Talk:Animal testing/Archive 3

message: Could the anon who added the Home Office BUAV report info please start using source material correctly? If you want to say they reached a different conclusion, quote them and cite a source. The link you gave didn't go to the report. If you want to say the judge rejected the conclusions about the university specifically, quote him, because in parts (at least) he doesn't reject them, but focuses on the Home Office rules. You're trying to make the sources say what you want them to say, it seems, just as you did above with Oxford (if you're the same person) i.e. just because Oxford says it isn't a primate center and you agree with them, doesn't make it true. We report that X said A and Y said B, and we quote or very closely paraphrase, then link to a source. We don't express our own preference. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: BUAV

message: That's simply bad writing.  It should be removed.  --SpinyNorman 07:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "mired in controversy"

message: Since there is conflict and dispute, the editors of this article need to adopt strict standards for source verification. In particular, it is clear that the large number of external links currently in the Animal testing article are a problem. Sources need to be reliable and an effort needs to be made to make it easy to fact-check the sources. A bare hypertext link to a website does not always provide a verifiable source. Websites can change without notice, making it impossible to find information that may have at one time been on a webpage. At the very least, an external link must be placed in the references section with the date on which the cited information was found on a particular webpage. It is also good practice to quote a fragment of the webpage so that a fact checker can search the webpage for the cited information. If a published journal article, book, or report is cited, a formal bibliographic reference needs to be included in the references section of the article. --JWSchmidt 16:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source verification

message: Unbalanced is not the same as POV. So, if the article has more information regarding the anti-animal testing lobby that does not mean it is POV.
I am going to go through the article and post what I think is wrong with it here in the next day or so (it is a long article - 14 pages when printed!).-localzuk 10:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, LZ. We should be careful not to let it get much longer. Rock, I mentioned POV pushing earlier. This edit from today  is an example of what we have to put up with on any page related to animal testing. The deletion of an obviously accurate (and in fact trivially true) point, linked to two sources, by anon IP , which has mostly edited only this page, and which resolves to the Research Defence Society in London. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in that organization. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given previous discussion on this point, SlimVirgin cannot reasonably claim that the point deleted was "obviously accurate (and in fact trivially true)". The two sources are in fact the antivivisection groups that raise the question, and have no scientific credibility. Thus it is likely an inaccurate point, hence the deletion. But SlimVirgin - who doesn't inspire confidence as a neutral moderator - will no doubt reinsert it. 217.206.196.218 16:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The line is stating that it has been questioned and then references the people questioning it - this seems like a normal method of writing to me. It does not say anything POV (such as 'many people question this') instead just saying that it has been questioned - nothing more nothing less. To remove it is vandalism and an attempt to make the article unbalanced.-localzuk 16:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tend to agree with localzuk. While it is true that antivivisectionist pressure groups do question it - irrespective of scientific credibility - polls suggest a significant proportion of the general public do also. Thus stating it is "in question", provides the reader with the information that there is significant debate about it, without suggesting the view is 'incorrect' or less valid by associating it with lobbyists exclusively. I don't think this proves anon is pushing POV though, being a member of RDS does not preclude one from editing here. However, i do agree with the point about "mired in controversy" - simply stating "its controversial" uses less emotive language without compromising meaning. I don't see why there is such strong feeling to keep 'mired in'. Rockpocket 21:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remember