Keith Mann.


Seems like valid criticism to me. Does the article really need a baby picture?

IP got reverted like 3 times for the same message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

weird and I thought the discussion page is all about discussion...

Not if the viewpoint you leave on a TALK page is politically incorrect, apparently. This Keith Mann person has burned meat-trucks in the name of animal rights, and been sent to prison for it. Where apparently he still resides after being recaptured. The idea that he is a deranged danger to society is a rather significant POV, even if not universally shared by all, is certainly that of the justice system of the UK, and thus a major one. But since the article is WP:OWNed by Slimey and her friends, the idea that some turd-polishing is going on in the article itself to surpress it, is verbotten to discuss, even on the article's TALK page. Hmmm.

Now, I have some sympathy for people who who engage in harmless monkeywrenching in the name of deeply felt moral causes-- even ones I disagree with. However, this Mann bloke is on record as threatening somebody with the idea that "Somebody is going to die because of animal experimentation." It's not clear if he means because the animal rights people are going to murder them, or it's going to happen by accident. However, much the same could be said about random acts of arson, as in burning vehicles. Eventually, you're going to cause somebody harm that way. This is a guy who has gone over the line, when it comes to protest.

Before that, I see he has gone far into cluelessness, as well. He liberated 50+ goldfish before he could find "good ponds for them." Then, there's a picture of him liberating 500+ lab mice. What he did with these isn't discussed. Are they still kept as pets by his friends, or did they do what is habitually done with lab mice by animal liberation groups, which is release them into the wild? Where a lab-raised lab strain of Mus musculus is a few days from either starvation, or becoming snack-food for a competant predator? Like your average English pussycat?

Okay, so here's my own POV, which I fear would not be allowed in large sections of Wikipedia, because it is too close to being that of Biology 101.

Rodents, like insects, reproduce rapidly and exponentially. Rodents and insects compete directly with humans for land and crops. All that keeps insects and rodents from multiplying until planet Earth is ankle deep in them (even if humans did not enter the picture) is starvation and predation. Neither of which is particularly humane. There is no escape from mass killing to prevent this, since god almighty apparently did not provide automatic spay/neuter clinics for wild rodents, and animal rights groups have also been lamentably lax in setting them up in the UK (albeit that being where I expect them to first appear in the future, if anywhere).

Given the above, and given the idea that human beings are also an animal worthy of consideration, it is not possible at present for human beings to make space for themselves on the planet, without killing large numbers of insects and rodents. The rodent death can be seen directly every time a crop field is harvested-- there's no need to imagine it. This animal toll on behalf of humans includes humans who are vegans and who eat no animal products, like Mr. Mann. All humans, vegan and not, live by means of the violent or malnutrition-related deaths of all the small animals who could (and would) have eaten the crops they themselves eat instead.

If Mr. Mann had made a career out of walking around with a protest sign which said We all live by killing rodents, I admit, but I don't kill cows and I'd rather you didn't either!-- that would be one thing. Perhaps he likes cows more than mice because their eyes are larger and browner. It certainly could not have anything to do with the relative intelligence of rodents and cows, since most people who've studied the matter would conclude, in all rationality, that cows lose on that point.

But Mr. Mann has not done that. Instead he's gone over the line to steal medical test rodents, and burn meat trucks. Which means he's an ignorant fool, and a dangerous one at that. Any article about his life which doesn't present this view as one of the major ones, is badly biased toward a child's version of biology. Which Wikipedia seems to be.

And which, considering Wikipedia's provenance, is not that surprising.

MR

I'd say Slim's revert was legitimate in this case. Whatever you may think of the guy, "Career criminal" is libel, even on a talkpage.

Perhaps, the approach to take is to not say that he is because of what he does, but to show why a group a people believe the way they do about him.

You mean it is not permitted as a short-form descriptor of a person who has made a career of criminial acts, even as a means of protest?

Fine, let somebody put that the man has made a career of criminal acts as a means of protest, and have some quotes from critics of arson, instead of praise from people who believe he's the pinnacle of his genre of performance art.

And how about a few words from critics of the animal rights movement who have noted that these people do not understand biology? Wasn't it Ingrid Newkirk's group who famously kidnapped a bunch of animals from shelters where they were to be euthanized, only to be found later euthanizing those same animals themselves (with improper technique, since they weren't vets)? So sorry, but it appears that they had to face up to reality. Which you don't have to do if you just steal a bunch of lab mice, release them in the woods, and then close your eyes. Which is what this Mann guy does.

Or course we wouldn't have to worry about this if we simply had a proscription on BLP, but WP has made that impossible.

Not long ago I had to listen to Lar pontificate that the rules of WP are really simple. They're to be found in the five pillars, and he doesn't get into to trouble if he just sticks to noncontroversial topics and "speaks from authority." But alas, that leaves large parts of Wikipedia remaining crap. If I tried to fix this article with some choice criticism, I'd be blocked by SV, who incredibly, is still a sysop.

So Lar, why don't you show us how it's done, with Keith Mann. Convert this to a NPOV BLP peice, by putting in both sides? Oh, you'd rather not? Well, I guess the rules of WP work just great if you let the activists with wiki-power have their way to do any POV dressup of any article they want.

I'm merely pointing out that this is NOT technically what the rules say. Your rules which you gave, are simply rules for avoiding fights because you personally don't like fights. What they are NOT, is rules for providing any kind even approximately true and factual encyclopedia, which presents both sides of issues.

Let me illustrate with a thought-experiment. What do you suppose Keith Mann's BIO would look like, if he'd taken to burning cars in the Israel on behalf of (say) Palestinian rights instead of animal rights? And the suffering of Palestinian childen? Eh? But if he does it for mice (obviously more important than Palastinians!), suddenly he's an imprisoned martyr.

Blech Hypocrites! Any admin on WP who allows this kind of thing and defends it, is a hypocrite.

MR

Wow, I hadn't thought about it like that, but you make a very powerful point.

At one time, we had a lot of mink farms in Britain. Animal rights activists sometimes raided these farms and released the mink into the wild. Any guesses what happened to the wildlife in the area? Mink are not helpless little creatures like mice; they are nasty, vicious predators.

the pictures (kiddie photo) are a bit over-the-top.

the article does not exclude the BLP's criminal history. Almost all the material positive and negative appears to be properly sourced.

Slimmy, while obviously now a Pro-PETA SPA account on WP, hasn't kept properly sourced "negative" material about Mann out of the article, to her credit.

Let her keep adding well-sourced Pro-PETA material to articles on WP, there's nothign wrong with that, as long as she doesn't delete well-sourced material that doesn't necessarily align with her personal agenda/hobby/whatever.

Let her meatpuppet for PETA on WP, she can continue doing that without an admin account. She has no business being an admin and the years of abuse of those privileges merit a desysop. That won't stop her from continuing to edit WP in a mostly beneficial manner, cross-checked by her many fans, so desysop+liveandletlive is a win-win for everyone, and slimmy can be left alone to continue her WP editing.

Today's revert.

After a couple of months reflection and re-reading the article, I believe the answer is that Wikipedia could not polish Keith's knob any more.

It's not the worst whitewash I've ever read, but the following passage belongs in an ALF polemic:Way over the top.

This edit :

Received a template warning:

Thank you for experimenting with the page Keith Mann on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Ð…andahl 12:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think 'terrorist' is too far off. Besides serving time for attacking a fox hunter, there's the 'possession of explosives, incitement, criminal damage, and escape from custody'. And then there's the arson that got him a decade in prison. As recently as 2005 he's quoted as advocating a "turn to extremism" by the [animal rights] movement. That sounds like a terrorist to me.

Regardless, what's the proper UK term for a person convicted of serious crime? I'm thinking of this edit. If he were American I think the correct term would be 'convicted felon, or just 'felon'.