Talk:University of Minnesota primate research

message: Hey,
I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so if I didn't do something correctly, please post in my talk and correct me!
Thanks!Carniv 00:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: intro comments

message: I added NPOV to the page because I think it needs a fuller and more objective presentation of its research and the justifications given for it. By the use of one-sided quotations, it comes very close to being an attack page. I merely left the tag, because I did not have time to do the work yesterday. 19:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: its not neutral because it talks about the criticism of the work without the justification for it. I'm not the ideal person to write that part, but none the less, it just is not neutral. there should be as much space given to the defense. DGG (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: more detailed suggestion for how to proceed: I would suggest continuing the section on animal rights campaign with an equal length discussion of her statements, those from the university,  and those of her supporters. Don't give extensive quotes, but do give references. I would also add a section of Scientific Work, and discuss her actual scientific work and list major publications especially as referred to in the controversy. They should all be in PubMed, which also indicates other articles referring to them. Include a mention of her degrees and any awards--her official website is a suitable source for noncontroversial details like that.   Let me know if you'd like me to take a look. DGG (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: References two and three  point to dead links. Will be removing the sections using them since the point of view is somewhat skewed and now has no reference. Umn student 06:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Unless there are objections, I would like to remove the quotes section, since it doesn't really help with describing much about her biography and they appear to be somewhat randomly selected. Umn student 06:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: I just wanted to say that I think the edits to this page were very well done overall, and still seems well-balanced. The one item of note was the link to the video. I don't mind having the link there, but I didn't see anywhere that actually indicated the video was from Marilyn Carroll's lab ("shot inside...animal testing lab" but not which one). If there is something indicating it was from her lab, feel free to put the link back up. Umn student 05:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally love that this article has gone from an attack page to a proper Wikipedia article.  I am however wondering why the MNPFP link went back up. Jmjanssen 06:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure why it got placed back up. I'd agree to take it down as the page doesn't contain any actual information on Marilyn Carroll. Umn student 07:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Link 

message: I removed the line "David Rolsky of the University of Minnesota's Student Organization for Animal Rights (SOAR) wrote in the Minnesota Daily that Carroll starves the animals to 80 percent of their body weight to induce them to self-administer drugs in exchange for food." since the comment came from an editorial/opinion piece that had no additional references. In my opinion that doesn't meet WP:RS, especially since the author of the piece was a member of the activist organization. Umn student 07:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And then is there anything indicating this is harmful or "torturous" to the monkeys? The part about restricting food intake is already listed in the article, but linking the food restriction and "torture" seems like it would be drawing conclusions or opinions from information that isn't cited. Umn student 16:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Umn student, the problem is that we do need to have a description of what it is that some of the students and the local animal rights activists are protesting. We've included Carroll's own description of how the animals are treated (they watch some television, smoke some cocaine, have good lives). For balance, we need an opposing view. Using the university student newspaper as a source is appropriate in this context, given that it's a university matter and that one of the protest groups is a student group. In addition, Carroll's own papers support that what the student is saying is factually correct (about the body weight issue). It's just the evaulation of it that differs: he calls it "torture," whereas she regards it as legitimate. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Their numbers are also different, where he states 80% and she states 85%. I also think the two statements come from different sources, where one source says "torture" and Mr. Rolsky states the 80% body weight (the word torture isn't even found in the op ed piece). Also, while 80% and 85% aren't that different, I think that even having the different stats brings into question the validity of the use of this particular newspaper article, especially since it is an opinion article. Umn student 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't refuse to use sources because they have a POV. Marilyn Carroll has a POV, those who oppose her have a POV, and probably every journalist who writes about it has a POV, even if trying to write neutrally. Therefore, we have to ignore POV, and focus on reliability and appropriateness. It seems to me that, in writing about a protest engaged in by students and focused on university research, the student newspaper is an appropriate source, no matter what it says (unless it's actually libellous, which is a different matter). SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the confusion. I'm not arguing the source on POV, but rather on reliability. Opinion articles (at least in the MN Daily) are generally not reviewed for any journalistic accuracy since they aren't always written by staff journalists (I believe the cited article was done by a reader, not someone who works for the Daily). The fact that his percentage is different from what is in Marilyn Carroll's articles supports the fact that his article may not meet the reliability criteria, regardless of the POV. Umn student 00:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And since we have no way to know, I feel we shouldn't include the information. Anything on the site should be cited (and therefore, in order to leave the 80% statement, a citation needs to be found). I'm against including the 80% statement or other statements from that article, the burden is on those who want to include it to find supporting citations. Umn student 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, we talked about this above as well, and seemed to have consensus before, that the MPFP link didn't have any information relating to Marilyn Carroll other than having her name listed on their website. It didn't really seem to make sense to list it since it has no information pertaining to her. The videos/photos listed on their site are also just links to the SOAR page (have these organizations merged?), which reduces the content even more. I just feel that the link should have some substance to it, and probably information specifically about Marilyn Carroll if we include it on her biography page. Umn student 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason you added the link back on? Umn student 00:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of the local animal rights groups that's protesting, so it seems fine to add it as an external link. I wanted to add SOAR too, but couldn't find a website for them. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are (were might be a better descriptor) protesting, but their site doesn't have any information about their protests against Marilyn Carroll or about Marilyn Carroll herself. As such, the link generates traffic to a site about animal rights, but nothing that is specific to Marilyn Carroll. Umn student 01:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm saying that the MNPFP site doesn't have much information about her (which is the current link). Because of that, I think the MNPFP link should be removed. Umn student 02:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this was already discussed, I thought I had made a fairly good argument for removing the MNPFP site.  It's not relevant to the article at all besides being the site of a protesting animal rights group.  It does not seem useful or informative and does not provide any unique information on Dr. Carroll. I am going to take it back off. Jmjanssen 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed her's because I wasn't sure if you would consider it balanced. If you want to add back in the 85%, I can leave it up, I just wasn't sure if you would want to leave up 85% (from Dr. Carroll's papers) without the other. For the other here is my concern. The article was in a student newspaper; however, the author of the article was just a student. Just because it got into the paper as an op ed piece doesn't mean it is reliable. Especially since the percentage stated in the op ed piece (80%) doesn't match the current info we have from her publications (85%), I highly question the reliability of the POV article. If we can find other evidence supporting the 80% we can add it in, but a non-reviewed opinion article in a student-run newspaper is about as reliable as the individual's blog entries. Umn student 04:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One additional clarification, the MN Daily is a student-run paper and is not owned or governed directly by the University Umn student 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I mean you previously removed a description of the experiment when the source was two academic papers. It doesn't matter who the author was. We look at the publication. Please see V, NOR, and NPOV -- you're engaged in original research here by trying to gainsay what the student said. The source saw fit to publish it; the publication is appropriate in terms of our policies; and the POV is needed for balance. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with leaving the 85% figure in, the problem is solely with the student-run newspaper op ed piece. The MN Daily, for it's op ed pieces (not written by staff members), does not meet the part of RS that reads "Articles should rely on sources written by reliable third parties or found in publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The reputation of the student newspaper here is not for reliability or fact checking, especially in its op-ed pieces. Umn student 04:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition, RS states that reliability DOES depend on the author: "Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context." Umn student 05:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Check where I added the info now, it seems to fit better there. Umn student 04:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolsky Comment 

message: I restored Rolsky's comment, but added that Carroll says 85 percent.
Umn, can you say why you removed the link to the Minnesota Primate Freedom Project? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we talked about this above as well, and seemed to have consensus before, that the MPFP link didn't have any information relating to Marilyn Carroll other than having her name listed on their website. It didn't really seem to make sense to list it since it has no information pertaining to her. The videos/photos listed on their site are also just links to the SOAR page (have these organizations merged?), which reduces the content even more. I just feel that the link should have some substance to it, and probably information specifically about Marilyn Carroll if we include it on her biography page. Umn student 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason you added the link back on? Umn student 00:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of the local animal rights groups that's protesting, so it seems fine to add it as an external link. I wanted to add SOAR too, but couldn't find a website for them. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are (were might be a better descriptor) protesting, but their site doesn't have any information about their protests against Marilyn Carroll or about Marilyn Carroll herself. As such, the link generates traffic to a site about animal rights, but nothing that is specific to Marilyn Carroll. Umn student 01:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm saying that the MNPFP site doesn't have much information about her (which is the current link). Because of that, I think the MNPFP link should be removed. Umn student 02:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this was already discussed, I thought I had made a fairly good argument for removing the MNPFP site.  It's not relevant to the article at all besides being the site of a protesting animal rights group.  It does not seem useful or informative and does not provide any unique information on Dr. Carroll. I am going to take it back off. Jmjanssen 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored it with clarification

message: The student's quote has been removed again.  Umn, it is an appropriate source for this article, because it's the university's own student newspaper. What do you have against it, exactly?
We do need to have a description of the effects of this research on the animals, but you keep removing them, even when they come from Carroll herself. Without a description, it is left unexplained why people are protesting. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed her's because I wasn't sure if you would consider it balanced. If you want to add back in the 85%, I can leave it up, I just wasn't sure if you would want to leave up 85% (from Dr. Carroll's papers) without the other. For the other here is my concern. The article was in a student newspaper; however, the author of the article was just a student. Just because it got into the paper as an op ed piece doesn't mean it is reliable. Especially since the percentage stated in the op ed piece (80%) doesn't match the current info we have from her publications (85%), I highly question the reliability of the POV article. If we can find other evidence supporting the 80% we can add it in, but a non-reviewed opinion article in a student-run newspaper is about as reliable as the individual's blog entries. Umn student 04:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One additional clarification, the MN Daily is a student-run paper and is not owned or governed directly by the University Umn student 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I mean you previously removed a description of the experiment when the source was two academic papers. It doesn't matter who the author was. We look at the publication. Please see V, NOR, and NPOV -- you're engaged in original research here by trying to gainsay what the student said. The source saw fit to publish it; the publication is appropriate in terms of our policies; and the POV is needed for balance. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with leaving the 85% figure in, the problem is solely with the student-run newspaper op ed piece. The MN Daily, for it's op ed pieces (not written by staff members), does not meet the part of RS that reads "Articles should rely on sources written by reliable third parties or found in publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The reputation of the student newspaper here is not for reliability or fact checking, especially in its op-ed pieces. Umn student 04:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition, RS states that reliability DOES depend on the author: "Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context." Umn student 05:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Check where I added the info now, it seems to fit better there. Umn student 04:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed again

message: Since it sounds like we want to remove 80% because we have no real way to back it up besides an article in a newspaper, I feel we should remove: 
"Carroll and the animal rights activists describe her studies from very different perspectives. Carroll told The Chronicle of Higher Education that her monkeys play with toys, watch television every morning, and occasionally smoke cocaine and heroin. "They have pretty good lives," she said.[6] However, local animal rights activists have described the research as "torture."[6]" 
because this as not been verified in ANY peer reviewed journal. I am the only one, probably, that is editing this article that has looked at more than the 2 articles that we used for the 85% and I have NEVER seen a mention of a TV. In addition, that is the only news article where I have read that. In addition, "occasionally smoke cocaine and heroin" is wrong. They don't do that stuff every couple of days, they do it EVERYDAY while they are on a study... For years at a time. She has a grant with the NIH ( I can find a link to it if anyone wants) that has been going on for 27 years so far. As far as we know, she has been using the same monkeys for at least PART of the study. That would be a little more than "occasionally". Carniv 13:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have evidence stating it's not correct? Just because you believe it not to be doesn't mean she isn't right. She will have bias as will everyone else on this type of issue, but the quote from her is in a reliable, verifiable source, which meets Wikipeida's guidelines. If you think the article is too POV with it, we can remove it, but we will also need to remove the line about "torture" at that point (she believes that they occasionally smoke, the animal rights organizations think it's torture). The definition of "occasional" also comes into play--what is it? Once a day, twice a day, once a week? Umn student 01:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umn, the Carroll quote doesn't have to be peer-reviewed, and should be restored. Why did you remove the number of monkeys? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the quote need some sort of reliability? Using the article from the Daily opinion piece is akin to using the guy's blog entry =). I removed the number of monkeys because it seemed weird to have that number as the sentence was written, while leaving out the number of mice. It also didn't really seem to serve a purpose related to her biography. She has monkeys, which it says, but does the number really have any bearing? Umn student 06:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The source didn't say how many mice. Look, you're removing sources that you personally don't like or disagree with. You can't do that. You can't say "wow, that source didn't tell us how many mice, so to hell with them telling us how many monkeys!" The source said what it said. We repeat that. Period. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the number because it was weird, not because it is POV. If you want, put it back up, I just don't think it really applies or matters to the article how many monkeys she uses. If consensus is that it is important and valid for the article, I have no problem with it. If you would like to restore it until we reach a conclusion, I won't remove it until we reach some form of consensus. Umn student 06:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also say that the whole sentence could be removed, as it is fairly outdated (2000) and that she uses mice and monkeys is stated elsewhere in the article. Umn student 08:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Neither--for the "old" part I am talking about the number of monkeys. Not all old sources are bad as some historical info won't change. However, that she had 34 monkeys and a 6million grant in 2000 doesn't really make sense to leave in, as it doesn't really add anything useful to the article and probably isn't even accurate anymore (grant could have been renewed, but most NIH grants last 5 years. I would suggest finding more up-to-date info if we want to leave it in, otherwise it is misleading and not useful information). As it reads, it suggests that in 2000, she had that many monkeys and that grant, which continues through today, which is not necessarily correct. Umn student 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carroll Quote 

message: It doesn't need to be in a peer reviewed journal, just a reliable source. Here is the difference between the articles:
                  	Carroll Quote                       	Rolsky Quote
Source            	Newspaper                           	Newspaper
Author            	Freelance science and medical writer	Student, non-journalist
Article type      	Editor-reviewed                     	Opinion article, not reviewed for content
Author Affiliation	Freelance Journalist                	Self-described in article as militant pro-animal rights
While you have never seen a mention of TV, that is original research you are doing, which is not allowed by Wikipedia. Carroll's statements, however, The challenge from SlimVirgin that I am doing original research is also incorrect, as I am merely analyzing sources based on Wikipedia's guidelines (which is allowed as far as I know). According to those guidelines, sources need to be verifiable (WP:V). Verifiable states that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." The WP:RS policy then states that a reliable article must contain these:
*"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
**The MN Daily article, since it was not a staff-published opinion piece, was therefore not reviewed for content accuracy
**The data we have from a peer-reviewed article states 85% weight, while the opinion piece states 80%
***This is not original research on my part, but merely assessing the accuracy of a source. If the numbers don't match, the reliability of the article is therefore in question
*"The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings. It can refer to 1) the piece of work that is being cited, 2) the creator of the work (the author or artist), and 3) the publisher or location where it is to be found (a website, book, album or painting)."
**SlimVirgin's assessment of an article only takes into consideration point 1 of WP:RS. She states, in contrary to RS that "the author doesn't matter"
**As the other is self-described as militant pro-animal rights, this further brings into question the reliability of the source
**While POV articles could be allowed here, the simple fact is that Rolsky's comments are in an unreliable article and don't match published works.
***Here is another statement straight from WP:RS: "Publications with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the authors or publishers themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the author or publisher has made about third parties, unless those claims are also made in reliable sources."
These points are especially true since this article falls under the scope of biography of a living person, which puts an even higher level for reliability of sources. Umn student 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have evidence stating it's not correct? Just because you believe it not to be doesn't mean she isn't right. She will have bias as will everyone else on this type of issue, but the quote from her is in a reliable, verifiable source, which meets Wikipeida's guidelines. If you think the article is too POV with it, we can remove it, but we will also need to remove the line about "torture" at that point (she believes that they occasionally smoke, the animal rights organizations think it's torture). The definition of "occasional" also comes into play--what is it? Once a day, twice a day, once a week? Umn student 01:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umn, the Carroll quote doesn't have to be peer-reviewed, and should be restored. Why did you remove the number of monkeys? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the quote need some sort of reliability? Using the article from the Daily opinion piece is akin to using the guy's blog entry =). I removed the number of monkeys because it seemed weird to have that number as the sentence was written, while leaving out the number of mice. It also didn't really seem to serve a purpose related to her biography. She has monkeys, which it says, but does the number really have any bearing? Umn student 06:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The source didn't say how many mice. Look, you're removing sources that you personally don't like or disagree with. You can't do that. You can't say "wow, that source didn't tell us how many mice, so to hell with them telling us how many monkeys!" The source said what it said. We repeat that. Period. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the number because it was weird, not because it is POV. If you want, put it back up, I just don't think it really applies or matters to the article how many monkeys she uses. If consensus is that it is important and valid for the article, I have no problem with it. If you would like to restore it until we reach a conclusion, I won't remove it until we reach some form of consensus. Umn student 06:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also say that the whole sentence could be removed, as it is fairly outdated (2000) and that she uses mice and monkeys is stated elsewhere in the article. Umn student 08:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Neither--for the "old" part I am talking about the number of monkeys. Not all old sources are bad as some historical info won't change. However, that she had 34 monkeys and a 6million grant in 2000 doesn't really make sense to leave in, as it doesn't really add anything useful to the article and probably isn't even accurate anymore (grant could have been renewed, but most NIH grants last 5 years. I would suggest finding more up-to-date info if we want to leave it in, otherwise it is misleading and not useful information). As it reads, it suggests that in 2000, she had that many monkeys and that grant, which continues through today, which is not necessarily correct. Umn student 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of article reliability 

message: Do we plan on leaving this page named as it is? It's not reflective of the article content, and "U of M primate research" is not all that notable compared to other organizations. Either more content needs to be on this page or we should move it to an alternative name. Umn student 15:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates/Additional Move 

message: Can you please explain why you have an RAR link? Carniv 16:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with it, Carniv. It's local and relevant. What is your objection to it? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree, it didn't really seem relevant before when it was under just "Marilyn Carroll", however, with the move, it is probably fine. Umn student 23:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RAR link

message: We've discussed this.  Not only does the site not have much information, what information it does have about Dr. Carroll is from another source.  It would be fine to link that original source, but linking to MNPFP does not make any sense for this article.  Say we do move the page to Primate Research at the U of M or something like that, then it might be worthwhile to have that link, but even then probably not. Jmjanssen 17:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have discussed this several times. Please engage in some discussion prior to blind reverts. Also, please read through some of the sources rather than just taking the opinions of others. If you actually look at the MNPFP site, you will see it contains no information that adds to the discussion of Marilyn Carroll, or really the use of primate research in general. Umn student 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to contain information about her. It's an external link because it's a related issue -- period. Do not keep removing material that conforms with our policies. Your editing here has been very disruptive. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, WP:EL would indicate that content on a site does in fact matter.  If you look above and below, I agree with the link being up now that the article is about Primate Research in general and not just Dr. Carroll so this discussion is now moot as far as I am concerned, but I still want to let you know that I disagree with the statement that "It doesn't have to contain information about her. It's an external link because it's a related issue -- period." in principle. Jmjanssen 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The census should not be coming from there as it is not a reliable source. MNPFP does not meet the guidelines as written "Articles should rely on sources written by reliable third parties or found in publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The census data was a PDF pulled from an e-mail that could have been forged, tampered, or otherwise just inaccurate. If you had them post it, that underscores the problem with using it as a source as it would then become original research. The census data is also extraneous info that really doesn't help this article, and I have yet to see a good reason as to why we should leave it in. Slim--you say that I am violating policy, but you are the one who constantly reverts to POV, unreliable sources without first engaging in any discussion here other than you think it's fine to add. WP:V depends on reliable sources, not students who make a website and then publish whatever content they want on it. As for my edits being disruptive, the document had few errors, was pretty neutral, but could have used some expansion. The most disruptions occurred (just look at the current length of this talk page) after you began editing. Umn student 19:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The MNPFP external link

message: The use of the Minnesota Primate Freedom Project website as an outside link and as a source for census data has been a point of some debate above. Additional comments about the use of the MNPFP website as an external source and reliable source would be appreciated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umn student (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Minnesota Primate Freedom Project is a local chapter of the national Primate Freedom Project, a well-respected primate protection organization. The Minnesota branch has been involved in doing research into primate experiments at Minnesota University, and organizing protests against them, which is what this article is about. Therefore, an external link to that organization's website is perfectly appropriate. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the scope of the article has changed to include all primate research at the U, I feel the the MNPFP link is valid now.  As I stated above, it definitely did not seem valid when the article was simply about Dr. Carroll.  Jmjanssen 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree at this point, however the move seemed quite abrupt. Umn student 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd agree that the MPFP is appropriate as an external link, though not a RS.DGG (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: External Links, Animal Census Data 

message: I would argue that the first sentence is invalid and very objective, as the U is noted for its work in HIV, drug development, and immunology, which all use non-human primates. Stating that the most notable research is the drug-addiction work is incorrect. Umn student 23:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UMN Most Notable 

message: "Her work has shown that antidepressants and behavioral or environmental changes, such as adding sweet-tasting drinking solutions, reduce the self-administration of drugs in the laboratory."
I would like to add at the end of the sentence that this is in non-human animals. It is not clear whether this is in humans or in computer models, or in animals, or in... Carniv (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: So, Carniv added some more quotes, which is lovely, but we should reach some sort of consensus about what/how much to add before this gets out of hand again.  Jmjanssen (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a few could be picked out as the ones to keep. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes (Part II)

message: I haven't seen any further action on the name of the article, or responses to what was pointed out, above -- that the article is misleadingly titled. I doubt, for instance, that anybody has tried to write a comprehensive article about UM primate research, and if they did, I'm not sure that it would be particularly notable. Instead, this article is a coatrack for the animal rights protests.  It does a disservice to both the actual topic and the named topic to have it be so confusingly labeled. I propose moving this article to Animal rights protests of Marilyn Carroll's research (or perhaps Animal rights protests of University of Minnesota primate research). Any objections? --Lquilter (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only objection (and a minor one it is) is that this could be a comprehensive article on primate research at the University of Minnesota if it was expanded upon properly. Jmjanssen (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's going to be about all the research there, Lquilter, not just that researchers', and the way we write articles about these issues is University of X primate research or Primate research/experiments at University X. We moved it to get it away from her name, per BLP. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (1) Minor point to SV: I do recall that being your justification for your move/rename, but I never saw it, myself. BLP doesn't say not to have articles in people's names nor that criticism of people's work should be done in an unrelated article. And BLP applies to content about living people wherever it is. (2) Be that as it may, I think it's perfectly fine to title the article more broadly than her name, by referencing the general research, since the article really was and is about protests of the research. Naming it with reference to the research is a step closer to accurate titling. But only a step because the article as currently written is really about the AR protests of the research. (3) SV, you mention that it's going to be about all the research there -- you sound as if you have plans to actually do some writing.  No offense, but what about?  UM is not exactly the world center of primatology, so, again, I would really have to question the notability of an article that was, actually, about UM primate research. Are you saying that you plan to have this article focus primarily on the primate research that UM conducts -- spread out over all the various programs -- with a small section on the AR controversy (small because of "WP:UNDUE")? Am I missing something here? Is UM a secret center of universally acclaimed primatology? --Lquilter (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind what the title is, Lquilter, so if you want to move it, it's fine by me if no one else objects. We can always move it back if it's developed. The only thing I'd caution against is including her name in it. Per BLP, if an individual is known largely for one situation or incident, and particular if it's negative, we're supposed to call the article after the situation, not the person. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great. We'll hang on for a while and see if there are any other opinions or thoughts about re-titling the article to more closely describe the content. I suggest: Animal rights protests of University of Minnesota primate research. --Lquilter (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, good to know. Two questions then for titling this: (1) Are all the articles going to be about animal rights protests of these researchers, or are some of the researchers not protested and the research will be covered just as research? (2) Could you sketch out a lede paragraph and stubby information on the other sections, tagged with "expand this" sections?  Or if that's too visually annoying, here on the talk page could you sketch out the plans for this article?  I don't want to move things unnecessarily either! --Lquilter (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Are there more than two researchers using primates at UM? Or just the two? --Lquilter (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 4 being faculty, 9 being faculty + postdocs/grad students? ... Regardless, I guess the question is, what are the selection criteria?  Is this article intended to be a review of all the primate scientists regardless of whether they have been protested or not (and if it's "primate research at UM" then it should be historical too)? Or is it just supposed to be about the research that is protested/critiqued/perceived as objectionable?  --Lquilter (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: to be fair, the nature of this research is not  unreasonably considered a little more problematic than some other studies. But the article really should mention the others at this university; otherwise it does so strongly resemble a WP:COATRACK as to be unsupportable. DGG (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that was why I thought it should be renamed; but Carniv & SV have both indicated there are plans to write about other primate researchers @ UM.  I'm trying to figure out the scope of their plans so as to propose a better more accurate title. To title it accurately as it is written right now it should be "Animal rights protests of University of Minnesota primate research".  --Lquilter (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: name of article

message: When we report research we report the conclusions, not the experimental details. Therefore general statements are appropriate. If we want a general article on primate research on drugs of addiction, then there might be a place for it. (The second half of the material ,by the way, does not talk about primates, but rodents, and is therefore not to the point altogether. I would even say that it's use shows the desires for sensationalism. ) And the way rats are killed--the last sentences--are general to animal research altogether. They should not be associated with the Univ. of Minn. in particular. If we want to talk about her research, or the research there, we  would need to do a fair presentation discussing how many animals received which form of treatment, and the summaries of the results, not animal by animal.  If we want to talk about methods of animal research, there might be a place for illustrative examples with all the unpleasantness involved. But not here. Even when we describe human murders, we dont present the detailed forensics. From the point of animal rights, the victims here deserve the same respect. DGG (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I   agree we should remove that one as well. DGG (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: details

message: The watchdog group, SAEN, filed a complaint with the USDA. I have three links, one of the complaint, one of a prepared media statement, and one a Minnesota Daily article with quotes from Carroll in it. Not sure if someone wants to incorperate this into the page.
http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/ps-20080424-um.html
http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/usda-let-20080421.html
http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/media-20080425.html
Carniv (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Info

message: I removed inappropriate detail that had been entered in the article. Please do not add it without consensus. Quotations such as this need to be seen in context--there is a proper reference to them, which is enough. DGG (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: detail