drugs had not been evaluated although it was generally known that dapsone resistant leprosy was susceptible to rifampicin. The final choices of drugs by the WHO came in multiple stages - first laboratory tests on cross-resistance were done to refine the choices of antibiotics, and then these combinations were tested in clinical trials. The laboratory tests greatly expedited the process, and they used bacilli from armadillos. I agree the text could use refining, but the armadillo-sourced bacilli were used to develop the most common treatment of leprosy for the last 26 years. --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete description of primate research at UCLA

In the current entry about the primate research that was performed at UCLA, the experiments are described this way: "each monkey was paralyzed, then used for a single session that lasted up to 120 hours, and finally killed". This description makes one wonder whether the monkeys might have been in pain or distress during those 120 hours. It misses a key fact: the monkeys were deeply anesthetized (with sufentanyl, an extremely potent opioid) throughout the duration of the experiment. My suggestion is to drop the words quoted above, or if it is deemed best to keep them, at least to add the fact that the animals were deeply anesthetized.

Do you have a source that discusses this anesthesia? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not anesthesia, it is analgesia. The preparation is discussed in depth in multiple peer review papers by the author in question. This link has a descripion http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/97/1/407 The preparation includes a full anesthesia to surgical plane by isoflurane for the surgical portion, which is generally the first 1-5 hours depending on the skill of the surgeon, and then the preparation is transferred to a paralyzed preparation, with ventilation, and a large dose of sufentanyl, for up to 120 hours. This paralyzation and analgesia manipulation is nearly identical to the procedures followed in human eye surgeries in which paralytics must be used to prevent eye movements or drift during surgery, and is a standard, approved, preparation for all investigators using this line of experiments (NYU, UCLA, UCSF, and others have all approved it as well as the USDA, AVMA, and AAALAC). --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For those with journal access problems, here is the relevant excerpt from J Neurophysiol 97: 407-414, 2007. First published October 4, 2006; doi:10.1152/jn.00830.2006

All experiments were approved by the UCLA Animal Research Committee and were carried out following National Institutes of Health's Guidelines for the Care and Use of Mammals in Neuroscience. Acute experiments were performed on anesthetized and paralyzed adult Old-World monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Initially, the animal was sedated with acepromazine (30–60 µg/kg), anesthetized with ketamine (5–20 mg/kg, im) in the cage, and transported to the surgical suite. Initial surgery and preparation were performed under isofluorane (1.5–2.5%). Two intravenous lines were put in place. A urethral catheter was inserted to collect and monitor urine output, and an endotracheal tube was inserted to allow for artificial respiration. All surgical cut-down sites were infused with local anesthetic (xylocaine 2%, sc). Pupils were dilated with ophthalmic atropine, and custom-made gas permeable contact lenses were fitted to protect the corneas. After this initial surgery, the animal was transferred to a stereotaxic frame. At this point, anesthesia was switched to a combination of sufentanil (2–6 µg/kg/h) and midazolam, or sufentanil (0.15 µg/kg/h) and propofol (2–6 mg/kg/h). We proceeded to perform a craniotomy over primary visual cortex. The animal was paralyzed (pavulon, 0.1 mg/kg/h) only after all surgical procedures, including the insertion of the electrode arrays, were complete.

To ensure a proper level of anesthesia throughout the duration of the experiment, rectal temperature, heart rate, noninvasive blood pressure, end-tidal CO2, SpO2, and EEG were continually monitored by an HP Virida 24C neonatal monitor. Urine output and specific gravity were measured every 4–5 h to ensure adequate hydration. Drugs were administered in balanced physiological solution at a rate to maintain a fluid volume of 5–10 ml/kg/h. Rectal temperature was maintained by a self-regulating heating pad at 37.5°C. Expired CO2 was maintained between 4.5 and 5.5% by adjusting the stroke volume and ventilation rate. The maximal pressure developed during the respiration cycle was monitored to ensure that there was no incremental blocking of the airway. A broad spectrum antibiotic (bicillin, 50,000 IU/kg) and anti-inflammatory steroid (dexamethasone, 0.5 mg/kg) were given at the beginning of the experiment and every other day.

--Animalresearcher (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be correct to say:

The researcher had received a grant to use 30 macaque monkeys for vision experiments; each monkey was anesthetized, paralyzed, used for a single session that lasted up to 120 hours, and then euthanized.

Comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It may come down to splitting hairs, but the experiments uses anesthesia first during surgical procedures, and then a combination of analgesia and paralytics during physiological procedures. So I might change, in your statement, "anesthetized, paralyzed, used for a " to "anesthetized, then paralyzed with analgesia for a single physiological experiment lasting up to 120 hours, and then euthanized". These are relevant salient points. Before, this class of experiment used to be performed with the paralytics and without analgesia. At that time, the same procedures were performed in some human surgeries. It was discovered that some of the humans remembered the procedure and were somewhat traumatized by the paralytics and surgical approach. In the human procedures they added a huge dose of opiates (sufentanil) and the trauma went away. Over time, this approach was adopted, with force and explicit wording in the Animal Welfare Act, that paralytics without analgesics are NEVER allowable. Through this meandering history these procedures use the combination of anesthesia and analgesia that are in use today. Some people may refer to this combination as anesthesia, but that is technically not correct. --Animalresearcher (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the entry. It is much more informative this way. I am not completely in agreement with the word "analgesia" though. It is true that at low doses opioids are analgesics rather than anesthetics, but at those high doses most people would call them anesthetics. More importantly, the Methods section shown above by Animalresearcher indicates that in addition to sufentanil an anesthetic was given: either midazolam or propofol. So I would definitely say that the animals were under anesthesia, not just analgesia. [User:ProtectedModeOn]

The authors definitely refer to it as anesthesia. This combination used to achieve neuroleptanalgesia (mainly referring to the midazolam case) is not well vindicated as a proper anesthesia combination though. For those not used to dealing with such issues, an analgesic does not prevent conscious awareness of pain, but does prevent the pain from being distressing. Anesthesia prevents conscious awareness of the pain and any response to it. The two cases are sufentanil+propofol (propofol is an anesthetic by itself at the doses listed) and sufentanil+midazolam (my perception is that this is not an anesthetic by a neuroleptanalgesic not suitable for procedures requiring a higher surgical plane of anesthesia). But such hair splitting may be over the top. I think it is fine to refer to it as anesthesia. --Animalresearcher (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

On further followup, the combinations are both referred to as anesthesia in human surgical publications on the topic ie: Anesthesiology. 1996 Sep ;85 (3):522-35 Multicenter study of target-controlled infusion of propofol-sufentanil or sufentanil-midazolam for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia (McSPI) Research Group.

U Jain, S C Body, W Bellows, R Wolman, C M Mangano, J Mathew, E Youngs, R Wilson, A Zhang, D T Mangano --Animalresearcher (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV/Undue Weight

Hola,

I've been hunting around a lot of animal testing/rights articles on wikipedia, google, and pubmed (school research)... and quite a few of these articles seem to advocate the minority position. One that jumped out at me was the recent edit I made to this article, in the introduction, where originally the BUAV is said to question the scientific benefits of animal testing. The reference cites the BUAV website, and their website only goes so far as to equate animal testing with the continued presence of adverse reactions in humans. The attempted link is clearly an attempt at equating correlation with causation, which obviously isn't acceptable.

Further, there are no reputable, peer-reviewed sources (that i've found, please correct me if i'm wrong) which state that there are few or no benefits to animal testing/research. In my view, taking the BUAV's "word" on this is not credible, as science should only be refuted by science. This seems similar to the debate over creationism and Intelligent Design--proponents of ID choose to ignore the majority scientific consensus and twist (or outright ignore) the science to fit their pre-existing viewpoint.

In this case, I don't believe the BUAV's views deserve as much credibility as they are given in this article. I left their philosophical objections intact, however, as that is certainly open to debate.

-Monolith2 (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The BUAV are the oldest and most widely respected animal rights organisation in the world. Their views are taken into account, for example, by the UK government when they investigate animal welfare and rights related issues. Their word can be listened to just fine. Also, there are several mentions of BUAV in the article and their belief that animal testing is bad science. Which aspect are you referring to?

Also, there are a great many books available who make the same claim, that animal testing is bad science. Some authored by animal rights related individuals, and some by doctors. Why are you choosing the BUAV references in particular?

Finally, we provide an overview to a subject as the world as a whole sees it. This includes viewpoints that go against the scientific community, and as such can't simply be sourced from peer reviewed sources.-Localzuk^(talk) 08:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I planned on going through the entire article at some point later this week; that one edit I made just seemed glaringly out of place so I edited it first.

I certainly understand the need to represent minority viewpoints, but much of this article seems to portray animal research/testing as going against the very principles of the people who practice it - i.e. the scientific community - which isn't true. This goes beyond simply representing a minority view.

I'm certainly open to a section on the ethical and moral concerns of animal testing, as that's all personal opinion. But it doesn't seem proper to state - in the introduction, no less - that a reputable counterpoint to published medical literature considers animal research "bad science." Indeed, the very source that sentence cited was to an FAQ on the BUAV website which didn't even declare animal testing bad science, but just attempted to present adverse drug reactions as something that animal testing hasn't prevented. The only peer-reviewed sources the FAQ lists for this section are studies which have nothing to do with the relation between animal research and safe drugs. The FAQ is full of weasel words and other nonsense that would not be tolerated on Wikipedia itself, so I don't see how it's a serious source or counterpoint to scientific consensus on the matter.

Minority opinions are certainly welcome to representation in this article, but how extreme should that be taken...? Should the article on evolution contain a section of bible quotes as a serious counterpoint to that theory?

-Monolith2 (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead should contain a summary of the main points of the article. Therefore, there should be mention that the scientific validity of animal testing as this is discussed in further detail in the main body of the article. Otherwise, the fact that is a controversial subject is not getting enough coverage in the lead (as it stands, the paragraph about the controversy is mostly about proponents which is bad enough). Also, there does not need to be a source for anything within the lead, so long as it is discussed within the main body of the article, so even though the particular website didn't really cover the issue sufficiently, the links later in the article do.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... as I said, I plan on going through the whole article and trying to even things out a bit. Perhaps we could even create a separate page dealing with the ethics of animal testing and leave this page for the nitty-gritty undisputed facts of why animals are used, what types of animals are used, how these models are effective or ineffective, how successful or unsuccessful theyve been in research, the conditions the animals are held in, etc?

You're welcome to revert that edit I made until I get a chance to sit down and go over the whole thing. When I get around to editing what I think improves the article, should I just post the whole thing up on my talk page or something for us to discuss? Or is there some better way of going about it?

It might take me a couple weeks to get sorted, though. Next week is class finals, so i'm a lil bit busy. I shouldn't even be dallying around on WP right now, actually... i've got a paper due tomorrow morning. lol

-Monolith2 (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The controversy should be dealt with in this article not in it's own article as that would be classified as a POV fork. Also, it is best not to damage the flow of the article as it stands, as this flow was what lead to the article achieving good article status.

If you want to make major changes, I would suggest making a copy of the page as a userspace subpage and edit that, posting here when you're done, so we can have a look. Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 12:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The introduction needs to describe what these groups' believe, this isn't an endorsement of these views, but a description of what these views are. However, I've reworded this sentence a little to make it clear that it is describing the views of a broad range of groups, not just the BUAV. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Title Change to Animal Research

This piece should be changed to "Animal Research", with animal testing linking to it. The reason is that "testing" has strong connotations of safety testing, which is only a part (approx 1/3) of animal research. To, say, study the physiological properties of an animal's heart is much better explained by the word "research" than by the word "testing". 69.143.106.43 (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)London Prophet

This has been a frequent point of discussion in the past. Part of the issue is that terminology is different in the USA and UK. In the USA, the term "animal testing" gives strong connotations to safety/toxicology testing, and does not typically refer to research (say, physiological, for example). In the UK, however, the terminology is different. I do not know the capabilities of Wikipedia to have dual-titles, or a differentiator at the top to title the page differently in the header. I prefer the term animal research, but this debate is not about me, and there have been many debates on this exact point in the last few years, and there is a valid point that UK terminology is different. --Animalresearcher (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

Having the image of Enos next to the first introductory paragraph is about as neutral and representative as showing a picture of Stalin near the beginning of the atheism article would be. --Jane Rightall (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And what image would you propose to replace it with? Rockpocket 00:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

IIRC it was chosen because it is public domain, and because primates are among the highest profile animals used in testing, and because the testing agency hosted the image itself as representative of its actions. --Animalresearcher (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of animal testing

This article doesn't say much about the reliability of animal testing. It only has two mentions of its accuracy one of which is about how pain could affect the results. I think it deserves a section of its own, right now the article is mainly concerned with the controversies surrounding animal testing. For example I was just reading the Sugar substitute article; it makes a few mentions about some substitutes having adverse effects in mice although they apparently are absent in humans. 203.218.20.203 (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If it were possible to separate the reliability of animal testing from the reliability of the scientific method it might be desirable. Are there reliably-sourced, third-party works on the reliability of animal testing that consider it independently from the scientific method? --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean whether or not empirical evidence in animals is sufficient to be applied to humans. Animal testing uses the scientific method to determine what reaction the subject has. Animal testing can reliably prove whether or not it has any effect on that species. By unreliability I mean how applicable it is to humans. Oh and don't get me wrong, this isn't sock puppetry or whatever, i just forgot to log in for the first comment above. Stinkypie (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You are referring to "animal testing" as in "testing the toxicity/safety of products meant for humans on animals". Only a small part of this article is about that, since much, >99%, of "animal testing" (as we use the term here) is about using animals in lots of other types of experiments, where the "reliability" of the experiment in comparison to humans is not relevant. I would suggest the section you propose would be better suited to our dedicated article on toxicology testing, though there does appear to be some discussion on that there already. Rockpocket 16:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Rocketpocket, I agree with what you say, but I think there may be a larger issue as well. I recall a study, perhaps something about a 'rat hotel', that might have shown that isolated animals sometimes respond in a contradictory way from animals living in a social grouping. Sorry, this is off the top of my head, but I'll look for some refs. Whether this type of social/behaviorial change affects physiological responses could be relevant about the reliability of animal testing. It seems that if some drugs that passed animal tests haven proven unsafe for humans, that might also speak to the reliability of animal testing. I think it's probably opening a whole animal rights can of worms in an already controversial article, but not saying anything about reliability, if it is contested with references, seems like an oversight. Bob98133 (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but that comes back to the point, above about scientific method. The example you mention is probably Rat Park. The only reliable conclusion from those experiments, in the context of animal experimentation, is that the environment of laboratory animals influence the outcome of experiments. Not withstanding that is patently obvious to anyone who works with animals, is not an issue for the reliability of animal testing itself. Because the conclusions from any experiment should take those environment factors into account. If that is not taken into account, it is the scientific method that is flawed, not the reliability of the animal experiment.

This is an issue when using an captive animal to study the effect of a chemical meant for human use, and then using that data to infer the effect on humans. That is a specific subset of animal testing experiments (involving less than 1% by numbers of animals use, and less than 10% of vertebrates used). This is an important concern of toxicity testing, but we have to be careful that we don't confuse "animal testing" with "toxicity testing" here. In this article, "animal testing" refers to 100% animals that undergo experimentation. Not just the <1% that are used for testing products meant for humans. This distinction is another reason why the title of this article should probable be "animal experimentation" rather than "animal testing". Rockpocket 17:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense what you say. I hadn't thought of the numbers of animals involved but you're probably right that it's a small percentage. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

This was a very helpful thing to read over, because I am having a school debate, and my topic is, "Should animals be tested, or should they not?" I give all my thanks to the writer! Thank you so very much! -5th grader, from Oklahoma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.118.82 (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)