Talk:Pro-Test/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comments about sqrr1101

I have removed the POV comments about sqrrl101 that were posted in the introduction. They are represented already under the Criticism section, where they are treated in a NPOV style. Also, if people would stop blanking the page, that would be appreciated. --ProTestOxford 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Do people have particular reasons for drastically altering the page or removing information? I'd like to know them if you do, as this is supposed to be an impartial article and I can only assume at the moment that the people who are significantly altering the article for the worse are opponents of Pro-Test. There has only been one (other) user who has actually contributed content to the article. --ProTestOxford 10:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not an impartial topic and when comments are added to inform readers that SPEAKS campaigns such as targetting Pro-tests leader have been successful in the past these have been removed, i would suppose that this is the reason that people keep deleting the article. I would suggest that JohnFM refrains from constantly reverting the page evrytime a view is entered to balance the argument. This way other users may stop deleting the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danielamos (talk • contribs) .

I revert the article to remove the name of a 16 year old student, who has shown no interest in having his name published before. If he puts his own name on the page, I will obviously leave it as it is. The fact that SPEAK are proud of their methods of targeting people for hate campaigns speaks volumes about them. When an article is entered to balance the argument, I will leave it. But I'm not holding my breath JohnFM 12:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

All his activities have been conducted under the name Sqrrl101, and his name will stay that way on this page, especially as he is a minor. Until, as John says, he puts it on for himself, then it must stay as sqrrl101.

I have also NPOVed the other edits. Please can everyone in future not just remove them, but NPOV them if possible. --ProTestOxford 12:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WWW.CUREDISEASE.NET STOP THE OXFORD LAB (Sqrrl101) IS SCUM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beadle (talk • contribs) .

I beg to differ, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stick to Wikipedia's rules and sign your comments. I also removed my name for privacy reasons. Sqrrl101 23:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow - you lot are really pushing that disease website. If its that hot, make your own Wiki entry for it and stop clogging up this one. JohnFM 10:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any administrative action that can be taken? Protection of the page would be a solution but not a good one due to the fact that this covers current events and may need to be updated. Unfortunately other than that, I can't see a real solution - if anyone has any suggestions that would be useful. Otherwise it's just going to have to be reverting. I'm sure the good people who spend their time reverting this vandalism would prefer not to have to do this. --ProTestOxford 10:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have swift defenses against zealotry. Vandals can be blocked, but it is generally a time -consuming procedure. --Dcfleck 13:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi Protection: is this a solution? --ProTestOxford 13:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

you know, thought you might like to be educated, i would dispute SPEAKs tactics being called desperate as they have been proven to work, so effective may be a more accurate description, see you on the 25th Laurie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beadle (talk • contribs) .

as effective as your attempts to vandalize Wikipedia? --Dcfleck 15:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

a lot more effective i'm glad to say :)also i wouldnt call myself a zealot, while you no doubt disagree profusely with my position, it is based on reason and that is how i justify my actions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.161.93 (talk • contribs) .

Well, your actions here haven't been reasonable or helpful. And could you at least learn how to sign your comments? --Dcfleck 17:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I love the way SPEAK are proud of their tactics. What nice people eh? And their success or otherwise remians to be seen - seems to me like the building is still going on...JohnFM 18:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

why would i want to learn how to sign my comments? the lab doesnt seem to be going up too fast, when the name of the company building it comes out we will see the success, just as when mountpellier were revealed as the contractor. why shouldn't speak be proud of the tactics? they are effective. also i never claimed my actions were helpful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.161.93 (talk • contribs) .

The lab is going up on schedule, to the best of my knowledge. --ProTestOxford 20:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal Information On Pro-Test Founder

Please refrain from adding personal information on Pro-Tests Founder to this article. Editing the article to add their families phone number and asking people to call them and tell them what they think is considered intimidation and will result in an indefinate block. - Damicatz 21:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

do you think the university would say any different? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.161.93 (talk • contribs) .

I don't care what the university says. Anyone who posts the personal home phone number of a Wikipedia editor or their family again will be blocked indefinatly. - Damicatz 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You people don't do your research, do you? Sqrrl101 doesn't even go to Oxford University. --ProTestOxford 00:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Terrible that, it would be a mistake for him to think he can hide forever, we already know who he is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.118.97.213 (talk • contribs) .

Which is of course probably why he has police protection. Some people will stop at nothing to silence free speech. It is pathetic that you must resort to threats in order to try to prove your point - a sure sign that all attempts to base an argument on reason have failed. Regardless, mindless vandalism will not help anyone's cause. --ProTestOxford 00:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I really do not understand what the various vandalizations and personsal attacks are hoping to accomplish. The only thing vandalizing this page and making personal threats and posting personal information does is make your group look like a bunch of juveniles. Is that what you want? - Damicatz 00:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

SPEAK and the other animal rights groups ARE a bunch of juveniles. And I find it ironic that they like to point out that Sqrrl101 isn't a student at Oxford University, when most of them don't come from Oxford themselves. JohnFM 08:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I went the same school as squirrel boy and its funny how you all think he is fighting the good fight when he was a social misfit who is now taking this chance to get some attention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.162.37 (talk • contribs)

Fortunately, social misfits make the best agents for social movements because they are not bound by restrictive groupthink. Regardless, your comments are largely useless because you're not really attempting to discuss how the page can be improved. Your personal views on the issues surrounding this are utterly irrelevant. --ProTestOxford 23:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

it took you that long to realise i didnt want to 'improve' the page? you are missing th point, squirrel man doesnt give two hoots about human welfare he cares about getting his 15 minutes fo fame. they may be irrelevant but i am having fun —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.162.37 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, I (who I assume you are referring to as "squirrel man") made Pro-Test in order to make a serious political point, and to raise support for scientific research. I don't care about fame, and in fact Pro-Test is now headed by the leadership committee, so any "fame" that I might get is considerably reduced. If you want to have fun and mess around, please use the sandbox or leave wikipedia. Sqrrl101 19:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

that day will never come, i guess you would also support slavery if it resulted in economic prosperity —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.162.37 (talk • contribs) .

My edits

I've edited this article to return it to an encyclopedic state. If anyone wants to rebuild it, please bear in mind that this website is barely notable. The only reason it merits any kind of entry in Wikipedia is because it has been given a mention in some newspapers, but as things stand, all we know is that it is run by one 18-year-old from Swindon.

Any details about SPEAK should be added to [SPEAK (animals)|SPEAK]], not here, because this page is not about SPEAK. All sources have to be credible. See WP:V. That means no blogs or posts to blogs. No unencyclopedic language. No dwelling on trivial details (SPEAK said a bad thing to the boy, so the boy said a bad thing back). No reliance on Post-test.

I think the current version is an accurate description of the website, and its length reflects its importance. Also, we are not here to publicize protests the website may have organized, which may or may not take place, although we can report what credible, published sources have written about it after the fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you have been a bit brutal in your pruning, Slim, somewhere inbetween this version and the previous might be fairer. For example, you have written that the website was set up to counter SPEAK, but no mention of the primary aim "of promoting and supporting scientific research and debate including animal based research" (according to the site itself). Moreover, SPEAK gets credited as a campaign, yet Pro-Test as a website only? I'm making minor changes to address those issues. Though i do agree using blogs to justify notability is a bit rich, i think it deserves its place, as it is notable in the bigger picture of the protest story at the moment. Quite how notable it will be in time remains to be seen. Rockpocket 05:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

SPEAK is an established campaign. Pro-Test is a website run by one teenager. Perhaps you could read WP:V and WP:RS about the limitations of using personal websites as sources. There is no evidence that he set up the site to promote scientific research and debate. If there is any evidence of this, by all means add it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No evidence other than the site itself, and elsewhere you and others have stated that, when writing on groups like the ALF, their word can be taken as sources as long as its expressed as such. Moreover, the ALF is, by definition, a front, and thus it doesn't even exist as an entity. Who knows who runs it - it could be a twelve year old for all we know. Thus defining the notability of a campaign should not rest on the age of its founder. Admittedly, this campaign is in its infancy, compared to the examples above, but it is notable enough for at least two major British broadsheets [1] [2] to comment on it (more than can be said for the Lobster Liberation Front for example). I don't disagree that the major purpose of its inclusion here was probably for publicity purposes, and that the article as it was was a propoganda piece. However, i think it does merit its own article, especially in light of the recent ALF threats on students, which are widely seen to be in response to the student action [3]. Thus its aims should be taken at face value until proven otherwise - i guess one could argue if the ALF take it seriously then perhaps it is notable, if only as its attempting something that is, as far as i'm aware, pretty unusual if not novel in the history of UK animal activism. Rockpocket 06:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

First, the ALF is not a personal website, whereas Pro-Test is, so that's the first difference. (The ALF is active in 20 countries and has hundreds or thousands of activists using that name, so there's no comparison.) You're right that we may use personal websites as sources about themselves, though not about any third party, but we should do so with caution. See WP:V. We can't take the website at face value, because then all this boy would have to do is add something to his website, then come and add it here, quoting himself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but the way the web feeds the press these days, how do you separate claims of notability from a personal website when the press rehash the site's content as news? The Oxford Student Newspaper says:

One of the most positive aspects to come from the developments that have occurred this week is the establishment of Pro-Test, a group that, in its own words, ‘aims to promote and support scientific research and debate including animal based research’ [4].

So, we still have the word of the site, but is it now sourced, so we can use it, right? If not, why not? They also say:

Members of SPEAK have hit out at the founder of lobby group Pro-Test... [5]

and

The group, founded by a non-Oxford student, is planning a march in support of the Oxford laboratory [6]

So does that make them a bona fide lobby group founded by a student (not a boy!)? A news source says so, right? OK, so that source is some two-bit student rag, but then we find the Guardian calls Pro-Test a "campaign" and "a new public interest cause" [7] while the Times calls them a "student group", suggesting there are "about 150 students" involved [8]. No mentions of a website run by a 16yr old boy or three men and a dog protests, but lots of mentions of a campaign, cause and a group. I'm not interested in overselling it here, but my point is that i could spin the article that way with plenty of citations if i wanted. I don't want to do that, but i think its only fair we note that they see themselves as a group/campaign and we acknowledged them as such, as the the press have. Whether they merit it or not, they have garnered attention for themselves and having a personal website does not preclude them from being taken seriously. See the Million Dollar Homepage as an example of a personal website that is clearly worthy of an encyclopedic article. Rockpocket 07:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, Rockpocket. I've added quotes from The Times and The Guardian, which give more of the impression of them as a group, rather than one person. However, I changed "lobby group" to "student group," because so far as we know, they haven't engaged in any lobbying, or indeed anything so far, and their current intention is to organize demonstrations. Let me know if you disagree. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a fair representation, Slim. Lobby does sound a bit grand, and most of the press sources do focus on the student aspect of it. I'm happy with what you have written. Rockpocket 01:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, RP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Name

I see that some people have been removing his name. Can someone say what the problem is with publishing it? It has already been published elsewhere. [9] Also, does anyone have a credible published source for his age? I have seen 16 and 18. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The Cherwell article linked to above notes that "Pro-Test is currently focusing on increasing its profile ahead of the march." You can be certain that Wikipedia is part of that effort. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a fair case that the founder has made an effort to remain anonymous and has not publicised his name for fear of reprisals from violent activists. I do not think it is the interest of anyone (but those that wish to target him personally) to "out" him against his wishes, though that is a personal opinion. Rockpocket 05:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, except he has already been outed by the Oxford newspaper, [10] and therefore the people he fears may act against him already know the name. It would be unusual for us not to publish a name already published by a mainstream source. We're not here to harm him, but we're not here to protect him either. I've only once before argued in favor of keeping a name out of Wikipedia that had already appeared in a newspaper, and that was the case of a Jewish writer being targeted by Islamists, but I was overruled on the grounds that it would be POV to leave her name out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that reference myself afterwards. Again, my personal feeling is that perpetuating the "outing" someone who had attempted to remain anonymous for their own safety, based on the principle that someone else had already done it, is ethically dubious, especially if there is little inherent value in publicising the persons name (surely his age is the high value information here). However, that is only my POV, and i'm not going to push it. If its policy to publish his name, then we should do it... and be damned :-( Rockpocket 05:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It is policy, but I'm hesitating for the same reason you are, even though I don't really agree with myself, if you know what I mean. If he were 18, I'd hesitate less, but some newspapers are saying 16. Perhaps we should hold off for now. If it only me, or is it well nigh impossible to save edits today? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Its a difficult one. Perhaps it might be worth waiting until after their protest next week, that should establish how the rest of the press are going to play it. I think that one article is the only one that names him, which makes me nervous, all the rest maintain his anonymity. I'm having problem editing too, today. Rockpocket 06:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the edits are a bit harsh. Speak themselves are only a small group, barely averaging 15 on their weekly protests, yet they get treated as though they are a large well-organised campaign. Pro-Test is now run by a group of Oxford students, and the original founder is taking a bit more of a back seat. I hope that after the Pro-Test protest on the 25th this article will be changed back to something a bit more realistic. JohnFM 08:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That depends on whether newspapers write about it. We publish what credible sources have published. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JohnFM and Rockpocket that the edits are unduly harsh. Many antivivisection goups and animal rights groups have long Wikipedia articles about them and their campaigns which give their POV in neutral guise (eg Draize test), so I see no reason why this article should be so strictly treated. It looks like double standards. This is a significant departure, as far as I know the first ever sizeable grassroots campaign for animal research. Chat on Internet forums suggest there will be a large turn-out for the Pro-Test rally on 25 February, and I think Wikipedia should demonstrate its neutrality and ability to keep up with current affairs by having a rather longer article. I agree that a 16-year-old shouldn't be named (he is 16). Anyway, as JohnFM says, there is now a group of eight or so students leading Pro-Test, and none of the others are named.MedicalScientist 14:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record I'm 16. I reverted it as I believe that Pro-Test is a significant enough group to warrant a decent size article. Sqrrl101 16:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this revert is going to last long, as Slim does have a point about blogs as sources and that the actions of SPEAK should go on their own article. I would suggest going back to the previous version and building up from that, rather than just wholesale reverting. In doing so you deleted some information about the ALF threats without justification. Rockpocket 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources

We do not use Usenet or bulletin boards as sources. We use newspapers, books, and reputable, established websites. As things stand, Pro-Test is a website run by one teenager. All the messages on Usenet you are seeing, MS, might have been written by him. It is therefore very important that Wikipedia does not get carried away with this hype. If, after the 25th, the organization appears to be more significant, then newspapers will write more, and we can publish what they publish. But until then, there are no reputable sources. Please read our content policies on sources: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the organisation is not "a website run by one teenager" (again, I fail to see what my age has to do with anything here) it's a large student organisation headed by a committee of nine people, of which I am one.Sqrrl101 20:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

So you say, but there are no third-party sources for this, so far as I know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am copying below a note I left on Sqrrl101's talk page:

Please do not revert that page again, or delete anything that another editor has added. You are the founder of this organization, and so far as anyone knows, its only member. The arbitration committee has ruled against people editing their own bios or other pages they are closely associated with, and recommends instead that involved people confine themselves to the talk pages of those articles to offer information where appropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and may not be used to promote any organization or person. Please see WP:NOT. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Usenet postings, bulletin boards, blogs, etc. are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia, and cannot be used for the puposes of citation. Wikipedia policy insists that any contentious information must be supported by reliable sources, such as (in this case) articles published in reputable newspapers. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerned about noteworthiness of this group

From what I can tell so far, this "group" consists of one, or possibly several, individuals who have managed to create a website, and get some publicity in a local student newspaper. I am concerned that this does not meet the bar for inclusion in Wikipedia. Specifically, it appears that the creator of this website/"group" may be using Wikipedia to promote it, and particularly his upcoming demonstration, which is against policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

See above for justification, Jayjg. The national press have commented on the group due to its unique position in British animal testing activism, and their appearance coincided with threats on students by the ALF. I'd suggest that is noteworthy. Rockpocket 01:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the justification; regardless of a couple of mentions in legitimate press, the group appears marginal at this point, and I'm still quite concerned that the page is being to advertise it. Based on his edits on Wikipedia, it's clear that the founder of the group sees Wikipedia as a vehicle for self-promotion, and this is something we should resist. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Pro-Test is not encyclopaedic, and the article should be deleted. -Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.151.230 (talk • contribs)

This page is easily justified

I don't think you can delete this because it's not noteworthy - I would suggest that it is noteworthy enough to deserve it's own article and to claim otherwise is being plain silly. Besides which, it's not policy on wikipedia to delete a page just because it's on an obscure topic. To quote from Wikipedia:Importance:

An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:

• There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
• Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.

If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being:

• Of insufficient importance, fame or relevance, or
• Obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.)

If you claim that it's an organisation comprised by at best two or three people, then you aren't doing your research. Sources can verify that this organisation is larger than that and legitimate. --ProTestOxford 01:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What "sources" would those be? All I've seen so far is claims of larger numbers. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Times, various websites like oxfordgossip, etc. I would suggest these are reasonable sources. --ProTestOxford 00:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem with Wikipedia. It's more like a giant current-events news source—with disproportionately detailed articles on quite insignificant but contemporary stories—than an encyclopedia. Who's going to want to read about Pro-Test in 5 years' time? This article should definitely be deleted after the march. Are there any other entries on protests throughout Oxford's history? Why not inaugurate a series? Don't forget the Cloudy Water march of '86 and the Noisy Building-Work demonstration of '71 and so on and so on. -Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.151.230 (talk • contribs)

This assumes Pro-Test will fold after the march. You're not psychic, are you? --ProTestOxford 14:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I fully intend to continue Pro-Test after the march on the 25th.Sqrrl101 18:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia are such mugs if they don't delete this. They're providing free webspace for a student protest organisation ffs! Okay, maybe it will continue after the march and become a historically important organisation. Who knows? It isn't right now. My prediction: Oxonians will lose interest in a couple of months, and Pro-Test will be forgotten outside Oxford in a few weeks. No encyclopedia need anthologise its insignificance. -Jim 163.1.151.230 19:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean the way everyone has lost interest in SPEAK? They don't get much in the way of news lately... 81.159.42.20 22:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely Wikipedia informs - in time and space - now. Thus, removing something that will, on the prediction of anyone, be non notable at any given time in the future is beside the point of its purpose. My google news search pulls up 5 articles on Pro-Test today. These include The Guardian, The BBC and The Telegraph. How much more notable do you want it to be? Its in the news at the moment, thus people who want to learn about it can read about it here. If, in a few weeks/months/years Pro-Test is nothing but a university story told by a few Oxford Grads, then it can be AfD'd then and no harm is done. Alternatively, try AfD'ing it now yourself and we can get consensus on whether it is notable enough.Rockpocket 23:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom ruling

The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [11]

Why?

...is a sourced page being reverted so completely? Marskell 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Read above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Having just done so I'd almost suggest packing it off to AfD and seeing what people think. If it does pass we should keep something close to the expanded version. We might wait until after the 25th tho. The Times link and the Univ. paper opinion both belong as it stands IMO.

The emphasis on his age strikes me as ad hominem and I don't understand why we're leading with it. No other group/front/movement begins with "...started by a 43 year-old from Kansas...". If "it's a large student organisation headed by a committee of nine people, of which (Squrr) is one" then the intro should reflect that. Marskell 09:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Erk, Times was left in sorry. Marskell 09:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would get through an AfD because of The Times story. That probably makes it borderline notable. I agree we should wait until after the 25th. If it's a big demo, mainstream newspapers will write about it, and we can use them as sources. If they don't, we can decide whether to leave it as a short entry or AfD it.

I take your point about his age, but I feel it's relevant for a number of reasons. First, he has been named by a newspaper, but apparently doesn't like it, so we're holding off on naming him (even though we could and probably should per policy), because he is 16. I'm not sure he can have it both ways: age taken into account when it suits him but ignored because he thinks it's irrelevant. Secondly, the age is probably the only notable thing about the website/group/campaign at the moment, and it's almost certainly why The Times got interested, so in a sense it's the only reason he has an article. Third, the age makes it clear that he's not at Oxford, because very few are at age 16 (though it has happened), so that makes it slightly relevant too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

First sentence: topic sentence about what the group is. Second sentence: who founded it and what the current organization is. This strikes me as conventional. We don't need to know he's from Swindon and we don't particularly need to know his age. The problem with ages of course (as opposed to birth dates) is that they become out-of-date once every twelve months... I actually doubt the Times picked up on it because of his age (they don't mention it). Names are a matter of course though, if they've been published. The fact that he's not an Oxford student should simply stated outright.

Incidentally, this linked from Animal Testing where I saw it two days. It's not notable enough for the "See also" there, however, so I dropped it. This leaves it an orphan excepting talk pages and a cat I just added. A sentence should be added to SPEAK (animals) or somewhere else to eliminate this problem. Marskell 10:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Good points, Marskell. I think we should probably just wait till after the 25th do do most of this, though, as Slim says, depending on the outcome of the protest, it will all change. If, God forbid, the protests were to lead to significant controntation, then it will probably become a national story. So both Speak and Pro-Test can be edited accordingly. Otherwise, it can remain as a small entry until it becomes more notable. I'm with Slim on the age issue. His age does make it more notable that it might otherwise be (though it would probably be notable despite his age). Plus, if we are holding off naming him due to his age, then we can't really argue that it is not relevent information. I would agree that that should be second sentence though, with what the group is as leader. Rockpocket 21:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How to describe founder?

Rockpocket, you've changed 16-year-old "boy" to "student." I don't want "boy" to sound patronizing, but "young man" is even worse, and we don't know he's a student. He has no connection to the university that I'm aware of. We could try "16-year-old male," but it looks a bit odd. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I read that he's in education (school or college), which makes him a student. Or just call him a 16-year-old and leave it at that. And I suggest "student group" is changed to "student-led" group which is more accurate. It is being led by students but likely has members who are at the university but who are not students.MedicalScientist 00:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source showing he's a student or is at school? We can call it student led when we know it's student led, but at the moment, all we can do is quote the sources, and I picked The Times article and called it a "student group." Also, I've left it as "16-year-old," until more is published about him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford student newspaper seems to think he is:

The group, founded by a non-Oxford student, is planning a march in support of the Oxford laboratory [12] Rockpocket 01:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that the vast majority of English 16 year-olds are "students" of one sort or another; it hardly seems like a notable characteristic, unless you want to name the particular institution at which he is a student. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The story on discussion boards about this 16-year-old is that he dropped out of school. We can't use them as sources, but so far no credible source has said what he does. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the newspaper quote above not a credible source? Perhaps we could use the word "activist" instead than. That is the word that is used to describe most anti's on their pages. Rockpocket 05:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

He talks on his blog of being in the Sixth Form back in November, but also indicates he isn't doing well, which is perhaps what others meant when they talked about him dropping out. I think we should leave out any further description until mainstream newspapers (not student newspapers) write something. I see he has added his real name to the page. I won't remove it myself, but if others want to, I won't object either. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically, I'm not a student right now, although I will be again in September. I see myself as a polymath, although that may be a little grandiose to put on the article. I would say student is the best description of me, as I am still learning of my own volition.Sqrrl101 14:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you say what you do officially, and is that published anywhere? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe i've ever met a 16 year old polymath before. I think student is probably fair enough, even if only in the orginal sense of the word. Rockpocket 17:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. He is not a student. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to Wiktionary, student can be defined as "A person seriously devoted to some subject, whether academic or not" which I would say I am.Sqrrl101 18:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not studying at any college, school, or university, so there is no sense in which you're a student for Wikipedia's purposes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's absurd to suggest that someone who is not registered fulltime in some educational institution would be described as a "student". I suppose we could go with the more accurate "16 year-old high-school dropout", if we are forced to make reference to his present academic status. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to know your definition of the word 'dropout'. --ProTestOxford 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda

Here, Pycroft seems to be saying that Wikipedia was used to help create Pro-Test. Scroll to the end. [13] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that? He does seem to be using the Wikipedia article as evidence for Pro-test's legitimacy and growth (which is kind of funny, as the person that started the article is most certainly very close to the group). Even if he does state that, I don't really see how that should influence this article though, as he would be foolish if he didn't use every opportunity to promote his group. Rockpocket 06:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

We're not here to be used for advocacy, and we seem in this instance to have been part of the process of establishing this group's notability. It's something we have to guard against. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The founder is essentially saying that it is Wikipedia itself which has established Pro-Test as an organization; this is unacceptable, Wikipedia reports on notable organizations, it doesn't create them. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on folks. It all sounds very tongue in cheek to me. Exactly how could a wikipedia article "establish Pro-Test as an organisation". He is just being self congratulatory and using the article to make them sound important. Do you not think there are other people/groups that have noted they they have an article? Its not like the website wasn't already there before the article. When someone is famous for being famous, it matters not whether the chicken of notability predates the source of the egg. To unscramble that metaphor ;-) - once someone becomes notable, its their very notability that perpetuates it and trying to tease out what started the bandwagon is pointless. The way i see it, its not within our scope or remit to judge how he uses the wikipedia article for his own group's purposes. We keep saying we can't use blogs as sources, so its hypocritical of us to claim his blog proves anything. If that this article makes him more notable, then so be it. Thats just clever marketing on his part. So long as the visitors to this page obtain an accurate, NPOV reflection of what happens elsewhere then that is all we need worry about. Rockpocket 09:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a popular website, and people regularly try to use it to increase their own notability; one cannot use Wikipedia to create notability, Wikipedia policy specifically forbids that. It's all very circular... Jayjg ^(talk) 09:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I made comments on my blog saying I was glad that there's a Wikipedia article on Pro-Test. I didn't write the article myself, and I don't know who did (although I would assume it's a supporter) but as I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia and enjoy it very much, it's pleasing for me to see something I created with an article on here. Also, if you wish to link to my blog in the future, I suggest linking to the specific post you wish to cite, as there are only the most recent twenty posts shown on the first page at any time. Sqrrl101 14:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you stated "Well, for those of you who aren't on the Pro-Test mailing list, we're officially a real organisation. Know why? Someone wrote a Wikipedia article about us!" That's pretty explicit. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty pathetic, I started this article about the group because I felt it should belong on here. I chose the username ProTestOxford to distinuish myself from my regular username (it should be obvious to anyone looking at my contributions that I am no newbie), which I would rather not have associated with this topic. The reference he made was that when something's on wikipedia, it 'seems' more official because someone else has taken the time to research you and thought you worthy of putting on wikipedia. To claim that this article specifically is being used to advance the group is largely ignoring that fact that the group is being well publicised around Oxford already through posters, word of mouth, student newspapers and radio, as well as the official website and mailing lists, and various forums, and therefore I suggest that such claims are spurious. The group was well publicised already before this article. --ProTestOxford 00:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what the situation was, the situation now is that we won't publish anything about this group that has not been published by a reputable non-student publication. This is for two reasons: first, to make sure we get it right, and the better the publication, the less likelihood of errors creeping in, and second, to establish notability. If the only newspapers that write about the group are student ones, that tells us the group isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Pycroft's website has been used to fill in some details, but we can't continue to rely on it. See WP:V and WP:RS for when it's okay to use personal websites. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg - using wikipedia to create publicity is not uncommon. As long as it is done outside wikipedia, no policy has been breached and we can report it as nornal. Otherwise, why is this permitted as an article?

I'd say it's fairly uncommon as of now, though that will doubtless be changing. The Seigenthaler controversy isn't an example, because that was a fairly big news story, and was reported by inter alia the New York Times and the American networks, which is why there's an article on it. Had it only been reported by a student newspaper, there almost certainly wouldn't be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the Seigenthaler controversy is an example, as irrespective of scale of the story, the principle remains true: a Wikipedia article was reported (outside Wikipedia) in a manner which resulted in generating publicity for the subject of the article. Now, the real question is whether Seigenthaler was notable before the furore over the article. I expect he was, though i'm sure he is much more notable now because of it. So, to come back to this article - all we have to be concerned about was whether Pro-Test was notable enough to have a page in the first place and then make sure the article is accurate. The mainstream press articles seemed sufficient enough to make the page. If, by having an article, that made Pro-Test more notable then it was before, it makes no difference to the validity of the article in the first place and thus it should not concern us as editors. If you follow the alternative logic to its root, then any Wikipedia article that has been cited in another media source should immediately be queried, as its citation may result in it's subject becoming more notable. Since the whole point of an encyclopaedia is to disseminate knowledge, this means that every article is under threat, as notability will increase every time someone reads one. Therefore, in this article, after the initial case for notability was established, we should rejoice that Wikipedia is being used for the very purpose it was designed for. Rockpocket 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Slim - while, in practice, i don't disagree that mainstream media should be used to further update this article, ideally. I do have concerns over consistancy however. There appears to be no problem using anti testing propoganda sites, books, newsletters, leaflets etc as sources for reporting the actions of anti-testing groups and activists. Thus, i wonder why perhaps the most well respected, independent student newspaper in the UK, if not the world, Cherwell, is not acceptable?

I don't share your view of that student newspaper, for a start. ;-) But regardless, if Pro-Test becomes a well known organization, then we could take information about them from their website, so long as it was only about them and their activities, as we currently do about the ALF, for example. But the ALF didn't become well known even in part because of Wikipedia. That's what we're trying to guard against with Pro-Test. The ALF is not using Wikipedia as a platform. I began to get the sense that Pro-Test was trying to do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll make it clear for you- I am, nor is any member of Pro-Test to the best of my knowledge, using Wikipedia to increase Pro-Test's notoriety. It seems that the BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, Times and so forth articles are doing a pretty good job of that. The only reasons I put those comments on my blog is that I enjoy Wikipedia and spend a lot of time on here myself, and feel proud that I've made an organisation notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia entry.Sqrrl101 19:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets contrast with Britches, for example. The only sourcess in that article are to an antivivisectionist blog [14] (despite the fact that blogs are not acceptible as sources) quoting some PETA literature, and two propoganda pieces by the PETA President and an activist who "glorif[ies] terrorist violence" (according the British government).

The sources Britches (monkey) relies on (from memory) are two books: Steven Best's Terrorists or Freedom Fighters and Ingrid Newkirk's Free the Animals; a videotape of the raid itself made by the ALF; and a film produced about the raid by PETA, which shows an interview with an opthalmologist who examined the monkey and another interview with the President of the American Council of the Blind, who condemned the experiment. That is actually a good mix of primary and secondary sources. The only reason there are no newspapers sources is the raid was in 1985 and so none of the articles are online. But I very much doubt there was anyth significant in the press coverage that isn't in the Best or Newkirk books, or on the film.

Hardly The Times and Guardian, are they?

They're more knowledgeable about the case than the Times or Guardian. One of the claims always made by vivisectionists, for example, is that the animals were not really found in that condition. Well, here you have the raid on film, and you can see exactly how the monkey was found. Of course, you could still claim the whole thing was staged, but then you're into conspiracy-theory territory, and I don't think even the bitterest enemy of the ALF would believe they'd do that to an animal in order to get publicity. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So, one could ask, what makes that monkey notable outside the incestuous would of animal activism? That is but one example, and i'm not suggesting that those sources are not appropriate for that article or that the article doesn't deserve its place, but lets not make grand statements imposing limitations on this article unless we are going to be consistent about it. Rockpocket 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm being entirely consistent. Pro-Test is hardly known. When it's as well-known as the ALF is, I will happily use its website as a source of information about itself and its activities. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you are being consistent, Slim. You seem to be classing articles on levels of notability, and then allowing weaker references for the more notable ones (in your opinion) then the less notable ones. If something is deemed notable by Wikipedia's standards, it is notable. How notable it is depends on your POV. I don't think the Britches episode is any more notable then Pro-Test is. I don't accept books by activists as any more valid a source than an independent student newspaper. You may disagree, but those are differences in POV based on our interests. Thus, consistency means that we either ensure, as you say about Pro-Test, we don't write anything about any group that has not been published by a reputable publication, or we don't. With respect, i don't believe you have the authority make exceptions for this article. If you have an issue with the reputation of any particular source, then of course, you can make that clear. But there is no evidence that student newspapers, as a whole, are part of the conspiracy to make Pro-Test notable, instead they are simply reporting on something that is notable to students (also i see no reference to the Wikipedia article in any of the media reports, if it was this article that made them notable, where is the evidence?) Anyway, there appears to be daily reports on the Pro-Test demonstration in the mainstream media at the moment, so perhaps this whole notable/not notable debate can be put to bed. Rockpocket 20:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Which was exactly my point. There are reputable sources for this, more so than for a lot of other articles. Claiming that student newspapers are not valid sources is asking for trouble, especially when they're papers like the (independent, might I point out) Cherwell and The OxStu. Besides which, there are plenty of even more reputable sources for this subject as well. I suggest that having more sources like these is better than having fewer sources, we've already established that this group is notable. --ProTestOxford 08:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You have limited credibility here for me. You appear to be involved with the group, you started the article, and you've admitted you're a sock puppet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A pathetic ad-hominem attack. Answering the argument would be the way forward here. --ProTestOxford 00:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The article in The Telegraph isn't bad evidenceSqrrl101 04:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Telegraph article is a good source, and we can certainly use it. Thank you for supplying it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant that in the sense that we're a "real" or "validated" organisation because we're important enough to be in Wikipedia. I'm sorry if you don't immediately get what I'm trying to say, but nobody else seems to have a problem with it.Sqrrl101 04:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the SPEAK wiki page uses pretty much one website (BUAV) as a source for most of its stuff...thats ok, but student newspapers and blogs aren't? JohnFM 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The student newspaper will be fine as a source once the notability of Pro-Test is established but we can't allow its notability to be established via a student newspaper, because if only student newspapers write about it, it is by definition not notable.

You can hardly claim that SPEAK, which is basically the same group as SHAC, and I'm guessing more or less the same people as the ALF, isn't notable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If I look out of my window on one of their protest days, I see about 10-15 little old women and grubby men shouting through megaphones. They don't seem particularly notable to me. JohnFM 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with JohnFM here, Oxford University have had months of scare tactics from SPEAK causing extra security and lock downs in the central colleges. To date the SPEAK protests I have witnessed have had less than 50 people involved. This weekend will show the Pro-Test group in the public for the first time, it is already over the BBC site. The SPEAK group appear to me to be making far less of a cultural impact, to date it has been "all mouth and no trousers". --Alf ^melmac 13:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed reference to '"eminent" scientists' as sarcastic POV

I've restored it. It was a quote from the Telegraph. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can say that this group isn't notable. Major articles have now appeared in the Guardian, The Times and on the BBC website. At the same time it would be childish to say that SPEAK are not a notable organisation. We might not like what either group says or does (depending on your viewpoint) but we can't dismiss them just because of that.

Deletions

Marskell, why do you keep deleting the girlfriend section, and with no discussion on talk? This is actually important social history insofar as this group is notable at all (which is currently barely, but improving by the day). The teenage founder relates how he was sitting in a cafe with his girlfriend and a mate, watching what was in effect an Animal Liberation Front demo, and bear in mind that ALF is feared in England. They went to a store and (as I understand it) spent one pound and 98 pence on a placard and a pen, then stood in the street with their sign. People responded to that gesture, in a way that I'd say is typically British, and within a couple of weeks, they appear to have started the only grassroots anti-animal rights organization in the UK, and so far as I know, Europe or the world.

The jury is still out on how notable they'll become and remain (because even if notable after this demo on Saturday, they could be a flash in the pan). However, as things stand, the origins of the group makes a good story, and personal websites and blogs are allowed as sources so long as we proceed with caution, and so long as they're not used as third-party sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. The edit is therefore entirely encyclopedic within the terms of WP's policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Where Da Vinci was sitting when he was inspired to paint the Mona Lisa strikes me as info interesting and encylcopedic enough to include here. Where Laurie Pycroft, aka Squrrl101, was sitting when he decided to found Pro-test does not. He spent "one pound and 98 pence" that day? Do I care? Does a hypothetical reader care 10 years from now? Nope. The coffee shop detail is entirely non-summary style.

I agree BTW that this pissing match between SPEAK and Pro-test is "typically British" and I do think it notable that this is the only "grassroots anti-animal rights organization in the UK" (that's why the Times picked up on it methinks, not because of his age). But we're not writing bios here or "weird file" entries for Reuters. X is... X is run by... X exists because... X has achieved... That's what we present, yes? Not ad hominem crap about what a guy had for breakfast on a given morning. Marskell 21:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what he was eating wasn't reported, but he was drinking coffee. I think it illustrates the inspirational motivation of Pycroft (i.e. that the group grew from a spur of the moment response) - and should he develop into a genuine polymath, it will be a nice story to dine out one in his latter years. Is it appropriate here? Maybe not, but i think it adds a bit of colour to the article, and it would only be replaced with a more dry account of the group's formation. Rockpocket 21:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the best part of the story! Being encyclopedic doesn't mean we have to put people to sleep. And the part about how they only had one pound 98 pence is a gem of a detail, given that they took on the whole animal-rights movement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If "he (happens to) develop into a genuine polymath" have at the article with as many details as you like. Such details do not make sense for the moment and, you know, encyclopedias ought to be dry. Indeed, "try to be as dry possible" would be a good way to avoid POV problems vicariously.

As has been noted, this can be sorted after the 25th. I don't particularly care enough to revert over it now but I'll only repeat: girlfriend + coffee shop are not summary style. Neither are 16 yrs old + Swindon, for that matter. But it seems I'm the humourless bad guy who doesn't want any details included.

Hit random article. It'll put you to sleep in a hurry. Marskell 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know, if you don't "particularly care enough," Marskell, you could perhaps leave it alone. As for summary style, first, there's no reason articles should be written that way, and second, there's nothing about that style that would preclude this detail. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I don't particularly care enough to have a revert war is what I mean. Insofar as I've noticed, I care enough to edit (do you mind?). This article didn't have a proper topic sentence for a few days which I added and you expanded Slim (TY). And this article now appears to be an argument over details, or at least whether they're needed.

I honestly don't know how to respond to "there's no reason articles should be written (summary style)" in the same way I don't know how to respond "there's no reason English Wiki articles should be written in English." We don't have to write summary style, you're right. We could try point-form, biographical style (which the sentence that I edited struck me as), dissertation/thesis type articles, news style (which we actually do employ to some extent and isn't opposed to summary style). How about a magic realist encylcopedia? Perhaps not. We can always do what we do already, which is summatively present relevant information on notable topics, with professional diction but without over-professional obfuscation. What can I say? It was a little detail removed. A non-encyclopdic detail. Marskell 22:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to understand why the fact that two of the three initial demonstrators consisted of the "founder" and his girlfriend would be deemed "unencyclopedic". The detail provided is interesting and informative, and, in fact, we should try to write interesting articles - interesting and encyclopedic are not opposites. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How about a "Wiki categorical imperative:" "if one applied this level of detail to every article, would it be workable?" Here, I say no. Or put it this way: "if this particular detail were replaced by another, would it have any bearing on the reader's grasp of the subject?" If, rather than a coffee shop, Squ had been sitting in a pizza parlour, beauty salon, video arcade, or just on a park bench when he noticed the protest, would it have any impact on the facts we're presenting? No, and thus I call it unencylcopedic. That the protest consisted of a grand total of three people is notable, but how does it possibly matter that one of them was Squ's girlfriend? Marskell 16:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "group" consisted of a couple and their friend is a relevant detail; it's not like they were three strangers who got together because of a common interest in supporting animal testing. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed "others" to "friends." Oh, and added "spontaneously" a few hours ago. Marskell 22:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Animal-testing centre

Rockpocket, why are you trying to delete what the main purpose of the biomedical research center is? It is being built as an animal-testing center. As the intro stands, it isn't clear why the center is controversial, except that SPEAK believes it may include a primate center too, but that isn't the only reason they're protesting it. You suggest that we use the term vivarium, instead of one that everyone will understand. That strikes me as POV pushing. There has to be a simple, direct, and concise description of the center right at the start that will make people understand why it is such a big issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Slim, my concern is that no-one but an anti POV pusher uses "animal testing" as a blanket term for research using animals. An "animal testing" centre, to me and most of the research community, suggests that its primary purpose is for compounds to be tested on animals. This is a fair description of HLS, Inveresk, or Quintiles facilities, but it rarely accurately describes the purpose of pure and/or applied biomedical research facilities in a University. Here animals my be bred for genetic experiments, transgenesis or a multitude of other things that are not the testing of compounds. Thus, it seems to me the best way to descibe the centre is the describe it as the commissioning body does (seeing as they are the ones that designed it for their purposes). The reason it is controversial is because a very small minority of activists do not like it being built or do not believe that it is being built for the reasons stated. The very next sentence explains that. If you wish to make allegations that are not backed up by the source [15] of the official description of the building, then you should make them under the banner of what activists believe. Otherwise vivarium (and the beauty of hyperlinks is that anyone who doesn't know what it means can easily find out), animal housing facility or animal research facility are all appropriate, simple, direct and concise descriptions according to the source. Though i don't see the problem with "biomedical research facility". That is what it is, after all. I think the fact the sentence starts "an animal-rights campaign opposing" makes it pretty obvious why it is controversial. Rockpocket 04:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't use primary sources' descriptions of themselves unless credible third-party sources agree with then, so what Oxford calls the centre is not what we have to call it, and as for vivarium, you didn't answer my question: why use a word that people have to look up when we can use one that they don't? However, I take your point that animal testing may make the center sound like an HLS-type facility, so we can change it to animal research. However, it would have been more helpful if you could have done that in the first place, instead of continuing to revert without explanation and necessitating this exchange. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I happen to think "biomedical research facility" makes a perfectly suitable alternative (and i made that clear after each revert). However, i'm happy to compromise at animal research. As for vivarium? Well, everyone around here seems perfectly content to use latin derivatives when it suits them (ad hominem?) but calls foul when it doesn't. So i don't buy that argument at all. If we can use vivisection, we can use vivarium. Both accurately describe what happens in biomedical research facilities. "Animal-testing" does not. Rockpocket 07:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

We tend to use "animal testing" in articles, not "vivisection," as you know, but the latter is still better known than "vivarium." They're not opening an animal hotel, but a facility where experiments on animals will be carried out. There's no NPOV reason not to make that clear, and given that group and counter-group has arisen because of it, and that this article is about one of them, it would be somewhat obtuse of Wikipedia to skirt around the issue using words either handed down by Oxford University, which has a financial stake in the matter, or that people will have to go look up in a dictionary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I expect the irony was unintentional, as "an animal hotel" was exactly one of the terms used to describe the facility during its planning phase. Its going to be that luxurious. 5 star. The problem with this line of argument is that you claim terms that are widely used by antis are better known than words that are commonly used by the scientific community. I would argue the opposite. But so what if the accurate term to describe something is more obscure than some generalist guff? Just think about that for a second... whats more important, accuracy or simplicity? But lets put it this way. If i design a building, call it a "house", building it, call it a "house" then live it it. I think there is no reason it should not be called a house. Oxford say it is a facility for biomedical research. Guess what sort of research will be done it in? Its not like Oxford created this term, every university in the world has a biomedical research department! I can't believe you are genuinely trying to imply that using that term is an attempt to "skirt around the issue". If i was trying to do that, i would have pushed for the "animal hotel" Rockpocket 07:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete biomedical; I added animal testing. We're not here to repeat the terminology of Oxford University or biomedical researchers, just as we don't use the terminology of the animal-rights movement, or this article would have a very different tone. And I'm sure it'll be five-star accommodation, though it would improve somewhat if they'd only stop scooping their guests brains out to induce Parkinson's. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oxford have always called this a biomedical research facility. Thats what it is, and thats what it should be called. Very little research is going to be done there - it will mainly be used to house animals that are used elsewhere in the University, but which are currently spread over several facilities. JohnFM 08:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The university has made it clear that the facility is part of their replacement and refurbishment of existing laboratory space. Experiments on animals will be conducted in it. Or do you imagine they'll pick up the animals each morning and take them elsewhere to be worked on? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats exactly what is supposed to happen. It remains to be seen whether things change with the interest of the animal rights groups, but where is your evidence for animal testing taking place in the facility? Oxford University do not say that it is going to happen. The only ones that do are animal rights groups. Without evidence, I can't see any reason to claim that experiemnets will be carried out there, and since you are biased in favour of the AR people, its obvious that your view cannot be the only one expressed there.. JohnFM 10:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

*blink* Where does Oxford say that experiments on animals will not take place within the new building? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that they will? JohnFM 10:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I told you above that the new facility is designed to replace existing laboratory space , according to the university's own description of it [16] (pdf), but you don't seem to think that means experiments will be conducted there. Therefore, please supply a source showing that your understanding of the situation is correct. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The building will include laboratories. The building will also house animals. That doens't mean that those laboratories will be used for research on the animals. The connecting bridges are intended to allow transport of animals to other departments around the University. JohnFM 10:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please supply a source for that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether it merely houses them or performs the experiments is splitting hairs. It's an addition to programs involving animal research. If it weren't, Pro-Test wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be sitting here discussing it. By removing this you're removing the topic from the topic sentence. Marskell 10:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reported JohnFM's 3RR violation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The BBC refers to the centre as "an £18m biomedical research laboratory, at which there will be testing on animals". Perhaps that is an acceptable compromise. [17] jacoplane 11:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In one of the reverts I changed "biomedical and animal research facility" to "biomedical facility utilizing animal-research." This basically accords with your BBC quote so I think it's fine as it stands. Marskell 11:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a perfect description, Marskell. The question of whether animal testing/research will occur there is pretty much a given. I was not trying to remove any reference to animal testing/research. What i was concerned with was the blanket term for the description of the the purpose of the building. If its main purpose is to house animals, then it should be descived as as such, not as an animal tsting centre. However, if it has laboratory space for research, then it is highly likely that there will be individuals and groups working on bioinformatics, bacterial work, cell culture and, perhaps even yeast work. None of these are examples of animal-testing, therefore by labelling it as such we are misrepresenting the purpose of the facility. They are all examples of biomedical research though, thus this is why i orginally insisted that be the moniker used. Of course, anyone pushing an anti POV loves to paint in broad strokes - any building that has live animals in it must be an "animal testing centre". God forbid they admit that their in vitro Holy Grail may actually be utilized by some of the animal torturers! What they fail to realise is that animals are but one example of a large number of techniques used together in biomedical research. Seperating in vitro and in vivo work as good and bad science respectively, is a myth perpetuated by the anti lobby. By blanket labelling any facility that houses animals as an "animal testing centre" we would be perpetuating that myth. And there is no need to when we have a term, a Maskell suggsted above, that makes very clear what the building will do. Rockpocket 18:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But it's worth stressing, as the article now notes, that the facility is intended to become the "centre for all animal research at Oxford," according to Mark Matfield, former director of the Research Defence Society, and as Oxford does a lot of animal testing, the new center will ipso facto do a lot too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I accept that fully and think it is a good addition. It makes the important point that a lot of the research done in the new building will probably involve animals. No argument there. The sole use of "animal-testing" as a descriptive term was my bugbear, as it does not accurately differentiate between contract testing facilities, biomedical research facilities (using animals) and vivaria. Rockpocket 20:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I take that point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

.... and everyone is friends again! ;) Rockpocket 20:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)