Talk:Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Brian Cass attack

Why is the brian cass attack included in this article? It has nothing specifically to do with Shac, as it wasn't a shac based action. How about including the details on Brian Cass's page and/or the HLS page only? Just because an attack was made against someone at a company that is being protested against by another movement does not mean they are one and the same...-Localzuk ^(talk) 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

SHAC is a wide-ranging campaign (not a "movement") against HLS. That the managing director and marketing director of HLS were brutally attacked seems relevent to the campaign, especially considering the links between other extremist groups and the campaign that are highlighted in the next subsection. There is evidence that SHAC claim to have one set of guidelines in public and an altogether difference set of guidelines in private (see the leaked document). Moreover, the link is also made in the sources reporting on the attacks. This combination of factors suggests to me that the brief mention of Cass and Gay is not inappropriate. I'm not sure if we need the picture of Cass though. Rockpocket 23:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't mind deleting the image if no one objects. I uploaded it over a year ago before I was familiar with the details of the image policies, and I'm now not sure it's a justifiable fair use claim, because it looks as though it was taken specially by the BBC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume there's no objection so I'll go ahead and delete it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Greg and Natasha Image

What happened to the photo of Greg and Natasha?-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it, LZ, because I'm not certain it's fair use. It seems to be quite a rare photograph of them and so it might have commercial value. I got it from [here and you're welcome to upload it again if you feel it's an appropriate fair use claim; or one of us could write to those people and try to track down the copyright holder, who might release it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've contacted a friend who may have a pic of them, so I'll see what I get in response. I wouldn't like to claim fair use of that image either.-Localzuk ^(talk) 15:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

The article should not be a soapbox for SHAC's POV. I will delete information which isn't sourced from verifiable sources. Self referencial information from SHAC is fine. Vapour

Woah there!! The information you are removing is relatively well sourced and informative. Please discuss each change before making it as I do not like the wholesale removal of referenced information. Also, shac doesn't have a logo. They have a website with a banner, but it isn't their logo.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that video was filmed and were reported by the media is verified. If you can get the video footage from any of these media source, then I have no problem. On the other hand, the information from place like "huntingdonsuck.com" cannot be considered as verified/reliable. So video footage or any information regarding SHAC or HLS from these sites cannot be placed in this article. Self referential information from SHAC is fine though. Anyway, "It's still informative" can't be used as an excuse to break verifiability, NPOV and no-original research. Moreover, this article is about SHAC, not Huntingdon Life Science. That means the monkey photo in the intro isn't acceptable here. The article cannot be used as a soapbox. You can certainly put the monkey photo up in the article about HLS provided that the photo is from verified source which exclud SHAC. As of "logo", o.k. I mislabeled the photo. I would say any img which say "SHAC" would be fine for the intro. Or we can do the intro without a photo. Vapour

I did not delete info from Southern Poverty Law Center. IMO info from some well established NGO (such as the Amnesty International) can be regarded as reliable. Still it's a grey area. I would accept factual info from, say, RSPCA as verified while political opinion from RSPCA, AI or Southern Poverty Law Centre must have clear POV attribution. Vapour

P.S. I think it's o.k. to put the video up if some media outlet refer to the location of the video footage so indirectly verifing the video as authentic. This is streching the rule a bit but I would accept that as verified. Vapour

Don't add the shac site banner as it could not comfortably be included under fair use.

Second, the video is a video - it doesn't matter what the name of the site is that is hosting it - the content is still the same. We could simply change the reference to the date and name of the video and who took it without a link.

Don't remove BUAV as a reference - they are a reputable organisation and as such are a reliable source.

The image of the monkey is relevant as it is from HLS, the organisation that the SHAC campaign is about.

Don't remove the xenodiaries report as this is another campaign that has been widely publicised - Uncaged Campaigns.

Whilst I personally dislike the AnimalRights.net reference, it is a sourced article itself, therefore it should stay.

I have no problem removing the DirectAction.info or vivisection.info (boat lane) references

Again, the video's should stay for the reasons said above.

(These are in order from top to bottom of the article).-Localzuk^(talk) 16:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It appear that you are not a regular editor of wikipedia. It does matter "what the name of the site is that is hosting it(video)". Please learn few basic policies of this site. Your argument is specifically in opposition to Wikipedia:Verifiability. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Words like "reliable", "verifiability" or NPOV (neutral point of view) have specific techinical meaning here. Wikipedia is not free for all. In fact, this particular policy exist specifically to prevent people from citing information from whatever advocacy sites they fancy. I also run google news search with BUAV and came up with this. A local newspaper, like Manchester Evening News, or tabloid newspaper like Sun, would be at the bottom rank of verifiabe/reliable sources. You are free to quote from whatever Manchester Evening News says about BUVA but not whatever BUVA says. As of monkey photo, it's a direct violation of soapbox ban. Anyway I make it simple. Please, source the photo from newsmedia. Then the photo deserve to be in the article about HSC but still not in this article. Vapour

As a complete aside... could you elaborate on why you consider the Manchester Evening News a "bottom rank" source. a 138yr old publication with 400,000 readership across a region seems pretty reliable to me as a source on information relating to that region. Its a local newspaper in the same way The Glasgow Herald, The Los Angeles Times or the Cape Argus are local papers - all of which are used widely as sources in WP. Rockpocket 05:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, o.k. may be MEN should be ranked higher than small town newspaper. But unlike U.S. u.k. doesn't really have extensive local syndication of newspaper. In U.S. newspaper is local while in u.k. it is dominated by national newspaper. So local newspaper like MEN or tabloid are at the bottom of newsmedia, but hey, I didn't mean to diss Manchester. Anyway, I used to read MEN simply because of MEN's "letters from readers" section. Now, it's quite tame and boring so I don't read it anymore though I have access to it online. One letter I remember started off about child abuse and social workers then "but what's about those children who are terrorising our neighbourhood!" and then went on to arguing that if we let these do-gooder to run this country, we would have surrendered in WWII. I want that good old MEN back! Vapour

Fair enough. I agree with much of what you say, but even local papers are often great sources for issues that dominate an area (for example, the Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs campaign). Sure, they are not suitable for comments on global issues like the War against Terror, but i think a source should very much be judged on context. Plus, as you say, their letters from readers are always amusing ;) Rockpocket 07:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Because filbustering could discourage active and free editing, there is no rule saying one cannot edit unless everyone agree in talk page. In fact, my editing prompted you to respond, didn't it? It's a good thing as long as it happen along the discussion in talk page. Vapour

Vapour, you're removing a lot of valid material in the face of objections from several editors. Please don't do it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You have not addressed my comments as I did your edits. The videos and reports are available from many sources - just not all of them are online. We can provide links to sites, whatever their names. As for the BUAV, you are plain and simply wrong. The BUAV is a 102 year old world-renonwned organisation who's views on issues such as this are respected.

Please don't lecture me about the policies. All of them are being met perfectly well for the reasons I stated.

Also, please comment on content not on editors, as doing otherwise is a personal attack.

Finally, when I say that we should discuss before editing, I mean it. As you should be aware, SHAC is a controversial campaign, so we get a reasonable amount of problems on this article. Therefore, before making huge changes it is normal to discuss them on here.

I shall be partly reverting your edits so that they still list some of the references but in a slightly different format.

Remember, just because you think the policies say one thing doesn't mean that everyone else does. You still have to take note of the community and reach a consensus.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Vapour, looking at your various points, I see you may have misunderstood our verifiability policy. SHAC may be used as a reliable source about itself and its campaign, even if it would not be regarded as a reliable source on other issues. As for BUAV, they're a highly respected animal protection/anti-vivisection organization, and would be regarded as a reliable source in any article related to animal testing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No I disagree. BUAV may be well regarded among animal right activitists. But simple google news search demonstrate that it's a relatively small u.k. organisation which are barely mentioned in newsmedia. So how do one justify this "advocacy" site as reliable in wikipedia is beyond me. The fact that few of you bouch for this orgainsation isn't good enough. Threshold of inclusion is higher than you think. For example, "Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question."[1]. "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."[2] If the britain's biggest newspaper (Sun) or personal online publication of professional academic and journalist have to be treated as at the bottom of threshold, how could one treat online publication of advocacy group as reliable/verifiable. Vapour

Your impression of BUAV makes out that you seem to know very little about animal rights. BUAV is a well known and respected organisation. For example, The Co-op group uses their logo to show that they do not do animal testing, the BBC constantly are reporting comments made by them. Google News is not a reliable way of finding sources - as it does not log every mention of them on every news site. If you take a look here you will see that they are indeed covered a lot by the BBC - who, you cannot deny, are one of the worlds highest rated news sources.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Also take a look at this too: [3]-Localzuk^(talk) 13:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your or my personal perception of the degree of well-regardedness of BUVA is irrelevant. If BBC or MEN or Guardian report on BUVA, then what these sources report about BUVA can be inserted but not whatever BUVA say in it's own site. I made exception to Southern Law Centre, however, given that this is now somewhat being used as a sort of loophole to subvert the policy, I will take it off from my exception. The whole point of verifiability is to draw line between "reliable third-party publications" and advocacy sites. Reportings by BBC or MEN say nothing about the quality of journalism by BUVA. An advocacy site is, by definition, not third party. "If the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." In this instance, this isn't the case. And any info from huntingdonsuck.com is definitely out. Vapour

You are missing the point Vapour. BUAV are acceptable to comment on issues related to this subject matter as they are well known for their contributions. If we followed your style of verifiability argument, we would not be able to provide information from any organisation on any subject matter unless it had been in the guardian, times etc... Which is just silly.

Also, regarding information from huntingdonsucks.com - I agree, however they are not giving information but are simply a host for a video which we could remove the link to and say 'From this video' without a link. As I stated before, not all things have websites and as such don't look at every reference as a reference to a site but instead that the site, in this case, simply provides an easy method of viewing that video.

Regarding the southern law centre, they are also an acceptable source as they are a well known and respected organisation in the USA. Their comments are constantly commented upon by the FBI etc... Please try not to be so narrow with your definition of a verifiable source. If we are that narrow, then we will lose an awful lot of content across wikipedia. Also, it is BUAV not BUVA. Please have a look at the subject at hand before you start making judgements regarding the quality of sources. If you do not know that the BUAV is a good source then how can you make judgements on this and similar articles?-Localzuk^(talk) 15:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, actually, it is exactly what this verifiability policy is intended for. "Any organisation on any subject matter unless it had been in the guardian, times etc...(+ academia)" does not cross the threshhold of inclusion in wikipedia. Techincally speaking, to even state in wikipedia that "they are well known for their contributions" (in animal welfare, I assume) require reference from newsmedia. You may think this is silly but, IMO, this policy is incredibly sensible one. SLC might conceivably be argue to be a third party source, because they don't have any stance of animal right/welfare. But if this goes to arbitration process, I don't think you can convince many that animal right advocacy sites are a reliable third party source of information in regard to this article. Anyway, your argument make the whole point of the policy, pointless. Vapour

The policy is indeed a good one, but you need to review it more carefully, because with respect you've misunderstood it. (a) SHAC is allowed to be used as a source on itself. (b) It doesn't matter which website we take the video from. And (c) BUAV is an extremely well-known and trusted organization both inside and outside the animal-protection movement. The policy allows advocacy groups to be used as sources, so long as they're not widely acknowledged extremist organizations — but even the latter may be used as sources on themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

(a)Yep, and I said so from the begining by mentioning "self reference" many times. Please read what I write. But this does not mean this can be used as a loophole to sneak in SHAC sourced info about HLS.

(b)No, it does matter. Material only from verified source is allowed. I don't know why no newsmedia host it. It either that the videos are not noteworth or it has some legal problem as suggested by the court case with Peta. Whicever the case, the video should not be in wikipedia. Threshold of inclusion is not truth but verifiability.

(c)The policy explicty ban the use of information from extremist orgaination. No where does it state that non extremist advocacy group is a valid source of information. And moreover, many would consider BUVA's aim, "complete abolition of all animal experiments" to be ah...unconventional (or "extrem"). I'm sure people whose view is described as extrem don't consider their view as extrem. Plus, "BUVA-is-well-known" argument won't fly to non-animal-right-activist crowd especially outside Britain.

Anyway, HLS is the Europe's lagest contract animal-testing laboratory, right. And BUVA stand for "British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection", doesn't it. And are you seriously trying to tell me BUVA sourced info on HLS is kosher in term of NPOV, Verification, and No-soapboxy ban? Vapour

I will delete links to animal right advocacy group. However, rather than deleting info, i will add {{Fact}}, and leave it for a while. Please find alternative verifieable sources. Vapour

The article states HLS tests 'household cleaners, pesticides, weedkillers, cosmetics' etc and gives two sources, but neither source states HLS tests cosmetics; in fact one source explains how cosmetic testing is banned. I would suggest that the inclusion of cosmetics is either removed, or referred to in a historical context with a source. Orphne (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Cosmetics testing in only banned in the UK, not elsewhere, and even in the UK, there are ways around the ban. HLS has facilities inside and outside the UK, and works for clients all over the world. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If the article is to claim they carry out cosmetic testing then presumably it needs a source to back up the claim. 'Encyclopedic content must be verifiable'. A real source would surely only benefit the article. Orphne (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Monkey photo

The source of the photo is SHAC. I think think even people who support SHAC would agree that SHAC isn't a verifiable/relaible source as defined by this site. It's out. Vapour

Monkey photo in the intro is deleted. Vapour

Oh, come on. This section was here for few days. And you have not made any counter argument to the fact that SHAC can't be a verified source about HLS. If you don't really care about debating the policy, we could stop and go to arbitration. Vapour

The mokey photo sourced from SHAC is a blatant violation of verifiability policy and soapbox ban. The minimum requirement in edit dispute is to add one's explanation in "Edit summary" or talk page. To revert the photo then not give any justification in talk page is not civil. Vapour

Another delete for the photo. I add one extra reason for deletion. Aside from being an obvious soapboxing, the photo's authentichity cannot be verified as it is sourced from SHAC. Therefore, it's a ponential legal liablity for wikipedia. No SHAC sourced information about HLS should be presented in wikipedia. Vapour

Shac Demo 3 image

What happened to the demo image? -Localzuk^(talk) 10:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This was another fair use image I uploaded a while ago but I'm now not sure of. I took it from here, so anyone wanting to re-add it is welcome to upload it again. I want to write to the photographer to ask him to release it, but I have a backlog of images I'm doing that for, so I can't give a timeframe. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I will look through the images I have taken and choose one to upload then.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, LZ, that would be great. I'm sorry to be a nuisance. I've been going through my uploads trying to weed out any poor fair-use claims, because of crackdowns by the image police. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Biteback

Is the Bite Back link not a useful one, LZ? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm at 2 minds about it. On one hand the site does post information pertinent to the SHAC campaign. But on the other, it seems to be not really acceptable under WP:EL. I won't remove it again if it is restored though.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you. I'm fine either way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Video

To avoid wholesale revert war, I have made separate edits. I have deleted videos. In wikipedia, something is informative enough if it is provided by verified sources. I also didn't like the fact that video amount to soapboxing. Please source video from verified source. Threshold of inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. Vapour

Vapour, three editors have explained at some length that the information you're removing conforms to Wikipedia:Verifiability. I helped to write that policy, and I can assure you that the material you object to does not violate it. SHAC is allowed to be used as a source about itself and its campaign in articles about itself. Its campaign is against HLS. It is therefore allowed to be used as a source about HLS, insofar as that information pertains to the SHAC campaign. The videos are all well known; some have been shown in court and one was broadcast on British television. HLS suspended or fired some of its employees on the basis of one of them. There is no doubt about their authenticity. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a majoritarian system. Interpretation of policy by people who want to insert as much content from their advocacy sites count very little. It is specifically spelt out that threshold of inclusion is verifiability not truth. How am I supposed to know the validity of the video when it is sourced from a site named "huntingtonsuck". And I don't like it at all when this site is used as a platform for animal right. This attempt to insert as much material from animal right site is not something nice. One of the primaly reason for verification policy is to prevent people from using their advocacy site as a source of information. "If the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Vapour

P.S. by the way, Rockpocket did not endorse you monkey photo or video inclusion. He only said the context matters. For example, I did make exception to SLC for being a third party on the issue of animal right/welfare. Until he come back and make specific endorsement, you shouldn't count him as on your side. Vapour

Vapour, as you were just told, the video's have been shown on British television and in courts. We could write the references to reference these showings instead but then people would not be able to see the video for themselves. The information is verifiable through court documents etc... The fact that a link is provided to 'huntingdonsucks.com' is for convenience. We are all perfectly aware of the verifiability policy and as we have both stated now, you are interpretting it incorrectly with too narrow a view of sources.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are somewhat not understanding the intent for the verification policy. As wikipedia is edited without fact checking editorial oversight, it require that all information presented in wikipedia has gone throuh such process elsewhere which is "verifiable". I or anyone with access to internet can verified that a video purpoting to show animal abuse by HLS staffs had been shown in British media by looking at reporting by newsmedia. And you are free to state so in wikipedia but no more. But I or any wikipedia editor is not expected to get the recording of BBC news which showed the video, then verify personally that the video hosted in huntingtonsuck.com is the exact footage which was shown in the media. In fact, I'm not sure whether BBC or any newsmedia have shown the entire recording which is hosted in huntingtonsuck. Because huntingtonsuck.com can't be a verified source, I'm invoking verification criteria, specifically asking you to verify huntingdon.com's hosting of the videos. Personally, I would also like to know why PETA is prevented from hosting it, which cast some doubt on the authenticity of video. Anyway, the burden of proof is on you to find a statement from newsmedia which state that the video is currently hosted in huntington.com or PETA or smokinggun.com. Mere statement from you or Slimvirgin that the video is authentic is not good enough (and constitute original reseach). Of course, if you can find any newsmedia which directly host the video, the problem of verifiablity would disappear. Vapour

You are mistaken, Vapour. A primary source of information, in an article about that primary source, is quite acceptable. Such an article won't reach the status of a Featured Article in Wikipedia when most of its information is information which it, itself has generated, but any of its generated information may be used within its own article. The photograph may be included, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR say so. If an editor should wish to dis-include a referenced source, he should not just remove it. A referenced source should be discussed before removal because referenced sources are the foundation of WP:NPOV. Terryeo 14:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, presenting court document would be considered as an original research in wikipedia because ordinarly people (i.e. wikipedia editors) cannot access it without expending considerable amount of effort. The rule of thumb is that verifiable information have to be avialable from local library. You need to find source in newsmedia which describe such court document. Vapour

WP:RS is where discussion takes place about how "easily accessible" a reliable source needs to be, to be referenced in an article. No "rule of thumb" has shown up that I recall, and especially not the rule of thumb which you have just decreed, Vapour. Court documents are often cited in the area I'm most familar with, the Scientology articles. And other documents too, which are not as easily verified. There is some trust that happens, you see, some slight degree of confidence that other editors are not making up stuff out of whole cloth, some slight degree of confidence in the other person, some bit of "good faith". Terryeo 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, has the second video footage ever being shown in newsmedia? If not, the case for the second video is far weaker than the first one. Vapour

Vapour, if you don't stop disrupting this article, I'm going to request administrative intervention. You've completely misunderstood our content policies — for example, you say above that court documents may not be used because ordinary people can't access them, which is 100 percent nonsense — and yet you turn up on this page and lecture editor after editor after editor. You've been told by four editors that your understanding of our policies is wrong. Two of those editors are regular editors of the policy pages you think you understand; one of those editors wrote parts of them. And yet still you insist that you, and only you, know what they say. We've all had enough. Do not remove sourced material or images from this page again. Do not tell us again what you think the content policies say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow Vapour, you have seriously misunderstood the policy. A court document is a publication of its respective court - a government organisation. This is a very reputable and verifiable source...

Please take time to discuss what you think the policy means on its talk page or on the IRC channel rather than disruptively editing this article.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

I am thinking of proposing this as a good article as it is well sourced, well written and is stable. It is NPOV and unbiased too. Anyone think I should go for it?-Localzuk^(talk) 10:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there would be a lot of opposition just because of the topic.

I don't agree with the removal of the main image, by the way, and I put it back. It's what the campaign is about, and what prompted it.

We also need a source for the following. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In its report, SHAC Convictions: The Martyrdom Effect, the private intelligence agency, Stratfor, describes the SHAC movement as having a three tier structure, the smallest being those who engage in illegal direct action. The second tier is larger body of individuals who actively pursue legal activities such as collecting information and attending rallies. The major tier encompasses largely passive sympathizers, who may provide occasional moral or financial support, or leak information that comes to their attention.

I reckon we're gonna have problems due to the site hosting that image, but we'll see. The source for that block would be:

SHAC Convictions: The Martyrdom Effect, Stratfor Premium March 15, 2006, by By Fred Burton.

There are 2 sites that host copies of it, although this could ba copyright infringement. I would say just go with a linkless reference for it. [4] and [5].

But even if it gets denied, the attempt may provide us with some valuble improvement points.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to putting this forward as a GA at this time. I don't think it will ever get GA status because it's controversial, but also at the moment because it's not that well written in places. As for the image site, there's no problem with it; we're allowed to use SHAC sites in an article about SHAC, but in any event the website hosting it is not the issue. See WP:V.

Is the Fred Burton article published in a widely available publication, and who is Fred Burton? I can't find it on the link you gave. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is produced by Stratfor, a private intelligence firm. They charge for people to read the article. The 2 links I provided are direct copies of the article (so I would say they are copyright infringments themselves). The person within Stratfor who wrote the article is Fred Burton. I cannot confirm this directly (as I am not willing to pay). However, the claim is by a primary source so maybe it shouldn't be included because of that.

I disagree about the article ever becoming a GA, I just don't see why it shouldn't become one. With a few minor changes it meets the criteria.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can use private detectives as sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about the use of the Stratfor source. Why can't we use a report from a non-partisan analytic body (fully sourced and qualified) on the structure of SHAC? The outsourcing of intelligence is not-uncommon and what they are saying is not particularly controversial or critical. We use the Southern Poverty Law Center's report and we often quote the amateur investigative analyses of animal rights groups, such as BUAV or PETA, so why not Stratfor? Rockpocket 21:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead

The lead section is currently a little strange. It has the hallmarks of a good lead for the first paragraph but then suddenly changes to detailed history followed by criticism. I will try and rewrite it more than I just have to try and trim it into something more suitable. I will also create a 'background' section where the detailed analysis of SHAC's beginnings can be placed.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's appropriate to have some details and criticism in the lead. Leads are supposed to be stand-alone mini-articles that readers can read and move on from if they want to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I just think the current lead goes into detail on various things and doesn't mention other areas such as methods, and successes. It is supposed to be a mini-version of the fulla article, acting as a summary of everything within.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

SHAC 7

I'm created a full article on the SHAC 7; how would we like that to affect this page, in particular the SHAC 7 section (and SHAC7 redirect)? C.lettinga 11:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that SHAC 7 should have its own page and I've put up merge proposal notices accordingly. I read SHAC 7, unfamiliar with the topic, and there was simply not enough context to understand what the issues at stake in the case was. This page provides the necessary context and the new SHAC 7 articles is not so long that it cannot easily be included here. The other articles does not stand on its own but does well here. Let's please move things back. —mako (talk•contribs) 14:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced Article

Now chaps, I'm all for animal rights, and back in my student days I was an ardent protester - but I've felt it nescessary to re-arrange bits of this article, as some of it is quoting vehemently pro-SHAC sites as reliable sources, as well as - distuerbingly - transorming rough percentages to accurate figures in the lead paragraph. I hope my edits even it out a bit! Hawker Typhoon 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The BBC source opens with 'About 750 dogs and 190 primates are tested and killed in the name of science each year at Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS).'. There is no transforming, it is directly quoting.

Second, the xeondiaries.org site contains the report which is very well sourced.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hawker, the phrase "about 750 dogs and 190 primates" isn't a "rough percentage." The source gives figures, so please don't change the figures to percentages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Which source gives the percentages? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The BBC one does, in the little yellow box, as well as the 'about' numbers. -Localzuk^(talk) 20:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I overlooked the yellow box. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yellow is the most difficult to see colour for human eyes, or so I have read... :) -Localzuk^(talk) 21:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Especially when it's got weasel words in it. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Number of Animals in HLS

I don't know why the false claim that HLS only uses 190 primates and roughly 400 beagles keeps re-surfacing. I've edited this before and yet it continues to return. I have once again referenced USDA documents that show that in 2006, one of their three facilities alone reported 896 dogs and 663 primates. Also, their facilities in England have larger beagle units than the one in New Jersey. The UK doesn't require the same sort of public reporting of numbers of animals - so we can never know precisely how many animals they have; but given these US numbers, they surely have thousands of beagles. Please stop editing this - this is a verifiably false statement. JBeckham 20:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The reasons I have reverted are:

1. The BBC report is a verifiable source, the primateresearch.com site you are sourcing isn't.
2. You are actually removing the numbers from the article.

Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 22:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A few points:

1. The USDA documents that I included are entirely unedited and uploaded to the Primate Exhibition Hall's website in the original form received. They were acquired as a result of a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request by myself. You can find other 7023 forms at the APHIS site here: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/7023.html

USDA/APHIS is slow to update this information on their site. As you can see at that URL, the last time that information was update was 4 months ago and the top of the site displays a disclaimer: "NOTE: This is a work in progress. Not all files have been processed at this time. As the file become available, they will be posted on this page as quickly as possible."

The source I have cited is verifiable. Just because it is uploaded on another site is meaningless - this is just as verifiable as anything you would find on smokinggun.com or any other site like that. These are raw documents. Is the claim here that I doctored those records? If you'd like, you can file a request for the same form I did.

If you still aren't happy, you can find the 2004 form for HLS at that URL, which also shows numbers much higher.

2. I didn't include any replacement numbers because, as I said, actual numbers are impossible to acquire. HLS will not release any information about their UK operations anymore. I don't see the point uploading fake numbers because we don't have actual numbers to replace them. If we don't know the numbers - we should just list the types of species and give an overall estimate.

3. The BBC article is a worse source for several reasons:

a) It is from over six years ago - before Huntingdon even added their inhalation toxicology wing in New Jersey or expanded in other ways. It is clear that the overall numbers of animals being used in Huntingdon are increasong. You can compare primateresearch.com/HLS06.pdf with HLS05.pdf and HLS04.pdf to see an overall upward trend of the numbers of animals.

b) It is less verifiable than a document produced as a result of a nonaffiliated governmental organization. The BBC article could've been repeating a false statement given in an HLS press release. They could've been including only the figures from Huntingdon's UK operations (again, six years ago). We simply don't know. We do know that the APHIS 7023 form that I included was the actual headcount number of animals on that specific date (Nov 20, 2006).

c) If you read the BBC article carefully, it states that that number of animals is KILLED every year by Hutnigdon, yet the Wikipedia article states that's the number that is used. This is another discrepancy.

If the USDA inspector walked in on one day in 2006 and found over 600 primates in one of Huntingdon's three labs, it is simply false to continue claiming Huntingdon uses 190 primates between all three facilities. Simply false. I'm not going to revert it yet, I'll allow a bit more discussion, but I think that there is a compelling argument in support of simply not having any numbers of animals used on this site, or making it clear that the only numbers we have are from the US facility. JBeckham 23:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the BBC source was only talking about the UK? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've always found it odd that HLS uses only 190, according to our article, but 65,000 are used each year in the United States and European Union — and HLS is the largest contract tester in the EU. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would've thought that the BBC article is only talking about the UK too, but if that were the case then the number of beagles should be much higher. The beagle unit is much larger in their UK labs than the US lab, at least now it is. Maybe that is the stat for one of their three labs in 2001. it's also important to remember that HLS has expanded, and USDA documents show that the number of animals has increased with these expansions. For whatever the reason, I think it's clear that the numbers we had on the article were wrong, and I think we should just not have any replacement number except maybe numbers for the US based off the USDA report. JBeckham 02:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know where we can find a good summary of the numbers of animals used? It seems clear from reading around that the numbers we have aren't accurate. For example, here BUAV talks about there being 1500 beagles in the dog units at any given time in 1989, so it's unlikely that they now use only 400 a year. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the old numbers had been returned. I now see they haven't been. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

movie links

I will remove the movie links until they work... from here, the movie links do not work. i will also have to remove the statements they support, unless someone can provide a good link... --chodges 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, they must have been moved. I'll find alternatives. The material is widely sourced. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

SV, I'll assume good faith. I hope that you would do the same for me sometime. Please do update the links; if they are no longer verifiable, then then the unsourced statements and images should eventually be removed. Thanks! --chodges —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:14, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

The new quote

The linked article states:

"Groups such as the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty are "way out in front" in terms of damage and number of crimes, said John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism.

"There is nothing else going on in this country over the last several years that is racking up the high number of violent crimes and terrorist actions," Lewis said."

But what you are saying is that he spoke about SHAC. It actually looks more like the news site is making that link, which is completely different.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You perhaps interpret it this way because you are a partisan. Here is the original testimony, showing the full quote in context: http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress05/lewis051805.htm Tom Ketchum (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tom, I reverted your edit because you had changed the flow of the paragraph. The ALF quote is better after SPLC talks about violence, not before it, and the FBI quote would be better between SPLC and ALF, if we use it. Do we know he mentioned Shac specifically to the Senate committee? The story is a little ambiguous as written. It would be good to see the original quote. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that sandwiching the SPLC quote (negative) between the PETA stmt and the ALF stmt serves only to hide it and marginalize it. The SPLC and the FBI calling SHAC terrorists lends credibility, and should be grouped. Also, if you didn't like the palcement of the SPLC quote, you could have moved it without removing the valid FBI qjote. Tom Ketchum (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The logic of the paragraph is: what is SHAC? = leaderless resistance. What are people saying about them? = that they are linked to violence. Why would they say that? = well, here is an example.

The flow of the paragraph that you wrote had no internal logic that I could see. We shouldn't be writing material with a view to hiding or highlighting it, but simply with a view to informing people. You can add the FBI quote after SHAC and before the ALF if you want to group them. But first we need to establish that he really said that. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-added. See link above Tom Ketchum (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Also [6] and "FBI calls UK animal activists terrorists" Tom Ketchum (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked it for flow again and made clear what he was calling them. I also cited the original source rather than a newspaper. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edit removing the quote ""there is nothing else going on in this country over the last several years that is racking up the high number of violent crimes and terrorist actions" serves only to weaken the quote and the point. You think it is "better", but in reality you are simply diluting criticism. This page is a celebration, not anythign resembling a neutral appraisal. Pfffh. Tom Ketchum (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I added his view that SHAC is one of the most serious domestic terrorist threats in the U.S. That is a much starker statement than "there is nothing else going on etc," although both amount to the same thing. There is no dilution there at all. And if you think this page is a celebration, you haven't read it. It is, in fact, deeply critical, all the way through — I don't think there's a single section where the activities of SHAC are described from the campaign's point of view. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All the section headings in section 2: (Effects of campaign on HLS and its customers / Shareholders published / Dropped from NYSE / Move to the U.S. / Saved from banktruptcy / Firebombing / Carr Securities withdraws / NYSE listing postponed / GlaxoSmithKline targeted / HLS can no longer trade on OTCBB / GlaxoSmithKline small investors targeted) read like a "mission accomplished" banner for the group. The rest is praising them with faint damns. Shame if you can't see that. Tom Ketchum (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom, could you please drop the rhetoric and just stick to collaborating to improve the article? I could easily write, "Shame on you for citing a local newspaper when you had access to the original statement!" but what good would it do? You are not perfect, and nor am I. Let's assume we are both operating in good faith until we find overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

If you feel the headers are POV, by all means change them, or make suggestions. The aim is to keep them entirely descriptive. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In my admittedly limited knowledge of this place, I was led to believe that a secondary source (a newspaper) was better than a primary source (testimony). But whatever. I'm clearly out of my depth in the politics here. Tom Ketchum (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with politics: again, please stop making assumptions. If you're dealing with any kind of analysis, a secondary source is preferable, assuming it is a good-quality secondary source. If what matters is exactly what the original source said, and that is what mattered here, then a primary source is better, again assuming it is high-quality. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference

This Guardian article ("Sex and violence allegations split animal rights campaign") citation was lost in this recent edit. I just want to drop it here until we can decide what to do with it. -- Tom Ketchum 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Writing

Tom, you're reducing the quality of the writing in this article. You're adding sentences to the lead that are already in the lead. You're trying to start the article with criticism, before it even says what SHAC or HLS is. You're introducing headers that are repetitive or don't tell the reader what the section is about. You're reverting when the article is copy edited. Could we please instead work together to make this article well-written and readable, rather than reverting each other? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is insane. All you are doing is reverting, reverting, to the point where I can't get anything else done in the article.

There is no reason at all that the article should begin with criticism, and also have more criticism at the end of the lead. It should be kept together, for the writing and flow as much as anything else. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re reverting, I could say the same about you. No, the criticism should not be "kept together". You seem intent on burying the essence of the controversy about this organization. The precis of the facts in this case are: 1) they are opposing Huntingdon; and 2) they are using extreme and violent methods. If the second point were not the case, there would be little or no controversy, and the organization would be substantially less notable. I must say that my "good faith" becomes ever more strained when an editor summarizes the removal of a major element of the story (noted above), cited in a major newspaper, and labels the edit "tidying". A month ago you challenged me to rewrite the story to make it less like a brag sheet for SHAC, and I took you up on that. What I see happening now is an attempt to whitewash the story and minimize the substantial violent and criminal aspect of it. -- Tom Ketchum 21:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC).

Tom, I have reverted your placing of the info regarding SHAC's tactics as the lead hadn't even defined what SHAC disagrees with before you are outlining the tactics used.

And as SV says, please stop just reverting and actually discuss things!-Localzuk^(talk) 19:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken -- the definition of SHAC is in the first sentence. If you're looking for the definition of Huntingdon, that is absolutely not required there, and probably shouldn't even be in the opening para, other than "Europe's largest contract animal-testing laboratory". Huntingdon is linked, and people can go to their page if they want details on exactly what testing they do. Anything more risks poisoning the well, either by holding up Huntingdon as a paragon of bio-medical research or as a "they kill fluffy bunnies" institition -- either end of that spectrum is wrong.

So, after the opening sentence, the obvious point to make is that they are unusual -- and controversial -- because of their methods. Really, what the Southern Poverty Law Center thinks about SHAC is fairly immaterial, and that reference serves only to introduce the terrorist designation. IMO, it should also be moved out of the lead para. I'll repeat the salient points:

1. SHAC opposes Huntingdon's animal research;
2. SHAC employs a "guerrilla" or "leaderless resistance" mode of organization similar to (and perhaps in league with) ALF and others;
3. SHAC methods are novel and also extreme and violent, and SHAC members have been prosecuted and convicted;
4. Various parties, most notably the U.S. FBI, consider them eco-terrorists, and putative allies have disowned them.

That is the essence of the article and should be the essence of the lead. -- Tom Ketchum 21:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, Localzuk -- please WP:AGF when commenting here, and don't tell me to "stop reverting" when every single edit you have made to this article since April 21, 2007 has been a revert. -- Tom Ketchum 21:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tom, it's standard when writing articles to explain first what the group or person is, what they do, and why they do it. Notable criticism should be included in the lead, but the usual thing is to confine it to the final paragraph, after the reader has been told who the person or group is.

The way you want to write the lead would be the equivalent of: "George Walker Bush is the forty-third and current President of the United States of America. A former alcoholic, he has been heavily criticized for the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq, amid allegations that his foreign policy may have cost thousands of lives." It would be a little topsy-turvy to say the least. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 15:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That is an utterly fallacious argument. SHAC is a single-issue interest group, and is in no way comparable to the President of the U.S., or even the local dog-catcher. SHAC exists to disrupt, oppose, and if possible shut down HLS, nothing more, nothing less. Your version is more like: "SHAC is a noble group of freedom fighters bravely trying to save fluffy bunnies from the clutches of evil Dr. Huntingdon. In their zealous defense of the lives of these innocent creatures, mistakes have been made -- think of the children!!" It's absurd. -- Tom Ketchum 17:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Tom, if you look at my edit history, I'm not very active on here of late. What I have seen is very aggressive reverting by yourself, preventing others from doing anything to the article. That is a simple observation, not an attack. My request is that you see that this is a controversial article and the best course of action is discussion, not reverting. I only revert when the edit is a) vandalism or b) damages the article. If you look through, I give detailed reasons for every revert unless it is simple vandalism.

And your summary of points misses out why SHAC is against HLS. Saying that SHAC opposes HLS is all well and good but not telling the reader why is missing out the single most important part of the lead.

Also, you say 'perhaps in league with' - have you got evidence of this?

Extreme and violent? Any evidence of violence from people who support SHAC, and not people who claim to be supporters of the ALF?

So, in essence, the initial paragraph should simply outline who and what SHAC is and why. The rest of the lead should cover the other aspects.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is abundantly clear -- SHAC opposes HLS because they are/were the leading animal-testing lab in Europe. You'd have to have been living in a cave for the last 10 years to not know that animal testing was opposed by many people. Further animal testing is linked, therefore readers can bone up on the details at their leisure, the topic doesn't need to be re-introduced here.

Regarding reverting, you miss my point that -- at SlimVirgin's request -- I substantially rewrote the main body of the article less than a month ago, and (I think) did so in a reasonably neutral way. Now I'd like to make the lead match. You and she are the ones reverting. -- Tom Ketchum 17:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You were trying to change a long-standing lead by starting it with criticism, in the face of normal WP standards. To continue to revert in the face of opposition to that isn't helpful. There's no reason this lead shouldn't be written like most other leads. Even Adolf Hitler says who he was before it mentions the Holocaust. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to being educated, but nothing I can find in WP:LEAD supports this position. To summarize it, the lead content is 1) Establish context ("first paragraph needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it"); then 2) Accessible overview ("summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article"; and 3) Relative emphasis ("in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text. Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them". My 4 points above are an attempt to do exactly this.

However, your suggestion that I am beginning the lead with criticism is untrue. The proposal is to introduce the organization and its purpose in the opening two sentences, then note its activities, which dominate the article, then touch on overt criticism. Noting that its activities are violent is not criticism, it is simply a fact -- they are a violent protest group. Calling them a terrorist organization, however, is clearly criticism, and is clearly the point of view of (e.g.) the FBI, so that falls lower down. I fail to see how this doesn't meet both the letter and the spirit of WP:LEAD. -- Tom Ketchum 18:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

They're by and large not a violent campaign, though. Most of what they do is perfectly peaceful, lawful protest. There are a small number of activists who engage in intimidation (sending flyers to neighbours about how their target earns his living, for example), and an even smaller number — actually a tiny number — who've engaged in violence. Most SHAC activists spend their time telephoning or e-mailing companies or individuals who engage with HLS or invest in them to explain what HLS does. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I regret that this is not a position that seems to be supported by the sources. Now, there is probably a bias -- or several -- going on here. Newspapers don't generally report when someone isn't being violent, and there may be a tendency to dramatize this kind of anti-establishment protest. Regardless of their intent, they appear to be notable primarily because of their tactics. There are pro-this and anti-that campaigns going on all over the world at any given time. If all SHAC had ever done was picket in front of HLS, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But if the preponderance of the mainstream sources characterize them in a certain way, it is difficult to take a different position here. I thought that was the essence of Wikipedia's editorial policy. -- Tom Ketchum 20:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason SHAC is notable is that they are successful. HLS would almost certainly be closed by now had the British govt not stepped in to save them. The same people were successful with Save the Hill Grove Cats and the Consort campaign. Their tactics are relatively new -- the secondary and tertiary targeting issue -- and have proven very effective, and that worries the British govt a great deal. This is primarily where their notability comes from.

The issue of violence is exaggerated by the media who are fed information from govt and pro-animal testing sources, who feel threatened by the campaign. But if you look at the hundreds of people involved in the campaign, and compare it to the number of arrests and convictions, the percentages speak for themselves. That is not to try to minimize the intimidation, which has been very real. But it is not what most of the activists are about.

As for what the sources say, it depends which sources you use. I am not aware of any mainstream newspaper in the UK that is not strongly biased against AR issues. But if you read serious AR sources, you get a slightly different picture, as you'd expect. We shouldn't take the mainstream media position as the neutral one, or the majority one, in my view.

There is also a danger of playing into the hands of both the pro-testing sources and the more violent of the AR activists. The two sides have one thing in common, which is that they both want to emphasize how determined the campaign is. The pro-testing sources want to show how violent and dreadful the campaign is, in order to stop it. The more violent AR sources want to do the same, in order to make people fear it. We have to be careful not to give those motivations a platform. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I get very concerned when people start calling newspapers biased. Mainstream newspapers are "biased" in mostly the same way that encyclopedias are (and should be) "biased" -- they represent the dominant world-view in society at any given point in time. There are then forces on either side trying to move that world-view in various ways, and over time society may change. But my reading of the policies here, and my understanding of what it means to be encyclopedic is that we present the mainstream view, then we attribute various partisan views to the interest groups who hold them. I think that the problem here is that you have an interest in portraying SHAC differently from most of the mainstream sources. I see this increasingly in articles all over Wikipedia on controversial topics -- an ever-greater reach for outlying sources to provide WP:RS fodder for a particular point of view. A simple web search will find lots of pro-SHAC and pro-PETA sources, as well as many that call them terrorists, criminals, etc, etc. I can't see any way to go forward except to say what the mainstream media says, then give SHAC an opportunity to speak for itself, and then give its most notable opponents (in this case, the FBI, it would seem) a chance to make their case. -- Tom Ketchum 20:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Let me add one thing to the above: when I speak of newspapers as reliable sources, I am talking about the news coverage in newspapers, and not editorial or op-ed components of them. I would not construe anti-SHAC editorials to be unbiased sources, but I think news reporting of their activities should be considered so, regardless of the opinion of those who support or sympathize with SHAC and the like. -- Tom Ketchum 20:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Biased Rhetoric

The whole article contains facts which can't be successfully disputed yet I think that the article as a whole employs extremist, heavilly biased rhetoric which demonstrates a lack of objectivity. Missing almost entirely is the SHAC quasi-organization's Constitutional rights (at least in the United States) to engage in pickets, protests, and demonstrations, lawful activities which comprise 99% of what SHAC quasi-members did and advocates.

The article attempts to depict SHAC as a Bush regime "domestic terrorist group" when it is demonstrably not the case inasmuch as 99% of the efforts to dismantle Huntington Life Science has been and continues to be lawful.

The article as a whole looks to have been contrived by the very corporations which SHAC and other animal rights groups have been lawfully working to put a lawful stop to. The article needs to be reworked to include the overwhelming beneficial, positive, work that SHAC has done as well as touch upon the general public's overwhelming support for the type of work that SHAC and other animal rights organizations do to stop animal cruelty.Fredric Rice (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources that describe SHAC's "overwhelming beneficial, positive, work" (rather than than the illegal blackmail that is widely reported today), then please feel free to add it. Rockpocket 18:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

SHAC members sentenced to jail

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7837064.stm

Seven members of SHAC, including the founder(s) Gregg Avery and his wife, Natasha, given sentences between 4 and 11 years for a 6 year campaign of intimidation and blackmail. The article does currently mention the trial, but only so far as the guilty verdicts and that sentencing would be performed on 19/1/09. Sentencing has been performed now, and other reliable information about the campaign is available and should be mentioned in the article. This includes the paedophile smears performed by SHAC, the false bomb hoaxes, the sending of used sanitary items, criminal damage and vandalism. The judge in the case describes SHAC's campaign as "menacing", "urban terrorism", and a ""relentless, sustained and merciless persecution" which made the victims lives a "living hell". I'll probably add something to the article in the next day or so, if there are no objections. Malbolge (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added some information on the sentencing to the Operation Achilles section. Since this, along with the SHAC7 trial, appears to have taken the leaders of SHAC on both sides of the Atlantic out of play for a while, I'm wondering whether it is worth a mention in the lead also? There are plenty of sources describing this group as leaders/senior members/core etc and the police are saying - as a consequence - around 3/4 of the "most violent" activists are now jailed. Incidentally, there are also lots of sources describing them as core members of the ALF, which rather makes a mockery of the line that SHAC and the ALF are different. Rockpocket 18:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement

The statement: A year later, PETA filmed inside HLS in New Jersey, obtaining footage of an autopsy on a live monkey, where the technician is heard to express concern that the animal is inadequately anaesthetized is nonsensical. An autopsy is a procedure carried out on a dead body. If any anesthesia is required, then it isn't an autopsy. Perhaps its meant to be biopsy? Rockpocket 07:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I should have written supposed necropsy. I've seen these allegations many times, including from study directors working for animal-testing companies, that animals are alive and possibly conscious during what the lab technicians regard as necropsies. I've seen footage of this particular one, and it certainly looks like a necropsy — he is having his entire chest cavity cut open with what look like scissors — but he's clearly still alive. I'll change it to dissection to avoid confusion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

But necropsy doesn't make sense either. A necropsy presupposes the animal is already dead in the eyes of the person carrying it out and dead animals don't require anaesthesia. I expect what they were trying to do in this example was vivisection under terminal anaesthesia. To do that - correctly - you open an animal under anaesthesia and you keep dissecting under it dies (by removing a vital organ, for example) or, if you have completed your task and the animal is still alive, you increase the amount of anaesthesia until overdose. This is one of the few times vivisection is the correct term, lets use it ;) Rockpocket 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it looked like. I prefer to use dissection, because at least it's clear what it means — we could add "vivisection under terminal anaesthesia" in parentheses, perhaps. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No its ok, I think dissection gets the point across. Could I ask how you managed to obtain those photos of Nicholson (I'm beginning to wonder if SV isn't perhaps a pseudonym.... do they have Wikipedia access from prison)? I'm joking, of course. But could we use one of them in this article? Rockpocket 02:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Doh. Forget that, I see you have already added one. Rockpocket 02:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The internet access in Her Majesty's prisons has always been superb, I'm relieved to say. :-)

Actually, I e-mailed her father and he sent me some. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Infiltrator

Hi RP, I wonder about including the infiltrator material. The story sounded decidedly dodgy and self-promotional, and I don't think anyone else picked it up, at least not when I last checked. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I've just been reading reaction to this in the AR blogosphere. I'm not sure quite what to make if it, to be honest. The problem is everyone has their own agenda in promoting or denying the influence of infiltration, so the truth is difficult to fathom.

If he really is writing a book with a Times journo, then its not really surprising he only spoke to that single newspaper. But I agree his motivation is likely self promotion and some of his claims appear rather incredible (particularly the claim about a Nicholson/Broughton relationship, surely the AR community in the UK isn't that incestuous!) Ultimately, though, The Times is a reliable source and the claims I mentioned are not particularly extraordinary. Indeed, the media response to the recent convections is in general agreement: Broughton and the SHAC conspirators were active in co-ordinating their own peaceful front groups while also carrying out illegal actions as the ALF, and money was flowing between groups. I guess I could find other sources, but the infiltrator claim seemed to be an interesting after note. Rockpocket 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've not looked at his story since it was first published, so I don't recall any details, but I found it extremely unlikely that they'd take him along on their various activities. Had it been that easy to catch them, presumably the police would have done it a long time ago. So something just didn't add up for me. Plus no other news organization picked it up, as I recall, which is always a sign that editors have quietly raised an eyebrow. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

More SHAC members sentenced to jail

Six members of SHAC (Alfie Fitzpatrick, Nicole Vosper, Sarah Whitehead, Thomas Harris, Nicola Tapping and Jason Mullan) have been convicted of offences (criminal damage, threats of violence, abuse, intimidation, hoax bomb threats etc.) relating to an international campaign of intimidation and violence against a host of companies related to Huntingdon Life Sciences. Five have been given prison sentences (Nicole Vosper, Sarah Whitehead, Thomas Harris, Nicola Tapping and Jason Mullan) ranging from 15 months to 6 years, while one (Alfie Fitzpatrick) has been handed a 12-month suspended prison sentence, and has been ordered to complete 100 hours community service. 2 good BBC articles... one, on the sentencing (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11599380) and one detailing the abuse, terrorisation and tactics of intimidation (such as, from a victim, "We ended up with a large section of the local community receiving letters accusing myself and my business partner of running an internet-based paedophile ring. [The letters] actually recruited vigilantes to come round and deal with us") as well as giving some extra details on the arrest and background of the arrests, and even a little comedy ("Mistakenly, the people who bought my house were visited by animal rights people who completely wrecked their cars")(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11584029). I may add something in the next few days if no one else does so. Malbolge (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

This whole article is not very neutral-POV. It reads very anti-shac. For example, the poster above calls the shac targets 'victims'. Shac people would say that the animals are the victims here, and their targets are the animal abusers. None of this is mentioned above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.127.63 (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Come now - the normal terminology for those subject of criminal acts is 'victim' - to sugest otherwise exposes an unaceptable bias - which you then do in fact expose with your nonsene about how SHAC percive their crimes! This section does urgently need inclusion in the 2008 onwards section as it appears at the momment as if SHAC activity ended after the Linconlshire convictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.196 (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Tightening

Over the next couple of days/weeks, I'm going to start tightening the article and removing some of the less important details. Dates and figures that seemed relevant when written are less so a few years later. I'll also be making the page consistent in terms of formatting, and I'll be fixing references, dead links, etc. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to start some fiddly editing, such as fixing refs, so I'd like to put the inuse tag on to avoid edit conflicts. Let me know if it will inconvenience anyone if I do that now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Rockpocket, please respect the in-use tag. I waited half an hour after the above before adding it, yet I keep getting edit conflicts with you, including you bizarrely continuing to remove <ref name=Cook> and substituting <ref name=thugs>. It's unacceptable. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You hadn't edited this article in 10 months and then, within an hour of me starting to edit it you decide you will do a major rewrite, right now, and immediately add an in use tag? Yeah, right, that shows a lot of respect. What is bizarre, is your ongoing pattern of making completely untrue allegations. Once again, check your facts before accusing other editors. I did nothing of the sort [7]. Rockpocket 22:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

All you had to do, when I posted above asking if I could add the tag, was say no, or not now. Instead, you've been reverting my edits, I hope inadvertently. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. Rockpocket 22:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Final Court case

Probably need a bit of this to round off:-

THE HAMPSHIRE leader of an animal rights group which attacked branches of Barclays Bank because of links to an animal testing lab, has been jailed.

Thomas Harris, 27, from Ringwood, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit criminal damage at earlier hearings.

He now faces 12 months in jail for attacks, which were carried out due to the bank's links with Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Christopher Potter, 20, and Maria Neal, 21, both from Seggs Lane, Alcester, Warwickshire, were also each sentenced today to 12-month prison sentences, suspended for two years.

Potter and Neal were also ordered to carry out 120 hours of unpaid work.

The three conspired to attack four branches in Hampshire in 2008 by daubing graffiti such as murderers and scum on doors and gluing post boxes and cash machine slots.

They also painted ALF - standing for Animal Liberation Front - on the side of the buildings.

In addition, they damaged a car belonging to someone they mistakenly thought had links to a company supplying HLS during the conspiracy, causing damage costing £7,500 to repair.

A van belonging to FedEx, another Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac) target, was also attacked by the extremists.

Roger Climie, prosecuting, said that Harris was in charge of Shac at the time of these attacks.

He is already serving a four-year jail term for conspiracy to blackmail companies linked to HLS in an attempt to close it down.

His sentence today is consecutive to the term he is already serving.

Mr Climie added that it was accepted that Harris was abroad at the time of two of the bank attacks.

Sentencing the three defendants at Winchester Crown Court, Judge Keith Cutler said: Each of you have pleaded guilty to a conspiracy which, quite frankly, reflects an appalling period of behaviour.

He described Potter and Neal as young and idealistic and added: I hope when you look at yourselves two years ago you recoil in horror and think 'What on Earth was I doing?'.

I hope it will haunt you for the rest of your life.

Mr Climie said Shac had a facade as a law-abiding protest group but a number of members were involved in its secret but illegal activities.

He said: This was an organisation where the numbers privy to the events taking place behind the scenes were comparatively small.

Barclays said it no longer had links to HLS but did through its asset management business when the attacks took place.

The hearing is the latest in a series of prosecutions of people linked to Shac.

In October last year, six activists, including Harris and his girlfriend Nicola Tapping, were sentenced for their part in attempts to close HLS down.

Other members of Shac, including founder members Gregg Avery, Natasha Avery and Heather Nicholson, were given lengthy jail terms in January 2009 for blackmailing companies linked to HLS.

http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/8790311.Jail_for_animal_rights_extremist/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.196 (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of PETA as a reliable source for photographs or documentation

It's fairly widely understood that PETA generally does not infiltrate establishments to acquire cinematic-quality professional footage of events that do not make any sense in context, as this is self-evident for those reasons, but that these are typically mocked-up by PETA themselves. So why are these being used as a reliable source on an encyclopedic site? Having lodged this here, I'll make minor edits to the text as appropriate to maintain NPOV, emphasis on "minor". 76.232.70.228 (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)