Talk:Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Membership

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)

They have a website, an office, organizers, and people who regularly donate money, but no formal legal existence or membership. Please don't make such extensive changes with discussion. You're deleting accurate and properly sourced information. Please discuss your changes here first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

SHAC is a campaign directed by anyone who cares to get involved. They aren't an organisation - no one signs up. The ALF is exactly what the name says, a front. It is a title to use when an action that would come under the guidelines (set by prior actions and people and anyone who cares to get involved). -localzuk 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Info on HLS

I removed the extensive description of HLS in the intro because this isn't an article about HLS, it is about SHAC. If someone wants to learn about HLS, they can link to th HLS article. --SpinyNorman 05:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I restored it, in a different place and with some appropriate transitions. SHAC, as an organization, exists in the framework of HLS's activities. To not explain what their grievances (real or imagined) are makes the article utterly nonsensical. Nonsensical articles aren't very useful in an encyclopedia. Nandesuka 13:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The statements are deceptive. They don't accurately reflect the content of the link. I don't believe deceptive statements belong in an encylopedia, do you? Not only that, they are irrelevant. The purpose of this article isn't to articulate every detail of SHAC's real or imagined grievances against HLS but to describe their actions. This isn't a forum for debate or to guess the opinions of anonymous individuals, but a place to report facts - their actions and the results of those actions. --SpinyNorman 03:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Their grievances are also facts, so long as they've expressed them. -- Grace Note.

No, their grievances are their opinions. And in any case, the link that purports to list their grievances does nothing of the sort. The characterization of the link is inaccurate. --SpinyNorman 21:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That they have expressed them is a fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Then why not provide an accurate link? --SpinyNorman 08:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to cover *all* areas of SHAC, be they their motives, beliefs, actions or anything else to do with them - to limit it to just their actions would create a list of events - which is not appropriate on wikipedia anyway. -localzuk 17:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

I have archived most of the talk page as it was mostly old and very large. It is available at the top of the page.-localzuk 19:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Localzuk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Errors

Spiny, you keep deleting that the ALF is a name activists use when they engage in covert, non-violent direct action. This is a matter of definition. Can you say why you keep changing it? Also, windows can be allegedly broken. How do you know all her windows were broken twice, and that it's not just an allegation? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

ALF members don't limit their actions to the non-violent variety. To use the word "non-violent" in conjunction with ALF action is misleading - best to simply refer to their actions (some of which are violent and criminal, others are not). --SpinyNorman 23:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm always amazed at why you want to edit animal-rights article when you know so little about the subject. Activists use the name ALF if their action fits the stated aims of the ALF. Otherwise they use a different name. See above: top of the page. By non-violent, they refer to physical violence against human or non-human animals. Read the article on the ALF. Read some books, newspapers, websites, statements from experts, anything. But please stop inserting your own uninformed opinion into these articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore your persistent incivility and stick to the matter at hand: this article isn't a place to list the rationalizations of criminals and their apologists. It is to report facts. The fact is that some ALF members are violent criminals and commit violent crimes in the furherance of their goal to terrorize those with whom they disagree. I'm not saying all of them do this and I'm not saying these people are representative of the animal-rights movement in general - in fact I support the legitimate animal-rights movement. But some of these people are violent criminals and that fact must be reported accurately - not glossed over with euphemism or rhetorical "smoke and mirrors". It doesn't matter what these criminals call themselves when they're committing their crimes. It isn't a handful of industry stooges, hacks and lobbyists who consider ALF to be a terrorist organization, it is the Southern Poverty Law Center and the US FBI. These are unimpeachable sources. --SpinyNorman 00:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Did you even realize that reverted my deletion of comments that were critical of SHAC? --SpinyNorman 00:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Your editing is approaching vandalism or some form of WP:POINT. E.g. you've replaced the header "British government response" meaning response to SHAC, with "British Government Position on Animal Welfare'. First, we don't write headers in all caps. See MoS. Second, it wasn't the government's position on animal welfare. It was their response to campaigns by, as they see it, animal-rights extremists, which the statement makes abundantly clear. Nothing whatsoever to do with animal welfare. Practically every article you edit on this subject sees a deterioration in terms of syntax, content, and accuracy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you here just to argue with people and push your POV or do you actually have anything substantive to say? --SpinyNorman 00:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd give my view on the issue. Arguing that 'some members of the ALF are violent criminals' is pointless. First, the ALF do not have a membership - they are a 'front' which is a name used to cover a certain type of action (in the ALF's case non-violent direct action to aid animal rights). Second, this is not the article to discuss this on - the ALF one is. The fact remains that the ALF do not have a membership and stating that their members are violent criminals needs proof/references (also bearing in mind that the media are not suitable to state this as they do not understand what the ALF is either).

Next I will just say that Slim's comments were entirely jusitifed as it appears you have no/little knowledge of what you speak. Slim is not being uncivil, they are stating what, IMO, is the truth - that you are trying to create POV comments in the article without actually knowning about anything to do with the article. Using language such as "violent criminals" and "terrorize" does not help - these are emotive phrases that are designed to make people agree with you (terrorism is bad doncherknow - my response is what is terrorism?). Also, the term 'violent criminals' needs some clearing up - what is violent? Is this against people (who? when? where?) or property (which, IMO, is not violence)? Criminal - yes some are criminals - but if they are criminals (the term can only be used if the person is convicted really, else it is an opinion) then they have either done something minor (as they are not in prison/wandering the streets) or they have paid their dues for the crime. Also, the FBI is not a good source - it is controlled by GW Bush. This organisation is shaped to provide as best an image that supports te government and their interests (and those in the country with major interests) - such as the meat, vivisection, diary etc... industries. -localzuk 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Your semantic tap dancing is as elaborate as it is fruitless. If someone acts on behalf of an organization, then they can be fairly described as part of that organization. If someone acts on behalf of the ALF, they can be described as an ALF member. When the ALF claims responsibility for firebombings and threatens additional attacks, they cannot be considered a "non-violent organization". When SHAC engages in personal intimidations and threats of violence, they cannot be considered a non-violent organization. I don't assign terms like "terrorism" or "violence" to these groups, the SPLC and FBI do. That is a fact which must be reported or else this article has no credibility. --SpinyNorman 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Spiny, I'm afraid I'm going to have to start reverting your edits without further comment. I won't revert on sight, but if I see anything unsourced or badly written, it will be reverted and any good edits may disappear with it, so be warned. I'm sorry to do this, and I don't make a habit of it, but your behavior over several animalr-rights related article has reached the point of trolling, and I don't have time to address each and every mistake, and to repeat every single point five or ten or twenty times. You say it should be noted that SHAC has been connected to terrorism. I agree. The point is to do it intelligently and to use good sources correctly. It is in the intro, for example: "In pursuit of this aim, SHAC has been criticized for its apparent willingness to condone violence, intimidation, and attacks on property. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors U.S. domestic extremism, has described SHAC's modus operandi as "frankly terroristic tactics similar to those of anti-abortion extremists." Followed by the source. That is how it is done. Stick closely to what the sources say, and if it's at all contentious, quote them instead of paraphrasing.

The ALF does not have members. SHAC does not have members. They are more or less the same people. As are ARM, and a number of others. They are just names, as the names themselves suggest, and as all the knowledgeable sources confirm. Please do some reading before editing in future. I hope this is my last comment to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Or rather, I should say, ALF is a subset of SHAC, and ARM is a subset of ALF, if we have to talk in these terms. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Pointless quote

I've removed part of the government quote at the end (below), because all it does is repeat what the entire page in front of it has been saying. Also, please be careful not to introduce spelling mistakes into quotations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In 1999, they targetted Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) with the stated aim to force HLS into closure. Having failed in its attempt to frighten the company's directors and employees into giving up, the extremists then turned their attention to secondary and tertiary targets such as HLS's shareholders, customers and suppliers. [1]

Spiny, regarding your recent edit, what the British government knows, but you still don't seem to grasp, is that there is no group called SHAC. There are simply animal-rights activists in the UK who move from one campaign name to another, some focusing more on one or two, some acting under as many names as they have time for. That's why the government talks about "extremists" in general. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And what you don't seem to grasp (in addition to basic concepts of courtesy) is that just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn't mean they don't understand what you're saying. Just out of curiosity, do you have specific information to support your claim that the British government "knows... that there is no group called SHAC"? Or are you just attributing motives to them without any real information? The paper does state that these individuals "are organized in a quasi-terrorist cellular structure". So that does seem to contradict your claim. In any case, I have slightly reworded the section (removed the word "group").

Yes, they are organized in a cellular structure, an example of "leaderless resistance." Have you actually read the article, because I believe it explains things quite clearly.

Here is how it works: Let's assume there are 500 animal rights (AR) activists in the UK. Some of them are members of AR organizations with membership lists and membership fees, so in that sense, they are members of "groups." In addition to that ordinary membership, however, a number of campaign names or slogans have been created: "Save the Hillgrove Cats," "Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty." These are not groups. A few activists, acting as individuals, will set up a website for each slogan. Any member of the other groups, or anyone not a member of any group, or anyone's mother, may look at those websites and get ideas for things they could do to further the cause of the slogan. Someone might see the name of an HLS director on the site, and go smash his window that night; then they send an encrypted message to the website saying they have done it, and so the person operating the "Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty" website puts the "action" on the site. Chances are, they have no idea who did it, but they might know, because sometimes friends act together, which is why the British government calls the activists "extremists," rather than naming a group, and talks of them as working in cells. They're like al-Qaeda, and a cell can consist of one person, with no one else knowing what they do, which is why the police and courts find dealing with them so frustrating. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And if you look at that quote quasi-terrorist cellular structure you realise that it is almost complete guff. A cellular structure is where you would have a lot of small groups working for the same target but generally under one head (see movie 'The Seige' for a holywood reference to this structure, or Al Qaeda for a real life style. How can this be quasi? Quasi means 'some resembelence to', so the only way that I can see for it to resemble it is that it is made of 'cells' (which in a loose sense could be regional AR groups) without a leader - which they don't. This follows the idea that it is a campaign - lots of groups following information. So, IMO, you have just provided - to me anyway - that the government know that SHAC is not a group but lots of little groups doing independant things from a common source of information. (And that is my grasping of it from real life) -localzuk 00:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And yet, all these semantic acrobatics to the side, you're still talking about a group of people pursuing a common goal. What postures they strike for the press and the public are irrelevant. They are still a group. The nature of the communication between the members of the group is irrelevant. The recruiting methods of the group (whether they actively solicit participation or rely on volunteers) is irrelevant. They're still a group of people. The ALF actually has a press officer for crying out loud. How can a group have a press officer and still claim not to have any formal existance? Such a claim is laughable. The existance of a press officer not only implies a formal heirarchical structure, but it requires one. --SpinyNorman 01:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Spiny, please read the articles you're trying to edit. The ALF doesn't have a press office. The ALF Supporters' Group (a regular organization with members and membership fees) used to have a press office, but it was disbanded due to police action and set up again as an independent office, relying for funds on individuals sending it money. There is NO SUCH GROUP as the ALF, for the 100th time, so they cannot have a press officer! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

(chuckle) Perhaps you should try taking your own advice and do some reading. You say ALF hasn't got a press officer? Maybe you should tell Robin Webb about that, or at least read the article here about him. He's their press officer. Of course you didn't say they didn't have a press officer, you said they didn't have a press office (no "er" at the end - see? I read your posts). In that case, perhaps you could explain how an organization can have a press officer and no press office. Or are you saying that Webb is lying and that he isn't really the press officer for the ALF? --SpinyNorman 01:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. It has been corrected. See the separate article on Animal Liberation Press Office. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And I've corrected your "correction". Robin Webb says he's the press officer. That should be the deciding factor, wouldn't you agree? Surely you're not saying you know his job better than he does, are you? --SpinyNorman 06:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the sources. Read something before you edit. You're trolling these articles, Spiny, and there's already an arbcom ruling against you for exactly this behavior under your previous user name. Please stop it. You can't constantly revert people if you're not prepared to read anything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I read the source. Robin Webb says he's the press officer and you've given no reason to not take him at his word. As for your incivility, it is tiresome and serves only to underline your own lack of faith in your argument and its lack of substance. In other words, if you had the facts on your side, you could simply cite them instead of losing your temper and behaving badly. I agree with you when you're right, but this time you're wrong. The sooner you accept that, the better for everyone. --SpinyNorman 08:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Spiny, please stop referring to my replies as 'semantic acrobatics'. I am simply trying to clear up the ill concieved view of SHAC that you have. Yes the people are a group - as you can group anyone in any way - eg. all people who drive Ford Fiesta's can be grouped. The point is that there is no heirarchy, and anyone who says there is is mistaken. The ALF Press Office is an entity. Do not think that this is part of the ALF mind, instead it is like the ALFSG. They are seperate groups doing things to forward the movement. In Robin Webb's case, he does not act illegally in putting out press releases from anonymous people. Please can you provide us with some sources to back up your claims that the SHAC campaign is a heirarchical group? I can point you to various meetings of the Animal Rights Coallition where anyone can come along and decisions are made as to where things are going next.[2] There is no leadership, it is done by consensus.

Also, Slim's 'incivility' is minor compared with the constant changes you make without discussing them. This is incivil to the highest degree.-localzuk 13:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Logo

I think the logo shouldn't be on the page for the following reasons:

1. SHAC, the website where that logo came from, is not a group but a campaign and they have not created a 'logo' as such
2. The image is just a title bar from the shac campaign site - it changes roughly once every year, and each one does not normally resemble the last.
3. It has no real use.

Does anyone else agree?-localzuk 00:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, localzuk, I added it again because it used to be there, and I saw it had been removed, but I'm not wedded to it, so by all means remove it if you object. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Top picture

I was thinking it might make more sense to have the top picture representing the subject of the article (i.e SHAC), and then a picture representing the object of their ire further down? Rockpocket 17:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Court action against SHAC

I've changed this section significantly. Firstly, the case has begun, so the dated for selecting the jury is redundant. Secondly, if (as has been strongly argued above) SHAC has no membership, then this section should not say that "SHAC members" are on trial. I also stated the specific charges laid against them, and the position of the defense and the prosecution according to sources. Lastly, i removed the rambling statements about the unfound basis of the case for the prosecution. These are sourced to the same website that the defendants are being prosecuted for running. I don't think the accused are the best source for speculation on the intentions of the prosecution. Thus, until the case plays out, its best to not speculate beyond what is reported in the mainstream media. Rockpocket 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Within three years

I notice that Greg Avery's stated objective in creating SHAC, that of closing HLS "within three years", has been omitted - removed, in fact - from this page. Why is that? It's very relevant, it's the original stated intentions of the SHAC campaign. You can't pretend it wasn't your intention retrospectively when you fail to meet your goals.

As Greg said to the press in 2000: "We set ourselves a target of three years to close HLS. We are only a year into the campaign. It will close because that is what the majority of the public wants. When it closes we will move on somewhere else until all animal testing is banned in this country." [3]

CCF

I thought we were allowed to use an organisation's own website as a valid source when referring to themselves? If the CCF say they have over 1000 private donors, why should we disbelieve them, especially as i see no source held as evidence that specifically refutes it. Moreover, the CCF has a donor page [4]. Should one individual contribute money via that page, and the CCF tell us over 1000 has, then your statement is incorrect. I'm changing it back unless you can provide a reliable independant source that says they have no private donors. Rockpocket 20:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The source made no mention of private donors. If one individual contributes money, it doesn't mean it's not being funded by the tobacco and fast-food industries, because CCF relies on the latter, not the former. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs new source

This sentence "A few months later, HLS marketing director Andrew Gay was attacked on his doorstep with a chemical spray to his eyes — which left him temporarily blinded" used activistcash as a source, which is a website set up by CCF, which we don't use as a third-party source, so a better source needs to be found for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Rockpocket. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're quick - i was just about to post here to say i had done it! ;) Rockpocket 01:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

One of my cameras spotted you making the edit. OmniscientVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Organisation

On the subject of new sources, i came across [5], an interesting analysis of SHAC (primarily from a US perspective). What caught my eye was the section on organisation:

The people involved with SHAC can be roughly divided into three tiers. The smallest would be those who engage in illegal direct-action activities and the group's wealthy donors, who give anonymously. The second tier consists of those willing to engage in legal acts of harassment, attend rallies, and collect and disseminate the personal information of potential targets. The largest tier comprises mainly passive sympathizers -- including employees at target companies who might disclose the confidential addresses and phone numbers of their coworkers and bosses. Since there is no formal membership, the numbers are in no way fixed -- anyone can wake up tomorrow, read about SHAC on the Internet, and engage in an activity that night that propels them directly into the first tier.

I wouldn't know it its accurate, but it seems a pretty good explanation of the structure from a pretty well respected intelligence agency (though i have no idea on the policy of using such sources). I don't see anything on the page reflecting this, anyone think it might be a good idea? If there are no strong dissenting voices, i'll try and put together a sentence or two. Rockpocket

Looks good to me, though it seems you need a subscription to read the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I must be a subscriber and didn't even realise it ;). I'll put something together.

Something else that i'm not sure about. The article says:

"SHAC's modus operandi is direct action, comprising intimidation of HLS, its employees, its employees' families, its business partners, their children's nursery school [19], their business partners, their insurers, their caterers, and cleaners."

I can't work out if "business partners" supposed to be in there twice (i.e. meaning the business partners of HLS' business partners), or if it a mistake. Rockpocket 00:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably meant to be there twice, but it's not clearly written: some italics might do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

I'm going to start the process of converting the refs from embedded links and Harvard refs to footnotes. Please let me know if anyone disagrees. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. Good to have you back on Animal Lib patrol, btw, SV :) Rockpocket 03:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. *twirls moustache* :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)