Talk:Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs

References

I am going to spend some time going through this article and including the references at the points that they are being made (as at the moment, we don't know which ref goes with what). It may also reduce down the seemingly long list (the list takes up as much space as the rest of the article).-Localzuk (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure i added the sentence: "Records showing that the sheds were cleaned out once a week, that the dead and dying were removed every day and that the animals were culled by cervical dislocation were also exposed". There is a citation request on it, but for the life of me i now can't find the source i got it from (and i have no idea why i didn't source it at the time). I'm giving up on this now and will not protest if it is deleted, though i'm 100% sure it is accurate. Rockpocket (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I have added a NPOV flag not so much in relation to this article but in relation to the redirect from "Darley Oaks Farm". In looking for information about Darley Oaks Farm to be redirected to a page about a group so opposed to the farm they undertook a criminal campaign demonstrates inherent bias. It is saying that the illegal campaign is more "worthy" than the farm itself. Also, there are various issues around the campaign which are written almost as an apologetic rather than an encyclopaedic entry. 87.127.44.154 06:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing citatons

Citations #2 and #8 in the article point to bad URLs and should be removed or corrected. - J. Kulacz 24.119.221.235 (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like most of the citations and references are bad, even the links to the BBC and such, and they don't seem to throw anything away on their Website. I think all the references and links need to be gone over by someone who knows more about this subject and Wikipedia editing than I do. J. Kulacz 24.119.221.235 (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Something weird has happened. All the links are dead, even to the BBC and the police. The police ones say "removed for operational reasons." I copied some of the quotes into my browser to re-source then, and found different police websites containing the quotes, but when I clicked on them the same message came up. I've never seen this before. We'll have to try to resource everything, or else just use the headline, byline, date. Luckily some of that information is in the references section -- which I've made invisible because the links weren't working, but we can retrieve the information from it, and put it in footnotes. Must be a legal thing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Campaign video

I don't see why this campaign video isn't allowd on the further reading. Somebody deleted it (see history) because of wiki advertising rules, although the campaign is over, so it is advertising nothing. It is merely showing why the campaign existed.

If anything the SHAC link would be advertising to activists looking to know what to campaign about now. It seems a bit hypocritical, especially when the campaign has ended and SHAC's page has video links on there, probably because of the relevance.

There is a ban for soapboxing. Wikipedia can state what the link adress of SHAC is. Wikipedia does not need to broadcast their campaign video. With the same logic, we do not put the campaign video of politicians, unless it is somewhat notable and were discussed by media . Interested party can find and watch the video from the website. Vapour (talk)

AFL Photo

I have deleted the photo because any material sourced to AFL is not verifiable on its own. Vapour (talk)

Please don't go around deleting these images, Vapour. They have been released and are well-known images, used also by the press, and never questioned by the people who own the facilities. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)