Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brown Dog affair

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:53, 4 December 2007.

Brown Dog affair

[edit]

This is a partial self-nomination. Credit and thanks to Tagishsimon, who created the article, and to Rockpocket and Crum375 who, along with Tagishsimon, helped to prepare it for this nomination.

The article is about a political controversy in London that lasted from 1903 to 1910, triggered by allegations — vigorously denied — that a professor at University College had vivisected a dog without anaesthetic. Antivivisectionists built a memorial for the dog, which led to serious rioting by medical students, subsequently called the Brown Dog riots. I realized just a few days ago that this December 10 is the 100th anniversary of the worst night of those riots, which saw 1,000 students fighting in Trafalgar Square with 400 police officers, and assorted trade unionists and suffragettes. I'm therefore nominating it in the hope it can appear as the featured article on that date.

The one thing the article is missing is a free image of the current Brown Dog statue in Battersea (the old one was destroyed), but yesterday we found a Wikipedian in London who is willing to take a photograph for us, so that will be added as soon as it's ready. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative support - The article is well written and referenced. My only slight query is with the heading hierarchy. I think it might read better if you used some second level headings, for example with the memorial forming a top level heading, under which the various headings which relate to it could sit. Also, one of the headings includes 'brown dog', but maybe that's being a bit pedantic. Good article. Owain.davies (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Heavily referenced, neutral, covering all aspects. Why does the list of references include entries with "no byline"? Is this standard practice in articles by staff editors? JFW | T@lk 13:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't quite follow the question. Is it why I've pointed out that there's no byline? The reason is that there's an expection of one with some of them e.g. the newspaper articles, but they're missing. We can remove it if you think it looks inappropriate. If the question is why we used material with no byline as a source, it's because it's reliable. Not all source material includes a byline.SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ah, sorry; the question is why not just leave it ("no byline") out? Many newspaper articles have no byline; I've never seen the lack of one raised as a problem at FAC, particularly with reputable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "no byline." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just another way of signalling that this is someone's opinion, or that the source is a secondary one. For example, the Swedish activists' book was "reportedly" a bombshell, with a link to the source after the sentence — that's just a substitute for "according to X, the book was a bombshell." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, am not a big fan of the "reportedly"s sprinkled through the text; IMO, it weakens the text and distracts readers, mostly because it's such a generic word. It invites the question, "by whom"? My advice: if there is a reason why readers need to be cautious about taking something at face value, then it'd be best to spell out "According to ____" or the like. However, reading the text, it looks as if that the "reportedly"s generally describe things that seem relatively uncontroversial. If that's the case, there's probably no need for the "reportedly"s. 140.247.152.155 (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some "reportedly"s. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection sufficiently addressedOppose [1a] - note: I have tried to contribute given my agreement to comments and lack of change following comments by JFW
Formatting is not well done, topics: currently organized Research, Anti-Vivisection, Memorial, as bad as that organization is, the bad organization is not helped by the lack of over-headings. "Political Background" should preferably be included in the lead or renamed "Prelude".
"Riots and strange relationships" is in no way a proper heading for an FA status article.
Note: I have recently been attempting to change this for the better, my efforts were somewhat resisted.
--Keerllston 16:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me re-state my problems.
No sub -headings is a major issue.
-option: Make separate topic on The memorial, and make topic on "Events" - currently the article tries doing both and it makes for bad organization
-option: Try putting "vivisection of brown dog" and "infliltration" under Research.
"Political Background" is not part of an article on the Brown dog affair and rather it is the article of politics in britain during (date). I will now propose several non-exclusive options that are encyclopedic in tone.
-option: "political actors" - was this a proxy between two sides like Vietnam was for the Cold War?
-option: "prelude" - actions that happened prior that set the state
-option: "political situation" overarching theme separate, not an introduction, but rather a comment on how this fits into politics during (era)
--Keerllston 16:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "(In 1903, the year of the brown dog dissection, 19,084 animals were used in the UK,[13] and in 2005, the figure was over 2.8 million, counting vertebrate animals only.[14])" seems like a rather long sentence to be in parenthesis, can't this be integrated? if it is not relevant it should not even be in the article, mind--Keerllston 19:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection on grounds of lack of comprehensiveness (1b) as to the context of the history of animal testing.
It includes the fact that the memorial was restored, despite it being not really a part of the "Brown Dog Affair" but it does not say why it was decided, it seems rather political, and it seems to say that vivisection is no longer legal or done.
- The Brown Dog Affair was a significant event in the history of opposition to animal testing, opposition to scientific research on those grounds.
I'm sure PETA is anti-vivisection today- no context in terms of modern opinion, or as part of development of legal rights for animals, etcetera.
The comment by myself above caused the removal of something that could be included in this.
--Keerllston 14:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I entirely follow your meaning.
1. The "affair" was pretty much the 1903 - 1910 hoohah about the vivisection, the court case, the statue, the demise of the statue. The statue was fairly totemic throughout the post-court-case stages of the affair. The section on the memorial restored, in the context of the article, serves to round off the brown dog story. That its its only purpose.
2. The article is not about the visisection or animal testing in the UK, but rather about one incident arising out of vivisection. I'm very uncertain whether it is wisdom to seek to widen the scope of the article to discuss the contemporary position on UK animal testing: that is surely stuff for a different article. Modern opinion has no relevance to a discussion of the 1903-1910 affair. And it was for that reason that I withdrew the figures on 2.3m animals involved per annum in testing in the UK
3. I have not looked hard, but where in the article is there an inference that "seems to say that vivisection is no longer legal or done." I cannot see it.
Grateful for your feedback on all of this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harrumph. I am not always very clear, I am sorry, I thank you for your patience and understanding.
The context of the affair in terms of "animal rights" development is obviously relevant and should be part of the article -agreed that not all the way to modern animal testing, and not too long
I meant in my previous comment "seems to say that vivisection is not longer[...]" that the fact that the statue was rebuilt/restored implied that vivisection and the corresponding public outcry is no longer an issue.
does the modern restoration include the plaque "Men and Women of England, how long shall these things be?"?
--Keerllston 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The modern statue does include that, and a bit more. I'll post it here later. We're currently waiting for a Wikipedian in London to take a photograph for us; once that was posted, I was going to see whether to add the plaque text. My concern here is that we not make the article any longer. It's quite readable at this length, but anything more and people start to flag. As for putting it in the context of the modern animal rights movement, that would be very difficult, controversial (lots of different POVs), and length would again be an issue. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WOW! Nice! I think the chan[g]es show the importance of treating the context in terms of animal rights to a greater extent.--Keerllston 02:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The New York Times wrote in March 1910 that "it is not considered at all probable that the effigy will ever again be exhibited in a public place." is a comment not on the restoration, but on the destruction - it is out of context as part of the new restoration section.--Keerllston 02:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point of including that was to make the point that the NYT said it would never happen, but it did, albeit with a different statue. It was a sentence intended to link the past and the present, as well as the last-but-one and the final sections. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very enlightening article. I fixed one case of a missing word, but other than that the prose is well written, there are a sufficient amount of references, and the timeline is clear and sufficiently explained, even to someone like me who hadn't even heard of this affair. María (habla conmigo) 19:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting bit of history. Some comments:

  • I would actually audit for "reportedly." At the beginning of "Vivisection of the brown dog" it occurs in back-to-back sentences, which reads like a hiccup. Similarly, there's "Walter Gratzer...writes" and "Gratzer writes" starting two paragraphs in a row. "The dog was then allegedly stimulated with electricity, reportedly to demonstrate that..." I don't like these two qualifying adverbs so close together. There are other examples later.
Done. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the refs have retrieval dates, some don't.
I think I've fixed them all (retrieval dates for the online refs only), but I'll check to make sure. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to suggest the inflation figures for the settlement were off (5000 --> 250,000) but this suggests it might be too low. Hm.
  • Any pic of the new statue?
I've added one from the Courthauld Institute (or a body they run), with a cc licence. We're still hoping for a better one from a Wikipedia in London who said she'd take one for us. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are major concerns and this is clearly in support territory. Marskell 14:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A very nice and informative article on an arcane topic but one of clear relevance today. It strengthens WP to have neutral articles on contentious matters. The article is right to take a historical tone and only allude gently to present day issues. It is still being rather actively edited (and is a likely honeytrap for future edit warriors) but I would not want to fault it on this account. Thincat 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Brown_Dog_affair&oldid=1138456575"