Talk:Unnecessary Fuss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject Animal rights (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Error/Misleading Comment[edit]

The current version of this article contains the following statement: "One example was where an accidental water spill over a conscious baboon during a surgical procedure was identified, without evidence, as an acid spill. [1]".

I have to dispute the allegation that this claim was "without evidence.". The voiceover described the spill as "perhaps acid" and in fact the researchers talking about the spill as "acid... it's gonna eat your balls off!" Now they may have been joking around or mistaken but this was a statement made by the experimenters on the original sound-track, so there was evidence to believe the liquid was acid.

Furthermore, the cited source does not directly support the statement as it stands. While the source correctly points out that the spill was actually water, it does not say there was "no evidence" for the interpretation that it was acid.

In conclusion, the voice-over was wrong about the spill being acid; but at the time the film was released, the producers had good reason to think it was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Uh, yeah, because we also keep bottles of acid open on our surgery benches. (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above, upon watching the film, I clearly heard the researcher ask "What was that?" and another researcher CLEARY says "acid." This, is justifiable for Newkirk to say "perhaps acid," because the researchers use the word 'acid' within the film. This needs to be corrected right away, especially since the source of the claim is a pro-animal-experimentation document. 06:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong? Can't get over the fact that Newkirk would dare to lie to the sheep who follow her? The irony is that most PETA members are pet owners, and PETA is explicitly against pet ownership. (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Peta is not against pet ownership. The narration was based on the evidence shown. Do you condone the behavior in this movie? How does torturing animals further science? And no, I'm not really interested in hearing your no doubt puerile answers. (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


I think the sentence should do something to convey the violence of the procedure. "Slamming" is an accurate description, in my view, though I'm happy to have it substituted, but I feel the sentence should be more descriptive that it is. RP, if you watch the videos, you'll see what I mean. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm. Ok. Hows about "striking"? Rockpocket 21:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we describe the force of it in more detail lower down, so perhaps it's fine as it is for the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I considered changing that to "strikes" also, but figured I'd let that one go ;) Rockpocket 21:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe the official term is "impact" if it was a CCI-type device. See Dixon et al. (1991) J Neurosci Methods. 39:252-262 as an example. If it's a DAI-producing device, there is no impact at all, and thus "slamming" or "striking" would be grossly incorrect. It would be a simple, but forceful, axial rotation of the head. Usually in the literature, for obvious reasons, it's described in the passive tense, e.g. see Zhang et al. (2008) Exp Neruol. 210:645-655. (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sixty hours?[edit]

The claim is made in the article that "Sixty hours of audio- and videotape were removed from the laboratory during a raid in May 1984".

Is there any way to view this raw material? Coolgamer (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)