Talk:Oregon National Primate Research Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleanup[edit]

I slapped a bunch of tags on this, the wikification part should be self-evident, cleanup includes bringing the entire thing into wikistyle per WP:MOS, all the claims about problems with the center need to be sourced, and though the negative information is written fairly neutrally, I think perhaps it is giving undue weight to the problems, and needs to be divided into pro and con sections for balance. I have a feeling this could become controversial so please remember to stay civil. Thanks! Katr67 21:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katr67!
I'm very new to Wikipedia and I'm still kind of fumbling around. The formatting I have no clue how to do. Even replying to this talk page is kind of confusing me...
This is actually only the first half of the entry that I've completed, I'm going to add a bit more (including references) in the coming days. Sorry for the somewhat sloppy work I'm really surprised this was seen so quickly! I just posted it a few hours ago.
JBeckham
22:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi JBeckham. I just sent you a welcome message and you can read more about formatting on there. You replied fine, just a couple pointers--you can indent your posts for easier reading by typing a colon (:) in front of the line, and you can sign your posts using 4 tildes (~~~~), which adds a link to your userpage and automaticaly applies a timestamp. More on this is here: Help:Talk page. I have a ton of Oregon stuff on my watchlist and refresh it complusively so I saw you edits right away. :) Stuff usually doesn't go unnoticed around here for long. Thanks for the update on your work. This isn't too sloppy considering some of the other stuff I've seen. You're a good writer (I even checked to see if this was a copyright violation but it doesn't seem to be)--if you address some of the issues I mentioned above this is looking to be a very good article. Happy editing! Katr67 22:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Here's some help on citing sources: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Katr67 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kat! I just started a new job where I have loads of free time on the internet (and thus, Wikipedia) so I'm sure in no time I'll be a pro and be frustrated at newbies like myself :P I'll clean this up shortly. JBeckham 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were some serious problems here - the page on a 40 year old health research institution only included false claims of abuse from seven years ago and little to no reference to research. I can add more information in the near future - but the activist information was so full of incorrect info and so one-sided, we need to back up and do this in a way that truly provides users with helful information with strong references Onprc 07:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


From Katr67's talk page:

Oregon National Primate Research Center[edit]

Hi there, I'm writing from the Oregon National Primate Research Center. I check our WIKI page daily and was about to start adding info there when today I discovered that an animal rights activist in Wisconsin has posted some very one-sided and error filled info about our center with little to no actual info about our research. I made significant edits (there were so many problems with the false info posted I removed almost all of it because I didn't want to turn the entire page into a debate about what did and did not happen - and much of what was posted did not.)

I believe that the public has a right to many points of view but I also want to make sure that they don't just get false or bad info. For instance - if the page had alot of information about the center and included a reasonable amount of information about the activist claims in 2000, that makes sense to me. But it would also make sense to explain that the center had been cleared, and that the person who made the claims was known to make other false claims in the past. It shouold also explaini that the center has an excellent history of animal care.

I understand the in the past, Wikipedia has had problems with groups that want to use the online encyclopedia to further their causes - I'd love to get your thoughts on this.

Again - I would like to make the wiki page about our institution a useful resource and wouold be very pleased to get some input from you - thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onprc (talk • contribs) 08:06, December 4, 2006

Using passive voice statements like "the center has an excellent history of animal care" reeks of POV problems. If you want to contribute something to the entry that says something along the lines of, "the Primate Center maintains they have an excellent history of animal care" and then provide a reference to ONPRC literature or website that states this, that's fine. But not everyone agrees with your statement that there's an excellent history of animal care and that is precisely the controversy surrounding the lab and the topic that is before us. To state things in such an offhand manner does little to maintain neutrality or fairness. And why am I using Wikipedia to advance a cause any less than you?
I don't disagree with Kat that my original entry had problems of undue weight - and I don't mind OHSU or ONPRC PR people adding bits they think may cast their primate center in a positive light. But deleting an entire entry and replacing it with your undue weight solves nothing. And using neutral language is important. Although most of what I wrote in the entry will be viewed by many people as shocking or alarming, I was careful in my choice of words to keep things to the point and framing it in neutral and factual terms. If you can prove a specific factual inaccuracy in my entry, I will have absolutely no problem with its removal. JBeckham 08:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was the response I was posting on Onprc's page whent JBeckham's message came in:
(P.S. For the record, you should know that I dislike being called "Kat".)
I think it's a shame that you gutted the article (that kind of thing leads to revert wars), though I understand your concerns. I realized what was written may not reflect a balanced view, which is why I put a {{POV}} template on it. Like I said on the article's talk page, I think there is room for both pro and con on there. Unfortunately, if you are connected with the ONPRC, you are discouraged by Wikipedia policy from editing the article on it. Please read conflict of interest for more information. This probably doesn't seem fair, but hopefully we can work things out on the talk page. I suggest you read this about ownership of articles as well. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, however, so if the activist viewpoint cannot be backed up with sources, it is appropriate to remove the material. Your ideas about how the article should look sound good, if you have any of that information at hand that you can back up with reliable sources, which in this case should probably be from somewhere other than the center itself (for example your mention of the care the primates get could be backed up with something like: "The Society For Primate Welfare gave ONPRC an A rating for its animal care" followed by a link to the source). I don't really have a lot of experience with such controversial subject areas, the place just happens to be in Oregon so I keep an eye on the article. So other editors will probably get involved at some point. I hope everyone will remain civil. Thanks for asking instead of simply reverting without comment! Katr67 08:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and I'm sorry for calling you Kat. Hopefully maybe you can mediate this tension and craziness :P I think everything you said was spot on and I don't disagree I need to add sources/references - which I will do tonight (while at work of course). I think having a pro/con type article is not a bad idea. I guess what I'm most upset about is 1. The removal of non-contentious information, such as the dollar figures and primate population statistics (which are directly from ONPRC's website and 2. the entire removal of the article instead of just adding things from another perspective. I say the more info the merrier - not the less. Also, the removal of the undercover investigation entirely is pretty terrible. It is not a stretch at all to say that the whistleblowing and the undercover investigation 6 years ago is what most people in Portland associate with the primate center - it captured more headlines than anything else affiliated with the lab and garnered substantial media attention and even structural change within OHSU/ONPRC. This would be no different than someone editing the Enron article to remove all mentions of fraudulent accounting practices and accounting scandals.JBeckham 09:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's getting late and I need to sleep, so I won't explain how to do it, but you could copy the previous version of the article to userspace and work on it there. Then you can add the sources for some of the not-so-controversial stuff like population and slowly add bits back into the main article. If you have time on your hands I think if you search around for the term "userspace" you should be able to find some instructions. Katr67 09:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both - I am well aware of the revert wars and don't think we want to do that. However, the page does need balance and that was why there is a need to step back and make sure it did not echo one point of view. The animal numbers were outdated and incorrect - you are correct - should have updated on the spot. I am in Portland and will add references to the fact that primate center was cleared when that info is reintroduced, but again, there was so much false info in this section that was not supported, we needed to step back. I should note that the "undercover investigation" is far from the biggest story out of the center. The coverage of research at the center is common and in some cases, worldwide. We can definately add some of these references. JBeckham, please don't view this as any kind of "war" or "tension." We merely need to collectively create a posting that remains fair and balanced. 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So far so good--this is how Wikipedia should work! I would agree that so far the "tension and craziness" are minimal. :) Let's keep it that way! Katr67 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Since this article is one which is likely to provoke some controversy, I took the liberty of adding a citation for each statement of fact, using the standard citation templates.

I also edited the sentence regarding the animal census to the current year since it appears to be time sensitive and subject to change.-- J-M Jgilhousen 22:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal testing template[edit]

This {{animal testing}} was added and I have moved it to here. Is it me or is it maybe a little POV and inapprobriate for this article? Aboutmovies 01:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see the problem myself. The primary purpose of the center is do carry out research using primates, which clearly is a form of animal experimentation. It may be helpful to provide information on the subject to readers. What is POV about it? Rockpocket 01:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but a rather large template that tended to dominate the article with Animal Testing in large bolded text tends to give the reader the first impression that the article is only about animal testing. Animal tresting being the dominant topic of the artilce is just one view. Another view: local employer and research facility that also does research on primates. Another: a division of OHSU. There are plenty of views, but the template tends to introduce undue weight onto that topic. In this instance since this is an actual entity (versus putting the template onto the actual animal testing page) I think there should be some deference to how the entity would want to be classified. Now obviously there can be coverage of animal rights/abuse within the article as there is, and even links in the see also. I would even say putting a nav template at the bottom on animal testing would be fine, as again it would not dominate and give undue weight.
On a side note, just like employees of OHSU/ONPRC need to abide by COI guidelines and ideally should not edit the article, COI also applies to those on the otherside of the coin. I think a WikiProject whose goal is to "educate readers and editors about the concept of animal rights, the animal liberation movement, ..." would seem to be a bit at odds with the subject of this article's world view. I think we would all say it would be inapprobriate to tag the article on Addidas with a WikiProject Nike (if that project existed) tag, or the NYSE with a WikiProject NASDAQ (again if it existed) tag, and so on. It's not that those editing have an agenda or are incapable of editing in an NPOV way, its the appearance of a conflict. Aboutmovies 03:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about due weight, but then again, the addition of a template that direct readers to articles related to other aspects of the article would have the same problem. How do other articles resolve this apparent problem?
I'm not sure what you are implying with your side note. The whole point of Wikiprojects are to encourage editors with an interest in a subject to work together to improve associated articles. Your rationale would appear to preclude anyone in a Wikiproject from actually editing any article within that subject area, which would render the whole concept pointless. You may not be aware of this, but since the article coverage an animal experimentation wikiproject would overlap completely with the animal rights one, so there is little point in creating one. Therefore this project also includes members that are opposed to animal rights, and those who have experience working with animals in places similar to this subject, so there is an excellent balance of expertise to ensure our articles do not suffer from POV issues. To that end, there is no "conflict" in out project having an interest in this subject.
I'm also unconvinced with your comparison. The template you have an issue with covers both animal rights and animal research information, advocates and groups. So the examples you provide of diametric opposites is not relevant. Rockpocket 07:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with the template is the size and location, which I think creates undue weight, which would caue it to fail NPOV. Obviously all templates need to abide by NPOV for their content, as everything on Wikipedia is supposed to, and I assume the one added to the article follows that guideline. Like I said, a less intrusive one at the bottom would eliminate the undue weight issue, or just have a few see also links.
My side note is not that people interested in a topic should not be allowed to edit (please remember that COI does not prohibit editing), but editors with affiliations that strongly support or strongly oppose something should not ideally edit articles concerning those topics to try to reduce the amount of bias that can be introduced. It's not that editors cannot fairly present the topic, but it can tend to taint things. This is not my view, this is what WP:COI says and I had no input in formulating it. This is why I tend not to edit articles on other law schools (I do leave notes on talk pages and will add links for their alumni as I write a lot of judge bios). The problem I have with the Animal rights WP is what their stated goal is, which is what I quoted and not the normal goal you see, which you stated. A WP goal should be to improve articles, a WP stating they want to educate comes accross as WP:SOAPBOX, and that is not what Wikipedia is about.
The template comparison is part of the side note and not part of the mainspace article template. This is an issue with the WP animal rights template on the article. If the WP was truely neutral I would expect not to find "It's an exciting period for supporters of the movement" statements like that in the mission statement, and I would expect to see the Animal rights nav template on the project's main page to be balanced. All of the activists look like they would be opposed to animal testing, wheras the nav template in question for this article's mainspace had a balance of the two sides including groups for animal testing. Therefor I do think the "diametric opposites" comparison is valid. Aboutmovies 16:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think the term "educate" is simply meant as shorthand for "improve articles relating to", but I take your point about "Its exciting times...". Not my choice of words. I can't say that all the members of our project are truely neutral, but then I doubt any project can. I can say that, as one of the most active members, the project itself does not exist to promote animal rights, but to ensure that related articles are free if the bias - on both sides - that this subject inevitably draws.
I should explain about the different templates. There used to be an animal rights template and an animal advocates template, but they were recently merged to create an animal testing one. The old one remains on the wikiproject.
Finally, in terms of undue weight, I note there are 5 sections of information on this subject (not includind the lead and references etc):
  1. History
  2. Facility
  3. Research
  4. Animal Care Oversight
  5. Criticism
The latter three are all clearly related to the primary purpose of the subject, animal experimentation. That is over half the article. Based on your argument of undue weight, there cannot be any templates in this article. Frankly, I don't really care whether the template is there or not, what bothers me greater is that your arguments appear to associate a perfectly neutral template with the (erroreously assumed) motivations of a Wikiproject. That is somewhat disheartening for the number of editors that have put a lot of excellent work into this subject area. Rockpocket 17:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remeber my main objection was placement, not the content of the mainspace nav template. The section thing could easily be re-done, as Anicmal Care Oversight could be combined with either Research or Criticisms (it curently does not meet the MOS). Then only 2 out of 4 re animal testing. And criticisms does not necessarily mean it is related to animal research, there could also be employee/employer relationships criticisms in an article (see Talk:Pacific Northwest Seismic Network for examples of this type of criticism) or criticism about perhaps poor enviromental stewardship. If you look at the Weyerhaeuser article you will see criticism about gun rights and environmental issues. So though in this instance it currently does not have any other criticisms, that section does not equate to being a animal testing section. If the template was re-added to where it had been, then would it be appropriate to remove it again if other criticisms were added? Or if new sections such as "relationship with OHSU" or "economic impact" were added, then should we remove the template? I personally don't think that would be approbriate, as the article does contain content related to the content of the template. Again, there are differing views on what this article is about, there is no question they do animal testing, but by putting the dominating template with "Animal Testing" in large, bolded font in the upper right corner screams that this article is only about animal testing (that's why infoboxes are normally placed in that location, draw the readers attention so they can get a quick overview of the article). Additionally, usually a nav template such as this if placed in the upper right corner (see the legal related articles) usually have a link to that article, so it is meant as a way to navigate within that topic. I don't recall seeing a link from the template to this article. Which to me means it is more of advertisement for related articles, and I dont have problem with that, but it should be at the bottom (see Oregon pioneer history for an example of a template I made and placed that is meant more for this purpose as the template has been placed on articles not included in the template). Lastly, if you were the article's subject, would you want that template on the article? I doubt that is how they characterize themselves. My guess is they seem themselves as researchers who happen to do animal testing, so that the research is their dominate self characterization, not animal testing. I don't know for sure, but judging by the previous talk page comments from an employee they talk about research, not animal research. Also, thank you for have a good discussion/argument. It seems rare to find editors who stay calm and don't resort to name calling, thanks. Aboutmovies 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All valid points, and thank you for taking the time to explain them fully. Perhaps it might be a good idea to leave the template off for the moment. If the article develops to a point where it can be added back without overly dominating, then we can revisit the issue further. Incidently, I personally wouldn't mind having that template on an article about me at all. I don't see "animal testing" is anything to be ashamed of, and thus the more attention we bring to the subject and issues, uses and abuses, the more our readers will be able to be informed about it. Part of the wider problems in the field is that people who are involved in animal experimentation have been intimidated to such as extent that they would rather not talk about it, and risk drawing attention to themselves. The result of that is that misinformation has prospered as a critical agenda has dominated the wider discourse. Its turned into a "dirty secret", which of course suits those that oppose it. Part of my interest in the subject in Wikipedia is to, literally, "neutralize" that and give the subject fair, open and balanced coverage, free of the propaganda that litters the debate. Anyway, that is somewhat beside the point. Thanks again for the interesting - and polite! - exchange of views. Rockpocket 18:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Or if a smaller bottom placement template is also created it could easily fit w/o causing any undue weight. Plus I'm sure this is not the only article where that type of template might work better (so many stubs so little time). Aboutmovies 21:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead concerns[edit]

To avoid an edit war here, I'm a bit concerned with the lead now. Since an editor cited WP:LEAD as their reason for restoring a large amount of text to the lead I was wondering if they realize that per WP:LEAD that the details of the 2000 incident do not belong in the lead per WP:LEAD: "briefly describing its notable controversies" which means half the lead should not be concerned with the 2000 incident. Not only is this a WP:LEAD problem but also an WP:UNDUE problem. Aboutmovies 04:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AM, I don't know how to judge whether this is UNDUE, as I don't know how much publicity it got and how much the center usually gets. I think it's okay in terms of "briefly describing": what that means is that we shouldn't go into a lot of detail, but three sentences is okay. The problem with it before was that it had been placed at the very end, even though it's clearly an important issue if a research lab is accused of abuse. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not that it is in the lead, but the second sentence goes into details that really should be later (that's the lead problem I see). Also, the paragraph is about the same size as the other paragraph of the lead which means around 50% of the lead involves a single incident of a 40 year old institution. It would be like having half the lead to the New York Times dedicated to the reporter who was making up stories and plagerizing. That's where the undue comes in especially since there is no coverage of any awards they may have received. Aboutmovies 06:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no suggestion the material was made up. The center said that some of the images were misleading, but I don't think anyone denied the incidents occurred -- simply that they were viewed out of context. At least, that's my understanding; I've not done enough reading about it to be certain.
Also, percentage of lead isn't the issue; if you want to write other material about the center — e.g. the awards you mentioned — to reduce the percentage of criticism, please feel free. As for the detail, I think we do need to give some idea of what was on the video. I didn't include all the details, only the two incidents already mentioned elsewhere. We can reduce that to one if you prefer. Or we could simply say something like "The center came to public attention in 2000 when an animal rights activist posed as a laboratory technician to obtain undercover video footage from the center that allegedly showed animal abuse." And follow with the rebuttal. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about this being made up? Please understand that I agree this information needs to be included, that's not the problem. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view a Wikipedia policy is where there is a concern, as is the lead and undue, all which are really intertwined here. Per the NPOV it really isn't supposed to "you add it if you want it in there" it is that all editors add all relevant info, otherwise that is POV pushing. I personally don't care that they did this or that the USDA cleared them of wrong doing. I care about WikiPedia policies and that articles are kept clean of POV issues. Having that much emphasis (along with the discouraged "controversey" sections) in the lead leads to UNDUE weight, and having the details in there leads to problems with LEAD. So yes, leaving out the second sentence with all the specific details (as I previously suggested) that you suggest at the end solves the problem. No video details are needed in the lead. Again to use my analogy to the New York Times, there would be no need for the individual article names that the reporter plagerized to be listed in the lead. Aboutmovies 07:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the "made up" thing, AM. I misunderstood your post about the NYT.
The one sentence above is fine with me. I'll insert it now if you haven't already. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link in the lead[edit]

Why is the link to the video being removed from the lead? That lead paragraph is about the video, with one side calling it "misleading," and a primatologist who is sympathetic to the activists calling it "torture." It therefore makes sense to include a link to it, so that readers can judge it for themselves. Otherwise, it looks as though we're trying to hide it. SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because raw external links don't belong in the lead (or anywhere else in the body of an article), and it's totally biased to include videos by animal rights activists up front like that. External links go in the external links section, and links in the body of the article should either be internal ones or references. To include it alongside all the other external links, and after the reader has read the article and had the ability to be informed and formulate their own opinion on the matter is the neutral way to go. Steven Walling (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is being used as a reference, so if you want to change the format, that's fine by me, though I think it should be made clear that it's the video the paragraph is discussing, so that readers know to click on it if they want to view it, rather than rely on sources to tell them what it shows.
Material from animal rights activists is no more biased than material from the ONPRC itself or any of its regulatory bodies. The advantage of it being a video, rather than simply allegations, is that it speaks for itself. If you look at the monkey being electrocuted for semen, for example, there is no way that is "misleading." It simply is what it is. SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's being used as a reference, that's an inappropriate use of a primary source. We use distilled, secondary sources only on Wikipedia, you know that very well SV. Compiling info from primary sources is original research. Things that are unfit to be used as reliable secondary sources belong in External links, it's what the section is for. Also, references do not normally need to be included in the lead, even if it was acceptable as a source. Steven Walling (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy are you using when you say it's an inappropriate use of a primary source? And references do very much need to be included in the lead, which is no different from any other part of the article.
You seem to simply want to keep this link away from readers, making it difficult for them to find. Why? SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the link is extremely appropriate and relevant for the article. But no raw external links or unreliable references belong in the body of articles. The video, like all other links not suited to being reference material, belong in the External links section. What's the difference between people finding it in the first paragraph (as a reference, which it is not suited to being according to our policy and guideline), and finding it next to all other external links? WP:V makes it exceedingly clear that realiable sources are secondary ones. An encyclopedia of distilled knowledge is not one that uses to primary sources to generate original content, that clearly violates WP:NOR. It uses fact checked and secondary sources to present knowledge previously gleaned. Steven Walling (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chiming in a little late here, but I did the first move to the EL section, which not to sound rude but the reasoning was in the edit summary, WP:EL. If you are unfamiliar with that guideline its basically this: ELs go in the EL section, unless there is some compelling reason not to. If it's a source, then it goes into a source section in whatever manner the editors of an article decide upon (in this instance the article uses footnotes).
Also, please not that per What Wikipedia is Not, sort of the WP:NOTLINK part, this article does not exist to drive traffic outside Wikipedia. Articles should, for the most part, be self-contained and include all relevant information about the topic. Readers can then use the references section or Google if they want more info. In a sort of related matter, has the copyright status been checked on the video in relation to it being hosted where it is? I believe we don't allow links to copyright violations.
Next, as Steven said, this is a primary source which we tend to discourage as he pointed out in WP:V. For instance the ONPRC webpage sources are primary, but the info cited to them is not controversial (IMHO), its simply background info. If it were saying they have the world's greatest record of caring for monkeys, or its staff had been award 32 Nobel Prizes, then third party sources would need to be used. As WP:RS says "How reliable a source is depends on context." and I think they are likely the best resource for when the place opened and what animals they have, etc. As to the video itself, being primary presents problems. First would be authenticity (I don't know, I have researched it) in that we do not know if this video was shot at this facility or elsewhere. Second, CGI can do a lot of things, so again without it being vetted by WP:RS people, we should be skeptical of this and any video being used as a source about any thing on Wikipedia. Audio/visual works are a great source for an article on that work, but still limited in that article as a primary source (that is good for giving a plot summary or other internal items, not good for saying how many awards it won).
So for me, if it to be in the article then it should go in the EL section.
On a side note, it looks like there are some repeats in the references that could be combined. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steven, with respect, I feel you've misunderstood the policies. There is nothing NOR-ish about including a link to the video that the paragraph is about; see NOR. There is nothing in WP:V (or at least there shouldn't be), which I wrote quite a bit of, that excludes primary sources; it's important to use them carefully, but they are welcome if that's done. And there is nothing in WP:V or WP:LEAD that says citations aren't needed in the lead.
Common sense alone tells you that it makes sense to place a link to the video where the reader is most likely to see it, given that the final lead paragraph is about the video, and given that it comprises the only criticism in the article. You're calling it unreliable is simply one POV. Let readers make up their own minds about it.
Aboutmovies, EL and RS aren't policies, and anyway don't support what you say. The two relevant policies are WP:V and WP:NOR, neither of which precludes this link being used as a source for the final lead paragraph. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox. most certainly does support what I said about where ELs go if used (as you did) as an EL. Period. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(a) The link is being used as a source; (b) EL says "normally," so it does admit of exceptions; (c) EL is not a policy and therefore need not be followed; (d) it is, in addition, one of our worst-written guidelines, and certainly shouldn't govern what we do here; (e) the policies allow the use of this link as a source, and it's the policies we prioritize. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be a source, because it fails to meet basic standards of reliability and the use of secondary sources, which are clearly required. For there to be an exception, there needs to be an extremely compelling reason to violate WP:El and WP:NOT. You have not presented one here that has convinced your peers to any degree. There simply is no reason why the link should be included in the lead instead of the External links section. We are not being unreasonable, and we aren't asking for the link to be removed from the article entirely. We simply want it in the right place. Steven Walling (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steven, would you please show me which part of which policy disallows primary sources?
I've added info about a second investigation. I'll add more about it to the body of the article when I have more time to write it up. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, so what I said is backed up by WP:EL. Could please strike that earlier comment then? Next, replies to your sections: (a): if simply putting it as an inline citation makes it a source, then there would be no little need for the EL guideline. Plus, I find it hard to believe it was added as a source so no new text was added. Additionally, citations (i.e. sources) should follow the pre-existing citation format already used in an article, and this did not conform to that format. (b) yes, but I already said that in my first response, and you have not provided a sufficient reason to override that guideline. (c) true, but that applies to everything, so does that mean we can ignore WP:LEAD too and I can just cut out the entire video section? And policies too don't need to be followed either since there is always WP:IAR. Policies and guidelines exist for a reason and should be conformed too except in unusual circumstances. I believe this is covered by the templates at the beginning of all policies and guidelines. (d) so we can ignore any policy or guideline if we feel it is poorly written? I've found the copyright guidleines very archaic, I guess I'll just stop following them. (e) policies do trump guidelines, unless they are poorly written I guess or we disagree with them and invoke WP:IAR. That aside, both Steven and I agree that WP:OR is a policy (it says it is) and it discusses primary sources and it says these include "audio and video recordings" at it further says:
  • Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
  • Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
  • emphasis added
Here you cited it for a sentence that ends in "abused" which is a value judgment. Thus, it violates the policy WP:OR. You could use the video to source that the video exists, but that is about it. Otherwise you are "interpreting" what it says. Interpreting comes from secondary sources, not primary. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no part of what you quoted from OR that precludes the use of that primary source. Please read what you're quoting and look at the video and the edits; they are purely descriptive. That is, no Wikipedian is making an interpretive claim about it. Also, why are you only objecting to that link and not to the other primary sources (e.g. the primate center) that are used? SlimVirgin talk|edits 01:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Um, abuse is a judgment call, which should be painfully obvious since this place says it is not abuse, much like opinions on what constitutes torture vary. Thus people disagree, thus using the video here means it is used for interpretation, thus violates OR, thus should not be used. OR Says: Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources which I take to mean you should not use primary (then taken in the context of that section) except where they follow the rules that I quoted above. Otherwise, what do you think it means when it says: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources"? As to not objecting to the other primary sources used, I've already explained above. But to reiterate, how many people work there is not really a value judgment, when it was built or when OHSU took over are not really value judgments. Thus, they follow the WP:OR rules for primary sources. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm more than happy to discuss how to apply the policies, but you have to understand what they say first. Yes, abuse is a judgment call, but it's not my judgment call — it's the source's, which is why we need a citation to where he says it. A primary source is fine for that, obviously. SlimVirgin talk|edits 01:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not assume bad faith (i.e. telling me to read) and write things such as implying I don't understand a policy. That is uncivil behavior. Your actions here (including the last time we discussed the lead) are becoming an issue. With my bellow issue about the lead, what has changed since the agreement we came to in December above? In the end I think we are going to have to take this to an article RFC. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SV, what is really the difference between including the link in the lead and a few clicks below? It's a net positive to include it in External links by complying with standing guideline and policy, and it far from hurts any reader to have to click the link in the External links section, rather than in the lead where such links do not customarily go. There simply is no compelling reason to include it in the lead, considering that it's not reliable, secondary source. And before you say it, let me quote the policy again: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources". Steven Walling (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Lead issues[edit]

Remember that the WP:LEAD should be concise and general. Exploding out the video issue, something already covered later in the article, is far more detail than needed and violates WP:UNDUE. It needs to be shrunk (with items not covered in the existing section added there), or other aspects of the place need to be expanded to the same level of detail as this instance. I don't recommend the second part, as what would be the point of the WP:LEAD. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, I intend to expand on both investigations in the body of the article. The lead is currently fine per WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin talk|edits 01:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgetting anything about NPOV and undue weight, the definition of a lead is an overview of the rest of the article. It should not contain a relatively large amount of detail and citations not present below. Steven Walling (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oregon_National_Primate_Research_Center&oldid=1209537248"