Talk:Peter Gurney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

1 Further work
2 Revert rationale
3 the cn tag
4 Is this article properly balanced?
5 Michael Bond

[edit] Further work

If anyone fancies getting hold of a photo with consent and uploading it it'd be a nice addition to the article. Further references would also be very welcome. Chris Cunningham 01:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert rationale

I am somewhat concerned about potential copyright violation from the Telegraph Obit. Please see my comment on the releavnt user talk page. I am working to replace at least some of the reverted material with quotes and non contriversial material, and woudl appreciate other additions. Fiddle Faddle 06:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Article now rewritten to remove copyvio, and with all salient information retained. I am leaving it as a stub since more on Gurney's work with guinea pigs needs to be added. Fiddle Faddle 07:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added an expand tag because I still really think another source or two could considerably expand it. I also added back a few unnecessary reverts. Thanks for doing the needful in fixing my copyvio in the interim. Chris Cunningham 23:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I thought I'd got them all, but obviously not :) Fiddle Faddle 06:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the cn tag

While I agree that the one major source is the source for the bulk of the article, I think it meets the need for citation regarding the CCT and Vedra S-S, so I have incorporated it there, rather than simply leaving it as the freestanding reference. I'm going to email the webmaster of the gurney site and see if they will contribute. Fiddle Faddle 07:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I did, and it seems they were not interested. Fiddle Faddle 13:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article properly balanced?

I don't want to set a cat among the pigeons, but Peter Gurney was a very controversial figure, and was disliked by some in the guinea pig world. This is not a personal judgement on the man, and I fully believe Gurney's friends who say that he was a charming and lovely man - and he was clearly devoted to guinea pigs. However, his website (PG's GPs - Peter Gurney's Guinea Pigs) was high-profile, and many new or potential guinea pig keepers found their way to it, and there was (and still is) much politically controversial material on it, as well as large numbers of personal insults against certain individuals.

Gurney was anti the Royal Family, the RSPCA, the RCVS, the BBC, Sainsburys, celebraity chefs, foxhunting, country pursuits, factory farming, scientific research on animals... and so on. Whilst he was FULLY ENTITLED to his views, and many of them may well have been absolutely justified and correct, the fact that they were so forcibly impressed on his website (often in rather rude language) did make him controversial, and I wonder if this article should not record, in some suitably sensitive way, the fact that he was controversial?

One example (of many) concerning the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK): 'The RCVS is totally without principle or ethical standards and its only purpose is to protect the monopoly that it has over veterinary care this country. The pain and suffering that so many of its members have inflicted upon animals and gross over charging of their owners is a national disgrace.' (http://www.smellyhippy.com/Peter_gurney/watch1.htm). Elsewhere on his website he calls the RCVS a "sick joke" and there are many similar names and insults.

On The Queen: Gurney refers to HM Queen Elizabeth as that "nasty old woman" and quotes include: 'This woman and her family are one not only one hundred percent supportive of all forms of cruelty to wild animal, which come under the sick heading of field sport, they engage in it.' (http://www.smellyhippy.com/Peter_gurney/news.htm)

On TV celebrity chefs Gordon Ramsey and Jamie Oliver: 'How sick can you get, about as sick as Oliver and Ramsey, they are both despicable human beings.' (http://www.smellyhippy.com/Peter_gurney/news.htm).

Again, on Jamie Oliver and his adverts for Sainsburys: 'I have informed Sainsbury that I will not step into one of their shops for as long as Oliver is being paid to advertise their goods.' (http://www.smellyhippy.com/Peter_gurney/news.htm).

On foxhunting 'The news that at long last the barbarians in red coats have had their disgusting activities curbed is good news.' (http://www.smellyhippy.com/Peter_gurney/news.htm).

Other pet hates: on Gurney's web site you will also find plenty of vitriol directed at animal testing (and testers), the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) (UK), the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) (UK), and the Countryside Alliance (particularly their booklet, co-published with Sainsburys, about cooking game).

I have not altered the article, because I am aware that this is a potentially controversial issue itself! However, I feel that there should, at the very least, be a note to the effect that he caused some controversy through his political beliefs expressed on his guinea pig website. Timothy Titus 12:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is simple. The article has to be NPOV. Since it is a biog it should contain all relevant material, presented with correctly attributable sources cited, bearing in mind WP:RS at all times. That he caused controversy is only important in the article if the controversy he caused is:

A part of his biography rather than part of any controversy he caused
Cited properly
Reported neutrally, as it should be.

It seems to me that you have relevant references, so I suggest you incorporate what is relevant in an encyclopaedic manner. Fiddle Faddle 13:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started it off. If you think it requires expansion please feel free to go ahead :) Never refrain from editing an article because editing it might be controversial. Only ever look at the topics and make sure they are relevant to the article. Fiddle Faddle 13:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)