Talk:Silver Spring monkeys/Archive 1

More one-sided editing

AR, I see you once again left out anything that didn't suit your agenda. Please stop this kind of editing, or the dispute resolution process may be initiated against you.

Can you please say exactly what the source says, regarding this edit?

"Scientists were allowed to conduct brain mapping studies on the remaining monkeys, under anesthesia, prior to euthanasia, and the studies led to new discoveries about the roles of the dorsal root ganglia, dorsal columns, and thalamus in denervated tissue. (Science. 1998 Nov 6;282(5391):1121-5)

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The source provides physiological and anatomical evidence on the contributions of the thalamus to the re-organizational process. The news and views in the same issue points out these changes depends on whether or not the dorsal root ganglia have been severed (as they were in the Silver Spring monkeys). Apparently long-term cuts in dorsal root ganglia lead to progressive atrophy of neuronal circuits through the dorsal columns and to the thalamus, a discovery made possible by the Silver Spring monkeys, with specific application to many limb amputees. --Animalresearcher 15:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You need a secondary source that shows the Silver Spring monkeys case "led to new discoveries." See WP:ATT. At the moment, this is just your own interpretation of the primary source that you're citing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. Nonetheless, there is a commentary on the Silver Spring Monkeys article in the same issue of Science that raises the same issue. --Animalresearcher 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrections?

Is this correct?: "Dr. Edward Taub, who was researching regeneration of severed nerves...." Was he looking for regeneration of nerves, or for recovery of motor function (voluntary movements of the deafferented limb)? That is, was he at that time studying behavior, or neurophysiology?

Is this correct?: "Taub had cut sensory nerves in the monkeys' fingers, hands, arms, and legs...." This gives the impression that in each monkey, all of these limbs were affected. Shouldn't "and" be "or"? 4granite 06:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Taub cut dorsal root ganglia adjacent to the spinal chord. Saying he cut nerves in the fingers and hands is not correct. He cut sensory ganglia that supply the nerves to the fingers and hands, etc.--Animalresearcher 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to turn this article into an unbiased article? It is far from neutral in its current state.

New References

I have gone through and edited this article to make it less POV, including adding new references both from Pacheco and Kathy Guillermo, who wrote a book about the Silver Spings Monkeys. Agreed, that Guillermo and Pacheco are both on PETA's side, but as it stood this article preented mostly Taub's side. I've also added references about the therapy Taub was working on - CIMT - as well as early discussions of this therapy dating back to 1949. The therapy is not currently an accepted medical procedure, so it's hard to claim that Taub's work with the Silver Springs Monkeys led to a major discovery. Bob98133 (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bob, we can certainly keep some of your material, such as Pacheco's complaints, but we'll need good sources, and they'll have to be written up properly. We also can't pack it all into the lead. As for Taub's therapy, it definitely did lead to accepted medical practice -- for the rehabilitation of stroke victims, for example. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll wait for others who are editing this article to weigh in, then incorporate suggestions, improve references and reoganize so that the lead isn't so top heavy.Bob98133 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article is currently undergoing a rewrite and expansion, and may look a little unbalanced during it e.g. with a lead that's too long for the article. The plan is to fill the article out with more details over the next few days and weeks. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks great to me, nice work. --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That means a lot to me coming from you, it really does. Thank you! SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with NIH suspension of funding?

What is the issue with including that NIH suspended Taub's funding? It was referenced in the NY Times. From the perspective of a researcher, whether there were actual violations of relevant animal welfare statutes is a very relevant detail. In this case, and in the Unnecessary Fuss case, there were substantial actions taken by NIH against the researcher(s) and/or institutions. --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind...I saw it lower on the page. --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

7 in a trillion?

Animalresearcher - I see you have referenced this, but I wonder how relevant Taub's estimate of the odds of something happening might be? The odds of one person winning the lottery twice are probably similar, yet it has happened, so I don't see that small odds are a valid explanation or excuse for the conditions that were found in the lab. While it's possible that Taub had a deceitful employee, he was still responsible for leaving his lab in the care of that person, so the odds against something happening do not relieve him from his responsibility for oversight.Bob98133 (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The calculation odds are in the reference, and is stated similarly to the inclusion in the Wiki page. The source reference is a science news article in Science magazine (mainstream press Science magazine, not a peer review section of the magazine). The additional details that OPRR did the investigation of Taub's lab were in the same article. I had not seen this "defense" offered by Taub in different references. Taub is either saying the covert investigations occurred at a time when there was unprecedented circumstances preventing animal care from coming to work, or that their absences from work were not simply chance. But either of those represent OR on my part - the reference article did not state either. --Animalresearcher (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, did you even read the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.215.246.69 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Staged photo

Please note. Nobel Laureate David Hubel, in his 1991 Annual Review of Neuroscience, states that there is "strong suspicion" the "crucifiction" photo of the Silver Spring monkeys was staged by animal-rights activists (presumably he meant Pacheco). This would appear to be the lead photo of this page. On a more logical note, it does not make much sense to tie up ALL the limbs of an animal if you are trying to induce it to use de-afferented limbs. --Animalresearcher (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note. David Hubel refers specifically to the lead, crucifiction, photo. --Animalresearcher (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

They were tied up like that to have pain administered to them. I'm going to add a section about those tests. This photo was on the front page of the Washington Post, which is why it's here, because it's notable. Can you quote what Hubel says about it, please? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the ref with me at present, but he refers specifically to "strong suspicions" that the "crucifiction" photo was staged by "animal-rights activists". Pacheco also threatened to sue the American Physiology Society over this article which claims non-specifically that he staged photos http://www.the-aps.org/publications/tphys/legacy/1991/issue6/303.pdf - The American Physiology Society had its lawyers go over the article (the Charles Nicoll speech) and they concluded based on the court transcripts that it would stand. Pacheco never sued them. In any case, I assure you the current text is quite specifically and correctly referenced to David Hubel (Nobel Laureate) - completely verifiable in any med school library - unless you want to argue that this photo is not the "crucifiction" photo - which is how he refers to it. Also, although I was not there, I find it hard to believe anyone would ever lash an animal to a chair like that to deliver pain meds. It is far too much trouble for that. Do you have a reliable source for that? I mean, typically we give pain meds to animals in the cage, and did even then, in a 1-2 minute procedure. It would take 5-10 times as long to get an animal into a lashed position like that, and no self-respecting animal-tester would use tape over the fur of animals in any regular procedure because it would damage the skin at removal if done repeatedly. Even then - velcro handcuffs are far easier and faster. If that pose was for delivering pain meds, then the person delivering the pain meds was going out of his/her way to perform the procedure in a painful troublesome way. It is very easy for every scientist to harbor suspicions about that picture even without knowing the context. It really looks to a physiologist like the photo was staged for these reasons. I agree it is a notable picture, but it is just as notable that many scientists believe it was likely staged. --Animalresearcher (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not for delivering pain meds, but for causing pain. Taub would allegedly get his assistants to do things to the monkeys to cause pain in them, and the assistants were supposed to record how the monkeys responded. For example, the testicles would be placed in a vice-like instrument, according to Pacheco. I'll find a description from him for you.

If you want to say that "many scientists" believe it was staged, you'd need a source for that. To the best of my knowledge, Taub did not dispute the authenticity of any of these images during the trials, though he did deny that the lab was as dirty as the expert witnesses testified they had found it. None of the secondary sources who reproduced the image, including in books written by animal researchers, said anything about it appearing staged. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That link you gave above is not referring to this image. The "staged" photographs that were mentioned during the trials were images of the monkeys' cages. Pacheco had pulled back a drawer or shelf that covered all or part of the floors of the cages to reveal the faeces piling up underneath. He was asked by defense lawyers whether he had touched the cages before photographing them. He said yes, he had pulled back these drawer or shelf parts (I forget exactly how they were described), and had then photographed underneath them. Ha ha, said the lawyers, the images were staged.

That was the only example given of allegedly staged images that I'm aware of. The rest of Taub's defence was simply that he believed Pacheco had allowed the lab to get dirty in Taub's absence, and had then taken photographs of it as its dirtiest. But the images of monkeys in the restraint chair were never challenged. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

When you refer to what Taub said at his trial, is your source Alex Pacheco or his writings, or a third party? I'll dig out a full Hubel sub-quote a little later today. --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Pacheco and several third parties on both sides, and neutral. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(OD) The context of this quote is that David Hubel is writing his essay as a senior scientist (Nobel Prize winner 10 years earlier) and community leader (former head of the Society for Neuroscience). In this particular section he is lecturing on appropriate responses to give to people uncommitted on the animal rights literature.

Many such people have seen the photographs of the Silver Spring monkey being crucified...They need to be told there is strong suspicion the Silver Spring monkey photograph was staged by animal-rights caretakers.

There is also further citation on this. In February 1990 the Washingtonian printed an article by Katie McCabe claiming that Pacheco staged the photo. Pacheco sued McCabe. Her source was that the crucifixion pose was not used by Taub or to his knowledge in his research program. Under oath in the mediation hearings, it was stated that Pacheco and/or the lab assistant improperly fastened the monkey to the restraint, and that Pacheco took the photograph when the assistant left the room. Taub has told many people (probably including David Hubel) that the crucifixion photograph did not represent any part of his research program, and was never used to his knowledge in normal conduct of his lab. That photo was not used in trial - no part of the trial focussed on things necessary for the conduct of Taub's research - only things related to welfare (according to Constance Holden's article in Science Magazine 11 Dec 1981). --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That Hubel quote is not good enough for the claim that that particular photograph was staged. "There is strong suspicion" doesn't tell us anything. You keep telling us he's a Nobel prize winner, as though that makes him necessarily someone who's familiar with this case, but it doesn't. It's just more of your "scientists-are-omniscient-angels; animal-rights-advocates-are-lying-scum" meme. :-)

The Washingtonian article sounds more promising. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please stop the POV editing? [1] Nobel Laureate (why not just say God, also known as?) David Hubel says ... followed by him saying "there is a suspicion" without saying who suspects, and referring to AR caretakers. What is an AR caretaker? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You are challenging the reference. I am clarifying the reference by deferring to a quotation from the original material. I would have been happy with it in its prior revision, but felt that since the attribution to the reference was being challenged, I would let the reference speak instead. With respect to whether it is "good enough", it is reliable, verifiable, third party source. The picture caption says "This is vivisection." Knowledgable parties think that is probably a lie, and that this pose was never a part of Taub's research program. With respect to Hubel calling them animal-rights caretakers, that is material in the reference - I did not write it. In researching this photo, however, it did come to light that even Pacheco and the lab assistant admitted this pose was not part of the intended research program. --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did they admit that, and what did they say exactly? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In the mediation hearings for the lawsuit Pacheco vs. McCabe. There is a transcript available in some libraries. The question was whether it was staged. Pacheco and the lab assistant stated that the lab assistant improperly fastened the animal to the restraint device, and that Pacheco took the picture while the lab assistant was out of the room. McCabe had stated the photo was staged because Taub told her (and everyone else) that he never restrained monkeys like that, nor was he aware that anyone ever did that in his research program. Now, if it was an accident that the monkey was fastened like that, and the photo was taken without the lab assistant's knowledge, it is not a staged photograph. There are strong suspicions as to whether that is the case or not. --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The lab assistants were not cooperating with Pacheco. You have to bear in mind that Taub was denying things right, left, and center, even things that were clearly true. The place was full of cockroaches and rats, with ancient faeces clinging to the walls and floors, and long-dead monkeys in vats near the fridge. Yet he claimed this had somehow all happened during the three weeks he was on vacation. I'm going to be adding more about what the police found when they raided it, which should put things in some perspective. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please consider carefully WP:BLP. Pacheco is a known to misrepresent and falsify information about animal testing. This has been claimed in multiple different events by the people conducting testing, including this case, and was shown factually to be an appropriate characterization in the Unnecessary Fuss case by a third party investigator. Even claiming "This is vivisection" in the photo caption is a misrepresentation because the animal should not even be fastened to the restraint device like that according to both sides. Taub has a substantially different reputation, and poorly sourced material will be subject to WP:BLP (ie: I think above you just accused him of perjury). --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't coming from Pacecho, and it isn't true that he's known to falsify material. It's coming from the police who raided the lab, the independent scientists who saw the lab for themselves, and the prosecutors who reviewed their testimony. Bear in mind that Taub was convicted. The conviction was overturned on appeal on a jurisdictional issue. Perhaps you could read some more about the case, then you can judge the evidence for yourself. I don't mean that disrespectfully. I just mean that this isn't the place to argue the facts. We can argue how to present them, but we can't go back and retry the case. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Pacheco co-produce the film "Unnecessary Fuss"? Hasn't an independent, legally bound, third party found that film made intentional errors in presentation, and errors of fact, in order to misrepresent the testing shown on the film? Doesn't that mean that Pacheco IS known to falsify material? Has anyone ever shown Taub to be a liar? Bear in mind that Taub was initially convicted, and later exonerated of all legal charges - charges principally related to the cleanliness of his lab and attentiveness to the injuries of his animals. And he was never accused of perjury by anyone. His defense on the cruelty charges was that his lab was well within the norm at that time, and that the state of his lab depicted by Pacheco was not representative of the state of his lab when he left on vacation. And that he was attending to the injuries of his animals. And also bear in mind, the OPRR did find his lab was too unsanitary to continue funding - they also found that Taub's lab was not sanitary enough, and he was not attentive enough to the injuries of his animals - and that only veterinarians are qualified for some types of health evaluations. When scientists lie about important matters to science, they typically have substantially negative repercussions for a long long time. When PETA lies about animal testing (ie: Unnecessary Fuss and "This is vivisection"), they make more money. --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you've got it only partly correct. The film was criticized for repeating the same footage over and over, and Newkirk was criticized for repeating what the researchers said at one point, when they said they had spilled acid on a baboon, when it was in fact water (note: the researchers said it; you can hear them). Why don't you want the footage for yourself? Links are in the article.

Taub was not exonerated. The court of appeal ruled only that state law did not apply to his work because it was federally funded research. That's not quite what it means to be exonerated.

As a matter of interest, as you've said the apparatus in the image was not part of the research, and that it made no sense to you, what would it be used for, in your opinion? Here is another photograph of it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(OD) I did not say the apparatus was not used in Taub's research - it was.

What did he use it for then, in your view? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He likely used it to restrain the animal, and one or more limbs would additionally be restrained, allowing one or more de-afferented limbs free to make behavioral responses. Given

the aims of his research, it makes no sense to restrain all four limbs, and as I mentioned, tape is a crude restraint that was uncommon even then because easier options that are also nicer to the animal exist, particularly if the restraint will be applied on a regular basis. --Animalresearcher (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Animals must be restrained by the neck and waist, minimally. However, animals were not taped spread-eagle in a mock crucifixion to the restraint chair as part of Taub's research. Restraining all four limbs and delivering negative reinforcement was not part of Taub's research. The key was that the de-afferented limb(s) were left free, and appropriate responses using that limb allowed the animal to AVOID negative reinforcement after learning. Also, tape is a very crude form of restraint, far easier and better options existed even then, although I do not know what Taub used when he required restraint of an arm or leg. I really think Pacheco could have made his entire case honestly with the same impact on Taub. However, I have "strong suspicions" that his data were sound, and these were mirrored by the OPRR investigation and the fact that the Maryland prosecutor took a paid job with PETA shortly after the trial. But when all is said and done, largely positive changes to animal welfare emerged principally from this case and the U Penn case, and most scientists (including me) think that is a good thing. There is staunch disagreement, however, about the methods used - when they involve undercover third-party operatives instead of unannounced official investigations (we have both), and when the undercover operatives lie and falsify material to the maximal extent they think they can get away with. The climate they create in a research lab is that you fail to assume good faith, and instead wonder about which of your lab assistants is preparing to stab you in the back, even if you adhere to the highest standards of animal welfare. Then again, most researchers today assume that is by intent by PETA and HSUS and IDA and others.--Animalresearcher (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the things Pacheco says the chair was used for was a "noxious stimuli" test:

“ Yakalis [an assistant of Taub's] instructed Pacheco to pinch parts of the monkeys' bodies with surgical pliers to see where they experienced pain and where they had no feeling. To demonstrate, she had Kunz [another assistant] remove Domitian [one of the monkeys] from his cage and place him in a restraint chair. The monkey was taped spread-eagled into the upright device. To keep his head immobilized, a plexiglass sheet with a wedge cut from it was placed at the back of his neck, and a pipe was placed at his throat ... Yakalis clamped the surgical pliers tightly on the monkey's testicles to demonstrate a "positive reaction" to the pain test ... The same procedure was repeated three times in less than an hour before Domitian was returned to his cage (Snow Guillermo 1993, p. 26). ”

Are you saying this doesn't sound plausible? It was not denied in court to the best of my knowledge. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As already pointed out, Pacheco is an unreliable source. With respect to whether and how that chair was used, the arguments need to proceed from reliable third party sources, and not start with a known unreliable source and demand someone contest it. On a completely informal level, Taub would be interested in the limits of different modes of sensation, and evaluating where pain responses could be felt would be an important scientific issue. However, he has denied that animals were restrained/taped in the pose depicted in the Pacheco photograph, and Pacheco and the lab assistant confirmed under oath in the McCabe lawsuit mediation that this picture does not represent what Taub instructed, and used, in his research program. Pacheco maintained that the photos were, however, not staged, but that comes very close to being a merely semantic argument. He presented the picture as though it represented an example of vivisection, and he chose a picture that did not represent the experiments in that lab or elsewhere. As one further point, limb withdrawal is a standard procedure for evaluating potential responses to pain. It does require, however, that the limb be able to be withdrawn. This is used, for example, to evaluate anesthesia depth, even in human surgery. A small pinch, and observe whether there is a limb withdrawal reflex. Taping every limb would largely invalidate the test. --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If they were pinching the monkey's testicles, that has nothing to do with withdrawing a limb. And if they were testing for pain in the lab, that is an example of animal testing/vivisection. I can't see how anyone could argue otherwise. But regardless, I have two questions:

1. You wrote: "[Taub] has denied that animals were restrained/taped in the pose depicted in the Pacheco photograph ..." Where has he denied this?

2. You wrote: "Pacheco and the lab assistant confirmed under oath in the McCabe lawsuit mediation that this picture does not represent what Taub instructed, and used, in his research program." What is your source for this, and what does the source say exactly? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You really need to stop relying on information Alex Pacheco wrote as a primary source. He seeks to lie and mislead people sympathetic to animals intentionally. Rely instead on reliable sources. Go read the articles written by journalists who were at the trial, or if you are really interested, read the trial transcript. Or, read articles written from all POVs. You will get a very different picture once you weigh reliability and source and stop believing things because you WANT to believe them, and believe them because the bulk of the reliable evidence supports them. As a scientist, I have no problem accepting that OPRR judged that Taub was too unsanitary, and that he did not attend to the animals' wounds using standards OPRR found acceptable, and that this was grounds for denying the rest of his research funding. I recognize that animal welfare standards changed due to the actions of Pacheco and PETA, and that some of this change was good for all parties. I also accept that Pacheco cannot be trusted to tell the truth unless he is quite certain he would get caught (and even then sometimes he will lie). I do not see how you can defend the movie Unnecessary Fuss that he co-produced when it shows the same monkey testing over and over again with a voiceover describing it as a series of different monkeys. Intentional falsification of data doesn't get much more obvious. As I have already stated MULTIPLE times, Alex Pacheco sued the Katie McCabe, author of the Washingtonian article, for claiming he had staged the photos (including the crucifixion pose). Her source was Taub, who told her that pose depicted in the crucifixion photo was never part of his research procedures. She assumed that placing the animal in that pose was intentional and for effect in the photo (an assumption that is not difficult to have strong suspicion of). Pacheco claimed in reply that the lab assistant MADE A MISTAKE in putting the monkey in that pose, and that Pacheco took a picture of the monkey while the lab assistant was out of the room. It is all in the lawsuit mediation settlement transcript.

Draft of "Correction and Clarification," reached by the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division of the District of Columbia Superior Court, David R. Anderson, Esquire, mediator, in the case Alex Pacheco v. Katie McCabe, Civil Action 90-0A01627, February 15, 1990.

--Animalresearcher (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the quality of this article

To all who have contributed to this article: this is exactly what Wikipedia should be publishing. It's informative and non-partisan. I was surprized to find this being the case on a controversial subject such as this one. So I looked at the discussion page, and I can see now that the nonpartisan tone of the article is due to responsible pressure by both sides to keep the piece up to encyclopedia standards.Wwallacee (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, WW; the feedback is much appreciated. The article is, in fact, far from complete — quite a bit more detail needs to be added, which we'll get round to one day. Regarding neutrality, as you can see above, we tug a little in one direction, then tug some more in the other. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting allegations of evidence fabrication

I have checked sources and I object to the way these allegations are presented. Most notably in the photo caption at top. Judging from the discussion above, it seems to me like user:AR is basing his support of Hubel & Taub on his own experience with animal research, or that of colleagues perhaps. Nobel or not, Hubel is an animal researcher thus his views are inherently biased. Furthermore, the two sources listed in body text [2] & [3] are both from animal research outlets. I think we really need secondary (third-party) sources not invested with either side. By the way, I'm also posting this on the PETA site which summarizes this case in its history section. PrBeacon (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that had been restored. You're right; it has no place there and I've removed it. This was an article I started trying to tidy up a couple of years ago, but was beaten back in various ways, so it lacks good sources—and I mean we're using sub-optimal sourcing on both sides. Maybe I'll try to get round to it in the near-ish future. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

I'm parking this here for now, as it's only from one source and is incomplete.

Source: K. Guillermo, Monkey Business (1993)

• Mar 1980: Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk set up PETA.
• May 1981: Edward Taub offers Pacheco a volunteer research position at the Institute for Behavioral Research (IBR).
• Sep 1981: Montgomery County police raid Taub's laboratory and seize the monkeys.
• Oct 1981: The monkeys are returned to IBR for Taub's trial. One of them, Charlie, dies after a fight with another monkey. The remaining 16 are moved to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) animal center in Poolesville, Maryland.
• Nov 1981: Taub is convicted on six misdemeanor charges of failing to provide adequate veterinary care. Representative Tom Lantos and 20 members of Congress ask NIH not to return the monkeys to him.
• Dec 1981: PETA files suit against the Institute for Behavioral Research, asking to be made the monkeys' guardians.
• Feb 1982: One of the monkeys, Hard Times, becomes paralyzed from the neck down and is euthanized.
• Jul 1982: At a jury trial, all but one of the convictions is overturned.
• Aug 1983: The Maryland Court of Appeals overturns Taub's remaining conviction, ruling that federally funded research is not subject to state law.
• Apr 1985: PETA's application for guardianship is dismissed by the U.S. District Court. PETA appeals.
• May 1986: PETA's appeal is heard by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals; 256 members of Congress and 58 Senators ask NIH to release the remaining 15 monkeys to a sanctuary.
• Jun 1986: Representative Robert Smith and 229 other members of Congress call for the monkeys' release to Primarily Primates, an animal sanctuary. The NIH moves the monkeys to the Tulane Regional Primate Research Center in Covington, Louisiana.
• Sep 1986: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses PETA's application for custody.
• Nov 1986: One of the monkeys, Brooks, is found dead in his cage.
• Mar 1987: PETA receives a leaked document showing that the American Psychological Society plans to buy the monkeys and complete Taub's research.
• Apr 1987: The Supreme Court rules that PETA has no legal standing.
• May 1987: The Tulane Regional Primate Center recommends euthanasia for eight of the 14 surviving monkeys because of "progressive and continuous deterioration."
• May 1987: William Raub, deputy director of the NIH, which still own the monkeys, says that he "reaffirms" that the monkeys will be "excepted from further invasive research procedures and be resocialized to the extent possible."
• Jul 1987: Representative Robert Smith introduces a bill mandating the release of the monkeys. Senator Steve Symms introduces the same bill in the Senate.
• Sep 1987: Five of the monkeys are transferred to the San Diego Zoo.
• Jul 1988: The NIH recommends further research on the monkeys, then euthanasia.
• Dec 1988: The NIH announces it will conduct research on three of the monkeys. PETA obtains a restraining order.
• Jan 1989: PETA files an application for custody against NIH and Tulane University, which oversees the Tulane primate center.
• Aug 1989: Another monkey, Paul, dies.
• Jan 1990: Billy undergoes a four-hour experiment, then is euthanized.
• Mar 1990: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses PETA's application for custody.
• Jul 1990: Research is conducted on Domitian (pictured above), Big Boy, and Augustus, then they are euthanized.
• Mar 1991: The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in the case.
• Apr 1991: Research is conducted on Titus and Allen, then they are euthanized.
• May 1991: The Supreme Court rules in PETA's favor. The case is remanded to State Court for trial.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

grammar fix

I'm reverting this change to several relative pronouns because the issue of who versus that is largely one of subjective style, not grammar -- especially with animate non-humans. And the second change (whose to that's) is plainly incorrect since English has no possessive form of that. PrBeacon (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Staging of Domitian photograph

As a secondary reference that "there is strong suspicion" the photograph was staged, consider the trial, in which Ed Taub charged that the photographs were "staged", according to Alex Pacheco. Now, Taub stated this under oath, and it appears in Pacheco's memoirs. http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/pacheco01.htm On a more logical note, Taub was investigating whether animals could use de-afferented limbs if they were forced to. It makes no scientific sense to restrain all four limbs in that scientific framework. The animal is plausibly posed as a faux crucifixion - to achieve the desired effect. Animalresearcher (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone who is as close to being completely uninterested in EITHER side of this issue as anyone could be, I will however say that I completely agree that the photo in question has been quite obviously staged. That is the VERY first thing that popped into my mind, when I saw that image, after arriving on the page from a general web-surfing session. Reading the facts that are on the Wiki-page, plus many of the external sources, the "crucifixion" way the monkey is tied up just plain & simply makes no sense, but most definitely points to someone doing it on purpose in order to add "dramatics". That said, my observation of how those who trend towards the "animal rights" side of this kind of article has taught me many times that you will not win against them. Of course none of those will actually admit they lean towards that side, since doing so would show they are using personal POV in their edits. It's the same as trying to discuss somethin with ANY activist-type person or group ... they are right, you are wrong, ALWAYS. Again, as a dis-interested party, I almost laughed several times while reading the page, when noticing the several pieces which are most definitely NOT "NPOV". But there is no fix for that problem, other than turning the editing over to ones who don't really care either way which side of the issue the article leans toward, and then trusting their version. But that will never happen, since this type of issue attracts people who have rabid feelings about the content of the page, and will never rest until it is written in a style which reflects THEIR POV. The large discussion for such a small page shows that fact at work here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.69.146 (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm more than willing to stand up to the POV bullies. What edits should we make to the page to address this? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the link provided by Animalresearcher. There is nothing in what Pacheco says that would justify our claiming that the photo was staged. But Pacheco does confirm that Taub testified that Taub believed that the photos were staged, so it would be reasonable to indicate that Taub believed that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

The Hubel rebuttal of the PETA quote has been deleted from the image caption. That's OK, given the past discussion, at Talk:PETA, now archived, about the validity of using that source. But to maintain a presentation of both POVs, I suggest adding a statement to the image caption that Taub believed the image to have been staged, perhaps sourced as just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that so long as we make sure it was this image he was talking about, and (if it was) so long as we word it very carefully. The Pacheco source doesn't say which image. This was the one used by most of the media, which is why I chose it, and I've never seen any of them say anything about staging. Taub did do these things, and he did place monkeys in this apparatus, and that has never been denied. If he used the word "staged," he probably meant a monkey was placed in the apparatus in order to get a photograph, rather than a photograph being taken while the monkey was in it anyway. Can we find Taub's own words about this instead of Pacheco, or a high-quality news source? W/Post did the most coverage. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, about sourcing and how we should treat it. My reading of what Pacheco said is that Taub was saying that about all images distributed by PETA, which would include this one. Normally, one would never place any animal in these kinds of apparatus with the limbs in that kind of "crucifixion" pose. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we find where Taub himself said something about this, either in a court document or quoted by a good newspaper at the time? Larry Carbone, the lab animal vet referenced in the article, mentions and reproduces this image in his book, and doesn't say anything about it being unusual. The only place I've seen that argued is on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm logging out now, so it will be later. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is what the monkey is alleged to have been in that position for:

Yakalis instructed Pacheco to pinch parts of the monkeys' bodies with surgical pliers to see where they experienced pain and where they had no feeling. To demonstrate, she had Kunz remove Domitian from his cage and place him in a restraint chair. The monkey was taped spread-eagled into the upright device. To keep his head immobilized, a plexiglass sheet with a wedge cut from it was placed at the back of his neck, and a pipe was placed at his throat.

Domitian struggled against the restraint and gagged as he pressed against the hard metal at his neck, flinging saliva from his open jaws. When some of his spit landed on Yakalis' arm, Pacheco remembers watching in amazement as she went into a rage, yelling and cursing at the choking monkey. ... Yakalis clamped the surgical pliers tightly on the monkey's testicles to demonstrate a "positive reaction" to the pain test ... The same procedure was repeated three times in less than an hour before Domitian was returned to his cage (Kathy Snow Guillermo. Monkey Business. National Press Books, 1993, p. 26).

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've done some reading, and I think it would be dubious to make a statement about the particular photo having been staged, but I think that we can and should state more clearly that Taub claimed that some photographs had been staged. In addition to the sourcing already on the page, I found two additional sources:

• One is a book [4] that describes Taub's belief that some photos were staged, with monkeys positioned incorrectly in the apparatus, along with Pacheco's denial of the charge. I'm not convinced from the description that the photo is the one we have at the top of the page, however.

• The other is news coverage of Taub's trial testimony, from the Baltimore Sun [5]. I purchased the complete article, and the applicable quote is: "Dr. Taub leveled his own charge against Mr. Pacheco from the witness stand, saying some of the infiltrator's pictures had been "staged" for dramatic effect." Again, no guidance as to which photos, but it agrees with Pacheco's own account of the testimony, above.

So here is what I think. I'm reluctant to put anything about staging in the photo caption. On the other hand, I think that some of the WP:BLP issues we've talked about at other pages apply here, both to Taub and to Pacheco. Therefore, I think we have an obligation to indicate, somewhere on the page, what Taub believed about the photos, but of course attributing it to him and not taking a position as to whether or not his belief was true. Perhaps that should be in the text, in the section about Taub's responses. In that case, I would prefer that the PETA slogan should be moved out of the image caption, into the main text. Maybe just say in the caption that PETA distributed the photo, but leave the quote about vivisection for the text, not the caption. Leaving it in the caption makes for one POV's claim being presented prominently, without giving the other side. My 2 cents. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable compromise, and a good analysis. Thank you for finding the sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Good, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see this part in the source: "... with the monkeys posed in the apparatus in positions that had not been part of the laboratory procedure, a claim Pacheco denied." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, woops, you are absolutely right. That was the other source I showed just above, the one from the book. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

On a separate note, the big problem with this article is that it relies too much on tertiary sources. I'm hoping at some point to find the time to go back and reconstruct what happened from the contemporaneous secondary sources who were reporting it at the time, or at least an informed round-up after the fact. As things stand, we're adding facts and opinions from people not in a position to know. I'm reluctant to remove any already there (until such time as we can replace them), but it would be good if we could avoid adding any more. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, just to expand on this point, the problem is not only that we're using sources not in a position to know. It's also that we're breaking a cardinal rule of writing history, which is to make sure primary sources are not allowed to alter their story after the fact, i.e. are not allowed to rewrite history. For example, by using Taub's version (possibly via interview) offered by Norman Doidge in 2007, we risk allowing Taub to change what he said, and the issues he stressed, at the time. We're doing the same by using Pacheco's 1985 account in Singer. The latter isn't so bad, because closer in time, but it's the same principle. We should ideally stick to what both parties said at the time, as reported by contemporaneous secondary sources.

To allow later accounts is to risk the sources subtly changing the narrative to account for inconsistencies in their original versions. If we want to include later accounts that differ in some way, we should always first explain the contemporaneous account, then we can add "Pacheco wrote years later that ...." to signal to the reader that something may have changed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

In general, I agree. For this specific item, Doidge appears to be saying rather clearly that Taub "has always contended" this point, and Doidge is discussing it in the context of what Taub had said at trial, so I don't think we have to be too worried about it, especially since there really appears not to be any disagreement amongst these sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we find another source who says it, one closer to the period? I've only ever seen that in Doidge's book, which doesn't mean it's false, as I've not looked for it elsewhere, but it would be good to see where and when Taub himself first said it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

By all means look. I think we are confident that the Baltimore Sun reported at the time that Taub was saying the photos were staged. Actually, the added detail helps make clear that this wasn't a claim that the photos were completely staged, in the sense of the monkeys being placed in the apparatus for photos when they had never been in the apparatus (which could have been misunderstood from the previous language); here it's just a question of posture. And we're making it clear that Taub said it, not Wikipedia, and I made a point of adding Pacheco's denial. I think it is important to present Taub's side per BLP, while presenting it as attribution rather than fact. (And I suppose real historians aim for truth, not just WP:V, not that I'd want to knowingly get it wrong.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to add Taub's opinion. I'm just worried about filtering it through people who aren't in a position to know, and who aren't historians or journalists with access to the primary sources. It's setting up a Chinese whispers scenario. I think we should stick to the principles of writing good history. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The way you separated it to the end of the paragraph was a good improvement over what I had written. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I really disagree with the inclusion of Hubel, which I see you returned. I won't remove it for now, but I've moved it away from the end, because it was as though he was being given the final word. But please bear in mind that he knows nothing about this case, either as a primary source or as someone who investigated it, so with his opinion in there, we should now add all other prominent opinions.

I'll try to find time soon to start adding contemporaneous sources, so that we're reporting who said what at the time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hubel

This source -- Hubel DH (1991). "Are we willing to fight for our research?". Annual Review of Neuroscience. 14: 1–8. doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.14.030191.000245. PMID 2031569. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |doi_brokendate= ignored (|doi-broken-date= suggested) (help) -- is an example of the problem. He's not in a position to know anything, and he was writing 10 years after the fact. If we include his personal opinion, we'll have to include the personal opinions of all the other prominent people who've spoken about the case over the years, and most are highly critical of Taub, at which point the article would become a list of quotes.

Can we please stick to sources who lay some claim to knowing something, or which are contemporaneous secondary sources? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I would (and already have!) agreed with you about Hubel claiming that the Domitian photo was faked. But saying that he was someone who supported Taub and criticized Pacheco and PETA (not actually quoting anything he said) is hardly a matter of us claiming a fact, other than the fact that Hubel criticized them. I think it's a fair reaction to Animalresearcher's complaint about removing it from the image caption. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

But you added it to a section about the scientific community's position at the time. He didn't write until ten years later. Do you not agree that, if we add Hubel, we will also have to add every other prominent uninformed opinion expressed years later? It's not good editing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, before I saw that you wrote this comment, I tried an edit that I hope will address that concern, by, instead, treating it as something later. Is that better? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the concern about Hubel at the end of the talk section just above, a solution might be to create a section about the aftermath and significance of the controversy, and deal there with the views of scientists who saw what Pacheco did as something threatening (as well as how it launched PETA etc). You'll find plenty of sources for that. It isn't a matter, that way, of what happened at the time. Sources don't need to be commenting on the facts of what happened at the time, to be commenting on their societal impact. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If you had gone to the library and read the article, you would have seen that Hubel was writing in reaction to his time as the President of the Society of Neuroscience (88-89). During that period of his leadership, he spent more time on issues relating animal rights and the society than on any other matter. The Silver Spring monkeys were recent history at this point, and Hubel and Taub are nearly contemporaries, meaning they know each other quite well. As I pointed out the last time you reverted this referenced, cited, statement in a journal of impeccable credentials, Pacheco himself claims that Taub echoed the exact same sentiments under oath at the trial (the claim being that the photo was staged). The suspected staging of the photo is as relevant as the photo itself to maintain NPOV. --Animalresearcher (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I find your editing here disturbing, Animalresearcher. You've said that you're in charge of a lab that conducts experiments on non-human primates. If that's correct, you have a conflict of interest. In addition, your every edit to this and related pages is to add your personal opinion. You rarely edit (559 edits to articles, 1057 overall, since 2006), but you continually revert, as though your view must take priority over the editors who are actually writing the articles. Please see how inappropriate that is.

As for the caption, this is the one Tryptofish and I have agreed on, with more discussion in the body. We can't add something to the caption that implies the image was entirely staged, because no one denies that these experiments took place. We could add something about Taub thinking the position had been slightly changed, e.g. here, but it's a long-winded point of detail. He does not deny he experimented on monkeys in that lab, in the ways described, and using that apparatus; and we can't add a caption that might imply otherwise. And none of the contemporaneous sources that I've been able to find support him in the view that the photographs were not entirely genuine.

I think what we ought to do here is add more images of the monkeys, because it's very clear from the others than they were not staged. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As I have said before, the Domitian photograph is clearly a crucifixion image designed to elicit appropriate effect. Pacheco has written that Taub stated at the trial (therefore under oath) that he suspected the photo was staged. Taub told the same to Norman Doidge. There is really no issue to the referencing of the statement - all parties agree on it. Accordingly, there is significant doubt, in the third party referenced statements about this photograph, as to the degree to which this, the most famous of the Silver Spring monkey photos, actually depicts research in the Taub lab. The controversy between what was and was not being appropriately done in the Taub lab, and what was being exaggerated by PETA, is an intrinsic part of this case, and of the early PETA history (don't forget that Pacheco also edited, with Newkirk, Unnecessary Fuss). I don't favor removing the image, but I do think that the representation of this photo by third party sources indicates the significant issues about its truthful representation of Taub's research. And you cannot simply state that editors are invalid if they perform non-human primate research. The issue here is the same issue on all Wikipedia pages - DOES THE ENTRY ACCURATELY REFLECT THE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE MATERIAL IN RELIABLE THIRD PARTY SOURCES. That is what it is all about. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That it's a crucifixion image is your opinion, AR. That's not what I see when I look at it. We have included Taub's view in the article. The image has a third-party source after it, a veterinarian who works in animal research labs. And yes, I can state that you have a conflict of interest. It's inappropriate to edit the article when you're being paid to experiment on animals—especially on non-human primates, the subject of this article—just as it's inappropriate if you're being paid by an anti-vivisection group. The article needs to be edited by uninvolved editors who are familiar with and willing to follow Wikipedia's content policies, and who try to edit from both perspectives. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's get to the issue here. You criticized including Hubel's statements because it would be akin to including someone's opinion, and then everyone's equally relevant opinion must be included. I am fine with that, and will not revert to include Hubel's statement in the picture caption. However, the same statement cannot be made about what Ed Taub said about the same photograph. It is not some uninvolved person's opinion, it is the responsible party's statement about the likelihood that the photograph is a fraud. Those statements from Taub are referenced in Doidge and in Pacheco's own writings, so there is little doubt of their reliability.--Animalresearcher (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, note, Hubel clearly refers to the "crucifixion" photo in his citation. Your references on Taub (Baltimore Sun) cannot seem to be levelled clearly at this specific photograph. But the Hubel citation can. --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with what you say about Taub. The question is how to word it so that it's not misleading. It is a caption in an infobox, and so we have only a few words. What's important is not to give the impression that Taub disputes the image in its entirety, because of course he doesn't. The pain experiments did take place. That apparatus was used to conduct them. That monkey was placed in that apparatus. The only thing Taub says is that, in his view, when that image was taken, or another image like it, the nuts and bolts were looser than usual, allowing the monkey to squirm into that position. That is, if I've understood him correctly, he is saying the monkey would usually be held more tightly by the apparatus. How do we express that accurately in a caption?

I did post one possibility, [6] but I'm still not happy with it, because it's not clear to the casual reader what it means:

Domitian, one of the Silver Spring monkeys, in an image distributed by PETA to newspapers with the caption, "This is vivisection. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise." The researcher, Edward Taub, acknowledged that the monkeys had been placed in this apparatus, but questioned the position of them in some of the images, saying they had been staged for dramatic effect.

Hubel is not a reliable source for this, so please can we stop mentioning his views? There were several "crucifixion" images (80 images in all), so we don't actually know which ones anyone is talking about. I would very much like to go back to the trial transcripts, or at least the original reporting, and retrace everything from there. If a more collaborative approach could be taken on this article, I'd be happy to put in that work. I would also like to bring out the research perspective more, in a way the general reader could understand. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If the current caption continues to be disputed, perhaps as a compromise we could use a Washington Post caption: "In one of the controversial photos secretly shot by Pacheco in 1981 at the Silver Spring lab, a monkey named Domition is taped to a restraining chair that permitted researchers to pinch the animal to test his crippled arm for signs of sensation. PETA asserts this was abuse of the animals, but Taub says the experiment was brief and necessary." From the Post, Feb 24, 1991. That gives Taub's point of view, explains what the photograph showed, and explains that PETA shot it. But it doesn't imply there was something fishy about the image. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that each of you has used up your WP:3RR allocations, please let me step in here and say what I think, as opposed to how other people choose to quote what I think.

• I'm interested in looking more closely at Animalresearcher's idea of presenting Taub's view of the Domitian image in the image caption. It's true that I previously agreed that we have to be careful about not presenting as fact what Hubel says, based on Hubel's own opinion, because Hubel wasn't there. But Taub was there and is covered by WP:BLP, and if it's clear from what Hubel reports that Taub said these things about this image, that's important. Hubel is not a reliable source about what happened in the lab when Pacheco took the photos, but Hubel is a reliable source about what Taub has said to Hubel and other scientists. And claiming that we have to assume that Taub was changing his story after the fact is a very weak argument. But that does not mean that I agree to changing the caption this way. I'm only saying that I want to hear both sides of the arguments, and that the final decision must rest upon careful sourcing, no shortcuts.
• Slim, I sincerely appreciate the way you and I have worked collegially together recently. I think you are making a real effort, and I'm grateful for that. But the way you go on about who Animalresearcher might be in real life comes across very badly. I don't care if he dresses up in a monkey suit or donates money to an antivivisection group—the validity or lack thereof of his edits and comments rests upon his edits and comments, full stop. (And adding more monkey images would be WP:POINTy.)

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

COI concerns

Tryptofish has several times removed the first post below from under the COI header, so I'm copying it here, rather than moving it, because it's needed to understand my response. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I posted it in the Hubel section, and you insisted on inserting the COI header above it over my objections. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Slim, I sincerely appreciate the way you and I have worked collegially together recently. I think you are making a real effort, and I'm grateful for that. But the way you go on about who Animalresearcher might be in real life comes across very badly. I don't care if he dresses up in a monkey suit or donates money to an antivivisection group—the validity or lack thereof of his edits and comments rests upon his edits and comments, full stop. (And adding more monkey images would be WP:POINTy.)

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• T, who he says he is is directly relevant, because it goes beyond mere POV. How would you feel if someone employed by an anti-vivisection group had routinely arrived to revert to their POV over a period of two years with almost no other contribution? That's a clear COI. If it were combined with good, neutral editing, I would try to overlook it, but combined with the editing we've seen it's not acceptable. Anyway, now that AR is discussing, I'd prefer to keep the conversation on a positive note, so that we all contribute what we can within the content policies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like he has been discussing all along. But yes, a positive note is definitely the way to go, for us all. (Oh, and in response to your question, I wouldn't be particularly interested in whether the person were employed by an anti-vivisection group, or merely had a POV supporting anti-vivisection, nor would I necessarily care what other pages they edit. If they engaged with me in a civil and constructive way, I'd work with them. If they didn't, I'd take them to dispute resolution. And in fact, that's pretty much what I have been doing all along, except maybe that I give those who disagree with me a pretty long leash!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a COI guideline that says: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I think someone running a non-human primate lab would have difficulty adding material about non-human-primate testing that went against the interests of the lab, and of animal testing in general. He might lose his job if he did. Similarly, someone working for PETA would risk their job if they started adding material that could be seen as pro-vivisection, or at least not anti.

Someone who merely has a POV can do whatever they want, if they can push their POV to one side. Someone employed in a sensitive area doesn't have that luxury. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Positive note, positive note. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Images

As for images, I do intend to add more, especially if the current ones are going to be questioned. That's not POINTy; that's showing the reader what evidence the court saw. No one seeing these images could reasonably claim they were staged. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Really?? No one?? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the images? I know of no one other than Taub who questioned their authenticity, and even he accepted most of it, arguing only about the nuts and bolts on one piece of apparatus being possibly loosened. None of the reporters questioned them, none of the lawyers that I'm aware of, or the courts, or Taub's research assistants, or the veterinarians or scientists who looked at the lab. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? So Taub is no one? And Hubel? By all means, you are entitled to your opinion. But if you really feel this way, perhaps you have a COI about editing this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hubel is not in a position to know, and mentions it only in passing as a rumour 10 years after the fact. Among the primary sources, or contemporaneous secondary sources, the only person who questioned the images that I'm aware of was Taub, and even he barely questioned them. Even his research assistants did not support him, based on the reading I have done so far. Can we please stick to discussing the key source material? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Can we please stick to discussing the key source material?" Yes! That's what I've been suggesting all along. WP:COIN is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

With respect, you haven't been suggesting that, or doing it, all along. You've been adding personal opinion on the talk page, and to the article the view of an elderly scientist with no direct knowledge of the case who was writing ten years after the fact; and even then you didn't actually add what he said about it.

What we must do from now on, all of us, is stick very closely to the involved primary sources and, where there might be a violation of PSTS, the interpretation of those sources by contemporaneous secondary sources. Not "yes, that's what I've always wanted to do, only to be thwarted by silly SlimVirgin." We must all simply do it, without further debate unless it's to discuss how to describe what those sources say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I never said you are silly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert

One might think the outcome "first criminal conviction for animal cruelty of a U.S. researcher (overturned)" would support that fact the incident was largely focused around the issue of animal cruelty. Hence, one might think, organising it with the Category:Animal cruelty incidents would be appropriate. Apparently not. Rockpocket 17:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Um. Said conviction was overturned. Is somebody still a murderer if their conviction is overturned? Would it be appropriate to categorise Alex Pacheco as an "animal abuser" because he caused suffering to the animals while staging the photos? Of course not. I don't have a problem with the listing under Category:Animal rights', but the Category:Animal cruelty incidents, is POV with regards to more than one article. Its a smear tactic, like tagging acupuncture as pseudoscience. Famousdog (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats all fine and well, except we are not calling anyone a muderer or abuser. We are simply categorizing it as an incident that was about animal cruelty. Which is was. Rockpocket 14:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've long resisted watching this page, but I've decided to become involved with it now, having noticed this discussion about the category. In my mind, there's a distinction between categories and content, and the latter is much more important than the former. By way of comparison with a topic that is unrelated to this one, it's illuminating to look at the notice at the top of Category:Antisemitism. What it says there can be extrapolated to what applies here. Personally, I agree with Famousdog about the underlying POV issues, here, at Britches, and at a plethora of animal rights-related pages that reflect upon biomedical research. But I'd rather fix these problems by improving the content, where there remains a great deal of work still to be done, rather than by worrying about what might be read into categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the measured comments, Tryptofish. You make some very good points. Unlike Rockpocket, whose world seems to consist of people wearing black-hats and people wearing white-hats. Famousdog (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thats some insight from five sentences of interaction. You've made a friend. Rockpocket 10:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've interacted with Rockpocket numerous times before, and have always found them to be very reasonable and fair. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that sentiment, Tryptofish, but Famousdog's comment reminded me why I stopped editing in this area. I think I'll return to that self imposed exile. P.S. Thanks also for your message on my talk page, check out Nature (journal) this week for our next move on that front ;) Rockpocket 23:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Last wordism

Further information: Wikipedia:The Last Word

This is something Tryptofish and I have experienced with each other on other talk pages. Without casting blame in any direction, I would like to say in general terms that it leads to a poor talk-page experience (for everyone, including those not involved in the exchanges), which in turn stymies article development. I'm therefore posting here to ask everyone to refrain, insofar as anyone might be engaged in it, myself included. I hope this post is not, in itself, viewed as an example of it.

The best way to conduct talk-page discussion is to stick ruthlessly to discussing the sources, as far as possible. Sometimes editor behavior has to be discussed, but it should be brief, and we should quickly move back to the source material. It would also help if each person could truly read the other's arguments, then build on them, and not continue to write as though those arguments don't exist. If we all do this, I think the discussion could become quite constructive, and would help the writing of the article. For my part, I will try to do this from now on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}