Talk:Gill Langley/Archive 1

Peer review

BlueValour, you're well out of order. I'm assuming you have something against animal rights. If you do, fine, but nominating this for deletion, and then trying to make derogatory edits about the subject is going too far. We do not normally add next to every publication whether or not it has been peer-reviewed. It is an irrelevance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, please read WP:AGF. Why am I 'well out of order'? I notice that you have reverted my edit with the comment 'delete nonsense about peer review; who cares about that?'. Why is a factual addition to provide balance 'trying to make derogatory edits about the subject is going too far'. I have no interest in animal rights but I do have an interest in a balanced Wikipedia. The paper 'Next of Kin' is pivotal to this article, particularly since the article quotes extensively from it. Since it is a scientific report on a controversial subject it requires peer review to establish if it has merit (on which I have no view). I quote from the WP article Peer review: "The peer review process is aimed at getting authors to meet the standards of their discipline and of science generally. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields." If you revert my edit again then it will be clear that you have no interest in NPOV. BlueValour

You're talking utter nonsense. People don't need to have had articles peer reviewed before they merit articles on Wikipedia, and her Next of Kin report is not at all pivotal to this. What gives you that impression? As for your attempt to poison the well in the introduction, please read our content policies about how to edit. That is not how articles are written. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• I notice that my edit has been reverted again with no explanation other than 'stop this nonsense'. Clearly my attempt to make this article meet NPOV has been rejected. I have no intention of engaging in an edit war so I have simply tagged this article as not meeting NPOV. BlueValour 22:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be best to state who published the various reports and who financed her to write them in the section that talks about what they report. It does seem to be the activist/lobbist group. That is legitimate information to include since it wasn't published via the normal peer review process. --Ben Houston 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I generally refrain from using words like "nonsense" in describing the edits of others. For example, here I would use the word "surreal" instead. If anyone wanted to balance the alleged POV here, I think they should feel free, e.g., a quote from someone notable saying, "Langley is a [derogatory epithet]." The difficulty involved in that, of course, is that involves actual research and knowledge of the subject matter, as opposed to idly picking apart valuable work someone else is doing. And if such does not exist, let's get that tag off in the not-too-distant future, please. I don't agree with Slim on every single thing she does, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for her opinions and her very hard work, and so do many others.

Confidential to Ben: you are coming very close to wikistalking. As someone who has experienced the bitter (and chilling) effects of that first-hand, I'd advise you to stay away from anything that even smells like it. IronDuke 03:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am unsure what happened to you, but at the moment, from my perspective, it feels more like a convenient accusation from Jayjg. The reason I say this is evidenced by the way he responded on the other page -- while SlimVirgin was happy to admit that she had solicited his vote and asked me to show how it was wrong according to Wikipedia rules, Jayjg on the other hand tried to show how it was not solicitation but rather a third opinion and then accused me of coming close to harrasssment -- to me both parts of his statement were of the same character: not representative of reality but rather convenient. --Ben Houston 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)--Ben Houston 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben, could you please just go away? You clearly have no interest in this article, but are here to stalk and harass. It's perfectly legitimate to ask for other people's help when something as absurd as this is happening. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

All I did was response to IronDuke? I understand that I can't defend myself here. It may be more useful to use proper administrative measures when it appears that I am violating Wikipedia principles -- making personal attacks against me and ramping up the accusations when I response to them is self-fulfilling in that sense. I will try to do the same. I have unwatched the page btw. --Ben Houston 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

BlueValor is actually right. "Next of Kin" is not intended to be an impartial evaluation of the situation, it's a paper issued by a pressure group and its intent is to influence public opinion. (Note that this isn't passing judgement on anyone.) It is more appropiate to use the word "white paper". Dr Zak 03:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm also a bit worried about the David Morton quote. The reference is a press release (actually the Google snapshot of the press release) by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, a charity related to the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, which published the report, on [1], a website with no clear editorial policy. One wonders if there is something less gushy, something like an independent opinion. There ought to be something, since this is supposed to be the counterpoint to the MRC statement on primate experimentation. [2] Dr Zak 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange citation

"Studies suggesting that humans and great apes — the latter currently not used in experiments in the UK — as well as macaques and other monkeys are more conscious of themselves and others than was previously believed"

This is a strange fourth-hand citation bordering on Chinese Whispers (Wikipedia citing the New Scientist citing Gill citing the original source). The suitable reply is found in Science, in a commentary on knockout mice without the VGLUT1 gene (Kim Schuske and Erik M. Jorgensen, Science, 2004, 304, 1750). "In the Fremeau study, mutant mice survived even to adulthood. This will come as a surprise to most. However, to those who are close observers of human behavior, life without cognition has always seemed possible." Dr Zak 15:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. The New Scientist cites Gill as saying that macaques have a self-awareness similar to that of the great apes (including humans). Dr Zak 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

British Anti-Vivisection Association

In the "External Links" section a link to the "British Anti-Vivisection Association" has appeared. A quick glance shows that that is a radical animal rights group with no perceptible link to Gill Langley. It seems that who put this in meant to link to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, of which Gill is a member. Could someone clarify which was in fact meant. Dr Zak 16:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just an external link, so there's no harm in having both. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you keep reverting me, you'll be in danger of violating 3RR. Why do you keep deleting that link? [3] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It should go without saying that a link that isn't pertinent to the subject matter should be removed. Everyone knows that a pile of loosely related external links just attracts more unrelated external links until the Wikipedia:Spam Event Horizon is reached.

Instead of aggressively reverting and preemptively warning of 3RR, why don't you explain what Gill has to do with the "British Anti-Vivisection Association"? Dr Zak 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a pre-emptive 3RR warning; you've been reverting me quite a bit, though I haven't counted and won't be. As for links, we're allowed to add any relevant external link links. I don't recall why this was added, or whether I did it first or someone else did, but it's about the anti-vivisection movement and it's therefore perfectly legitimate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And as a matter of interest, why is it fine for you to revert, but when I restore the material, I'm being "aggressive"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I explained my revert (to the BUAV) on the talk page, giving reasons for my action. On the other hand, I haven't seen a good explanation) for your version here. Maybe you don't wish to be aggressive, but this behaviour (refusing to give the reasoning for your preferred version) comes across as the Wikipedia version of foot-stomping. Dr Zak 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've given you the reason. It is a relevant link. Why are you removing it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand why it's a relevant link. This organization has nothing to do with Gill. Could you explain, I'm really not getting it. Dr Zak 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about a scientist who is involved in the British anti-vivisection movement. Therefore, someone added a link to another British anti-vivisection group. I don't see what there is not to "get." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see why in an article on an anti-vivisection group one would link to other anti-vivisection groups, as the subject is related. Gill is an anti-vivisection activist, so suitable links would be to groups she has been linked to, issues she has been involved in. But groups that she has not been involved in - well, the connection is too tenuous. Dr Zak 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not convinced that Jossi meant to link to the BAVA. He didn't revert me, and the fact that he also added the ECEAE indicates that he did mean to link to the BUAV. Dr Zak 16:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And I added the link to BUAV too. I'm not going to keep arguing with you. I'll be re-adding it again because it's clearly relevant. You seem to want to keep an argument going for the sake of it, which I'm not interested in doing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to attract spam. Dr Zak 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

<<<< As the "culprit" for having added that link, I may have confused it with another website. Nevertheless, as an EL =, it may still be approriate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take it out again. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle to boost the Google rank of websites, whatever worthy cause they support. Dr Zak 12:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that we need to passing judgements on External link based on what impact it may have on Google? For the record, I have no opinion about this "cause" to be worthy or unworthy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't what I meant. The BAVA's website will benefit from being linked here, it's how the Page Rank algorithm works. However, I can't see how Wikipedia benefits from the link - the website is too tenuosly related to the subject of the article. Dr Zak 23:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"not what some would regard as a typical animal rights campaigner,"

"not what some would regard as a typical animal rights campaigner" is quoted word-by-word from [4]. This is problematic, as the sentence encourages the reader to fill in what a "typical animal rights campaigner" would look like. There is the supremely cynical book "Forschen auf Deutsch" (Siegfried Bär, Harri Deutsch 2002), where in one paragraph the author attacks both animal rights campaigners and researchers - animal rights campaigners for occupying the moral high ground and researchers for the waste of rodents for pointless experiments. I guess we are asked to make inferences of that sort, but WP:NOR forbids making inferences, and intellectual honesty and WP:N forbids asking the reader to make inferences. Dr Zak 12:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of these spurious objections. You are the one doing the OR. That's what the source said, so we quote him. End of story. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The source says something - but what does it mean? Dr Zak 14:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not for us to worry about. You're engaged in original research, presumably as part of your desire to see the article deleted. [5] Enough already. Move on, and stop following me around. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made clear why I voted for deletion - there is no proof for public recognition of the person and you haven't been able to provide any. Roughly 550 unique Google hits out of 15000 altogether signifies a lack of notability accompanied by heavy webspamming. You have the unfortunate habit of attributing malice to those that disagree with you. This must stop. The fact that as a prominent admin you attract trolls doesn't mean that everyone you disagree with is a troll. Dr Zak 14:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Then don't behave like one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer if the quote is attributed rather than free floating. Jefffire 14:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to attribute it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've attributed the quote to the book "Organ Farms". If I've made a mistake feel free to correct it. I'm sorry to impose, but I think the two of you are getting a little worked up. Just take a little time to think about it and I'm sure we can sort it out :). Jefffire 14:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jefffire. I'm not at all worked up; just hoping that the WP:POINT will cease. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's great, but what does that quote mean? What purpose does it serve? "Langley is herself a former animal researcher who decided she could not justify the experiments her employment required her to conduct" together with "Langley ... gained her Ph.D in neurochemistry ... . She took up a position as a research fellow ... specializing in neurophysiology in cell culture." leads one to conclude that she found the emotional toll of animal expreimentation too high and switched to work in culture. That's valid, I understand, and would love to see a quote to see that backed up. Her letters and quotes that one comes across in the media make her appear as a reasonable person, we don't need a quote that is designed to attract human interest. Dr Zak 14:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote, and the section it is in, are entirely consistent with all WP policies. IronDuke 20:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The source says something - but what does it mean? Dr Zak 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate: if the theory above could be backed up by reliable sources this would boost her credibility immensely. On the other hand, being different (in an unspecified way) from one's peers in the movement doesn't do anything; on the contrary it sounds faintly like hero-worship. Dr Zak 22:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no "theory" above. There is no hero worship. There are simple, sourced facts. I am not easily confused, but your objections to this article are baffling. IronDuke 23:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm baffled too, and have no idea which "theory" needs to be backed up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The "theory" is a few paragraphs up, [6] it is the assertion that Gill gave up animal research because she couldn't justify it any longer. No reference in the article to back that up, unfortunately, as it would improve her credibility. Instead we are treated to a perfectly referenced weasel-worded quote, saying that "some" (who?) would consider her not the "typical" (in which regard?) campaigner for animal rights. Exactly what assertion is that quote supposed to support? Help me out here. We can't use weasel words in an article itself; this would be spreading hearsay or one's own opinion . Now we have this quote that quotes someone's ill-defined opinion, and I can't make out what the opinion is. According to the author, "some" consider Gill "not typical". OOOKAAY. Dr Zak 02:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

While quoting something "weasel-y" is sub-optimal, as long as it is clearly attributed it is completely within the bounds of policy. Arguments can be made regarding the reliability of any source, but what they say is what they say. If a particular slant is felt to be given by a quoted source, the best approach is to either 1) Find a better (more neutral) quote from the same source, or B) Find a contrasting source. All that being said, is there a source for the "couldn't justify it" quote? - brenneman ^{L} 00:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

The fact that Langley is active in the anti-vivisection movement is no basis for including general AV links. This article is on Langley not the AV movement. I have deleted those links from 'Further reading' where Langley is not mentioned. WP is not a links directory. BlueValour 21:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You also removed references, [7] which is starting to look like vandalism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Can the finger-pointing PLEASE stop, and can we start discussing references in the "Further reading" and "External links" section individually? SV, did you forget about the "merciless editing"? Dr Zak 22:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to stop responding to these posts shortly. This is just to say that the page should have a Notes section for footnotes, a References section giving the full citations of sources used, and a Further reading section for any links related to the subject matter but not used as sources. See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

SV - please read WP:NPA - I do not vandalise any article. Please see my User Contributions and you will see the work I do both editing WP and fighting vandalism. If you have any further attacks on me please bring them to the Community. I have never attacked you or any other editor and expect the same courtesy in return. BlueValour 22:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the Asthana article again - I am happy to be corrected but I spot no reference to Langley in it. Please do not accuse me of vandalism again. BlueValour 22:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This bad editing has to stop. It was used as a reference. And you're not actually removing it; you're just removing the byline and the link, but otherwise leaving it intact. [8] This constitutes vandalism, especially as you've had it pointed out to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm noting here for the record that BlueValour has inexplicably deleted the byline and URL from one of the references three times. [9] [10] [11] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

BV, I'm not sure what your objection is. You have, as Slim avers, not really taken out the reference, just the link, which is odd. Also odd is why you want the link gone. No, it does not mention Langley specifically. But it is a reference that is footnoted in the article. It isn't that it's merely, possibly okay for the reference to be listed under references, rather, it must be listed under references. I believe the software essentially does this automatically. You could try to argue that the reference be removed from the main body of the article but I can see no good reason to do that either. IronDuke 01:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I have got confused - I have been trying to remove items from 'Further reading' but seem to have got tracked into References. Can you explain how the Refernces link to the text - the Notes are easy; click on a number and you are taken there but how do the References link to the text? BlueValour 02:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

They don't. The References section lists full citations for sources used in footnotes, listing them alphabetically where there's a byline. Everything in the References section should have been used as a source (i.e. should be in a footnote), and all publications listed as a footnote should have full citations in the References section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Clang (sound of scales falling from eyes)! Now I see; many thanks. BlueValour 02:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

<<<< Reset indent and back to EL topic I must admit, if I saw these links being added while I was watching recent changes, I'd say that they belong in the parent article, not here. - brenneman ^{L} 00:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, which links, which parent article, and why? :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if vague were a disease I'd be terminal. The external link to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection is already in the parent article, so a "see also" is a non-contentious solution for that one. The British Anti-Vivisection Association is not on List of animal rights groups/List of animal welfare and animal rights groups nor do we appear to have an article on it, but again a no-nonsense solution would be to create the article and use "see also" again. How does that sound?
brenneman ^{L} 03:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To the anon

You can't simply insert your own opinion. She is quoted in the Guardian, and I have reproduced that quote. Please read our content policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. If you want to add information, you must find a reliable source and cite it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)