Talk:Gill Langley

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Peer review

BlueValour, you're well out of order. I'm assuming you have something against animal rights. If you do, fine, but nominating this for deletion, and then trying to make derogatory edits about the subject is going too far. We do not normally add next to every publication whether or not it has been peer-reviewed. It is an irrelevance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please read WP:AGF. Why am I 'well out of order'? I notice that you have reverted my edit with the comment 'delete nonsense about peer review; who cares about that?'. Why is a factual addition to provide balance 'trying to make derogatory edits about the subject is going too far'. I have no interest in animal rights but I do have an interest in a balanced Wikipedia. The paper 'Next of Kin' is pivotal to this article, particularly since the article quotes extensively from it. Since it is a scientific report on a controversial subject it requires peer review to establish if it has merit (on which I have no view). I quote from the WP article Peer review: "The peer review process is aimed at getting authors to meet the standards of their discipline and of science generally. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields." If you revert my edit again then it will be clear that you have no interest in NPOV. BlueValour

You're talking utter nonsense. People don't need to have had articles peer reviewed before they merit articles on Wikipedia, and her Next of Kin report is not at all pivotal to this. What gives you that impression? As for your attempt to poison the well in the introduction, please read our content policies about how to edit. That is not how articles are written. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that my edit has been reverted again with no explanation other than 'stop this nonsense'. Clearly my attempt to make this article meet NPOV has been rejected. I have no intention of engaging in an edit war so I have simply tagged this article as not meeting NPOV. BlueValour 22:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best to state who published the various reports and who financed her to write them in the section that talks about what they report. It does seem to be the activist/lobbist group. That is legitimate information to include since it wasn't published via the normal peer review process. --Ben Houston 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally refrain from using words like "nonsense" in describing the edits of others. For example, here I would use the word "surreal" instead. If anyone wanted to balance the alleged POV here, I think they should feel free, e.g., a quote from someone notable saying, "Langley is a [derogatory epithet]." The difficulty involved in that, of course, is that involves actual research and knowledge of the subject matter, as opposed to idly picking apart valuable work someone else is doing. And if such does not exist, let's get that tag off in the not-too-distant future, please. I don't agree with Slim on every single thing she does, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for her opinions and her very hard work, and so do many others.

Confidential to Ben: you are coming very close to wikistalking. As someone who has experienced the bitter (and chilling) effects of that first-hand, I'd advise you to stay away from anything that even smells like it. IronDuke 03:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what happened to you, but at the moment, from my perspective, it feels more like a convenient accusation from Jayjg. The reason I say this is evidenced by the way he responded on the other page -- while SlimVirgin was happy to admit that she had solicited his vote and asked me to show how it was wrong according to Wikipedia rules, Jayjg on the other hand tried to show how it was not solicitation but rather a third opinion and then accused me of coming close to harrasssment -- to me both parts of his statement were of the same character: not representative of reality but rather convenient. --Ben Houston 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)--Ben Houston 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, could you please just go away? You clearly have no interest in this article, but are here to stalk and harass. It's perfectly legitimate to ask for other people's help when something as absurd as this is happening. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was response to IronDuke? I understand that I can't defend myself here. It may be more useful to use proper administrative measures when it appears that I am violating Wikipedia principles -- making personal attacks against me and ramping up the accusations when I response to them is self-fulfilling in that sense. I will try to do the same. I have unwatched the page btw. --Ben Houston 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlueValor is actually right. "Next of Kin" is not intended to be an impartial evaluation of the situation, it's a paper issued by a pressure group and its intent is to influence public opinion. (Note that this isn't passing judgement on anyone.) It is more appropiate to use the word "white paper". Dr Zak 03:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a bit worried about the David Morton quote. The reference is a press release (actually the Google snapshot of the press release) by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, a charity related to the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, which published the report, on [1], a website with no clear editorial policy. One wonders if there is something less gushy, something like an independent opinion. There ought to be something, since this is supposed to be the counterpoint to the MRC statement on primate experimentation. [2] Dr Zak 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publications list

I generally cut off the "publications list" at the ISBN-bearing books. Lost of academics have a very long list of publications that we do not usually include unless they are exceptionally widely-cited. Maybe some of the non-book pubs can be plowed back into the prose as footnotes. -- 75.24.104.11 08:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange citation

"Studies suggesting that humans and great apes — the latter currently not used in experiments in the UK — as well as macaques and other monkeys are more conscious of themselves and others than was previously believed"

This is a strange fourth-hand citation bordering on Chinese Whispers (Wikipedia citing the New Scientist citing Gill citing the original source). The suitable reply is found in Science, in a commentary on knockout mice without the VGLUT1 gene (Kim Schuske and Erik M. Jorgensen, Science, 2004, 304, 1750). "In the Fremeau study, mutant mice survived even to adulthood. This will come as a surprise to most. However, to those who are close observers of human behavior, life without cognition has always seemed possible." Dr Zak 15:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The New Scientist cites Gill as saying that macaques have a self-awareness similar to that of the great apes (including humans). Dr Zak 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]