Talk:Vivisection/Archive 1

message: I don't believe the vivisection article belongs in the Terrorism or Activists categories. 
Firstly, the terrorism category is for articles which discuss terrorism itself, not terrorists (that is a sub-category). This article is about vivisection, and it does not discuss any of the terrorist tactics used by militant animal rights activists against animal testing and animal research labs/staff. I do not believe this would be the right article to mention this; for a start, the ethical controversy over animal testing should be in that article, to discuss it in the vivisection article is POV.
If an animal rights activist group/individual does use terror tactics, these should be in their own article (see SHAC or ALF), and that article can be added to the terrorists category if that categorisation is factual and not POV.
The interpretation I would read into having vivisection in the terrorism category is to suggest that vivisection is terrorism against animals, which is POV.
Secondly, Vivisection is not an activist group. Vivisection is the only article in the Activists category that is not an actual activist group. If Vivisection detailed the exploits of (explicitly anti-vivisection, not anti-animal testing) activists, that would be the Activism category, not Activists.
The article does genuinely discuss vivisection and it does genuinely discuss holocaust activities. I have also added the category Ethics; this article should definitely discuss the ethics of (animal or human) vivisection. Kyz 00:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  categories 

message: * Philosophical, legal and scientific views.
* Some 19th or early 20th century texts.
** I have seen it debated on Nature of 1869 and early 1870s.
** 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
*** http://18.1911encyclopedia.org/V/VI/VIVISECTION.htm
*** http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/VIR_WAT/VIVISECTION.html
* Arguments pros and cons: utilitarian, animal rights, ...
* Alternatives: reduction, refinement and replacement (the 3R).
* Types of animals:
** Invertebrate:
*** Low lives: worms, fruit flies, ...
*** Highly advanced species: octopus
** Vertebrate:
*** Marginal cases: fish (can it feel pain?)
*** Animals we usually do not like: rat
*** Friends: dog, rabbits
*** Primates: monkey, ape, ...
*** Very special cases: strains with defective genes (naturally occured or artificially altered; patented or not)
OK. I will write something to imporve this article. -- Toytoy 04:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
*This article is still massively POV. The term itself is poorly defined and the rest of the article: it's like, been tried to NPOV it by posting secondary defensive statements by animals rights crap, but the whole thing MOSTLY centers on controversy, inflammatory statements and defenses to those.  There is absolutely no history here except the controversy. SchmuckyTheCat 23:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: "The scientific merit of these experiments has been questioned, as well as the ethics of using their results."
I removed that statement.  It sounds more like being politically correct, or interjecting morals/opinions as a factual statement.  Questioning the scientific merit of vivisection on humans is the same as questioning the scientific merit of vivisection in general.  If there was no scientific merit on vivisection, it wouldn't be conducted at all, including on animals.
:Please sign your comments.  Your own last sentence here is either extremely opinionated and/or fallacious, and ignores the possibility that vivisection, either on humans or animals, could be influenced by nonscientific reasons, including nonscientific curiousity and outright cruelty.  On the contrary, there is indisputable evidence than many vivisections have been performed for no better reason than "amusement."  NTK 12:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political correctness 

message: As another user and I have both pointed out, Professor Pietro Croce's book is not an appropriate source for the definition of the world.  I searched Amazon.com again for "Pietro Croce" and got ZERO hits.  The fact that Amazon doesn't list it even as an out-of-print book certainly suggests that it is an obscure work.  A Google search turns up a handful (693) hits - many of which seem to be extremist web sites of one form or another.  Croce, while there is no indication he engages in violent acts like some anti-vivisectionist (SHAC, ALF, etc.) is certainly a holder of extreme views in the sense that he says he wants to do away with all animal experimentation - a view not shared by many of his colleagues.  Therefore, I think any references to him are potentially POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpinyNorman (talk • contribs) 
:I don't know what you're up to exactly, but you seem to be trying to cause trouble. The source you say is not good enough (not as good as your compact online dictionary) is professor emeritus of pathology at the University of Milan and a member of the American College of Pathologists. He was in charge of the research laboratory of Milan's L. Sacco hospital for 30 years, where he performed vivisection, has received several international awards, including a Fullbright fellowship, and has conducted research at the National Jewish Hospital, University of Colorado and Toledo hospital, Ohio, and the Cuidad Sanatorial of Tarassa in Spain. His book on vivisection has been published in Italian, English, Japanese, and German, and is sold by Amazon, contrary to your claim.  The book contains glowing reviews from Michael Mansfield Q.C. and Dr. Bernard Rambeck, head of biochemistry for the Epilepsy Research Foundation in Germany, among others.
:Croce is in every sense a reputable source for Wikipedia. Your compact online Oxford dictionary is not. You also deleted the Encyclopedia Britannica when you said you were deleting Croce. These edits put you in violation of policy.
:You're edit warring across a number of animal-rights pages, making changes for the sake of change, and introducing (deliberately, I hope) a deterioration in the writing,  POV, poor sources, original research, and reverting a lot, all the while pretending not to understand why people are objecting. I can't think why, because I've had no contact with you before this that I'm aware of. All I know is that you edit as , , and there's a note on the IP's talk page saying you're also , who's been blocked nine times by six admins for excessive reverting, who was sanctioned by the arbcom for edit warring, and who is on revert parole at Global warming, though I've no idea whether you are, in fact, the same person. If you are, you should note that a request could be made to have the revert parole extended to other articles, or even to all. You may also be reported for disruption. I'm going to leave this on your talk page too. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've provided no evidence to support any of your claims so I'm somewhat at a loss to imagine how you can expect me to take them seriously.  Nandesuka has provided an excellent example of how to deal constructively on these pages which you seem unwilling or unable to follow.  Perhaps you could make more of an effort in future.  --SpinyNorman 07:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  SpinyNorman, please don't put words in my mouth.  I never expressed any opinion on Croce as a source, except to suggest that using sources we all agreed on might avoid conflict.  Your tone on the talk page is needlessly antagonistic.  Please moderate it.  Thanks in advance. Nandesuka 04:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg your pardon but did you not say "I think though that suggesting that an Italian professor is a good source for usage, when he wrote in Italian not English and was translated by someone else is, erm, let's just say a bit cute and move on."?  That seems pretty clear to me from that statement that you don't consider Croce's book to a good source for usage.  --SpinyNorman 07:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I did not.  That was someone else. Nandesuka 13:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see.  I apologize.  It did appear to me as though you had replied with that quote.  I will remove your name from the original statement.  --SpinyNorman 16:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of who said it, I fail to see the relevance of his having originally written in Italian. He's worked as a vivisectionist in English-speaking countries. He knows what the word means. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple.  This is a discussion about linguistic usage.  References to liguistic usage should be in the original language.  I'm not saying he can't speak English, I'm not saying he wouldn't be a valid source for matters related to his area of expertise (though I find your use of the term "vivisectionist" indicative of a pretty strong bias on your part with regard to this issue) but Croce's area of expertise isn't language or usage.  That's why the reference to Britannica is more valid that Croce.  I wanted to thank you for your link to the book on Amazon.  I still can't get it to come up when I seach for it myself but I did want to say that I was able to find it and I withdraw my statement that it can't be found on Amazon.  p.s.  Have you had a look at the catalog of Zed books?  Not exactly an objective organization, is it?--SpinyNorman 02:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked at Zed books, but I will, so thank you for the link. As for the comment about it being an "objective" organization, the problem is that you take pro-vivisection as the default position, and anti-vivisection as a POV. They are both POVs and neither is "objective" (whatever that means). All we can do is use knowledgeable sources on each side. Croce is one of the more knowledgeable ones, having worked as a vivisectionist and now opposing it (and he is the one who uses the term; I'm simply using of him the word he uses of himself). It's absurd to imagine he doesn't know what the word "vivisection" just means because he was born and raised in Italy, and anyway, you also deleted the EB as a source, which even you could not question as authoritative on English-language words. I don't want to argue about it any more because you've wasted enough time. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't take "pro-vivisection" as a "default position".  Whatever gave you the idea that I did?  It seems clear that you're strongly opposed to animal testing of all kinds and that's fine.  But I don't think it excuses your incivility.  I'm sorry you consider substantive debate to be a "waste of time".  I came here because I read some articles in the mainstream media about how wikipedia shouldn't be taken seriously because of the nature of some of the writing and editing that occurrs here and the tendency of certain subjects to be taken over by a small clique of like-minded people (I just took a look at the partial birth abortion article and it was horrifyingly POV).  I'm just doing my best to bring some small measure of neutrality and objectivity to the scene.  If you consider that a waste of time, I don't know what to say except perhaps one day you will learn to see the value in it.  --SpinyNorman 03:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Croce as a source

message: What's wrong with a reference to the New England Anti Vivisection Society and their view on framing?  It certainly seems relevant to me.  You can't argue that it is biased against animal rights.  What's the problem?  --SpinyNorman 08:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What view on framing?  The link you provided says:He also understood the power of the media in educating the public and framing the issues. .  You wrote, This usage has been adopted by groups opposed to most or all animal testing as an example of Framing (communication theory).  That opinion appears to be your own.  The second link that you provided, to the Americans for Medical Progress,  doesn't say that either. It's best to attribute claims to avoid this problem in the future. --Viriditas 09:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to framing

message: :"Vivisection has long been practised on human beings, and was a prerequisite for the development of the field of medicine."
I am taking out the "prerequisite" bit.  There is no question that the study of human anatomy was a prerequisite, however, human vivisection refers specifically to experimentation on live humans, especially live dissections.  It is extremely doubtful whether medicine would have been impeded by the use of only human cadavers, animal vivisection, and observations done in the course of actual treatment of patients.  In fact it is doubtful whether any significant discoveries were made at all through human vivisection in its strictest definition.  NTK 12:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human vivisection 

message: Hello, anonymous animal researcher here. Virtually every occurrence of the term vivisection that I come across it is used in literature to oppose animal research. If you google it, all the hits come back with animal rights websites. You will not find animal researchers refer to their work as vivisection, in the medical and research communities even today it is an obscure term.
I cannot find the source that re-introducted it, it may have been Croce. This word has grown hundreds of times in prevalence the last two decades in the US. So, as an animal researcher, my take on it. 
Those involved in veterinary and medical practice and research do not use the term ever in normal references to practice, instead referring to procedures as surgeries or in vivo testing. Vivisection implies cruelty to the experimental subject. And animal welfare practice requires minimizing cruelty to animals.  
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/vivisection
"the cutting of or operation on a living animal usually for physiological or pathological investigation; broadly : animal experimentation especially if considered to cause distress to the subject
2 : minute or pitiless examination or criticism"
You can see from this definition why animal rights activists choose the term vivisection. It is, taken alone, pejorative towards their practices. 
158.93.12.41 14:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term "Vivisection" to oppose animal research 

message: Why is this article so short? Judging by the length of the talk page it's hardly lacking in interested editors. I looked in the history to see a section regarding the ethics of animal vivisection mentioning Kant, Aquinas, speciesism etc, yet the current article is barely more than a stub. This is obviously a very important topic, so expanding the article to deal with specific instances of human vivisection, the ethics of animal vivisection, and historic attitudes towards vivisection is vital. Restoring sections that have been previously culled may be a good start. Richard001 20:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article length

message: There is an article Dissect them alive: order not to be disobeyed that needs a good editor to summarize this reference and insert into the main article. Crocoite 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need a good editor

message: I added a paragraph on the fact that most (or all) western nations now have legislation governing how vivisection is carried out in scientifically, both human and animal. This was removed. I thought it was appropriate since there was a sentence mentioning that scientists wish for more education about this topic to the public. Why should it be removed? Oh, and for anyone that suggests that in vitro work can completely replace in vivo experiments, can you please explain to me how to generate antigen specific lymphocytes, and antibodies for that matter, without animals first? Even if that single lymphocyte exists in the test tube, how exactly do you go about activating it and ensuring T cell interactions (among the other things involved) also occur? Volantares 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine to remove a claim that all physiology can be done in vitro since it is a POV, but the info about ethics committees was NPOV, so I think that should have stayed. Bob98133 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of discussion of ethic committees - and claims that all physiology can be done in vitro

message: I was corrected on my edit that "proponents" believe that scientifically these techniques produce poorer results. Is it possible to have someone who thinks that since alternative methods are available they should be used instead, but vivisection itself isn't invalid scientifically? They disagree entirely on ethical grounds, but the way the article reads, it sounds like EVERY anti-vivisectionist believes that it is intrinsically weak, and I don't believe that is true. Volantares 14:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Every proponent thinks it is less accurate?

message: This article has become a list of arguments for and against vivisection, which is not encyclopedic content. Perhaps there needs to be a separate entry for Arguments for and against vivisection. The present article should really be encyclopedic, and contain information about the history of vivisection, its generally accepted present use today, historical and present day legal policies and regulation, etc. Ethical arguments seem fine, but should likely be branched off to a separate article, and certainly should contain more references. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, after all. Please comment below with your thoughts. I have placed a POV check on the article until these issues are cleared up. Thanks! --chodges 07:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has become a list of arguments