Talk:Pro-Test

Untitled

Archives: 1 | 2

Question about bad faith

Dcfleck, you're the only one who can say what your motive was. I added that the demo would be addressed by: "Professor John Stein of the university's Sensorimotor Control Lab, a neurophysiologist who induces Parkinson's disease in monkeys, according to The Guardian. [1] I then thought better of including only the negative side of the Guardian's description of him so I added the rest of their sentence and put it in quotation marks: "Professor John Stein of the university's Sensorimotor Control Lab, a neurophysiologist who "induces Parkinson's disease in monkeys and then attaches electrodes to their brains to test therapies which may help human sufferers," according to The Guardian.

You changed this to: "Professor John Stein, an Oxford neurophysiologist who heads a laboratory where primate research into Parkinson's and dyslexia is carried out." [2]

When I pointed out that the source didn't say that, you deleted the Guardian source and went and found one that said what you wanted to say. In so doing, you manage to leave out two points: (1) that research into Parkinson's involves giving it to monkeys, and (2) that Stein does this personally.

This looks to me like an attempt to protect Stein and evade mention of experiments on primates. If you had another reason for doing it, by all means explain. (Sorry, I'm striking through that you didn't mention primates, because the quote above shows you included "primate research".)

As I said above, we can avoid any repetition of this kind of thing if we edit with an attitude of "reveal, don't conceal," and within our policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, several comments. First, the lines "...Professor John Stein of the university's Sensorimotor Control Lab, a neurophysiologist who "induces Parkinson's disease in monkeys and then attaches electrodes to their brains to test therapies which may help human sufferers," according to The Guardian." are an excellent summary, which I find wholly acceptable, if correct. But the Guardian source you use doesn't say anything about the identity of the lab. Are you getting your sources confused? Or does this information come from somewhere else?

Second, my recollection of the chain of events does not wholly correspond with yours. Your version of the line (mentioning the lab name) was edited out by Rockpocket several edits before I did anything to it [3]. When I came onto the scene, I found a sentance that I felt was quite awkwardly worded and decided to tidy up. Before I did so, I posted exactly what I proposed to do right on this talk page [4]. As far as I can tell, you agreed with my proposed changes [5]. But after I made the change, you objected; and as far as I could tell, you were objecting to exactly what you had just agreed to [6]. Thus my exasperation. You are correct, however, in that I erred by not using the Times quote right away; however, I changed to the correct source for that information several edits later [7].

Third, I stated my motivation for the change before I made it: "Details (such as they are) of Stein's work are irrelevant here, aside from the fact that his lab conducts experiments on primates." This article isn't about Stein or his work; while it is relevant to note that he is an interested party in the debate, his personally engaging in animal surgery is not relevant. Again, as I said above, "saying he runs the lab isn't direct [involvement] enough? I find your insistence on this very quote and no other mystifying."

Finally, I will just reiterate that I find this version:

Professor John Stein of the university's Sensorimotor Control Lab, a neurophysiologist who "induces Parkinson's disease in monkeys and then attaches electrodes to their brains to test therapies which may help human sufferers," according to The Guardian.

acceptable, if still somewhat awkward. --Dcfleck 13:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And can i add, that the reason i removed the name of the lab, was because originally that was the only description of what Stein did. When someone added the description of what Stein and/or his lab does, i proposed we remove "Sensorimotor Control Lab" as the sentence was very unwieldy and the term is both pretty meaningless to a nonscientist and somewhat redundent when we are also explaining in detail what they do. For the record, i personally agree that Dcfelck's version is better in terms of ease of reading. But i also accept that there is an potential issue of making it sound like "responsibility dodging" and thus Slim's quote addressed that in a fair representation of what Stein's lab does under his instruction. Anyone with academic experience will tell you Stein most likely will not be doing any animal work "personally", instead he will be taking responsibility for the work done by his lab. The Guardian - like all media sources when refering to science - was using "his work" as a euphemism for "work from the lab that he heads". Therefore, yet again, there is no reason to assume Marskell Dcfleck was editing for any other reason that to be accurate and to improve the quality of the sentence. In other words, in good faith. Rockpocket 20:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooops - i mean Dcfleck, not Marskell, in the sentence above. This is getting confusing. Apologies to both. Rockpocket 23:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Good news, Rockpocket; when the direct quote from a reliable source indicating Stein's direct involvement primate testing was yet again removed from the article, I did not assume any sort of motivation for it whatsoever. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's good you're not keeping score--he hasn't made an edit to the article in 2+ days, so you might have assumed it was him when looking for motivation. Here's a shout-out to talk page comments from people who haven't edited the article once. Just do a quick browse through talk and pick someone to pick on. That's a good contribution. Marskell 23:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, what are you saying? It's not clear to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should cease getting annoyed on RP's behalf. I could only interpret your comment as "when I saw something I didn't like, believe me, you were the last person I thought of"--that is, a back-handed comment to an editor who seems to be receiving a lot of them. Marskell 08:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, my guess is that Jayjg's concern was the deletion of sourced material, and that he stayed away from editing the article because lots of other people were already editing it (arguably too many), and he didn't want to cause further confusion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, had you been following my discussions with Rockpocket, you would have realized that my comments were not directed at Rockpocket's edits, but rather in response to a discussion Rockpocket and I were having about other editors edits. Please remember to assume good faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have followed your discussions and I do assume good faith. AGF does not mean "cease interpreting." I read it as sarcastic. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. But you haven't actually edited the page or really contributed a substantial point about a specific problem—your contributions to this point have consisted of showing up on talk every two days to tell everyone how disappointed you are about sources and the page in general. Start a thread: we should do A with X sentence. Or just make the edit and blandly explain why here. Marskell 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate your support, Marskell, as i believe when a few editors promote a common front, anyone dissenting - irrespective of motivation - can be marginalised if not victimised. And i think you and a few others have at least tried to understand the opposing perspective. I have no idea whether you agree with my disputed edits or not, but that doesn't matter as it appears to me that you at least appreciate the principle of my intent, the lack of which is what has made me so angry in the first place. However, i certainly don't want to draw you into disputes about me. I've made my point to various editors, Jayjg included, and now believe its time to move and work together. I read Jayjg's comment above, and while wasn't quite sure what (s)he meant by it, i took it as a light hearted reference to our previous debate and an indication that (s)he was moving forward also - on the principle that if i am complaining of people not assuming good faith of me, i should not do likewise. I'm not going to hold a grudge or let anything said previously on this talk page colour any future exchanges with said editors and i hope everyone else will do the same. Rockpocket 22:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Confused

This source (a newspaper that includes Laurie Pycroft among its contributors) says both that the committee of Pro-Test is made up of students and that Laurie Pycroft is "included" in the committee. This source was used to replace another but I think that it illustrates the problem with using poor-quality sources to support a particular view. Grace Note 09:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is disputing that Pycroft is on the committee? I don't see any sources that have suggested he is not. Indeed the Sunday Times thought it sensible to print a large article on him, as the founder and member of the committee of the group. Do you have any sources to support your deletion?

It also seems to me that: "Other speakers will include local MP Evan Harris, Director of the Research Defence Society Simon Festing and members of the Pro-Test committee, including founder Laurie Pycroft." means that Pycroft is a member of the aforementioned committee.

The oxford student is arguably one of the best sources for information about stories in Oxford, given it's focus. I also don't understand how saying Pycroft is a member of the committee is pushing any particular view, especially given most of this article is about him already. |→ Spaully°τ 11:26, 2 March 2006

It was used a source to suggest that the committee consists of Pycroft plus students but in one place says the committee consists only of students and in another that Pycroft (not a student) is on the committee. I feel another source should be supplied and that the edit should be returned to what we can securely source: Pycroft plus AN Others. I deleted Pycroft because I am bound by 3RR not to revert to my preferred version but felt it should be edited. Grace Note 11:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have looked for other sources on this matter, but so far have not found any. Perhaps the article does not want to go into the detail of explaining why Pycroft is not strictly a student. There are separate sources confirming 3 of the committe members as Oxford students, and no sources suggesting otherwise.

Besides, this at the moment is the only source on the matter, besides the Pro-Test website, and is a reasonable source of verifiability. Are you suggesting we discount it because it is not completely truthful? |→ Spaully°τ 12:15, 2 March 2006

I think some newspapers have gone with the drop-out angle and others have either assumed Pycroft is a student, decided that someone taking a year off can still be classed as a student, and some decided not to bother going into detail of the student status committee, thereby sounding inconsistent. However, Grace Note, i dispute that this is an example of using "poor quality sources", remember to begin with we had all the mainstream media get things wrong also, and more recently the Times appears to be inconsistant with its descriptions of Pycroft's student status too. That wasn't ruled out as a source due to apparent inconsistencies. So lets be consistent ourself and use it if it is the only source available. Rockpocket 18:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not to say, of course, that if we have another source that can better clarify the issue, we shouldn't use that. Rockpocket 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Until a better source is found, I have reinstated the fact that Pycroft is on the committee, as this is what our only source says. I have changed it to 8 Oxford students, as 9 is the total number of members. The only question is to whether the other 8 are all Oxford students. The Oxford Student article would suggest they are, given the audience it is writing for, and there is confirmation that at least 3 are. The other option from the sources we have is to change it to indicate that some of the 8 may not be Oxford students. |→ Spaully°τ 19:55, 2 March 2006

No. You must write "Pycroft and eight others". You may not say eight students because you do not have a source for that. Grace Note 00:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent)

"The Pro-Test committee of nine students met last weekend to finalise details for Saturday’s march, .." [8]

That seems pretty clear to me. |→ Spaully°τ 00:43, 3 March 2006

Plus we have: "A group of Oxford students proposed forming an organising committee." [9], "Pro-Test has an organising committee mainly made up of Oxford students" [10] and "Sqrrl101 told The Oxford Student, “I was contacted by some students who had come up with the idea of being committee- led." [11]. All strongly suggest that the committee is Pycroft and 8 (Oxford) students. Rockpocket 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. You must remove Pycroft. He is not a student. Glad we sorted that one out. Grace Note 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

says committee of 8 students to aid Pycroft here Catchpole 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. So there is Pycroft plus a committee, yes? Grace Note 00:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the collective sources is that there is a committee of nine running the group. And if we wish to break that up, assuming (as wew already have) that Pycroft should not be defined as a student, then the natural descriptor of the committee makeupis "Pycroft and 8 students" (i don't think that implies that Pycroft is outwith or above the committee). Rockpocket 01:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's just say what the source says. Grace Note 01:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that makes it clear, Grace. Rockpocket 01:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

New source: http://www.varsity.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8756&Itemid=26 which confirms what we have been saying all along about Oxford students being on the committee. And please, no bleating about "student newspapers"- Varsity, Cherwell and Ox Stu have print runs of maybe 15,000 copies each, vast advertising budgets and careful editors. We're not talking here about high school gossip rags- these are legitimate publications, and furthermore have a much clearer insight on what has been largely a student-organised campaign, with a large proportion of marchers being made up of the Oxford student population. 129.67.2.230 01:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Oxfordfemme

I'm not keen on using student newspapers as sources, because there tends to be very little editorial oversight, regardless of the size of the print run, and it's the element of oversight that determines what we regard as a reputable source — though I wouldn't rule them out where there's no alternative. In this case, the Guardian has just published an interview with some committee members so its composition is now clearer, and I've clarified. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, again it says Pycroft plus committee. Thanks for finding it though. No one has "bleated" about sources by the way. We're particular about them for good reasons, not to try to make it hard for people to push their POV ;-) Please try not to be rude when you contribute here. Grace Note 02:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing it seemed to distance Laurie Pycroft from the committee, just pointing out that it overtly stated the Oxford student involvement which the other articles were implying... 129.67.2.230oxfordfemme

Ah, okay, sorry, thank you. BTW, please consider creating an account. Your contributions would be welcome across Wikipedia. Grace Note 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Grace Note, your continued claim of POV pushing is not in line with WP:CIV or WP:AGF, please stop. |→ Spaully°τ 10:02, 3 March 2006

As a Pro-test committee member the committee is made up of Laurie, Oxford Students and Oxford Academics, although the actual membership of this committee is fairly fluid. A Mildly outdated committee list can be found on the pro-test website

Second Sentence

Is it just me, or is the second sentence grammatically incorrect? It seems to suggest that Oxford will be using "animal research" to build its biomedical research facility? I'm inclined to think that that sentence should be reworded slightly (though i'm too scared to do it myself, incase changing the odd preposition might intentionally/accidently lead to the suggestion that Oxford is instead building a hospital for the orphans of Calcutta ;)) Rockpocket 00:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim. I'm confident no-one will confuse them with Mother Theresa now ;). Rockpocket 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why has this article been protected?

The history doesn't seem to show any vandalism?

129.67.2.230Oxfordfemme

I don't think it has been. I'm able to edit it. Please try again.Grace Note 02:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected, ie only established users. I believe it was in response to unregistered IPs posting SPEAK propaganda repeatedly on the page. |→ Spaully°τ 09:47, 3 March 2006

It seems to have been removed now, you should be able to edit Oxfordfemme.

Stein (again)

I note the New Scientist source, and though it adds a more balanced element to Stein's research, it now makes that particular paragraph read poorly. In fact, references to Stein's research seem largely out of place in this article. Whether Stein himself is deserving of a page of his own is another matter entirely, but having details of his work on this page seems rather out of place. Perhaps we should just note that he researches dyslexia and Parkinson's, using animal experiments in the latter (or something to that effect). --ProTestOxford 20:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please leave the sentence alone. This effort to remove that Stein experiments on primates is unseemly. He has chosen to speak out in favor of Pro-Test. It's therefore relevant what his personal self-interest is in the issue. We haven't gone looking for his background gratuitously. The newspapers that have written about Pro-Test have written about Stein and his background for the same reason we have. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is important, though pretty obvious, that the speakers interest in vivisection should be noted. However, its doesn't get away from the fact that it doesn't read brilliantly. Since Stein and Aziz essentially work together on their primate studies (co-authoring 26 papers on the subject [12]) would it not make sense to group them together in one sentence followed by one of the two Guardian quotes that essentially say the same thing? If anyone wants to get into semantics that we can't source that Aziz specifically "attaches electrodes to their brains" - i can provide one of the studies that they co-author that explains just that (though, of course if we want to be entirely accurate, we should note neither of them will have done it personally [13]). Rockpocket 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I used the whole quote, including "attaches electrodes," only to be fair. The first time I wrote the sentence, I just had "who induces Parkinson's in monkeys," which reads better. I'd be happy to go back to that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think anything that can make that paragraph a little more compact would be welcome, though we do have to be careful to establish that they don't just induce Parkinson's for the fun of it, but that they aim to develop treatments for humans by doing so. But can't we just bundle Aziz into that description too? Rockpocket 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole monkey and electrodes thing I read as the usual ALF emotional warfare thing. You know the 'won't someone think of the primate' or I'll call you a paedophile nonsense that they've done in the past [14] . So if that must be included then show the reasons why. Hence adding the New Scientist reference. I think the article will work without the Stien and monkey reference. If we must use Parkinson's then lets have the reason why the scientists are doing it. Otherwise we are just going back into well-documented arguments. Catchpole 01:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding the sentence based on the New Scientist link was a classic example of original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Are you claiming the New Scientist isn't a reputable source? Catchpole 11:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Since this whole article is full of ridiculous childish arguments, how about this to mix it all up: since the monkeys are not given Parkinson's disease but Parkinsonian symptoms (a view held by both anti- and pro-vivisectors alike) you shouldn't use the John Stein quote at all. e.g. Stein's work says "experimental parkinsonism" and Animal Aid say "Parkinson's disease in humans is caused by poorly understood death of dopamine producing cells in the brain. It has absolutely nothing to do with MPTP"--Coroebus 17:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Aziz and cosmetics testing

Slim Virgin added "Professor Tipu Aziz ... recently spoke out in support of testing cosmetics on animals". He did, but the Guardian article made it clear that this was his personal view. Not only that, but it's irrelevant to Pro-Test, which is about use of animals in UK research to make medical progress. He didn't say it at the Pro-Test rally. You might just as well say that he was born in Bangladesh, he smokes, he used to fly microlights, he has pet dogs, or that his father was involved in the development of invermectin. All these were also mentioned in the interview. This Wikipedia article is about Pro-Test, not Tipu Aziz. MedicalScientist 12:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That he was born in Bangladesh and smokes has no bearing on his views on animal testing. That he thinks it's okay to poison and kill animals in the interests of lipstick wearers clearly is. Aziz was one of just two scientists (so far as I know) who have publicly aligned themselves to Pro-Test in order to give the group credibility. The credibility of those scientists is therefore clearly an issue, and Aziz's involvement with Pro-Test is the only reason the Guardian interviewed him in the first place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you agree that the fact Aziz smokes and was born in Bangladesh have no bearing. My point was that any personal view on cosmetics testing is equally irrelevant in an article about Pro-Test. Aziz' personal view on cosmetics testing doesn't affect his 'credibility' on animal research for medical purposes, which is what Pro-Test is about. Aziz was also featured in the Sunday Times yesterday and cosmetics testing wasn't mentioned. Why, out of hundreds of thousands of column inches about Pro-Test in newspapers last week, pick on this one minor and irrelevant quote? That SPEAK are also using it on their website, and no other media have even mentioned it, is evidence of POV pushing here. As is your comment "he thinks it's okay to poison and kill animals in the interests of lipstick wearers". That's hardly NPOV language. MedicalScientist 13:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

SPEAK attack/criticism of founder

Reading the content of the link I think attack is probably a better description than criticism. Could user SlimVirgin explain why they think the latter is better?--Coroebus 12:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is more neutral. Attack sounds as though Wikipedia is saying the criticism was unfounded, untrue, or unjustified. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Which it is, SqueakBox 14:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Which it was. It was an insulting and unjustified ad hominem attack. Wikipedia should tell it as it is, rather than desperately seeking neutrality even where neutrality is not justified. MedicalScientist 13:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's just your opinion, which is precisely what we can't add. El C has added "personal criticism," which makes it clearer, but "attack" would be POV. NPOV is non-negotiable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is documented as an attack by the Times:

As Pycroft’s plan for Pro-Test gathered support, Speak revealed its true colours with a bilious attack on the schoolboy. It described him as a “sad individual” with a “worthless, puerile existence”, and went on to make libellous allegations against him. [15]

The Independent:

Laurie Pycroft, on the other hand, has had a very swift introduction to the argumentative techniques of the anti-research lobby; Speak's website now contains a sneering personal attack on him and he has a growing collection of hate-mail, some of it threatening to kill him. [16]

I'll change it back to attack, as there both seems to be consensus among the majority of editors and leading newspapers. |→ Spaully°τ 14:00, 8 March 2006 (GMT)

It certainly is an attack. a gutter attack that shouldn't be in wikipedia IMO any more than rascist material (identical mentality) but if it is to be here lowering the tone of an honourable encyclopedia it is certainly an attack and should be described as such, SqueakBox 14:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it sad to see these attempts to justify POV. "Attack" is POV. El C's addition of "personal criticism" makes it much clearer what it is. If you want to discuss the criticism in the article itself, then you can quote your sources calling it an "attack." But in the "further reading" section, that is Wikipedia's description of it, and Wikipedia can't use the word "attack," because it's a word that is intended to condemn, not describe. Please review WP:NPOV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not remove the article. More to the point why have it here. El C's comment implied it isn't valid criticiswm, which it isn't any more than the BNP offer valid criticisms, all they do is try and offend the "f... off mentality cos we can't think of anything better to say and are blinded by hate". Who actually wants the article here? SqueakBox 14:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(conflict)

Slim, using 'criticism' is just as much a POV as using 'attack' although they imply different things about the source. 'Criticism' suggests it is a fair comment on his credibility or moral position or suchlike, it does not include the possibility that it is unfounded and debasing. Given this it seems an untenable position for you to hold to suggest a description other than that used in mainstream reportings of it, indeed it seems to infringe on the most holy WP:NOR. |→ Spaully°τ 14:22, 8 March 2006 (GMT)

I for one found it hard to find any criticism of Pycroft inb the link, it is all pure attack. Criticism would imply some kind of adult debate going on, which may be the case with Pro-Test but doesn't appear to be the case with Speak. POV would be calling it an offensive attack but at least people now have a warning about the nature of the site, SqueakBox 14:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think 'criticism' is misleading to anyone following the link. As others have suggested, it implies that we are linking to more than just a personal attack. I think 'personal criticism' might also work because it doesn't imply any form of reasoned argument about the issues. On reflection though I don't think SPEAK's attack or Pycroft's reply are particularly relevant as further reading here. SPEAK also have grown-up arguments about this and this particular little tirade is not going to inform anyone about the issues--Coroebus 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "SPEAK's opinion of Pycroft" followed by the "contains potentially offensive material" warning. "Opinion" gets around any inference the reader may draw from "criticism" or "attack" and, the disclaimer makes it clear that anyone expecting a rational debate, or who might be offended by the personal attack/criticism should stay away? Just a thought. Rockpocket 19:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see the only user still opposing the use of 'attack' is Slim, and she hasn't replied on talk since the latest reversion and arguments. She also hasn't reverted again, although that doesn't neccessarily signal the end of her opposition to it. I feel 'attack' is better than 'opinion on', as I don't oppose 'criticism' based on the possible offense the source may cause. But if there is still a divided consensus on the matter, this might make a decent compromise. |→ Spaully°τ 19:37, 8 March 2006 (GMT)

I have no real problem with "attack" either (as i think most people would agree its a pretty good example of a what a verbal attack is), but, on the principle stated above that both "criticism" and "attack" are POV interpretations of what the statement is, the term "opinion" offers a neutral compromise. However, should the consensus be that "attack" is suitable - i'll happily revert back myself. (though, i think the warning should say "potentially offensive" - as its not for anyone to decided what is and is not offensive - and i can almost hear a counter argument that, "I find the description of animals being tortured for medical research offensive yet we don't tag warnings to those links"). Rockpocket 19:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that both are POV interpretations of the source, but have provided reputable sources to back the 'attack' description and so find this preferable as our description. However at the end of the day it's a link in a minor article, so whatever to avoid more pointless conflict.

I've no comment on the warning, I don't find it offensive, just pathetic. |→ Spaully°τ 20:03, 8 March 2006 (GMT)

I think I'm still on the side of remove altogether, I don't see that it should really be under Further Reading at all, if we want to mention it I would say it should be as part of the story itself (and thus in the article), otherwise our further reading should be something more sensible from SPEAK. I also don't think the link is potentially offensive, I think that is also misleading, unless we're referring to what SPEAK then go on to link to or we're afraid of mentioning masturbation. --Coroebus

Well, i think that is fair enough too. The attack was put under further reading as, at the very beginning when Pycroft = Pro-Test, there was only really that, the retort and the Pro-Test site available as sources, and we didn't know how influential and notable the group would be beyond a spat with SPEAK. I think there is a good argument that we simply list the SPEAK homepage and the Pro-Test homepage as further reading now, as the importance of the personal aspect of Pycroft's involvement has diminshed. Infact, that gets my vote.

As for it being offensive - its clearly a matter of opinion. But labelling it as such is intended more a coded warning that its not an intellectual critique - as one might expect - but instead something altogether more juvenile and irrelevent to the issues. Of course, its fair to argue that if it is so irrelevent that it requires a warning, then it shouldn't be there in the first place! Rockpocket 23:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No matter how many people prefer "attack," it is a POV opinion, and WP:NPOV can't be overturned by consensus. When people read our articles, they should not be able to tell overall whether the editors approve or disapprove of the subject matter. With this article, it's sadly only too clear which side the editors have decided to come down on. I know that many of you don't care about this because you're not regular Wikipedians, but for those of you who are, please give it some thought, because this page is nothing to be proud of. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should remove both the SPEAK link and the Pycroft response as the solution to this POV problem; it certainly presents a solution. If we agree with Slim that consensus can't defy NPOV then it is a matter of finding a way of removing that POV, and my suggestion is one way, SqueakBox 03:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think removing both is a reasonable course of action. I also think the article is perfectly representative of Wikipedia and nothing to be ashamed of. --Dcfleck 04:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the SPEAK material shouldn't be used as a source (per WP:V and WP:RS, but there's no harm in leaving it as a link in "further reading." By calling it an "attack," or by putting up a warning, you're actually drawing attention to it. Dcfleck, I'm astonished anyone could think this page is "perfectly representative." It's pro-Pro-Test, not neutral at all, and now people are proposing to remove the only link containing criticism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that the link has little, if any criticism of Pro-Test. Therefore its relevence is highly questionable. Infact the only references to the group is in describing Pycroft:

[Pycroft] has muscled in on the Oxford lab debacle to try to rise above the mediocrity of his worthless, puerile existence in becoming the organiser of a new pro-vivisection lobby called Pro-test.

The recently formed group Pro-Test, 'Students fight back for animal research’, on which the Times carried an article today, and which is likely to have an embarrassing backlash with revelations about the closet (sic) activities of the group’s founder.

The self-styled leader of Pro-Test (who mustered a counter-demonstration of 3 against 100 SPEAK supporters protesting in Oxford) lists one of his other interests (apart from the obvious one) as Firearms

It’s not for us to judge his state of mental health, his neuroses or psychosis, but maybe all three of his supporters at Pro-test’s next Oxford demo should ask him

That is it. Not one of the mentions of the group contains any criticsm of the group itself, it is only mentioned in the context of mocking Pycroft. The fact that this is the only "criticism" we have speaks volumes (pun intended). Thus, are we keeping it because its all we can find, or are we keeping it because it appropriate? I guess what i'm asking is that if the press is overwhelmingly positive and there are no suitably relevent and appropriate criticism available to cite, does that mean that the article is NPOV, or does it simply mean that the article reflects the reality? Do we need criticism "for the sake of it", when the reality is there there was none beyond puerile name calling of an individual?

And as for your assessment of the quality of the article, Slim, who is that "criticism" aimed at? Its perhaps not surprising that your POV of an article about a Pro-testing group that was almost universally praised is not positive. But does that mean the article is pro-Pro-Test from a NPOV? What is the justification for that - the facts are very well referenced and its hardly our fault that 99.9% of reliable sources were very positive the group. I believe you are confusing people trying to accurately represent overwhelming positive opinion with the opinion of editors themselves. Is that not lacking the assumption of good faith? Rockpocket 05:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right that NPOV does not mean "find criticism at any cost." NPOV means we publish what reliable sources have published, and if their material is one-sided, so is ours. Nevertheless, we try to be as NPOV as possible. At one point, we had quote after quote saying how wonderful this group is, when one would have sufficed. I won't go over all the other points that people kept trying to delete because they've already been discussed, but what I will say is that it's possible for a good editor to write up one-sided published material, and still leave the reader guessing as to which side the editor is on. That hasn't happened here.

As for the link, it would be a violation of WP:V and WP:RS to use SPEAK as a third-party source, and I was the one who moved it out of the body of the text and into the further-reading section for that reason, where it's appropriate to refer to it. What exactly would be the basis in policy for deleting it entirely (bearing in mind you're not supposed to act on your personal views, but according to policy)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you moved it to the further reading a few weeks back and i supported that move at the time when the main notability of the group was Pycroft's confrontation with SPEAK. I believe, since the story has evolved, that this link would now be appropriate for Pycroft's own entry (were he deemed notable enough), but not for here. I'm still learning about policy, so i don't know if there is a policy to justify its removal. My opposition was on relevence - which may or may not be a specific policy - but is surely inherent to any encyclopaedia. For example, personal criticism of Jimbo Wales' sexual predilections would not remain on the Wikipedia page for long. So i really don't see why a personal attack on Pycroft is relevent to the article (especially now as it has clearly progressed from any claim that the group consists of the "website of a 16 year old boy"). That said, i admit that is my POV, which is all each of us can rely on when forming opinions such as this. My original suggestion of using "opinion" stands if the consensus is that it relevent and should stay (as calling that "criticism" giving as POV as "attack"). I notice Marskell has offered "denunciation" - which also seems a more valid term that "criticism" or "attack" - and is one i'm more than happy to support.

Regarding guessing which "side" the editor is on (is this the same "side" as Grace Note first mentioned here or a different "side"? There are a lot of "sides" around for a place that is supposed to be neutral) - i'm afraid i simply don't see it. Yes, there were more positive quotes, they were not required, and they were removed (infact, i believe i proposed deleting one that was redundant). There was also anti vandalism in the past, but quoting that doesn't justify accusations of bias now!

Of course, that could be because my POV is colouring my perspective. Or it could be that your POV is colouring your perspective. Or it could be a bit of both. Who knows? My professional experience tells me i'm skilled enough at objective writing to be a suitable judge - i'm sure you would claim likewise. The one thing i have noticed since i have been around here, is that i almost always - for want of a better word - 'feel' that articles read better when the subject is something i'm sympathetic to, and feel they are written worse when not. Funny that. Rockpocket 06:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Talking of POV, all the link to SPEAK shows is that they are a bunch of infantile pillocks unable to establish a decent argument. I'm curious as to how it makes the article any less pro ProTest.Catchpole 09:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but it doesn't exactly highlight what is a very real and valid debate. Most, if not all the references in Further Reading are of very poor quality and do not inform the reader any further about the organisation or the issue. While we're not exactly supposed to decide things by vote, this is not SlimVirgin's personal fiefdom either. We are not obliged to include a link to everything that mentions the issue and the basis for deletion of these links is obvious and has been spelt out. I mentioned that the only relevant place is in the text, and that is not as a third party source but as the source of the attack on Pycroft if you regard that attack as sufficiently notable (which I do not). I recommend we concentrate on SPEAK's direct commentary on the issue at hand (I think there's already a link in references for that) and their coverage of the two marches which has some marginally better criticism of the Pro-Test people.--Coroebus 11:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a much better source that - pretty much all propoganda with lies about the amount of support, relative peacefulness of the groups and unrelated claims of brutality. Again there are no arguments against the stance Pro-Test takes or dignified criticism of them. |→ Spaully°τ 13:11, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Yeah, but at least that one refers to an actual event rather than the alleged personal failings of Pycroft. Better that they're misleading than just plain irrelevant. If we must include what SPEAK have to say about Pro-Test, I think this is superior, if not exactly perfect.--Coroebus 13:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Coroebus, SqueakBox 15:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to rally

"Pro-Test held its first rally on February 25, 2006, attracting hundreds in support of the research facility and opposed by a smaller number of anti-lab demonstrators. [3]"

Can we really say the rally was 'opposed' by anti-lab demonstrators, after all they demonstrate every week (although there were more than normal)?--Coroebus 09:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

SPEAK hold a monthly demonstration, to which they get 150 or so demonstrators. It was not a normal weekly protest.

I think that 'opposed' could be applied to any situation like this, and given the subject is Pro-Test it makes sense to phrase it this way. Furthermore it is how the event was reported. |→ Spaully°τ 10:53, 10 March 2006 (GMT)

Implementing last Peer Review recommendation: modifying citation format.

Looking over the Peer Review, I see that the recommendation to use the <ref></ref> format for citations hasn't been implemented yet. I'll make a start on that. --Dcfleck 15:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

See the note on your talk page, Dc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, now that I've gone and done that... what do people think? Is using this style of reference an improvement to the article or not? --Dcfleck 17:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, I like the look of it a lot, but my two problems with it are, first, that it means the reader has to click twice to get to the article we link to, so I don't see what the advantage is from the readers' perspective, and secondly it makes the text harder to edit for flow, so I also don't see the advantage from the editors' perspective. However, I'm guessing I'll be outnumbered on this, because lots of editors like the look of this system, and I wouldn't want you to revert it anyway, Dc, because you've put a lot of work into it. It does make the page look very neat, without question, so thank you for doing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's quite possible that the way I've implemented the footnotes is not optimal for this page. I think the footnotes can be made less obtrusive in the main text, from the editing point of view... but I'm not sure if they can be made easier to actually use, from a follow-the-link point of view. --Dcfleck 19:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SV. I really don't like that format for a personal point of view, as i can't directly open the citation in a new window by right clicking. Thus this format breaks up the reading of articles for me, which was the great advantage of using Wikipedia to find information. However, i agree it does look pretty and it must have taken some doing. Rockpocket 06:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it took even more effort than i first thought. Good work, Dc. Rockpocket 06:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was a bit of work, but the real question is, is it an improvement? Overall, I'm not sure. Here are the pros, as I see them:

• Looks nice
• Appears to be generally encouraged, as far as I can tell (WP:CITE,WP:CTT,WP:FN)
• Removes multiple links to same source
• In current incarnation, breaks up flow of text while editing less than including URL in text

Cons:

• Can't directly open reference in new window - must jump to Notes section, then open link from there. (Personally, I think this is a big problem - we seem to have run into a conflict between the "Must be scholarly!" and "Must be easy to use!" urges. I notice that two articles that get held up as prime examples of the new reference format -- Hugo Chavez and Saffron -- are a royal pain to check references in.)
• More work to maintain

There may be more entries for both lists, but that's all I can think of on one cup of coffee. If people don't think this style of referencing is an improvement, let's revert back -- it won't hurt my feelings. I decided the only way to know if it would be an improvement would be to try it out. So now we have 2 versions, this one with the fancier style of refs, and the old one, with the old style refs. Which one's it to be, then? (Yes, if we revert we'll have to merge in some non-reference-related edits.) --Dcfleck 13:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Weren't these edits those that were suggested in the Peer Review? If we were to take this article as it stands to Peer Review again, would they ask us to put it back to the old style? I don't think so. --84.68.179.184 17:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Parliament reference

I'm unsure how to reference this in the new style, and I'm sure someone else can do it faster than it would take for me to learn how. The paragraph I added was taken from the Pro-Test Newsletter, dated 20th March; if someone could add that to the references for me I'd be much obliged. --84.67.219.136 23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a reference of sorts, but it's not ideal. We need to look for a more impartial and viewable source. |→ Spaully°τ 12:43, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

Have replaced with reference to news item on RDS web site. 84.252.230.82 09:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Doughnut Reference

Sorry again, but could someone fix this reference too? It's the Guardian, I included the website with the paragraph. Thanks in advance. --81.76.16.186 00:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Spaully. --81.76.55.91 12:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Link - Further Reading

A link I had placed under further reading has been removed. It is Laurie Pycroft's own account of the founding of Pro-Test - *"Build the Oxford animal lab!" Social Affairs Unit Web Review, February 20, 2006

It is my view that this is a very useful piece and should be restored. Incidentally having read this discussion I can perhaps draw some light on the discussion of whether Laurie Pycroft is a school "drop out" or "taking a gap year". (I should add at this stage that I do not work for the Social Affairs Unit ad have no financial involvement with them, I am merely an enthsiast of their work. I have not met its editors or director but have been in e-mail correspondence with them - this is where this information comes from). The description of Laurie Pycroft as taking a gap year from school comes from Pycroft himself and was his correction of the site editors original mistake. To quote from Pycroft's original e-mail to the Editor - which has been forwarded to me when I e-mailed them aksing about the change:

I'm really pleased with the way the article looks on the site. Just one small thing- I'm not actually a student at Oxford. I live in Swindon and I'm taking a gap year between GCSEs and A levels (I'm 16).

Cheers,

-Laurie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.54.230.14 (talk • contribs)

Hi Laurie. I made your point about the gap year/drop out information extensively in the discussion above. However, the opposing view was that many mainstream media organisiations picked up on the "drop-put" angle and went with that. Irrespective of whether it was wrong, they say WP:V suggests we should use it over the information on a blog, even if that there is significant opposing evidence from the "horses mouth". Reading the 'debate' it becomes clear that a cabal of 'influential' editors decided that "drop out" would be used and nothing was going to change that. However, i agree that the Social Affairs Unit Web Review is not a spam link and is interesting further reading, so i will revert. Rockpocket (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Names

Recently an unsigned added what it apparently a list of the committee members of the group. I have removed it due to a lack of source and concern that it has only be added for 'campaigning' by AR groups. I would also suggest that if no suitable source is found that the addition is removed from the history. |→ Spaully°τ 07:31, 16 May 2006 (GMT)

My guess would be here. --Coroebus 07:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The committee are obviously not shying from publicity, so i guess they could be added back. However, i'm not really sure listing them adds a whole lot to the article. Does anyone feel strongly about having them listed? Rockpocket (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't care less. Perhaps just mention the higher profile ones (Pycroft, Aziz, Stein say)? --Coroebus 08:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, and looks like SV is on the case. As an aside, it appears that a number of the notes are reproduced in the reference section, is this really required? Rockpocket (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I like to maintain separates notes and references sections, RP, per WP:CITE. It's particularly useful for articles with lots of notes and comments, where the list of references becomes hard to read, and this one may grow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I just wasn't sure whether it was intentional, or not. Rockpocket (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Confusing

I'm wondering what this passage means:

Pro-Test handed out doughnuts and cakes to workers on the South Parks Road site on March 31, 2006 to show their support for their work. Pycroft, commenting, said: "It's great that Oxford University feel able to publicly support Pro-Test in this way, and it shows that we're succeeding in making institutions and academics feel able to stand up and defend the work they do.

How is Pro-Test handing out cakes to workers an example of Oxford University supporting Pro-Test? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question :). Aparently: 'a "high-ranking university official" would accept the gifts from Pro-Test on behalf of the university and take them inside the construction site'. I presume that counts as support. Rockpocket (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. As so often with Oxbridge, it's "thank you so much for allowing us to give to you." :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean 'thank you so much for deigning to take from us'. --Coroebus 07:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL!! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I find that rather offensive. The transfer via the University official was carried out for security reasons (not allowing potential extremists into the building site being the obvious); hardly taking from the students - merely a gesture of support. --163.1.136.97 00:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lighten up, that was an Oxbridge joke, not hard hitting social commentary. --Coroebus 08:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Test news

It is probably worth making mention of this story: http://www.pro-test.org.uk/b2evo/index.php?blog=5&title=90_4_of_oxford_students_support_animal_r&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Pro-Test members forced a referendum in Oxford University Student Union over animal testing. The motion of support was passed after 90.4% voted in favour of animal testing. 163.1.42.170 20:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Tom 18/1/07

My age

I would change it myself, but I've been criticised for editing this article before, so could someone update my current age to eighteen, please? If you need a source, see here: http://sqrrl101.livejournal.com/profile Sqrrl101 03:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've changed it to say that you were 16 at the time the group was founded. I think that the young age then is the important factor. I don't think anyone particularly cares how old you are now, and if they are they can do the math.--ZayZayEM 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine, thank you. Sqrrl101 12:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Test Italy

I'm going to add a little section with the name: "Pro-Test in Italy", similarly to the section "Pro-Test in the United States". I want to describe the activities of the spin-off group called: "Pro-Test Italy". What do you think about? Babaxdxd (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added the Italian version of this paragraph (hidden), so that anyone can contribute as desired. The original page can be found here, while the sandbox in which I'm working on this can be found here.--Eiron (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Pro-Test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081015165110/http://www.pro-test.org.uk:80/about.php to http://www.pro-test.org.uk/About.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060622213254/http://animalliberationpressoffice.org:80/communiques/2006-02-02_oxford.htm to http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/communiques/2006-02-02_oxford.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081015165115/http://www.pro-test.org.uk:80/action.php to http://www.pro-test.org.uk/Action.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pro-Test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604182624/http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1025192 to http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1025192

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pro-Test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060218163556/http://www.oxfordstudent.com/ht2006wk3/News/students_will_be_the_next_target to http://www.oxfordstudent.com/ht2006wk3/news/students_will_be_the_next_target
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/news/default.asp?dismode=article&artid=5800
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002110930/http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/news.asp?i_ToolbarID=6&i_PageID=2180 to http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/news.asp?i_PageID=2180&i_ToolbarID=6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070121015957/http://www.oxfordstudent.com/ht2006wk0/News/oxford_prepares_for_fresh_wave_of_protest_as_building_resumes_on_parks_road_lab to http://www.oxfordstudent.com/ht2006wk0/news/oxford_prepares_for_fresh_wave_of_protest_as_building_resumes_on_parks_road_lab

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)