Talk:Animal testing/Archive 6

message: I'm a bit concerned about this passage:
The term "procedure" refers to an experiment, which might last several months or even years. The figures show that most animals are used in only one procedure: animals either die because of the experiment or are killed and dissected afterwards."
A Procedure (as defined by ASPA in the UK, which is what's being referred to in the reference) is any experiment on animals which is more invasive than an injection with a hypodermic syringe (i.e. excludes dietary/purely observational).  They may last days, weeks, months - but the vast majority last a matter of hours.  Also, the legislation is designed so that most animals are only used in one procedure, and in the vast majority of them they are euthanased afterwards - the reasoning behind this is that animals (especially small animals such as rodents and mice) are highly likely to suffer as a result of being allowed to recover, and the whole point of ASPA is to limit animal suffering - the assumption being that a dead animal is better than a suffering animal.  The passage above appears to be written by someone who's only understanding of the legislation and terminology comes through reading anti-vivisectionist literature, and hence is a little distorted.  Nothing is precisely untrue, but the phrasing here is deliberately misleading, and somewhat lacking in NPOV.
134.36.64.139 15:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that this site is international - so UK definitions are not good enough to cover all aspects of it. I agree that it could be clearer, but you must assume good faith, ie. don't go throwing random thoughts about the who wrote the sentence and say that it is 'deliberately misleading'. If my memory serves me correctly, the sentence was created through quite a discussion quite a while back - as it used to confuse the term 'experiment' with 'procedure'. How about proposing an altered version which you think would be better. (Also, please post new items at the end of the page).-Localzuk(talk) 15:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Procedures

message: Note: introduced for comment here. The page repeatedly refers to
"controversy", and there are multiple public opinion polls
from the USA and Britain on the topic.
----------------
The Foundation for Biomedical Research used a HART
poll 
in 2005 which asked American subjects to choose a statement they agree
with more. The first statement was "Animal research is inhumane
and unnecessary.  Many lab animals endure painful experiments in
cramped/dirty conditions. Animal research can be replaced with
modern alternatives such as computer simulations and it can be
dangerous, as results in animals are not comparable to those in
humans." The second statement was "U.S. places strict regulations
on treatment of research animals, scientific community is working
hard to develop alternatives to animal research and already uses
some alternatives. However, the most reliable tests use animals
because they most closely duplicate complex interactions that
occur in humans." 56% agreed with the second statement more, 
compared to 27% who agreed more with the first.
In Great Britain, more than 70% of those surveyed in a
Telegraph/YouGov poll "accepted that experimentation on animals
was sometimes essential because alternative methods were
unavailable." 
This poll was published in June 2006. The increased public 
favoritism relative to older polls was attributed to public 
concern that animal testing would simply move out of Great 
Britain, and that more than three quarters of the public believes
"the more fanatical activists can justifiably be defined as
'terrorists'". Older polls came closer to a 50/50 split on 
similar issues.
One such older poll was conducted in Great Britain by ICM, which was commissioned by RDS, a government
agency that advocates for animal
experiments .
Do you agree or disagree with the use of animals in experiments
to test new medicines? 50% Agree, 47% disagree, 3% don't know.
A more recent ICM poll was commissioned by BBC Newsnight and published in July 2006.
"Do you believe it is acceptable or not acceptable to use
animals for medical research?" 57% responded that it was
completely, or quite acceptable, whereas 40% responded it was
either not very acceptable or not at all acceptable.
A MORI poll  tracked public sentiment on 
animal testing in the UK from 1999 to 2002. They found the number of people who
were conditional acceptors of animal testing rose from 84% to 90% over that time.
A conditional acceptor has the four conditions of the experiment being for
medical research purposes, into life threatening diseases, with no un-necessary
suffering, and non-animal alternatives being used whenever possible.
However, these opinions are strongly subject to the wording used in polls. A BUAV
poll carried out by TNS in 2003 found 76% of respondents thought the British Government 
“should, as a matter of principle, prohibit experiments on any live animals which 
cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm”. 
--Animalresearcher 15:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Opinions on Animal Testing 

message: "Bad science" implies a methodolical criticism, and I'm wondering if this topic sentence conflates ethics and scientific procedure. A nuclear test (to pick something in the news today) may be "bad science" in the former sense but "good science" in the latter. This might also violate NPOV slightly, through an intermediate view: "could be good, good be bad, not sure". The intro is quite precise and NPOV otherwise (not sure about the pic), and gives due weight where it belongs. This sentence just sort of sticks out in reading. Marskell 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim, what's meant by "bad science" is that animal testing is said by opponents to constitute poor scientific method, as well as being unethical. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "is good or bad science" 

message: Could editors adding sources please give full citations. Several are being written as just a URL between two refs tags, which is worse than just adding the URL after the sentence. A footnote should be added like this:
:Abramowitz, Michael. "White House Upbeat About GOP Prospects", The Washington Post, October 15, 2006.
which renders a number like this Abramowitz, Michael. "White House Upbeat About GOP Prospects", The Washington Post, October 15, 2006. in the article and the citation in the Notes section like this:
Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the next time you use that same article as a source, you only have to write  SlimVirgin (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly the sort of help I like. Thanks SV!Rbogle 23:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rbogle, you're welcome. I should add that, in order for the full citation to appear in a Notes/Foonotes/References section, you have to write  at the end of the page, and then the citations magically appear. This is usually done under the header ==Notes==  Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I hereby request discussion on the merits of removing the paragraph beginning "AAALAC accreditation has not guaranteed humane animal care." from the section on regulation of animal testing. This point is superfluous and redundant. AAALAC describes a regulatory accreditation process. There is not a single AAALAC site on the planet that cannot be faulted for one or other violation of AAALAC standards of some sort. The level of compliance depends on the level of enforcement. This paragraph in question does not bear on the presentation of the regulatory process - it constitutes controversy from animal rights advocates. I feel it should be removed, because it is not relevant to the section in which it sits. In addition, it wrongly singles out the University of Florida. Anyone may, with a Freedom of Information Act request, obtain a long list of AAALAC or Animal Welfare Act violations from any major animal research center in the USA. EVERY SINGLE CENTER has a long list of violations, and EVERY SINGLE CENTER responds to those violations and changes practice. Part of the issue is that the enforcement of the AAALAC standard and AWA standards are changing over time, so that something that was quite acceptable five years ago is no longer acceptable. 
A similar argument may be made about the paragraph on the eastern branch of the APHIS Animal Welfare Act inspectors. No one would argue that the presence of enforcement means that there are no rules violations. Can you imagine applying this standard to any regulational enforcement?  These sections are not relevant to the process of regulation, and should be removed. However, removing cited referenced information should be discussed, first. --Animalresearcher 20:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to remove information

message: As currently stated
==========================
The topic is controversial, with supporters and opponents arguing about ethical issues and the scientific necessity of using animal models. The Foundation for Biomedical Research, an American organization that "promot[es] public understanding and support for humane and responsible animal research," writes that "[a]nimal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century — for both human and animal health," "FBR's Position on Animal Research", Foundation for Biomedical Research. and that many major developments that led to Nobel Prizes involved animal research, including the development of penicillin (mice), organ transplant (dogs), and work on poliomyelitis that led to a vaccine (mice, monkeys). "Nobel Prizes The Payoff from Animal Research", Foundation for Biomedical Research. "Benefits of animal research", AALAS "Survey of Nobel Prize winners", SIMR Whether animal research was necessary to achieve these results has been questioned by animal rights groups "Animals Used for Experimentation FAQs", People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. and other critics of the animal model. "FAQ insulin", Americans for Medical Advancement. 
Proposed
====================
The topic is controversial, with supporters and opponents arguing about ethical issues and the scientific necessity of using animal models. The US Congress, after protracted hearings from proponents of both animal rights and biomedical research, added this statement into the Animal Welfare Act which regulates animal research:"the use of animals is instrumental in certain research and education for advancing knowledge of cures and treatment for diseases and injuries which afflict both humans and animals". The British government similarly convened a Select Committee to weigh evidence from all points of view and wrote "There is at present a continued need for animal experiments both in applied research, and in research aimed purely at extending knowledge."House of Lords, Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures, 4.14, 2002. Opponents of animal testing contest these views, preferring to believe that improvements in life expectancy and medical treatment are largely due to human testing, improvements in technology, and that it is "impossible to say where we would be if we had declined to experiment on animals because throughout medical history, very few resources have been devoted to non-animal research methods.""Animals Used for Experimentation FAQs", People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.. Other critics note that in regards to medical health "the most significant improvements have been due to the prevention of disease and not to its treatment".
The ethics of using animal models is another point of contention. One moral basis for a pro-testing position was summarized by a British House of Lords report in 2002, which argues that humans are unique and morally entitled to use animals as food, for work, and for experimentation, provided that animal welfare principles are upheld, and cost-benefit analyses demonstrate an expected improvement in society that outweighs pain and suffering of the animals."Chapter two: Ethics", Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures Report, United Kingdom Parliament, July 16, 2002. This implies that human pain and suffering is prioritized over animal pain and sufferingPosner-Singer debate. Opponents of animal research argue multiple ethical lines. One argument is that consideration of pain and suffering for animals is equivalent to the considerations for humans[Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer]. Another viewpoint is that rights stem from possession of certain cognitive abilities, and that as science increasingly demonstrates animals have these capabilities, law should protect these rights of animals[The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan].
======================
The issue I hope to address in this rewrite it to include statements from policymakers who have listened to both sides, weighed the evidence, and made these statements as representatives of the people. As far as I am concerned, FBR presents a highly biased viewpoint, as does BUAV and PETA and RDS. But this is a special case in which the representative governments have already listened to all viewpoints and made official policy statements, which I feel merits its inclusion in the intro instead of the "present all viewpoints" policy of wikipedia. Of course, arguments from both sides are already included in more detail lower in the page. This proposed changes is large enough that it would invoke a lot of polarizing reversion and debate if done directly, I propose discussion and possibly editing of this proposed paragraph two on the discussion page first. --Animalresearcher 13:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  The debate shouldn't distract us from building a better encyclopedia.  Be bold. Haber 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would consider it somewhat disrespectful of the vast efforts poured into this page by all points of view to change paragraph two in a substantial way without inviting discussion for a few days...I certainly make every attempt to hold to WIKI policies, but that has not stopped me in the past from making errors along those lines. So I will not make such a large change without at least inviting comments from others who edit the page. --Animalresearcher 14:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AR, can I remind you that the current intro has no anti-testing paragraph and is therefore already skewed in favor of animal testing? Given that, it shouldn't be made any more pro-testing. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps this edit is better? I hope, if we can get this second paragraph ironed out, to go on to offer a more balanced consideration of the ethics in the third paragraph. The second paragraph considers evidence on possible benefits, the third on ethics and morality. For that reason I omitted ethical arguments in this version. I edited directly on the proposed paragraph above in case that is not clear. --Animalresearcher 14:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite paragraph two of intro

message: The issue I hope to address in this rewrite it to include statements from policymakers who have listened to both sides, weighed the evidence, and made these statements as representatives of the people. As far as I am concerned, FBR presents a highly biased viewpoint, as does BUAV and PETA and RDS. But this is a special case in which the representative governments have already listened to all viewpoints and made official policy statements, which I feel merits its inclusion in the intro instead of the "present all viewpoints" policy of wikipedia. Of course, arguments from both sides are already included in more detail lower in the page. This proposed changes is large enough that it would invoke a lot of polarizing reversion and debate if done directly, I propose discussion and possibly editing of this proposed paragraph two on the discussion page first. --Animalresearcher 13:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  The debate shouldn't distract us from building a better encyclopedia.  Be bold. Haber 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would consider it somewhat disrespectful of the vast efforts poured into this page by all points of view to change paragraph two in a substantial way without inviting discussion for a few days...I certainly make every attempt to hold to WIKI policies, but that has not stopped me in the past from making errors along those lines. So I will not make such a large change without at least inviting comments from others who edit the page. --Animalresearcher 14:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AR, can I remind you that the current intro has no anti-testing paragraph and is therefore already skewed in favor of animal testing? Given that, it shouldn't be made any more pro-testing. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps this edit is better? I hope, if we can get this second paragraph ironed out, to go on to offer a more balanced consideration of the ethics in the third paragraph. The second paragraph considers evidence on possible benefits, the third on ethics and morality. For that reason I omitted ethical arguments in this version. I edited directly on the proposed paragraph above in case that is not clear. --Animalresearcher 14:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ==========

message: The introduction to this article should be about animal testing, not the controversy surrounding animal testing.  Image:AnimaltestingMonkeyCovance2.jpg was created and distributed with the intent to incite controversy.  I would like to replace it with Image:Laika.jpg, a photograph of Laika, the first animal in space and possibly the most famous laboratory animal ever.  Comments? Haber 1--Animalresearcher 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never liked the Covance monkey picture, mainly because it was a shaved monkey with no evidence of animal testing. Like a bad fraternity prank. I've been advocating for some time to use one of the NASA primates instead, Laika is great by me, it is a CLEAR example of animal testing, and a decent image. --Animalresearcher 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AR, the current image isn't liked by people who support animal testing for obvious reasons, but it was taken inside a lab and not by the lab owners. I deliberately chose one that didn't show an animal actually undergoing a procedure, which arguably would be more appropriate. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current image is from a biased, unverifiable source and not representative of the article topic. --JWSchmidt 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the sources in this area are biased, but the image is known to be accurate, and others have said on this page that it's well within what can be expected in labs that do relevant work. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, the current image has a free licence, whereas the one Haber wants to insert doesn't. We're not supposed to replace freely licensed images with fair-use ones. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me start by saying I've working with laboratory primates, mainly Rhesus monkeys, for close to two decades, and I have NEVER shaved a monkey from head to toe like that. Similar to the effect you might get if you shaved your pet dog, the animal LOOKS pathetic while not actually caring all that much. In as much as I've worked at multiple primate centers in the USA, I cannot say that I find that animal picture AT ALL representative of lab research primates. On the other hand, NASA offers a wide range of public domain primate pictures that I have REPEATEDLY suggested are representative, including some that show animals undergoing operations, and all of these are public domain. --Animalresearcher 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Once again, Enos the space chimp http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/MERUNMAN/10073456.jpg obviously sedated and under NASA control prior to being sent into space. The image is public domain, shows an APE - which is the most controversial animal testing species, and shows it being instrumented for human purposes, clear evidence of exploitation that the animal rights lobby abhors. why not use this image? Again, the Covance image has no indication whatsoever of any testing. This image does! --Animalresearcher 01:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really want to go chimp, I prefer this picture of Ham-  Image:Ham the chimp.jpg.  It's at a better angle and shows the animal in a more dignified manner.  However I really don't think any Soviets are going to complain about the Laika image.  SV is just trying to invent a problem with this licensing business. Haber 04:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening image 

message: Please take care in your reversion wars, SV, not to back out changes as collateral damage to whatever point you are contesting. --Animalresearcher 01:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, AR. In order to stop the reverting, how about we try the image you suggested?  You said it was public domain, so it would be okay to replace the current free-license one with a PD one. Would that work for everyone? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I see you've suggested it above. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is a nice compromise. Such a historically important animal experiment is a fitting illustration, its not sensationalised and it deals with primates (which is a area of public concern). Nice work, people. Rockpocket 06:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, RP, and thanks to AR for the suggestion. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Applause, applause. --Animalresearcher 14:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Should the picture of the monkey (That was at the top of the page) could maybe do with some short explaination of why it is in that position (if this is availiable) - might make it look a little less sensationalist and shocking (and therefore keep peoples views in perspective) (alihaig) 130.246.132.26 16:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion wars 

message: Would it be useful/appropriate to add to the list of arguements in favor of animal testing that, given the level of abuse and criticism faced by animal scientists, many/all would not carry out the tests if they felt that they were unnessecary? Also in the arguments against testing list, it is mentioned that in some cases results seen in animals are different from those seen in humans.  However, if drugs were not tested on animals then the number of cases where human testing has serious side effects would be greatly increased.  The whole point of animal testing is that it is just one stage in a long list of tests that must be carried out between the initial idea, to a safe drug being released to the public. - (alihaig) 130.246.132.26 16:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to wikipedia. Cited, referenced, verifiable, relevant additions to these areas are welcome. Any addition may be challenged by those who frequently edit the page on any of those criteria. Unverifiable additions are removed aggressively, unreferenced additions will be at a minimum tagged, and then removed. But if they are referenced, verifiably, and relevant they will be a welcome addition to the page. --Animalresearcher 17:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Testing For and Against

message: Motion to change the article name from "Animal testing" to "Animal research".  HSUS, gov't, and pro groups tend to use the term more.  PETA likes "Animal Testing".  Google picks Research 125,000,000 to Testing 11,000,000. Comments? Haber 23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you do the search as a term, ie. with the quotes, you get a more accurate result of: Animal Research: 1570000, compared with Animal Testing: 1720000. However, I do not think the page should be moved for a different reason. The term 'Animal Research' is also used to cover 'research involving animals in any form', so watching them in the wild would be covered, etc... Animal testing is specific to the subject matter - testing on animals.-Localzuk(talk) 00:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...but based on the research types mentioned in the article, "Pure Research" would include research of animals in the wild. As a matter of fact, I am in the process of preparing a small section to add to that paragraph regarding behavioral studies of animals in the wild and in refuges. Nrets 01:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think animal testing does not accurately convey all the things covered in the page. I agree animal research is too broad. The consensus from the British and American lawmakers is "animal experimentation", which I find most accurate and not overly broad. I've never thought the term "testing" was correct, it conveys too much an image of toxicology studies (which are of course a broad use of the primates, but would not cover, for example, dissecting frogs in high school biology). --Animalresearcher 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes for me too I think of toxicology studies.  AR, I don't see the lawmaker consensus you're talking about when looking at the AWA, 1985 amendment, or Principles.  If wildlife behavioral studies can't be included here, then will they need a new article? Haber 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We certainly should not add any more information to the scope of this article as it is far too large as it is. Instead we should be looking at ways of splitting the page to make it more compliant with WP:SIZE. If we look at the google results, it would indicate that Animal Testing is bar far the most commonly used term, followed by Animal Research, followed by Animal Experimentation. However the research title would widen the scope to far and make the article to large. The experimentation one is out of the question simply because it is not as commonly used. Remember, the title should be the most commonly used term amongst everyone, not just lawmakers. That includes normal civilians too. And it seems to me that Animal Testing is the most common one so we should leave it as it is.-Localzuk(talk) 14:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most common in Britain. Scarcely used at all in the USA. There has to be some way to find a term reasonably commonly used on both sides of the pond.  --Animalresearcher 14:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm basing my 'most commonly used' on the google results. See these googlefights:  .-Localzuk(talk) 15:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That speaks to the commonality of the use of those terms. But, as already discussed, "animal testing" does not cover everything on the page, not even everything regulated by the Animal Welfare Act. I could, for example implant a sleep monitoring device with no side effects for a monkey, and monitor its sleep stages, and this would not be testing in any sense of the word, but it would advance science. I mean, "animal rights" gets even more  hits than animal testing, does that mean we should re-name the page "animal rights"? --Animalresearcher 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AR, I admire your patience, but just change your name to AT and listen to PETA. Haber 05:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing or Research? 

message: :I like it, but think that it makes the lead to long. We would need to compact it a bit I think - in particular the first paragraph.-Localzuk(talk) 14:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations, you have come up with an intro that's even drier than the existing intro.  One nitpick: the prevention vs. treatment criticism is very weak.  Vaccines are a product of animal research.  Non-infectious diseases are also possible to prevent if they are understood.  In addition, just because diseases can be prevented doesn't mean that treating them is unimportant. Haber 05:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer the lead as it is, except that we must add an anti-testing paragraph. The problem with the above is that parts of it don't seem to say much e.g. Congress added "the use of animals is instrumental in certain research and education ..." It doesn't mean anything. We all know it's "instrumental." The question is: "Is it necessary?" SlimVirgin (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current two paragraphs have one paragraph on the utility of animal research, and a second on ethics. Both the US Congress, and the House of Lords, have made DIRECT statements about both of these issues AFTER hearing from all sides on the issue. I felt it of far broader interest to point out that substantial public hearings have resulted in the statements I cited in the proposed two paragraphs. Of course these are still disputed by anti-testing groups, and I also included the most relevant criticisms. Representative governments reached a consensus, largely the same consensus on these issues, and I thought that was a better intro than the current intro, which reads more like a smattering of pro-testing advocacy weakened by editing of the specific quotes by anti-testing editing. Let all points of view be heard! --Animalresearcher 14:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but the current intro is almost entirely pro-testing. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You certainly cannot blame me for that, my proposed paragraphs are much more balanced. If you insist on reverting to the text that you view as almost entirely pro-testing, that is your choice. --Animalresearcher 15:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the intro have to be controversial at all?  I'm looking at Abortion and it seems to me like it would be a good model for the format of this article. Haber 15:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed paragraph two and three rewrite

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, as far as I can tell, the only link to YouTube is this one of the narcoleptic dog. It appears to be from a scholarly source, perhaps a training video. It is not a sole source for the info it is attached to, so I guess removal is advisable. Rockpocket 09:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Great video. Reminds me of my dog. Reminds me of me, come to that. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links