Talk:Pro-Test

message: Is it just me, or  is the second sentence grammatically incorrect? It seems to suggest that Oxford will be using "animal research" to build its biomedical research facility? I'm inclined to think that that sentence should be reworded slightly (though i'm too scared to do it myself, incase changing the odd preposition might intentionally/accidently lead to the suggestion that Oxford is instead building a hospital for the orphans of Calcutta ;)) Rockpocket 00:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Slim. I'm confident no-one will confuse them with Mother Theresa now ;). Rockpocket 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Sentence 

message: I note the New Scientist source, and though it adds a more balanced element to Stein's research, it now makes that particular paragraph read poorly. In fact, references to Stein's research seem largely out of place in this article. Whether Stein himself is deserving of a page of his own is another matter entirely, but having details of his work on this page seems rather out of place. Perhaps we should just note that he researches dyslexia and Parkinson's, using animal experiments in the latter (or something to that effect). --ProTestOxford 20:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please leave the sentence alone. This effort to remove that Stein experiments on primates is unseemly. He has chosen to speak out in favor of Pro-Test. It's therefore relevant what his personal self-interest is in the issue. We haven't gone looking for his background gratuitously. The newspapers that have written about Pro-Test have written about Stein and his background for the same reason we have. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that it is important, though pretty obvious, that the speakers interest in vivisection should be noted. However, its doesn't get away from the fact that it doesn't read brilliantly. Since Stein and Aziz essentially work together on their primate studies (co-authoring 26 papers on the subject ) would it not make sense to group them together in one sentence followed by one of the two Guardian quotes that essentially say the same thing? If anyone wants to get into semantics that we can't source that Aziz specifically "attaches electrodes to their brains"  - i can provide one of the studies that they co-author that explains just that (though, of course if we want to be entirely accurate, we should note neither of them will have done it personally ). Rockpocket 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the whole quote, including "attaches electrodes," only to be fair. The first time I wrote the sentence, I just had "who induces Parkinson's in monkeys," which reads better. I'd be happy to go back to that. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think anything that can make that paragraph a little more compact would be welcome, though we do have to be careful to establish that they don't just induce Parkinson's for the fun of it, but that they aim to develop treatments for humans by doing so. But can't we just bundle Aziz into that description too? Rockpocket 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole monkey and electrodes thing I read as the usual ALF emotional warfare thing. You know the 'won't someone think of the primate' or I'll call you a paedophile nonsense that they've done in the past  .  So if that must be included then show the reasons why. Hence adding the New Scientist reference. I think the article will work without the Stien and monkey reference. If we must use Parkinson's then lets have the reason why the scientists are doing it. Otherwise we are just going back into well-documented arguments. Catchpole 01:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding the sentence based on the New Scientist link was a classic example of original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't follow you. Are you claiming the New Scientist isn't a reputable source? Catchpole 11:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOR. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stein (again) 

message: Slim Virgin added "Professor Tipu Aziz ... recently spoke out in support of testing cosmetics on animals". He did, but the Guardian article made it clear that this was his personal view. Not only that, but it's irrelevant to Pro-Test, which is about use of animals in UK research to make medical progress. He didn't say it at the Pro-Test rally. You might just as well say that he was born in Bangladesh, he smokes, he used to fly microlights, he has pet dogs, or that his father was involved in the development of invermectin.  All these were also mentioned in the interview. This Wikipedia article is about Pro-Test, not Tipu Aziz. MedicalScientist 12:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That he was born in Bangladesh and smokes has no bearing on his views on animal testing. That he thinks it's okay to poison and kill animals in the interests of lipstick wearers clearly is. Aziz was one of just two scientists (so far as I know) who have publicly aligned themselves to Pro-Test in order to give the group credibility. The credibility of those scientists is therefore clearly an issue, and Aziz's involvement with Pro-Test is the only reason the Guardian interviewed him in the first place. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, you agree that the fact Aziz smokes and was born in Bangladesh have no bearing. My point was that any personal view on cosmetics testing is equally irrelevant in an article about Pro-Test. Aziz' personal view on cosmetics testing doesn't affect his 'credibility' on animal research for medical purposes, which is what Pro-Test is about. Aziz was also featured in the Sunday Times yesterday and cosmetics testing wasn't mentioned. Why, out of hundreds of thousands of column inches about Pro-Test in newspapers last week, pick on this one minor and irrelevant quote? That SPEAK are also using it on their website, and no other media have even mentioned it, is evidence of POV pushing here. As is your comment "he thinks it's okay to poison and kill animals in the interests of lipstick wearers". That's hardly NPOV language. MedicalScientist 13:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aziz and cosmetics testing

message: Looking over the Peer Review, I see that the recommendation to use the  format for citations hasn't been implemented yet.  I'll make a start on that. --Dcfleck 15:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the note on your talk page, Dc. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said on your talk page, I like the look of it a lot, but my two problems with it are, first, that it means the reader has to click twice to get to the article we link to, so I don't see what the advantage is from the readers' perspective, and secondly it makes the text harder to edit for flow, so I also don't see the advantage from the editors' perspective. However, I'm guessing I'll be outnumbered on this, because lots of editors like the look of this system, and I wouldn't want you to revert it anyway, Dc, because you've put a lot of work into it. It does make the page look very neat, without question, so thank you for doing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's quite possible that the way I've implemented the footnotes is not optimal for this page. I think the footnotes can be made less obtrusive in the main text, from the editing point of view... but I'm not sure if they can be made easier to actually use, from a follow-the-link point of view. --Dcfleck 19:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with SV. I really don't like that format for a personal point of view, as i can't directly open the citation in a new window by right clicking. Thus this format breaks up the reading of articles for me, which was the great advantage of using Wikipedia to find information. However, i agree it does look pretty and it must have taken some doing. Rockpocket 06:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it looks like it took even more effort than i first thought. Good work, Dc. Rockpocket 06:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementing last Peer Review recommendation: modifying citation format. 

message: Sorry again, but could someone fix this reference too? It's the Guardian, I included the website with the paragraph. Thanks in advance. --81.76.16.186 00:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Spaully. --81.76.55.91 12:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doughnut Reference 

message: A link I had placed under further reading has been removed.  It is Laurie Pycroft's own account of the founding of Pro-Test
- *"Build the Oxford animal lab!" Social Affairs Unit Web Review, February 20, 2006 
It is my view that this is a very useful piece and should be restored.  Incidentally having read this discussion I can perhaps draw some light on the discussion of whether Laurie Pycroft is a school "drop out" or "taking a gap year". (I should add at this stage that I do not work for the Social Affairs Unit ad have no financial involvement with them, I am merely an enthsiast of their work. I have not met its editors or director but have been in e-mail correspondence with them - this is where this information comes from). The description of Laurie Pycroft as taking a gap year from school comes from Pycroft himself and was his correction of the site editors original mistake. To quote from Pycroft's original e-mail to the Editor - which has been forwarded to me when I e-mailed them aksing about the change:
I'm really pleased with the way the article looks on the site. Just one small thing- I'm not actually a student at Oxford. I live in Swindon and I'm taking a gap year between GCSEs and A levels (I'm 16).
Cheers,
-Laurie  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.54.230.14 (talk • contribs) 
: Hi Laurie. I made your point about the gap year/drop out information extensively in the discussion above. However, the opposing view was that many mainstream media organisiations picked up on the "drop-put" angle and went with that. Irrespective of whether it was wrong, they say WP:V suggests we should use it over the information on a blog, even if that there is significant opposing evidence from the "horses mouth". Reading the 'debate' it becomes clear that a cabal of 'influential' editors decided  that "drop out" would be used and nothing was going to change that. However, i agree that the Social Affairs Unit Web Review is not a spam link and is interesting further reading, so i will revert. Rockpocket (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link - Further Reading 

message: Recently an unsigned added what it apparently a list of the committee members of the group.  I have removed it due to a lack of source and concern that it has only be added for 'campaigning' by AR groups. I would also suggest that if no suitable source is found that the addition is removed from the history. |→ Spaully°τ 07:31, 16 May 2006 (GMT)
:My guess would be here. --Coroebus 07:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The committee are obviously not shying from publicity, so i guess they could be added back. However, i'm not really sure listing them adds a whole lot to the article. Does anyone feel strongly about having them listed? Rockpocket (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't care less.  Perhaps just mention the higher profile ones (Pycroft, Aziz, Stein say)? --Coroebus 08:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good, and looks like SV is on the case. As an aside, it appears that a number of the notes are reproduced in the reference section, is this really required? Rockpocket (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like to maintain separates notes and references sections, RP, per WP:CITE. It's particularly useful for articles with lots of notes and comments, where the list of references becomes hard to read, and this one may grow. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, no problem. I just wasn't sure whether it was intentional, or not. Rockpocket (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: I'm wondering what this passage means:
:Pro-Test handed out doughnuts and cakes to workers on the South Parks Road site on March 31, 2006 to show their support for their work. Pycroft, commenting, said: "It's great that Oxford University feel able to publicly support Pro-Test in this way, and it shows that we're succeeding in making institutions and academics feel able to stand up and defend the work they do.
How is Pro-Test handing out cakes to workers an example of Oxford University supporting Pro-Test? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question :). Aparently: 'a "high-ranking university official" would accept the gifts from Pro-Test on behalf of the university and take them inside the construction site'. I presume that counts as support. Rockpocket (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear. As so often with Oxbridge, it's "thank you so much for allowing us to give to you." :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean 'thank you so much for deigning to take from us'. --Coroebus 07:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that rather offensive. The transfer via the University official was carried out for security reasons (not allowing potential extremists into the building site being the obvious); hardly taking from the students - merely a gesture of support. --163.1.136.97 00:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lighten up, that was an Oxbridge joke, not hard hitting social commentary. --Coroebus 08:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing

message: It is probably worth making mention of this story:
http://www.pro-test.org.uk/b2evo/index.php?blog=5&title=90_4_of_oxford_students_support_animal_r&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Pro-Test members forced a referendum in Oxford University Student Union over animal testing. The motion of support was passed after 90.4% voted in favour of animal testing.
163.1.42.170 20:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-Test news 

message: I would change it myself, but I've been criticised for editing this article before, so could someone update my current age to eighteen, please? If you need a source, see here: http://sqrrl101.livejournal.com/profile Sqrrl101 03:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds fine, thank you. Sqrrl101 12:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My age 

message: I'm going to add a little section with the name: "Pro-Test in Italy", similarly to the section "Pro-Test in the United States". I want to describe the activities of the spin-off group called: "Pro-Test Italy". 
What do you think about?
Babaxdxd (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the Italian version of this paragraph (hidden), so that anyone can contribute as desired. The original page can be found here, while the sandbox in which I'm working on this can be found here.--Eiron (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-Test Italy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pro-Test. 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/20081015165110/http://www.pro-test.org.uk:80/about.php to http://www.pro-test.org.uk/About.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060622213254/http://animalliberationpressoffice.org:80/communiques/2006-02-02_oxford.htm to http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/communiques/2006-02-02_oxford.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081015165115/http://www.pro-test.org.uk:80/action.php to http://www.pro-test.org.uk/Action.php
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 18:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pro-Test. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110604182624/http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1025192 to http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1025192
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pro-Test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060218163556/http://www.oxfordstudent.com/ht2006wk3/News/students_will_be_the_next_target to http://www.oxfordstudent.com/ht2006wk3/news/students_will_be_the_next_target
*Added  tag to http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/news/default.asp?dismode=article&artid=5800
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002110930/http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/news.asp?i_ToolbarID=6&i_PageID=2180 to http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/news.asp?i_PageID=2180&i_ToolbarID=6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070121015957/http://www.oxfordstudent.com/ht2006wk0/News/oxford_prepares_for_fresh_wave_of_protest_as_building_resumes_on_parks_road_lab to http://www.oxfordstudent.com/ht2006wk0/news/oxford_prepares_for_fresh_wave_of_protest_as_building_resumes_on_parks_road_lab
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified