Wikipedia

Talk:Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty/Archive 1

< Talk:Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Localzuk
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Stop_Huntingdon_Animal_Cruelty/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. localzuk 17:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Reversion

To the anonymous user 144.32.128.73, I reverted your edit because it deleted a large amount of information. Please bear in mind that articles have to be edited from a neutral point of view (NPOV). If you feel the information is inaccurate, by all means edit it, perhaps providing examples or references, or if you feel it's completely wrong and unjustified, it's best to start up a discussion on this page, rather than going for wholesale deletion. Best wishes, Slim 00:35, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Most of your point are incorrectly argued. The majority of SHAC supporters take part in non-violent activities. Thousands of non-violent demonstrations have taken place involving thousands of people. The logic behind your statements is that if you are a United States citizen because there are criminals in the United States you are also a criminal. Why do you try to discredit thousands of peaceful protestors based on the convictions of a relative minority? Out of SHAC's large membership very few have been convicted most of minor offences. Unsuprisingly these have been listed on this page. HLS has also employed convicted criminals as well, does this mean that HLS is a criminal organisation. You are the one that should be editing from a NPOV. If you cannot answer these points then I will start editing again. 144.32.128.73
I didn't actually argue any points, so I'm not sure what you mean by incorrectly argued. I agree with you that most SHAC supporters engage in non-violent activities. When you say the "logic behind my statements", again I'm not sure what you mean, because I made no statements. My point is only that you deleted quite a large amount of referenced information. If you know it is wrong, and can show it is wrong, then by all means delete it, but you must be able to demonstrate that in some way, or show that the references cited are not reputable, or something like that. Alternatively, you could re-word the offending section; or you could add to it and critique it, adding your own material and your own references. For example, you deleted that SHAC is not a closed organization, but an assembly of independent groups. This is true. Why delete it? SHAC also does support destruction of property and intimidation of HLS supporters. In fact, that's how it has managed to be so successful, but you deleted it. You also deleted the information about the attack on Brian Cass, which was accurate. I agree that the section overstresses the violence aspect. Try to rewrite it from a NPOV. Slim 01:23, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

What happened here?

Did Wikipedia suddenly get SHAC sponsorship? The article reads like a page straight from shac.net -- you can almost feel the slimy hatred and rage coming out of the screen at you.

  • Where did the link to ALF go? SHAC is undeniably the product of ALF, yet Natasha and Greg always insist to the press that SHAC is fuzzy and warm and has no connection to the ALF anarchist thugs. Then, when they're on a recruiting drive, they play up SHAC's links with ALF to new recruits. Greg went absolute mental for the cameras when he was interviewed on the Tonight with Trevor McDonald expose of SHAC last month.
  • Why was the list of SHAC convictions removed? It is factual information, it is incredibly relevant to SHAC (an organisation who only ever appear in the news when they're harrassing, threatening, bombing, maiming or being sentenced), and removing it serves the purposes of SHAC, who like to pretend that they're never brought to book for their crimes.
  • Now we have a giant picture of a photogenic animal in a lab cage, which is just the thing SHAC loves to promote. Not one of the thousands of rats, but a monkey. Monkeys make up less than 0.1% of HLS's animals, but rats and mice aren't cute enough for SHAC to rake in the donation money. If we're going to have that in the article, can we please add a large photo of Brian Cass just after his attack, with blood streaming down his face?
  • Why was the link to Andrew Blake's opinions on SHAC removed? He is one of their many victims of harassment and intimidation.
  • The government paper is explicitly concerned with "extremists". The government likes "activists" and has nothing much to say about them in its paper, but it firmly enforces the law against "extremists", and proposes a raft of measures against "extremism", not "activism". Animal rights extremists engage in harassment and intimidation. Animal rights activists would be aghast at such measures. SHAC may want you to conflate the two, but responsible activists don't.

What happened, Slim? You did a great job on your original copyedit of the article, but now it's a dishonest, thoroughly POV piece. Kyz 03:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Kyz, I do feel the article was heading too much in the direction of SHAC's opponents, so I have tried to balance it out a little, which is not an easy thing to do. I'll deal with each of your points separately:

1) If SHAC is a product of the ALF, by all means insert that, but it has to be referenced to a neutral or reputable source (say, a newspaper article). The reason I deleted it is that it sounds odd. There is no such organization as the ALF. They are a bit like SHAC. Individuals or small groups who carry out actions can "claim" them on behalf of the ALF. So I wasn't sure what was meant by saying SHAC is connected to the ALF. Some SHAC members may have carried out ALF actions, but probably most haven't, and it's going to be hard to pin down numbers/percentages - unless, as I say, you have a source you can name.

2) I felt naming the convicted people was inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. If you want to list numbers convicted; the offences they have been convicted for; fines/sentencing etc., that would be okay, but to name them starts to look vindictive and POV, in my view. The names are meaningless anyway to most Wikipedia readers. It would be a bit like naming HLS staff.

3) I don't know whether the 0.1 per cent claim about monkeys is correct, because it isn't referenced, and even if it is correct, how many monkeys does that involve? If you look at the photos on the SHAC website, or watch their films, there appear to be a significant number of monkeys. Dogs too. I feel that to talk in terms of percentages is misleading, and perhaps deliberately so.

4) If you want to insert a photograph of Brian Cass after his attack, by all means go ahead; just make sure we're allowed to use it.

5) I don't know about the Andrew Blake link disappearing. If I did that, it was inadvertent. My apologies.

6) The long quote from the government paper is still there, and it talks about extremists, so I don't think that section has been weakened. The problem was that, as it stood, it sounded like an anti-SHAC rant, as did a few other parts of the article, to be honest. I think that's why the previous anonymous editor was upset and deleted large sections.

I would say the important thing is to write in a neutral tone, using neutral words wherever possible, and to provide reputable references (citations) for any significant or controversial claim. Let me know what you think. Slim 03:39, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Slim, This article has improved much since your edits and I agree with a number of your points above. Kyz, you continue to write in a biased tone and your inaccurate comments do not help the construction of this article. One would imagine you work for HLS or something. By the way if you have got a problem with monkey picture, you are welcome to put a picture of Cass on the page as well. Also, I feel that there are too many SHAC critical sites listed on this page.

Thank you for your comments. It's a hard page to edit from a NPOV because there are such strong feelings on both sides. I was also going to mention the external links. It might be helpful to find a few more pro-SHAC, pro-animal rights, or neutral links to balance out the anti-SHAC ones, so that there are more or less even numbers.

Hi Slim, I understand the difficulty of reaching a neutral point of view, however other than external links (which are allowed to be POV), "balanced" levels of POV does not attain this.

  1. I understand your point and will update the article later to more accurately reflect the origins and affiliations of SHAC.
  2. I disagree about naming names. Not listing the crimes SHAC affiliates commit would unfairly bias the article in the favour of SHAC, and not naming them would cast aspersions on other SHAC members. It also favours SHAC to imply their criminal behaviour can be committed anonymously and without reprisal. I could live with it provided the references from the article were kept.
  3. The 0.1% figure is a collective stat for the whole of the UK, as already referenced. [1]. You say the SHAC website only shows you monkeys, dogs, horses, etc. -- duh! Of course it does, it's a propaganda dissemination site. There is nothing SHAC would like more than for you to believe HLS works with nothing but monkeys, dogs and other photogenic animals. It also wants you to believe they're all "scum" and that SHAC will somehow succeed in shutting down HLS. You do know that Greg used to claim in 1999 that HLS would be shut within 4 years? It didn't happen. He lied, and continues to lie profusely. Here's a game for you -- find just one picture of a rat on shac.net (and I don't mean Mr Avery). These are by far the predominant species of animal used at HLS. Rats don't tug middle-class heartstrings and open wallets, thus SHAC don't show them. SHAC also lie when they try to associate themselves with animal welfare. They're not about the mere welfare of animals (if they were, they would be protesting for increased inspection and regulation of HLS, not protesting to shut it down). They're animal rights people -- they don't want a single animal used in medical testing. Medical science can go fuck itself. Ill humans can go fuck themselves. Animals are more important than people.
  4. I'll go see if I can get permission. At the moment, the article is severely biased to SHAC by having one of its propaganda pictures there and the NPOV dispute. However, I'm wondering if having two emotionally manipulative images from either side of the argument classes as "neutral". What do you think?
  5. I will restore it later.
  6. I'm talking about the "animal rights activists are interested in harassment and intimidation" line. They are most certainly not. This is behaviour only found in the extremists, not run-of-the-mill AW/AR activists who are a peaceful lot.

I hope we can reach a neutral consensus. You clearly have Wikipedia's interests at heart and I welcome any feedback you may have.

My Anonymous friend: OK, you got me. I work at HLS, obviously. The commute from Edinburgh each day is a killer, I tell you. It's not just HLS employees that disagree with SHAC. SHAC's detractors include scientists worldwide who have a right to work without threats on their life, it includes the majority of the UK public who are prepared to accept testing on animals if it means improved medical techniques and drugs, and it includes the animal welfare and animal rights activists themselves, who condemn SHAC's sick flagship campaign of bullying, harrassment and intimidation against anyone related to HLS. "Protecting animals" is just an excuse for these thugs to get their thrills. Kyz 16:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A few cents from my side.

  • I think that the (or any) video still is appropriate, as this is a page about SHAC, and the video footage is a good illustration of the campaigns' claims. I would object having such pictures on the HLS page. I would also agree with any press photos related to the campaign - of Brian Cass if you'd like.
  • The 0.1% number is worth mentioning. However, I think the reason why mostly monkeys and beagles are mentioned is not only an appeal to emotion as was mentioned in the article. But right because these animals have a very developed social life and respective requirements, their mistreatment is the most appaling. Considering efforts like the Great Ape Project, it is definitely an important issue than animal testing on monkeys and dogs does happen at all. Of course, most animal testing happens on rodents. Because they are cheap, easy to maintain and easy to reproduce. This does not invalidate the argument IMHO. --- AFAICS there was no intention to edit that information anyway, let's just leave it where it is, in the critics section.
Edit: Note that there are images of rats [2] [3] [4] and other rodents [5] on shac.net - But you are right that they are somewhat underrepresented.

Ravn 17:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  1. Having pictures of animals inside HLS could be deemed appropriate as it shows what the SHAC campaign is about. Having a picture of Brian Cass covered in blood certainly does not seem appropriate, as this is nothing to do with SHAC - SHAC did not attack him, SHAC were not involved in the attack and SHAC did not condone the attack. Showing a picture of Cass would give a biased view against SHAC. However, I personally do not see the need for any images on this page - if people want to include images then they should be externally linked to or put on new pages (for example a HLS Undercover page and an Animal Rights Violence page). Wikipedia would become unusable if everyone wanted to add pictures to every page - for example if the abortion page had gory pictures of aborted foetuses and gory pictures of women dying after illegal abortions then who would actually want to browse it? However, the images on the SHAC page are not gory, and just show animals inside HLS.
  2. SHAC do indeed focus mostly on dogs in their campaign, as the original undercover footage taken inside HLS was of dogs and this originally sparked the campaign. This is where most of their pictures come from - they have many high-resolution pictures of dogs proven to be taken inside HLS available to use freely; and very few similar pictures of rodents.

If monkeys or dogs were not used at all in HLS then these pictures would indeed be misleading; but as it is I think that they are valid.

NPOV, no original research and references

Hi everyone,

I'd say the best way to proceed with this article is to bear in mind three Wikipedia principles: (1) NPOV: This article should be written as though we've just arrived from the planet Mars, have never heard of SHAC or HLS, and don't care one way or the other; (2) No original research is allowed in Wikipedia. That means we can only include facts and opinions that have been published by SHAC, HLS, reputable news organizations or other publishers, government agencies, and other animal welfare and rights organizations, and so on. Even if one of us had personally witnessed SHAC members using violence, for example, we could not include that in the article, unless the incident had been published somewhere else already. Similarly, if one of us has strong opinions about the behavior of SHAC or HLS, those opinions cannot be included (or even hinted at), unless they have been published somewhere else; (3) References should be provided for claims (facts and opinions), especially if they are controversial. These should be collected at the end of the article in a References section, and should be cited throughout the article in the form of a Wikilink after the claim, like this [6]. Obviously, not all claims have to be referenced. It's a question of commonsense.

Regarding including a photograph, this is the SHAC page and SHAC was set up after the broadcast of a secretly filmed video, so it seems appropriate (to me) to include a still or footage from that film. Perhaps we should also say more about how SHAC began, who started it, who the main players are, in neutral language.

I agree that balanced levels of POV don't achieve NPOV. Every point we make should be made in a neutral tone, as far as possible; or we should quote someone, if we want to quote strong opinions.

About the rats/dogs/monkeys issue. Do we have numbers here instead of percentages? If the 0.1 per cent figure is for the whole of the UK, but SHAC is using 200 monkeys, the fact that this is unusual doesn't change the numbers. (See Rat Park for an article I wrote about happy (or happier) laboratory rats, by the way.)

As for including the names of convicted activists: I can see both sides here. My gut feeling is that it's inappropriate, and it leads to the issue of whether we should also name convicted offenders who are working for HLS and that kind of thing (assuming that's been published somewhere). That goes for whether it's on this page or a subpage. Perhaps we could look around Wikipedia for other examples of activist groups and whether articles about them include lists of convicted members. Slim 19:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. I'd like to help to make this article NPOV.
The article Kyz linked [7] gives a number of (...) just over 2.73 million regulated animal experiments (not necessarily animals) in UK labs in 2002 - according to the latest statistics provided by the Home Office.. The percentages yield an approximate number of 2730 primates, 8190 dogs/cats, 2.3 mio rodents etc. This will be a bit inaccurate, as the percentages were rounded on the way. Ravn 21:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The exact numbers are here. Kyz 23:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Hi Ravn and Kyz, here's the 2002 set of figures. [8] It would be good to include some of these figures in the article. Maybe we could each go into the article and make small changes, editing, re-writing POV parts, adding facts (always with references); maybe saying a bit about the history of SHAC. I feel it's an important article because, whether you agree or disagree with SHAC, they've had a big effect on HLS, to the point where the government had to intervene, and a big effect generally on animal experimentation in the UK. Anyone who disagrees with an edit should say so on the Talk page, and then we'll try to reach a consensus on that issue, then move on to the next issue, and so on. Would that work for everyone? Slim 23:57, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Also, it would be good to find out how many SHAC supporters there are at most of the demonstrations, or who take regular part in actions. There probably aren't reliable figures anywhere, because people come and go, but there might be a broad guess somewhere. Then we should find out the number of criminal convictions that have resulted from the campaign. Slim 00:09, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Kyz, you have to look at things from both sides. SHAC are entitled to protest against something they view as disgusting. The group has very few convictions among its membership. It is HLS who are the bullies, killing harmless animals to test the latest chemical product. The scientists who support animal testing are paid a lot of money by pharmaceutical companies to test their products. With regards to the article the names of those convicted should not be mentioned in an encyclopedia article, we would then have to put the names of employees of HLS who have been convicted on the HLS article. The amount of people at a SHAC demonstration can vary massively and I think it would be very difficult to find reliable figures.

SHAC are entitled to protest peacefully and legally, and to petition and lobby the government to make their views known. They are not permitted to harrass, stalk, intimidate or commit violence against people. Have you heard of these things called human rights? I would recommend abandoning the SHAC thugs and finding an animal rights group that respects human rights. Kyz 23:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Kyz, which animal rights groups would you say are the acceptable ones, and which ones criticize SHAC? By the way, I have not abandoned this article; I've just been busy working on other issues, but I do intend to keep an eye on it, and start helping to edit it once things are quieter. Slim 00:04, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Slim. To my knowledge, neither Animal Aid nor the BUAV have not been involved in violence and intimidation to promote their aims. I don't know much about groups outside the UK. Many animal rights activists speak out against violence within their midst (for example) but I haven't seen any criticise SHAC, its goals or its beliefs, only the incidents of violence that occur. Kyz 01:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is turning into an HLS promotional page.

All input is welcome, but would you mnd signing your comments? It makes it easier to keep track of the different opinions. Which parts would you say are unfairly weighted in favor of HLS?
I think we should do something with the Animal Liberation Front section. There is no such thing as the ALF as such. It's just a name activists use to claim certain actions. To say that someone committed a crime "on behalf of" SHAC and the ALF makes it sound as though the ALF has a solid existence.
Ravn, I think your latest edit made SHAC's status as a campaign, not a group, very clear. The articles makes more sense now and is more accurate. Slim 20:18, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Still not NPOV?

NPOV issues
issue claimant status
photo is misrepresentative Kyz unresolved

Thanks Slim. Are there still any disputes on the NPOV-ness of this article? If yes, please list them here so that we can sort them out - if not, I am going to remove the NPOV tag soon. -- Ravn 10:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We still have a propaganda photo straight from shac.net in the article. The choice of photo is not in the slightest bit neutral:
  • It's a primate. Most people think primates are cute. SHAC deliberately play on this to con gullible members of the public into supporting them. (We send death threats to people and threaten to give them AIDS because monkeys are fuzzy! Yay! Join us in our campaign of terror! It's for the beagles!). The RSPCA puts down more unwanted cats and dogs each year than HLS uses for testing. I haven't seen any campaigns of terror against the RSPCA.
  • There are many very happy, smiley-faced monkeys at HLS. SHAC don't show them. Besides, the smileyness or frowniness of animals tells very little about how they're being treated.
  • The composition of the photo doesn't show the very large cage or its playthings. They've enticed a primate to clutch the bars then taken a close-up photo. This is all too readily anthropomorphised into a "prisoner behind bars" - just what SHAC wants you to think, so you'll support their campaign of terror against HLS. If the world was really as SHAC activists suggest it is, this would not be satire.
SHAC is very big on in-your-face pictures of cute animals and labelling people as "scum", "puppy-killers", "paedophiles", etc. I don't agree with either tactic and do not consider repetition of these tactics in Wikipedia as neutral. I am still trying to get permission for use of Brian Cass photos, but even then I would not consider the article "neutral", merely "balanced". Kyz 18:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I see your point, Kyz. I am wondering though what kind of photos or diagrams would be representative of an article on the SHAC campaign then. The photo of a happy, smiley-faced monkey would be completely unrelated to this article. As you said yourself, SHAC does not show this kind of photo.
The article about propaganda you mentioned shows a North Korean propaganda poster showing a soldier destroying the Capitol building on the first paragraph. Is showing the poster equal to supporting the claims of the poster?
I think that a photo is appropriate in the article if it represents the claims of the campaign, may they be justified or not. All of your arguments against using photos of monkeys for campaigning against vivisection may be valid, but they do not change the fact that SHAC does use these photos for this purpose. IMHO the photo illustrates both the SHAC arguments and yours about misrepresentation of species.
What should we do in your opinion to make the article NPOV? I do not like to keep articles in a non-NPOV state for a prolonged time, even if it is tagged as such. But I think that an illustration is a nice-to-have in an article of this size. -- Ravn 12:44, 17

Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kyz, regarding what you said above about there being many happy monkeys in HLS, and that they have bigger cages and playthings, can I ask how you know this, and can you provide references? Slim 20:22, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Comments on last partial revert (21. Jan 05)

  • I cannot imagine it has not been linked to SHAC. Obviously it does not obey SHAC principles and is therefore by definition not a SHAC action, but the relation of Dave and this action to the campaign is hard not to see.
  • Has anyone got external sources as to whether HLS is "no longer in financial dire straits" and/or owes 85 mio$? As this is a delicate subject, we imperatively need sources.
  • I removed any speculations on the (HLS') future. This is an encyclopedia, not an oracle.
Ravn 13:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A reference to the debt is from HLS's own page [9] It states "long term debt is $87.5M up by $3.8M"

Regarding the relation of the violent action to SHAC; this article as about shac, not HLS. Just because someone did something agaist HLS does not mean that it should be under the heading shac.

Changes made 25/01/05

I made several changes as the article mentioned illegal activities against related individuals as this is unrelated to shac but instead should be under 'violent animal rights' or some such article. Linking SHAC with violence is childish as the organisation is stricly non-violent.

I also added the source for the debt and changed the term 'malicious threats' to 'requests' regarding the investors as this is normal activity for a campaign/protest in any form.


"SHAC critics claim that the campaign decorates its stands with images of animal psychology experiments from the 1960s, now banned, rather than bona-fide images of animal medical testing." ANy evidence to support this? Almost all of the pictures I have seen SHAC using come from the HLS undercover investigations; hence the frequently used beagle images. I'm deleting this quote until some evidence is produced tol support it. Also, why on earth is it in the "Direct Action" section?? Since most of the information in the Direct Action section had nothing to do with Direct Action, I have moved it to a "Criticisms of SHAC" section - leaving the Direct Action section tiny and, in my view, unecessary. I have also rewritten the point about SHAC threatening people etc to be more neutral and moved it to the criticisms section. Raye

My changes have now been reverted by Geni: I moved "Direct action used by SHAC supporters has included violence, harassment, intimidation with death-threat letters and hoax bombs, arson, trespass, vandalism and destruction of property. Despite SHAC's stated policy of non-violent direct action, isolated physical attacks have occurred, such as the assault on Brian Cass, manager director of HLS, who was attacked outside his home in February 2001 by three men armed with pickaxe handles and CS gas. [2] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1494924.stm)" to the "criticisms of shac" section and reworded it. You have moved replaced it in the "organization" section and changed it in the "criticisms of shac" section. It is not necessary to have it in both sections and I feel that it fits better into the second.

Do you have a reference that shows that Dave Blenkinsop was a "SHAC activist"?

I have added a lot of references since then as for Dave blenkinsop of course[10]Geni 20:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"SHAC's use of public records in the sending of malicious threats to all investors in HLS" SHAC do not send 'malicious threats'. Maybe some people do; can you prove that they are SHAC? And the use of the word 'malicious' here seems biased - what is a malicious threat as opposed to a non-malicious threat?

well I could use the word threats I suspose that is what the uk courts think they are [11]Geni 20:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"However, destruction of property and the intimidation of HLS supporters is deemed acceptable." Do you have a reference to show that this is deemed acceptable by SHAC? SHAC state on their website that it is not - http://www.shac.net/disclaimer/disclaimer.html

Now here is an interesting thing the SHAC website has been online since at least sept 18th 2002[12] I can't find any record prior to the 5th of feb 2003 [13] of the disclaimerGeni 20:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually, according to the site you point us to [14] the site came live on Apr 14th 2001 and has always had the disclaimer (at the bottom) stating 'Nothing contained on this website is intended to encourage or incite illegal acts.' [15].

SHAC critics claim that the campaign decorates its stands with images of animal psychology experiments from the 1960s, now banned, rather than bona-fide images of animal medical testing. Which critics have stated this? Which pictures from the 1960s do they use? All of the pictures I have seen SHAC use are from HLS investigations. Can you show otherwise?

"Use of great apes is banned" Have SHAC ever used images of great apes or claimed that HLS use Great Apes? If not then this is not relevent and should be deleted. Raye

Latest edit

As I see it, we need references for:

  • the claim that the photos SHAC uses on its stands are from the 60s
  • details of physical assaults other than on Brian Cass, because we mention it three times, and talk about physical violence, but give no other examples
  • reference for the claim that experiment on great apes are banned (if they are), plus an explanation that other primates are used
  • some justification for using the BBC country-wide percentages of types of animals used, because we're talking about HLS not the UK as a whole, and numbers would make more sense than percentages, because it's very misleading to present the information that way, in my view. Preferably, we need to know how many of each animal HLS uses. I thought we'd already had this discussion, and sorted it out. I'll take a look through the history. SlimVirgin 20:21, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

The following also need references:

  • "Direct action used by SHAC supporters has included intimidation with death-threat letters and hoax bombs, arson, vandalism, and destruction of property."

Also I am not convinced by the "harrasment" reference as the article does not state that SHAC harrass people, does it? More references needed:

  • "SHAC's use of public records in the sending of malicious threats to all investors in HLS"
  • "However, destruction of property and the intimidation of HLS supporters is deemed acceptable."

I also think that we should move all these mentions to the "criticisms" section, and only mention the Brian Cass attack in the "criticisms" section. We should also move the mention of Heather and Greg's arrests to the "criticisms" section.

Raye 20:52, Jan 25, 2005

I deleted the 60s photo claim; deleted references to multiple physical assaults, as only Brian Cass is mentioned; and I tried to make clearer that attacks by e.g. Dave Blenkinsop can't be pinned to SHAC because it's an open organization. Having said that, we shouldn't go too much further in the opposite direction by appearing actively to claim that SHAC is not involved in these activites, because clearly if SHAC disapproved of them, they wouldn't publish names and addresses. I don't think I agree with moving all the negative stuff to the criticisms section. The pro and anti should be woven together throughout the article if possible, each side being expressed in an NPOV tone. It's hard to do that, but it's what we should probably aim for. SlimVirgin 21:34, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure some of the imgaes in this gallery are pretty old. Acroding to whois the site is run by SHAC[16] the site is also pretty good evidence that at one point SHAC were at least considering hacktivistGeni 21:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying that site, Geni. I've added it to external links. The thing is, we have to have a published reference to SHAC stands being decorated with 60s pics before we can say that. I wasn't sure what you meant by SHAC was considering hacktivist. Is there a word missing? SlimVirgin 22:06, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry that should have been hacktivism to quote the main page"A variety of electronic tools have since been developed to allow activists to put pressure on HLS and their allies using the Internet. We maintain links with several other hacktivist groups and ensure that the latest technology is available to SHAC campaigners." [17](bolding mine)

Much better.However, I'm still not happy with this section under Organization: "Direct action used by SHAC supporters has included violence [2] (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4022034), harassment [3] (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4009548), intimidation with death-threat letters and hoax bombs, arson, trespass [4] (http://w3.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/story.asp?StoryID=68116), vandalism, and destruction of property. Despite SHAC's stated policy of non-violent direct action, isolated physical attacks have occurred, such as the assault on Brian Cass, manager director of HLS, who was attacked outside his home in February 2001 by three men armed with pickaxe handles and CS gas. [5] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1494924.stm)." It gives a definite impression that SHAC are very violent, don't you think? It implies that there have been several physical attacks (although we only know of one), and doesn't make it clear that SHAC can not be pinned with the attack. Maybe we could mention SHAC's claims to be non-violent and legal here too, to balance it out? References are still needed for other statements, see above. If a contraversial statement isn't referenced then it should be removed.Raye 22:01, Jan 25, 200

Raye, is your point that the references given don't say that direct action by SHAC has included violence, intimidation with death-threat letters, hoax bombs, asron, trespass, vandalism, and destruction of property? I haven't read through all the articles so I don't know whether they do or don't say these things. SlimVirgin 22:53, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

In that list of activities, the following have not been referenced: "intimidation with death-threat letters and hoax bombs, arson, vandalism, and destruction of property." I don't believe that the "harrassment" reference valid either: [18]

References are also needed for the following: 

   * "SHAC's use of public records in the sending of malicious threats to all investors in HLS"
   * "However, destruction of property and the intimidation of HLS supporters is deemed acceptable."

--Raye 23:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The other references seem to cover most e.g. [19] That would cover harassment, destruction of property, vandalism. I don't think it's seriously denied that SHAC does these things, though, is it? I don't know about the arson. Does anyone have a reference supporting that SHAC activists have carried out arson attacks and sent death-threat letters? SlimVirgin 23:54, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's denied by SHAC that they do those things. If an individual chooses to take action against Huntingdon Life Sciences, that does not mean that it is SHAC doing that action or even condoning that action. Their disclaimer makes it pretty clear that they don't, at least officially. You wouldn't say that because an RSPCA supporter murdered somebody then the RSPCA are murderers or condone murder, would you? Some evidence is needed to show that SHAC support law-breaking or violence. Also, the some of the references do not seem convincing to me: [20]. In this article, where is the proof that the supposed SHAC activists did anything wrong? It is simply the word of one person - simply hearsay. It does not show that "SHAC activists harrass, destroy property etc", only that Jonathan Djanogly claims that they do. Really the article should be reworded accordingly. - "some people claim that some SHAC supporters break the law" with the references rather than "SHAC supporters break the law". Evidence of court convictions would be a more convincing way to show that SHAC supporters sometimes break the law. --83.216.154.56 00:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If an RSPCA supporter attacked someone after the RSPCA had put that person's name and address on their website and if, after the attack, the RSPCA continued to place on their website names and addresses of other people they were criticizing, then yes, I would say the RSCPA was in part responsible for any attacks that ensued. To use an analogy, Enoch Powell (rightly or wrongly) is widely held to be in part responsible for the increase in racial attacks in the UK after his "rivers of blood" speech because, it is argued, he was intelligent enough to foresee the consequences of his speech, and must therefore bear some responsibility for those consequences. As for citing Jonathan Djanogly, he is an MP, and no matter how much anyone disagrees with him, his status as an MP makes him a credible Wikipedia source. SHAC's argument is: "We're an open organization; we have no corporate body; you can't blame us." But this claim works in both directions. If SHAC has no legal existence, then Avery can't say "SHAC does not break the law," because he doesn't know what SHAC does, given that its existence is shadowy by his own admission. He can therefore only make statements about what Avery does. Look, I agree with you that it's important not to parrot the anti-SHAC line that HLS trots out, but it's equally important not to go too far in the other direction. SlimVirgin 00:52, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I just think that we should make it clear that all SHAC does is publish contact details, that some people may use this to break the law, and that SHAC does not officially condone this - they ask people to use the information for peaceful and legal purposes. And does the word of an MP really count as fact rather than opinion on Wikipedia? Is there a policy on this? Politicians are well known for lying, after all! I am willing to let these points go if others disagree with me, but I still feel that they are sacrificing accuracy. --Raye 01:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on citing sources is simply that the source must be credible, whether it's about a fact or an opinionn, and this is an MP speaking to a Cambridge newspaper, so it's regarded as credible. But we could counter that section by pointing to the low number of criminal prosecutions related to SHAC. Do you happen to have that number handy? SlimVirgin 01:19, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

"In the last year [2004] he reckons there have been eight or nine convictions. Most of them resulted in activists being discharged." [21] This is a quote from the lawyer who is responsible for the injunctions against SHAC and I believe he was talking about convictions for any animal rights activity, not just SHAC. --Raye 01:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why has that "SHAC logo" been added?

That is not the SHAC logo. It does not appear on their website. Do SHAC even have a logo? This pixellated image adds nothing to the page, and is inaccurate. I think it should be removed. --Raye 13:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

have you tried contacting User:Charlie123 on their talk pageGeni 19:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I have now directed them here if they wish to dispute my removal of the image. --Raye 20:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contacting him on his talk page would have been better since that is where messages normaly go and it produces a "you have new messages" link at the top of the screenGeni 23:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New NPOV issue?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The assessment of the commercial impact of SHAC on HLS/LSRI sounds pretty upbeat (from SHAC's perspective), while at least some other commentators consider HLS to have weathered the storm and to have gone on to improve its business (according to the Washington Post, it has just recorded 15 consecutive quarters of growth [22]). A shufti at the firm's own Form 10-Q (at Yahoo Finance [23]) from Sept 2004 certainly seems to indicate solid growth, decent dividends, and sustainable financing. Do we think this is treated even-handedly in the article? Adhib 16:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that WPost article, Adhib. I see it mentions the American company rather than HLS. It might be worth going onto the SHAC website to get their take on these latest figures. I'll try to make time to do that later today, and I'll refresh my memory about this page as I haven't read it for a while. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:05, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Slim. I guessed you had better priorities so went to have a look myself. Quite taken aback by the style of their site. No mention of HLS figures easily accessible, but the front page was blinking menacingly with an ad featuring a cross-looking cove in a balaclava. Not normally considered a fashion style bespeaking respect for the law ... ! There's none so blind, etc. Adhib 20:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Adhib, I'm sorry, I got busy with other things and forgot all about it! I'm happy with whatever edits you make as you're the one who's done the research. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

To the anon, I restored the intro because you'd reduced it to one or two sentences. Intros are meant to give the reader an overview or summary of what's to come. I also restored the image so that the intro is illustrated. I retained most of your other edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

All content from intro was moved to separate origins section. At the very least, the intro should be NPOV. The intro was incoherent and lacked neutrality (for instance the ALF statement at the end is run-on, and confusing without explanation of what exactly the ALF has to do with SHAC).
The picture is unacceptable, because it says nothing about SHAC. If you can't find a neutral picture, don't have any picture at all. You could equally well have a picture of a fire-bombed car or a cancer medicine tested by HLS. I suggest neither; the monkey picture is wholly objectionable as all it can say is 'this is a monkey in a cage', which gives no context.
You also deleted a lot of information, e.g., the date of home office revocation of the licence, and the useful information about pre-SHAC actions. The article implies SHAC is the be-all and end-all of anti-HLS protests, but the 1997 court case shows actions from other organisations against HLS. There was an intensive campaign against HLS for TWO YEARS before SHAC was set up, and that content should be there.
The new format of the article is an improvement: if you want to make changes to it, I suggest you do so in the context of the article as it is at the moment. The new intro quite accurately describes the aims of SHAC in a way that neither SHAC nor HLS could disagree with. If you want to add a sentence or two to say something like 'SHAC has campaigned against HLS, its clients, staff, and suppliers for seven years' then that would be fine. The 'origins' section is sensible as an article about an organisation like SHAC should explain why it was started.
The photograph was taken undercover inside HLS, and it was undercover footage showing caged primates in the U.S. and footage in the UK showing dogs being punched, that led to the campaign being set up. The image is therefore highly relevant. Your edits here and elsewhere are disruptive. Please stop deleting material and reverting to versions with formatting errors. And please sign your posts. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. I've moved the campaign history you added to Huntingdon Life Sciences here where it's more appropriate. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
You are the one deleting material. If you do a diff between your edits you are deleting a lot of material. If you want to fix formatting do so, but reverting to the older version that had weird out-of-place material about ALF, and a blatant bias against HLS is not acceptable. Your claims about the image are also disingenuous and betray your lack of neutrality. The article is about SHAC, not about HLS. The image is an arbitrary one that you have chosen to put your point of view. The image did not lead to SHAC being set up, it is simply an image of a monkey in a cage. Your bias is blatant. 147.114.226.173 18:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
SHAC is an recognisable entity with a website that disclaims violence. The campaign against HLS should either go on HLS page or on a separate 'Campaign against HLS' page or on HLS. 147.114.226.173 18:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, your claim that there were previous "organizations" campaigning against HLS indicates you haven't read the article. SHAC is not an "organization". It's just a campaign name. The same group of activists started campaigning in 1997 with PETA, and were probably doing it before then too. After all, there must have been a reason PETA infiltrated HLS in 1997: they likely didn't do it out of the blue. But this particular campaign was named in 1999, and this article is about this particular campaign. If you have good sources that shed light on prior events, please produce them on talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
That's purely semantics. SHAC is a recognisable unit, and it has been taking to court as SHAC. It has specific goals and a newsletter and various other things. It's just stupid to say that because people were campaigning against HLS prior to SHAC that were subsequently (or maybe not) SHAC members then there is no point in making a distinction, and that all anti-HLS activity is SHAC. That would make this an 'Campaign against HLS' page, which it is not. In between your numerous deletions of useful content I posted a substantial link to a court case in 1997 describing actions by anti-vivisection protesters against HLS. I believe those involved where members of the British Anti-Vivisection Association, but if you actually tried reading stuff before you delete it, then you might find out. 147.114.226.173 18:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
With respect, you're showing that you're not familiar with the background. SHAC is not regarded as what you call a "recognizable unit," which is part of the reason HLS has had such difficulty dealing with them in the courts. They're a collection of individuals operating as a leaderless resistance: prior to 1999, perhaps as the ALF, PETA, or some other, and post-1999 as SHAC. Your deleting, reverting, your refusal to sign up for an account, and your use of multiple IP addresses is not helping your credibility as an editor. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Article protected

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article has been protected from editing per the request at WP:RFPP. Once you've resolved the debate over content it can be unprotected. FeloniousMonk 03:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Issues

Latest comment: 19 years ago32 comments2 people in discussion

To the anon(s), I hope we can use the time the page is protected to go through our differences and reach agreement. I'll put up a list of these tomorrow and I'll explain my reasoning, then perhaps you can respond. In the meantime, could you say how many people are behind these IP addresses, please?

Also, it would help if you would read our editorial policies. They are Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

First, the intro: you're deleting a good intro and replacing it with one sentence. Intros are supposed to give an overview of the whole subject. You then took the intro, and dumped it into a section called "origins," even though it wasn't about the origins; it was the introduction.

Second, the image: this is taken from a series of images captured on film by undercover investigators inside HLS in the UK and U.S., the publication of which led to the SHAC campaign. In the U.S., the film was of monkeys and in the UK of beagles. The images are here. [24] I chose a monkey image because the SHAC logo already has a beagle in it. The images are directly relevant to the campaign and illustrate why it started and why it keeps going. You may not like that, but that's your POV, and you have to put aside your own opinions and write about the relevant facts. You would rather have a once-sentence intro with no image, rather than a properly written and illustrated intro, simply because you don't like what it says, and that's not how WP operates. If you read this article carefully, you'll see it is actually highly critical of SHAC, so there is no pro-SHAC agenda here, but nor is there a pro-HLS one. I'll put more detail up tomorrow. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop going on about the IP addresses. I will not have any more of the endless obsession. I have explained this about ten times. One person, several IPs. Just the way I connect to the internet. Again, this has been explained to you several times already so you really need to stop it right now, I do not like your harrassment. Respond to the issues, but I do not want to hear any more discussion about IPs, tracing IPs, etc., because it is unfair to me.
If you don't stop the rudeness, I won't debate this with you anymore. I'm not "obsessed." I just wanted to know how many people I'm responding to. And don't delete other people's comments. Anyone can do a trace on your IP addresses, which is in part why I suggested you sign up for an account. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
But I told you already, several times, one person. Anyone can trace any IP address. Anyone can equally well find Tony Blair's home telephone number (or similar example), with sufficient persistence. That doesn't mean that they need to share it with everyone else. I have deleted your IP trace: I will not be bullied into signing up for an account. Again, I have asked you to stop. I do hope we can stop this discussion now. 147.114.226.173 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Your links to wikipedia policies, implying that I have violated them. Completely wrong of course, I have added several dozen links to verifiable and credible sources (BBC, UK Parliament, etc.) and sourced everything, whereas your source is an anti-HLS website.
The image is dated from 2002, and clearly therefore has nothing to do with why SHAC was setup in 1999.
How do you know this? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
That's what it says on the page where you uploaded it. 147.114.226.173 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, there is already a substantial objection in this talk page, which you chose to overrule in your autocratic way.
Where is this "substantial" objection? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Above, by Kyz: 'At the moment, the article is severely biased to SHAC by having one of its propaganda pictures there and the NPOV dispute. ' There is more on the same lines if you read this talk page. 147.114.226.173 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The objection already made is that the image only tells one story: looking at the image, you say 'aw what a poor monkey, Huntingdon Life Sciences must be bad for locking it up'. This image is unspeakably prejudicial, because you reach your conclusion before reading the article.
But why is that image so powerful? HLS does test on monkeys. It's the monkeys and the dogs that SHAC emphasizes. It's the monkeys and the dogs that cause people to send them money, and leak information to them. That's why the image is appropriate. What this article doesn't make clear, but it ought to at some point, is that SHAC isn't just a bunch of violent animal-rights people (though there are violent activists among them); it's also ordinary people who work for HLS who pass information to the campaign. This is why the campaign has been so successful, in their terms. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The image is inappropriate because it is in your face and prejudicial to HLS. As you say, such images are what causes people to send money to HLS. They are SHAC propaganda and prejudicial to HLS. Pictures can be too emotive. 147.114.226.173 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The fact is that HLS are strongly supported by the government, and by dozens of reputable scientists such as Robert Winston, and although they have had animal cruelty incidents, they have received certification for their practices (which have undoubtedly improved). As the image is prejudicial before even reading the story, it must go.
That it "must go" is your opinion. And whether or not HLS is supported by the British government has no bearing on whether that image is appropriate to illustrate SHAC on Wikipedia. Remember: it's SHAC this article is about, and SHAC we are illustrating, not HLS. There is no image of a monkey on the HLS page. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Not just mine, please read the rest of this talk page. I pointed out that HLS are supported by the government because the page only talks about how bad they are, shows SHAC propaganda pictures, and is therefore unbalanced. 147.114.226.173 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The intro was not 'good'; in fact it had several problems, which you have persistently reverted. Specifically, HLS is described as Europe's largest contract animal-testing laboratory. This is a mispresentation, as they conduct other activities and animal testing is only half of their actions.
It makes no difference what other activities they engage in. They are Europe's largest animal-testing facility. It is the animal-testing aspect of HLS that SHAC is campaigning against. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Well it does, because you are describing HLS in this sentence. You are not describing SHAC. You are describing HLS, in order to give context to SHAC, and you should do so in a balanced way. You state that 'They are Europe's largest animal-testing facility' but provide no evidence to support this. Maybe they are, I have no idea, but you shouldn't make statements unsupported by fact. 147.114.226.173 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The statement that they are Europe's largest in also unsourced, and in fact HLS only conducts 2.75% of all animal experiments in *Britain*.
What difference does that make? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The truth? Some evidence to support the implication that HLS is Europe's largest animal torture centre instead of SHAC propaganda? 147.114.226.173 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The introduction characterises HLS as an organisation devoted to animal cruelty in its first few sentences. It concentrates on HLS' trangressions without explaining why the company does what it does; it implies that there is ongoing and unnecessary cruelty, characterisations that are POV.
We go with what the sources say about HLS. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
You go with sources from a very narrow point of view, namely various animal rights websites. This is like quoting stormfront on a page about immigration. I strongly recommend browsing news.bbc.co.uk and searching for 'huntingdon life sciences'. This will give you a different view from AR websites. 147.114.226.173 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
These accusations belong as part of a properly balanced HLS page, not duplicated on here.
What do you mean "duplicated"? This information belongs on this page. This is about SHAC's campaign. Are you suggesting we don't describe what they're campaigning against? ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
No, but please don't characterise HLS as a full-time torture house, otherwise you end up endorsing SHAC.
I added an introduction that was brief, accurate and neutral.
It was one sentence. That is completely inappropriate for an article this length. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, expand it then. But don't start the article with an unbalanced assessment of HLS. 147.114.226.173 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The introduction you have goes on too long, and ends with a run-on paragraph about ALF, which is disjointed and out-of-place, not explaining what the ALF has to do with HLS. It is not properly written at all.
No one knows what the ALF has to do with SHAC, except that they issued a threat on behalf of SHAC, which implies there's a close relationship, and in the opinion of HLS, they're the same people, so the inclusion of the ALF in the intro actually echoes the HLS position. It is anti-SHAC not pro-SHAC. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether it is anti-SHAC or pro-SHAC. The fact is, the sentence cannot be properly understood in the context that it is in.
You also reverted material that explained that there was no such concept as 'SHAC' between 1997 and 1999.
I'm not sure I see the point of talking about pre-1997 when SHAC did not exist, but if you want to add a section on pre-SHAC history, so long as it's directly relevant, and not being written to push a particular POV, I have no objection to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Good, we are agreed then, no more reversion of this. 147.114.226.173 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The only material *I* deleted was this, 'Footage shot in the U.S. appears to show technicians dissecting a live monkey.' This is a biased statement, because it only says that they appeared to be dissecting a live monkey, it does not explain why they would do this, or why the monkey was alive.
What difference does that make? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe I posted a link to a Philadelphia Inquirer article explaining why. This was all that was deleted. You on the other hand have deleted a great deal of relevant information.

You have deleted the section called Origins, even though it's pretty obvious that any article should start at the beginning. I don't think you are arguing that this is wrong, but that the content in Origins was not all about the company's origins. Fine, add the Origins section back, rename it History, move content into other areas, do what you like, but don't repeatedly delete content and structural enhancements. Or do you dispute that the article should start at the beginning?
No, your origins section was the intro you deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Regardless, why didn't you edit the origins section instead of reverting it? Assuming you accept that we should start at the beginning 147.114.226.173 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
You have also made numerous judgements that SHAC is equivalent with the campaign against HLS, without any evidence or citation. You furthermore have declared that all actions against HLS belong on the SHAC page, without establishing whether or not SHAC or its members has anything to do with it. You have also baldly declared that SHAC cannot be sued without proper justification or evidence. How then do we have: Daiichi UK Ltd and others v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty et al [25].
We can certainly include that people are trying to sue them, but no one has succeeded because they have plausible deniability given that they don't exist in law. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
That is another POV statement. First you state the nobody has succeeded, and secondly you state they don't exist in law. Neither of these are backed by sources. My very next paragraph describes an injunction granted restraining SHAC. 147.114.226.173 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Let me quote for you a statement by Mr Justice Owen 'On 20 June 2003 Gibbs J granted injunctive relief to HLS restraining SHAC, Greg Avery, Natasha Avery, and Heather James, the ALF and seven other Defendants from pursuing a course of conduct amounting to harassment of HLS, its employees and the families, servants or agents of its employees, in breach of the Act, see Huntingdon Life Services v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelly and others Neutral Citation No. [2003] EWHC 1967 (QB). The order made by Gibbs J is the subject of an appeal by Greg Avery, Natasha Avery and Heather James to be heard in March 2004.' Hmm, looks like SHAC can be sued. The article accepts a good deal of SHAC propaganda in this manner, and grotesquely characterises HLS as dedicated to animal cruelty, without properly explaining that the ongoing anti-HLS campaign is an objection to the principle of testing rather than to any specific current transgressions. 147.114.226.173 10:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
You're here to push a specific POV and that never works in Wikipedia, so please just stop it. I'll resist all attempts by you to mould this article into your own image. Also, we're not here to argue the issues, only to discuss the article, so shorter responses would be appreciated. This is consuming a lot of my time, most of it unproductively. For example, you deleted from Barry Horne that the judge had accepted he did not mean to kill anyone. Your edit summary said you'd done this for two reasons: (1) because it was not sourced, although in fact it was; if you had read the article, you'd have found the source, and even if no source had been in the article, a two-minute search on Google would have found you one, which you could then have added; and (2) you wrote that you didn't see how an incendiary device in a handbag could not be intended to kill someone. So with that deletion, you're saying you know better than the editor who wrote the article; that you can edit it without even reading it to see whether the material is sourced; and that you know better than the judge in the case who heard the evidence. This is a violation of WP:NOR.
I then have to waste my time reverting you, re-linking to the source twice in the article so you see it this time, and explaining that to you; and similar things across multiple articles as you keep changing your IP address. I hope you can understand how frustrating this is.
You have spent the last year moulding all of these articles in your own image and POV, so I am not sure why you are objecting to changes. You have blindly reverted a lot of content, added back spelling mistakes, something that is very frustrating for me. This is not conducive to finding an amicable resolution to these issues. You also won't stop talking about my IP addresses. I have no vested interest, but as I found it HLS described what looked like an animal torture company, and did not even attempt to look at what good they might do. This is not NPOV.
If you want to work on this article, I'm happy to work with you, but I'm asking you to drop the attitude, stop deleting and reverting, concentrate on one page at a time, and understand that you can't have the articles reflect your POV. Also try to accept that this page is about SHAC -- not HLS, not other campaigns, not what happened before 1999. That can be mentioned, of course, but primarily this is about the SHAC campaign. So you may think a monkey in a lab is an unfair image to portray HLS, and I agree (which is why I added the HLS logo and an image of the managing director to the HLS page, which you also deleted). But it IS an appropriate image to portray SHAC, and is taken directly from their page.
I came and added content: you reverted it. This is immediately obstructive; you have reverted to old pages with spelling mistakes and missing content instead of properly appraising and editing what I have added. You are saying that you don't have time to discuss things and yet you continually bring up dead issues such as the HLS logo, which I inadvertently removed and have already explained elsewhere. It really does not support your claim that you are trying to work productively when the images have been explained and added back already. Further to this, you are still talking about IP addresses, which I find extremely frustrating, non-productive and time-consuming. 147.114.226.173 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
As I say, I'm happy to work with you so long as we aim for the facts only — regardless of whether SHAC or HLS like them; that we pay attention to good writing and narrative flow; stick to WP policies, particularly WP:NOR, which I urge you to read carefully; debate succinctly on this page; and supply sources for all our edits. My suggestion for moving forward is that we both agree not to delete the other's material, so long as it's properly sourced and written without any obvious POV language. Do you agree to that? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. My main concern is the objectionable picture, emblazoned over the page. While you believe it is fair and neutral, I and others (as above in this talk page) do not. Would you be willing to accept that there is a dispute about what is fair and neutral and perhaps get some outside help to decide whether: (a) this picture is necessary because it explains why SHAC does what it does, or (b) the picture is SHAC propaganda making readers sympathetic to their cause before they have even read the article. My belief is that if an image is seen as prejudicial and non-neutral, then removing it is surely the only neutral approach.
I do not believe that we are as far apart as suggested by your blanket reverts, but I do want fair and balanced content that doesn't mischaracterise HLS.
The final issue to resolve is the question of what SHAC is, whether all anti-HLS activity is SHAC, and whether SHAC is outside of the law. 147.114.226.173 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

More sources

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Just some random stuff:

This is informative: http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=247793. Basically of several dozen market makers trading HLS stock, only one remains, and his life, his 90-year-old mother, etc., has been ruined by what he describes as SHAC. The characterisation of the attackers he makes as simply SHAC is a difficult one. It is similar in some ways to Sinn Fein vs IRA. I am not sure how to approach it. I am wondering if a separate campaign against HLS is the answer

Also here

http://www.amprogress.org/Files/Files.cfm?ID=877&c=68

'FBI Deputy Assistant Director John E. Lewis, who heads the Counterterrorism Division, noted in his testimony the development of SHAC splinter groups over the past 18 months. “This is most likely an attempt by animal rights extremists to continue the SHAC campaign while appearing to distance themselves from the SHAC organization.” He said despite SHAC’s claims that it is merely an information service or a media outlet, it remains closely aligned with these groups and with the Animal Liberation Front.'

More stuff, I'll put here for now, till it has somewhere better to go: [26] 147.114.226.173 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we stop presenting claims and counter-claims and try to establish a respectful working relationship. First, I haven't been working on this for a year. I may have made edits to it over the course of a year, but I didn't write this article, and it's not in the format I'd have it were I to rewrite it. Secondly, please acknowledge that this page is hardly pro-SHAC. It's very negative about them. In fact, I don't think it says a single positive thing about them, so it's arguably too POV in the other direction. Third, I'm wondering whether you have a different understanding about the nature of SHAC, when you talk about campaigns before SHAC, and whether certain attacks can be correctly attributed to them. SHAC is like the Animal Liberation Front. It's a name, similar to al-Qaeda, with Avery and James playing the role of bin Laden. There's a website, there are leaflets, and placards, telephones, but otherwise they don't exist as a closed organization. They're a leaderless resistance (which you deleted earlier, but I don't know why). For example, if you decided today to become an activist, you could log on to the website, get the names and addresses of some of the directors, and go and assault them. Would SHAC have carried out the assault? Yes and no. They'd claim it if they liked what you did; and they'd deny you if they didn't. This is why they're extremely difficult to pin down legally. You mention the judge that has issued an injunction, but I doubt it's worth the paper it's written on so far as SHAC is concerned (though with the named individuals, it is). And so I don't think it has been established whether SHAC is inside or outside the law. Perhaps we could look for a legal source that has discussed it.
It is indeed anti-SHAC, sometimes without adequate citation. The SHAC and violence connection needs more exploration. That wasn't as much my objection as the anti-HLS tone, which is favourable to SHAC's aims, even if the article itself is not favourable to them. I deleted the leaderless resistance because it was unsourced (it elsewhere says that they have two leaders), and because it claimed they were outside the law, something which wasn't justified. 147.114.226.173 14:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
As for the image, I suggest we concentrate on content first, and decide about the image later, perhaps with some advice from a neutral editor. I can't see anything on that page saying the image was taken in 2002. All these images were taken between 1997 and 1999, I believe: the beagle images in HLS in Huntingdon, and the monkeys in New Jersey. If you want to choose another image from the same page, I'd be willing to compromise on that; or it might make sense to use a frame from the actual Channel 4 film that kicked off the campaign. Whatever it is, it has to be relevant to SHAC's concerns or image, not to HLS, because it's not about HLS. But I'm not going to get into a big fight with you about the image if that remains the only difference between us, except that I do want some image up there, because it's a mark of a good article to have a nicely illustrated intro that gives a good overview of the subject.
So let us remove the image for now. It can go back later if it is determined appropriate. Let people read text. Your response on this issue is 'let's not fight, but a propaganda image must stay'. This is objectionable. 147.114.226.173 14:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we should concentrate on that first: the intro. I have to break off this discussion for a few hours, but I'll return to it later. Perhaps in the meantime, if you have time, you could say precisely what you don't like about the intro, and why. You mentioned the ALF but didn't say why you don't like that inclusion. I included it mainly to show that the campaign is amorphous, potentially violent, and dangerous, regardless of what SHAC says officially. A secondary reason was that it's an interesting way to end a lead, in my view, and it encourages the reader to read on. Perhaps you could write an alternative intro, and either put it on this page or on a user subpage. I've set one up for you at User:147.114.226.173/SHAC in case you didn't know how to do it, but if you'd prefer not to use it, I can delete it for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I am not going to rewrite the intro at the moment either, but I have pretty much explained what is wrong: it implies that HLS is an unremittingly bad company. The ALF stuff didn't sit properly because it wasn't properly explained how they are connected. It's also overly long.


SHAC USA/UK

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think it might be worth clarifying the difference between the two. They have separate websites and leaders. The US website seems more aggressive. E.g., at the moment, it has links like:

LATE NIGHT HOME VISITS FOR 4 ROCHE EMPLOYEES Who can sleep when there are puppy killers on the loose?

September 15, 2005 SENIOR VP FOR GLAXO GETS A LATE NIGHT WAKE UP a rape alarm kept their ears ringing...


October 19, 2005 3 UPS STORES ATTACKED BY THE ALF (external link) Canada joining in Italy's quest to stop UPS!

Still they try to suggest that the actions are not done by them - they merely report them in a positive manner. So the statement in the article: 'SHAC say they do not condone unlawful activities and publish names and addresses only so that people can protest peacefully and within the law. ' might be true of the UK one, but the US website definitely glorifies these activities.

Oh, and here's an injunction against SHAC in the USA. http://www.shacamerica.net/images/injunctions/Injunction_Order_4_12_05.pdf

They quite clearly can be stopped as an organisation, so contrary to what the article says they are not impossible to sue. The courts do not say 'oh dear, they say they can't be stopped because they are not an incorporated body, let's do nothing'.

Further evidence of this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1837349_1,00.html

Assets of London Animal Action (note, not SHAC - not all anti-HLS activites are SHAC, as SlimVirgin has been saying), were seized in paying the bill of HLS to protect itself. They have a similar argument to SHAC, that they are this 'leaderless organisation', and cannot be stopped. The judge rejected the argument:

'The action group argued that the earlier order was unlawful, because the group has no formal membership or elected officers and is an unincorporated association, which does not normally exist in law.

In dismissing the appeal, Mr Justice Mackay said: “The novelty of the form of order in this case is plain and the need for it is obvious.” '

There is an interesting quote from Greg Avery in the same article, giving some context to him living in a rent-free house:

'Yesterday’s ruling comes two months after HLS forced the leaders of another high-profile animal rights campaign into bankruptcy.

It won a county court judgment against Greg Avery, his wife Natasha and his former wife Heather James, who founded Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, after demands for payment of costs were ignored.

Mr Avery said at the time: “They’re definitely not going to get a penny of it. I always tell people getting into animal rights to make themselves asset-free. We don’t own anything.” ' 147.114.226.173 18:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Vlasak

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jerry Vlasak advocates murder of animal testers: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1268790,00.html

He has very strong links with SHAC USA.

His wife is the president of SHAC: http://www.animalscam.com/references/shac_ferdin1.cfm 147.114.226.173 18:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: Interviews can be edited to say what the interviewer wants. Read between the lines. If you read it in another way he states that he thinks that violence is ok in any such movement - as it was in other movements (black rights, womens rights etc...), he also states as his opinion that it wouldn't take many to sway the movement.

That does not mean that he thinks people SHOULD do it, just that he wouldn't be up there calling them terrorists if it happened.

Allegations of harrassment

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

From Victims of Animal Rights Extremism:

(a computer scientist at HLS): http://www.vare.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=27

A Japanese pharmaceutical worker describing assaults:

http://www.vare.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=27

147.114.226.173 18:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought we'd agreed to work together, so I'm disappointed to see you've made another allegation. Do you prefer that hostilities continue, or can we agree to bury the hatchet and pull our resources? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Nature of movement

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

You talk above about London Animal Action as though it's a separate group from SHAC. Have you understood that SHAC is just a campaign name? The people who act as London Animal Action are almost certainly the same people who act in the name of SHAC. Is this something you're still questioning, and if so, can you explain why? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It matters because (a) you are not providing any evidence for your claims (although they might be true), and (b) they are two separate entities. Martin McGuinness might be in Sinn Fein and the IRA, but that doesn't mean that we are entitled to treat them as one and the same. If two organisations have similar membership (and you haven't established that), but different goals, why do you think we should just treat them as the same. Have a look at LAA's newsletters (http://www.laa.org.uk/larn/). They are about far more than just HLS (in fact, mainly they are NOT about HLS). They also refer to SHAC in the third person, and you really need to prove the connection, instead of saying 'almost certainly the same' 87.74.12.83 08:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
SHAC and the ALF have no membership. There are dozens of sources available for this, including in the article. [27] All these movements are organized along the lines of leaderless resistance. Do you have a source showing that SHAC is a separate "group" from, say, the ALF, and that it doesn't operate as a leaderless resistance, and are you saying you believe the ALF is a "group"? If so, do you have a source for that? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I have a question about your claim that "SHAC and the ALF have no membership". If that is so, how can, for example, Greg Avery claim to be a spokesman for the organization? --SpinyNorman 05:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
It's hard to believe that you're not just trolling. Slim just explained that they are not "organisations". Why could a "leaderless resistance" not have a spokesperson? One presumes that what it can't have are leaders. -- Grace Note
As I've received no replies to these queries, can I assume the dispute is over and that the reverting will not restart? I'd like to request unprotection. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No reply in four days, so I'll take that as confirmation that the article can be unprotected, and will do so. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stop_Huntingdon_Animal_Cruelty/Archive_1&oldid=1137207116"