Talk:Vivisection and experimentation debate/Archive 1

message: Added NPOV. The article is totally one sided in it's curent state and no real debate is presented.--Deglr6328 04:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because no one has though to put that in.Geni 23:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

message: In a recent edit, not explained here mind you, User:Jayjg asserted that vivisection cannot apply to non-dissection and that humans are not animals on the page User_talk:Jakew.  These are non-encylopedic claims, since vivisection clearly "any cutting or surgery upon a living animal", and genital mutilation often literally cuts a piece off the human body.  Also, according to Wikipedia, "Biologically, human beings fall under the animal kingdom", and vivisection has obviously been applied to humans in this article already.  Since this article is about political parameters, I recommend either leaving the genital exception as I phrased it.  Otherwise, we would have to remove humans from the debate by renaming the article.  DanP 08:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is either Original reasearch, an extreme minority opinion, or both.  In any event, it doesn't belong in the article. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is a categorical problem with how you describe the article.  In its present form, it states "use of human subjects in vivisection is regarded with horror throughout the world".   If vivisection includes the cutting of flesh with steel blades, and humans are included as part of the subjects of vivisection, then by Wikipedia's own definitions any genital modification and mutilation would qualify.  Perhaps you can explain what you mean.  Can genitals not be vivisected, or can humans not be vivisected?  If that is not relevant to the article, how can the "regarded with horror" be present without being regarded as Original research?  Clearly it is making a factual claim about vivisection, when is says "Vivisection means cutting the live body".  Should it say "Vivisection means cutting the live body anywhere but the genitals" or what would you recommend? DanP 23:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Who regards circumcision as vivisection?  Are they an extreme minority view?  These are the relevant questions. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that is off-topic, because the facts in the article are wrong on their face even without pointing to circumcision as you've chosen to do (it is not the only genital modification and mutilation worldwide).  Indeed I can link to sites that describe male circumcision as human vivisection.  But that is too narrow in scope, and is not germaine to the factual problem I described.  I did not read your objections on that aspect, so I'm glad we can agree on that problem anyway. DanP 23:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Who regards circumcision as vivisection?  If it's just you, then it should not be in this article, as it violates WP:NOR.  Are they an extreme minority view?  If so, then it should not be in the article, as it violates WP:NPOV. These are the relevant questions. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I didn't single out male circumcision whatsoever or make such a claim here.  It's you who keeps saying that.  I made no such limitation in this article.  That was your re-conception.  First, WP:NOR says "it does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere".  If you contend that my edit is original research (which I deny), then I contend that the article's mention of humans is so, since typically the focus of the article is on non-humans.  Your claim on WP:NOR singles out only one aspect, and I ask you to be fair and balanced.  With regard to WP:NPOV,  "articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate".  If you are claiming that surgical procedures on humans cannot be vivisection, and that claim is made by vast numbers of people who say so, and supposing for a moment that your view is not original research, NPOV states that the other side of the debate is available for Wikipedia to include.  So it's good that we can see each other's point of view.  Let's just apply the rules, OK? DanP 17:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: If you can't cite it, it's original research.  If it's an extreme minority view, NPOV says it shouldn't be cited anyway.  Indeed, let's just apply the rules. Jayjg (talk) 19:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human subjects 

message: Merge - I think this could easily merge with the Vivisection article SirIsaacBrock 03:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they should be merged. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine as a point of view but what is the reasoning behind the opinion? Also, bear in mind that the Vivisection article is only concerned with one particular type of experimentation whereas the Animal testing article deals with all manner of tests on animals, not only vivisection. This article "Vivisection and experimentation debate" is concerned with matters relating to both the Vivisection article and the Animal testing article. So, if there were a good case for merging it would more likely be to merge with Animal testing than with Vivisection. I know you've done quite bit of editing on the Animal testing article SlimVirgin, so I'm sure there must be some reasoning behind your opinion that we should merge this page with "Vivisection" rather than with "Animal testing" or, conversely, move debate related material from those pages to here. At the moment I just can't guess what your reasoning is. Please expand your comment. --wayland 04:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wayland, I've redirected this page to Animal testing, and we can add anything from here that isn't already there, although I think it's all there in some form. I've also reduced the section on Animal testing in the Vivisection article, as it was either repetitive or original research. Hopefully now we have less repetition overall. Hope that's okay with everyone. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the nearly three-month delay in replying, by the way, but I've only just seen your post. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry SlimVirgin, but I am going to revert. I think that it is a long enough article to stand by itself, I will clean it up later -- ¢² Connor K.   01:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge