Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:47, 6 May 2008

Animal rights B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1 2

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 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 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Greg and Natasha Image

What happened to the photo of Greg and Natasha?-Localzuk 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

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 15:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. SlimVirgin 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." Words like "reliable", "verifiability" or NPOV (neutral point of view) have specific techinical meaning here. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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[REDACTED] 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.". "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." 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 12:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Also take a look at this too: -Localzuk 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 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[REDACTED] 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 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 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 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 10:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I will look through the images I have taken and choose one to upload then.-Localzuk 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 10:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Biteback

Is the Bite Back link not a useful one, LZ? SlimVirgin 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 10:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you. I'm fine either way. SlimVirgin 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 Misplaced Pages is verifiability not truth. Vapour

Vapour, three editors have explained at some length that the information you're removing conforms to Misplaced Pages: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 06:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 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 17:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are somewhat not understanding the intent for the verification policy. As[REDACTED] is edited without fact checking editorial oversight, it require that all information presented in[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] but no more. But I or any[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] because ordinarly people (i.e.[REDACTED] 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 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 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 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 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 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. and .

But even if it gets denied, the attempt may provide us with some valuble improvement points.-Localzuk 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 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 12:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Agreed.-Localzuk 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 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 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 13:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. SlimVirgin 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 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 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Especially when it's got weasel words in it. ;-) SlimVirgin 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the old numbers had been returned. I now see they haven't been. SlimVirgin 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 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 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 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 20:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Also 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 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 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 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 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 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• B-Class Animal rights articles
• High-importance Animal rights articles
• WikiProject Animal rights articles