User talk:Jaredprunty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Jaredprunty! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ShepBot (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

Tom Ketchum 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty[edit]

Hi! Welcome. I am sure that your edits to the SHAC page are well-intentioned. However, you'll see that (after investigation), I have ended up reverting all of them. The "fact" tags you added were all sourced in existing references to the article, which you would have seen had you read them. Nonetheless, I added additional references to them, but we can't have a citation after every sentence -- we expect skeptical readers to actually read the references. Also, your change of Kevin Jonas's name was clearly well-intentioned, as there are prominent websites that use the spelling "Kjonass", but that is not the spelling that the sources use. Try not to take this badly -- if you're trying to make the article more fair and unbiased, then find the best secondary sources you can (prominent newspapers, mostly), and make a case for your changes. I'm pretty new here myself. Cheers! -- Tom Ketchum 18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I assume this is how I respond? I understand and agree to your removal of my "fact" tags. Regarding Kjonaas' name, I think it is preponderantly clear what the verifiably true spelling is (according to SHAC's own website and all New York Times articles on the issue, for example). I fully realize that the SPLC (one source) misspelled it throughout the referenced article (which, incidentally, was also surprisingly biased, given the source- it prejudicially referred to a mainstream national conference as "surprisingly highbrow", for example; I withhold comment on how these considerations might, in concert, begin to influence the credibility of the reference), yet you only changed the name spelling once for this entry. Therefore, the entry is inconsistent with itself. Perhaps, in the interests of veracity and clarity, a solution could be to simply add "[sic]" after that particular misspelling of the name.

Regarding the following reversion to the original text opening the subsection entitled 'Methods':

"SHAC's modus operandi is direct action, comprising intimidation, harassment and violent attacks against HLS,"

I think this merits civil discussion on two counts. For starters, the sentence references the BBC News Article (footnote #17), which makes no mention whatsoever of firebombing in particular, or violence in general. As my edit summary originally noted, the source cites only threats of "consequences" and "hell" (signed, I might add, by the Animal Rights Militia, and not SHAC). So why was this change dismissed altogether? On a second level, this statement smacks of editorializing. The term 'modus operandi' refers to actual operation or functioning; this article itself lists all counts on which SHAC activists have been convicted, and not one of them comprises a "violent attack" under any legal or conventional interpretation of the terms. Nor am I familiar, thus far, with any sources indicating that SHAC activists ever admitted, even implicitly, to committing any "violent attacks". Nor, furthermore, is this statement adequately implied or supported by further content in the 'Methods' section, referenced or otherwise. Therefore, I can only assume that the statement is not only a misattribution, but also an extrapolation from the aforementioned SPLC article stating "...with frankly terroristic tactics," and/or a reference to the firebombings, which you cite as justification for the reversion in question. While it is reasonable to cite firebombing, and perhaps even other acts of destruction of property, as an instance of violence, I hope you see that this is not even the issue. Verifiable culpability- actual, criminal, or alleged- is; at the very least, such a statement bears the onus of verifiability. Indeed, the entire 'firebombing' section of this article makes no reference to SHAC or its members, but rather only to ALF. Therefore, the sentence is not only contentious and specious, but perhaps even libelous, as well. In hopes of continued enlightening dialectic over the matter, I would like to further caution against editing the sentence in question to read something along the lines of "threatened violence", in lieu of "violent attacks". While SHAC members were indeed convicted of "inciting violence" (which, although interesting in itself, given federal judicial precedent protecting First Amendment rights in arguably similar historical cases[1], I do not contest for the purposes of this article), I think we can agree to be explicit, even-handed, and meticulous when dealing with conjecture- particularly given the gravity of the matter.

I may as well add that I have read the discussion page for this article in full and researched this issue rather thoroughly. Nonetheless, apologies if I'm off base according to Wikipedia SOPs, (still a newbie- advice welcome and appreciated) and for the pedantic tone. Cheers! Jaredprunty (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You might be better off transporting this discussion to the talk page where other editors may offer their thoughts. For what its worth, I think that the sentence under discussion could perhaps be qualified better. While SHAC's set up it designed to avoid attribution of violence (that hurts fund raising, of course) third parties widely recognize that SHAC is ALF is ARM (to paraphrase one of their own):
  • "SHAC’s overriding goal is to put HLS out of business, by whatever means necessary — even by violent means." [1],
  • "SHAC's campaign has drawn anonymous, more violent participants such as members of the radical Animal Liberation Front (ALF)" [2]
  • "Heather Nicholson, 38, co-founder of Shac ... convicted of assault at the Gloucestershire premises of Phytopharm, the drugs company." [3]
  • " Three 'violent' activists jailed... All three activists were members of a group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac)." [4]
  • "there appears to be an interrelation between activists willing to carry out acts of violence. SHAC, which according to the FBI has an “extensive history of violence” uses its Web site to post lists of targets, including bombing targets Chiron and Shaklee. Those target lists include the home phone numbers and addresses of executives and employees of targeted companies. Groups advocating “direct action” like SHAC and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) also seem to have leaders in common. For example, Kevin Kjonaas (or Jonas) who speaks for SHAC USA was a one-time spokesperson for the ALF." [5]
I think its important we report on SHAC's tactics to differentiate itself from "violent" fronts, but we should not propagate the myth that they are any real distinctions between SHAC and the ALF's claimed actions in the campaign. Thus actions against HLS, irrespective of which flag of convenience they are claimed under, are described in the article. Regarding Kjonaas (or Jonas). His own support website appears to support that former spelling [6]. Finally, I don't think one can libel a front or a campaign. Rockpocket 06:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of The Superior Human?[edit]

Hi, I saw you created an article of Bernard Rollin. There is an initiative to delete a film Dr Rollin participated and promoted. Would be good to have your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn2gf3431 (talkcontribs) 08:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ cf. Brandenburg v. Ohio, relevant because it was the foundation of the SHAC7 defense in court, in which "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."; and the case of Planned Parenthood v. ACLA