![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
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 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)
Should primates etc. always referred as he/she? Lapinmies 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I've protected this article so you'll have to sort your differences out here. Gamaliel 18:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
The following statement is not sourced and will be modified:
It also conflicts with the sourced info on the ALF page:
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:
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.
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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))
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))
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))
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:
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)
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).
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)
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.
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)
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 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Animalresearcher ( talk) 23:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Could we have some quotes on talk from the source, please, for the following edit? [2]
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)
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
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7243221390535322676# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.197.76 ( talk) 23:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Can't get the video to load fully. 117.207.235.129 ( talk) 19:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Parsel
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
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 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)
Should primates etc. always referred as he/she? Lapinmies 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I've protected this article so you'll have to sort your differences out here. Gamaliel 18:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
The following statement is not sourced and will be modified:
It also conflicts with the sourced info on the ALF page:
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:
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.
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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))
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))
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))
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:
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)
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).
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)
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.
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)
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 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Animalresearcher ( talk) 23:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Could we have some quotes on talk from the source, please, for the following edit? [2]
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)
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
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7243221390535322676# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.197.76 ( talk) 23:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Can't get the video to load fully. 117.207.235.129 ( talk) 19:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Parsel
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)