Talk:Draize test/Archive 1

message: I found this image, it says it has no copyright and it claims it is from a rabbit that has undergone a Draize test. Maybe we can post this one instead? Nrets 19:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not allowed to use material posted on bulletin boards by anonymous people. See WP:RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that, my point is that anybody can post any kind of picture on their website and claim anything they want about it, like that its eyes are red because it was a victim of a test and not because it is an albino rabbit. Nrets 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can, as can newspapers or books. We use material from established websites, book publishers, and newspapers, where the key is the extent to which there is editorial oversight. We satisfy ourselves that there is, and after that we don't get involved in investigating whether they are right or wrong. See WP:NOR. Can I request again that you read our content policies carefully, and then keep them on hand to refer to? Practically all my replies to you are convered by our policies. Once again, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image? 

message: Can we have a neutral source please for the description of the test in the Intro? It sounds decidedly antivivisection POV to me. MedicalScientist 17:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see how it could be read as POV personally. It states how the experiment is carried out by holding a rabbit still and either putting substances in its eyes or on its bare skin... Could you explain how it is POV? -Localzuk (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this I agree with Localzuk that it fits any descriptions I've read about the test in its original form. At the end of the intro there is a bit about how either the test has fallen out of favor or has been modified. Nrets 18:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only looked at the bit that MedicalScientist complained about; the 'description of the test in the Intro', which seems to be just the first sentence. -Localzuk (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In the eye test, the animal is observed for at least three days for signs of redness, swelling, discharge, ulceration, hemorrhaging, cloudiness and/or blindness in the eyes. After the test, the animals are killed." I think we should have a source for this. MedicalScientist 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Rockpocket, do you have a source for this? "The Draize Test is an animal test devised in 1944 by FDA toxicologist John Henry Draize, initially for testing cosmetics, and which today involves applying 0.5mL or 0.5g of a test substance to an animal's eye or intact skin for 4 hours then observing the results." All the images I've seen of Draize skin tests indicate that the skin is not intact. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also not clear what it would mean to apply a substance to an animal's eye for four hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, if you look through the source cited at the end of the second paragraph, it explains. I believe it also mentions intact skin. As I said before, it would be good to have reliable sources for the first paragraph, too. MedicalScientist 23:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: From the picture's I've seen, the skin seems to be shaved, but otherwise intact. But an actual source would be better. Nrets 16:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Its from the source at the end of the paragraph. The 1981 modification of Draize skin protocol means the substance is exposed to intact skin (shaved, but not abraized) for 4 hours then removed. Its not entirely clear to me what the deal is with the eyes, whether they way it out after 4 hours or not, though i think they may use only 0.1mL instead of 0.5mL. If it is different, it might be worth completely separating the description of the two tests. Rockpocket 07:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: Amazing! Are we building an encyclopedia or building an encyclopedia by consensus? Page requires archiving.  --Bhadani 16:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting