Talk:Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Archives

1 2

Contents 1 Brian Cass attack 2 Greg and Natasha Image 3 Verifiability 4 Monkey photo 5 Shac Demo 3 image 6 Biteback 7 Video 8 Good Article 9 Lead

[edit] Brian Cass attack

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

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

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

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

[edit] Greg and Natasha Image

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

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

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

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

[edit] Verifiability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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

[edit] Shac Demo 3 image

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

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

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

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

[edit] Biteback

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

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

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

[edit] Video

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Good Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Lead

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

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

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

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