Talk:Brown Dog affair/Archive 1

Rewrite
I've started a rewrite and expansion of this page, which may look a bit lopsided in places until the first draft is done. I also moved it to Brown Dog riots, as they represent the key incident that seemed shocking at the time (hundreds of medical researchers and their supporters fighting with the police in Trafalgar Square), but it can always be moved back to Brown Dog affair if the riots title seems inappropriate after the re-write. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 03:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Its really good, SV. I'm not sure, apart from some wikignoming, there is much to be done in terms of content. I don't see any obvious POV issues and the research section seems fine at first viewing, I'll check it out more thoroughly when I get back to work. A free photograph of the statue at present would be good, but we may have to find a willing Londoner for that. Rockpock  e  t  21:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your edits, RP. I wrote that part of the article very tentatively, trying not to copy the sources' text, but also scared to change a single word. :-)


 * I've found a Wikipedian whose willing to take a photograph of the new statue. I'm kind of wondering whether we have time to arrange for Geraldine James to stand next to it, or is that too fussy for the time that's left?


 * I still need to fill out the section on the trial and the riots a little. And I'd like to find some images of the scientists and the Swedish activists. But otherwise, it's almost there. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Shambles of Science
Google books has a listing for TSOS, but there's no preview available in the UK. It might be that a USian can see a PDF where I can see nothing. if so, there might be something interesting in the book. (I'm presupposing, SV, that you don't have a dusty copy of it on your desk right now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a copy, and Google books is saying there's no preview here too. But thank you for finding it, because it led to an interesting NYT letter, which I've added a detail from.


 * Do you still have the Mason book? If you do, would you mind looking to see what he says about the December 10, 1907 riots? I'm having difficulty finding details. Lots of people write about various bouts of Brown Dog-related fighting in 1907, but they don't give dates, and I don't want to presume that it all happened on December 10th. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping the book's at home. I'll have a look later tonight & see what I can do tomorrow or Tuesday (which might be my next internet session). btw, I've emailed NAVS to see if they'll bung us a photo of the new statue in Battersea Park. I'm in London next week but doubt I'll be able to get to the park in daylight hours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are 13 pages on "the riots" and 13 more on "more trouble". I'll not have time to update the article until Tuesday, though - I will have done so by Wednesday morning. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great, thank you. I've found a Wikipedian who says she'll go to the park to take a photograph for us, and we can keep the NAVS one in reserve in case that doesn't work out. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible new section on contemporary resonance of the DBA
I hesitate to suggest new sections which I'm not prepared to write myself, but taking account of the Steve Jones telegraph article, the prominence of the DB in NAVS publicity, this, and (long shot) articles such as this which look back to Hageby's work, is a section on the relevance of the DBA today worth a candle? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It might make it a bit long. I'd love to keep this under the length that triggers the warning. Remember we still have to fill out bits about the trial and the riots.

Access to academic journals?
Then check this out An Exploration of the Sculptures of Greyfriars Bobby, Edinburgh, Scotland, and the Brown Dog, Battersea, South London, England


 * Abstract: This article analyzes the sculptural depiction of two nonhuman animals, Greyfriars Bobby in Edinburgh, Scotland and the Brown Dog in Battersea, South London, England. It explores the ways in which both these cultural depictions transgress the norm of nineteenth century dog sculpture. It also raises questions about the nature of these constructions and the way in which the memorials became incorporated within particular human political spaces. The article concludes by analyzing the modern "replacement" of the destroyed early twentieth century statue of the Brown Dog and suggests that the original meaning of the statue has been significantly altered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh. Here you go. The full text.

NYT articles

 * March 13, 1910 BATTERSEA LOSES FAMOUS DOG STATUE; Erected as Protest Against Vivisection, It Was Constant Source of Trouble. POLICE HAD TO GUARD IT Medical Students Resented What They Thought Was an Insult to the Profession -- Case Now in Court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 00:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * March 24, 1911, BATTERSEA BROWN DOG GONE; Anti-Vivisection Monument Broken Up by Borough Authorities.
 * February 4, 1909, MISS LIND AND HER VIEWS


 * Brilliant, thank you. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Bayliss-Starling Prize Lectures
Physiological Society academics celebrate the BDA to this day! Also relevant to the idea of a contemporary resonance type section. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Other articles

 * The Times, 10 February 1908 THE BROWN DOG. MEETING AT BATTERSEA.
 * Telegraph ??/11/2003 In sickness and in health: vivisection's undoing --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this relevant?
Looking at the New York Times archive under Lind-af-Hageby, it seems she had another run-in with Bayliss and Starling, in yet another libel trial over vivisection, in 1913. According to the NYT articles, she had some exhibits set up in London to promote anti-vivisection, and a doctor disparaged her and/or her work. She sued him and his publication for libel, and by this time she was apparently an attorney, representing herself. She apparently made news by breaking records in the length of her verbal presentations during the trial, one lasting 9 hours. It seems both Starling and Bayliss participated as witnesses, along with many other eminent scientists in different disciplines. She lost the case, though the judge ended up commending her on her demeanor and abilities, and she had to start another fund raiser to cover her costs. I wonder if all of this merits any mention here, or only in her own article. Crum375 (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to leave that out of this one, and add it to hers. There's quite a lot more about her in various places, and it's too much for here, I think. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Crum375 (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ready?
I'm thinking of nominating this very soon, just to make sure there's plenty of time for people to judge it before the 10th. Any thoughts about whether it's ready? SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been bold. See Featured article candidates/Brown Dog affair. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree an early nomination is good. I've started going through Mason: there's plenty in there that should be added - though the absence of any of it should not unduly affect the FA nom. Example: Coleridge set out with the deliberate intention of provoking a libel suit, since prosecutions under the act could only be made with the permission of the home secretary (IIRC) ... he published a letter in the Daily News a few days after the speech which, pretty much, said "come & sue me if you think you're hard enough". But - all appearances to the contrary - I'm not online for the next couple of days so we'll have to wait. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Font oddness when printing
I've just printer the DBA article, and the Acol article, one after another; same browser, same printer. DBA comes out in a tiny font. Acol in a larger font. What's all that about, then? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't actually printed them, but 'Printable version' of both articles seems about the same, and both are rendered in reasonable font size here. Crum375 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just hit file, print on the main article. By eye, BDA came out at 8 point & Acol at 12 point. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right. On the screen the 'Printable view' looks fine, but then 'Print Preview' shows BDA in much smaller font than Acol, possibly with the font ratio you mention. Very odd, I'll try to investigate. Crum375 (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a problem with other articles too, that have an image upfront (e.g. Gol 1907). What browser are you using? Crum375 (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Firefox 2.0.0.9 on WinXP --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at it some more, it seems to me to be a MediaWiki problem in the 'Printable Version' software. It seems to add images on the side of the text, making the actual page much wider. Then, when the browser tries to render it on the printer, the font size must be reduced to accommodate the image. Crum375 (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I seem to have the same problem when not using 'Printable Version'. Probably an issue with the media=print stylesheet. John Nevard (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it's MW. It seems to work OK under MS Internet Explorer - can you try that? Crum375 (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Research
Its a minor point, I know, but the seminal experiment published by Starling and Bayliss actually used a ligated and denervated section of jejunum, not duodenum. The section has been edited to remove the mention of jejunum from the text. Rockpock e  t  20:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I based the removal of 'jejunum' on the Henderson paper in the JOE, that says: "Bayliss and Starling carefully dissected away all the nerves that accompanied the vessels supplying the pancreas and duodenum. They then put acid into the duodenum, and pancreatic secretion occurred in the normal way." But I have now read the original Bayliss and Starling paper, and you are correct and Henderson seems wrong. So I'll fix the wording forthwith. Thanks! Crum375 (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made a change, per your suggestion. As their paper makes clear, they performed several independent experiments. In one they severed all nerves, by cutting the spinal cord, and discovered that pancreatic secretion still took place when acid was introduced into the duodenum or jejunum. In another, they severed the nerves to a single jejunal loop, while leaving the duodenum intact. In that case, they showed that introducing acid into either the duodenum or the isolated denervated jejunal loop both cause pancreatic secretions. Their most telling experiment, which is also mentioned by Henderson, was when they extracted secretin from the jejunal lining and injected it into the bloodstream, causing the pancreatic secretions. All this is of course way too much detail, all we really need are a few summarizing words, and links to references and wiki articles for more. So I left it kind of vague, to cover all bases, but any improvement is welcome. Crum375 (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I also notice that they describe, in their experimental techniques, that "all our experiments were made on dogs that had received a previous injection of morphia, and were anaesthetized with A.C.E mixture during the course of the experiment... the anaesthetic bottle being introduced in the course of the blast of air from the [respiratory] pump." I'll add this as an additional source for the claims the dog was anaesthetized. Rockpock  e  t  21:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I will not. The paper was published before the experiment in question, therefore while it shows consistency with their experimental technique, it doesn't have direct relevance to the vivisection of the little brown dog. Rockpock  e  t  21:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. I saw the description of the anaesthetic protocols in their peristalsis and pancreatic experiments. But I think in those cases they had to use anaesthesia (and just the right amount) or else the normal digestive functions would have been disrupted. In the classroom demonstration with the brown dog on the other hand, we only know they inspected the old pancreatic ligation and then tried to test salivary pressure, and it's unclear (or at least unsourced) if those actually required anaesthesia from the practical (non humanitarian) point of view. Crum375 (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In a sense, the anaesthesia "yes or no" position misses the point. The researchers may very well have administered drugs that should have caused loss of consciousness, but the question remains whether the women saw purposive movements i.e. whether the dog remained conscious despite the drugs. That question will never be settled, because only the dog knew the answer. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite true. Odds are the anaesthesia they used was only an analgesic, intended to reduce pain while allowing breathing, and it's quite likely the dog was intended to be semi-conscious even under the best of circumstances. I am far from expert on this, although anaesthesia gives these issues an interesting overview. I think the issue is more that the procedure was not medically necessary for the dog. Crum375 (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The provision of morphine in addition to the ACE makes it difficult to determine, even if the dog was semi-conscious, whether it was "in pain". Never mind the brown dog, thats an enduring problem with vivisection today. Rockpock  e  t  22:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the anaesthesia issue, a postcard was in circulation at the time, with the following wording. I don't think we can use it given the nature of the site it's on (unclear who or what), but it's interesting anyway:




 * SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This was before Curare was in common use, and movement is referred to. Breathing is depressed by anaesthesia later than consciousness.  The dog is described as being ventilated ("the respiratory pump" etc).  Therefore it was anaesthetised and unconscious.  Midgley (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Length
I'm thinking this is starting to get too long. I was hoping to keep it at around 30 kilbytes, just so that it's readable, but it's up to 40, so I may go in later and try to tighten it, if that's all right with everyone. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not so keen as you to diminish the length, but keeping it tight is good. Your call. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency
We said that the women enrolled in 1902, but Richard Ryder says they studied for two years before publishing in 1903, which suggests they enrolled in 1901. I've tweaked the writing to get rid of the inconsistency, but it would be good if we could check the enrollment date. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 07:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple of questions for those with access to more complete sources than me

 * Did Lind-af-Hageby or Schartau ever attain a medical qualification? John Nevard (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, answered my own question. "It was not long before Schartau and Hageby gave up the idea of working for a degree for, as they put it, “physiology is at present inseparable from experiments on animals"." Times certainly haven't changed. John Nevard (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hageby's obit suggests she lived an unusual life mixing spiritualism, anti-vivisectionism and caring for "needful children at a beautiful property at Carcassonne, in France"  Rockpock  e  t  07:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Other students present during the surgery", and two of the most eminent animal researchers in the country, reported that the dog was unconscious during the surgery. Did any other students dispute this? Thanks. John Nevard (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't know exactly what was said because we haven't seen trial transcripts or detailed reports from primary sources. We know only that the researchers said the dog had been anaesthetized, and the two women said they had seen the dog move in a way that was purposive. Those statements are not mutually exclusive: both could be true.


 * The researchers did not deny that the dog had moved, but said the movements were the result of an illness. I don't know whether the researchers ever said "this dog was not conscious," using that terminology. The question is whether the animal was (a) anaesthetized at all and (b) anaesthetized sufficiently so that he felt no pain.


 * Of the other students present, we know only from a secondary source that they said the dog had been twitching, not moving in a purposive way, in their opinion. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 07:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The researchers said the dog was moving in an involuntary manner, possibly as a result of its illness. This is consistent with what the other students present said about the dog, namely that it had been twitching in an involuntary manner. I doubt they would have been called to testify in court, if an unbiased report of the case is even available, given the caliber of the researchers involved. John Nevard (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. All we can do is tell readers who said what. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 08:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Mason, Bayliss, who admitted he had no medical qualification, opined in court that the dog has canine chorea. (Coleridge was a friend of Oscar Wilde ... To have been vivisected, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to have canine Chorea looks like carelessness...). Starling supported this testimony. A number of other students present testified that Bayliss would not have been able to conduct the experiment if the dog had not been knocked out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Bayliss had no medical qualifications? What were his qualifications then? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As you can see in his own article, he was a professor of Physiology. According to at least one source, he dropped out of medical school when he failed his anatomy exam. ;^) Crum375 01:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So he was a PhD? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * His article only mentions graduation from Oxford. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is one biography, I'll try to find the one that explains why he dropped out of med school. Crum375 01:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems to suggest he was never actually awarded a higher degree (other than honorary ones), but did seem to get two undergraduate degrees. Rockpock  e  t  02:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems strange. He had a degree in physiology (and other things) from UCL, but then registered as an undergraduate at Oxford. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to his 1924 obit in Science, Bayliss studied medicine at UCL, and in addition earned scholarship in zoology to work with Burdon-Sanderson. However Sanderson moved to Oxford in 1883 and "after some discouragements and disinclinations with reference to certain medical subjects, Bayliss seems to have concluded to give up the notion of becoming a physician." So he followed Sanderson to Oxford in 1885 and "from there took his degree in 1888". So it doesn't say explicitly whether he actually graduated from UCL, but it is suggestive that he didn't, which was why he went to Oxford as an undergrad. Rockpock  e  t  02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is where I saw the failed anatomy course. Here are more degrees. Crum375 02:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder how reliable that source is, as they say no live vivisection took place with the brown dog.
 * So are we sure he is not Dr. Bayliss? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not seen a source that specifically mentioned he obtained a PhD in any subject, if that's your question, but there are sources that tell us he was appointed a Professor of Physiology. Also, there are sources that refer to him as "Dr." We could change his title to Professor, presumably. Crum375 02:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another source says the "professorship of general physiology was created specially for him," but doesn't mention any PhD. He became professor in 1912, well after the libel trial, the riots and the removal of the statue. Crum375 04:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Extra details
TS, I reverted your recent additions because of the level of detail. I'm sorry for doing a wholesale revert. It's just easier than trying to keep some and remove other bits. Details like the loony left aren't really appropriate, especially for 1903, and most readers won't know what it refers to. Also, Mason is mentioned a few times without saying who he is, and the two antivivisection societies are mentioned, without saying which ones. We don't say who Louise Woodward is, we don't know why Mason thinks she is the author etc. I'll restore some of the other details later, once I've had a chance to read through for flow, if that's all right. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I see you reverted and are adding more. The danger with doing this at this stage, TS, is that people may read some of these versions and object to the nomination because of the level of detail, or because it's unclear who these people are. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't say who Louise Woodward is. Okay. But it is important not to give the impression, as we did, that Lind-af-Hageby was the driving force of the memorial. She was not, by a long way.
 * Okay.
 * the two antivivisection societies are mentioned, without saying which ones. In a preview draft, I included the names. They're very long names and incidental to the story, and I decided for concision to remove them. They are, since you ask, "The Society for United Prayer for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals", and the "International Anti-Vivisection Council".
 * Thanks. Anna Louise Woodward was the founder of the World League Against Vivisection. I wonder how the other two fit in with this.
 * That's odd. In Mason's wrap up, he describes Lind-af-Hagerby's later life, and says "She was a figure on the world stage too, organising an international anti-vivisection congress with Louisa Woodward in London in July 1909, which was soured by the emergence of a rival convention set up by the World League Against Vivisection, a strictly abolitionist group which objected to her gradualist approach." Difficult to reconcile these two (unless WL had established but later lost control of the WLAV). Anti-viv societies appear a little like mushrooms, springing up all over the place ... NAVS, the 1898 splinter group BUAV, IAVS, WLAV, SUPPCA, AD&AVS, Ealing & Acton AVS, IPAAV. And there was schism between gradualists & absolutists, a fault line which was temporarily patched by the brown dog.
 * Mason's narrative suggests that the IAVC was the organisation which which the Council communicated when it was trying to get rid of the statue, fwiw.
 * The 20-22 November riots and the 10th December riots are all joined up. We split their text between the Memorial and the Riot sections, which is probably not good. The details of the riots - as you noted some posts back - needed improvement.
 * We can introduce Mason
 * Do you know who he is, or rather, how we can describe him?
 * This seems to be him. Biographer & Journalist, acquiainted with muesli & sandals. From it we learn that his book was turned into a BBC4 radio play. (starring Nerys Hughes and Maggie Steed called The Strange Affair Of The Brown Dog ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 09:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * loony left quotes Mason. The parallels between the 1906 Battersea Met, and the 1984 GLC are very marked - almost to the point of history repeating itself. We should have sufficient wit to make this point.
 * The removal of the new memorial is indeed an echo of the disappearance of the first one.


 * Yes, that's an interesting point to add.
 * The second memorial words are long - I'm ambivalent.
 * Have fun! --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, TS. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * GK Chesterton. Did I mention he wrote about the inscription singling out University College? "The mere fact that certain people are humanitarians and have a reasonable ideal ought not to permit them to erect brown dogs in the streets of battersea. ... I should be annoyed ... by an inscription ... saying "This is the martyred haddock, murdered to make the bestial breakfast of GK Chesterton, who lives in the mansion over the way.""


 * Other stuff to consider:
 * Woodward's attempt to get a court injunction to stop Battersea council removing the statue in 1910; Churchill sending along an observer to the case.
 * Big demo (1,000 - 3,000 people) in Traf Square March 18 1910 to protest the removal of the statue --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added some of your stuff back, TS. Thanks for writing it up. You were right about the header and the flow, by the way. Your version was better. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Riots
I'm still unclear about when the main riots were, and I'm getting the sense we're describing the same night (the big Strand/Trafalgar Square march and riots), but attributing it to two different nights. Not our fault, because it's what the sources do, but I wish we could pin things down. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 20th Nov, Battersea, small disturbance as they tried to wreck the statue
 * 21st Nov, Tottenham court road, small handful, take the tobacconists dummy for a wander in a wheelbarrow. (Oh, how they rioted in those days)
 * 22nd Nov, University College quadrangle, fail to burn dummy, throw it in the Thames
 * and the biggest one on the 10th Dec, centre of london, traf square, to coincide with an oxbridge rugby game.
 * In reality, they were demonstrations, not riots. The demo at Traf Square when the monument was taken down was bigger by x3 or more than the biggest so-called riot. --Tagishsimon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you say anything else about the rugby game? Was it set up to cooincide with it, and where were they playing? (Assuming there's any more information available, of course). :-) SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to check - book is miles away right now. IIRC, there was a scheduled varsity match; the Dec 10th date was chosen by organisers, in part, since there would be a bunch of (drunk, rowdy, up for it) students in town. As it was, it doesn't look like the rugger buggers were all that interested. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline
Does anyone with sources know why there were apparently 14 months of calm, with no demonstrations or riots, from the time the memorial was unveiled on September 15, 1906, to when the first demonstrations started in November 1907? Why did it take so long for the students to read the plaque and react? Crum375 05:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * None of the sources has explained. Maybe there were small demos, but nothing worth reporting in the press until November 1907. Just guessing. This is where we need access to the primary sources. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Medical students. Not know for being bright? Mason p41 discusses possibilities: 1) lack of a charismatic leader 2) they just were not that bothered about the inscription. Howard Lister, whose band of incompetents tried to destroy the statue on the 20th Nov, appears to have been that charismatic leader. He want on to lead men - and himself - to their deaths in the trenches. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

External link
Would the text of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 be useful and acceptable on this private site as external link? It is the only place I've been able to find this text online so far. It is also on archive.org here, if needed for stability. Crum375 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We'd be better off putting together a Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 stub & linking from there. It's off-topic for this article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Crum375 (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do a first version in a minute or two. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I started it: Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. Crum375 (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Main page
Hey, we've got FA status! Thanks to everyone who collaborated on this article. It was great teamwork. :-)

I've add it as a main-page suggestion here. We have some competition for December 10, it seems, from a very worthy opponent. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 06:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations everyone, especially you SV, for yet more excellent work. Rockpock  e  t  07:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, kudos to SV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you SV for your great work. Let's hope we can get the ten spot. Crum375 13:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :-) So far, people seem to be voting for it for the 10th. Fingers crossed. A friend managed to track down a copy of the Mason book in a library, so I've added a few details, such as the weight of the dog (he was small -- 14 lbs), and some stuff about the December 10 riots. Hope that's all right. If it starts to look like too much detail, free free to remove. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes, references & Further reading issues
1. We seem to have some redundancy of information in Notes. Each time Mason is cited in Notes, we get the full book title. Compare with California Condor.


 * It can be written out or shortened; it's just a matter of preference. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

2. We seem to have some redundancy of information between Notes and References. Compare with Night of the Long Knives & References


 * Can't quite see what you mean here. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Their footnotes are in the form of Jones (2000), which are pointers to entries in their references section. Perhaps part of my question - apart from the thought that we could cut out repetition & arguably make our Notes section more easy to follow - is why we have an additional References section? Answering my own question, it is because it is the easiest form of listing for all refs used ... in which case to my sensibilities, our Notes should merely point to our refs as happens in Night of the Long Knives. As you note, it comes down to preference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, it can be done that way too. The advantage is it looks neater. The disadvantage for the reader is that it's harder to find who the source is exactly. Once you have Mason, p. 1, you have to then find out who Mason is. In addition, that system requires a separate references section, which I set up anyway, so that's not an issue for us. So the only issue is neatness versus convenience for the reader. To answer your second question, I added a refs section to make it easier to scan the sources; when they're mixed up with comments in footnotes, it's hard to see at a glance which sources were used. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

3. What's the criteria for inclusion in Further reading. Should Mason not be in there? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * FR is for relevant material not used as a source. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Shambles of Science (2)
I think there are some open issues with the book. I tried adding an image of the front page for discussion (with another placement possibility here). What do people think? After all, this book was to a large extent behind the original controversy, and it seems to be hard to get. The page also gives us some useful information: it confirms the fifth edition in 1913, and shows the publisher of this edition was the "Animal Defense & Anti-vivisection Society". Also, per NAVS here. the 'Fun' chapter in the original version was not removed, but was simply retitled to "The Vivisections of the Brown Dog." Crum375 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I found this version acceptable - maybe made it 200px or similar? Meanwhile I've stolen a march on you and have the cover securely lodged in Louise Lind-af-Hageby --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And whilst we're on that subject, we should put some time into her article - we must have a bunch of things we can by now say about her. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have accepted your preferred version for now, although I am still unhappy about the alternation sequence. Regarding the Animal Defense & Anti-vivisection Society, we now know that it was the publisher of the fifth edition in 1913. But per this source, that society was founded by Lind-af-Hageby in 1903. We know from the NYT letter that the first edition of the book was published in 1903 by "Ernest Bell of Covent Garden, London," and that on Nov. 25, 1903, he apologized to Bayliss, and pledged to remove all copies from circulation. Yet, in the same year, Lind-af-Hageby founded her society, and the latter went on to publish the book, with its fifth edition by 1913. Per above, the only change in the book I am currently aware of is the change of title of the 'Fun' chapter to 'The Vivisections of the Brown Dog.' Crum375 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Where does the source linked to say they decided to republish the book?  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's back to the left & slightly smaller. Your turn. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I think, for now. I reworked the book publishing issues, added Bell's apology, and clarified the effective transfer of the book to Lind-af-Hageby herself via the society she founded. Unfortunately, I can't find a good definitive source about this, just bits and pieces, so I tried to be careful to adhere to the sources I have seen. Crum375 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's this OR? We don't have a source that says Hageby's society decided to republish it. Just an image of a cover page with their name on it 10 years later. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mason says Vivisection of the Brown Dog was a new chapter, and that Fun was removed. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * NAVS says:
 * If Mason disagrees, I guess we have conflicting sources. Is it possible that there are some old copies of these editions somewhere? Crum375 (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What are the conflicting sources? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If Mason says the 'Fun' chapter was removed and that 'Vivisection of the Brown Dog' chapter was new, and NAVS say, per above, that Fun was just retitled to the new name, wouldn't that be a conflict? Crum375 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean who are the sources for the other changes. I'm getting very confused by some of the alterations. MAterial that is accurate is being removed, and other material that I can't find sources for is being added e.g.

"The Animal Defense and Anti-vivisection Society, founded by Lind-af-Hageby in 1903, republished the book, printing a fifth edition by 1913." Where does K say this? That the BUAV republished it was removed, which is in Mason. Was there a reason for that removal? SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The K ref was originally used as a source for the 5 editions published by 1913. By now there are other sources for it, so it's not needed for that. Only the footnote was left as extra support, but it can go too. As far as the publication history, we know from the primary source that the fifth edition was published by the Animal Defense and Anti-vivisection Society, and we know it was founded by Hageby. What we don't know for sure at this point, is who took over the publication when Bell bowed out. Mason may say BUAV, but it could be a mistake, because presumably (I don't have Mason) he doesn't mention that Hageby's society published the 5th edition by 1913. So the present wording is intentionally ambiguous, reflecting only what the sources say. Crum375 (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, if we leave the BUAV as publisher, we would need to explain the change to Hageby by the fifth edition. The ambiguous wording leaves open all possibilities. Crum375 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would we have to explain that change? That level of detail isn't really necesssary.


 * What matters is how the book moved from being pulped to being republished. Who was printing copies 10 years later isn't the main issue. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it's a matter of perspective. From my own, the fact that the original publisher backed out right after the verdict is very significant, as is the question of who had the guts to pick up the publishing at this point, and keep publishing, for 5 editions in 10 years. This shows courage under threat of legal action, and it's important to present the right facts, and attribute the publication to the right parties. Crum375 (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It was only 200 pages. All the sources call it a book, but in reality it was a thick pamphlet, a sort of samizdat. When the original publisher pulled out, the anti-vivisection societies would have gotten together to republish. NAVS was Coleridge and the BUAV was Frances Power Cobbe. The two groups only existed because the two people fallen out over which direction to take -- Cobbe broke away to set up the more militant BUAV. She was very close friends with Lind-Ag-Hageby -- indeed, reading between the lines, the three women (the two Swedes plus Cobbe) were lesbians, which is part of why they agreed with each other so much politically and in terms of the need for direct action, education for women etc. So what happened was that this group of like-minded people got together and republished the book. The only source we have is Mason, and he discusses how the BUAV was the first to talk about republication within a month of it being pulped. To try to get into the details of exactly who did what when is to misunderstand the relationships -- and to get at all the details and be very accurate, we'd need to do a lot of research with the primary sources, which we don't have access to. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't think the women's sexual orientation is at issue here. The fact remains that this book, or pamphlet, was extremely controversial, and precipitated an uproar that divided British society and lasted for many years. The information in the book also resulted in the NAVS president losing a libel suit. The original publisher backed out, clearly for fear of being sued himself, yet there was another publisher willing to take over under this intense firestorm. We know reliably that Hageby's society published the fifth edition by 1913, we can speculate that perhaps that same society took over the publication as soon as Bell backed out, but we don't know at this point. If someone has access to libraries or bookstores with old books, and could get a hold of these earlier editions, we would know a lot more. But at the very least, we need to tell the reader what we do know. If you say that Mason says that BUAV talked about republication, that's not saying they actually did publish it. So we obviously can't say they did. And frankly, just talking about it is not very notable. So all we do know is that some publisher took over, and by 1913 and the fifth edition, it was Hageby's society, not BUAV, or NAVS. The current wording describes what we do know based on the current sources. Crum375 (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And re Hageby's society as publisher, yes, all we know is that they published the fifth edition. I'll tweak the wording. Crum375 (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Main page success!
We're on the main page for the 10th!

Kudos to SlimVirgin for her remarkable rush-job achievement. Crum375 (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. And thank you to you all who made it happen. :-) SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 10:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, I don't imagine that it'll be a particular target of vandalism, but in case it is, we're not supposed to semi-protect articles on the main page, and doing so usually causes protests. The idea is that the main article should showcase Wikipedia, including the idea that anyone can edit &mdash; and vandalize. :-) SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey. :-D  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a bad idea. Every April Fools' Day there's a big debate over which article to feature, and you decide to run this one in the middle of December? It would have been perfect! Lampman (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? This isn't a joke, it was quite a scandal in its day, so I'm not sure I follow. Rockpock  e  t  02:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The April Fools' Day's entries are never jokes; they adhere to the same strict requirements of factuality as all other articles. They are supposed to appear like jokes though, to the uninformed outsider (see exploding whale, heavy metal umlaut, Japanese toilet, spoo, or Joshua A. Norton). Surely, you must admit that the sentences "a political controversy about vivisection...becoming a cause célèbre", "the infiltration of London University medical lectures by Swedish women activists" or "round-the-clock police protection for the statue of a dog" have a certain absurdist ring to them? Every year there's a scramble to find the right article, and this one would've just fit the bill... No disrespect to the article though, or to the dog. Lampman (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Lampman, it was written that way deliberately, on the grounds that you couldn't make it up. The list could have been even longer -- suffragettes being assaulted, students being arrested for barking like dogs. You name it, this situation had it. :-) SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point now. Rockpock  e  t  18:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the dog as "he" vs. "it"
"It" should be used as the pronoun when referring to the brown dog, as it's the standard grammatical convention to use non-gendered pronouns when referring to animals. The primary sources also use such conventions, the text should be kept consistent. 67.159.70.74 (talk)


 * I don't know of any such convention. We don't know whether the dog was a he or a she, but we do know he wasn't an it -- hence the fuss. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The primary sources use "it" when describing the dog. It's standard to use "it" when describing a non-human organism in an encyclopedic entry.67.159.70.74 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Some do, some don't. We obviously don't copy everything primary sources do. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kind of an intersting question, I think. Here's a dictionary definition of "it" from American Heritage http://www.bartleby.com/61/94/I0259400.html:

Used to refer to that one previously mentioned. Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified, unknown, or irrelevant; a group of objects or individuals; an action; or an abstraction: polished the table until it shone; couldn't find out who it was; opened the meeting by calling it to order.

Or Wiktionary it (subjective and objective it, reflexive and intensive itself, possessive adjective and noun its) The third-person singular personal pronoun used to refer to a non-human entity, to an inanimate thing with no or unknown sex or gender. Or Encarta http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861622690/it.html it [ it ] CORE MEANING: a pronoun used to refer to an object or an animal, and sometimes a baby It's a lovely baby. They've had the dog a week, and they still haven't thought of a name for it.

Sooo that would be support for the existence of any convention. Two things each definition have in common is that they establish a set of sufficient, but not neccessary condition, for the use of the term, most of which are met here: Nonhuman entity--a dog is not a human Unspecified/Unknown sex--The sex is unknown in this case, I think SlimVirgin pointed that out. Irrelevant Sex--Whether or not vivisection on a dog is wrong or right does not seem to be contingent upon the sex of the animal. While it may be true that some (or many) anti-vivisection activists prefer to refer to animals with the same linguistic conventions as humans, that's not out of absolute neccessity, as there is plenty of rooms for a neutrally-connotated version of "it" in the English language.

All of the above isn't of course to say that there aren't times when "it" can be a term with specific baggage, but here it seems that to say he/she would be much more deliberately aligned with a particular perspective. Imagine how out-of-place/awkwardly biased the article would look if instances of the word "he" in question were replaced with "he or she." It seems like using "it" would be a more appropriate resolution of this issue than picking a gender arbitrarily. Balonkey (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Given all these dictionary definitions, it seems like POV to use "he" for the animal. To say nothing of how its sex isn't even known.  -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Dictionaries do not dictate Wikipedia policy. Not even spelling, as only editors make the final decisions when there are spelling conflicts. Regarding this specific issue, if you read the literature from that era, especially the articles about vivisected dogs that are included as footnotes here, they normally refer to female dogs as 'bitches'. Since there is no reference anywhere to the brown dog as a 'bitch', it is likely that it was male, and thus a he. Crum375 (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds like OR to me. In any case, there is no policy which specifies that we must use he so this is clearly an unresolved issue although I would lean to deferring to the original editors preference provided it can be established that the dog was male. This discussion may be of interest Talk:Baiji Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If this were a bull, and not a cow, you'd likely agree it's a male. In that era, the linguistic distinction between dog and bitch was similar, at least among scientific and educated circles, as you can see in the referenced vivisection articles. Crum375 (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I wouldn't, we need clear cut evidence not our own speculation. (Besides that, from what I can tell most of the sources referring to the brown dog are not medical sources from the people who conducted the experiments. It is easily possible perhaps even likely that even if the dog was a 'bitch', the medical professionals involved would not have referred to it as a bitch in their normal public discourse once the public had started to call it a dog as it may have been regarded as unnecessarily offensive. From what I can tell the results of these experiments were not published in the scientific literature. So your whole point seems a bit moot and highlights why user speculation is bad) Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider the two Swedish students writing in their diary. I am sure they were well educated, and would have used the terminology of their professors. And if you read their professors' articles, you see the clear distinction. So this is more than idle speculation, given the quotes from the students' diary using the term 'dog'. Crum375 (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In Swedish it would not be impossible to refer to a dog as "he" even if you didn't know it's sex. The students could probably have made the same "slip" in English without thinking of it. The same holds for "dog" and bitch" - the corresponding word for "bitch" is (was) not used in quite the same way as the English word, and "dog" ("hund") would have been absolutely correct here even if it was a female dog. /SvNH 11:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing
Actually on consideration we already have a reliable source for the claim that the dog is male namely that the comments from the Swedish witnesses referred to the dog as he. As they witnessed the operations and observed the dog prior, it's not really OR to presume they knew the sex of the dog. It seems unlikely they would have referred to the dog as a he if it was female especially as they were feminists (this is speculatory obviously but it doesn't really matter since we can presuppose the dog is male based on their comments in the absence of reliable sources which differ) Indeed (while I admit again that this is completely speculatory) it seems if the dog was female and they were calling it a he, this would have been used as evidence by those who carried out the experiments that they clearly hadn't observed the dog or experiments very well. Therefore, it seems deferring to the original author would be fine and from what I can tell, SlimVirgin was the first to establish a clearcut preference in this area Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. The Swedish students in their diary start out by calling the dog 'it'. But then, as the dissection starts, they switch their terminology:
 * Recall that they were alone with the dog for two minutes, and inspected him, according to their sworn testimony. So if they call him a "he", they should know. Crum375 (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the dog as "he" or "it" is pushing either a pro or anti animal rights view. I've fixed the article to always refer to the dog as "the dog". Opinions may differ on whether this dog should be referred to as an "it" or "he" (or even possibly "she") but there is no doubt that we can refer to this dog using "the dog".

V (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is your own OR opinion that "it" vs. "he" are related to animal rights, or even exhibit a POV. In any case, we have two eye witnesses who saw the dog, and once the vivisection started, clearly called him "he". So that's what we go by - our reliable sources. Crum375 (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No I went by this statement from the person who appears to have made the original decision.


 * I don't know of any such convention. We don't know whether the dog was a he or a she, but we do know he wasn't an it -- hence the fuss. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have even considered the issue if I hadn't seen that. No, we don't know whether the dog was an "it" or not, not unless we're coming at this from a preconceived Point Of View that animals definitely aren't "its". From the conversation above I gather that these same reliable sources also went with "it" prior to the vivisection so even they weren't clear on the issue this isn't like laika where everyone knows she was a she, it's a matter of interpreting a text and making assumptions. Now I don't know whether the dog should be referred to as a "he" an "it" or even a "she". I do know however that the dog can be referred to as "the dog" without any issues neatly avoiding the argument on whether the dog should be a referred to as a "he" or an "it" except to those strongly committed to one or the other.


 * Out of curiosity are you an animal rights activist? V (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I've found supporting evidence that the dog was indeed male it's veering into original research though.

If you look at a 1902 experiment conducted by Bayliss and Starling on this page you'll find that they refer to the female dog the experiment was conducted on as a "bitch". "On January 16th 1902, a bitch of about 6 kilos weight ..."

If you look at Bayliss and Starlings report that I believe, based on the date mentioned and the similarity in the procedure described, is the vivisection that prompted this affair: The oxygen exchange of the pancreas J. Barcroft and E. H. Starling J. Physiol. 1904;31;491-496

The text is on 1904 so should be public domain so I'm going to quote the relevant paragraphs. (Page 4 of the linked PDF, page 492 of Physiol. 1904;31)

An experiment which we performed on February 5, 1903 may serve as a sample of the whole series. The dog was ansesthetised with morphia and subseqtuently with A.C.E. mixture. Tracheotomny was performed and the abdomen was opened. The vein leading from the tail of the pancreas (which amounts to about one-sixth of the whole organ) was dissected out and ligatures were so placed that a cannula might be rapidly inserted into the vein at a later stage of the operation. A cannula was put into the pancreatic duct and the abdomen was closed up. The blood-pressure was taken from the carotid artery. Cannulm were placed in the femoral artery and jugular vein: the former for the abstraction of samples of arterial blood, the latter in order to return whipped blood into the dog. It is necessary at this point to render the dog's blood non-coagulable. In a few of our earlier experiments we used leech extract for this purpose, but we soon adopted the method of defibrinating, the animal. Before the beginning of the defibrination the dog was placed in a bath of warm salt solution where it remained for the rest of the experiment. When the blood wvas sufficiently free from fibrin the cannula was placed in the vein leading from the pancreas. The blood which flowed from this cannula, other than that which was used for analysis, was collected and injected into the jugular vein.

Assuming this is the procedure in question it strongly suggests that the dog was male given that Bayliss and Starling specifically refer to a female dog as a "bitch" rather than a dog in their earlier report. It also gives us a precise date for the event; February 5, 1903. Unfortunately although the descriptions match Bayliss' description of what occurred according to this wikipedia article, so far I haven't found a source that confirms that this is describing the same event leaving the sex of the dog unconfirmed by this source. I'll be researching more on this topic and see whether I can find a reference that links them. V (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions in Sources
Some of these claims

"Starling was the first witness. He admitted that he had broken the law by using the dog twice, but said in his defence that he had done so to avoid sacrificing two dogs.[4] The court accepted Bayliss's statement that the brown dog had been anaesthetized with one-and-a-half grains of morphia and six ounces of alcohol, chloroform, and ether. He further stated that the dog had been suffering from chorea, a disease involving involuntary spasm, meaning that any movement the women had witnessed was not purposive. In addition, Bayliss testified that a tracheotomy had been performed, and that it was therefore impossible for the women to have heard the dog crying and whining, as they had claimed."

Sourced to what I assume is Gratzer, Walter. Eurekas and Euphorias: The Oxford Book of Scientific Anecdotes. Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 225. are directly contradicted by a paper published in Advances in Physiology Education 274:18-33, 1998.

THE QUEEN HAS BEEN DREADFULLY SHOCKED’’:  ASPECTS OF TEACHING EXPERIMENTAL  PHYSIOLOGY USING ANIMALS IN BRITAIN, 1876 – 1986(PDF) Page S23 Libel And Law Breaking: The Brown Dog Affair of 1903 (Page 7 of the PDF)

From this source what I'm garnering is something along these lines:

"Although the two Swedish women suggested that the dogs vocal cords had been cut to prevent it crying out, and insisted that the dog had not been anesthetized. Henry Dale, the aforementioned student who had assisted in the demonstration confirmed in his testimony that the dog was moribund from anesthetics when passed to him to kill."

The first paragraph from the wikipedia article says that the two Swedish women heard the dog crying and whining, and that Bayliss was the one who claimed it was impossible for them to have heard any crying. According to the second source it's the two women who claimed that the dogs vocal cords had been cut to prevent the dog from crying out. As far as I can tell these claims directly contradict each other.

Is there anyway to harmonize this conflict between the two narratives or incorporate them both into the article contradiction and all? V (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the claim is that the crying was heard at an earlier stage, before the dog's vocal chords were cut. None of the sources is clear about the timing. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The postcard source also mentions administration of anaesthesia only during the salivation experiment, not prior. So timing is definitely an issue. Crum375 (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Tansey sources it to: Evans, C. L. Reminisces of Bayliss and Starling. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press (for the Physiological Society), 1964, p. 3-4. I'd assume that source would go into more detail on the topic so if there's a harmonization it can probably be found there. V (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The best place to look would be in The Times for contemporaneous accounts of the trial, but that would involve being there physically. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, if I know what I'm looking for I think I can get access to a full archive of The London Times from 1785 to 1985 V (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the trial was held from November 11 to 18, 1907 so Times articles from Nov 12-19 would probably contain a lot of details about the experiment. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Gimme a week or two to apply for access and I'll see what I can find. V (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It would definitely be very helpful. One of the difficulties writing this was we had no access to The Times. Their online archive seems to be down (or was when I last looked), and I don't think it goes that far back anyway. So anything you could find from there would be great. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Already Vandalised
The info pane under the first photo has been vandalised. If someone with more time than me would care to repair this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why only once?
The restriction on multiple uses of an animal continues to this day. I'm curious - what motivated animal-rights proponents to favor this policy? It must considerably increase the number of animals killed to accomplish the same amount of research. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No strong opinion either way (or more correctly I'm a bit torn on the issue) but at a guess I'd say that it was to reduce suffering since the animals in question weren't exactly "whole" after a vivisection. V (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See also section
I removed the article about women's sufferage. Can an editor farmilar with this artilce explain the relevance?TIA --Tom 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tom, you could try reading it. ;-) SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha :) I actually "skimmed" it. I see where its mention. I wikified that and removed from see also, thanks--Tom 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that an editor keeps adding this back saying that is for readers convenience. We could probably add about 30-100 other links there for "reader convenience" but this wouldn't help the artilce and per WP:GTL and how is it decided which ones to include. Why is it important that THIS link stay in the See also section of the article? Thanks --Tom 18:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? This affair became closely linked to the suffragette movement in the UK, according to almost all the sources. Please don't remove it again. Or specify here exactly why you think it's not relevant enough. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Slim have you read WP:GTL? If it is so relevant, then it should be linked to in the article as I have now done. Ideally, links in the article should not be repeated in the See also section. Same question as I put to the other editor. WHY is it so important that it be linked twice? Thanks, --Tom 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To draw attention to the link between the issues, which is interesting and significant, and which most readers wouldn't realize was there. Also, GTL is a guideline only, and it anyway doesn't say links can't be repeated. As others have told you already, you are misinterpreting the guideline, and applying it way too rigidly, here and elsewhere. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Who are these "others"? GTL says "ideally" and it makes alot of sense IMHO. If you folks are so adament about keeping it in the See also section then fine, I am done editing. Why does it seem that you always get your way. Maybe you are always right? :) Cheers! --Tom 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tom, if you read GTL, which is a guideline, not a policy, it says even that guideline "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The point is that readers would like us to recommend other related entries, to expand their knowledge about the entry itself and related topics. By eliminating these items, you are removing a valuable convenience to the reader. Not everyone follows every linked footnote. Crum375 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) "Ideally" doesn't mean "always," and even if it said "always," it's only a guideline. You really shouldn't be moving from article to article to remove See alsos that you don't like. You've also removed some that aren't mentioned in the articles, with the argument that you intend to mention them at some point in the future. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Slim, I am not removing See alsos "I don't like" thats ridiculous and another mischartacterization. Also, the ONLY See also I EVER removed that was NOT linked was the one we had a back and forth a few days ago and I reverted it since i didn't want to make unnecessary drama. Your characterization of my edits are really off base. I understand that this is a guideline and not set in stone. As I pointed out above, if you two are so set on having it in that section then fine, I am done. Can you/we at least agree that there are MANY MANY MANY MANY See also sections that have unnecessary links in them? TIA, --Tom 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article says that the protestors included "socialists, trade unionists, Marxists, Liberals, and suffragettes", so why isn't there a See Also link for each of them? Also, I'm sorry, SlimVirgin, but I don't think it's the right approach to defend something in a Feature Article that's against editing guidelines by altering those guidelines (WP:GTL) immediately and without prior consensus to match what you want to do.  Maybe the See Also guidelines do need changing, but if so there should be a little more surveying of the community first.  I think it's too easy for a section like that to get out of hand unless it's kept on a leash.  The larger idea is that people should navigate between articles by Wikilinks, not See Also sections. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First, there's a link to The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, which explains the issues working class men faced during this period. Secondly, the Brown Dog affair became almost inextricably linked to the suffragette movement &mdash; one academic wrote that "Vivisected dog stood for vivisected woman." What on earth could be the objection to drawing our readers attention to this via See also? I'm truly mystified by the objections. (And I didn't edit the guideline to defend this; look at the history - I've made those edits before because of Tom's removal of See alsos.) If the section ever gets out of hand, we will pull it back in. Currently, it contains five links or so, so we're not there yet. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Gratzer
Gratzer is noted to have said something six times in this article. This is pretty unusual for Wikipedia articles in general and FA articles in particular. I would only expect such disclamatory statements to litter the article if nobody is able to find a corroborating legitimate source, and if the source that's used is questionable. Is that what's going on here? Is there only a single source for all this stuff, and he's not considered a trustworthy source? Otherwise the "According to Gratzer" in-text mentions should be eliminated, except probably the first one. Tempshill (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tempshill. I'll take a look. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking it looks okay. "G writes," or "according to G," is used for points that need to be attributed in the text (e.g. that £2,000 is X amount in today's money, or that a certain amount of morphine was given); or points that we don't want to appear to have copied from him without crediting him (e.g. that the French physiologist used to shout "shut up, you poor beast). I can't see that it's been used excessively. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Details, muffled, etc.
I removed some of the details of the second vivisection.  I doubt that the work of Keith Mann is fully reliable and neutral in this aspect (if nothing else it probably draws from non-neutral sources itself), and it also seems to contradict other sources. The process still seems cruel enough... /SvNH 14:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... please read what I wrote above and in the edit summary instead. /SvNH 15:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Linguistic Bias
Certain parts of this article, most notably the section beginning at "Vivisection of the brown dog", ending at "Involvement of the National Anti-Vivisection Society", portrays language that is biased towards the Anti-Vivisection or Animal Rights movements, describing the researchers as brutal and inhumane, whilst glorifying the Swedish activists.

Examples of such language include:

The dog was handed over to a student, Henry Dale, a future Nobel laureate, who removed the dog's pancreas, then killed him with a knife. - The language here implies that the pancreas was removed with no specific scientific intent, and that Dale executed the dog for no apparent reason.

and

The book was reportedly a bombshell, receiving 200 reviews in four months. (Referring to Louise Lind-af-Hageby's The Shambles of Science) - The citation, [28], leads to an Animal Rights book, "Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism".

A re-write of this section with unbiased language is strongly recommended.

Valedict (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source that says why the pancreas was removed, by all means add it. As for the killing, we've already explained that the law required animals to be killed after being used, although this dog had been used once already, which was in part why the NAS deemed the experiment to be unlawful.


 * Not sure what the objection to the second part is. That's taken directly from the source. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The objection is that the source it was taken from is a pro-Animal Rights work, and therefore falls under a bias for the NAS. It may seem pedantic and nitpicky to point it out, I know, but it doesn't change the fact that it was derived from a shaky source.

Valedict (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Valedict, every source published by human beings has a bias. That does not make it "shaky". Our duty as editors is to fairly and accurately present and balance all reliable sources. If you have a reliable source that adds relevant information to the article, please present it. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For as much as I've researched, I can't seem to find reviews or sales statistics for this book. However, please refer to this article wherein the book is described as "libelious upon Dr. Bayliss" in the last paragraph. For the sake of argument, I believe this element should be included in the debated section, as it provides insight to the details of the publisher's withdrawal of said book. Valedict (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That PDF you link to is not an article in the NYT, it was a letter to the editor published in 1909.  That's hardly a NPOV refutation of the issue.LiPollis (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It does however contain a quote by the publisher of the book, and within that quote is the section to which I was referring. Said letter is consistent with the withdrawal of the book from circulation. Valedict (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have that source, and it doesn't contradict the other source saying the book was a sellout. We include discussion of the book's withdrawal by the initial publisher, and the resumption by another publisher, elsewhere in the article. Crum375 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the first example, I do not take the same inference from it as Valedict. I take it as a factual reportage: he removed the pancreas and then killed the dog with a knife. You can presume this was for scientific reasons, or because he was a mad sadist. I do not agree at all that the words lead to one or other conclusion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates of the original location of the Brown Dog statue
Can anyone supply the coordinates of the original location of the Brown Dog statue? I've wandered around the Latchmere part of Battersea without being able to locate it. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into it, but were you able to find the new statue OK? Crum375 (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And did you look near the center of Latchmere Recreation Ground, where there is supposed to have been a "hump in the pavement"? Here is a map of the Ground (between Reform St and Burns Rd), and the hump should be roughly centered inside it. This is sheer speculation, though, until you can positively identify the hump.;^) Crum375 (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've managed not to have visited that particular patch of ground. I'll try to do so next week. And I've not yet had an opportunity in daylight to visit the new statue, but again as the nights are getting slightly better, I should be able to. So perhaps a photo or two to be added. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds promising. Let us know what you find. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I visited both locations earlier this evening. Light was not great, but I've updated the statue image & added a close-up of the coquettish dog. (Which others can delete if they think it's too much). And to the right there's an image of the location of the original statue in Latchmere Park. Much thanks to Crum375 for pointing me to the location; I had figured, incorrectly, that if I cycled around vaguely for long enough, I'd stumble across it.

The Battersea Park statue is tucked away in a woodland walk, meaning that it'll be seen by a small fraction of a percent of the people who ever visit the park. But the dog looks happy enough, and other than the fencing, it's a pleasant enough location. I'm guessing the dog spends his time wondering what the squirrels are up to. Someone seems to have added a means of holding a flower on the front of the plinth, which as you'll see has a reasonably fresh daffodil in it.

The circular fencing at Latchmere Park is still extant, but there's no obvious indication of exactly where the statue stood. It's a smaller enclosure than I had thought from seeing the old b&w photo ... maybe they made policemen smaller in those days? It is surrounded on three sides by the terraced houses of the Latchmere estate, which look as solid today as they must have done when the Board of Works erected them in 1903. The circle forms the middle of an alleyway which would be (and is) presumably used as a short-cut by residents, as well as affording entrance through gates to the park proper. I can see why the residents would quickly come to be protective of "their" dog in their park. But I'm guessing that the scale of the original plinth was, again, smaller than I had thought, or else it would surely have got in the way. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for doing this, Tagishsimon; it's really interesting, and the photographs look great. It really brings the whole thing alive. :-) SlimVirgin  talk| edits 11:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I spend the first 26 years of my life living around the corner from this spot without being aware of its significance. Thanks! Jooler (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dickens
What difference does it make that Dickens was the founder of a radical paper several decades back, before publication of the story in it about this series of events. You could equally put his name in for everything the paper every published a story of. it would only make sense for those stories which he had a role in connection with, which is not in any possible way relevant here. Its just an attempt to get an impressive name listed. It would make every bit as much sense to say the event was at University college, founded by Jeremy Bentham  and the riot was in Trafalfar Square,named after the victory by Nelson, or that the statue was in Battersea Park, designed by James Pennethorne. DGG (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that the Daily News, a relatively small and unknown paper, was the first to pick up this story, which later became a media hit, even across the ocean in America. The fact that the paper was founded by Dickens, who was a liberal, provides a context and an interesting background. Since Wikipedia is not paper, and not censored, I don't see a valid reason for excluding this relevant and interesting information from the mention of the paper. Crum375 (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence
In the section "Infiltration by Swedish activists", the second sentence is incomplete, and seems slightly unsatisfactory in other ways.


 * Unknown to Starling and Bayliss, their lectures had been infiltrated by two Swedish women activists. Louise "Lizzy" Lind-af-Hageby, a 24-year-old Swedish countess, and Leisa K. Schartau who had visited the Pasteur Institute in Paris in 1900 and were appalled by the use of animals there.

I can't fix it because I don't know quite what it's trying to say. Perhaps it should be part of the first sentence, with a comma or a dash? Apart from that, can the information that Louise was a countess be balanced by information about Leisa, or left out? And did they both visit the Pasteur Institute, or was that just Leisa? The "were appalled" suggests both, but the (incomplete) sentence is written as if the information that Leisa visited the institute balances the info that Louise was a countess. Ashton1983 (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that someone keeps inserting the word "who" into that sentence, which breaks the grammar. Crum375 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It makes sense as written now. Sorry about the "both of whom who". I thought I had removed the "who". Ashton1983 (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)