Talk:Animal testing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Animal testing has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
March 22, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Animal rights (Rated GA-class, Top-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Biology (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Animal testing is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Info This page is not the place to give your views on animal testing. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page animal testing.

More Images[edit]

I have uploaded some recent photos of animal research facilities involving different animals that could be used if helpful.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalevidence (talkcontribs) 17:05, November 26, 2012‎

Summary of an article by Robert J. White[edit]


I try to fix the link to the summary of an article Robert J. White wrote for the Readers's Digest in 1988. The link is working when you cut and paste it but it fails when you use the Wikipedia direct access. Does somebody have a clue about it ?[0]=6146&id[1]=1495&id[2]=3438&id[3]=890&id[4]=1562&id[5]=2877&id[6]=1792&id[7]=626&id[8]=2031&id[9]=4063

--Flying Tiger (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Step 1: get it from a website that isn't purely agenda-driven and which doesn't violate WP:RS. If it even exists elsewhere (as opposed to being entirely fabricated, which is certainly possible), consider whether including quotes cherry-picked to be as inflammatory as possible is a violation of WP:NPOV. Then deal with the technical issues. HCA (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is it for YOU to decide what is «agenda driven» ? You deleted ALL my sources on the Robert J. White article, even the NY Times and Dichotomistic !! Those citations are surely more neutral than all the silly stuff about White being «a devout catholic and attending mass regularly and prayed before performing surgeries.» which is already on the article !! In this case , the quotes are from White himself from a summary which is clearly NOT a violation of WP:NPOV. You are the one who is in violation of neutrality with your recurrent vandalism. --Flying Tiger (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

How about the fact that the site,, has outright lies on the main page and their FAQ? Openly lying to people = not a reliable source, period, end of discussion. The other sources just got caught in the revert.
Furthermore, the quote you are using does not actually come from The Reader's Digest - if you read your own link (which I *finally* got to work) more carefully, you'd see it comes from something called "The Angel Fund For Animals, "The White File," by Gloria Bamberger and Olga Lee.", which I can find no trace of actually existing. So even when the link works, the quote is still unsourced and possibly fabricated.
Show me the original source of the quote. If you cannot do that, there's no point in even continuing, since it's a clear violation of WP:RS and WP:VERIFY regardless of content if there no source beyond 3rd-hand repetition. Those are the rules. He could be quoted as saying "2+2=4", but if that quote is reported third-hand and the original source is unavailable, it can't be added no matter how true.
Go read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY before making any more edits on this content. HCA (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Opinion piece by Hartung (2009)[edit]


Concerning the paragraph "Toxicology testing". There is a reference (Hartung 2009, Ref. 163) about the limits of animal testing in toxicology.

I would like to propose to cite an article [1] published on the web site of Pro-Test Italia organization. There, they analysed the literature cited in Hartung's article, and they found many errors (some of them striking) that would compromise Hartung's conclusions. Given that Hartung's article is very influential, I think it would be important to report its eventual limits.

AL458 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I made an edit that restored it as a source, but that wrote about it differently. My concern had been about the way it was written about, as indicated in my edit summary at the time. I'm not sure if other editors have concerns about it being a reliable source, and we can still discuss that, if they do. But thank you for explaining in talk. Does my edit address what was concerning you? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the article [2]. For example, the author takes issue with the correlation coefficients cited in a paper. There are 2 ways of reporting a correlation coefficient, which depends on the journal in which it is published. One way is to report r and the other is r2. The opinion article indicates there is a problem with the reporting of the coefficients, but these two values reported in the article are the same - neither is wrong. There are also concerns that the article does not mention significance levels in relation to the correlation coefficients - this would be much more informative and critical to the concerns of the author. I am not editing this article yet as I need to look at the original papers, however, I am not yet convinced this is a reliable source.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I hear you about the suckiness (that's a technical term) of statistics, and I remain very receptive to any kind of reconsideration of my edit, but I think we are on OK grounds simply to note that there are some issues with false positives, and some arguments that false positives aren't too big a problem, without getting down in the muck of it. Just two sides, very WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I had my overly-picky head on last night. There are faults in the paper, but these do not mean the general edit you made is incorrect. It offers a balance to the possibility of false positives being found and should be included.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with your edit too. Thanks -AL458 (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)