| Revision as of 20:51, 7 December 2022 edit24.60.228.106 (talk) →Animal testibg: new sectionTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:12, 1 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,505,723 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 5 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 5 page: Science basics. |
| (18 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talkheader|archive_age=1|archive_units=year}} |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Censor}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=22:49, 22 March 2008 |
|
|action1date=22:49, 22 March 2008 |
| Line 9: |
Line 12: |
|
|topic=Natural sciences |
|
|topic=Natural sciences |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Animal rights| importance=Top }} |
|
{{Notcensored2}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=mid}} |
| ⚫ |
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Animal rights| class=GA | importance=Top }} |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|class=GA|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Psychology| importance=Top }} |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Biology|class=GA|importance=Mid}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=GA|importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Old move|date=January 2016|from=Animal testing|destination=Animal research |result=not moved|link=Talk:Animal testing/Archive 11#Requested move 1 January 2016}} |
|
{{Old move|date=January 2016|from=Animal testing|destination=Animal research |result=not moved|link=Talk:Animal testing/Archive 11#Requested move 1 January 2016}} |
| Line 29: |
Line 30: |
|
|archive = Talk:Animal testing/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Animal testing/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
|
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Force-length and force-velocity relationships) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Force-length and force-velocity relationships","appear":{"revid":422379313,"parentid":419671941,"timestamp":"2011-04-04T20:26:37Z","replaced_anchors":{"Force-length and Force-velocity relationships":"Force-length and force-velocity relationships"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":665978295,"parentid":665976443,"timestamp":"2015-06-08T02:33:24Z","replaced_anchors":{"Force-length and force-velocity relationships":"Length-tension and force-velocity relationships"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":false,"rename_to":"Length-tension and force-velocity relationships"} --> |
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215065035/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-24/world/37276084_1_animal-activists-human-simulators-civilian-trauma to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-24/world/37276084_1_animal-activists-human-simulators-civilian-trauma |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 09:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Adding "Cruelty to animals" category in Animal Testing article == |
|
|
|
|
|
I added category "Cruelty to animals" to the article ]. However, it was reverted for some reason. Can anyone clarify as to why it should not be added here? I felt it was one of the primary categories in the article given the fact that animal testing is one of the chief manifestations of ] and cruelty is an inseparable factor in animal testing despite our tagging it with "ethical," "humane," and other euphemistic adjectives. ] (]) 13:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is a clear and obvious violation of ] and an attempt to categorize only based on your viewpoint for purely prejudicial purposes. Look at all the other categories; nothing so clearly biased as your attempted addition appears. ] (]) 18:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The article is already in the parent category ], so if it is added to ] it should be removed from the parent category per ]. The problem with such a move is that, ironically, in the USA animal testing is typically explicitly exempted from state and local animal anti-cruelty laws. This means that the animal cruelty that occurs in animal testing laboratories goes unprosecuted in the USA. I don't know anything about the status of animal testing in relation to animal anti-cruelty laws in other countries. But certainly in the USA, animal testing per se is not considered animal cruelty in most state and local laws. ] (]) 12:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::That (the part about US law) is spectacularly untrue. Animal research labs in the US are intensely regulated, by law. It's just that testing ''per se'' is not considered a criminal activity. --] (]) 20:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::{{reply to|Tryptofish}} You called my comment "spectacularly untrue" and then you repeated the point of my comment. My earlier comment said: "animal testing per se is not considered animal cruelty" in most criminal codes in the USA. Your comment said: "testing per se is not considered a criminal activity". We were making exactly the same point. Perhaps it was not clear that when I said "testing is typically explicitly exempted from state and local animal anti-cruelty laws" I meant in criminal codes (which was implied by my reference to prosecution in the subsequent sentence). If a person were to treat an animal in public the way some animals are treated in laboratories, that person would be liable to prosecution for animal cruelty in many jurisdictions. But the same treatment would not be considered animal cruelty in laboratories. ] (]) 01:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thank you for clarifying your position. It sounded like you were taking the position that animal testing ''should'' be subject to prosecution, that you thought existing laws are lamentable. As for a person "treat an animal in public" that way, I cannot imagine anyone doing animal testing out on the street, and without proper training in the correct manner of handling animals in a humane way. And if what you think goes on in US research laboratories (at least since roughly the turn of the century) is in any way like what reasonable persons consider to be animal cruelty, you should familiarize yourself with ], as well as the documentation required by the ] and other scientific agencies. There are very, very detailed requirements than US scientists ''must'' follow, that are designed to eliminate or minimize animal pain or discomfort. The false narrative of animals being tormented in labs (at least since roughly the turn of the century) is one that is pushed by some ] groups, but it is false nevertheless. --] (]) 19:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::{{reply to|Tryptofish}} No, I wasn't implying that animal testing should be subject to prosecution; I was just presenting a reason why this article doesn't belong in ] (not the only possible reason nor even an especially strong reason). People have been prosecuted for animal cruelty for causing much less harm to animals than the harm that necessarily occurs in some animal experimentation, so (although it is not relevant to the current discussion) I do take the position that there is something "lamentable" and contradictory about existing laws, but not in a way that would be remedied by criminalizing animal testing. ] (]) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::OK, please just chalk it up to a misunderstanding, thanks. And I ''do'' agree with you about the category. About the existing laws, I guess ]. --] (]) 21:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks ], for the clarification. It's indeed ironical that our civilization is yet to comprehend the meaning of cruelty. ] (]) 20:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks for sharing your opinion, ].] (]) 20:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Adding such a category is so obviously a violation of ] (and ]) as to border on disruption. --] (]) 20:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Also, this and related issues have been discussed extensively in the past: see the talk page archives. --] (]) 20:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think it's reasonable. Categories are for navigation, not definition: You put something in a category if you think that readers looking at that category would be interested in reading that article. You do not put something in a category just because it happens to objectively be part of a particular subset. It might be useful for the reader. |
|
|
:Also, ] is probably a good editor to ask about this kind of question. ] (]) 04:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Tryptofish is also a good editor to ask about this kind of question. {{(:}} There is a lot more history underlying what you said than you realize. (If what I say needs clarification, please take it to my user talk, not here.) --] (]) 19:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::would agree with WAID, on this point--] (]) 11:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I also tend to like the idea of using categories to be helpful to readers, but there are some important guideline considerations that must be attended to. ] says: {{tq|Categorization must also maintain a ''']'''. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.}} In addition, ] says: {{tq|A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the ''']''' characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that ] ''commonly'' and ''consistently'' define the subject as having... Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided.}} It is simply not the case that reliable sources call testing "cruel" commonly and consistently, but it's absolutely true that applying this category would imply a controversial position. Anyway, ] should be sufficient to help readers. --] (]) 19:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::@ User:WhatamIdoing. Exactly my point. There's no POV involved in adding the category as doubted by some fellow editors. Not adding the category will only hide the article from the view of readers of animal rights topics. However, I agree with whatever other editors feel unanimously. ] (]) 05:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Horseshit. If I put ] on the page for the page ], you don't think that violates ]? Categories, like every other byte of information on any page, are subject to NPOV, however strongly opinionated editors may feel they are "objectively true". ] (]) 16:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{reply to|HCA}} Your analogy is extremely weak (see, e.g., {{section link|Argument from analogy|Strength of an analogy}}). ] is already in ], which is the parent category of ]. For your analogy to be strong, ] would have to already be in one of the parent categories of ], namely ] or ], but it is not. The analogy is not even close, and does not support your position. ] (]) 17:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And you completely missed the point. The point had nothing to do with what subcats and parent cats something is in, that's irrelevant - it's that ] applies to Categories. ] (]) 19:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{reply to|HCA}} No, I didn't miss the point; I understand your point perfectly. The point of my comment, in case you missed it, is that your unsuitable analogy "] is to ] as ] is to ]" did not support your position that "] does not belong in ] due to violation of ]". Whether or not the placing of ] into ] violates ] tells us absolutely nothing about whether the placing of ] into ] violates ], because the categorization schemes being compared are not analogous. ] (]) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::That you persistently fixate on a red herring says everything necessary about the quality of your contribution to this discussion. ] (]) 22:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I claim to be a fish, so I certainly don't want to see cruelty to red herrings. And I also insist that we adhere to ] in settling on categorization. But I'd like to suggest that editors lower the temperature of this disagreement, OK? --] (]) 23:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::It appears to me that we already had consensus before {{U|HCA}} waved the red herring of "Horseshit. If I put ] on the page for the page ], you don't think that violates ]?" I do thank {{U|HCA}} for prefixing the correct label to that question. ] (]) 23:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::]. So, '''do we have consensus''' not to apply the category to this page? --] (]) 00:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::"This question ] could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it sat for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead (the position in which you usually see Shakespeare, in the pictures of him), while the rest waited in silence. At last the Dodo said, '''Everybody'' has won, and all must have prizes.' |
|
|
:::::::::"'But who is to give the prizes?' quite a chorus of voices asked." ('']'') ] (]) 00:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{ec}} That's a valid point. So let me make a better analogy by staying within the parent category. ] also contains the subcategory ] and other categories of being kind to animals. But veterinary medicine is not typically considered to be animal cruelty. That's because, although they share a parent category, the subcategories represent different branches of the ]. --] (]) 19:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes, that's a much better analysis. ] (]) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Thanks! I'm glad we are seeing some common ground. --] (]) 21:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree that the category is problematic for this article. Cats are not a vehicle for advocacy. ] (]) 19:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The reason I added this category was animal testing is one of the primary topics in the animal rights/cruelty domains. Every scholarly work on animal rights/cruelty speaks about scientific experiments (e.g., ]'s '']'' talks about in detail before moving on to other issues such as animal farming or religious cruelties). Such views of a spectrum of academic scholars are not generally brushed aside as POV for they only make it all the more worthy of critical analysis. Articles on the other similar issues, such as ritual slaughter and animal farming, come under this category. Even an article as this one discusses (or supposed to discuss) these welfare/right issues under sections like ethics, welfare concerns, etc. One can find "animal testing" in all animal rights/cruelty-related templates. Hence I thought this category should be included. There wasn't any hidden agenda from my side otherwise nor am I trying to use it as a vehicle for advocacy. Understanding the term "animal cruelty" is a sore spot for the researchers, I leave it to the fellow editors. ] (]) 10:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thank you for your good faith participation in this discussion. I want to point out that Singer's book was written in 1975, and a lot of time has passed since then, with a great deal of tightening of the laws and regulations for research, at least in the US. There were things going on in Singer's time that would never be tolerated today. It's true that many works on animal cruelty discuss animal testing, but the reverse, whether works on animal testing tend to characterize it as cruelty, is an entirely different matter. That goes to what I said earlier about ]. --] (]) 20:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Systematic Reviews and Meta Studies == |
|
== Systematic Reviews and Meta Studies == |
| Line 105: |
Line 51: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quote|Systematic reviews are generally regarded by professionals in the field of evidence-based medicine as the highest level of medical evidence…However, they are not yet widely used nor undertaken in the field of animal experimentation.|source=A gold standard publication checklist to improve the quality of animal studies, to fully integrate the Three Rs, and to make systematic reviews more feasible (2010) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20507187}} |
|
{{quote|Systematic reviews are generally regarded by professionals in the field of evidence-based medicine as the highest level of medical evidence…However, they are not yet widely used nor undertaken in the field of animal experimentation.|source=A gold standard publication checklist to improve the quality of animal studies, to fully integrate the Three Rs, and to make systematic reviews more feasible (2010) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20507187}} |
|
|
|
|
== Animal testibg == |
|
|
|
|
|
Animal share 98% DNA with humans and that’s why they animal test ] (]) 20:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
I'd like to supplement this article with a list of Systematic Reviews (SR's) and Meta-Studies (MS's). Unfortunately the few that are mentioned do not seem to be accurately represented (e.g. this article states: 'such studies can be difficult to interpret, and it is argued that they are not always comparable to human diseases' but the paper cited for this claim actually states: 'Much animal research into potential treatments for humans is wasted because it is poorly conducted and not evaluated through systematic reviews'). Every SR and MS I could find is critical of animal testing, so the proposed article is titled 'Animal Testing: Contrary Scientific Views'. I believe this would contribute to a more informed and robust account of animal testing. If there are objections based on the negative accounts of the SR's and MS's, then if anyone can supply links to publicly verifiable material that is supportive, then those can be included too (I could not find any). Carlduff (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alissapalushi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lindsph.
