Talk:Vivisection

message: I've turned this into a dab page, directing the reader to Animal testing, History of animal testing, and Human experimentation, as the page was just a repeat of material from those articles. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you finally found a way to get rid of edits you didn't like.... Quite clever! Nrets 18:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My edits

message: This article fails to describe what vivisection is. There are a lot of surgical procedures that involve an animal with a CNS, but probably vivisection. CrussianObadagus (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand Tag

message: It seems it is NOT vivisection of a frog. It's just autopsy. The frog is dead. I am a physiology student from MSU (Moscow) and I did it myself. If you say it's vivisection, please tell me what kind of experiment is it. I know no experiments in vivo with such preparation. I think it's necessary to replace the image. --Rotatoria (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way you can say that the frog in this image was dead prior to being dissected. Frequently, dissection/vivisection of frogs in educational institutions begins with a live frog, so this would be an illustration of vivisection. It could be more clear, but I think the image is OK in this article. Bob98133 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be a smartass, technically any dead frog must've been a live frog at some point.  More seriously, I do agree that it's impossible to tell.  Since it's a photo, you can't tell if it's breathing or has a pulse (though both can cease during routine survival surgery on frogs with no ill effects, due to their ultra-low metabolic rate).  The lungs are obviously perfused with air, and the tissue color shows that it's not been fixed in formalin.  It may be alive and drugged with any of a dozen or more agents (chloroform, ether, MS-222, clove oil, etc.), or may be freshly dead.  I actually suspect it's dead, simply because of the extent of dissection that's gone on.  The image details say it's been chloroformed, but that can be a method of euthanasia (and usually is - gasses are hard to control without special equipment). Mokele (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

text: This is an interesting question, and it hadn't occurred to me before. Your point about "shock graphic" tactics is, unfortunately, a chronically valid one throughout animal-related articles at Wikipedia at this time. In this case, it didn't catch my attention, because it seemed to me to be uncontroversially an image of a dissection. However, you are right. Labeling it as "vivisection" clearly implies that the process is occurring on a still-living frog, which is obviously untrue. There's nothing wrong with using this as an illustration of one aspect of animal experimentation, as it is at Animal testing, but using it here is unambiguously wrong, and potentially POV. The caption at that other page is much more accurate and informative, and I'm going to replace it to here.  --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding that caption, what does "terminal anesthesia" mean? My first thought was that the frog was given a lethal dose of chloroform, but I googled "terminal anesthesia" and it looks like it is a technical term about deadening terminal nerves or something. I could be wrong, but that doesn't seem to be something chloroform would be used for or something that would be done to a frog. If the frog was dead at the time, the caption is still wrong since it calls the procedure a vivisection. If it is not an actual vivisection, it shouldn't be used here. - JefiKnight (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what, I think that you are exactly right. (By the way, although "terminal" here is intended to mean "leading to death", the sources you found were using it in terms of axon terminal. Just fyi.) The image is of a dissection, not a vivisection, and its appearance here is simply the residue of a history of POV edits. I'm going to remove it from this page, and correct the image caption at Animal testing. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I see that you are absolutely correct, and I was mistaken. Thank you for setting this right. And my apologies for the part of my comment above that I now have struck out. I had come to that conclusion based on some other edits I've seen, but I was just flat-out wrong in saying that here. Again, my apologies. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration

message: As a non-expert on the topic, I'm somewhat confused by the Unit 731 section. Why is this example explored in such detail here when there is a complete page devoted to it? Is this the only example of human vivisection? How is the quote from Dr. Yuasa relevant to vivisection itself?
I'd suggest leaving a link to unit 731 in the context of a broader discussion of human vivisection: what is the history? who has practiced it? why have they done so?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Zook (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unit 731

message: There was recently a brief edit war over what is now the "Opposition" section. It was originally two sections added by a first-time editor. After restoring the material, I tagged it and combined it into a single section. I think there is no justification for calling it vandalism. However, I will note several problems with it. It is sourced only to a URL that appears to be a dead link. It reads like an essay. It is difficult to ascertain whether it presents the history in a balanced way, reflecting the most important persons and events. These issues, at a minimum, do need to be fixed in order that the material not be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's massively NPOV and clearly added to press a given POV, reads like a term paper, and I strongly suspect was copied in entirety from that link before it was dead.  It adds nothing to the page.  The writing is nothing short of terrible, the anecdotes are worthless and unsourced, the chief subject is one guy who isn't notable enough to warrant a WP page, there's OR throughout, and it's completely unsalvagable.  Seriously, go through line by line and delete everything that's unsourced and/or OR, and you've got nothing left. Mokele (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree. But it's not right to treat it as vandalism, and I think you overstate the case that it was really so one-sided (it did say some things critical of anti-vivisectionists). I've pruned it to where there is just a bit left. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition section 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Frog vivisection.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vivisection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080410044103/http://www.crimelibrary.com:80/serial_killers/history/mengele/research_5.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/mengele/research_5.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The horrible pictures. Leave it to the viewer whether or not to see it. Those are horrible picture and kids are wandering in here. 
P.S. Please feel free to correct my English in order to improve.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.219 (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hide  

message: The page on the Abu Ghraib tortures and prisoner abuse has several pictures of "live surgery" on detainees. This should be used as evidence to mention these incidents in the "Human vivisection" section of the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.164.161 (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abu Ghraib "live surgeries" should be included in the Human vivisection section 

message: We should use a more moderate picture or at least hide it so the readers can see it if they want to. too harsh.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.60 (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been discussed before, and the image (I assume you are talking about the frog) has been moved lower on the page as a result. For the most part, the consensus at Wikipedia is that we do not remove or hide such images, per WP:NOTCENSORED. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  too harsh picture