Talk:SPEAK (animals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SPEAK (animals) is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Contents 1 Work in progress 2 POV // opposing views // sources 3 Recent additions 4 Cambridge 5 Image 6 Source query 7 Using WP to promote SPEAK's agenda 8 ongoing vandalism

[edit] Work in progress

This page has just been started and may seem a little POV and disoriented. It's primarily about SPEAK, the new(ish) campaign in the UK to stop vivisection, but a large part of SPEAK's background is the controversy surrounding primate research at Cambridge, so the article appears to veer off into that, but it will soon veer back again, and will next look at primate research at Oxford, which is what SPEAK is currently concentrating on. Also, I haven't yet looked up opposing sources, but I'll be adding some over the next week or so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV // opposing views // sources

Heya,

Regarding the following:

"There is much tension in the University city of Oxford between protestors and the local community, especially students. University members are increasingly frustrated with the SPEAK campaign's refusal to condemn the firebombing of the Longbridges boathouse, although there is no evidence to directly link the campaign with the action."

1. This is not worded in an NPOV fashion, particularly the second sentence. 2. No source is given for this assertion, in particular, nothing explaining the Longbridges bombing. Googling gave a rather pitiful set of results, all told.

As such, I have removed it pending a change in wording and sourcing (would be happy to do so myself but am somewhat tired at present).

Do people think it would be worthwhile to add a link to http://www.pro-test.org.uk Pro-Test? While it is a tiny operation (one guy at his computer by all accounts) it does seem to be the only group advocating in favour of the lab and has (supposedly) been given attention by several media outlets. --Black Butterfly 00:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

At present it is only a small campaign, but seeing it is opposing SPEAK directly, and will be staging a demonstration at the same time as theirs, I think it is worth a link.

The Longbridges bombing is that of the Hertford college boathouse by the ALF [1]. I can't give a source for SPEAKs lack of condemnation, you might find that a little difficult!

For a more recent lack of condemnation see the bottom of this article [2].

Mel Broughton, co-founder of SPEAK, emphasised his organisation’s commitment to running a legal campaign but refused to offer further comment. Webb said that information posted on SPEAK’s website is not used exclusively by “people who attend their planned demonstrations” and can be used by ALF activists to find targets.

| Spaully 14:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Have added link to pro-test. Regarding the Longbridges bombing, I'm not convinced SPEAK's lack of condemnation is entirely relevant to this as the action was in the name of the ALF rather than SPEAK itself. --Black Butterfly 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent additions

You did a great job expanding the article, Rockpocket. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cambridge

The Cambridge material was starting to look incongruous, so I've moved it to Primate experimentation at Cambridge University, and changed the references section here to further reading. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing myself. Good job. Two things though, the reason i moved the intro about scientific validity (and i did so again) is because it is unsourced. The source you quote [3] makes no mention whatsoever of "failing to demonstrate to a public inquiry that the brain experiments they planned to conduct on the primates had any scientific validity or medical benefit." I don't know where that info came from, but if you can source it i'd welcome its return. I simply changed the info to reflect what the source says. That source also names the centre as a "Primate Research Facility" hence the other change. I would draw your attention to the discussion here for my feeling on naming such buildings. But i'm really too tired to fight over such a minor point again. Rockpocket 18:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that link, RP. I must have pasted the wrong one in, and now can't find one that uses exactly those words. I'm not sure it's relevant to mention the public inquiry here anyway, because the inquiry ruled against the proposal but then Prescott overruled them and gave it the go-ahead. Don't worry about your previous post, but thanks for changing it anyway. ;-)

Thanks. I really must learn not to edit when feeling tetchy. I think the general concern that Prescott was overulling a decision - for political reasons - made by committee might be worth mentioning, but the problem is over keeping it brief. It might be worth leaving it out simply because the end result was achieved in the end for very different reasons, that are much easier to explain. Rockpocket 20:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I do not think that the use of the particular photograph is justified here; it seems to be a standard negative image that is used in many articles on Wikipedia, and seems to be a cliche. Can you replace it with an image directly relevant to the article, or remove it?Gleng 18:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The photograph is on the animal-rights template, Gleng, not in the article itself. Not sure what you mean by "standard negative image" and "seems to be a cliche." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant that the image is a propaganda image, that corresponds to a stereotyped view of what conditions might be like in a primate research centre. Is this a species likely to be used in the new centre, and are the animal houses likely to look like this? Its use here seems not NPOV. When and where was the photograph taken?Gleng 20:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, the image is on the animal-rights template, not in the article. If you click on it, you'll see where it was taken, and that it's an image of a monkey in a zoo. The template is on this page because the article is related to animal rights. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's a monkey in a zoo in China; but is its use here NPOV?Gleng 17:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand the statement "the image is on the animal-rights template"?

This article is about animal-rights so it references the animal-rights template. If you want to argue the use of that image on that template you should take your discussion to the talk page for that template.

Garrie 04:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source query

This anyone know what Thisisoxfordshire.co.uk is. [4] We use it a few times as a sole source, but they have a strong anti-SPEAK POV, and the website doesn't say who they are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be a site hosting news reports from a number of local and regional newspapers. I can only find one use of this site as a reference: "Robert Cogswell, co-founder of SPEAK is on record as saying that the organisation does not condemn the actions of the ALF. [5]". It doesn't seem particularly anti-SPEAK to me, infact it reports a common justification for violence used by Animal Lib folks. The statement itself also seems a pretty non controversial, as Cogswell on record elsewhere saying similar things [6]. Rockpocket 03:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We had it as a source in the intro that the leader of SPEAK was encouraging lawlessness or something. I just wondered who they were. We probably shouldn't use them as a source, unless of course they're only copying newspaper stories, in which case the newspaper's the source, and the website simply the vehicle. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's run by the newspapers The Oxford Times, Oxford Mail, and a couple of others in Oxfordshire. It's a web archive of the stories carried by those local papers. Anything on that site was a published newspaper story, and has that level of credibility. --86.8.135.95 19:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using WP to promote SPEAK's agenda

I have serious concerns with the attempts of new user Trooth-sayer to use this article to further SPEAK's attempts to publicise unsubstatiated allegations against a company, when a legal injuction has stopped them from doing so on their own website. I have added the development without naming the company, though have sourced it from an article that does. If anyone wants to, they can click on the link and read all about it themselves (for as long as the link remains active). I think this is the most responsible, neutral way of dealing with the subject on this article. If a respectible source substatiates SPEAK's claims then i'm all for naming them, but i don't see why this article should function as a proxy for promoting their agenda. If anyone disagrees i'm happy to discuss it. Rockpocket 07:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ongoing vandalism

there has been a series of edits to this article from someone claiming to be a child called julian. it is getting increasingly frustrating having to revert said edits. not sure what can be done but something has to be. --Black Butterfly 18:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)