|WikiProject Film||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Animal rights||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
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. ".
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- Uh, yeah, because we also keep bottles of acid open on our surgery benches. 188.8.131.52 (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.184.108.40.206 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. 220.127.116.11 (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. 18.104.22.168 (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)
- 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. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
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".