Talk:Pro-Test/Archive 2

References

Can we remember in future to continue to add stuff to the references section when used as a source? And it's probably not a good idea to put the same source in several times. Also, consider my comment in the history void - I discovered it was already in the section. --ProTestOxford 04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using sources twice or a thousand times, and in fact they should be used regardless of how often if the link is acting as a source for a particular sentence or paragraph, assuming a source is needed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

And the link you said you'd put in the references section is already in there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this absurd POV pushing. The Guardian has been quoted and linked to, and the material is relevant, which means you have no right to remove it, and certainly have no right to alter something that is in quotation marks. All you succeed in doing is wasting people's time, like JohnFM yesterday who insisted no animal experiments at all will be conducted in the new building. If you can't edit as though from both sides of the debate, please don't edit at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about Slim? I know it's 4.18am, but that does not give you the right to ignore everything I am saying. I am adding an accurate version of the quote to the article. What exactly am I changing? Also, I know it's already in the article. I said that. You obviously didn't read what I wrote. And POV pushing? I think you're far more guilty of that so don't start that argument. --ProTestOxford 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me why you changed the quote, and what was wrong with the way I wrote, which involved no distortion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The change I made was induces to induc[ing], a standard editorial practice to make it read better. What's the problem with that? --ProTestOxford 04:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Here are the parts of the source I am using for those quotes:

• Prof Stein, who runs the laboratory where research into Parkinson's and dyslexia is carried out, said he knew there were dangers involved in speaking at the march.
• One of the tests for new electrical therapies carried out in Prof Stein's laboratory involves electrodes being placed in the brains of monkeys which have been given Parkinson's; something he says is painless because there are no pain receptors in the brain.

Don't play games with me; you know exactly why you changed it, and it certainly doesn't read better. And you will not accuse me of POV pushing. I edit a wide variety of articles, including a lot of animal-rights articles, and often make edits from a POV I disagree with, including in this one. You, however, edit only 100 per cent from the same position, and almost all your contribs are to this page. You're a single-issue editor with one POV, and that's not what it is to be a Wikipedian. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant and largely inaccurate. What was wrong with my edit? I was referencing what he does, just as it says in the source. --ProTestOxford 04:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it is directly relevant. The Guardian article made it clear that he himself induces disease. You have changed the quote to imply that he merely heads up the lab where this happens. You have no right to make that change in meaning, and you know very well that's why you changed it and why you're revert-warring to retain the change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that's what the source actually says. Read it again. I even quoted it for you just above. Those are the references to his work in the source. --ProTestOxford 04:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The source says "who induces Parkinson's disease in monkeys and then attaches electrodes to their brains to test therapies which may help human sufferers," and you keep changing it. Don't play these games. And please be careful when wikifying. Check first to see whether words are wikified already, and whether that's the name of the article you're linking to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you not read!? The source does in no way imply that he does it. It says he runs the lab. It says those experiments are carried out in the lab. It does not say that he does it. Seriously... if you can't tell the difference then you need some more reading comprehension classes. I don't mean to come across as rude, but it seems that you haven't read the article properly. --ProTestOxford 04:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting déja vu here back to JohnFM insisting yesterday that no animal experiments would be conducted in the new building, but instead the animals would be carried elsewhere whenever anyone wanted to work on them. This is what the source says: "Today he will share a platform with Prof Stein, who induces Parkinson's disease in monkeys and then attaches electrodes to their brains to test therapies which may help human sufferers." And here is the source. You keep changing the quote, introducing a subtle but important difference, and you know you're doing it because you wouldn't be going to these lengths to defend it if you thought the meaning was the same. I can therefore only conclude that you are trolling. If your and JohnFM's mission at Wikipedia is to drive me insane, I must say you're being singularly successful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself Slim. JohnFM 22:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Another source: "John Stein, who experiments on primates ...," according to The Times. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, edited to make it more clear. The additional sources were more helpful. --ProTestOxford 05:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The additional source should not have been helpful. You don't decide what quotes from one newspaper mean by looking at an article elsewhere. You quote the words, end of story. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I was using one source. You were using a different one. The additional source was additional to the one I was quoting. There was a misunderstanding, get over it. I have. --ProTestOxford 06:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, please don't think that people are out to get you. If JohnFM has criticisms of your editing, they are entirely seperate from mine. --ProTestOxford 05:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL!! People out to get me? Why on earth should I think that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

And I quote: If your and JohnFM's mission at Wikipedia is to drive me insane, I must say you're being singularly successful. SlimVirgin --ProTestOxford 06:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ref's 3, 16, and 22 are from the same editorial style article in a magazine-type segment of The Guardian newspaper, but are reported in the article in a way that implies that they are "news" Hynca-Hooley 11:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that also. In addition, I think that the following fragment:

...Professor John Stein, an Oxford neurophysiologist who heads a laboratory where research into Parkinson's and dyslexia is carried out (in some of his experiments, he "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.

would be much better stripped down to:

...Professor John Stein, an Oxford neurophysiologist who heads a laboratory where primate research into Parkinson's and dyslexia is carried out.

Details (such as they are) of Stein's work are irrelevant here, aside from the fact that his lab conducts experiments on primates. --Dcfleck 14:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It started life as "Stein ... who induces Parkinson's disease in monkeys," as a direct quote from the Guardian, but ProTestOxford decided to expand. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

All right then. So edited. --Dcfleck 15:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you've changed it back again. The Guardian says "who induces Parkinson's in monkeys," not simply that his lab does it. Please stick to exactly what the source says. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm mystified. I stated, "I think version x should be changed to y", you (User:SlimVirgin) agree, I make the exact change I mention, then you say "No.". --Dcfleck 16:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I've found a better reference for Stein: [2]. I'm switching the ref. to that one. --Dcfleck 16:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct - I expanded it to include the dyslexia thing, but not anything more than that. It should really be reduced to something easier to read. Dcfleck's quote is accurate enough, I feel. --ProTestOxford 10:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversies like this are solved by quoting directly; the re-interpretation/removal of the quote about Stein is completely against Wikipedia policy, and the direct quote should be restored. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This controversy isn't about quoting directly or not; it's about which direct quote is better for this context:

Prof Stein, who induces Parkinson's disease in monkeys and then attaches electrodes to their brains to test therapies which may help human sufferers.[3]

vs.

Prof Stein, who runs the laboratory where research into Parkinson's and dyslexia is carried out,...[4]

I think the latter, which comes out of a news article rather than a personality feature story, is more to the point, and makes for a less awkward sentance, besides. And are you saying that once a sourced quote is added to an article, the only way it can be removed is by a polled consensus of those working on it at any given time? --Dcfleck 15:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you followed the edit debate, as I'm sure you did, SlimVirgin was describing Stein's involvement in experimenting on monkeys, quoting from reliable sources, while ProTestOxford was doing his darndest to remove any reference to this at all on various spurious grounds (e.g. "can't use a source twice"), or, failing that, trying to re-interpret direct quotations so as to make Stein indirectly, rather than directly, involved in the experimentation. This, of course, was completely unacceptable, and I made my feelings on the subject clear. Regarding your own much later entry into the debate, given that there are multiple sources indicating Stein's direct involvement, including ones you don't even mention, e.g. "John Stein, who experiments on primates ...," according to The Times. [5], it is clear that one must be very cautious before removing quotations that indicate his direct involvement. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't been following the debate in any depth for several days, just reverting obvious vandals. In this case I was just trying to be bold and rework what I thought was a very awkward sentance into a better one, with a better source. So being bold is now right out, apparently.

...and saying he runs the lab isn't direct enough? I find your insistence on this very quote and no other mystifying. --Dcfleck 01:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Unarchived

I've unarchived this talkpage. It's all far too recent and not really enough to need archiving. I couldn't follow the article's history without referring to the talk. Archiving at this point gives a strong impression of not wanting some of the discussion to be readily seen. If the weekend's events prompt major revision of the article, then archiving might become appropriate. Apologies to Sean for reverting him. Grace Note 09:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Inverted pyramids

Given the relative success of the march I think the page needs reorganizing, namely demoting the background and people involved, in favour of the activities first. The decriptions of Pycroft culled from an otherwise sympathetic article ("sixth-form dropout" and "bedroom blogger") are ad hominem in the extreme. The piece also describes him as a member of "National Academy of Gifted and Talented Youth" so we could just as easily go with that. In any case, he is no longer the notability claim (if he ever was properly to begin with) so he shouldn't be the second sentence here. Marskell 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. It was precisely the way the group got started, and who started it, that captured media attention. As for "an otherwise sympathetic article," there is nothing unsympathetic in the Guardian's description him as a sixth-form dropout and bedroom blogger; on the contrary, it's entirely factual and intended to underline the first point above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The media is not predominantly interested in the group because of the way it started, but because there are few groups (if any) of its kind and they represent and appeal to a large proportion of the population, especially given the actions and statements of the ALF recently. I think you are overly resprictive on this article - the very fact the discussion is so strong compared to the size of the article should indicate there is substantial interest and therefore purpose to the article. Spaully 16:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As per my edit comment, I feel the Guardian descriptions are stigmatised and only reflect the decision of the journalist to enhance a certain angle in the article. I also feel it adds nothing to this article.

On the point on the number of protestors, 700 and 200-300 is the same as what I was told by the police I spoke to; probably can't add that as evidence though :) Spaully 18:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Numbers of "around 700" and "around 200" respectively for Pro-Test and SPEAK demonstrations were given on BBC news TV bulletin at 19:30 today.Hynca-Hooley 19:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Quoting the sources

I think, if we are being honest, that the reason Slim used those descriptions of Pycroft is because most of the rest of the mainstream media is highly sympathetic (as can be seen from the other quotes of the page). Thus, in the interest of balance i can understand why Slim introduced terms that have more negative connotations (being a "drop-out" for example, is rarely seen as a positive thing, compared to being a member of the "National Academy of Gifted and Talented Youth" - which incidently sounds worryingly X-menish. I think we should be told.) Personally, i think "bedroom blogger" is informative as it does capture the nature of the genesis of the group. I think we could drop the "drop out" comment though, as according to Pycroft himself, he is "taking a year out", which is hardly the same as the being a dropout. Rockpocket 19:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am dismayed at the removal of direct, relevant quotes from reliable sources. Wikipedia articles need balance, and removing anything that seems negative is simply a whitewash. Pycroft's notions about what he will do in the future are all well and good, but the fact remains that he is, as of today, a "dropout" and "bedroom blogger", and there is a reliable (and even generally sympathetic) source which states that. These quotes should also be returned. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The guy would have got no press at all were he not a young kid stirring it up with his blog. That should stay. I agree with Jay that the "dropout" part could be reconsidered should he ever "drop back in". I have no idea why we have ceased correctly to characterise John Stein. I think it's reasonable to note what Pycroft is in favour of. There was, in any case, no consensus to remove it, and it's well sourced, so I've put it back in. Grace Note 08:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to revert, not use rollback. I've reverted back to Grace Note's version because I agree that relevant, properly cited quotes need to stay. We can't say whether this is a "gap year," because we're not psychic. In any event, I don't see it as particularly insulting. Lots of kids leave high school early, and calling him a bedroom blogger perfectly encapsulates his description of himself on his blog. In addition, the article was written by a sympathetic journalist. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a sympathetic journalist. So why do pick the only two negative descriptions from the piece? As for him "getting press", look at the initial news articles (Times on Feb 1 or Guardian on Feb 2 for example). Pycroft isn't mentioned. He really hasn't, personally, gotten any press (except by us) until yesterday. No where is the first protest described with the detail we have. None of the newspapers find it relevant to list his on-line handle. I don't understand this insistence that he is the notability claim. In our page on Wikipedia we don't use a description of Jim Wales for the second sentence. Marskell 09:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, the Guardian doesn't describe him as a member of the National Academy of whatever. That's how he describes himself. I've fixed the sentence to reflect that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes thank-you, acknowledged. And the larger issue? Why are we leading with a description of him? We have a syntactically overloaded first sentence that tells us more about SPEAK than Pro-Test and now a syntactically over-loaded second sentence that tells us more about the founder than the group. To my eye, there isn't a single notability claim until section three when we describe the protest. Marskell 09:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't to be psychic, Slim. Simply reading the sources available will reveal that he is not a dropout but taking a gap year. Thus i'm removing that quote as misleading and nonfactual. Rockpocket 09:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The group has caught people's notice because its founder is a 16yo dropout with a blog. My paper of choice leads every story with an angle on Pycroft, not the "group". We could almost write the article about him and redirect this there. And Rockpocket, I'm sorry, the Guardian is far more credible than any blog.Grace Note 09:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The people who are objecting to this don't understand how to write a good news story. It is very far from being an insult to say that a high-school drop out and bedroom blogger got this group off the ground in such a short space of time. It is, in fact, a compliment, which is why a sympathetic, well-written article highlighted those two aspects of him. It's almost an example of bathos. However, as you insist on not using drop out, I've used the more mundane "unemployed" to reflect that he is not working and not studying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Slim, but no. I have to insist on "dropout". Rockpocket's source is a blog. If a source comparable with the Guardian says he is on a "gap year", then I think it can be added in to the article (but not replace the description that is already there). But anyone can write anything on a blog. If you like, I'll blog about him and you can source me!Grace Note 09:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It does seem odd to imagine that the Guardian would interview him and yet just be guessing that he had dropped out of school. He didn't leave school in the normal way at the end of an academic year (or take a gap year): he dropped out during the course of the year. He makes it clear on his blog that he's about to, and he must have confirmed it to the Guardian, or else described his situation so that they believed that was the most accurate description of him. We're not here to second-guess reputable sources, or replace them with less reputable ones who happen to share our POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you bother to read that source, Grace Note? If you did, you will realise that what i'm referring to is the footnote written by a well respected, independent policy institutue and it says:

The headline to this story - and an earlier version of its introduction - is somewhat misleading. Laurie a.k.a. Sqrrl101 (Laurie Pycroft) is not an Oxford University student. In fact, he lives in Swindon, is aged 16 and is taking a gap year between GCSEs and A levels. The misleading headline is entirely the fault of the editor of the Social Affairs Unit Web Review - and has nothing to do with Laurie a.k.a. Sqrrl101. In my defence, I am not unique in making this mistaken assumption - it is also made in the report in The Times and the leader in The Guardian.

So, i'm reverting, again. As we have a credible source that tells us the Guardian's information is wrong. I'd ask you to read sources fully before dismissing them. Rockpocket 09:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

RP, you completely misunderstand how we use sources at Wikipedia, and in any event, you didn't read carefully what you've quoted. The blog (or whatever it is) says that the Guardian got it wrong in calling him an Oxford student; and anyway the blog was written before the story calling him a drop out, and so can't have been referring to it. You're tying yourself in knots trying to contradict a reputable source, which we're not allowed to do, and wasting a lot of your own and our time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote it again: In fact, he lives in Swindon, is aged 16 and is taking a gap year between GCSEs and A levels.. Thus, we have evidence he is taking a gap year. If you wish to leave the dropout in there as a description, then it is only fair and balanced to also note it is a gap year also. The two description have very different connotations (read their articles). Rockpocket 09:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

RP and Marskell, perhaps neither of you is in the UK, I don't know, but people don't take "gap years" between GCSE and A levels. Maybe they take a year off and go back eventually, but it'd be unusual. However, in starting A levels, which he did, and then abandoning them, he dropped out, and that is the major difference. Here is a Sunday Times Focus story saying the same thing, [6] and Marksell, this puts paid to your non-notability claim: the Sunday Times Focus stories tend to be reserved for the week's biggest story and it's about him, not the group. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

All this back and forth is making a dog's breakfast of the writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh the irony! I'm from the UK and i took time out between GCSE's and an IB to travel to Swaziland for a year. I totally agree its a mess now, but if people are going to insist on leaving quotes that are misleading when there are more accurate quotes available, then there is little we can do but counter them Rockpocket 10:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking a year off before starting your IB in order to travel is not quite the same as leaving after starting A-levels in order to spend time sitting in your bedroom. The latter is called "dropping out" by most people, The Guardian, and now the Sunday Times. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you have the gall to suggest i'm tying myself in knots and don't understand how to use sources? Your source states "he decided to take a year off before going on to A-levels". Where does it day he dropped out or abandoned them? That is a gap year - "a prolonged period (often, but not always, a year) taken off full-time education by a student leaving secondary school and (ideally) before matriculating in college or university". Plenty of people do A-levels at college, which of course, you would know if you are in the UK. Moreover, that source states "Pycroft went to a state school and became a member of the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, a government body that nurtures exceptional children." It doesn't say Pycroft claims that, so we can change back the article to how it was with this quote. Rockpocket 10:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I do have that gall, yes. I'm tired of the POV pushing and time wasting. You almost never make an edit from the other POV. You engage in incessant tweaking, re-arranging, introducing nuance, and deleting words you don't like, not just here, but in practically all the animal-rights articles you edit, in order to promote a pro-testing agenda, and your total of 180 edits to articles show you do very little else. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. As for your use of sources, read the Sunday Times article again. It says: "How did a teenager who dropped out of school turn into a campaigning hero?" [7] and only later refers to him taking a year off. A gap year is generally understood to be a year taken between A-levels and higher or further education, not between GCSE and A-level (whether completed in a school or college), and is usually spent traveling (as you say you did); neither the Guardian nor the Sunday Times mentions a gap year, so it's not for you to introduce that idea into the article. As for the National Academy, Pycroft claimed it to the Guardian, not the Sunday Times, which states it as fact, so you're mixing sources up now. I can only ask you again, as I have asked you many times, to read our content policies very carefully — WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and a guideline WP:RS — and to stick very closely to what reputable sources say, without introducing your own nuance or re-arranging what they say to suit you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph is ridiculous. I don't see how any of that information is useful to someone wanting to read about Pro-test. This story may have started because of the unusual situation of Pycroft, but the group is no longer notable for that. I propose moving all information about Pycroft into background or some other suitable subgroup, with perhaps 1 senteance in the intro saying he founded the group. I'm asking for consensus because there seems to be inordinate interest in how he is described. Spaully 11:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Sunday Times Focus story is on the teenager this week, an indication that they regard him as the most interesting story in the UK over the last six days, and the S/Times is, I believe, the best selling Sunday broadsheet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy of the Times in front of me, and first of all notice the front page picture of the march; that should lay to rest any claims of notability - indeed it makes this article more notable than most of the million on here. The focus article does indeed discuss Laurie Pycroft, but that does not mean information about him shouldn't be moved into a section of the Pro-Test article.

Speaking to people who support Pro-test, including those who went on the march yesterday, they do not know who Laurie Pycroft is. Google news turns up 139 articles relating to pro-test, a minority of which deal directly with Pycroft. From an objective standpoint, if I had heard about pro-test and wanted more information, the fact that its founder was a 6th form dropout and had a blog would not be the 1st thing I'd want to know. Spaully 12:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Slim, i'm not confusing my sources, hence i said "we can change back the article to how it was with this quote." meaning the new one, not the old one. I also take umbrage at the suggestion that i only edit from one POV. Only yesterday i added info about alleged police brutality of SPEAK and of numbers of large animals tested on in animal testing. But we are going around in circles here, with quote and counter quote and accusation and counter accusation. I expect tiredness is clouding our judgement somewhat also. The fact is we are both quoting valid sources that tell us different things. You don't accept that "gap year" or "year out" is a accurate description, i don't accept "drop out" is, despite both being used by the mainstream press, in one case in the same article. We either come to a consensus on which we include, or we include both, or neither. Thats what it comes down to. However, since the offending sentence has now changed from a specific desciption from one source to a general quote cull from more than one source, i'm happy to acquiesce. Rockpocket 22:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your opinions about the accuracy of sources aren't nearly as relevant as what the sources themselves say. When reliable sources say someone is a "drop-out", Wikipedia policy demands that we quote and attribute that, not re-word it to say what we think they really meant. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It follows therefore, Jayjg, that then when equally reliable sources say someone is on a "gap year" [8] or a "year off" [9], Wikipedia policy demands that we quote and attribute that also. Slim's opinion - and yours it would seem - is that those terms are not valid, as they were continually removed from the article. Thus why is her opinion more relevant than what the sources themselves say? All i was asking was to be fair. Rockpocket 19:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

RP, the Guardian and Times count as better sources in this context than the Social Affairs Unit (whatever that is), because the latter is taking its information about the teenager from newspapers. The Guardian interviewed him and has called him a drop-out. The Times may have interviewed him and says he dropped out of school, and then later in the same article that he took a year off. So we have two good sources saying "drop out," one of them also saying "year off," and no good sources saying "gap year." Therefore whatever we decide to say, it would be obtuse of us to choose "gap year." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

the Social Affairs Unit is a think tank. I don't know how you can know that it is taking its information about the teenager from newspaper. Presumably they are in contact with Sqrrl101 seeing as they published his article. Catchpole 20:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

They wouldn't have made the mistake of calling him a student if they'd taken the information directly from him, which is why they had to apologize for their error, an error incidentally that the same editors now arguing for "gap year" wanted Wikipedia to make. I can only repeat: if a reputable news organization widely regarded as a reliable source actually interviews someone and publishes the results of that interview, that source takes priority over other sources who may or may not have interviewed him, who may or may not be reliable, and who may or may not be trained in how to obtain and present information. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Slim, how can you judge the value of a source if you don't know what it is? First you incorrectly state its a blog and thus invalid, then when you realise you were wrong, you try to dismiss it without evern bothering to find out what it is? Thats amateurish. FYI, its an independent policy institute that publishes widely on economic and social issues. I see no reason its value as a source should be doubted anymore than any newspaper. The SAU commissioned Pycroft to write an article for them, suggesting they have dealt with him personally. Infact they even correct themselves editorially as they made the same mistake as the rest of the media (including those reputable news organizations you seem to cherish), and mention that he is on a "gap year" in the correction - that seems to me to be a better source as its information has been reaffirmed, presumably by the guy himself. Thus the differences are a result of whatever way the sources wish to spin what Pycroft told them. Still, according to Jayjg, your opinion on the value of a source is not relevent (or it would appear, yours is if you agree with him, and mine isn't). Anyway, the term "gap year" was not the issue, "year off" or "year out" are perfectly acceptable. I'm tired of this. I let the issue go, simply because its not worth revert warring over, and i'm still attacked over the principle that i wanted to add a perfectly well sourced media comment to balance a pejorative one. Slim states her opinion on what constitutes a gap year and her opinion on what is a valid source. I point out that all i wanted was balance by adding another good counter source, and I am the one accused of pushing my opinion? There is extreme double standards here. Rockpocket 21:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

First, discussions about quality of sources should take place on the talk page of WP:V or WP:RS, not here, and I'd be happy to continue this conversation with you there. Second, the issue of using good sources is probably my main policy interest on Wikipedia. I'm very familiar with the policies, and in fact helped to write some of them, so I do understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work in terms of what type of source to choose and how to ensure that the spirit, as well as the letter, of the source is adhered to, and so on.

As for this particular source, the article appeared on the Social Affairs Unit's blog. Please look at it again.

What do you mean by "its information has been reaffirmed" and "presumably by the guy himself"? It is precisely these presumptions that are causing the problem. Recall that it was you who wanted to call him a "student," which would also have been false, and for the same reason viz. you are picking the sources that say what you want to say, rather than picking them because they appear to be the better informed ones.

There are no double standards here. My argument is that we go with what the sources say, and we don't presume anything. Where we do have to use our judgment is over which sources to choose, and that boils down to reading the articles and trying to discern which ones are the best informed. It seems to me to be unquestionably true that a named, professional journalist writing in one of the UK's best newspapers, who has interviewed the subject for a special article about that subject (not the usual busy journalist's three-minute phone call; not the Social Affairs Unit blog editor saying hi while "commissioning" an article) is the best source we have found to date.

Something else you could do is actually read the teenager's own blog entries before any of this blew up. He makes it clear he's about to drop out, doesn't get to classes, sleeps late instead, with his friends writing in leaving concerned messages. This was not a planned year off or "gap year." He just stopped going. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That all seems very sensible, Slim, but the problem is that the reason I (among others) originally suggested we call him a student was because named, professional journalists writing in some of the UK's best newspapers called him a student. An "Oxford student" to be precise, wrong on both accounts. You queried this by reading info in his blog. Now, following your argument above, the high value source should "outrank" the low (or no) value source and we should go with what the newspapers said.

Normally, yes, but when the newspapers are contradicting each other, sometimes within the same article, you have to use some commonsense. Chief among the things commonsense will tell you is that (a) 16 year olds aren't as a rule students and British newspapers don't call people at school "students" without making clear they're at school, and (b) that people don't normally take "gap years" at the age of 16. Those two things jump off the page at anyone reading carefully. At that point, you stick to the known published facts about him, and at the time, these were (a) male, (b) from Swindon, and (c) 16. That's what Wikipedia did, and that's why we got it right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that logic fails on point (b), as people don't normally call themselves a polymath, form Pro-Test groups and have a bio on the front of the Sunday Times at the age of 16 either. Pycroft is clearly not a "normal" 16 year old - and many other remarkable things about him jumped much higher off the page at me - making the fact he is taking a year out seem perfectly reasonable. But again, those are differences in opinion. This is not criticism of your opinion on this (which i think is reasonable, if flawed, due to the above "commonsense" assumption), but i fail to see why your opinions be taken account of as "getting it right" when mine are labelled POV pushing. They seem to be different sides to the same coin to me. If there was an opposing consensus then i'd defer gracefully, but Jayjg appears to simply accuse me of POV pushing because my opinion differs from his/hers. I guess i just don't like being singled out. Anyway, thats my last comment on the matter (except for the one below) ;-) Rockpocket 00:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is my last comment too, apart from the next one. ;-) The reason I say we got it right is that we turned out to be correct in that he is a 16 year old from Swindon, not a student. You wanted to call him a student even after you found out he wasn't at school or college. I take your point about him being unusual in some respects, but I've read his blog. It's things like (paraphrasing), "Well, I had two periods of history and one of maths this morning, but unfortunately I didn't wake up until 2 pm." (I mock him here with the deepest of sympathy and empathy, by the way, as I remember being that age only too well.) It's pretty clear from his blog that this was a case of dropping out, and when both the Guardian and the Sunday Times use that very term, people here trying to find other words for it does start to look like POV pushing, as though we're trying to protect him by choosing the most positive terms possible. This is happening in other places too with this article e.g. with John Stein. The Guardian writes: "He gives monkeys Parkinson's," and the Times writes: "He experiments on primates," but because we're POV pushing, we have to find a different source that says: "He is the head of a lab in which research into Parkinson's takes place." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't what happened at the time, instead your opinion was enforced and we held off until the issue was clarified. So, you were correct and the newspapers were wrong. Congratulations. But now you try and tells us that a newspaper is always the prime source, and should be quoted exclusively, even when there is evidence to suggest otherwise? Could you explain to me how is that not double standards, because it looks to me that you change your policy to suit your side of any debate?

In October, Pycroft may go back to school after his year out and you, and your sources may be proved wrong (again).

Well, no, that will just mean he's dropped back in again. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Rockpocket 00:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hooray, for my pyrrhic victory. Or he may not. But irrespective of whether newspapers are right or consistant, one cannot pick and choose when to enforce their authority and when not to.

But, Slim, i'm not interested in debating with you over this, as i wrote above and confirmed to you privately, i'm not pushing the issue any further as i accept that "drop-out" need not be a disparaging term and thus it doesn't require direct countering. Especially as the majority of the article takes positive media comment. However, what i do not accept is that my desire to use "gap year", "year out" or "year off" is POV pushing, as they are all terms used by valid sources (including the same article in The Times, which you quote as evidence of him being labelled a "drop out"). So, Jayjg tells me it is a valid source when it says what you wish to add, but not when it says what i wish to add? His or her accusation is both unfair and without justification and, i am saddened that you, Slim, feel the need to persist with those accusations, especially when you already got what you wanted. Rockpocket 22:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, to illustrate my point (and query Slims assumption that the SAU was just culling newspaper copy) here is what the editor of of the Social Affairs Unit wrote [10]:

Correction: The headline to this story - and an earlier version of its introduction - is somewhat misleading. Laurie a.k.a. Sqrrl101 (Laurie Pycroft) is not an Oxford University student. In fact, he lives in Swindon, is aged 16 and is taking a gap year between GCSEs and A levels. The misleading headline is entirely the fault of the editor of the Social Affairs Unit Web Review - and has nothing to do with Laurie a.k.a. Sqrrl101. In my defence, I am not unique in making this mistaken assumption - it is also made in the report in The Times and the leader in The Guardian. In fact, the only report (prior to this piece) which seems to have got this correct is that in the Sunday Times, itself written by a first year Oxford classics student. All in all, this really makes Pro-Test an even more remarkable phenomenon.

Followed by a reader comment further down:

I like the correction - the SAU states: The headline - and introduction - to this story is somewhat misleading. They in fact mean it is a complete load of bollocks - but at least you have corrected the impression - which is more than can be said for the Times or Guardian. Rockpocket 22:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I saw that correction when it was first published, and given the timing, I like to think the anonymous SAU blog editor took the "16 year old from Swindon" in their corrected intro (not what you've reproduced above) from Wikipedia, because at that point in time, we were the only publication to get it 100 per cent correct, and that was because we stuck to the known, published facts that no one was contradicting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I find the whole attempt to describe Pycroft as a "student", and disguise the fact that Pycroft dropped out of school to be a sad commentary on the direction this article has taken. A "student" is someone who is enrolled in a recognized educational institution. Sure, we're all "students of life" or "students of the human condition", or "students of the universe", or various other vague phrases, but an encyclopedia should endeavor to use exact, meaningful language. "Gap year" is another odd whitewashing euphemism that is neither exact nor particularly meaningful. He dropped out of school, his blog made it clear he dropped out, and highly reliable sources described him as a "drop-out". Let's try to use exact, meaningful language in this article, even if it means that, as a result, it adds just the tiniest possibly negative note to what has become a glowing endorsement of the group. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, this is the problem with this discussion - everyone is talking about different things and different times, and since the story developed so quickly, you appear to be making assumptions that the information available now was available at the time. No-one, as far as i can tell, is trying to call Pycroft at student anymore, that was settled before the current difference of opinion. The debate over whether he was a student occurred last week when all the media reports available (except his own blog) was calling him an Oxford student. SlimVirgin (correctly) pointed out the flaw in logic over these reports while others (myself included) were quoting the media sources calling him a student. That debate focussed on whether his blog should count as a quotable source over the mainstream media (which we all concurred was probably wrong). In that case, we held off until we could get confirmation either way and the discussion was settled when the media reports began to flood in with the mistake corrected. You can read the archive familiarise yourself with that.

Regarding the focus on the eumphemistic term "gap year" - i hold my hands up that that was my fault as i provided that source as evidence that he was planning a year out. That, in retrospect, was not a clever move due to the ambiguous nature of the source, and its something i now regret. However, you fail to acknowledge that the very same article that uses "drop out" also states he is taking a "year off" which was also promoted as a possible quote instead of "gap year". That is "exact, meaningful language" from the exact same highly reliable source you are promoting. So trying to paint the use of "student" and "gap year" together as a concerted effort to push a POV is incorrect and unjustified. They were both independent efforts, over a week apart, to provide an accurate picture using the sources available at the time. Its easy to criticise restrospectively, but please understand that when certain points were made, not all the information you have now was available. Rockpocket 19:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm decrying the general process that has gone on here, which has (to the outside eye) appeared to involve deliberate whitewashing. Yes, the "student" issue was solved a while ago, but it was just one symptom of that whitewashing process; even today the page described Pro-Test as a "student group", though the founder is not a student, and we have very little independent knowledge of the group's actual makeup. Going forward I'd much prefer to see a better balance. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i understand. It just sometimes difficult to distinguish general comments from specifics. Interestingly, the history of the "student group" addition goes back to very early also. It was proposed as a compromise description when we had few sources, were still debating the relevence of Pro-Test as a campaign, group or website and its main claim to notability was among students at Oxford. I - and dare i suggest most other editors here - would concur that now its notability is not in question and the facts are clearer, the phrase "student group" is less appropriate. But at the time that term was advocated, the facts we now know were not available. The phrase that now might appear (to the outside eye) as a "deliberate whitewashing", was infact actually put forward, at the time of writing, by SlimVirgin (hardly one of the so called pro-Pro-Test POV pushers) [11] which she sourced from the Times. So again, i don't think there is any evidence that that phrase was introduced to push any POV, it was simply the agreed word at the time. The best way to achieve better balance is to update the article as things change, not retrospectively associate outdated information with some agenda. Rockpocket 23:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking a bit closer i noticed that the orginal and very valid use, by Slim, of "student group" was in quotes - taken directly from a mainstream source: "One student group, calling itself Pro-Test..." [12]. Soon after it lost it's quotes during another edit. 100 edits down the line it may look like a "deliberate whitewash", but a forensic examination reveals it as an example of a good source providing unreliable information. Now can you see my point about retrospectively apportioning intent? Rockpocket 23:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Kill all the sources!...

And, uh, let Jimbo sort them out. We shouldn't use blogs as sources, period. Broadly I agree with Slim over the source you're all debating but I'm a little confused over the implication that if his blog (Pycroft's) says X, X is true (that is, Slim's comment "something else you could do is actually read the teenager's own blog entries before any of this blew up. He makes it clear he's about to drop out"). That comment from him is a blog entry like any other.

No, it isn't. We can use blogs as primary sources i.e. sources about themselves. See WP:V and WP:RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't trust it more than any other. I'm particularly confused over a previous debate. We rely on his Livejournal to describe the first, impromptu, counter-protest. I didn't and don't think it belongs, partly because of relevance and partly because of a lack of appropriate sourcing. But you argued Slim, that the fact that it was interesting and enlivened the story made it relevant. But it's just his blog, right?

Anyhow, part of my little success yesterday (I think) was eliminating, period, anything the newspapers have not written in the sentence we were all arguing about. I suggest we apply this top-to-bottom. Rockpocket is arguing what Social Affairs said (and is accurate) and SV is arguing whether Social Affairs is an appropriate source (and is accurate). But if it's gone, it's gone (it is gone, cause I took it out). So why argue? Just don't quote blogs at all. This does leave an open question (does Livejournal belong?) but we can save that. On the issue you've both just repeatedly posted on, I think you're arguing about who gets the china after the funeral. The page is essentially accurate and it covers its bases.

Oh, and newspapers can be wrong. I wanted to post that bit of unique wisdom a long time ago in this discussion and haven't done it. We're not obligated to post something the Times said if we're dead sure it's not true. Anyhow, that's obvious and not directed at any piece of info being debated now--just wanted to underscore it. Marskell 23:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I direct you to this policy. We are not here to judge what's true, only to report what others say is true. Please try to keep that in mind.Grace Note 00:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly we have to asess what we think is a good source of verifiability by how truthful it is, thereby introducing an element of judgement of what is truthful, regardless of what the policy says. |→ Spaully°τ 00:23, 28 February 2006

Spaully, there are clear guidelines in the policy I cited. Go and read it. Really, an understanding of the policies that we work under here will help you understand how to construct an article. Grace Note 01:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If everyone would read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR and become very familiar with them (letter and spirit), most of these arguments would disappear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Grace note, I think you haven't understood what I said. I have read the policies and was commenting on the feasibility of never evaluating the truthfulness of a source. For example, why do we discredit Uncyclopedia? It's a source, can verify some very interesting viewpoints etc. The answer is because it is full of crap, ie. untruths. It is IMPOSSIBLE to edit a single article without evaluating the truth of the matter, something which you do as you are writing. The hope is that the WP articles are truthful, because they are verified by truthful sources. |→ Spaully°τ 09:22, 28 February 2006

Another wise interlude from Marskell. You pick up on my wider concern about when certain sources are allowed and when they are not. I expect it comes down to using blogs to corroborate other, more mainstream sources, rather than rely on them as primary sources.

At the time, i (shockingly) agreed with Slim on the LiveJournal issue, as i thought it was a nice touch that tells us something about the genesis of the group. However, i concur that it is inconsistant with the policy on blogs that is held up for most other cases, which leaves everyone open to claims of double standards - in fact i believe one editor used that argument not that long ago ;-).

No, please read the policies. A blog can't be used as a third-party source, but it can be used as a source of information about the subject, with caution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In our defence, there were precious little other sources about the formation of the group when that was written and i thought it was relevent as it was the only actual account of public Pro-Testing the group had done. I'd have no issue with you rewording that part to accommodate more reputable sources now they are available. Rockpocket 00:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line remains that the Guardian is a good source and a blog is not. Grace Note 01:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Gracenote, do you have a problem with me personally? I only ask as i've beginning to feel victimised by you. I have no idea what you are talking about here - what relevence does the Guardian have to the "bottom line" of this thread? I was only attempting to justify Slim's use of Pycroft's LiveJournal as source of information about the genesis of Pro-Test since there was no other available at the time (Check the history). This, Slim tells us, is permitted with caution. I take it you disagree with that? If so, take issue with her, not me. Or is it that you did you not bother to read the thread, but thought you would offer an opinion anyway? Rockpocket 05:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Grace Note may have been referring to using the Social Affairs Unit's blog, which is edited by an anonymous editor and which got Pycroft's description wrong, as it later admitted, as opposed to a Guardian article, written by a professional journalist with a byline, and based on an actual interview with the subject. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Though, of course, we also learned that The Guardian's professional journalist got his description wrong in an earlier article around the same time the SAU published and the SAU corrected while the Guardian, apparently, didn't. But that debate was up there. Perhaps Grace Note should read the text he or she is so keen to criticise. Rockpocket 06:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You are making an entirely unwarranted assumption. The bottom line remains that a newspaper article is a better source than a blog. If the former exists, you should not be sourcing to the latter, end of story. If you feel "victimised" by being required to adhere to Wikipedia's policies, I apologise, but I am not going to pat you on the head and say, well, in that case, source your POV to some guy's blog. I think you'll find that the Guardian is now correctly reporting Pycroft as a dropout, and I don't see what you're problem is precisely with sourcing to that. Grace Note 06:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, I wish you'd take the point. Regardless of whatever else the Guardian has published, once it published an article based on an actual interview, it would be absurd of us not to prioritize it as a source. You don't even know the name of the editor of the Social Affairs Unit's blog. Blogs are only acceptable as sources of information about themselves, and even then should be used with caution and if only there's no doubt about the writer's identity, and so on. That is policy, which is why I'm saying if you disagree with it, go to the policy talk page and try to get it changed. But until it's changed, we edit in accordance with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that, Slim. Infact i agree with you. My concern is that has no relevence to my point about the LiveJournal - which you added to the article and you confirm was a valid source in those circumstances - and Grace Note attacked. Grace Note - the bottom line is that there was no other source at time, hence Slim used the LiveJournal as a source. This discussion is not about Pycroft being a dropout, not about The Guardian, not about the SAU. You are confusing the Livejournal blog with the SAU "blog". Rockpocket 07:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, do you also take the point that using Pycroft's blog as a source of information about himself is an entirely different thing from using someone else's blog as a source about him? Marksell (or was it you?) has it wrong when he says there's an inconsistency. We're allowed to quote X saying: "I am an idiot," even if it was his blog he said it on (so long as we're sure it really is his blog), but we're not allowed to quote Y saying "X is an idiot," unless Y is a reputable, third-party published source. That is the crucial distinction, which policy reflects, and which was relied upon here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Though it's worth adding here that we're only allowed to quote X on X if he is not contradicted by reputable, published sources. In other words, newspapers, papers, and books are always better sources than blogs, as Grace Note says. The crucial difference is between self-published and third-party published sources, because the latter is assumed to have a degree of oversight that the former lacks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What other point would you like me to take, Slim? I do accept that. I have no issue at all over that principle. None. Infact, part of that is the very basis on which i defended your use of the Livejournal at the time - it was written by him, about his actions, and there was no other source available. I said above, "I'd have no issue with [Marskell] rewording that part to accommodate more reputable sources now they are available." The obvious implication being that newspapers, papers, and books are better sources than blogs and they should be used. Grace Note immediately came back in response and said, "the Guardian is a good source and a blog is not". Well, that is clearly not that case in this instance as the Guardian had nothing to say on the issue and we all agree that his blog was valid in this case at that time. That is all i am trying to say here, Slim, can you accept that? Rockpocket 08:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply not interested in your sniping at Slim because she cited a blog. I'm not not understanding that you have dragged that nonissue into the discussion, I'm ignoring that you have, and restating the principle. You can cite blogs as sources for a person's own actions, if you do so correctly, in the absence of other, better sources. If the other sources exist, the blog becomes worthless. I don't know how many times we have to go round and round this, and I don't know why you're making it personal. Grace Note 08:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

responded on your talk page. Rockpocket 08:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK people, let's not lose our sense of humour. Slim, I am familiar with the Verifiability page. I had it in mind when I posted. "...and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material." The exception cited does not apply here and this is the policy. Perhaps we're reading the "caution" on RS differently, I don't know, but I would exercise caution (and again, summary style) and use none of the blogs.

Yes, Social Affairs is a third-party blog, but do note this page is Pro-Test, not Laurie Pycroft. I disagree with "Pycroft's blog as a source of information about himself is an entirely different thing from using someone else's blog." Nowhere in policy does it state that it's "entirely different"; like any blog, it could be an impersonator or a pack of lies. Now that we don't have to, we shouldn't use blogs at all, including his Livejournal. Marskell 09:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm only continuing to respond to this because the issue of sources is my main policy interest on Wikipedia, so I'm happy to nail this down. My responses are not a sign of aggression, in other words. ;-) WP:V says that we may use self-published sources (books, personal websites, blogs) as sources of information about the writer in an article about that writer. WP:V#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. I'd say this is arguably an article about Laurie Pycroft, even though that's not its title, and I know you disagree with that, Marskell, but you can see what my reasoning is, and so I feel that that section of WP:V does apply here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh absolutely I see your reasoning. It's something of a half-empty (we should exercise caution and not use this), half-full (we can use this if we exercise caution) debate. I have decided 3rr is the only policy so unequivocal that no one can argue it... Marskell 09:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Archival

I noticed that an earlier user 'unarchived' this page and am wondering why? The page may be recent but the fact remains that it is 90kb in size - which is longer than it should be. Just because it is relatively recent compared to most talk pages does not mean it should not be archived. If this is followed then we will end up with a talk page of a size > 500kb in size. This is unacceptable as it rules out anyone on a non-high speed connection from talking on this page. I propose we use a 2 week rule on this talk page in order to try and keep it short and loadable. It is perfectly reasonable to reference things in archived pages. -Localzuk ^(talk) 16:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I unarchived it. I have a name and if you have a problem with my doing it, I have a talkpage you can write to me on. I left a note identifying myself and explaining what I had done and why. The user who archived it chose a particularly inopportune time to do so, because in effect he hid discussion on an ongoing edit war. I'd suggest that it's better, when you are a combatant in an edit war, which is being discussed on Talk, to allow someone else to make the decision that the page needs archiving. Grace Note 00:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving on

Hope people can live with my new first para. This addresses my concerns in large part. Only thing that nags at the moment " Pro-test is the first group of its kind in the United Kingdom." I thought I saw a Guardian article to the effect that after years of animal-rights groups protesting this is the first counter group, but I can't find it.

Having done this, I'd also like to merge the large second paragraph into background and leave the intro as the first and third paragraph. ? Marskell 09:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. See Sunday Times Focus piece above. The teenager is of far greater interest than the group. Also, the writing is suffering from this constant back and forth, changing quotes, extending descriptions, changing the focus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I was actually about to suggest that (then read your request). It would read far better as part of the background section, at present it simply clutters up the introduction (which ideally should be fairly short). --ProTestOxford 10:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No, intros should not ideally be fairly short. They should ideally highlight the main issues and give a good overview of the subject. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. As noted earlier by someone else, that particular paragraph is not one of the main issues. It can safely be put into the background section. I disagree that the founder is the main focus of the group, I believe the group's activities are now (they're certainly more newsworthy). --ProTestOxford 10:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Slim, your edits have tidied the intro up significantly. We probably don't need to move it now. Well done. --ProTestOxford 10:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

To be precise: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." (WP:LEAD). Intro length is held relative to over-all article length. Certainly the intro shouldn't be larger than all of the sections combined.

Given a crowd of seven hundred yesterday, two Oxford researchers and an MP speaking can you claim "the teenager is of far greater interest than the group"? Also, is it the first of its kind? Can we find a source for that and reinsert it? Marskell 10:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian quote and source is there, but lower down. --ProTestOxford 10:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Both are of interest, but I do not feel that he is yet sufficiently notable for a Laurie Pycroft article to be created. I think the article is fine as it is (other than that I'd still argue that the rise of the pro-testing movement is a current event). It would be nice to get some verification of the Gap Year vs Drop-out issue.Hynca-Hooley 12:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have put in a description "having left school." It's neutral and it's true and no assumption is made about whether he will or will not go back. I also dropped the details that were not in the Guardian or Times pieces directly describing him. "Campaigning hero" is the Times' article title and it balances out the pejorative sense one gets from the two Guardian descriptions. Finally, I moved the last paragraph to background to reduce an over-long lead. I would like to remove the ref to Iain Simpson but thought I'd ask here first.

I actually think the page reads decently now. Marskell 13:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to heartily thank everyone who has been involved in developing this article. It seems much better balanced (which was my intention after asking for Peer Review), reads well, is well sourced and fits in with the style of the wiki. Hopefully as Pro-Test's activities develop we can continue the article in the same direction. Maybe one day in the future we can get this to featured article status. --ProTestOxford 17:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add my thanks to Marskell for finding a way around issues of contention. Rockpocket 22:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

This page has become very pro-Pro-Test. We keep adding quotes saying how wonderful they are, including from the Sun of all places. We have to start reining it in a bit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't mind an article that has a positive feel but let's not go overboard. Grace Note 08:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree, believe it or not. If you are going to push a POV, using a quote from the Sun is not the smartest. For that matter, there are quotes from The Times and The Guardian which, i would suggest, are somewhere redundant. The Times: a "courageous fightback by students and academics against the animal rights extremists." The Guardian: "came about because students and lecturers were fed up with the activities of animals rights protesters". Do we need both? Rockpocket 08:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Question: are there any sources not saying how "wonderful" they are? If there are then putting them on would be a good idea but I really have looked and found none, bar the SPEAK attack on Pycroft, which we already have in further reading. --ProTestOxford 14:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree as well; this is starting to read like a corporate brochure or advertising copy. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the two quotes and moved up the other Guardian quote. "First of its kind" strikes me as notable even if the rest of the sentence is generic. Marskell 20:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Image

File:PRO-test 25 02 06.JPG

Surprisingly (given the number of pictures being taken of it) I've not found any PD images on the 25th Feb march, but have found one from WikiNews. Unfortunately this has poor brightness and has been listed as ND (no derivatives), so I think we are not allowed to edit it. Hopefully the uploader will allow this change, as I think an image of the protest would benefit the article (even then this image is not ideal however). |→ Spaully°τ 15:22, 28 February 2006

Erk

Apparently its not the first of its kind. From the BBC story at the end: "The Research Defence Society, which has long defended animal experimentation, is upping the ante, while a group previously known as Seriously Ill for Medical Research has re-branded. Made up of patients who support the use of animals in research, it has been relaunched as Patients' Voice for Medical Advance." So, the Guardian quote calling it unique is definitely out. I've left one of two quotes that stood previously. Marskell 20:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Tho I suppose it may be the first "grassroots" outfit of this sort... Marskell 20:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the "first of its kind" quote is referring to the grassroots style demonstration last week. I suppose it could be used under the activities section, but applying it to the group itself is probably incorrect. Rockpocket 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Are we evaluating something on it's truthfulness? Interesting...

Anyway, I think the quote could still be true, as the RDS is more composed of scientists and the other as you say is for patients. So it is the first that comprises people who do not neccesarily have an interest in the subject to the extent of the members of the other groups. Also I do not know of any other marches pro animal testing. |→ Spaully°τ 21:50, 28 February 2006

Well, you are evaluating something on its truthfulness. Since it was your "side" that was admonished not to do so, I think you should take a step back. Please consult WP:V. The criterion for a fact's inclusion in Wikipedia is that it can be verified, not that it is "true". Grace Note 23:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I take it you missed my reply to your 'admonishment' then. You'll notice in this case we have two conflicting "facts" verified by different sources. Given they are not a matter of opinion (more of qualification), and are conflicting, we have to evaluate the truthfulness of the two sources. What else would you suggest?

The issue has since been resolved, as the sources are not conflicting. I leave my comment in a general sense, as I feel WP:V to be too much of a 'blanket clause'

I do not associate with any 'side' when editing articles (most of them are factual anyway), as is expected by WP:NPOV. I do not feel I have infringed upon (any more than it is feasibly possible not to) any policies or guidelines, and have had relatively little to do with this article; as such I think taking a 'step back', is unneccesary. |→ Spaully°τ 23:56, 28 February 2006

Spaully, I'd be surprised if this group consists of people who have no vested interest in the subject. I'm speculating, of course, but it seems reasonable to assume that the people on the march were those engaged in the vivisection industry at the university and elsewhere. Certainly the speakers were, apart from the politician. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

-

- Slim, you're wrong, a minority of the speakers on the day were from the "vivisection industry". Three scientists were, and one science student. In contrast, there was an MP speaker, Laurie himself, a journalist with terminally ill children, and two non-scientist undergraduates. 129.67.2.230 00:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC) oxfordfemme

Spaully, you simply put both and let the reader decide. We should never be evaluating truthfulness. If we began, where would we end? How would we evaluate whose truth should prevail?Grace Note 00:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slim - i decided to take you advice and stick around for a bit longer at least! So we have to declare "sides" now do we, Grace? What next in the playground - is kicking permitted or is it just fists ;)? Anyway, i hate to have to disagree with some one who appears to have been put on my "side", but I don't believe there is a conflict, Spaully. The source says:

The demonstration in favour of a new animal-testing lab at the university - organised by Pro-Test, a student body set up for the purpose - is the first of its kind, and came about because students and lecturers were fed up with the activities of animals rights protesters. [13]

Thus the Guardian does not say Pro-Test "is the first of its kind", only that the demonstration is. While i'm at it, i'll admit to being ther person who misinterpreted the meaning of the quote in the first place. Yet another disagreement cause by my stupidity - does that mean i get banished to a form a new "side" by myself? Rockpocket 00:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we form gangs and duke it out, Rockpocket. But we clearly have different viewpoints on the central issue of the article. I don't actually have a problem with that but I think that your "side" has needed reminding of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia more than once. This is yet another example. We simply would not be having this discussion if spaully and others read the policies Slim has suggested to them. Grace Note 00:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are placing far too much confidence in the idea that everyone will interpret "the policies" in the same manner as you (and, apparently, Slim and Jayjg). Further exhortations to "read the policies!" aren't going to further discussion. --Dcfleck 00:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you and I get sent to opposite corners for 10 mins :). That's fair, I retract my comment to Grace then on a specific note, but let it stand in general, as I feel WP:V is too much of a blanket clause.

Slim, I agree that many will have been involved in vivisection somewhere, but there were also many involved who are merely 'pissed off' with SPEAK and their persistance, and the ALF and their threats. I'll have to admit to currently having no verification for that, but as it no longer has any bearing on the article perhaps you can take my word for it. |→ Spaully°τ 00:30, 1 March 2006

I take your general point, Grace. But i think publically aligning anyone with others simply makes you sound more partisan. Following your rationale, i would admonish you and Slim for being on the same "side" as Jayjg, who incorrectly labels anything that requires upadating as a "whitewash" by "our side", including something Slim added. Hold on.... does that mean Slim is masquarding as a double agent and playing for both sides, then? Or could it be that all of us here are actually trying to be as neutral as possible, irrespective of our personal opinions, and occasionally might actually find common ground. If thats our aim, aligning anyone to a "side" really doesn't help. Or am i way off base here and should put the dunce hat back on? Rockpocket 00:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg that there has been an attempt to make this group sound as positive as possible, and the result is an article that, as he says, reads like a corporate brochure. RP, I eventually conceded to "student group," but if you recall, I actually wanted "website." Then there was the reluctance to name Pycroft even though a newspaper had (a reluctance I shared slightly because of his age.) Then the attempt to cast him as something other than a high-school dropout, even though he makes it clear on his own blog that he dropped out, and two mainstream newspapers have used that phrase. Then the effort to phrase the John Stein sentence to leave out the description of him as personally giving monkeys Parkinson's disease. Then not being allowed to use the phrases "animal testing" or "experiments". And then the extraordinary attempt to claim that no animal experiments whatsoever will take place in the new building.

Although some of the above was caused by confusion over how to apply the policies and which sources to prioritize, the resulting article makes it clear that editors have been trying to cast Pro-Test and the Oxford research center in a positive light, and we're not here to do that. The arguing about it has taken up a lot of time, and most of it has been fruitless, because if we'd stuck rigidly to our policies, almost none of the disputes would have taken place. For example, the John Stein thing: you don't delete relevant, sourced material. If the page says "Stein, who induces Parkinson's in monkeys," and you want to add that he's the head of the lab, you add it e.g.: "Stein, who induces Parkinson's in monkeys and who currently runs the X lab," and you add your source. You don't delete information added by others, unless you're trying to hide that Stein personally makes monkeys ill, which in this case was precisely the goal.

Question: of whom are you assuming bad faith here? --Dcfleck 01:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

We make no mention of Pycroft's online activities before Pro-Test, which are all noted on his blog: how he would leave anonymous, abusive messages on animal-rights websites, and his involvement in the sex website (which I haven't even looked at, so I don't know the details). I'm also not keen to mention them because of his age, but I suspect that, if Pycroft had set up an anti-animal testing, pro-animal liberation group, then all known negative material about him would now be on this page.

I'd like to request that, from now on, we edit with the attitude that we're here to reveal, not conceal, information, and in strict accordance with our content policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I concur. I think I've already pointed out to Rockpocket that personalising things doesn't help. Grace Note 01:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, i don't disagree with you, Slim. But each of those examples you makes involved different editors, to different degrees of involvement. In a few cases some of the so called Pro pushers were in agreement with Grace's self appointed, righteous defenders of the truth. You'll recall i said we should publish his name, you'll recall you changed "lobby group" to "student group" (jayjg seems to have the problem with "student" for being incorrect) etc. So, why the need to assume collective bad faith of an unrelated group of editors, just because the collective sum of their edits are things that that you appear to disagree with? Has anyone here grouped you or Grace with some of the idiotic vandals from the animal rights lobby? No. Has anyone suggested you are working as an anti-vivisection group to discredit Pro-Test? No. Why? Because i - along with most others i imagine - are assuming good faith (which is one of the Wikipedia policies you both seem less keen to brandish). And, if "personalising things doesn't help", Grace, why are you associating Spaully with me? We have no connection whatsoever, yet you feel to personally associate him/her with my "side" on an issue he/she wasb't involved in? You are being completely inconsistant! Rockpocket 02:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only repeat that I don't feel any useful purpose is served by personalising disagreements. If you don't feel able not to do that, maybe you should take that break after all. I say that with the utmost kindness, not because I do not welcome your contribution. Grace Note 02:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"I can only repeat that I don't feel any useful purpose is served by personalising disagreements." Then why are you doing so? Most of your posts begin with an attack or at least a glib, unfriendly, criticism of Rockpuppet. "I say that with the utmost kindness." Right, this slap in the face is for your own good.

Re WP:V. It does not state "when you have a source you know to be wrong, you must use it anyway." I started this thread under the mistaken assumption that "first of its kind" referred to the group, not the protest, as we used it that way in context; in such cases, we are of course perfectly free to exercise discretion and not use the source. One of the BBC stories calls him a student still but we're obviously not going to go with that description at this point. Rockpuppet noticed the error and by and large Rockpuppet is attempting to aid in getting this article right. Your comments to him serve little purpose. Marskell 08:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Errrr. That name is Rockpocket, actually ;). I'm glad i'm not alone in being exasperated in the complete assumption of bad faith by certain editors (followed by a breathtaking display of hypocrasy). It appears not to matter whether one admits and apologises for their own past errors and doesn't feel the need to continuously back up someone perceived to be on their own "side" at all costs, lest they show weakness. No matter what edits some of us makes, it is labelled as, in the eyes of certain others, trying to push a bias. Grouping people as POV pushers without justification is simply a way of marginalising their contribution, and quite frankly, i'm not going to lower myself to that level. I've argued the facts one by one from my own understanding of them and i'm content with the article as it is, and i believe at got it to that position due to the combined effort of everyone in this debate. Not one person did not contribute something of worth. If certain people wish to believe that their self proclaimed "side" is fighting against some imaginary POV pushing lobby then that is their own ungracious and partisan problem. And that is my last say on the issue. Rockpocket 19:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Errrr. That name is Rockpocket" Ah shit, sorry about that. Puppets and pockets are not only different things, they imply different attitudes in terms of an on-line handle and I apologize for everything I have ever done wrong. At least no one can claim we're the same person. Marskell 22:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)