Talk:SPEAK campaign

Work in progress

This page has just been started and may seem a little POV and disoriented. It's primarily about SPEAK, the new(ish) campaign in the UK to stop vivisection, but a large part of SPEAK's background is the controversy surrounding primate research at Cambridge, so the article appears to veer off into that, but it will soon veer back again, and will next look at primate research at Oxford, which is what SPEAK is currently concentrating on. Also, I haven't yet looked up opposing sources, but I'll be adding some over the next week or so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

POV // opposing views // sources

Heya,

Regarding the following:

"There is much tension in the University city of Oxford between protestors and the local community, especially students. University members are increasingly frustrated with the SPEAK campaign's refusal to condemn the firebombing of the Longbridges boathouse, although there is no evidence to directly link the campaign with the action."

1. This is not worded in an NPOV fashion, particularly the second sentence. 2. No source is given for this assertion, in particular, nothing explaining the Longbridges bombing. Googling gave a rather pitiful set of results, all told.

As such, I have removed it pending a change in wording and sourcing (would be happy to do so myself but am somewhat tired at present).

Do people think it would be worthwhile to add a link to http://www.pro-test.org.uk Pro-Test? While it is a tiny operation (one guy at his computer by all accounts) it does seem to be the only group advocating in favour of the lab and has (supposedly) been given attention by several media outlets. --Black Butterfly 00:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

At present it is only a small campaign, but seeing it is opposing SPEAK directly, and will be staging a demonstration at the same time as theirs, I think it is worth a link.

The Longbridges bombing is that of the Hertford college boathouse by the ALF [1]. I can't give a source for SPEAKs lack of condemnation, you might find that a little difficult!

For a more recent lack of condemnation see the bottom of this article [2].

Mel Broughton, co-founder of SPEAK, emphasised his organisation’s commitment to running a legal campaign but refused to offer further comment. Webb said that information posted on SPEAK’s website is not used exclusively by “people who attend their planned demonstrations” and can be used by ALF activists to find targets.

| Spaully 14:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Have added link to pro-test. Regarding the Longbridges bombing, I'm not convinced SPEAK's lack of condemnation is entirely relevant to this as the action was in the name of the ALF rather than SPEAK itself. --Black Butterfly 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions

You did a great job expanding the article, Rockpocket. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Cambridge

The Cambridge material was starting to look incongruous, so I've moved it to Primate experimentation at Cambridge University, and changed the references section here to further reading. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing myself. Good job. Two things though, the reason i moved the intro about scientific validity (and i did so again) is because it is unsourced. The source you quote [3] makes no mention whatsoever of "failing to demonstrate to a public inquiry that the brain experiments they planned to conduct on the primates had any scientific validity or medical benefit." I don't know where that info came from, but if you can source it i'd welcome its return. I simply changed the info to reflect what the source says. That source also names the centre as a "Primate Research Facility" hence the other change. I would draw your attention to the discussion here for my feeling on naming such buildings. But i'm really too tired to fight over such a minor point again. Rockpocket 18:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that link, RP. I must have pasted the wrong one in, and now can't find one that uses exactly those words. I'm not sure it's relevant to mention the public inquiry here anyway, because the inquiry ruled against the proposal but then Prescott overruled them and gave it the go-ahead. Don't worry about your previous post, but thanks for changing it anyway. ;-)

Thanks. I really must learn not to edit when feeling tetchy. I think the general concern that Prescott was overulling a decision - for political reasons - made by committee might be worth mentioning, but the problem is over keeping it brief. It might be worth leaving it out simply because the end result was achieved in the end for very different reasons, that are much easier to explain. Rockpocket 20:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Image

I do not think that the use of the particular photograph is justified here; it seems to be a standard negative image that is used in many articles on Wikipedia, and seems to be a cliche. Can you replace it with an image directly relevant to the article, or remove it?Gleng 18:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The photograph is on the animal-rights template, Gleng, not in the article itself. Not sure what you mean by "standard negative image" and "seems to be a cliche." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant that the image is a propaganda image, that corresponds to a stereotyped view of what conditions might be like in a primate research centre. Is this a species likely to be used in the new centre, and are the animal houses likely to look like this? Its use here seems not NPOV. When and where was the photograph taken?Gleng 20:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, the image is on the animal-rights template, not in the article. If you click on it, you'll see where it was taken, and that it's an image of a monkey in a zoo. The template is on this page because the article is related to animal rights. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's a monkey in a zoo in China; but is its use here NPOV?Gleng 17:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand the statement "the image is on the animal-rights template"?

This article is about animal-rights so it references the animal-rights template. If you want to argue the use of that image on that template you should take your discussion to the talk page for that template.

Garrie 04:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Source query

This anyone know what Thisisoxfordshire.co.uk is. [4] We use it a few times as a sole source, but they have a strong anti-SPEAK POV, and the website doesn't say who they are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be a site hosting news reports from a number of local and regional newspapers. I can only find one use of this site as a reference: "Robert Cogswell, co-founder of SPEAK is on record as saying that the organisation does not condemn the actions of the ALF. [5]". It doesn't seem particularly anti-SPEAK to me, infact it reports a common justification for violence used by Animal Lib folks. The statement itself also seems a pretty non controversial, as Cogswell on record elsewhere saying similar things [6]. Rockpocket 03:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We had it as a source in the intro that the leader of SPEAK was encouraging lawlessness or something. I just wondered who they were. We probably shouldn't use them as a source, unless of course they're only copying newspaper stories, in which case the newspaper's the source, and the website simply the vehicle. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's run by the newspapers The Oxford Times, Oxford Mail, and a couple of others in Oxfordshire. It's a web archive of the stories carried by those local papers. Anything on that site was a published newspaper story, and has that level of credibility. --86.8.135.95 19:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Using WP to promote SPEAK's agenda

I have serious concerns with the attempts of new user Trooth-sayer to use this article to further SPEAK's attempts to publicise unsubstatiated allegations against a company, when a legal injuction has stopped them from doing so on their own website. I have added the development without naming the company, though have sourced it from an article that does. If anyone wants to, they can click on the link and read all about it themselves (for as long as the link remains active). I think this is the most responsible, neutral way of dealing with the subject on this article. If a respectible source substatiates SPEAK's claims then i'm all for naming them, but i don't see why this article should function as a proxy for promoting their agenda. If anyone disagrees i'm happy to discuss it. Rockpocket 07:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

ongoing vandalism

there has been a series of edits to this article from someone claiming to be a child called julian. it is getting increasingly frustrating having to revert said edits. not sure what can be done but something has to be. --Black Butterfly 18:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Contractor

RP, regarding the refs for the contractor, are you sure they're not reliable enough? One is a building magazine and the other is the Guardian. [7] [8] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not a source for the statement, SV. Its documenting an unsubstantiated (and from personal knowledge, false) accusation. I believe the Guardian article no longer exists (and somewhere, deep in a dusty corner of my memory, I seem to recall that the article was removed for legal reasons. I could be wrong about that, but I certainly can't find it anymore.) so it can't be verified. The other sources notes that the company is consulting lawyers over allegations. Neither of these are appropriate sources for the statement. Now, if you wish to mention that SPEAK made these allegations, then it might be a source for that, but do we wish to go down the line of repeating unsubstantiated allegations by notoriously unreliable sources? Rockpocket 22:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides, this is already mentioned in the source, here. See also the section two above. Rockpocket 22:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) A link to the Guardian isn't really needed for the story -- it's on several other sites (non-animal-rights) anyway. I'd be surprised if they had taken it down for legal reasons; they're normally quite robust on issues like that, and the company did admit it was involved. It just seems a little odd to have documented every twist and turn in this story, with multiple refs for each point, including what the local reporting was like and whose mother got bashed, but then to leave out that SPEAK has threatened the Olympic Games. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to write some responsible coverage of their allegations, and source it to reliable sources, then I guess I wouldn't complain. I'm just very wary of using websites repeating unreliable allegations (to the extent that SPEAK were legally bound from making them on their own website [9]) as a source for the statement that Oxford carried on the work with an "unnamed contractor". It suggests we are endorsing the allegation, and as far as I know there is no indication it is corret. We should not be a proxy for unsubstantiated claims that can lead to stalking and harassment (indeed, that is the purpose of making the name public). Rockpocket 23:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that our source is not SPEAK. It's the Guardian and the Oxford Mail story you linked to above. And the company itself admitted they were involved at an earlier stage. The people the company would rather didn't know about it are the animal rights activists, but they are precisely the ones who do know already. Also, I don't see our job as protecting or attacking either side; just repeating what others say.

However, if you really feel the sources aren't good enough and that the claim is wrong, I'm willing to defer to your judgment. Something might be published in future that settles it one way or the other. We're not on deadline. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And if you feel this thread should be archived, please go ahead. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry SV. I don't think I'm making myself very clear (I'm having a few issues elsewhere at the moment), so let me try again. My understanding is that the SPEAK made an allegation that company X is a the contractor building the facility they are protesting against. Company X and Oxford deny this allegation is true and get a legal injunction stopping SPEAK from making the allegation on it's web site. We currently have the following sentence in the article:

In October 2006, after allegations were made on the SPEAK website, Oxford University won a further injunction, prohibiting SPEAK from publishing any details about the contractors.[13]

My concern is (as it was when I removed the additional sources before) that the context of the sentence suggests that SPEAK was prohibited from naming the contractors (and thus implies their allegations are true). What they were actually prohibited from doing, according to the source, "publishing the name of any company it claims is building Oxford University's controversial new animal lab" (my italics). I think the distinction is important, because the point of the injunction was not to silence legitimate concerns, it was to stop allegations based on rumor and misinformation resulting in harassment. If I am wrong about this, and we have a reliable source that actually asserts that company X was the contractor then this is all moot. I'm not aware of that being the case, though. Rockpocket 02:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your reply earlier. No, you're right that the source for the newspapers was SPEAK. But the claim was regarded as notable enough for newspapers to publish e.g. The Guardian, and I'm assuming they would have seen the SPEAK documentation that the campaign says was leaked to them. So it's the newspaper that is our source, not SPEAK. That was my only point. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So do you think we should name the company like this, then note that both the company and OU deny it and that SPEAK were served with an injunction to stop them from making the allegation? Rockpocket 18:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have fashioned the edit along the lines of the Guardian story. Something like -- "In October 2006, SPEAK threatened to disrupt the 2012 Olympic Games because, according to the campaign, one of the companies involved in the consortium that will manage the games is the current contractor for the animal research laboratory. The company, X, acknowledged it had been involved in the Oxford project in 2004, but denied any continuing involvement." Then something about the injunction, based on the Oxford Mail article.

But, as I said, I'm happy to defer to your judgment about not mentioning it, if you think it's all smoke and mirrors. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that suggestion, SV. Rockpocket 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SPEAKlogo2.jpg

Image:SPEAKlogo2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mel B convicted to 10 years - deserve its own section?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7885687.stm, Spokesman is convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Arson, and receives a 10 year sentence - it's fairly important to the issue of SPEAK. I've just updated the trial with a changed last sentence, but would rather not be the one to write up anything further on the trial. London prophet (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)