Talk:Darley Oaks Farm


 * I'll try to respond to the following, each in turn.

I don't think I need to explain the POV issue... it reads like a sensationalist tabloid article.

I'm not much of an animal rights activist, but I think the following needs to be taken into account:

(if your not "MUCH" of an animal rights activist, then that means your "SOME" of an animal rights activist? Hardly somebody who can claim to be neutral on the subject.)


 * No, I am not an animal rights activist at all. I have never engaged in any form of campaigning or protesting. And nowhere have I claimed to be neutral on the subject - that's why I haven't edited the article. I would appreciate if you could refrain from unfounded accusations like this.

''' "...urgently important life saving medical research..." ''' - Is there evidence that all research is urgently important?

(yes - UK Law prevents experiments on animals being carried out unless the research is medically urgent and important and can not be carried out in any other way. If the research wasn't medically urgent and important it would be illegal.  And you can't start accusing people of acting illegally without evidence.  In this case the farm doesn't carry out any research it merely breeds guinnea pigs)


 * If medical research is being carried out, it should be enough to state this. The nature of this medical research should be apparent from the context of the article and UK law. If it's that urgent and life saving, perhaps some examples or references would be appropriate. Saying it's "urgently important life saving" is no more appropriate in this context that "evil and pointless".

''' "...gross and illegal campaign..." ''' - It may be, but we're trying to be neutral here.

(being neutral doesn't mean being biased. You aren't being biased by describing somebody stealing a body from a grave as gross - you are being normal.  And there is no bias in describing the campaign at illegal.  Several protestors have been charged and convicted for their illegal actions over the past six years at Darley Oaks Farm.  That isn't bias - it is accurate.)


 * Last time I checked, campaigning and protesting was permitted under UK Common Law. Perhaps some protestors have carried out illegal actions - this should be stated, as opposed to labelling the entire campaign "gross and illegal". This has been discussed endlessly before in Wikipedia. Nowhere in the Adolf Hitler entry is Hitler labelled as "evil" or similar, although a huge majority of people would probably describe him in this way. If Hitler is evil, it should, in a Wikipedia article, be contextually apparent, without being stated.

''' "...goes far beyond anything animal rights terrorists have done before..." ''' - Activists in the past have killed people and blown up buildings. How have they gone further this time? Genocide?

(I do not believe any animal rights activist has previously stolen a rotting corpse from a churchyard grave before. Therefore, yes - this action goes far beyond anything that has ever happened before.  Even dictators who practice genocide normally allow their victims bodies to rest in peace.  The way we treat the dead reflects on our respect for the living.)


 * The disturbing of dead bodies is a cultural sensitivity - in the same way that certain people and cultures support the burning of dead bodies, or the burying, or the eating, or the mummification. Just because you believe that grave-robbing is worse than murder and arson does not make it so. Therefore, you can't impose your personal opinon of what is worse through colorful language. Instead, the event should be thoroughly described and readers should be allowed to draw their own conclusions. Your statement about dictators seems a bit far-flung, given that Hitler (using the same example twice) made soap and buttons (among other things) out of his victims. Perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide raped and mutilated dead bodies. And so on. What your beliefs on treatment of the dead happen to be are unfortunately irrevelant, as Wikipedia is a place for verifiable fact as opposed to personal beliefs.

''' "...reign of terror that had blighted their lives for five years." ''' - Ummmm... really?

(Yes - Really. I have spoken to many people who live in Yoxall and neighbouring villages).


 * I might think that George W. Bush has subjected the rest of the world to a reign of terror that has blighted millions of people's lives for 6 years. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to make such sweeping and biased statements.

''' "The protestors, however, refuse to believe them and have changed their demands from simply calling for the farm..." ''' - Can't just say this without some kind of evidence.

(The Evidence is in the following sentence which quotes Sarah Dixon requiring the shed to be bulldozed so that protestors can actually see that the breeding has stopped)

 "Sarah Dixon one of the protest leaders, says: our peaceful protests will continue" "  - One of the sentences that isn't dripping with bias, but instead has several syntax errors.

(Syntax errors are not normally something which requires a referral to the "possibly biased" category)


 * I was merely highlighting that the grammatical errata of the article went hand in hand with it's biased POV. The article, prior to your editing, had a lengthy, referenced quote from Sarah Dixon. Why get rid of the majority of the quote, putting it into your own words? What could possibly be a more accurate description of the views of the protesters than a verbatim quote?

''' "What she didn't say is how the theft..." ''' - Is this investigative journalism?

(Isn't this fair comment?)


 * No, it's not a fair comment. It's not your place to make judgements regarding what people have and have not said. Unless you can verify that she has never made any kind of statement on the theft, you can't make the claim in the first place. I can't go to the Tony Blair entry, and after a quote about education reforms add "What he didn't say was how his involvement with the Space Chickens threatens to upset the power balance between the Super Fish and the Dinosaur Consortium", because that is just lending itself to biased interpretation.

''' "Thank goodness this is just a peaceful protest, otherwise things could get really nasty." ''' - I read Wikipedia for information, and The News of the World for entertainment.

(Again, this is also fair comment, but possibly not relevant to a Wikipedia entry)


 * No, this comment is definitely not relevant to a Wikipedia entry. If for no other reason, it is blatantly sarcastic.

I'm really surprised that this article has already been edited, what, 11 times? And nobody seems to notice the bias? Are the editors employees of the farm?

'(Now who is showing bias? I edited the majority of entry which you are now complaining about.  It has, however, been edited again since my edit.  The previous entry was very biased towards the animal rights protestors.  I was merely trying to bring a more neutral approach to the entry.  As for bias - I think you will find  the entry is quite in line with just about every news media's reporting of the incidents at Darley Oaks Farm, regardless of whether the media in question is to the left, right or centre of the political spectrum.  The difficulty with animal rights protestors is that they often can't see the wood for the trees and anybody who has ever eaten a beefburger is a murderer.  Look beyond your beliefs about the rights and wrongs of animal experimentation and look what has happened at Darley Oaks Farm.  In doing so you will see that regardless of being biased the article is quite restrained and accurate. You complain of bias - but you have not shown anything in the post which is inacurate.)'


 * Thank you, I've read the article both before and after your edit. Before, it presented the events objectively, with ample verification. It did not take either side. What you did was add the following phrases, among other things:


 * 1) urgently important life saving
 * 2) a gross and illegal campaign of
 * 3) that goes far beyond anything
 * 4) terrorists
 * 5) in a despicable act of inhumanity
 * 6) stop the reign of terror that had blighted their lives for five years.
 * 7) the family reluctantly announced
 * 8) Thank goodness this is just a peaceful protest, otherwise things could get really nasty.


 * These are clearly biased and subjective statements. What you also did was add a string of so called "actions" which are completely unverified. I'm not really doubting their veracity, but unfortunately Wikipedia can only work with verifiable information. The thing that worries me a bit about your edits is your claim that "the entry is quite in line with just about every news media's reporting". Have you not understood the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, as opposed to a newspaper? Bias is all very well in newspapers, but in an encyclopedia it's not acceptable. Moreover, "look beyond your beliefs about the rights and wrongs of animal experimentation" is a bit of a risky thing to say, given that you know absolutely nothing of my personal beliefs. I'm not going to get into any kind of debate about animal testing here, because quite frankly I don't have any strong opinions either way. I suggest you keep your opinions out of Wikipedia too. Finally, "I have spoken to many people who live in Yoxall and neighbouring villages", suggests to me that you have some kind of personal connection to the subject of this entry - in which case I suggest that you refrain from editing the entry, as you can not possibly have any kind of neutral standpoint.

Out of Date?
I think this article needs to either be updated, or merged - for example, it states that the people that admitted to blackmail are awaiting sentincing, when they were sentenced some months ago. MetalMidget 17:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)