Talk:Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Membership

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, Localzuk. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I think the logo shouldn't be on the page for the following reasons:
#SHAC, the website where that logo came from, is not a group but a campaign and they have not created a 'logo' as such
#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.
#It has no real use.
Does anyone else agree?-localzuk 00:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Top picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Court action against SHAC 

message: 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 . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  CCF 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you, Rockpocket. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, you're quick - i was just about to post here to say i had done it! ;) Rockpocket 01:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of my cameras spotted you making the edit. OmniscientVirgin (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs new source

message: 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)
replies: text: Fine with me. Good to have you back on Animal Lib patrol, btw, SV :) Rockpocket 03:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. *twirls moustache* :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes