Talk:Pro-Test/Archive 1

message: I see that some people have been removing his name. Can someone say what the problem is with publishing it? It has already been published elsewhere.  Also, does anyone have a credible published source for his age? I have seen 16 and 18. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there is a fair case that the founder has made an effort to remain anonymous and has not publicised his name for fear of reprisals from violent activists. I do not think it is the interest of anyone (but those that wish to target him personally) to "out" him against his wishes, though that is a personal opinion. Rockpocket 05:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, except he has already been outed by the Oxford newspaper,  and therefore the people he fears may act against him already know the name. It would be unusual for us not to publish a name already published by a mainstream source. We're not here to harm him, but we're not here to protect him either. I've only once before argued in favor of keeping a name out of Wikipedia that had already appeared in a newspaper, and that was the case of a Jewish writer being targeted by Islamists, but I was overruled on the grounds that it would be POV to leave her name out. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed that reference myself afterwards. Again, my personal feeling is that perpetuating the "outing" someone who had attempted to remain anonymous for their own safety, based on the principle that someone else had already done it, is ethically dubious, especially if there is little inherent value in publicising the persons name (surely his age is the high value information here). However, that is only my POV, and i'm not going to push it. If its policy to publish his name, then we should do it... and be damned :-( Rockpocket 05:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is policy, but I'm hesitating for the same reason you are, even though I don't really agree with myself, if you know what I mean. If he were 18, I'd hesitate less, but some newspapers are saying 16. Perhaps we should hold off for now. If it only me, or is it well nigh impossible to save edits today? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its a difficult one. Perhaps it might be worth waiting until after their protest next week, that should establish how the rest of the press are going to play it. I think that one article is the only one that names him, which makes me nervous, all the rest maintain his anonymity. I'm having problem editing too, today. Rockpocket 06:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That depends on whether newspapers write about it. We publish what credible sources have published. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with JohnFM and Rockpocket that the edits are unduly harsh. Many antivivisection goups and animal rights groups have long Wikipedia articles about them and their campaigns which give their POV in neutral guise (eg Draize test), so I see no reason why this article should be so strictly treated. It looks like double standards. This is a significant departure, as far as I know the first ever sizeable grassroots campaign for animal research. Chat on Internet forums suggest there will be a large turn-out for the Pro-Test rally on 25 February, and I think Wikipedia should demonstrate its neutrality and ability to keep up with current affairs by having a rather longer article. I agree that a 16-year-old shouldn't be named (he is 16). Anyway, as JohnFM says, there is now a group of eight or so students leading Pro-Test, and none of the others are named.MedicalScientist 14:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think this revert is going to last long, as Slim does have a point about blogs as sources and that the actions of SPEAK should go on their own article. I would suggest going back to the previous version and building up from that, rather than just wholesale reverting. In doing so you deleted some information about the ALF threats without justification. Rockpocket 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: We do not use Usenet or bulletin boards as sources. We use newspapers, books, and reputable, established websites. As things stand, Pro-Test is a website run by one teenager. All the messages on Usenet you are seeing, MS, might have been written by him. It is therefore very important that Wikipedia does not get carried away with this hype. If, after the 25th, the organization appears to be more significant, then newspapers will write more, and we can publish what they publish. But until then, there are no reputable sources. Please read our content policies on sources: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the organisation is not "a website run by one teenager" (again, I fail to see what my age has to do with anything here) it's a large student organisation headed by a committee of nine people, of which I am one.Sqrrl101 20:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you say, but there are no third-party sources for this, so far as I know. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not revert that page again, or delete anything that another editor has added. You are the founder of this organization, and so far as anyone knows, its only member. The arbitration committee has ruled against people editing their own bios or other pages they are closely associated with, and recommends instead that involved people confine themselves to the talk pages of those articles to offer information where appropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and may not be used to promote any organization or person. Please see WP:NOT. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Rockpocket, why are you trying to delete what the main purpose of the biomedical research center is? It is being built as an animal-testing center. As the intro stands, it isn't clear why the center is controversial, except that SPEAK believes it may include a primate center too, but that isn't the only reason they're protesting it. You suggest that we use the term vivarium, instead of one that everyone will understand. That strikes me as POV pushing. There has to be a simple, direct, and concise description of the center right at the start that will make people understand why it is such a big issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, my concern is that no-one but an anti POV pusher uses "animal testing" as a blanket term for research using animals. An "animal testing" centre, to me and most of the research community, suggests that its primary purpose is for compounds to be tested on animals. This is a fair description of HLS, Inveresk, or Quintiles facilities, but it rarely accurately describes the purpose of pure and/or applied biomedical research facilities in a University. Here animals my be bred for genetic experiments, transgenesis or a multitude of other things that are not the testing of compounds. Thus, it seems to me the best way to descibe the centre is the describe it as the commissioning body does (seeing as they are the ones that designed it for their purposes). The reason it is controversial is because a very small minority of activists do not like it being built or do not believe that it is being built for the reasons stated. The very next sentence explains that. If you wish to make allegations that are not backed up by the source  of the official description of the building, then you should make them under the banner of what activists believe. Otherwise vivarium (and the beauty of hyperlinks is that anyone who doesn't know what it means can easily find out), animal housing facility or animal research facility are all appropriate, simple, direct and concise descriptions according to the source. Though i don't see the problem with "biomedical research facility". That is what it is, after all. I think the fact the sentence starts "an animal-rights campaign opposing" makes it pretty obvious why it is controversial. Rockpocket 04:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't use primary sources' descriptions of themselves unless credible third-party sources agree with then, so what Oxford calls the centre is not what we have to call it, and as for vivarium, you didn't answer my question: why use a word that people have to look up when we can use one that they don't? However, I take your point that animal testing may make the center sound like an HLS-type facility, so we can change it to animal research. However, it would have been more helpful if you could have done that in the first place, instead of continuing to revert without explanation and necessitating this exchange. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I happen to think "biomedical research facility" makes a perfectly suitable alternative (and i made that clear after each revert). However, i'm happy to compromise at animal research. As for vivarium? Well, everyone around here seems perfectly content to use latin derivatives when it suits them (ad hominem?) but calls foul when it doesn't. So i don't buy that argument at all. If we can use vivisection, we can use vivarium. Both accurately describe what happens in biomedical research facilities. "Animal-testing" does not. Rockpocket 07:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We tend to use "animal testing" in articles, not "vivisection," as you know, but the latter is still better known than "vivarium." They're not opening an animal hotel, but a facility where experiments on animals will be carried out. There's no NPOV reason not to make that clear, and given that group and counter-group has arisen because of it, and that this article is about one of them, it would be somewhat obtuse of Wikipedia to skirt around the issue using words either handed down by Oxford University, which has a financial stake in the matter, or that people will have to go look up in a dictionary. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I expect the irony was unintentional, as "an animal hotel" was exactly one of the terms used to describe the facility during its planning phase. Its going to be that luxurious. 5 star. The problem with this line of argument is that you claim terms that are widely used by antis are better known than words that are commonly used by the scientific community. I would argue the opposite. But so what if the accurate term to describe something is more obscure than some generalist guff? Just think about that for a second... whats more important, accuracy or simplicity?  But lets put it this way. If i design a building, call it a "house", building it, call it a "house" then live it it. I think there is no reason it should not be called a house. Oxford say it is a facility for biomedical research. Guess what sort of research will be done it in? Its not like Oxford created this term, every university in the world has a biomedical research department! I can't believe you are genuinely trying to imply that using that term is an attempt to "skirt around the issue". If i was trying to do that, i would have pushed for the "animal hotel" Rockpocket 07:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't delete biomedical; I added animal testing. We're not here to repeat the terminology of Oxford University or biomedical researchers, just as we don't use the terminology of the animal-rights movement, or this article would have a very different tone. And I'm sure it'll be five-star accommodation, though it would improve somewhat if they'd only stop scooping their guests brains out to induce Parkinson's. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The university has made it clear that the facility is part of their replacement and refurbishment of existing laboratory space. Experiments on animals will be conducted in it. Or do you imagine they'll pick up the animals each morning and take them elsewhere to be worked on? SlimVirgin (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *blink* Where does Oxford say that experiments on animals will not take place within the new building? SlimVirgin (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I told you above that the new facility is designed to replace existing laboratory space , according to the university's own description of it  (pdf), but you don't seem to think that means experiments will be conducted there. Therefore, please supply a source showing that your understanding of the situation is correct. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please supply a source for that. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it merely houses them or performs the experiments is splitting hairs. It's an addition to programs involving animal research. If it weren't, Pro-Test wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be sitting here discussing it. By removing this you're removing the topic from the topic sentence. Marskell 10:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reported JohnFM's 3RR violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In one of the reverts I changed "biomedical and animal research facility" to "biomedical facility utilizing animal-research." This basically accords with your BBC quote so I think it's fine as it stands. Marskell 11:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that is a perfect description, Marskell. The question of whether animal testing/research will occur there is pretty much a given. I was not trying to remove any reference to animal testing/research. What i was concerned with was the blanket term for the description of the the purpose of the building. If its main purpose is to house animals, then it should be descived as as such, not as an animal tsting centre.  However, if it has laboratory space for research, then it is highly likely that there will be individuals and groups working on bioinformatics, bacterial work, cell culture and, perhaps even yeast work. None of these are examples of animal-testing, therefore by labelling it as such we are misrepresenting the purpose of the facility. They are all examples of biomedical research though, thus this is why i orginally insisted that be the moniker used. Of course, anyone pushing an anti POV loves to paint in broad strokes - any building that has live animals in it must be an "animal testing centre". God forbid they admit that their in vitro Holy Grail may actually be utilized by some of the animal torturers! What they fail to realise is that animals are but one example of a large number of techniques used together in biomedical research. Seperating in vitro and in vivo work as good and bad science respectively, is a myth perpetuated by the anti lobby. By blanket labelling any facility that houses animals as an "animal testing centre" we would be perpetuating that myth. And there is no need to when we have a term, a Maskell suggsted above, that makes very clear what the building will do. Rockpocket 18:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's worth stressing, as the article now notes, that the facility is intended to become the "centre for all animal research at Oxford," according to Mark Matfield, former director of the Research Defence Society, and as Oxford does a lot of animal testing, the new center will ipso facto do a lot too. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I accept that fully and think it is a good addition. It makes the important point that a lot of the research done in the new building will probably involve animals. No argument there. The sole use of "animal-testing" as a descriptive term was my bugbear, as it does not accurately differentiate between contract testing facilities, biomedical research facilities (using animals) and vivaria. Rockpocket 20:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I take that point. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  .... and everyone is friends again! ;) Rockpocket 20:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal-testing centre