Talk:University of California, Riverside 1985 laboratory raid

Stolen or Removed

This is currently being discussed over at Talk:Animal Liberation Front and should not be changed until a consensus is reached. There is an argument either way and until a decision is made, it will likely become a revert war over it. Please discuss it and allow the community to decide before changing it again. It is not one user's place to make decisions on very controversial articles such as this one and the Animal Liberation Front one.-Localzuk ^(talk) 00:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The view over at the Animal Liberation Front is that it should stay as 'removed' and not 'stolen'. The paragraph on the ALF page is a direct copy of this article so should be the same here as it is there.-Localzuk ^(talk) 19:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't "liberated" be a more appropriate term? Rockpocket 20:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It is the same as stolen, as in it is POV. Removed is nice and central so is the best of the 3 IMO-Localzuk ^(talk) 21:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Really?? The 'removers' are considered (by themselves and others) as part of the animal liberation movment, yet the term 'liberated' is not appropriate? Rockpocket 23:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No because it is a weighted word - pro-ar (stolen being anti-ar). I think if it were changed, a whole fuss would kick up about it.-Localzuk ^(talk) 23:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, you'd be one of the first to kick up a fuss if we said Britches had been liberated. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Not so, Slim, i have no problem with 'liberated'. My understanding of the word is "to set free from confinement", and i don't think anyone could argue that was the aim, and result, of the ALF raid. However, i suppose different people have different interepretations, and might find insinuation in it. Not me, though. Rockpocket 05:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies. Good to know for the future. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't found any evidence that Britches was set free from confinement. From the available evidence it seems that possesion of the animal was transferred from the University of California to the Animal Liberation Front.Winick88 11:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be highly unlikely that Britches would be able to return to the wild. The more likely course of action would be that he would have ended up in a sanctuary where he can be treated for any illnesses that he may get and could live out as normal a life as he can. Due to the way he was experimented on I would say that he would not be able to survive in the wild. -Localzuk ^(talk) 12:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the Animal Liberation Front must maintain possession of Britches. I've been looking all over the web for his whereabouts (besides being held by ALF activists) but have found nothing. Has anyone else had better luck in this regard?Winick88 01:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of maintaining full transparency, I'd like to point out that I added a 1 sentence conclusion to the Britches entry.Winick88 05:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added information about where he was taken after the raid. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Britches was sent to a monkey sanctuary. There is a full chapter on this in "Free the Animals" by Ingrid Newkirk.

The term Liberated, which works best I think aplies here not in the physical sense as in he was liberated from a cage into the wild, but liberated in the political sense from suffering.

Stolen would be fine to use in the sense he is propety, because under US law at the time animals weree propety, HOWEVER the great apes project now gives certian semians rights, so this may no longer be the case. Also to ignore the fact the ALF considered they were Liberating him would be very unneutural (talk)

3RR

I've blocked 134.161.137.162 for 24h and reverted back to what appears to be the more popular version. Given that it does appear to be the consensus, I'm ignoring SWD316's 4 reverts just this time. But don't do it again. William M. Connolley 20:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

I noticed that my reverts are more than 3 in 24 hours as well. (I just got the timing wrong, thinking it was earlier last night when this all started). I will try to be more careful in future.-Localzuk ^(talk) 20:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll forgive you :-). You get extra points for turning yourself in... William M. Connolley 00:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

3 or 5 weeks?

I notice this article says the monkey was removed at 3 weeks old, yet over at the ALF there is a caption claiming the same animals was photographed at 5 weeks with his eyes sutured shut. Unless the ALF left the monkey sutured up for a few weeks (unlikely, but you never can tell) i would suggest there is a conflict there. Anyone know the real age the animal was removed/stolen/liberated? Rockpocket 20:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

From memory, the three/five week confusion is because the monkey was identified at three weeks as an animal they wanted to remove/liberate/steal, and the raid took place two weeks later, which caused confusion when the sources reported the ALF statement. I'll re-check the more authoritative sources later. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

He or it

Should primates etc. always referred as he/she? Lapinmies 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, not sure I understand your query. Britches is male, I believe, so he's referred to as he. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that animals are called he/she in English. I remember my old english teacher saying that animals are not humans so one must use "it" instead of he/she. I guess she was confused. Lapinmies 23:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she was confused. It is acceptable to refer to an animal whose gender you do not know as "it", but if you're talking about a pet then people generally prefer that you ask and use the correct gender pronoun: obviously if there's no way to tell, then you're stuck with "it". The main difference is that it is almost never acceptable to refer to a human being as "it": this is when you start stumbling into arguments like "singular they". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding humans (sorry, I know a bit OTH), it used to be commonplace, and might possibly still see some use when the gender is unknown, to refer to infants or very young toddlers as "it". Nowadays, of course, this is far less common, as is the case with animals; and more so due to the ubiquity of clothing baby boys in blue and baby girls in pink (100 years ago, babies and all young children wore white gowns/dresses, regardless of sex. Very young humans, back then, effectively had no gender at all, in the most literal of senses. Firejuggler86 (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Some researchers use "it" because they believe using gendered pronouns overly anthropomorphizes the subjects, and I believe some journals used to enforced this rule through their editorial standards. However, now most researchers are quite concerned with the well-being of their subjects and some signal this by referring to them with gendered pronouns, and most journals seem to accept this. This does not mean that researchers who still use "it" necessarily violate animal welfare codes, but it does sometimes signal a particular POV. --Jaibe 16:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

protection

I've protected this article so you'll have to sort your differences out here. Gamaliel 18:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think the consensus of the community has already been decided partly on this page and partly on the Talk:Animal Liberation Front page. This user has appeared before (as the IP address he uses is from a dynamic range) and done the same changes and been blocked for it, should he not have been blocked? -Localzuk ^(talk) 18:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As we now have calm, maybe we should have another discussion about the issue: -Localzuk ^(talk) 19:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Stolen or Removed

An anonymous editor has stated that the dictionary definition of 'stolen' is correct and using 'removed' is wrong. We have discussed this over at Talk:Animal Liberation Front and the consensus appeared to be in favour of 'removed' as it is a less weighted word. What do people still think? -Localzuk ^(talk) 19:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm also posting about this on the Animal Liberation Front page. -Localzuk ^(talk) 19:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My view on the matter is that 'stolen' even though correct to a degree, is a weighted word. Removed provides a neutral standing point that does not need a reference. To say stolen would require references to prove this - something such as a court outcome in this case as the scientific community (even the university it was removed from) denounced the tests that were done (see the prior discussion on the Animal Liberation Front page for a reference to this). So unless a reference to the outcome of such a case is provided I do not think 'stolen' should be used. -Localzuk ^(talk) 19:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I do not support 'abducted' as it is also weighted and has the implications mentioned above. -Localzuk ^(talk) 19:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I think that "stolen" correctly describes what happened, it presumes that the monkey is property, which I would guess runs counter to the ALF point of view. "removed" is a fine NPOV word but says nothing about the illegality of the their actions. The ALF was breaking the law by taking the monkey and that was most likely their intent. I would vote for either "abducted" or "illegally removed". –Shoaler (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

But this needs a reference to state it was illegal does it not? -Localzuk ^(talk) 20:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. But where is taking an animal in captivity without permission not illegal? If someone removes $1000 from a bank (without permission), we don't need a reference to show that it's illegal. –Shoaler (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

When the animal is being mistreated, or is being used in illegal activities. (In this country it would be referred to as preventing a greater crime and would be dismissed as having been a crime by the judge...) In this case there is a lot of evidence leading to the tests being illegal (see the old discussion for this as there were some references to a court case being long and complicated or something similar) also the general condemnation by the scientific community + the university itself seems to indicate something was wrong. To answer the relation to money, if the money was removed in order to stop it being used to commit a greater offence then it would not be a crime in itself (and indeed, money is removed from suspected terrorist organisations/individuals all the time for this very reason).-Localzuk ^(talk) 21:06, 6 February 2006(UTC)

This has already been discussed, Shoaler, and the consensus was that "removed" is neutral between "stolen" and "liberated." If you can find a court ruling that this animal was "stolen" by all means provide it here as a source and we can reconsider. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We may have a consensus on "removed" but we still have an edit war. I was trying to find another word between "stolen" and "liberated" that would be acceptable to both parties. –Shoaler (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There's an edit war only because an anon IP keeps vandalizing the article. Abducted carries the same problems as stolen, in that both are legal terms. "Removed" isn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was reached and even those that originally opposed 'removed' changed their minds and went with it. Only the anon has complained. -Localzuk ^(talk) 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't hear "abducted" as strongly moralistic as "stolen" but I don't want to upset the consensus. Removed sounds fine to me. –Shoaler (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced Info

The following statement is not sourced and will be modified:

The ALF made a videotape of Britches' condition when they found him, and as a result of the ensuing publicity, and condemnation of the experiments by scientists and the American Council for the Blind, eight of the 17 studies interrupted by the raid were not restarted, and the university stopped allowing baby monkey's eyes to be sewn shut, according to reports filed by the university with the government. (My emphasis added)

Now sourced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It also conflicts with the sourced info on the ALF page:

As a result of the ensuing publicity, 17 of the 18 research projects active at the laboratory at the time of the raid were shut down (Best 2004, p. 22).(My emphasis added)

Fixed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we don't cite other Wikipedia entries in our articles, but the discordance together with the unknown source of the fact is enough to remove it, at least temporarily. I am merging the paragraph with the proximate one. The new paragraph reads thus:

Britches was stolen from the laboratory, along with 700 other animals, when he was five weeks old during a raid by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The ALF made a videotape of Britches' condition allegedly as they found him, though researchers at the university criticized the ALF, claiming activists had applied black mascara or paint to the monkey's eyelids to make the sutures look larger than they were, and that damage reported by an ALF veterinarian to the eyelids had, in fact, been caused by the veterinarian herself. The researchers also said that a box the ALF video showed was attached to the monkey's head had been removed and reattached by the ALF. Winick88 06:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Restored sourced original. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Ingrid source conflicts with the Best source, as per above. Winick88 07:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote above, this is fixed and no longer conflicts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

All you did was put the two citations together, but those two books clearly say two different things. Best says 17 of 18 and Newkirk says 8 of 17. Could you give me page numbers so that I can double check (maybe there's a section I'm not seeing)? Also, this may be a silly question, but does it bother you that this entire article is based on only two books, one by the president of PETA and the other by an ALF press officer? I still think "according to Newkirk" should be referenced at the top of the page. I mean, the whole thing is sourced by Newkirk except for one statement of fact attributed to Best, which supposedly corroborates the Newkirk source but, again, they conflict. And why did you remove the link to the ALF? I mean, I know there's still a link to "Animal Liberation Front," but deleting the ALF link is kind of weird, yeah? Winick88 08:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

ALF redirects to Animal Liberation Front, so we don't wikify both. Page numbers: Best p. 22 and Newkirk p. 294. It isn't surprising that we have two books written by the movement as references, because the pro-testing community is unlikely to highlight a case like this, though if you can find any other suitable sources, by all means add them. And the first paragraph is already sourced to Newkirk as a Harvard reference: we don't introduce articles with "according to," but with the title of the page, wherever possible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But those two sources say two different things-- Best says 17 of 18 and Newkirk says 8 of 17. I can't stress this enough. Do you actually have the book? Not only that, but this very same fact is mirrored on the ALF page in the brief Britches section. I agree with you that the pro-testing community wouldn't highlight the incident, but there aren't any neutral sources that speak directly to, say, the contention that Britches was flown to an unnamed(?) sanctuary in Mexico either. And even if it were taken totally from anti-testing sources, there's basically only 1 source here. As it stands, this article would work much better (if significantly expanded) as a summary of Newkirk's book. Otherwise its just a bad summary, yeah? Winick88 09:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "Best says 17 of 18 and Newkirk says 8 of 17. I can't stress this enough. Do you actually have the book?"

Can you say what makes you think that, and cite your source? And when you ask whether I have "the book," which book do you mean? As for sources, we don't need to find "neutral" sources (whatever that means). We use books and articles published by reputable publishers; see WP:NOR and WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

consider this the discussion

7 entries found for stole. steal Audio pronunciation of "stole" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl) v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals v. tr.

  1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
  2. To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss; stole the ball from an opponent.
  3. To move, carry, or place surreptitiously.
  4. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.
  5. Baseball. To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch.

Yes, we are aware of dictionary definitions. However, as the above discussion makes aware - it is still a weighted word. In the context it will be used in this article we must have a reference to a court case to prove that it was 'stolen' and we have not got that at present. If you can provide such a reference, by all means do so and then I for one would accept the use of 'stolen'.

But if we are to use your definitions above then I will. First, number 1. This one states 'without right or permission' - the people who removed Britches believed they had the right to do so in order to prevent an extreme level of cruelty. In the eyes of the law this is a defence. If the animal was actually in a situation where extreme cruelty was occurring (as it appears it was, look at the statements of the industry, university and other scientists denouncing the experiment) then a judge could rule that the people who removed the monkey were in fact legally right to do so - so would not have stolen it. This would mean 'liberated' would be a better word...

I do not believe any of the other definitions are relevent to this situation. -Localzuk ^(talk) 10:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The article cites "according to reports filed by the university with the government", but the footnotes are to Latern Books publications. Can anyone firnd the reports? Rich Farmbrough, 11:21 20 December 2006 (GMT).

We don't need to - just look at those references and they explain perfectly.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

Although this article is improving, it still reads largely as something promoting animal rights extremism. The "government" references which actually go to animal-rights literature, and the debate about the term "stolen" both bother me. On the other hand, the fact that the majority of the experiments were restarted has now been documented, although again not necessarily from a neutral POV.--Jaibe 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

First, the references to the 'government' are discussed in the books of well known authors who are published. We should not be discussing whether they are an appropriate source, as they are a source - if you have something to counter it then please add it along with its source.

The debate over 'stolen' is quite self explanatory and pointless to bring up again. I think we have adequately covered the reasons why 'removed' is a neutral term and 'stolen' is not. How does it disturb you?

The overall feal of the article is that the experiments were denounced as wrong. There are not any claims that the actions of the activists were the right thing to do though.

Everything is well sourced in the article. What exactly is wrong with it?

Overall, I think this is possibly the most NPOV animal rights article on this site.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

References that discuss primary sources should always be to those primary sources, not to relatively difficult to access books that may or may not contain the primary sources. The very act of naming this article after an animal rather than the event of the laboratory assault is a political act. You may well be right that it is the least NPOV animal rights article on Wikipedia, but that does not make it NPOV. Since every time I try to get this article discussed with a tag it gets deleted almost immediately, I am now going to list this article on a dispute page, so that more experienced and knowledgeable wikipedia experts than myself can weigh in. I would not want to see wikipedia descend into being a propaganda tool.--Jaibe 19:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Jaibe, I'm not sure what this sentence of yours means: "References that discuss primary sources should always be to those primary sources, not to relatively difficult to access books that may or may not contain the primary sources."

Can you say more about what you mean, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are the original source of information, such as a journal article or a historical newspaper account. Derived sources are sources that report on primary sources, such as text books or Wikipedia. In journalism, the primary sources are the actual actors, e.g. "President Putin said" where as derived or secondary sources are people who say they heard someone say something "sources close to the white house report...".

in the case of this article, we read that there are reports filed by the university & given to the government, but the reference we have are neither from the university of California (the original report) nor from the government (which might have an archive of the report) but rather are a book that reported about the report.

if you can't actually get ahold of the original source but you believe they exist, you can (in the worst case) say something like REF Some Scientist, "what happened at the lab last night", UC tech report 2023134; cited by Best, Steven & Nocella, Anthony J. "Terrorist or Freedom Fighters?"... knowing what the original source of that material is is critical to knowing how believable it is, and an important step to being able to check up on it.

Basically, most scientists & journalists don't use popular books as real evidence, because there is no real control on ordinary books except whether the publisher considers the risk of lawsuit greater than the amount they'll make from the book. Universities, Governments, Newspapers & Scientific Journals all have a lot more at stake. Of course their documents might also include lies or inaccuracies, but if they are found to then those institutions suffer. Popular books, Wikipedia, & magazines are good places to learn things quickly, but to make sure you have facts you then have to go back & trace the original / primary sources.--Jaibe 21:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaibe, thanks, I know what a primary source is, but I was confused about "References that discuss primary sources should always be to those primary sources." In fact, our policies prefer secondary sources to primary ones, but if you want to track down the primary sources in this case, by all means go ahead. The books we cite aren't "popular" books or hard to find, as you argued above, but are histories of the animal rights movement, and in the case of Newkirk, of the ALF. Arguably, the latter is primary source material on the issue of Britches, given Newkirk's involvement in the animal rights movement and, as I recall, her involvement in publicizing the Britches case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- our university library doesn't have them (I've checked) & I am reluctant to buy them because I wouldn't want to risk siphoning any money to a terrorist organization that has threatened the lives and families of my colleagues. The primary sources are the government or university reports that your article refers to, which I would be much happier to pay for (if they aren't on line.)--Jaibe 22:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to find the primary sources, I'd certainly have no objection to including them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

POV fixed by merge or move?

The people on the WP:NPR page are saying (among other things) that "poster child" articles may have inherent POV issues, because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This could actually be grounds for a deletion, but that would seem a waste of some decent content to me. Maybe this article could be changed into a more neutral-perspective account of the break in & thefts / removals?

Notice that they also discuss the importance of the references.--Jaibe 22:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The picture looks like the worst photoshopping job I have ever seen. Hell, it looks more like it was done in MS Paint. Also, none of the sources on here are neutral sources, thus making this article unbalanced.--Trivium32 01:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you substantiate the claim about the image? It looks like an image taken with a b&w camera to me...-Localzuk^(talk) 19:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The picture looks a little unusual, like the length of the stitches and boldness of the stitches are somewhat longer/darker than they should be...but this is just probably some meaningless speculation. - (MGoers37 04:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Actually it's not just "some meaningless speculation." You're right, but I can't comment as it's original research.68.46.183.96 (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much neutrality in this argument as 2 of the 4 sources are from the leader of the PETA, which is a large front for the ALF, and one of the sources is a stern supporter of PETA. The last source I couldn't really find on the internet, but im guessing it isn't far off from the rest. - Goers

Can you substantiate that PETA, an organization with a huge membership, is a front for the ALF? Ingrid Newkirk is a renowned author on this subject matter and claiming that anything she says is not neutral simply because she is head of PETA is your opinion. There were, at one point some sources related to a national paper in here - I don't know where they've gone though. Regardless, all the sources (bar one) is a reliable source (eg. Steven Best is a professor etc...). Yes the article could do with some more sources, but as Ingrid Newkirk was actually involved, all will relate back to her in some way.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that there are inherent biases that Ingrid may/does possess since she is head of PETA. When it boils down, the ALF is just a more extreme version of PETA, where PETA talks of saving animals through a passive method, the ALF does it through agressive methods. Their ideologies are very similar and only different in the way they carry out these ideas. Ingrid would not criticize the ALF's efforts because of some scientific break-through that those scientists would have accomplished if they had not been raided (even if the research was guaranteed to have provided potential insights into certain diseases/brain function.) - (MGoers37 04:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Here's something to back up Ingrid Newkirk's connections to the ALF. I pulled this link from the PETA wikipedia page, and more information can be viewed on that page.http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1273697,00.html

PETA is not a front for the ALF and no one serious has ever alleged that it was. PETA does cooperate with ALF activists insofar as it publicizes material the ALF has acquired during raids, but that's not what it is to be a front; it has also given money to activists to help with legal bills, but again, that's cooperation, not equivalence. In fact, many ALF activists believe that PETA is too moderate, too concerned with image over substance. As for the sources in the article, we've used whatever sources are available. If you know of any reliable published source who defended this research, by all means let us know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe "Front" wasn't the word I was specifically looking for, but I think my point remains relatively intact. The ALF has essentially committed an act of terrorism in this instance; if it has happened multiple times, who would associate themselves publicly with them if they have a reputation to save? If dear old Ingrid said that she was a supporter of the ALF and that she has been funneling money into the ALF cause, she would lose support for her own group for fear of being associated with eco-terrorism. I didn't really mean "front", it was just the first word that came to mind, I meant more of a strong supporter of the ALF (I consider help with legal bills as quite strong support). As for this article, it makes it sound like the researchers just sewed the eyes shut of britches and attached sonar to his head for a good time during boring office hours. I will try to find the other side of the argument (and get an account), but I'm not exactly optimistic, it seems like the "Needle in the haystack" situation.

also, PETA has been accused of being tied to more than just the ALF... This is the first (of many) things I found through a simple google search: http://www.activistcash.com/organization_connections.cfm/oid/21 - (MGoers37 04:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Sorry but that is almost entirely WP:OR. The act wasn't terrorism - unless your definition of terrorism is skewed badly. Activist Cash is a website ran by the CCF, a front organisation for the food, alcohol and tobacco industries. Providing money to a legal fund doesn't mean they support the ALF, it means they support the action for which that person is on trial and believe that the person didn't break any laws...-Localzuk^(talk) 00:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It strains the English language to describe as "terrorism" the removal of a baby monkey who'd been caged in isolation since birth with his eyelids sewn shut and a loud sonar device attached to his head. The experiment was even condemned by the American Council of the Blind, in the interests of whose constituents it was supposedly conducted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, where to begin....oh yes! The definition of terrorism since the English language seems to be out of the grasp of many these days. Let's see, straight from the dictionary it says, and I quote directly:

"1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." (Also, no Theory of Knowledge BS, as in, no arguments over the credibility of the dictionary)

Let's see, did the ALF knock on the door of the building, politely ask that they release the monkey, were granted to do so while they took lengthy amounts of time of footage for their propaganda, and just went on their merry ways? No! They forcefully raided the building to further their political agenda. I really don't see what could be more clear cut than that. If you folks are on the same page (or book for that matter) we are arguing "Legal" and "Illegal" rather than an opinionated sense of right and wrong. They could have been doing the same to human test subjects; with the ALF barging in uninvited, waving threats/guns about, and then posting videos of the whole situation to scare other companies would still be terrorism. You both argue semantics and call me out on my sources when both of you argue points that are either grossly invalid or have no supporting evidence whatsoever. Show hyperlinks! Like for instance, how is supplying some startup money for a company, such as the CCF, any indication that the CCF is owned by the company that supplied the money (I.E Phillip Morris). Also there is a difference between the CCF getting funding from Phillip Morris, and PETA donating to terrorist organizations. See the CCF had started with the plan to unite all restaurants, food industries, etc to fight for the other side of the argument; Phillip Morris donated money to help start the company up. But see, here's the kicker, the company when it started was already focused on these issues (while basically publicly stating as such), and while there are a good amount of individual donors for the CCF, I highly doubt there would be enough to run the company (there is simply not enough publicity for the CCF) if there were no corporate sponsors. So a little funding from companies who share identical views really doesn't seem to be a big deal, especially if they state the obvious. Well, back to my point. PETA provided funds for an ALF activist that acted in the interests of the ALF. If PETA thinks they shouldn't have been held accountable for their actions, through some moronic sense of animal justice, then they are indirectly supporting the ideals of the ALF. Please, don't argue semantics, I haven't the time nor' the patience. As for my personal views, as you may have guessed by now, I have no personal qualms of putting a few rats and monkeys under some painful tests if it has a possible benefit to the scientific community, there are millions upon millions of them. Also, before you say something about humans being just as plentiful, I think that convicts sentenced to death row should be used as test subjects as well; for tests that have a possibility of them not living through since their lives are essentially voided by the court anyway. Britches the monkey could have given insight into the use of high frequency sonar pulses to be used for blind people. From now on, let's try to keep personal beliefs of the matter out of this, I've described as much as I would care to. - (MGoers37 04:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

"Maternal" vs "Sensory" deprivation & name of PI

My most recent changes to this page were reverted. The claim is that my source, the NIH grant abstract, did not tell us anything.

The NIH Grant abstract for this study can be found here:

http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/crisp/CRISP_LIB.getdoc?textkey=4115929&p_grant_num=1R01EY005224-01&p_query=&ticket=41457670&p_audit_session_id=253657531&p_keywords=

I tried linking to this by creating a shorter link using tinyurl.com. For whatever reason, Wiki rejects tinyurl.com as a source, and so I reverted to just adding the grant number and the URL of NIH's CRISP database.

I only made two revisions. First, I added the name of the principal investigator of the study. The NIH grant abstract very obviously gives us this piece of information.

My second revision is that this study was not a maternal deprivation experiment. This is true. The study did not compare the psychological effects of macaques separated from their mothers and those who were allowed to naturally wean; or any sort of permutation of this basic control/variable experiment. All monkeys in the study were separated from their mothers the same way - this was obviously not the purpose of this study. We can glean from the abstract that some monkeys were fitted with the sonar device, and others weren't, and others did not have their eyes sewn shut. This experiment is more accurately described as a sonar-location experiment, or sensory deprivation experiment, than a maternal deprivation experiment.

I would like for some clarification as to why my revision was removed. Thanks!

JBeckham 05:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi JBeckham, I removed it because I couldn't find the source you'd referenced, so thanks for providing a link. It looks to me to be a maternal- and sensory-deprivation study. The abstract says:

Abstract: The project seeks to examine the behavioral and neural development of animals reared with a sensory substitution device. Five groups of four stumptail macaques will be raised from birth to three months, and one group to 6 months. The experimental groups will be raised without vision but with the Trisensor Aid (TSA) in continuous use, one group to 3 months and one to 6 months. One control group will be reared without vision but with a silent, dummy version of the device, another with a sound-making but non-functional device and a fourth group with a sensor but with normal vision. Finally, four normal, colony-reared animals will be studied (emphasis added).

The monkeys who were deprived of their senses and their mothers are to be compared to a group that was not so deprived. Or am I misunderstanding it? I'm wondering what the point of the maternal deprivation would be were it not part of the study, because obviously it would have a huge impact on the monkeys' development — arguably a greater impact than any other factor. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin,

Point well taken, I missed the mention of the four colony-reared monkeys. I think the experimental group of monkeys was likely separated from their mothers not to study the effect of maternal separation, but so the mothers would not manipulate the sonar device strapped to their heads. I could be wrong - but I think the overall drive of this study as well as Warren's research in general is vision research. That's why the supposed benefit for blind people to use a sonar device was claimed by UC Riverside.

Sources

All sources on this page about the Britches incident come from Ingrid Newkirk's book, or from the ALF. Certainly there must have been popular press coverage or something more neutral. It is especially troubling that Newkirk is the only source for the response of the scientists. Therefore I tagged this page for neutrality until sources that are not prima facie animal rights propaganda can be used for balance. I mean, Newkirk certainly cannot be considered a good source unless she was there or directly referenced first parties in the incident, correct? And if she directly referenced first parties in the incident, those references are preferable to her book. --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AR, could you post the abstract of the study you cited, and a full citation, please? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pubmed is a free resource.

The ability of neonate macaque monkeys to learn to respond to artificial spatial sensory information was studied through the use of compact, head-worn, electronic spatial sonars with audible displays, which translate spatial information into auditory dimensions specifying distance, direction, and surface characteristics. Three animals were born in the dark and raised without vision for 1 to 3 months while wearing either the Binaural Sensory Aid (Animal 1; Kay, 1974) or the Trisensor (Animals 2 and 3; Easton & Jackson, 1983) airborne sonars. Each animal demonstrated alertness to information transmitted by the devices in spontaneous reaching or reinforced discrimination tasks, and more device-related, perceptual-motor activities were observed when the sensors were switched on than when they were switched off. The results show that neonate monkeys can learn effective use of information obtained from sensory substitution devices through unstructured interaction with the environment.

Now, is there some reason that citations cannot be procured from a source other than obvious animal rights propaganda sources? --Animalresearcher (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we have the names of the authors, please? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Two questions: 1. Where you do get "The study demonstrated that by translating visual cues into auditory stimuli, blind neonates could learn to use visual information for behavioral use" from the abstract above? and 2. Where does the abstract or paper mention this specific study? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to move

I hereby request talk page discussion on the following.

First, the page be moved to "UC-Riverside ALF Raid."

Second, the page be expunged of anything that claims as a fact anything for which there is no other primary source other than the Britches video. This includes all claims of the ALF and Ingrid Newkirk about the condition of the animal that are only available in the ALF video, Newkirk's book, or Steve Best's book. The ALF are extremists, and they cannot be used as a reliable source, and they are the only source for the information in the video and in Steve Best's and Ingrid Newkirk's book.

The page will rely principally on the cited newswire articles on the incident from April 21, 22, and 26, 1985. The page will note that an ALF video exists describing the incident and a brief synopsis of the ALF claims will be included and clearly indicated as ALF claims. No ALF pictures (unreliable source) will be included. There are only 290 words in third-party references, the Wikipedia page should be substantially shorter than that. Of course, if more third party references, or other reliable references are found, the page would be correspondingly expanded.

These steps are necessary to bring this page under WP:V standards. As it stands now, virtually the entire page recites a story only offered as a primary source by the extremist group ALF, a group that is anonymous to the others repeating the story. It is no better than hearsay, and Wikipedia does not consist of extremist group hearsay. --Animalresearcher (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

ALF, it would be better to look around for more sources, and add what they say, rather than wanting to remove the ALF sources. All points of view belong in the article, though so far as I know, there was never any real dispute about what happened in this case. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Animalresearcher. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than the summary of every piece of activist literature out there that exists? Should the primary sources for the article about the Unabomber be confined to his own looney writings? 68.46.183.96 (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Britches, and is based on multiple reliable sources. The Lantern Books publisher is a reliable source, which tells us about Britches and the related video by the ALF. I see not reason to make any changes to the article's title or contents. I hope we are not going to repeat the long thread we had on Animal Testing, where we reached the same conclusion. Crum375 (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Insisting on getting the last word in no way means your logic is sound, or that your claims represent Wikipedia policy. I would be happy to take it to the appropriate noticeboard for further comment. --Animalresearcher (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Britches_page where clarification from Wikipedia experts on sources has been solicited. --Animalresearcher (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I did, and it seems Jossi there concurs that this article and specifically the Britches video are properly sourced. Crum375 (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The ALF may be used as a source in articles about its own actions, per WP:V. Ingrid Newkirk is not ALF, and she is regarded as a reliable source for articles about animal rights issues. Steven Best is an academic who specializes in writing about animal rights issues and who is or was a spokesperson for the ALF. In addition, there was never any dispute about the action with the university. They freely admitted the nature of the research (though they said the ALF had made the sutures look thicker and had fiddled with the box on the monkey's head), and action was taken against the university. So this is not a controversial case, to the best of my knowledge.

As for "stolen" (which is what the university would say) versus "liberated" (which is what the activists would say), several editors, including Rockpocket, agreed last year that we would stick to "removed" as a neutral compromise on to describe these raids, especially where there has been no criminal conviction for theft. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Third party sources refer to the removal of the animals as "taken", and the act as theft. These are neutral ways to refer to the act as they are the consensus of mainstream newspapers. The same newspapers refer to the terms "rescue" and "liberate" facetiously. --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

But there are others who don't do that. The really neutral ones (e.g. NYT) say things like "the activists absconded with ..." For that reason, a year or two ago, editors on these articles decided to use the word "removed" as a compromise neutral word. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the reason why the article about the raid is named after only one of the animals stolen by the ALF. Describing the raid in general, on a page about the raid, would seen to require giving no undue weight to the spin put out by either side. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not wikistalk me here too, Tim. This is unacceptable. How would you like it if I were to arrive on the articles you regularly edit? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This histrionic "stalking" rhetoric is getting pretty tired, SlimVirgin, stop assuming you are so important. Editors of the Animal testing article were asked to comment, so I did, see Talk:Animal testing#Of relevance to current discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The diffs speak for themselves. You've been following me around for some time trying to cause problems, and calling what I say "histrionic" is just more of the same thing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, the issue seems to have been resolved, but this latest in a long line of assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks reflects badly on you. Please remember that you are only one editor amongst many, it is not all about you, all of the time. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is NOT about the raid. It is about a character in an ALF video that is also described in books by Ingrid Newkirk and Steve Best. There has not ever been any third party coverage of Britches EXCEPT in Wikipedia. I have added all the third party sources about the research and the incident to the page except the CRISP abstract from David Warren. But the name Britches only appears in secondary sources written by the heads of PETA and the ALF press officer.

There are multiple third party sources that refer to the act as a theft. None of them use the word stolen (multiple use the word taken), and reports of the animals being "liberated" or "rescued" are only reported by reliable sources as what PETA told the newswire that ALF told PETA. As for any prior agreements between you and Rockpocket, I would refer back to Rockpocket, because those agreements occurred prior to any mainstream newspaper reports on the incident being sourced. Clearly they provide an NPOV background that overrides any clearly POV source like Newkirk or the ALF. --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

AR, with respect, you're making a bit of a dog's breakfast of the lead. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the only source that puts Britches at the ALF raid is the ALF itself, and this source must be exercised with caution. The raid itself (without reference to Britches) is the subject of multiple, third party, high reliability, references. I separated the two, because Britches is not the subject of any third party sources. If you can find a smoother way to keep clear the sources of the information, while writing the LEAD on Britches and the raid at UCR, have at it. The current version is mostly Crum's rewrite of my re-write of your reversion. The only source for the Britches story is ALF, and Newkirk and Bests' books, which are all very strongly POV secondary sources (the first of which is an extremist source).--Animalresearcher (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, I don't really see a major problem with this article. We could argue about what it is called but ultimately Britches would get redirected there, so I think we could use our time more productively. Most of the detailed activist material appears to be sourced to Best or Newkirk, both of who are notable enough in the field to establish verifiability, though they should not be considered a neutral source. However, as long as it remains clear what is disputed by the University then I don't have an issue with them as sources, personally. Regarding stolen v theft v liberated v rescued. My position also has been, and remains, that we can use any of them when in the appropriate context attributed to the person or body making the comment ("The Evening Standard reported that the monkey was stolen..." or "The ALF said they liberated the monkey because...", but when referring to the act ourselves, removed is the most neutral term ("The ALF removed the monkey from the University lab").

By the way, the real abuse here is by whoever dressed the little guy in the god awful jersey. Rockpocket 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why anyone would see it as a problem in the first place. The monkey was named by the researchers, the name became well-known in the mainstream media, no one contradicted what the ALF said except with the odd detail (such as they made the sutures look bigger than they were, according to the university), the university accepted it had happened, it was widely condemned, the university changed some of the research protocols or stopped the study entirely, I forget which, and the video we use as a source contains interview with other opthamologists. This really does look like nitpicking for the sake of it.

What would be helpful is the provision of more third-party, mainstream sources just so that every angle is covered. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems a reasonably fair summary since the title itself isn't disputed, I agree entirely about the weird idea of putting animals in clothing - I think I'd lose a lot of blood if I tried doing that to one of my cats! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also an issue of UNDUE. My archive searches found under 300 words, total, devoted to these events by mainstream newspapers. The Wikipedia page had over 900 words on Britches when I checked a few days ago. The incident is not well-known in animal testing, even as it occurred in the same rough time period as the Silver Spring monkey incident, and the U Penn incident, both of which are fairly well-known in animal testing. And by well-known, you can use any third-party measure that you like. For example, Nobel Laureate David Hubel refers to both of those incidents (SS monkeys and U Penn) in his 1991 Annual Review of Neuroscience, but does not refer to Riverside. The Silver Spring monkey incident received 10s of thousands of words in mainstream press, if not more, as each incident over the years prompted another lengthy newspaper article (the initial incident, trial, appeal, Supreme court, fight for monkeys, etc). The Riverside incident has 3 short newspaper articles over 5 days as far as I can find. And, in the mainstream press, you will not find any references about the incident that name Britches. The first NY Times article refers to "an infant primate who had been the victim of sight-deprivation experiments since birth". Those 14 words about the animal in a mainstream newspaper were expanded many-fold into the Wikipedia article by the references from Newkirk's book. If there were something significant and notable about the Britches story, wouldn't there be a third-party reliable reference on it SOMEWHERE? And if not, what is it doing in Wikipedia? --Animalresearcher (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think it isn't notable, you should propose it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but if there is significant discussion of it in two books it is pretty unlikely to be deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It will certainly come down to the same issue. Whether Newkirk and Best are reliable and notable when speaking about the ALF's actions. Given that the facts from the ALF are intentionally unverifiable, and that just as intentionally Newkirk and Best cannot verify any ALF actions. I would argue that the Britches story is not suitable for an enclyclopedia, but that a short page on the UCR ALF breakin would be suitable for an encyclopedia. And in my mind any reasonable person would have to agree that the Britches story is unverifiable by intent, and therefore unsuitable. But it is easy for someone not familiar with the subject matter to say there are two secondary sources so it is OK - especially if they don't know enough to understand that EVERY secondary source in this case is unverifiable by intent. Even the bits about mascara being applied and the damage being done by the ALF veterinarian (claimed in Newkirk's book) do not show up in any archives of third party reports. The only verifiable bit is that animals were taken from UCR, and damage done to their property and research. --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The notability policy Wikipedia:Notability, talks about reliable independent sources, and although Best is neither, Newkirk is independent of the ALF and reasonably reliable, although I agree with an obvious bias. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ingrid Newkirk was most certainly NOT independent of the ALF in the 1980s, by perception or otherwise. PETA acted as the ALF press office for this event as reported in third party sources (this was before Best acted as press officer IIRC). Ingrid Newkirk was at the time head of PETA. And prior to that, Newkirk reported that she sent "Valerie" over to be trained at an ALF training camp in the UK, and that Valerie founded the first ALF cell in North America. This incident was one of the early animal liberation events that was immediately reported as being an ALF activity. More to the point, third party mainstream sources simply are not interested in stories of lab animals from the time they are rescued until the time they are transferred to sanctuary. Because they do not find them notable. Third party mainstream sources are interested in lab break-ins that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and remove animals. Animal rights activists and those sympathetic with the animal liberation movement are interested in stories of lab monkeys from the time they are "rescued" until the time they are sent to their sanctuary home. --Animalresearcher (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Newkirk reported that she sent "Valerie" over to be trained at an ALF training camp in the UK". This is false to the best of my knowledge. All Newkirk did was write a book about it. Where are you taking that claim from? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad memory, sorry. I redact any direct interaction between Newkirk and "Valerie" and her actions in becoming acquainted with the British ALF as reported in Newkirk's book. But PETA did act as the ALF press office for this event. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's quite accurate to say PETA was a press officer. They're an independent organization that tries to get information about these things out to the public. So if they're given information, they release it. But the film they made about it was independent of the ALF; it simply used some ALF footage, but there's a lot of other material in it too. Similarly, if you gave them useful information, they'd publish it, but that wouldn't make them your press officer. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The NY Times reported..."The theft followed a pattern set in similar incidents in recent years, with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals informing the news media of a raid by the Animal Liberation Front." That pretty much makes them a de facto press office for the ALF. This is in the April 21 1985 NY Times. --Animalresearcher (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Who named the monkey?

I can't tell from reading the article if this was a name given by the technicians in the university, or a name given to the monkey by the ALF. Are there some independent secondary sources that use this name? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no third party sources that refer to the name Britches that have been included in this article to date. It is used by ALF, PETA, Newkirk, and Steve Best. The claim from those parties is that the UCR lab name for the monkey was Britches. However POV or unreliable those sources may be, the process of naming laboratory monkeys is quite common, and Britches would not be an unusual name in the context of the lab monkey names I have come across. --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability

"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This particular statement of WP:V would seem to apply to the article on Britches. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We do have reliable, third-party sources. Also I found a reference to a congressional hearing that calls it the "well-known" raid at UCR. If you want to look it up, it was a hearing before the Committee on Agriculture to discuss the Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act of 1989, published 1991. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no third-party sources that use the name "Britches" or describe the path of Britches from "rescue" to "sanctuary". Also, when you say you found a reference, does that mean you saw the congressional hearing text (please transcribe if you have), or that you saw a reference you have not yet looked up in a book written by an activist?--Animalresearcher (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

An example of a page based on the UC Riverside raid third party reliable references

UC Riverside ALF Raid. I propose that this page be linked in to the various testing pages in lieu of the Britches (monkey) page as it reflects the third party reliable references on the event, and because articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Britches page relies on non-third party sources, and unreliable sources. --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected that page to here. AR, you can't write two pages on the same issue. If your main objection is the name of this one, I'm perfectly willing to discuss another title, though I'm not keen on "UC Riverside ALF Raid" for a number of reasons. But if your objection is the sources the page uses, it will use these sources no matter what the title is. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the article, including name and content, should principally rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I do not think the two pages are about the same issue. The Britches (monkey) page is about a monkey the ALF claims they rescued, the state in which they found this monkey, the veterinarian report they say describes the monkey, and the ultimate disposition of the monkey. The UC Riverside ALF Raid page was about the raid. It makes only very loosely tangential references to an infant monkey. The UC Riverside ALF Raid page was largely based on reliable third party sources. The Britches page is largely based on reliable non-independent sources and extremist group sources. The content referenced in the animal testing pages should be a reflection of third party NPOV reporting on the event (as I tried to write, and jossi cleaned up - thanks!), and not a reflection of non-independent accounts, and extremist groups, version of uncheckable events. I really think the accounts of the raid should be minimized on the Britches page, and referenced to the Raid page, and vice versa, and that the Raid page should be referenced from the animal testing and non-human primate page for NPOV reasons. I have no stock in the name "UC Riverside ALF Raid", I read the criteria on Wikipedia naming conventions and did the best I could with the event and its notability from third party reliable reporting of the event. If you have another name, go for it. But I think this re-direct is wrong, and is a significant POV error. --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We're not having POV forks of this article. All the sources can (and must) be given space on the same page. I don't really see what difference the title makes, because all the alternatives can be redirects, which means they'll show up on Google under a search for that term. So I'm a bit confused as to why you feel so strongly that the title should be changed. Also, Britches was the reason for the raid, according to PETA. The ALF was tipped off about the lab by a student who was upset by the way Britches was being treated; perhaps I should add that to the article. He was also what made the university stop some of the funding, so he really was the focus of the raid. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider this a POV fork. Britches the monkey is minimally an issue in the UC Riverside ALF Raid page that I wrote. Britches the monkey is the principal topic on the Britches page. The name should be chosen to reflect what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize about the third party reliable source content of the page. Wikipedia pages, in general, are about reliable third party source content. The name and story of Britches outside of UC Riverside do not appear in any third party sources. --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

AR, let me ask you a question about NPOV. The policy says that all significant minority opinions must be included in articles. Not only that, they must be written up in a respectful way, and none should be endorsed by the tone of the writing.

Your editing of Wikpedia is almost 100 percent an attempt to remove or minimize the animal rights perspective from articles, or to belittle or criticize it with your choice of words. But animal rights is not a tiny-minority fringe position. It is a significant minority position, and it deserves to be explained and referenced to the groups that know the most about it, as well as to its opponents and to mainstream newspapers, academic sources etc.

I saw a post from you on a talk page explaining that this is a personal issue for you, because you feel your work will one day be under serious attack. I'm sorry that this is personally upsetting for you. But can you please say here whether or not you're committed to NPOV?

If you see an article that you feel relies too heavily on AR sources, then by all means find other ones. If you don't have time to write up what they say, give me the sources and I'll write it up for you. I am fully committed to telling all reasonable sides of every story, even if I strongly disagree with them, and if I ever fail to do it, it's because I can't find sources on the other side, but not because I don't want their story to be told. Are you committed to that principle too? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} —Preceding comment was added at 14:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My edits are my best attempts to represent the coverage related to that page from reliable, third party sources. They define NPOV, not me. The name Britches (your chosen title for the page) does not appear in any third party sources. There are a total of about 20 words that relate specifically to that lab animal in third party sources. You created an entire article with no third party sources (the original Britches article), and then supplemented it with more and more non-independent sources. As I added more third party sources, it became clear the sources I was adding are not really about the monkey Britches. They are about the UC Riverside ALF Raid. The monkey Britches is minimally covered in the third party sources on the event. Instead of trying to wrestle the article into a completely different state, I started anew, NOT with a different page on the same topic, but with a page on the topic of the ALF Raid as covered in third party sources. In as much as I know you check every edit I make to every page I edit at Wikipedia, I do my very best to conform to good editing policy at Wikipedia, because I am quite sure you will pursue any bad faith efforts to the highest levels possible. In this case, I think the subject matter is clear. The third party reporting supports a page on the UC Riverside ALF Raid. The third party reporting does not support a page on the topic of Britches. Wikipedia should not host PETA propaganda pieces that do not show up in third party reliable sources. Now, if the PETA propaganda piece does show up in third party sources, one might argue there is wiggle room. But any fair person weighing the third party reliable sources will agree with me that there is justification for a UC Riverside ALF Raid page, and no justification for a Britches page. --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Third party sources do not define NPOV. They define which positions we regard as notable. If people write about the animal rights perspective actions in relation to animal testing, that perspective becomes notable. If no reliable source were to mention it, it would be a non-notable (a tiny minority) perspective.

Once a POV is identified as notable, as non-fringe, then we must write about it respectfully, without endorsing it or any other position. Can I ask whether you're committed to that principle? I'm just asking that one question. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not dodge the issue here. Explain logically why you think the principal subject matter in the Britches page, which is sub-listed on multiple animal testing pages, be the story of a monkey that does not appear in any third party sources. Please explain why the separation of the Britches content, and the UC Riverside ALF Raid content, is a POV fork, when the third party sources only support the UC Riverside ALF Raid article, and minimally refer to Britches, and the Britches content focuses on Britches and its sources are principally non-independent. And if you wish to put me on trial, take it to an appropriate forum for a trial, and not on a page for discussion about content. I really do not understand why the Wikipedia editing issues I outline are wrong. --Animalresearcher (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not dodging the issue. It's the main issue, as I see it, which is that all your edits on these pages are anti-AR. I wouldn't mind if most of them were; you have a POV, which is fair enough. But when it's every single edit, it gets a bit tiresome. And your aim is usually to remove information, rather than add it. Again, if you want to add a pro-testing POV, that's fine; in fact, I welcome it. But you're always wanting to remove things, and that's not fine. Also, the way you write refs makes it very difficult to find the sources. You often write something like "AP 11-01-90," which doesn't really help.

As I said above, the AR POV is not a tiny-minority POV. It therefore has to be included, and respectfully. Your idea of including an AR POV would be: "And according to PETA [lying scum], the monkey was found hanging upside down [another obvious lie!]." :-)

Again, I'm not wedded to this title, but changing the title won't involve removing information, and I think it's the latter you really want, not just the former. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

I am perfectly happy for the POV on a topic to reflect the notability and significance of the various POVs represented in third party reliable sources. My understanding is that this is in general wikipedia policy. That is my principal motivation in this case. Once again, the story of Britches does not have third party reliable sources. The Foundation on Biomedical Research is not a third party on animal testing or animal rights issues. Neither is BUAV. Neither is Pro-test, or ALF, or PETA. Whatever POV they express should be represented in articles in proportion to its notability and significance in third party reliable sources. I find it very hard to think that anyone would object on these issues to my initial drafts of the UC Riverside ALF Raid page. I strenuously object to the subject matter of Britches because it is not represented, at all, in third party sources.--Animalresearcher (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Self correction. A standard journalistic definition has a first party as a participant in an event. A second party is a spokesperson or other proxy of a first party. A third party would be someone who is neither a participant or proxy. The explanation immediately above is wrong. But in this particular case, there are no third party accounts of the Britches story. --Animalresearcher (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

AR, your definition of "third party" is wrong. You assume that anyone who supports the ALF action, or has their POV, is automatically disqualified as a third party, but that's incorrect. The correct definition of third party is an individual or organization directly related to the actors — the ALF or the university in the Britches case. PETA and BUAV as examples share a POV that the ALF action was justified, but are still third party. If you can get other reliable sources with other POVs, that would be very welcome, and would help us improve the NPOV, but don't remove or devalue the same-POV sources. Crum375 (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Third party reports come from those who were neither involved in an event, nor were spokespersons, or agents, of those involved in the event. In this particular case, Steve Best wrote his book WHILE he was the North American ALF press office, and PETA was the ALF press office during the event. This was an event in which ALF was a first party. The only "reliable" sources come from second parties, not third. --Animalresearcher (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond in the thread below, since they seem to be addressing the same topic. Crum375 (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Title

Do people feel the title should be changed, and if so, does anyone have suggestions for an alternative? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The title of the page should represent the entirety of the event, i.e. that individuals under the auspices of the ALF raided a lab belonging to the Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside and removed animals, lab equipment, and records, as well as, vandalized property. Earlier people were discussing the possibility of two pages. Precedence for for such does exist. For example, we have a page for the "September 11, 2001 Attacks" and "American Airlines Flight 77." Obviously the latter was a subject of the former, but the former describes the totality of the event. I, too, would argue that Britches is not notable, but rather the event of breaking in to a university and vandalizing and removing property is notable 68.46.183.96 (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please. If it is not already obvious, the only people who have read the relevant third party sources on this topic are you and I. I already suggested something that I felt was in keeping with Wikipedia naming conventions with respect to the subject matter covered in third party reliable sources. However, I also find it possible that the best solution would be undoing the re-direct, and keeping the Britches page about Britches, and keeping the UC Riverside ALF Raid page about the third party reliable sources on that raid. Both pages would be edited to reflect their content, and refer to and link to the other related page. MOST of what is in the Britches story occurs AFTER Britches was removed from UCR. MOST of the UC Riverside ALF Raid is about the morning the animals were removed. These articles would only overlap minimally in the events they covered. --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A third-party source just means someone other than the subject or the main actor. So PETA is a third party source, as is the Foundation for Biomedical Research and BUAV. I've opened up this section so that other people can make suggestions about the title. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

PETA was the press agent for the ALF Raid, and Ingrid Newkirk runs PETA. Steve Best later ran the ALF press office. Both PETA and ALF were involved in the incident, so Newkirk and Best are not third party. --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Steven Best is an academic who much later (15 years after the raid roughly) was a spokesperson for the ALF. Ingrid Newkirk publicized the raid for PETA, as she does with every animal rights issue she can think of. Neither of these things means they're not third parties. You really are stretching things here. I concede to you that they both have the same POV, which means we need additional sources with other POVs, or none. But it doesn't mean they can't be used as sources. As I said above, your main aim at Wikipedia seems to be to remove the AR perspective entirely, and that's not acceptable. As much as you hate it, it has a right to be heard. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

First party reports comes from participants in the event. Second party reports come from a spokesperson or agent for a participant in the event. Third party reports comes from someone who is neither a participant or agent thereof. That Steve Best was not an ALF spokesperson in the mid 1980s does not matter. He is now, and was when his book was released. PETA acted as the ALF press office during the event. Your suggestion that Best is not second person would be like saying the current White House press secretary Dana Perino gives third party accounts of things that happened in the Bush White House before she was press secretary. The current press office can NEVER give third party accounts of the organization for which it is the press office - simply because the events occurred prior to their involvement with the office. --Animalresearcher (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana Perino is paid by the White House, so she is officially a first or second party in WH related events. PETA, which is interested in AR issues, publicizes some ALF related events simply because such publicity serves its agenda, not because it is under any contractual obligation. To use your example, if some Republican organization picked up a WH related story and publicized it, it would still be a third party, even if it shares the WH POV and publicizes some related events. Crum375 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference is not whether one is paid, but whether one is a proxy ie: whether one is authorized to present the ALF versions of events. You can note that the NY Times reports that PETA is speaking as a proxy for ALF here when it leads its story "The Animal Liberation Front said today that it had rescued 260 laboratory animals " and the only communication it had was a phone call from PETA. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E1DC1E38F932A15757C0A963948260&scp=1&sq=vicky+miller+raid&st=nyt

--Animalresearcher (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The source says there is a pattern that PETA informs the media about ALF actions, but doesn't say that PETA acts a proxy. Unless there is some contractual obligation, PETA is acting voluntarily, and can pick and choose what it reports or ignores, based on its own interests. Therefore, it is not an involved party. I think you are assuming that all organizations or individuals with the same POV are first or second parties, and that's clearly false. The first party is the party that performs the action, second it the one the action is performed upon, and third is any else, even if they share POV with the first or second parties. Crum375 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Confused logic. The source reports the PETA phone call as authorized from ALF to report the actions from ALF's perspective. There has never been any dispute of this to my knowledge. You are also confusing "involved party" with "authorized spokesperson" aka proxy. --Animalresearcher (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So by your logic, if CBS News gets an exclusive video tape from Bin Laden of an Al Qaeda operation, CBS News is now a first or second party with Al Qaeda, right? If not, please explain the difference. Crum375 (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not the same, because CBS does not have authorization. No one would expect CBS to present a story on the video to be the Al Qaeda version of events. They would not present the video in its entirety, and would further solicit other expert opinion on the video, its accuracy and authenticity. PETA presented ALF's version of the story. Newkirk presented ALF's version of the veterinarian report. In the exampled from the NY Times above, it is clear that a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy considered PETA to be the ALF proxy in the Riverside case, because they made statements they directly attributed to ALF, when their only sources came from PETA. --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PETA, PETAtv, and Ingrid Newkirk as reliable sources

I further take issue with the assumption that PETA is a reliable source "as a publisher". The film Unnecessary Fuss was demonstrated to be full of errors such as water in contact with an animal being misidentified as an acid spill, and footage of one animal being misrepresented as footage of multiple, different, animals. This establishes one incident in which the source footage and edited footage were both analyzed, and PETA was found to be unreliable in its edits. More specifically, Ingrid Newkirk was the voiceover for the acid/water spill, indicating that she personally is unreliable as a source. Her voiceover was found to contain 25 errors by the OPRR in its analysis.--Animalresearcher (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AR, we have been though this, ad nauseam, on Animal Testing talk. You are again incorrectly assuming that "reliable" means "truthful," but that's not Wikipedia's definition. By reliable we mean a published source that has a reputation for fact checking and legal scrutiny. In this case, the acid spill was called an acid spill by the researcher, which Newkirk merely repeated. Had she called it a "water spill," that would have been inaccurate. As far as the multi animal vs. single animal, the source I saw, merely said that the film showed the same animal over and over, but never said this was not representative of all the rest. The source there also mentioned numerous violations by the institution. But we are off topic — wrong article, and wrong criterion. Crum375 (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This speaks directly to fact-checking and accuracy. OPRR analyzed the SOURCE VIDEO, and the EDITED VIDEO and found it inaccurate. They further found Newkirk's voiceover inaccurate. --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Party reporting on PETA unreliability, and Newkirk unreliability

http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/40_1/40_1Roots.shtml

OPRR refused to act on the basis of evidence contained in an edited tape. The University of Pennsylvania claimed that Unnecessary Fuss was a caricature of the actual proceedings that had taken place in the laboratory. For more than 1 yr, PETA refused to turn over the evidence it had to OPRR. In the spring of 1984, PETA sent the unedited tapes to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA1), which in turn sent them to OPRR. OPRR asked 18 veterinarians, mostly diplomates of the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, who were for the most part employed by various institutes within NIH, to review the tapes and report on their findings concerning violations of the PHS Policy or the AWA....OPRR discovered that Unnecessary Fuss presented the case history of only one of approximately 150 animals that had received whiplash. By clever editing and inaccurate voice over, the viewer was led to believe that the inhumane treatment depicted on the film was repeated numerous times. In actual fact, one baboon was badly treated, and the film repeatedly showed the particular mistreatment while the commentator narrated that the mistreatment was repeated on a long series of different animals.

I don't think evidence on source, and publisher, unreliability get much more clear than that. --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposals for moving the page forward

I make these proposals in light of the fact that it still remains principally based on second party reports from unreliable sources.

1) Remove unreliable sources This includes Ingrid Newkirk's book, and the ALF reports. However, a short sentence indicating the existence of the ALF video, and providing a link to it, and noting the existence of Newkirk's book are fine. But copious sourcing from those sources violates WP:V and WP:RS

2) Base the content on the scope, significance, notability, and POVs found in third party reliable sources. These sources include the NY Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Philadephia Inquirer, Glamour magazine, the CRISP archive, and the Behavioral Neuroscience article written by David Warren.

3) Complement the content with material found in second-party reliable sources. This includes the Best book.

These proposals, particularly the first one, are strongly rooted in Wikipedia policies. People and agencies who intentionally falsify and misrepresent their reporting have no place as sources in Wikipedia. Articles should be principally based on third party reliable sources, and POV and significance should reflect the range and prevalence of POV in third party reliable sources, and significance within those third party sources. Second party reliable sources can in many cases complement an article, but have no place in dictating POV or range of POV, or significance or prevalence of ideas/POVs. --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

By my reading of Wikipedia policied, Ingrid Newkirk and the ALF video are unreliable sources. Principally, in a raid just 2-3 years earlier, they were caught red-handed manipulating, lying, and intentionally misrepresenting what they saw in the raid by third party investigattions by OPRR. Unreliable sources should be removed aggressively. I removed it because it is very likely that some, or all, of it is fabricated. I don't see the justification in adding in sections of the event that are not described by reliable sources. --Animalresearcher (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your extremism really isn't helpful. Newkirk is a reliable source when it comes to explaining opposition to animal testing, and is an RS over this particular issue, because she wrote a book about it. Why don't you try adding to the article, rather than removing material that other editors have written? For example, you could add a section on what the benefits of the research were perceived to be by the researchers. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you address the issue that Newkirk produced a video two years earlier that intentionally misrepresented and lied about the animal testing observed on an ALF raid? That her sources and edited video were co-analyzed by third parties, and the video edit was found unreliable? Removing unreliable sources is not extremism, it is good policy. --Animalresearcher (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting, or have misunderstood, what the OPRR said. The acid spill, for example: it was one of the researchers who identified it as an acid spill. Newkirk just repeated what he said. If you watch the video for yourself, you'll hear him say it.

You were arguing to get rid of Newkirk as a source before you knew about the OPRR thing, and it's about a completely different issue anyway. You want to keep out the animal rights perspective from any article you find it on, period, and everyone who has an animal rights POV is unreliable for you. That's why I call your position extremist.

Instead of wasting your time on Wikipedia in these senseless revert wars, why don't you actually contribute to these articles by explaining what the research is about? That would be a genuinely positive contribution, and not something that everyone is able to do. In other words, work with us to produce three-dimensional articles that tell all sides of the story. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The reversions are not senseless. Unreliable sources should not be used for principal sourcing for events or significiantly independent sections of events. OPRR identified 25 errors of fact in Newkirk's voiceover in Unnecessary Fuss. In addition, they found that the editing took the worst case of animal suffering, and intentionally misled viewers to think that is was done over and over again to different animals. This latter charge is much more signfiicant than the "acid spill", because it is misleading the viewer by intent. This was in 1983/4. In 1985, Newkirk again took raw footage from ALF and edited it into a released movie. That is, in the case of Unnecessary Fuss, the same actions (taking raw footage from ALF and editing it into a movie release) were documented as unreliable. In Britches (monkey) history is repeating itself two years later. Why would Newkirk be considered reliable on the events that occurred in the Britches raid, when she is documented as unreliable in a similar raid two years earlier? How can we have any confidence in her reporting of the veterinarian report, or in the final disposition of Britches? Encyclopedias should not consist of such unreliable first and second person sources. Wikipedia's policy intent is for articles to be based on third party reliable sources. If material does not exist in reliable third party sources, it does not belong in Wikipedia. --Animalresearcher (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(od) AR, we've discussed this issue at some length. You seem to think that "reliable source" means that you personally accept someone's POV. It doesn't work that way. Reliable source on Wikipedia is a publisher with a reputation for fact checking and legal scrutiny. If you can show that Lantern Books is widely known not to do fact checking and legal scrutiny, then you may have a case. The publisher's POV, or your dislike of their material, has nothing to do with their wiki-reliability. Crum375 (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not, at this point, argue this point on a POV basis. Reliability is a product of the AUTHOR, PUBLISHER, and PIECE OF WORK itself. The parallels between the PETA produced videos in this case, and in Unnecessary Fuss provide substantial concern about reliability of the author and producer, because the author and producer of Unecessary Fuss was documented to systematically mislead its viewer by third party reliable sources. Newkirk wrote about the same topic in her book. Even if Lantern Books, as a publisher, has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, that does not speak to the reliability of the author. Or the video producer. There is a substantial second issue, and that is that Newkirk is clearly a second party to the ALF in the Britches events. So we have an unreliable second party source. And I am asking that significantly independent segments of the Britches events that were only described in Newkirk's book, or the ALF video, not be included. IF material does not appear in a reliable third party source, it does not belong in Wikipedia. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PETA acting as a spokesgroup for ALF

As further evidence that PETA acknowledges itself as a second party (ie: spokesgroup) for ALF actions, see http://epw.senate.gov/109th/Exhibit_6.pdf It is a PETA factsheet that was entered in evidence at a Senate hearing. James Inhofe referred to PETA as a spokesgroup for ALF during the hearing. He said "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (“PETA”), a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization has given money to ELF [Chart #5 – PETA tax return] and ELF/ALF members while acting as the spokesgroup for ELF and ALF after committing acts of terrorism. [Chart #6 – PETA document stating they are spokesgroup] "

Inhofe goes on to talk about Steven Best " Dr. Steven Best, a University of Texas professor, is an example of a spokesperson for ELF and ALF ..."

The issue that PETA and Best are spokespersons/groups for ALF is salient as to whether Newkirk and Best should be treated at third party sources or not. A spokesperson or group is a second party to the actions of the group it speaks for, and not a third party. The US Senate URL for this hearing is http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=247266 --Animalresearcher (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Still Alive?

Just curious is Britches still alive? If not when did he pass away? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.172.36 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reliable source that provides any information about Britches after he was taken from UC-Riverside. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is. He was taken to a sanctuary and given to an older female who had already raised several orphans. There are images of them playing on that video. [1] Stump-tailed macaques have a lifespan of up to 30 years, according to the WP article, so he could still be alive. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

PETA and ALF are not reliable sources in this matter. They have been shown by reliable third parties to lie and intentionally mislead their viewers on comparable videos. --Animalresearcher (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What does "If not raised as a monkey with other monkeys, the primatologist advised that Britches would grow to be aggressive and unmanageable" mean? What else exactly was he "going to be raised as" if not a monkey? And if it means raised in a natural environment, since when do monkeys knit wool sweaters for other monkeys? Anyway, I digress. I was going to suggest that once the fuss died down and he no longer served a PR purpose, I bet poor old Britches found himself homed in some dumpster in Ahoskie. Rockpocket 03:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RP, I'm going to AGF and assume you meant that as a joke.

AR, it's time to stop the "scientists are angels and always tell the truth" but "animal rights advocates are evil and do nothing but lie" meme. You imply that you dislike extremism, but that has to cut both ways. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Only partly. I have no idea where Britches is living, but I don't have much confidence that it is happy ever after as Newkirk would have us believe. PETA are no better or worse than any other lobby group in that respect. They spin the story to suit their agenda, and when the story moves on, so do they. Its nothing to do with them being AR ( the pro lobby does the same) that's just the nature of the game. I was serious about that sentense though, its meaningless nonsense meant to reassure us that PETA gave him a great life being "brought up as a monkey." Rockpocket 06:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the reliability of scientists. PETA, in that time frame, lied and intentionally mislead the public on animal testing incidents. They did this when they were subject to fact checking, and you would suppose they would not do it when they are not subject to fact checking? This is the same group that recently obtained animals under false pretenses and euthanized them and threw them in a dumpster. What I think about scientists and SOME animal rights activists is not so relevant. If the third party reliable references are allowed to speak for themselves the story is quite clear. If, however, we are insistent on copious use of unreliable and second-party sources, the story does get a bit muckier, but that is why Wikipedia has policies on verifiability and reliability.--Animalresearcher (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand, we had Britches in a wire cage, alone, with no sight, and with a screeching sonar device on his head, headed for dissection. On the other hand, we have him with someone who cared enough about him to fix his eyes, take the thing off his head, put him in a woolly sweater, and maybe fly him somewhere with more space and a surrogate monkey mother. Even if the narrative is not as rosy as painted, it's still better than the earlier one, because just about anything would be better than that. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but aren't these experiments exactly what was described in the CRISP abstract previously cited? Presumably these experiments were also approved by the UC Riverside IACUC. So what exactly did the Warren Lab do wrong and why didn't AR activists say anything when the IACUC paperwork was made public? The implication is that somehow a "mad scientist" went crazy tortured baby monkeys for fun and violated laws, ethics, University rules, etc., but that's not really the case based on the CRISP abstract previously listed above in the discussion. Just out of curiosity, what ever happened to David H. Warren? He still has a web page at UC Riverside, but he hasn't published any articles in 15+ years. It says he's retired, but isn't he a bit young for that? I know he was briefly Chancellor of UC Riverside. If he did something illegal or immoral, why did he maintain his job? Why isn't any of this in the article? 68.46.183.96 (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Warren is listed as Professor Emeritus. He got his PhD in 1969, that means he is probably mid 60s in age. The Professor Emeritus listing in the UC system means his retirement benefits are fully activated, and he has no administrative requirements for service. He may or may not be doing some research, but it is probably not a lot (if any). Once NIH investigated UC-Riverside and concluded there was no animal care fault at the university, Warren was probably treated quite well. He was the victim of an attack that was based on ideology outside the established regulatory framework - he was blameless within the system. He did go on to become Department Chair and eventually Chancellor of the entire campus.--Animalresearcher (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I reject the claim that this professor was a "victim of an attack that was based on the ideology outside the established regulatory framework."

Whether or not this person is blameless is beyond Wikipedia's scope; and, maintaining respect for BLP policy, I shall not make any claim or argument asserting that this individual is guilty of wrongdoing. However, I will refute the implication of your statement, which, in the spirit of AGF, I shall assume was not intended: that "established regulatory framework" is the only determining factor in the question of whether something is right or wrong or if an individual is blameless. Consider that the Nazi scientists who conducted similar such experiments as this on Jews and Gypsies and disabled and ill persons were doing so within their) established regulatory frameworks.  Yet nearly everyone, psychopaths excepted, would agree that those who did those things should rightly be condemned. As for monkeys: while many believe that to do those things to any animal is cruel and morally unexcusable, there is not universal agreement on this. But a very strong case could be made, as well, that monkeys are more of like kind to humans than they are to "beasts". Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The ALF site (Won't link to it here) says he lived to be 20 in a sanctuary in texas. Someone could contact the sanctuary for verification. Turn➦ 02:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Why nitpick the retirement issue?

I am not sure I see the point in nitpicking the accounts of Newkirk about the animal. There are no reliable reports, whatsoever, about what happened to the animal after it left UC-Riverside. This material should be removed, wholesale, and only elements contained in reliable accounts should be included, weighted by how they are represented in reliable third party reports. Newkirk is a known fabricator of events related to raids on animal testing sites. --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For as long as the material is here, it makes sense to ensure it is accurate. If there are no third party reports we either have a situation where we have no information for our readers, or we provide them with Newkirk's account (and permit them the make their won judgment about her reliability). Rockpocket 20:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Newkirk was not involved in this raid. She took the information about it and published it, just as she does with every single report of animal abuse that she receives. This repeated denigration of her has to stop, for BLP reasons as much as anything else. The policy applies to talk pages too. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Source: WP:V. Newkirk is a known fabricator of events relating to mid 1980s raids on animal testing centers. This is sourced information - with high third party reliability, and BLP concerns are not warranted when material comes from reliable third-party published sources and there is a clear demonstration of relevance. Obviously, we are quite free to discuss Ingrid Newkirk's reliability, backed by good sources, when we discuss whether her sources should be included in an article. Further, PETA was acting as a proxy for ALF - as a mouthpiece - as a spokesgroup - according to all sources, which makes them and Newkirk a second party to these events, not a third party. Irrespective of 2nd vs 3rd party designation, Newkirk is unreliable in this case. The material that can only be sourced to Newkirk's book should be removed, wholesale, and that includes the name "Britches", as well as the sections "Medical Report" and "Britches after the raid". In these cases, when we cannot be reasonably sure an unreliable party is misleading us intentionally, the material needs to be removed. --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Source request

Could we have some quotes on talk from the source, please, for the following edit? [2]

"NIH conducted an eight month long investigation of the animal care program at UC-Riverside and concluded it was an "appropriate animal care program" and that no corrective action was necessary." The ref is Holden, Constance. "A pivotal year for lab animal welfare," Science, April 11, 1986 232:249.

There's no rush, but it would be good to see the exact words at some point. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is actually on page 149. There is a whole page insert in an news article on animal welfare. The insert is on animal rights activities. It has a series of bulleted sections. One such section is on the UC-Riverside ALF Raid.

University of California, Riverside: In April 1985 members of the Animal Liberation Front carried off 467 research animals, stole documents, and vandalized facilities during a raid of the university's psychology and biology laboratories. Among the kidnapped was a stump-tailed macaque whose eyes had been sewn shut for research on the development of a device to help blind people navigate. PETA, which acts as a mouthpiece for the unidentified liberationists, claimed the animals had been subjected to painful and unnecessary experimentation and, in some cases, starved.

This February, however, after an 8 month investigation, NIH concluded that Riverside has an appropriate animal care program and that no corrective action is necessary. University officials said the raid resulted in $683,000 worth of damage, lost animals, and lost research

HTH. --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

url of video is dead

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7243221390535322676# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.197.76 (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

video broken?

Can't get the video to load fully. 117.207.235.129 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Parsel

I deleted it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting page move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. The discussion was terse, but a consensus has undeniably emerged among all participating editors. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 09:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Britches (monkey) → University of California Riverside 1985 laboratory raid –
I think that it is time to reconsider moving this page to a new title (see earlier discussions above, now stale). It no longer makes sense to treat it as a "biographical" page (if it ever did). -- Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.