Talk:Pit of despair

message: This is first description I've seen that includes a comment about mirrors. Do you have a source?
I will scan a photo of the isolation box used in the 3,6,12 month experiments.Rbogle 00:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: whoops. There was a small mirrored window for observations. I misread the sentence. Rbogle 00:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mirrored  box 

message: I believe that the word "love" should be changed to a word with less religious and emotional connotations, such as "parental care".  66.253.36.140 09:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of the word "love" in Background 

message: I think that "psychosis" is a really loaded word to use in the article, because it implies, at least to my non-psychiatric mind, too much knowledge of the workings of a monkey's mind.  According to Wikipedia, "Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state in which thought and perception are severely impaired", and can we really say that about a non-human creature?  If, OTOH, it is a term generally used by experts when describing this study, then I withdraw the objection.  --JdwNYC 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the word the sources use, and there's no reason to suppose it's difficult to see when a monkey's thought processes and perception are severely impaired; at least, no harder than to see when a human being's are. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of word "psychosis" 

message: In my opinion, this article has an excessive amount of quotes, and I feel that they are being used to dodge the NPOV rules. arguably the most grave offender is the conclusion, ending the article with a quote, particularly such a POV one, is never good Encyclopaedic manner. I'm adding the NPOV template for now, hopefully we can get a good NPOV rework without needing a major rewrite. Riffraffselbow 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm going about this incorrectly, please feel free to revert the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Riffraffselbow (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive quoting 

message: The opening paragraph states "Harlow placed baby monkeys in the chamber alone for up to six weeks", but the caption of the second photograph states "...after six months of total isolation". The citations are merely names of individuals, and I cannot establish the correct time period.
All references to experiment length should be deleted unless this can be corrected. 84.9.165.236 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are different chambers. He left baby monkeys alone in various chambers for up to two years. The source indicate that the longest he left them in the Pit of Despair was six weeks. But you're right -- it's confusing and we need to clarify it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting experiment lengths 

message: All the information seems to come out of Singer's Animal Liberation. No attempt is made to give the other side - the benefits of the research, Harlow's reasoning for the research, the problem of psychosis and depression in children and the affect on future child rearing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by London prophet (talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. While I don't think there is any way these experiments could ever have been justified (speaking as a lab animal tech here), I think there should at least be a mention of the real reasoning behind it, and whether anyone got anything useful from them at all. If not that should be cleary stated, not just implied. Also it seems to me that the experiments may have helped the cause of animal rights and maybe helped push through some much needed legislation for monitoring and regulation of animal research? If so that should also be stated clearly. --KatjaKat (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Sided 

message: The article says the 70s (when in the 1970s), but the "monkey love" link under Further Reading says 1959! Hugo999 (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  When? 

message: Tryptofish, you do nothing but cause problems around animal rights or animal testing articles. Please edit constructively. If you have material you can add to this, it would be most welcome, but you can't add a POV tag in lieu of making those edits, and then not make them. The tag has been there for months. Please either identify what you feel needs to be fixed, and say what it is on talk and get consensus to add it, or leave the tag off. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: Clarifying what Blum says Suomi says:
"As Suomi wrote, in 1970, the chamber changed every monkey who went into it for the worse. It could make abnormal monkeys pathological, make normal monkeys abnormal. The researchers couldn't find even one macaque who seemed to have any defenses against it. Indeed, the pit was a powerful reminder that even a healthy normal childhood doesn't protect against the effects of depression" (Blum 2002, p. 219).
So she is saying that Suomi wrote this in 1970.
She goes on to say that most were at least three months old (which implies that some weren't). She then talks about Harlow's attempts to make the monkeys recover, but that's where the confusion begins, because with all the experiments, some recovered and some didn't. She certainly doesn't give the impression, as you did above, that the pit monkeys were any different. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What Suomi said

message: Tryptofish's repeated addition of a POV tag, which she has been adding since May, is inappropriate. The POV tag is meant to be used as a last resort, when all else has failed. In this case, it is being added because Tryptofish doesn't like the article, but can't be bothered to add anything that would improve it. There are lots of articles on WP that I would like to improve if I had time, but I can't go around slapping a POV tag on them all.
WP:NPOV dispute says:
The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.
No one is preventing Tryptofish from adding material to balance the article out, if she feels it needs that. All that is being asked is that she expand the article, and not remove material already in place. But it seems that all she wants is for the POV tag to be permanently in place. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments are clearly a personal attack against me, and bespeak the weakness, on the merits, of your argument on content. "Last resort": Actually, it's you who edit wars against anything that even remotely challenges your POV biases, and it's only you who keeps reverting the tag. "Can't be bothered": personal attack, and I have made it very clear that I am working on it. Wikipedia is a volunteer enterprise, and you have no right to decide unilaterally when enough time has elapsed. "Must address the issues on the talk page": I did, above, but you pretend that I did not. And RockPocket, NE2, and DGG, have also supported that. "All 'she' wants": personal attack. All you have to do is read my explanation at the end of the POV-check section just above, and you will see that I am acting appropriately, and you are acting out of policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You must add material from reliable, secondary sources to address any imbalance you perceive, or you must remove the tag. You first added the tag in May. That's four months you've had to start adding material, and you've said you have easy access to the sources. So why the delay? If it's because you have no time at present, as you said above, please remove the tag. You can't simply spray graffiti on an article until you decide you have time to clean it up. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: SV asked me to take a look.   I fully sympathize with SV that getting Wikipedia articles improved   can be a frustrating process.   But the NPOV tag is fair. The very title of this article is non-neutral, and implies a (possibly-deserved) moral condemnation. That  it was used as a nickname for the project does not excuse it. That the scientist himself used it does not excuse it either--he can have a sardonic POV of his work, or even show his awareness of  his presumably underlying sadism,  but it does not mean we should. The emphasis on the apparatus rather than the experiment is non neutral. The use of a long quote in the lede paragraph is ordinarily considered inappropriate & appears non-neutral.  I would accordingly have added the tag of my own accord had I encountered this article independently. The quote given from NPOV dispute says that one must give reasons for why the problem exists, not that one must necessarily solve the problem in the article. Drive by tagging is adding a tag, and not entering into a discussion of the reasons. The reasons here have been adequately given by several people, and there is no point in pretending they do not exist.  Until they are addressed to the consensus of the people speaking here, the tag should remain. There is no point in setting deadlines--SV does not work that way; rather we discuss and work until it is satisfactory, however long it may take, although   If it proves impossible to write a balanced article here, it should be merged.     DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: SV asked DGG at his talk to expand upon his views here, and he did. What he said is perfectly clear, and does not require further quizzing. It is absolutely clear that there is a lack of consensus to remove the tag. Furthermore, it is not a question of negotiating one-on-one with any one editor what changes that single editor favors. For example, I am not prepared to agree with DGG that the title needs to change; indeed, I lean towards agreeing with SV that it may be better to retain the present title on the grounds that the use of the device and the consequent issues that arise, rather than the technical features of the device itself, are what makes the subject notable. And there are other editors who have POV concerns that have been clearly described here, and these concerns include the need for further information about the ways in which the science has been interpreted and applied subsequently. The point is that there is still a process of editing and discussion that needs to go forward, before we can reach consensus that NPOV has been achieved. It will be easier to get on with that if SV would desist from warring over whether the process should even exist. (By the way, it may be useful to repeat that the tag does not mean that POV does exist, only that editors have explained concerns that they believe it does. A corollary of that is that none of the arguments about the page are a personal criticism of SV. This is about the page, not the editors, no need to take it personally.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not changing the title. It's what a lay reader would search for. You need to state your concerns clearly and we'll go from there. But what you are not going to do is obstruct the construction of a decent article because you want to push a POV. The POV tag is intended to address imbalance in POV, not to signal that some interested editors have one. Grace Note (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are addressing that comment to me, then you really should have taken the time to read what I just said. Did I say we should change the title? Did I, as well as DGG, NE2, and RockPocket, not state our concerns clearly? You are apparently claiming that I, DGG, NE2, and RockPocket are "[obstructing] the construction of a decent article because [we] want to push a POV." That is a personal attack without factual basis, and you need to desist from that immediately. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: as for the POV tag, I think it would require a rather extensive rewriting. whether his experiments are immoral must be left for the reader to judge, not concluded in the article. I recognize that given some of the statements he made about his own work, the reader will probably come to a particular conclusion about his methods and possibly his motives, but should be left to do so unaided. Some explicit information to the extent and the way the work has been subsequently cited would help.  It does need to be said that his initial experiments were widely considered as a major new contribution--I recall a quite positive article on the surrogate mother experiments in Scientific American.   SV, you might consider doing this as WP:writing for the enemy--make the best defense of him that you can, & integrate this into the article.  DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: Under the "background" heading, in the third paragraph, it is said that baby monkies were placed in the cages soon after birth. The cage is also described to have a one-way mirror.
Then, in the "vertical chamber apparatus" section, second paragraph, the monkies placed in the cage are said to be three months old and already bonded with other, and no mention of the mirror is made on the cages, which I would assume would be more important in this section, since the title of the section gives the impression that the article is actually describing the chamber.
These inconsistencies make the article somewhat confusing. Did multiple experiments take place, with different cages and using monkies of different ages, or was it just one experiment, and are the inconsistencies to blame for creating that perception? Biglulu (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are very good questions, and I'm not sure of the answer. As the above (and now rather long-past) discussions show, this page used to be a POV battleground, and there may just be some instances of inaccurate writing arising from that time period. I'd welcome anyone looking into the source material and updating what the page says. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting experiment descriptions 

message: Why does the photo show a rat when the subjects of the experiments described are monkeys? Unless a pic of a rat is some sort of scientific shorthand for experiments involving any kind of animal (which itself is suspect), I think the photo should be deleted and/or replaced.
In the "Disturbing" section of the talk page, some people express a desire for a warning. It occurred to me that the photo is almost the opposite, given that people tend to have more sympathy for primates than rodents. (This is not my main point, just a thought.) Yeltommo (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The image at the top is not the 'main' photo, it is the default photo that is used in the infobox for 'animal testing'. Anastrophe (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main photo