Talk:University of Minnesota primate research

intro comments

Hey,

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so if I didn't do something correctly, please post in my talk and correct me! Thanks!Carniv 00:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't capitalize her last name. If someone sees this and knows how to change it, please do.Carniv 00:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I added NPOV to the page because I think it needs a fuller and more objective presentation of its research and the justifications given for it. By the use of one-sided quotations, it comes very close to being an attack page. I merely left the tag, because I did not have time to do the work yesterday. 19:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

It seems that no one has discussed why they feel this article isn't neutral. It was put on almost a month ago and nothing major has beeen changed and no one has said anything in this talk page. I'm going to remove the NPOV. If anyone has an issue with the article, please put the NPOV back up and state in THIS talk pa Ige what specificly isn't neutral and suggestions. Carniv 02:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

its not neutral because it talks about the criticism of the work without the justification for it. I'm not the ideal person to write that part, but none the less, it just is not neutral. there should be as much space given to the defense. DGG (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

more detailed suggestion for how to proceed: I would suggest continuing the section on animal rights campaign with an equal length discussion of her statements, those from the university, and those of her supporters. Don't give extensive quotes, but do give references. I would also add a section of Scientific Work, and discuss her actual scientific work and list major publications especially as referred to in the controversy. They should all be in PubMed, which also indicates other articles referring to them. Include a mention of her degrees and any awards--her official website is a suitable source for noncontroversial details like that. Let me know if you'd like me to take a look. DGG (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

References

References two and three [1] point to dead links. Will be removing the sections using them since the point of view is somewhat skewed and now has no reference. Umn student 06:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

Unless there are objections, I would like to remove the quotes section, since it doesn't really help with describing much about her biography and they appear to be somewhat randomly selected. Umn student 06:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Huh... It looks like In Defense of Animals took that page down... I do think we should have something about not just the animal rights campaign against her but why there is a campaign. What specifically the AR activists are alleging. There is a reason they are going after her and I felt those quotes conveyed very well what certain groups of people (AR activists) feel she is doing. Also, because they were directly taken from her papers, I don't see how that could be biased. Those are her words, not mine. It almost seems like "UMN student" is trying to minimize what she has done by taking that out.Carniv 01:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I also have a problem with this statement: "Using therapies such as antidepressants and behavioral/environmental changes such as adding sweet-tasting drinking solutions, have shown to reduce the self-administration of drugs in the laboratory." That is her opinion. That is not fact and I object to it being presented as a fact. There are other scientists that feel she has contributed NOTHING to the body of scientific knowledge. For example, here is a critique of her research by Dr. Cohen: http://www.animalvoices.org/ADAV/drug_addiction.html.Carniv 01:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources, please. MRMC Newsletter is a POV source, and excerpts from the methods section of her papers are out of context. The papers can, however, be referred to. DGG (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are refering to the two or three quotes I put on the page, those weren't from the methods, there were from the discusion or results section. If the MRMC newsletter is a POV source, then we for sure shouldn't be quoting Marilyn Carroll and saying how her "therapies" "have shown to reduce the self-administration of drugs in the laboratory" because that is as much of a POV source as the MRMC. Also, I don't think we are being very complete if we are saying there have been all these campaigns against MC and we don't say WHY she is being targeted. There are TONS of animal researchers at the U of M and THERE IS A REASON she is being targeted instead of other people. Could you please explain how the quotes are taken out of context? Are you claiming that what she stated didn't happen?Carniv 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with the quotes is they weren't linked with any information. They were just two quotes added into the biography with the intent of bias. If you have a reliable source that has information as to 'why she is being targeted', that could be added. However, just adding quotes to push bias isn't the point of Wikipedia. Also, her quotes on therapies are part of peer reviewed journal articles, which are reliable sources. The MRMC newsletter, however, is exactly that - a POV source containing someone's opinion rather than a peer-reviewed article. While you may not agree with her research, unless there is published evidence saying otherwise, the information doesn't belong. Umn student 20:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how it would be bias if it is true. Those were her words, not mine. My intent in putting them in is to show why people are opposed to her research. You just said what they did, not WHY. If you feel that it is inappropriate to put those quotes in just like I did, how do you feel I should do it? I disagree with the MRMC article. It shouldn't be used in the same way a peer-reviewed article is but it definitely can be put in. I don't see what not... It is a POV but that means it shouldn't be used as "the truth". It is just an opinion just like it is Marilyn Carroll's opinion that her research is helping advance knowledge of helping people with drug abuse overcome it. Carniv 22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just adding random quotes with no additional detail can create bias, regardless of if she said it or not. Quotes don't really provide a good background of a topic. If you can provide a more structured way of adding the quotes, it would potentially be ok. But just sticking the quotes in, with no extra detail other than the quote itself, serves no purpose in a biography. Perhaps adding a different page about the topic would be more appropriate? I was also looking at the guidelines for WikiProject Animal rights, and this page doesn't appear to fall under the scope of the project. As to the "why", you can add it in as soon as there is a proper reference for it. Wikipedia doesn't allow for you to add your own opinions or novel research, the information has to come from another source. Umn student 23:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why you took off the link to the Minnesota Primate Freedom Project? Considering that the group is campaigning against her, I don't understand why you took that link off.Carniv 23:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

actually, I think one or both of them should go back, with a comment saying that the sites are opposed to here just so any naive person doesnt think they are neutral. If there is a defense site for her, it can go in also.

If we are going to describe the effect of her research with quotes from primary sources such as her papers, they have to be carefully and neutrally chosen and put in context, which is very difficult to do with a NPOV and avoid OR. The art of selective quotation is well developed, but the purpose of WP isnt advocacy. It is usually considered much better to find a suitably objective secondary source--or if they are all POV, then balanced ones as objective as possible. DGG (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I took the link off because the site doesn't say anything about her, other than it has her name on a list of researchers. If the primate freedom project offered information specific to her, I would agree with leaving the link. However, adding it here would only generate traffic to a website that has no real mention of Marilyn Carroll, the 'controversy', or her research. Umn student 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the one link is dead. I agree that the MNPFP page really has nothing. Their section on Marilyn Carroll is currently simply a quoted block of text from the NIH. The references that are included seem appropriate for now. Jmjanssen 05:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well considering they are the only group that has a campaign against Marilyn Carroll, and this is an encyclopedia article about Marilyn Carroll, I don't understand why you two are against putting that website up. In my opinion, it really doesn't matter what kind of content about her is written on the site, the fact is, that is the website of a group that has a campaign against her. Period.

Being new to editing on Wikipedia, how would this dispute be resolved. It looks like there are two people for putting the link back up, and two against. Carniv 02:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We shall go to the guidelines to solve the dispute, that is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_links . These guidelines state that it does matter what kind of content about her is written on the site. As I have noted above, the MNPFP link does not appear to be useful or informative. The references already link to information about the protests against her. It may be useful to link to the original article from http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/ that is currently serving as Dr. Carroll's MNPFP page. However, even then it would be better for formatting if that was added in the references and information be added to the article body. Jmjanssen 04:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also argue that if there is only one group with a campaign against her, the 'campaign' against her probably doesn't need that much of a mention, as it doesn't appear to be that large of a controversy. Umn student 04:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Video Link

I just wanted to say that I think the edits to this page were very well done overall, and still seems well-balanced. The one item of note was the link to the video. I don't mind having the link there, but I didn't see anywhere that actually indicated the video was from Marilyn Carroll's lab ("shot inside...animal testing lab" but not which one). If there is something indicating it was from her lab, feel free to put the link back up. Umn student 05:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally love that this article has gone from an attack page to a proper Wikipedia article. I am however wondering why the MNPFP link went back up. Jmjanssen 06:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it got placed back up. I'd agree to take it down as the page doesn't contain any actual information on Marilyn Carroll. Umn student 07:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rolsky Comment

I removed the line "David Rolsky of the University of Minnesota's Student Organization for Animal Rights (SOAR) wrote in the Minnesota Daily that Carroll starves the animals to 80 percent of their body weight to induce them to self-administer drugs in exchange for food." since the comment came from an editorial/opinion piece that had no additional references. In my opinion that doesn't meet WP:RS, especially since the author of the piece was a member of the activist organization. Umn student 07:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I just found 2 articles published in the past 2-3 years where she says she starves them to 85% of their free feeding weight:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17156834 "Monkeys were maintained at 85% of their free-feeding weights..."

http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/301/3/993 "Monkeys were maintained at 85% of their free feeding weights, and the 85% weights ranged from 9.0 to 13.0 kg across monkeys." Carniv 16:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And then is there anything indicating this is harmful or "torturous" to the monkeys? The part about restricting food intake is already listed in the article, but linking the food restriction and "torture" seems like it would be drawing conclusions or opinions from information that isn't cited. Umn student 16:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Who said to say torture? She starves them to 85% of their free feeding weight. It is up to the reader to decide whether it is torture or not. I would really against discribing that as torture in a wiki article. Carniv 20:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does say reducing food intake but I think we should put in the figure 85% to give people a better idea also because we have that figure coming from her own mouth, not an activist opposed to her work. Carniv 20:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Umn student, the problem is that we do need to have a description of what it is that some of the students and the local animal rights activists are protesting. We've included Carroll's own description of how the animals are treated (they watch some television, smoke some cocaine, have good lives). For balance, we need an opposing view. Using the university student newspaper as a source is appropriate in this context, given that it's a university matter and that one of the protest groups is a student group. In addition, Carroll's own papers support that what the student is saying is factually correct (about the body weight issue). It's just the evaulation of it that differs: he calls it "torture," whereas she regards it as legitimate. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Their numbers are also different, where he states 80% and she states 85%. I also think the two statements come from different sources, where one source says "torture" and Mr. Rolsky states the 80% body weight (the word torture isn't even found in the op ed piece). Also, while 80% and 85% aren't that different, I think that even having the different stats brings into question the validity of the use of this particular newspaper article, especially since it is an opinion article. Umn student 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't refuse to use sources because they have a POV. Marilyn Carroll has a POV, those who oppose her have a POV, and probably every journalist who writes about it has a POV, even if trying to write neutrally. Therefore, we have to ignore POV, and focus on reliability and appropriateness. It seems to me that, in writing about a protest engaged in by students and focused on university research, the student newspaper is an appropriate source, no matter what it says (unless it's actually libellous, which is a different matter). SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I'm not arguing the source on POV, but rather on reliability. Opinion articles (at least in the MN Daily) are generally not reviewed for any journalistic accuracy since they aren't always written by staff journalists (I believe the cited article was done by a reader, not someone who works for the Daily). The fact that his percentage is different from what is in Marilyn Carroll's articles supports the fact that his article may not meet the reliability criteria, regardless of the POV. Umn student 00:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Those two papers I took were within the past 2-3 years. SOAR disbanded in 2000 so he may be quoting a study before 2000 and I didn't even search that far back. If you are willing to look through all the articles she has published since 1980, then please do and get back to us and if there isn't an 80%, then I think we can agree that the quote is wrong. Until then, we have no way to know. Carniv 01:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And since we have no way to know, I feel we shouldn't include the information. Anything on the site should be cited (and therefore, in order to leave the 80% statement, a citation needs to be found). I'm against including the 80% statement or other statements from that article, the burden is on those who want to include it to find supporting citations. Umn student 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Restored it with clarification

I restored Rolsky's comment, but added that Carroll says 85 percent.

Umn, can you say why you removed the link to the Minnesota Primate Freedom Project? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we talked about this above as well, and seemed to have consensus before, that the MPFP link didn't have any information relating to Marilyn Carroll other than having her name listed on their website. It didn't really seem to make sense to list it since it has no information pertaining to her. The videos/photos listed on their site are also just links to the SOAR page (have these organizations merged?), which reduces the content even more. I just feel that the link should have some substance to it, and probably information specifically about Marilyn Carroll if we include it on her biography page. Umn student 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason you added the link back on? Umn student 00:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's one of the local animal rights groups that's protesting, so it seems fine to add it as an external link. I wanted to add SOAR too, but couldn't find a website for them. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

SOAR actually isn't around anymore. They have a good archive on www.archive.org or .com or whatever. If you want, I can try to find the URL. Carniv 01:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

They are (were might be a better descriptor) protesting, but their site doesn't have any information about their protests against Marilyn Carroll or about Marilyn Carroll herself. As such, the link generates traffic to a site about animal rights, but nothing that is specific to Marilyn Carroll. Umn student 01:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait... Are you talking about the SOAR site or the MNPFP site? The SOAR site has TONS about her. TONS. You must be talking about the MNPFP site. Carniv 02:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that the MNPFP site doesn't have much information about her (which is the current link). Because of that, I think the MNPFP link should be removed. Umn student 02:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

this was already discussed, I thought I had made a fairly good argument for removing the MNPFP site. It's not relevant to the article at all besides being the site of a protesting animal rights group. It does not seem useful or informative and does not provide any unique information on Dr. Carroll. I am going to take it back off. Jmjanssen 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed again

The student's quote has been removed again. [2] Umn, it is an appropriate source for this article, because it's the university's own student newspaper. What do you have against it, exactly?

We do need to have a description of the effects of this research on the animals, but you keep removing them, even when they come from Carroll herself. Without a description, it is left unexplained why people are protesting. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed her's because I wasn't sure if you would consider it balanced. If you want to add back in the 85%, I can leave it up, I just wasn't sure if you would want to leave up 85% (from Dr. Carroll's papers) without the other. For the other here is my concern. The article was in a student newspaper; however, the author of the article was just a student. Just because it got into the paper as an op ed piece doesn't mean it is reliable. Especially since the percentage stated in the op ed piece (80%) doesn't match the current info we have from her publications (85%), I highly question the reliability of the POV article. If we can find other evidence supporting the 80% we can add it in, but a non-reviewed opinion article in a student-run newspaper is about as reliable as the individual's blog entries. Umn student 04:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One additional clarification, the MN Daily is a student-run paper and is not owned or governed directly by the University Umn student 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean you previously removed a description of the experiment when the source was two academic papers. It doesn't matter who the author was. We look at the publication. Please see V, NOR, and NPOV -- you're engaged in original research here by trying to gainsay what the student said. The source saw fit to publish it; the publication is appropriate in terms of our policies; and the POV is needed for balance. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with leaving the 85% figure in, the problem is solely with the student-run newspaper op ed piece. The MN Daily, for it's op ed pieces (not written by staff members), does not meet the part of RS that reads "Articles should rely on sources written by reliable third parties or found in publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The reputation of the student newspaper here is not for reliability or fact checking, especially in its op-ed pieces. Umn student 04:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, RS states that reliability DOES depend on the author: "Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context." Umn student 05:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Check where I added the info now, it seems to fit better there. Umn student 04:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nav Boxes

What is everyone's opinion on the Nav Boxes? I'm ok with leaving the categories on this page, but the animal testing and animal rights nav boxes seem out of place as the main focus of the article is a biography. She does animal research, but I don't think the nav boxes are really necessary or appropriate. Umn student 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I avoid adding navboxes unless the article is already in the navbox — i.e. it will be bolded in the box. I don't see it happening with these 2 navboxes.--Rifleman 82 01:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't only add navboxes to articles that are listed in the boxes, because only the most pertinent can be listed for reasons of space. Perhaps we could leave the animal testing box, and remove the animal rights one? That's what we've done with other scientists who became controversial because of their animal research e.g. Colin Blakemore. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point about not having enough space. Though I must point out that there are other templates, such as {{Plastics}}, {{Chiral synthesis}}, in which we only add navboxes to those articles already there. --Rifleman 82 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Similarly for Anarchism, Feminism, and lots of other activist-type templates. If we installed templates for every subject that is touched upon in an article it would be template madness. --lquilter 04:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine (or at least better) to me. The animal testing seems to fit better than both at least. Umn student 01:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a biographical article about a scientist. The animal testing template is very large, and really ought to be applied to articles about animal testing -- not to people who are the subjects of protests, support, whatever. There is now an entire very large infobox that is almost wholly irrelevant to this scientist and her work. The discussion about animal rights protests is completely appropriate and should link to these matters, but this infobox template really should go. Instead she should have the {{Infobox Scientist}}. --lquilter 03:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we have consensus to remove the current nav boxes and add {{Infobox Scientist}} (while leaving the current categories)? Umn student 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the AR box, but I feel we should leave the testing box, because that's what she specializes in, and it's why she has become controversial. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that as a reason to leave the category, but the template still seems to be a bit much in my opinion. Umn student 04:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Carroll doesn't specialize in animal testing; she specializes in neuroscience, and animal testing is her method -- as it is for virtually all experimental biologists in model animal systems, including drosophila, c. elegans, zebrafish, chickens, etc. While Carroll is famous to animal rights advocates for testing, she's received tenure for animal neuroscience. ... At any rate, the standard {{Infobox Scientist}} should definitely go at the top of her article. That would at least keep the numerous irrelevant links in the very large AT template from taking up significant screen real estate when you first go to the article.

What would really be better would be an article on the type of animal testing at issue, with examples of labs (including Carroll's) that do it; that would be a perfect use of the template and could include all the relevant details from the various labs that are not relevant in a biographical article on one scientist. As it is, for instance, it's a bit off the subject to talk about, for instance, experiments done by students or postdocs, or the UM testing generally, etc. Everything ends up being decontextualized and a little off-topic because this is an article about a person, not an article about the experiments, per se. It would be very useful to talk about the different techniques involved, history, justifications, effects on the animals, alternative experimental methods, etc. Frankly, this information could then be addressed in considerably more detail than would ever be relevant in this article. Then that article and this one could link back and forth as appropriate; and overall the issue would be better and more usefully explained. --lquilter 05:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The other infobox was removed; I added infobox scientist and began filling it out. It's hard because UM doesn't have a decent faculty profile! --lquilter 05:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Carroll Quote

Since it sounds like we want to remove 80% because we have no real way to back it up besides an article in a newspaper, I feel we should remove:

"Carroll and the animal rights activists describe her studies from very different perspectives. Carroll told The Chronicle of Higher Education that her monkeys play with toys, watch television every morning, and occasionally smoke cocaine and heroin. "They have pretty good lives," she said.[6] However, local animal rights activists have described the research as "torture."[6]"

because this as not been verified in ANY peer reviewed journal. I am the only one, probably, that is editing this article that has looked at more than the 2 articles that we used for the 85% and I have NEVER seen a mention of a TV. In addition, that is the only news article where I have read that. In addition, "occasionally smoke cocaine and heroin" is wrong. They don't do that stuff every couple of days, they do it EVERYDAY while they are on a study... For years at a time. She has a grant with the NIH ( I can find a link to it if anyone wants) that has been going on for 27 years so far. As far as we know, she has been using the same monkeys for at least PART of the study. That would be a little more than "occasionally". Carniv 13:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary of article reliability

It doesn't need to be in a peer reviewed journal, just a reliable source. Here is the difference between the articles:

	Carroll Quote	Rolsky Quote
Source	Newspaper	Newspaper
Author	Freelance science and medical writer	Student, non-journalist
Article type	Editor-reviewed	Opinion article, not reviewed for content
Author Affiliation	Freelance Journalist	Self-described in article as militant pro-animal rights

While you have never seen a mention of TV, that is original research you are doing, which is not allowed by Wikipedia. Carroll's statements, however, The challenge from SlimVirgin that I am doing original research is also incorrect, as I am merely analyzing sources based on Wikipedia's guidelines (which is allowed as far as I know). According to those guidelines, sources need to be verifiable (WP:V). Verifiable states that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." The WP:RS policy then states that a reliable article must contain these:

• "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
  • The MN Daily article, since it was not a staff-published opinion piece, was therefore not reviewed for content accuracy
  • The data we have from a peer-reviewed article states 85% weight, while the opinion piece states 80%
    • This is not original research on my part, but merely assessing the accuracy of a source. If the numbers don't match, the reliability of the article is therefore in question
• "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings. It can refer to 1) the piece of work that is being cited, 2) the creator of the work (the author or artist), and 3) the publisher or location where it is to be found (a website, book, album or painting)."
  • SlimVirgin's assessment of an article only takes into consideration point 1 of WP:RS. She states, in contrary to RS that "the author doesn't matter"
  • As the other is self-described as militant pro-animal rights, this further brings into question the reliability of the source
  • While POV articles could be allowed here, the simple fact is that Rolsky's comments are in an unreliable article and don't match published works.
    • Here is another statement straight from WP:RS: "Publications with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the authors or publishers themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the author or publisher has made about third parties, unless those claims are also made in reliable sources."

These points are especially true since this article falls under the scope of biography of a living person, which puts an even higher level for reliability of sources. Umn student 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What about Carroll's bias in making her research appear as humane as possible especially after a 10+ campaighn against her. I agree with you that we can use the article that the quote come from but not the quote. Was the quote screened for accuracy? Was the person screened for as little as bias as possible? In the case of the Carroll quote, I'm not saying the article shouldn't be allowed, I'm saying the QUOTE shouldn't be allowed. Especially since the statement: "occasionally smoke cocaine and heroin" which is clearly not correct. Carniv 20:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have evidence stating it's not correct? Just because you believe it not to be doesn't mean she isn't right. She will have bias as will everyone else on this type of issue, but the quote from her is in a reliable, verifiable source, which meets Wikipeida's guidelines. If you think the article is too POV with it, we can remove it, but we will also need to remove the line about "torture" at that point (she believes that they occasionally smoke, the animal rights organizations think it's torture). The definition of "occasional" also comes into play--what is it? Once a day, twice a day, once a week? Umn student 01:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Umn, the Carroll quote doesn't have to be peer-reviewed, and should be restored. Why did you remove the number of monkeys? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the quote need some sort of reliability? Using the article from the Daily opinion piece is akin to using the guy's blog entry =). I removed the number of monkeys because it seemed weird to have that number as the sentence was written, while leaving out the number of mice. It also didn't really seem to serve a purpose related to her biography. She has monkeys, which it says, but does the number really have any bearing? Umn student 06:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The source didn't say how many mice. Look, you're removing sources that you personally don't like or disagree with. You can't do that. You can't say "wow, that source didn't tell us how many mice, so to hell with them telling us how many monkeys!" The source said what it said. We repeat that. Period. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the number because it was weird, not because it is POV. If you want, put it back up, I just don't think it really applies or matters to the article how many monkeys she uses. If consensus is that it is important and valid for the article, I have no problem with it. If you would like to restore it until we reach a conclusion, I won't remove it until we reach some form of consensus. Umn student 06:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also say that the whole sentence could be removed, as it is fairly outdated (2000) and that she uses mice and monkeys is stated elsewhere in the article. Umn student 08:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to remove it because it is too old, we need to remove" Joel Sawyer. "Professor tests animals despite threats", The Minnesota Daily, July 16, 1996" and "^ a b c d Chris Woolston. "Chronicle Careers: Doing Science Under Protest", The Chronicle of Higher Education, 7 Jan 2002. " because the first one is even older and the second one is almost as old.Carniv 15:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, are we talking about the 85% quote or the two quotes from her papers talking about the monkey reactions to the drugs? Carniv 15:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither--for the "old" part I am talking about the number of monkeys. Not all old sources are bad as some historical info won't change. However, that she had 34 monkeys and a 6million grant in 2000 doesn't really make sense to leave in, as it doesn't really add anything useful to the article and probably isn't even accurate anymore (grant could have been renewed, but most NIH grants last 5 years. I would suggest finding more up-to-date info if we want to leave it in, otherwise it is misleading and not useful information). As it reads, it suggests that in 2000, she had that many monkeys and that grant, which continues through today, which is not necessarily correct. Umn student 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have a primate census obtained from the U of M from the summer of 2006. I recieved it by email. Should I have the person who runs the MNPFP website post it?

Actually, since 1996, she has recieved more than $6 mil according to Crisper which takes data from the NIH database Crisp, combines it with financial data from the NIH, and shoots it out. You can go to: http://www.sunshine-project.org/crisper/crisper_advanced_search.php Put in "Carroll Marilyn" highlight all the years, click "Minnesota" and then bam, you will get the number at the top right: "$6,198,692" Since she has been getting grants from the NIH since 1980 the number is going to be WAY higher. That is only since 1996. Carniv 20:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

language

As appropriate for all topics, I made a few wording changes to decreasethe use of emotionally laden language, such as the repetion of "monkeys. " That she uses primates as well as rodents is still mentioned prominently in the article, and is of course clear from the references. DGG (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word "monkey" is not emotionally laden. They are monkeys. That is the name for what they are. Why would we use broader, unclear terms (primate, rodent), which don't actually tell us which animals we're discussing?

Come on, guys. I appreciate that you're trying to maintain NPOV, and that's especially important when it's a BLP. I support that caution. But things are being taken too far. Quotes from Carroll herself are being removed; descriptions of the experiments from her own papers have been removed; and now we're not allowed to use the word "monkey"?

The facts are: (1) A researcher is engaged in work that she, and many members of the public, feel is justified and legitimate. It needs to be described, and the reasons for it, in her own words if they're available, but not only in her words. And (2) animal rights activists are engaged in a protest that they, and some members of the public (fewer than support the researcher, it has to be said, but still a significant minority) feel is justified and legitimate. That protest needs to be described, and the reasons for it, in the words of the protesters, but not only in their words.

Any editor who tries to stop us from doing either of the above is hampering NPOV, Wikipedia's core content policy (subject to V, NOR, and BLP also being adhered to). SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

the word "monkey" can of course be used in the article. But not multiple times, in the lead and elsewhere, with the intent of creating a emotional aqffect, not a NPOV description. I in fact added the word "primate" --which is a group, unlike monkey, that includes humans. I see another editor changed it to "non-human primate". Quotes from Caroll need to be used in context. The lede is not normally the place for them. The present article as revised better than I did it is objectie. I'd see no reason not to add a well-sourced quote from a scientist opposed to the work. DGG (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the number of monkeys, etc. The size of the grant is central relevant information in the notability of any scientist, and certainly should be added to the article. The number of animals used in a study is on the other hand normally a detail.DGG (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Primate Number

Carniv, please read above for reasons on removing the number of primates. The reason for wanting the grants updated was because it was old info. The reason for removing the number of primates is because it was old AND information that isn't important or relevant to the biography. That she uses monkeys should be enough, the number of them (1, 5, 50, 500) doesn't really serve a purpose to the article. In addition, citing a pdf link with no information of where it was obtained from doesn't really count as reliable. Also, the Minnesota Primate Freedom Project is not that well-known, regulated, or reviewed for journalistic integrity. Some of the information on that website can be used (in places where it talks about the group itself), but would not count as a reliable source for other information. Umn student 02:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, how is the number of primates important in pertaining to her research? Also, if there are many sources for it, can we at least find and cite one of the reliable ones rather than a PDF document that, for all we know, was posted by Carniv on the MNPFP website? Umn student 03:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it not pertinent? If you personally wouldn't have added it, that's fine, but there's no reason to keep deleting it. There are two sources for it. I did cite a university source previously, but you deleted that too. You seem to want to delete all descriptions of what she does, including her own. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the other source that you removed earlier. Please don't remove any more descriptions of her work, especially if they come from papers she herself has written, or material published by the university or local authority. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The other source is not from her or from a local authority. It was from a pamphlet created by SOAR that was presented at a University meeting. While more reliable than the MNPFP website, it still isn't the best in reliability and is quite an outdated source. As you mentioned, I wouldn't have added it, you wouldn't have removed it--thus why we look for consensus. There seems to be arguments here as to why it's not pertinent, from me and another person. It adds no information that is important to the article, it doesn't affect her notability as a scientist, and could change frequently. If it is that important, the number of mice should also be reported (which could be found in IACUC documents if wanted). If the mice aren't important enough to look into and cite, the monkeys shouldn't be either. If you have an argument as to why the number of monkeys is important to the content of this article, we should find a primary source for the info (wherever SOAR/MNPFP got the data from would be perfect), otherwise it should be removed as it is an irrelevant statistic. Umn student 06:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As for removing descriptions of what she has done (when copied from her papers), I have only removed direct quotes that were extremely POV as written. They were removed at the very onset of this article, at the time it consisted of an abbreviated form of the current research section, more in the animal rights protests section, and 3 quotes from her papers that were clearly placed as a POV push. While POV is allowed, it must still be balanced, which was not the case. If there are other specific examples you want to put back in, I'd be more than happy to discuss them. But as you don't want me to remove sections, I would also appreciate if you would review some of the previous consensus here prior to adding content back into the article. Umn student 06:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that mice don't need to be counted by research institutes in the U.S., but if you can find a figure, by all means add it. It's usually best to add material of your own, rather than to remove other people's, if you want to provide balance. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't need to send the IACUC the number of mice to use, I've really been overworking when I need to fill out paperwork. While possibly not required throughout the US, the U of M requires the number of vertebrates to be recorded when requesting IACUC approval for research projects and grants. My argument here is that if the number of mice is not important, how is the number of monkeys important?

As for providing balance, adding is definitely better. However, similar to the above, simply adding a laundry list of quotes from her papers isn't useful to the article except to push POV in one direction or another. The quotes were provided by themselves, with no extra framework or discussion. Umn student 06:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I found a secondary source for those quotes, and have added it together with the primary sources. That takes care of the OR issue (that Wikipedians are picking and choosing which ones to use, because here it is a secondary source who is choosing them). SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - the quotes read much better this way and are much better than in just a bulleted list (relevant). Umn student 15:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the USDA keeps records of the number of mice at research institutions but the U of M certainly does. The reason the MNPFP doesn't have that data is because they aren't focused on mice. But since UMN STUDENT seems to want that amount also, I will have the person who does data requests send in for a mice census. It will probably be like half a year since the U of M isn't responding to anyone's data requests right now.Carniv 13:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is my point: if the MNPFP doesn't seem to think the number of mice was important enough to find out, the number of mice or primates really isn't important to her biography. I'm not arguing that mice should be put in. What I'm saying is that the number of animals isn't relevant information -- which is exemplified by the point that the number of mice is left out. That she uses mice and primates is noted and relevant, the number of animals is extraneous statistics. Umn student 16:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason that the MNPFP didn't request the number of mice is we have to pay $0.25 a page for records and we aren't focusing on her use of mice, JUST her use of primates. That is why we didn't request it at first. Carniv 18:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Page move?

Would it make more sense to move this page away from Carroll's name? When someone is well-known only for one issue, we tend to create pages about that issue, rather than about the person, unless they are extremely well known for it. We could call it something like Addiction research at the University of Minnesota. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds wise. Does seem like the research she's doing could give some important results, though the issue is probably more important here. Second that move suggestion. John Nevard 09:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Or if the protests are mostly about primate research, perhaps Primate research at the University of Minnesota? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly true. However, the protests mainly highlight the particular aspects of Carroll's addiction research that tend to draw sympathy. If her research stopped then attention would probably be diverted to other research using animal models, particularly research on monkeys, but would this drop the protests below our threshold of notability? IINANS, but the addiction research aspects of her experimentation seem to be quite unique and important on their own, possibly more so than other primate research ongoing in UMN's NeuroSci and CogSci departments. So. Um. Yeah. I think if a move is to occur, 'addiction research' might be the better choice. John Nevard 10:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking if it was primate research, we'd be able to add the other primate research done there too, rather than needing new pages for different projects. I'm happy with either title, though. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the protests aren't really that notable. They were very brief, done by a specific student organization (that no longer exists), and has had little impact on the University. Other protests by Peta (I believe) had a larger impact where animals were actually released on campus. The other issue is that this group has protested only against Marilyn Carroll, not against any other researcher with non-human primates. Umn student 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Addiction research at the University of Minnesota is both much broader than you're probably interested in, and also probably much less notable. Is UM a noted cite for addiction research? How is it more or less notable than other addition research centers? I mean, NIDA funds LOTS of labs.

It seems like the interest from the animal rights side is on the animal experimentation, not the research, per se. So why not just write straightforwardly about those topics? We have Animal testing on non-human primates. Then perhaps the interest is to further expand upon subtopics in that article. That could include (a) focus on the specific protests and protest-locations (Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc.); (b) break out specific types of testing (food restriction, drug application, skin testing, surgical procedures, social experiments, etc.), or (c) specific uses of testing (application for human drugs, human cosmetics, human psychology, etc.). Among those, IMO, specific protests and protest-locations ([a]) isn't as interesting as the types of testing or uses of testing (b or c). --Lquilter 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to stay away from the word "addiction," I'd suggest Animal research at the University of Minnesota or Primate research at the University of Minnesota. I think the key is to get it away from her name. It can always be changed again later, depending on which direction the article takes. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing that makes it really too narrow for notability is not "addiction" but "University of Minnesota", don't you think? Although addiction research is probably also not quite right, either. The kinds of experiments used here are probably used elsewhere than UM, and probably for things other than addiction studies. --Lquilter 23:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to University of Minnesota primate research for now, and I've edited the page so that the drug addiction research is just the first study to be discussed. We can rename the page again depending on the future content. Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The move was done with only a few hours discussion, and I think it may have been premature. As a full professor at he university , she herself is notable (Of course, SV, what makes researchers notable is their research--that is not being notable for a single event. it's just the same as saying that a painter is notable because of his paintings, or a singer because of his recordings). One solution of course might be to write a separate article about her in addition to this one. I'd support that. The controversy about primate research is a notable topic in general--whether it is sufficiently notable at this particular university is I think perhaps borderline. At any rate, the controversy--and it is a real one--I do not pretend that the use of primates in research is not controversial--is about the research not her personally, so it might make sense. If an article is to be named like this, I think SV has the detail right, "animal research..." or "addiction research..." are too broad. I do not think it is our intention to write separate articles about each line of research at each university.DGG (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• I completely concur with DGG's analysis. The prof needs a page of her own. The article as currently titled ("University of Minnesota primate research") is really probably too specific to be notable (see my comments above) and I would be surprised if the article as currently represented actually represents the article as currently titled. Again, I really think it's completely appropriate to write an article specifically laying out the problems that animal rights activists have with the kinds of primate research involved here, and overviewing the various protests that has led to. I'm not sure why, if those are the articles people want to write, such articles should be misleadingly titled by a researcher's name or the title of a research field. Again, the kinds of experiments done here are probably done elsewhere than UM. I suspect the interest is not in writing about particular protests but about the kind of experiments, with UM as a prime example; but not about UM, per se. I mean, it's not like people think the issues are significantly different for the same experiments over at Univ. of Wisconsin. So the title is still somewhat misleading, IMO. --Lquilter 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite follow, Lquilter. You say that the prof needs her own page, but later you say "I'm not sure why, if those are the articles people want to write, such articles should be misleadingly titled by a researcher's name ..." Isn't that a contradiction, or did I misunderstand?

The point is that the criticism of Carroll from animal rights groups is very prominent and notable. You can find references to it on Google books. Therefore, it must be included in any article about her research, whatever its title. But because she is a living person, we have to be particularly careful to handle information about her fairly. According to BLP, when a person becomes notable enough for a WP article entirely or largely as a result of criticism regarding one particular issue, we should create a page about that issue, rather than call it by the person's name. That's the rule of thumb I'm trying to follow here. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Lquilter is saying that while the title of the article is "University of Minnesota primate research", it doesn't talk about different areas of primate research at the U, but rather only about the protests against Marilyn Carroll. Therefore, the title is misleading in that there isn't information about general primate research, but rather about a single researcher. Umn student 01:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's only because it hasn't been expanded yet. Feel free to add something about the rest of the primate research. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What about a title more along the lines of "Activism against primate research" (probably not the best, but more fitting of the article), which could expand to include protests at other organizations or universities. Or, perhaps merging this into the Primate Freedom Project article, along with any other researchers they have protested against? The notability of each individual action probably isn't that nationally prominent, but might fit better within a single article. Thoughts? Umn student 01:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is (at the moment) an article about Marilyn Carroll that we are trying to avoid calling by her name, as a matter of courtesy toward her. It isn't about any specific AR group. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

See, to me that's the problem, and I don't really understand why this article was renamed from Carroll, if it is intended (by the people writing it) to be solely about Carroll. An article about Carroll ought to be about Carroll, good and bad. ... I think, though, that the article is not actually intended to be about Carroll, good and bad, but about the animal rights protests of Carroll's research. Since that topic is marginally notable by itself, it's natural to try to make the topic broader. But people keep trying to make it broader in writing in one direction, and in title in the other direction. In other words, again, I think a lot of the editorial conflicts on this page are stemming from inaccurate titling. Editors who are really trying to write about animal rights protests and critiques, should do so, with an accurately descriptive title. UM primate research is, frankly speaking, probably not really a notable topic in and of itself. Right? How many secondary sources can we dig up on that topic, per se? I'm thinking not many. The notability that the AR folks are frankly interested in pursuing is the animal experimentation and ensuing protests. Why not simply title the article accurately? That way you don't have to, in good conscience, try to dig up information about all primate research at UM, or fend off arguments from other people that it's not there. Then we don't have to worry about scope; just NPOV. --Lquilter 03:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Updates/Additional Move

Do we plan on leaving this page named as it is? It's not reflective of the article content, and "U of M primate research" is not all that notable compared to other organizations. Either more content needs to be on this page or we should move it to an alternative name. Umn student 15:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RAR link

Can you please explain why you have an RAR link? Carniv 16:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going to remove it. Carniv 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it, Carniv. It's local and relevant. What is your objection to it? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean, I'm not hugely against it... it just seems random... Their area really doesn't have any involvement in the article. Now, if we were talking about AWA violations or the enrichment provided to the animals, or if AR activists are concerned about the vet care the monkeys are receiving, I could see RAR being involved in the article but since it is about the researchers themselves, or in this case only Marilyn Carroll, I just don't see how it is relevant but whatever... Carniv 22:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, it didn't really seem relevant before when it was under just "Marilyn Carroll", however, with the move, it is probably fine. Umn student 23:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The MNPFP external link

We've discussed this. Not only does the site not have much information, what information it does have about Dr. Carroll is from another source. It would be fine to link that original source, but linking to MNPFP does not make any sense for this article. Say we do move the page to Primate Research at the U of M or something like that, then it might be worthwhile to have that link, but even then probably not. Jmjanssen 17:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed this several times. Please engage in some discussion prior to blind reverts. Also, please read through some of the sources rather than just taking the opinions of others. If you actually look at the MNPFP site, you will see it contains no information that adds to the discussion of Marilyn Carroll, or really the use of primate research in general. Umn student 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to contain information about her. It's an external link because it's a related issue -- period. Do not keep removing material that conforms with our policies. Your editing here has been very disruptive. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Slim, WP:EL would indicate that content on a site does in fact matter. If you look above and below, I agree with the link being up now that the article is about Primate Research in general and not just Dr. Carroll so this discussion is now moot as far as I am concerned, but I still want to let you know that I disagree with the statement that "It doesn't have to contain information about her. It's an external link because it's a related issue -- period." in principle. Jmjanssen 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought the reason we took it down was because the MNPFP didn't have any information concerning Marilyn Carroll. Now that the census is up, I felt it was okay to add back.

Concerning: "you will see it contains no information that adds to the discussion of Marilyn Carroll, or really the use of primate research in general." I have NOT seen any of those pictures or videos ANYWHERE else. As far as I know, on the MNPFP website is the only pictures and video of non-human primates ANYWHERE on the web. I would like to put it back up since if for nothing else, we are using the census from there. Carniv 18:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The census should not be coming from there as it is not a reliable source. MNPFP does not meet the guidelines as written "Articles should rely on sources written by reliable third parties or found in publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The census data was a PDF pulled from an e-mail that could have been forged, tampered, or otherwise just inaccurate. If you had them post it, that underscores the problem with using it as a source as it would then become original research. The census data is also extraneous info that really doesn't help this article, and I have yet to see a good reason as to why we should leave it in. Slim--you say that I am violating policy, but you are the one who constantly reverts to POV, unreliable sources without first engaging in any discussion here other than you think it's fine to add. WP:V depends on reliable sources, not students who make a website and then publish whatever content they want on it. As for my edits being disruptive, the document had few errors, was pretty neutral, but could have used some expansion. The most disruptions occurred (just look at the current length of this talk page) after you began editing. Umn student 19:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

General protests

Please engage in some form of conversation here prior to just reverting edits. I feel that there have been pretty decent explanations given for the removal of content, but nothing in the form of why it should be placed back up (unreliable sources, useless links, irrelevant statistics). If it is useful, try to give us some idea as to your reasoning, rather than just saying "I want it there". I removed the general protest info as the article states a protest was suppose to occur, but there was no information as to if it actually did occur. In addition, the protest wasn't directed at Marilyn Carroll. If the article gets moved to a general article, it would be relevant and useful. As it was, it did not add anything to her biography. Umn student 17:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you refering to me? Besides the MNPFP link, which I answered above, what else have I reverted?

Okay, that's fair. So instead of just taking that sentence out, why didn't you change it to "on May, 31, 2006, a protest WAS SUPPOSED to occur? True, the protest was NOT just aimed at Marilyn Carroll but she is one of the reseachers who use primates so she was ONE of the targets of the protest.Carniv 18:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Umn, do not keep removing relevant material and links, please. If you want to edit, you have to stick to our content policies, and you're currently violating them. Do you edit using any other account, by the way? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Which content policy am I violating? The only ones in constant violation are WP:RS, which have been generally by Carniv and yourself. As for saying that the MNPFP site has the only picture and video of primates, that site doesn't contain the images, they are from the SOAR website. Umn student 19:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

RS isn't policy. The core content policies are NPOV, NOR, and V. You're violating NPOV and V with your article edits, and your talk page comments show you violating NOR by arguing for the removal of sources when you personally think that what they're saying is wrong.

I would argue that my talk page comments show nothing of the sort. The comments were left by you and another admin left remarks stating pretty much the opposite of your opinion. My talk page shows what you thought, but nothing about me violating policy. While RS isn't a policy, V references RS as a pillar for nearly every policy it makes. Umn student 03:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the MNPFP having pictures. I said it doesn't matter what it has on its site; it is a relevant link, and therefore can be added to external links.

Can you say whether you edit WP using any other account, please? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording around since UMnstudent is correct, it doesn't say whether it actually happen or not. Carniv 20:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the assumption is that it did happen, or we wouldn't have added it to the article. To say that it was going to happen looks strange. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia works on assumptions, does it? And no, I do not use any other accounts for editing. Umn student 23:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the SOAR site still up? NO! Can you access the video on archive.com, not the last time I checked. Carniv 20:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with saying it did happen. It is just that UMN student is trying to keep everything out so I'm trying to accommodate him/her as much as possible. I was there and I can tell you it did happen and so can 2-3 people from the U of M because they were running around in their smocks, looking at us in shock, talking to lots of different people on their cell phones. And just to put it out there, it is funny timing when Umn student appeared because I received an email from the MNPFP saying that they needed help with the article and then about a week later, who happens to show up, UMN student!!!! Carniv 20:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You saying it did happen would be original research, it would have to be cited somewhere to meet the basic guidelines of WP:V, correct Slim? Umn student 23:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying you should take my word. That would be original research. I'm just putting it out in the talk page that it did happen and since it appears that you do research (filling out forms-mice), you probably heard about it because the U of M staff that were monitering it were quite upset. Carniv 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about yet. If you are talking about the protests occurring and then my edits trying to coincide, didn't your newspaper article have a 2006 citation? I didn't start editing here until a few weeks ago. Umn student 02:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: External Links, Animal Census Data

The use of the Minnesota Primate Freedom Project website as an outside link and as a source for census data has been a point of some debate above. Additional comments about the use of the MNPFP website as an external source and reliable source would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umn student (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Minnesota Primate Freedom Project is a local chapter of the national Primate Freedom Project, a well-respected primate protection organization. The Minnesota branch has been involved in doing research into primate experiments at Minnesota University, and organizing protests against them, which is what this article is about. Therefore, an external link to that organization's website is perfectly appropriate. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the scope of the article has changed to include all primate research at the U, I feel the the MNPFP link is valid now. As I stated above, it definitely did not seem valid when the article was simply about Dr. Carroll. Jmjanssen 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree at this point, however the move seemed quite abrupt. Umn student 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that the MPFP is appropriate as an external link, though not a RS.DGG (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

UMN Most Notable

I would argue that the first sentence is invalid and very objective, as the U is noted for its work in HIV, drug development, and immunology, which all use non-human primates. Stating that the most notable research is the drug-addiction work is incorrect. Umn student 23:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Minnesota Daily

For future reference, the Minnesota Daily is a definitely a reliable source for this article, though some have removed it a couple of times. It was founded 100 years ago, is one of the largest student newspapers in the U.S., and although largely student-run, it has a Board of Directors with professional advisors: [3]

   * Co-Publisher & Chairman of the Board - Anna Leisa Sauser
   * Vice Chair of the Board - Madeline Brimmer
   * Co-Publisher & Editor in Chief - Anna Weggel
   * Co-Publisher & Business Manager - Scott Sailer
   * Treasurer & Director with Newspaper Expertise Chuck Brown, Controller at the Star Tribune
   * Director with Newspaper Expertise - Charlie Hoag, Consultant
   * Director - Editorial Alumni - David Peters, Nation-World Editor at the Star Tribune
   * Student Directors - Sarah Ryder, Thomas Flynn, Matt Schroeder
   * Director from SJMC - Donald Brazeal, Professor at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication University of Minnesota
   * Advisor from Carlson School of Management - Ross Azevedo
   * Advisor from the Office of Student Development - Marjorie Savage, Parent Program Director at the Office of Student Affairs - University of Minnesota
   * Human Resources Manager - Abbey Peterson
   * Controller - Brian Mann
   * Minnesota Daily Staff Representatives - Rana Rand, Kevin McCahill

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have only removed articles that were opinion articles not written by the Daily, because they are not reviewed. Please read through the previous statements before making assumptions. Articles written by the Daily would definitely be fine, opinion articles written by students would not be, and those are the only ones that have been removed. Umn student 16:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be very much appreciated if you'd read the content policies. If a reliable source sees fit to publish something, we may publish it too. You can attribute it to make clear who the writer is, but you can't remove it just because it's an opinion piece. If the newspaper thought it okay to publish, we can do likewise. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence that was removed was from the opinion piece and had information that was not the same as peer-reviewed journal articles. If they publish information that is wrong, does that mean we should still put it in Wikipedia? Verifiable is fine, but if the article (the opinion piece by a self-described POV source) has information that is just plain wrong (didn't match peer-reviewed journal articles), it shouldn't be included. The statement I removed was the "80% of body weight" which we replaced with "85% of body weight" from a peer-reviewed article, and is in the present version. How is this inappropriate other than you didn't like it? Umn student 18:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Update--it had been in the article, someone else seems to have removed the percentage and just put in that they restrict food intake. (Revision as of 15:40, 8 November 2007 removed the 85% and just put restricting food intake). Umn student 19:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to add, from your same source, "The Board DOES NOT and CANNOT dictate, determine or otherwise influence the content or editorial position of the Daily.". Therefore, if the Daily adds controversial, poorly reviewed content, the board would have no way to change it. (Notice I said controversial AND poorly reviewed. A piece of information that seems to slip by. An "or" would be inappropriate, as controversial information is ok. However, being controversial doesn't give an article the option of not needing to be edited or reviewed.) Umn student 16:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is true of all reputable news sources. it is what gives them their independence. The point is that the editors are ultimately responsible to the board, as in any organization. DGG (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully if people put cites from editorials they label them properly as "editorials". While WP:V doesn't forbid editorials, it does say: 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 The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. and most importantly Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.[4] Editorials of course are not "reliable" in terms of fact-checking and accuracy. So at the least to properly inform readers we should mark editorials as such. I would also suggest that more reliable sources would be preferred and that they shouldn't be given undue weight, and that the language in the article should make it clear that any emotional language or factual claims are "opinion" rather than verified fact. --Lquilter 18:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I was the author of those policy sections you quote, Lquilter, and there's nothing in them that stops us using editorials, so long as the newspaper is reliable. But of course we can add intext attribution i.e. "according to an editorial written by X in The Daily Y..." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, but the intent of that is that the reliability depends on the author of the editorial, X, not the newspaper--though the fact that he writes for a reputable newspaper is relevant to his own reliability. anyway, I don't think an editorial of anything can be a RS for facts as distinct from opinion--their very purpose is to convey opinion. DGG (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the reliability depends almost always on the publication, not the author (exceptions are e.g. when it's a blog). We don't know who most NYT journalists are unless we work in the industry. Yet we always use the NYT as a reliable source. And in this case, the source was giving his opinion on the "torture" and his reason for using that word. It was a relevant opinion because of who he was; and what we call a reliable or notable one because of who published it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? I would never cite to an editorial in the NYT or anywhere else as a "reliable source" for a fact. At any rate, the guidelines don't address it one way or the other (which I now take as a clear failing, since it's not a standard that any other publication would permit -- citing to editorials as fact). .... Anyway, I hope we can all agree that whether the guidelines do or should say anything about it, it is just better to label an editorial as such. --Lquilter 03:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

* Additional quick clarification: SV stated that "we don't know who most NYT journalists are". Although I hope everyone here understands that editorials are not journalism, and editorials published in the NYT are not NYT journalism, that statement might confuse folks. So just FYI: There are multiple types of editorials on the NYT editorial page: op-eds which are guest opinion editorials written by people usually not affiliated with the NYT; opinion columns which are by columnists/pundits who are not "journalists" in the sense of reporting news and verifying facts; NYT editorial board editorials (the NYT's official editorials, such as endorsements of political candidates) which are done by the editorial board which aren't necessarily journalists. Even if a journalist does write an editorial they are not constrained by the professional ethics of a journalist for fact-checking etc.; that's the whole reason for distinguishing between an editorial and a news / journalistic piece of reporting. The NYT maintains strict fact standards (well, relatively) for its journalism; but it maintains no such standards for its opinion & editorial pieces. I'm sure SlimVirgin knows this, having worked so extensively on the policy sections, but it would probably be helpful to lesser-informed people to distinguish between those pieces of writing in a newspaper. --Lquilter 15:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, the opinion is regarded as notable because of the reliability of the publication. We can, of course (and perhaps always should) say: "In an editorial in Y, John Smith wrote that ..." But we can't refuse to allow an opinion into an article because it was published as an opinion piece. :-) I also think you're making too much of the fact/opinion distinction. We very rarely publish a controversial "fact" without intext attribution, or at least we shouldn't, because what we're really reporting is that A believes X, but B believes Y. Regarding which are the real "facts," we don't take a position. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

SV's argument seems to make sense, but frankly it just doesn't feel right to me. I think it is because the discussion has strayed. The discussion should be about whether or not the content of the editorial is verifiable, not whether or not it is an editorial Jmjanssen 20:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Slim, you are now combining two different sources. The word "torture" was never mentioned in the Minnesota Daily article, go and actually read the source--it's not there. The "torture" part came from "Chris Woolston. "Chronicle Careers: Doing Science Under Protest", The Chronicle of Higher Education" while the Daily article only stated the 80% information. Also, if we read WP:RS, it states "1) the piece of work that is being cited, 2) the creator of the work (the author or artist), and 3) the publisher or location where it is to be found (a website, book, album or painting). All three can affect the reliability of the work.". Even if you count both sources as reliable, you can't combine the information from the two (as was previously done) to add effect to this article. Umn student 18:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

RS isn't policy, and is also not a respected guideline. V and NOR are policy, and we can of course combine pieces, as was done with the passage you're referring to. We just have to be careful not to combine them in a way that violates the no-synthesis rule of NOR, but the sentence you're discussing didn't. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But combining them did. You can't take one article and say "animal rights activists claimed it was torture", and then in the next sentence say that reason they thought it was torture was due to the body weight restrictions. They were quotes from different people in different articles, we have no idea why the first article claimed torture: body weight, administering the drugs, keeping them in solitary cages? Piecing the two together synthesized a new opinion by the editor who wrote it here, which doesn't follow your own content guidelines. Umn student 22:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

RS isn't a policy, but I think it is pretty reaching to say it is not a respected guideline. It should be respected in that people should respect common sense. A verifiable source should also be reliable, that just fits. Jmjanssen 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't policy, but it is a guideline that is linked to very heavily in WP:V. If RS isn't respected, then having a blog means something is verifiable and publishable on Wikipedia, which I haven't seen to be the case before. Umn student 22:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't really make that distinction, Jm (verifiable v reliable). We use sources who are reliable and appropriate, but we don't define those terms, so as to leave room for editorial judgment (plus, it would be impossible to define them). But we don't try to "verify" that what sources say is correct. That is, if CCN publishes something, we don't check that the Washington Post has also published it. We just say "According to CNN ..." or, if it's something very established, we report it as fact, linking to CNN as the source, but not attributing the view to them in the text. But the idea of "verifying" that what reliable sources say is correct, we can't do it. In fact, it would amount to OR.

In this case, the student activist was expressing his view of the research, that it is cruel because it reduces the monkeys to 80 percent of their body weight. Someone objected that his view is wrong, because it's 85 percent of their body weight, not 80. We therefore added after the sentence that Marilyn Caroll herself says it is 85 percent. But really we ought not to have done that, because it may very well have been 80 percent at some earlier point. Or maybe the source knows more than Carroll is telling. Or, or, or. Point is, we don't know. So really we should simply let the sources speak. But in this case, there was no harm adding the 85 percent figure too, because the point is -- she is withholding food in order to get them addicted to drugs. That is the point the student was making. That is the thing he thinks is cruel.

But what Umn did, instead of allowing the student quote and the addition of Carroll's clarification, was to remove that student's opinion entirely.

I feel that some or all of Umn's objections are based on his strong dislike of the activists, and that policy is to some extent being bent to that end. But what we need to do is just report what is going on, whether we like it or not. That's what policy says: find sources that you feel are reliable and appropriate given the context. Then tell the reader what those sources are saying. Clearly, in an article about protests against University of Minnesota research — protests that are largely or entirely led by a University of Minnesota student group — then the opinion of that student group published by the university's student newspaper (which is established and respected, and has an external, professional editorial board) are entirely appropriate. So let's just tell the reader what they said. That was all I was arguing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you actually just helped prove my point. The numbers don't matter, just that she restricts their weight, which I thought was fine to leave in. Your (Slim's) and Carniv's opposition to removing the numbers and just having the point, that she restricts their food intake to addict them to drugs, is to keep additional POV in the article. Such a statement is more neutral, doesn't base itself on opinions, and still gets the exact same point across. I have no strong dislike for the activists or putting information (not propaganda) about the activism here, I just don't think that Wikipedia should become an activist website--that's what they have their own websites for. Carniv even states in the beginning that he only started on here to write this article, and later mentions it was at the behest of the MNPFP, which seriously brings into question both his and your neutrality (since he asked you for help with editing) on editing this article. We both have POV, there is no changing that, but you can't just assume your POV is the correct one. Umn student (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

When someone asks for help in editing an article, it does not in the least affect the neutrality of the help that is provided-- I try, and I know SV tries, to assist by helping get the best possible article we can, not necessarily the article desired by the person who asks us. DGG (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to add that yes, I started editing because I wanted to help MNPFP create an article on Marilyn Carroll but that doesn't mean that I want it to be biased? Why does the face that MNPFP wanted my help make me biased anymore than you? You yourself have basicly said you use mice in your research, so aren't you biased? I mean come on, we are ALL biased in some way or another. But what matters is if we are trying to let that bias influence our writing on this page and I for one, am not. I really am not looking for another MNPFP page on Wiki, my end goal for this article is to get BOTH sides equally covered. It is just, my knowledge is almost all in the AR side of it. I don't know that much about her general background. That is why my edits may have appeared to be biased is because the AR side is what I can contribute.... Carniv (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wording

"Her work has shown that antidepressants and behavioral or environmental changes, such as adding sweet-tasting drinking solutions, reduce the self-administration of drugs in the laboratory."

I would like to add at the end of the sentence that this is in non-human animals. It is not clear whether this is in humans or in computer models, or in animals, or in... Carniv (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotes (Part II)

So, Carniv added some more quotes, which is lovely, but we should reach some sort of consensus about what/how much to add before this gets out of hand again. Jmjanssen (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a few could be picked out as the ones to keep. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we have two sections talking abouut the same thing. Check two or three catagories down. Carniv (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

name of article

I haven't seen any further action on the name of the article, or responses to what was pointed out, above -- that the article is misleadingly titled. I doubt, for instance, that anybody has tried to write a comprehensive article about UM primate research, and if they did, I'm not sure that it would be particularly notable. Instead, this article is a coatrack for the animal rights protests. It does a disservice to both the actual topic and the named topic to have it be so confusingly labeled. I propose moving this article to Animal rights protests of Marilyn Carroll's research (or perhaps Animal rights protests of University of Minnesota primate research). Any objections? --Lquilter (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My only objection (and a minor one it is) is that this could be a comprehensive article on primate research at the University of Minnesota if it was expanded upon properly. Jmjanssen (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's going to be about all the research there, Lquilter, not just that researchers', and the way we write articles about these issues is University of X primate research or Primate research/experiments at University X. We moved it to get it away from her name, per BLP. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) Minor point to SV: I do recall that being your justification for your move/rename, but I never saw it, myself. BLP doesn't say not to have articles in people's names nor that criticism of people's work should be done in an unrelated article. And BLP applies to content about living people wherever it is. (2) Be that as it may, I think it's perfectly fine to title the article more broadly than her name, by referencing the general research, since the article really was and is about protests of the research. Naming it with reference to the research is a step closer to accurate titling. But only a step because the article as currently written is really about the AR protests of the research. (3) SV, you mention that it's going to be about all the research there -- you sound as if you have plans to actually do some writing. No offense, but what about? UM is not exactly the world center of primatology, so, again, I would really have to question the notability of an article that was, actually, about UM primate research. Are you saying that you plan to have this article focus primarily on the primate research that UM conducts -- spread out over all the various programs -- with a small section on the AR controversy (small because of "WP:UNDUE")? Am I missing something here? Is UM a secret center of universally acclaimed primatology? --Lquilter (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind what the title is, Lquilter, so if you want to move it, it's fine by me if no one else objects. We can always move it back if it's developed. The only thing I'd caution against is including her name in it. Per BLP, if an individual is known largely for one situation or incident, and particular if it's negative, we're supposed to call the article after the situation, not the person. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. We'll hang on for a while and see if there are any other opinions or thoughts about re-titling the article to more closely describe the content. I suggest: Animal rights protests of University of Minnesota primate research. --Lquilter (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have plans to expand. I'm going to include another researcher, Geoffrey Ghose, and I hope to include all primate researchers at someone point, but Ghose is the next one. Just putting that out there. Carniv (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. Two questions then for titling this: (1) Are all the articles going to be about animal rights protests of these researchers, or are some of the researchers not protested and the research will be covered just as research? (2) Could you sketch out a lede paragraph and stubby information on the other sections, tagged with "expand this" sections? Or if that's too visually annoying, here on the talk page could you sketch out the plans for this article? I don't want to move things unnecessarily either! --Lquilter (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the article ready yet. I know that his researcher hasn't been protested, yet. So for right now the article would just be about the research.Carniv (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there more than two researchers using primates at UM? Or just the two? --Lquilter (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there's between 4-9 depending how you look at it. 72.55.217.228 (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

4 being faculty, 9 being faculty + postdocs/grad students? ... Regardless, I guess the question is, what are the selection criteria? Is this article intended to be a review of all the primate scientists regardless of whether they have been protested or not (and if it's "primate research at UM" then it should be historical too)? Or is it just supposed to be about the research that is protested/critiqued/perceived as objectionable? --Lquilter (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

to be fair, the nature of this research is not unreasonably considered a little more problematic than some other studies. But the article really should mention the others at this university; otherwise it does so strongly resemble a WP:COATRACK as to be unsupportable. DGG (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was why I thought it should be renamed; but Carniv & SV have both indicated there are plans to write about other primate researchers @ UM. I'm trying to figure out the scope of their plans so as to propose a better more accurate title. To title it accurately as it is written right now it should be "Animal rights protests of University of Minnesota primate research". --Lquilter (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

details

When we report research we report the conclusions, not the experimental details. Therefore general statements are appropriate. If we want a general article on primate research on drugs of addiction, then there might be a place for it. (The second half of the material ,by the way, does not talk about primates, but rodents, and is therefore not to the point altogether. I would even say that it's use shows the desires for sensationalism. ) And the way rats are killed--the last sentences--are general to animal research altogether. They should not be associated with the Univ. of Minn. in particular. If we want to talk about her research, or the research there, we would need to do a fair presentation discussing how many animals received which form of treatment, and the summaries of the results, not animal by animal. If we want to talk about methods of animal research, there might be a place for illustrative examples with all the unpleasantness involved. But not here. Even when we describe human murders, we dont present the detailed forensics. From the point of animal rights, the victims here deserve the same respect. DGG (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that we can remove the rat/mouse info, but not the primates. First of all, where in the rules does it say we can't show details? Second, please look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing_on_non-human_primates#University_of_Wisconsin-Madison. Marilyn Carroll wouldn't be the only page to have quotes about a specific monkey. Also, if we want to just report "the conclusions, not the experimental details", we need to remove the quote "play with toys, watch television every morning, and occasionally smoke cocaine and heroin". Carniv (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should remove that one as well. DGG (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

New Info

The watchdog group, SAEN, filed a complaint with the USDA. I have three links, one of the complaint, one of a prepared media statement, and one a Minnesota Daily article with quotes from Carroll in it. Not sure if someone wants to incorperate this into the page. http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/ps-20080424-um.html http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/usda-let-20080421.html http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/media-20080425.html Carniv (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

detail

I removed inappropriate detail that had been entered in the article. Please do not add it without consensus. Quotations such as this need to be seen in context--there is a proper reference to them, which is enough. DGG (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had written something on this talk page about it April 27 and I hadn't heard anything about it until now so...

I don't understand what your reasoning is for removing the quote. Can you please explain in more detail? Thanks.Carniv (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)