Talk:Huntingdon Life Sciences

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Dogs Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents 1 Various 2 Anon edits 3 Anything about the company? 4 Verifiability 5 Video 6 Monkey vid 7 HLS Animal Figures 8 Dresdner Bank 9 Controversy section

[edit] Various

I made one or two changes which hopefully is nearer NPOV. If people want unrelenting propaganda, they can click on the SHAC or HLS homepages.

• Where I work, we have also had irresponsible colleagues turn up drunk. Almost every company has. Like HLS, we send them home once we find out. The difference between us and HLS is my company doesn't have a hoarde of angry protestors looking for absolutely anything they can to smear us.
• I didn't realise it was illegal to be incompetent. While there's likely to be some incompetent staff at HLS (like any company), accusing HLS of being institutionally incompetent, or accusing all HLS staff of each being incompetent is another deceitful smear tactic used only by AR protesters.
• NVDA? You're kidding me. ALF are no Greenpeace.

Kyz 16:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Where you work people might turn up drunk but if someone turns up to HLS drunk the implications are more serious. HLS has home office guidelines to follow and a drunk worker is likely to be breaking government regulations. Investigations have revealed drunk staff at HLS abusing the animals. Remember these articles are meant to be neutral.
  • Investigations by whom? Home Office staff, or exceptionally biased SHAC agents? How about some actual evidence from a neutral party, without a rampant AR agenda? Kyz 05:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that video evidence doesn't lie.
    • Video evidence filmed by, edited by and published entirely under the control of an animal rights group has only one purpose. Kyz 06:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • The images on the video happened, you can't deny that. One can only imagine what else is going on inside that place behind closed doors. Also, investigations by Home Office staff are likely to be useless, the chemical companies whose products you are testing have the government in their back pocket.
        • I'm not denying it, my anonymous friend. I'm stating that those are isolated incidents, yet SHAC continually insinuates that these occur all the time. You complain that you think I'm highlighting only the worst SHAC activists while the rest, you insist, have a good name. What exactly do you think SHAC are intending when they show incidents that HLS themselves have sacked and prosecuted staff for, then imply that everyone there does that all the time? SHAC cannot ever shut down HLS with its campaign of violence. The only way you can shut down HLS is to petition the Home Office to revoke all its licenses. Provide them with the evidence, if you have it, that every single study there is nothing but abject cruelty with no scientific merit. The Home Office, despite what you may think, listen to the people of Britain. They banned all cosmetic testing and ingredients testing. They banned LD50. The Home Office stands up to Big Pharma (and note: making money and having a job isn't in itself unethical) They will continue to serve the interests of the majority of the public first, above that of big corporations and above that of the tiny minority of militant animal rights activists. Kyz 20:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Kyz, firstly the director of HLS said he didn't believe that the workers who abused the animals did anything wrong and should not of pleaded guilty in court. Secondly, animal rights groups have been trying petitions for years and the Home Office didn't take any notice. A huge amount of information has been given to the government on how useless animal testing is. That is the reason why 'more militant' groups have emerged. Only few have the ethical foresight and courage to break away from the trend and actually see the cruelty involved. I don't think that even you would deny that a huge amount of animal testing is pointless, especially that done in universities, I can reference to Imperial from my own experience.
            • I also want animal testing and research to decrease and eventually end when it can be entirely replaced by other means. Outright stopping it NOW stops all medical progress along with it, which means more human beings die than necessary. If you are advocating attacking human beings for any reason whatsoever, you are a coward with no morals. You are a brutal thug and have no place in a peaceful society. I have nothing further to say to you. Kyz 23:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Please don't throw around insults. This is a discussion page where you are likely to hear opinions other than your own. SHAC has the right to protest non-violently, especially with regards to the customers, suppliers and workers of HLS. I certainly do not advocate targeting workers in any violent way whatsoever. I am wholly against any action that is against the law and never implied anything else. When I said 'target' I meant in discussion, debate. Maybe I phrased this badly so I have withdrawn the statement, although the sentiment still stands. I still believe that workers at HLS have no morals or ethical standards, they are cowards. I also have nothing further to say to you.
                • You think the workers at HLS are "cowards"? It takes someone special to continue to show up to work when your address is at risk of being posted on eco-terrorist websites, and jobless, sanctimonious protestors stand outside your office shouting at you.

[edit] Anon edits

To the anon(s), I'm reverting your edits because you're trying to add more information about SHAC than is justified. I agree that the information needs to be prominent, because SHAC is the only reason most people have heard of HLS and its future is arguably uncertain because of them, which is why the information is in the intro. Even so, it's not appropriate to turn the whole article into one about SHAC, when we already have one. It makes this page look too pro-animal rights. Also, you elsewhere changed 70,000 to 75,000 animals used a year, and here you changed 75,000 to 70,000. You also introduced formatting errors. Please discuss changes you want to make on talk before continuing so we can discuss WP's editorial policies. Also, it would be helpful if you could sign up for user name(s), as I can't tell how many people are making these edits. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I will restore the changes. The campaign against HLS is pretty much unprecedented in its intensity, and needs substantial discussion. I don't believe there are any parallels in history for a campaign against a company. It goes far beyond any other protests: even delivery companies such as UPS and nursery schools are seen as targets by SHAC. The thousands of incidents need to be documented somewhere. SHAC itself is an elusive entity: they claim they are violence, and it's difficult therefore to document the attacks (which do need substantial documentation) as SHAC (although many of them are carried out by SHAC members, several of whom have been imprisoned as a result). As pointed out in the SHAC article, there was a campaign of criminal activity against SHAC between 1997 and 1999, before SHAC was ever set up, so it's wrong to say that actions against HLS are purely due to SHAC, when I believe you have yourself argued that it would be unfair to blame all of these on SHAC when the line it pushes officially (even if many of its members do not follow it) is that it is non-violent. Therefore the effect of your edit is to remove content completely. The content does need to go somewhere. This is not the 'minor' edit you label it as; this label should not be abused

I accept that the content did need some formatting changes, but this does not justify your deletion. It is better to have some stuff in need of clean-up than nothing at all)

Apart from the anti HLS stuff, you also removed the substantial evidence of support for HLS by the British government, including endorsements by this Prime Minister and the last, and furthermore the fact that the company's MD received a CBE for services to medical research. This is pretty noteworthy stuff

Even with the edits, the article is still substantially unbalanced, making little effort to present a balanced view of HLS, which outside of militant animal rights protesters is a very well-supported company, for which the government has intervened on more than one occasion. It presents the company as an animal testing lab, when in fact it is a contract research lab, which spends only about half of its time experimenting on animals. It implies substantial cruelty and pretty much endorses the viewpoint of SHAC and its lobby, and does little to nothing to present the mainstream view (which is essential in NPOV).

Oh and as long as this site allows it I shall choose not to sign up for an account. 147.114.226.175 17:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop your mindless reverting. Rollback automatically calls a revert a minor edit, and we already have an article on SHAC. Please familiarize yourself with our site and our policies before being so aggressive. See WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:3RR. Having said that, I must thank you for supplying sources for your edits; they are very helpful. If you have extra information about HLS, other than information about SHAC, by all means add it, but please do not delete material or change the format. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the campaign history you inserted here to SHAC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you kindly explain why you are deleting content and then getting on your high-horse about mindless reverting. It is extremely tiresome, not to mention you have the egregious habit of labelling it as 'cleaning up', when in fact you are deleting content that is contrary to your POV. Information about Brian Cass' CBE, government support, etc. is pertinent. Regarding the campaign history, it is not all related to SHAC. Some of the actions undoubtedly have nothing to do with SHAC. Others do. Given that there is no page for the Anti-HLS campaign, it is only fair to SHAC to include them on this page. You would not expect LVF-linked actions to appear on a page about the UVF would you? I have no real objection to campaign details being on a separate page, but as your approach to editing basically seems to involve rolling back to the version that suits your POV, I will revert the content here again. Feel free to edit the content appropriately to add anything you feel is missing, but your rollback approach of deleting salient information isn't helpful.

You're inserting material here that belongs in SHAC. This page is not about SHAC. They are very important to HLS, granted, which is why they're in the intro, something you keep deleting. You're also deleting images, and reinserting grammatical errors, non-sequitors. If it continues, I will request page protection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The material does not belong in SHAC. There was no such thing as SHAC before 1999, whereas HLS has been under investigation by anti-vivection groups since 1989 [1]. The blanket listing of bombings, assaults, attacks on SHAC is wrong, because SHAC says on its website [2] that it is against harrassment and violence. Secondly the image was deleted because it was there to further your point of view. There has been an objection to the image for months, but you ignored the objections. If the image lacks NPOV it should not be there at all. With regards to grammatical errors, you yourself have been reverting grammatical errors, you reverted a logical improvement to the SHAC article (start with 'Origins'). You also show a complete unwillingless to except any view other than your own (on the monkey picture), as you are not editing but simply reverting to badly structured content. 87.74.10.201 20:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean: your campaign timeline doesn't include anything before 1999. This seems like an effort to divert attention from SHAC. You've deleted the HLS logo and a photograph of Brian Cass. What objections were there to those images? And are you one person or more than one, because your IP address keeps changing. As I said, I'm going to request page protection if this doesn't stop because it's highly disruptive. Which grammatical errors have I reverted to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the photos, I saw you had deleted content relating to HLS and in reverting did not add the photos back. I have restored them now, no objection whatsoever. I will try and improve the article some more. E.g., history - HLS origins, when was it founded, what was it set up to do, and who by. 87.74.10.201 21:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no effort divert attention from SHAC; however, your automatic association of anything anti-HLS since 1999 with SHAC is pretty contentious. There are two ways to resolve this: either a [Campaign against Huntingdown Life Sciences] page, with a substantially cut down SHAC page, or documenting all actions against HLS on this page, with actions linkable to SHAC on that page.

[edit] Anything about the company?

This article seems horribly biased and essentially just an animal-rights groups attack on the company. I've nothing against adding the 'controversy' side in to the article, but can we actually have something informative about the company itself as well, please?

Absolutely - HLS is more famous for being the target of animal rights fanatics than for historical incidents of alleged animal cruelty. This is a disturbingly selective account that gives undue prominence to certain aspects of the company's history.--Lo2u 23:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What other aspects of the company's history would you like to add? There is nobody stopping you. —Viriditas | Talk 23:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing that needs to be added per se. Nor is there anything factual that should be taken away. The article needs to be reorganised with a section dealing with controversies over the company's activities and another detailing with controversies resulting from the actions of protestors. The entire thrust of the article shouldn't imply that HLS is famous only for the controversies that surround its existence. In reality its fame has more to do with SHAC's actions. I think I was correct to remove that sentence - the video has been largely forgotten by the public but is mentioned, quite rightly, in the body of the article and not with undue prominence. Please notice that the paragraph doesn't claim that this video has made HLC unpopular or had any effect on the company, it is simply mentioned as somenthing that led to SHAC's formation and therefore is not given direct relevance by other editors. I don't have time to make the necessary changes now but I will try to get round to them shortly. In the meantime I won't revert your edit but I am going to add an NPOV tag.--Lo2u 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds reasonable. Let me take a look. —Viriditas | Talk 00:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've finally got round to reading the above discussions. I don't entirely disagree with SlimVirgin but the anonymous users weren't really excessively aggressive and they limited their discussion to content. A lot of important content was removed by this user - it's not giving a very balanced picture when a campaign of violence and the fact that staff have been attacked and harrassed is removed to the SHAC page and hardly mentioned here but the reasons for SHAC's existence and campaigning remain prominently on the HLS page and most notably in the introductory paragraph. The page does acknowledge that SHAC is alleged to be responsible for violence but states as fact that SHAC is "based on" (whatever that means) non-violent tactics. The ALF seems to get no mention whatsoever. Also, purely from an aesthetic point of view, this page lacks any structure whotsoever. I propose to shorten the introductory paragraph; add a longer history section, stating that the managing director received a CBE, that the labs received AAALAC appraoval mentioning protests and all the other things that are dotted aronf the page; keep the controversy section but take out certain parts and place them in either the history section or a new section about protests; the protests section should also have certain parts taken from ALF and SHAC that have been removed but are very relevant.--Lo2u 13:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've rewritten this. As far as I'm concerned there isn't a neutrality problem any more - but then I would say that. This is my first edit on this scale so please be patient with me. I hope people can improve it - I've read it far too many times now to be much use. I won't pretend I don't feel quite strongly about this subject but I've not tried to suppress anything and I think the article is now balanced.

The only actual content I've removed is the rather obvious statement that SHAC has the support of animal rights activists (or something in that vain). I've added some more information about direct action and its results taken from SHAC (I don't really understand the basis for assertions above that Wikipedia shouldn't repeat facts and that every piece of information belongs in only one place).

I'd just like to repeat what I said above - HLS is famous mostly because its employers are being attacked and harrassed and not because it conducts experiments, however controversial those experiments may be and attempts to remove this information and place it somewhere else were misguided and gave a distorted picture of the HLS controvery and its portrayal.--Lo2u 23:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

SV, please explain this, you've just removed a lot of work including any mention whatever of the fact that attacks against Huntingdon have included violence. It's giving an extremely distorted picture and you didn't even discuss it. When I made my changes I posted comments on the talk page and gave people time to object and we could have worked something out. I would like to work out some sort of compromise and I agree that all the stuff you've added has merit which is why I'm not reverting. The page is now somewhat disorganised though - I don't see why Brian Cass's receiving of an OBE is now listed as a controversy: I'm sure you didn't mean it to be but it kind of looks like a back-handed attack on the fact that it was granted. I look forward to hearing from you. Best. --Lo2u 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lo2u, I don't recall removing anything about violence. There was a lot of repetition on the page, so I removed that. I also restored the intro because someone had moved all references to the controversy out of the intro. Otherwise, I just added material. I'll take another look to see if I inadvertently deleted anything that wasn't already in there. As for the Cass award, I put it in that section because it was given to him as a show of support so I thought it appropriate to put it close to where we say Blair supports the company, but I can move it elsewhere if you prefer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's quite a large section:

The Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, (SHAC) campaign, which was founded in 1999, is based in the UK and U.S., with its initial aim being the closure of HLS within three years. According to supporters, the campaign's methods are restricted to non-violent direct action, as well as lobbying and demonstrations. It targets not only HLS itself, but any company, institution, or person doing business with the laboratory, whether as clients, suppliers, or even disposal and cleaning services.

Despite its stated non-violent position, SHAC has been accused of encouraging arson and violent assault. HLS's managing director, Brian Cass, was attacked in February 2001 by three men armed with pickaxe handles and CS gas. [3].

Additionally, SHAC and Animal Liberation Front supporters are known to have been responsible for harassment; intimidation with death-threat letters and hoax bomb threats; arson, including the use of fire-bombs; trespass; and vandalism. [4] The Daily Mail cites as an example the sending of 500 letters to the neighbours of a company manager who did business with HLS. The letter warned parents to keep their children away from the man because, it alleged, he had raped the letter writer when she was a child. In this case, police found it necessary to inform all 500 households in person that the allegations made were false.

The results of direct action have sometimes been more serious. Threats have been made against the Chiron corporation which animal rights groups claim has connections with HLS. The corporation received an email from a group calling itself "Revolutionary Cells," which said "We gave all of the customers the chance, the choice, to withdraw their business from HLS. Now you all will have to reap what you have sown. All customers and their families are considered legitimate targets,". This was followed by two bomb blasts at the corporation's headquarters in Emeryville, California. [5] There is no proven link between Revolutionary Cells and SHAC.

Animal rights supporters have been served with a High Court injunction preventing them from harassing Chiron's UK staff in or around their homes. [6]

Also, I agree there's repetition but it's not uncommon for introductory paragraphs to repeat what is explained later on in greater detail. I admit I haven't looked at the precise nature of the repetition though. Anyway, I look forward to seeing your next few edits. Best.--Lo2u 10:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I returned most of it, but I left out anything that was too detailed (e.g. the initial aim had been to close the company down within three years) and anything about the other company, Chiron, because that's not connected to HLS. I also moved the Cass award to the first section. Is the version on the page okay now for you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Yes that's a lot better thanks. When I've had time to read it properly I think there might be some rearranging of paragraphs I'd like to do but I'll explain before I do anything. I agree the paragraph about Chiron, tacked on at the end, was a bit awkward and it wasn't my work - it is HLS related violence though since it's being targeted as an alleged customer of the company. Would you be okay with a shorter mention? I'm not going to have time to do anything for the next few hours anyway. Best, and glad this is being sorted out. --Lo2u 10:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, if the attacks happened because Chiron did business with HLS (so long as there's a source for that), then I have no problem with it being in the article. Sorry, I missed that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the Chiron material is back too. I'm very sorry for removing all that. I didn't read it carefully enough when I first edited it. Thank you for being so patient about it, and I apologize for wasting your time! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No that's ok. At the time I kind of assumed the changes were deliberate which I shouldn't have done and I apologise. But the article's a lot better now. Thank you for your work.--Lo2u 11:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. I see you're doing some great editing. I particularly like your attitude toward split infinitives, and that you know the difference between "which" and "that." :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much. Just a few comments: Regarding what I said earlier on, about paragraphs, I'm slowly coming to realise that what seems like a perfectly ordered article to one editor might not seem as organised to other editors who have different expectations about what paragraphs ought to contain or who don't follow the editor's line of thought - my own editing seemed fine to me because I could see how it divided into sections but it was, I admit, repetitive. It's probably better to write coherent articles than to move closely connected facts into different sections because of some over-zealous desire to organise everything strictly, which people reading the article probably won't even notice. For this reason my initial reaction when I read the first couple of paragraphs of the effects section ("those aren't effects of the campaign that's the campaign itself!") was mistaken, as was my urge to rearrange everything or else to move the header down two paragraphs. That said, I think the paragraph needs a better name and I really can't think what that name should be, something along the lines of "Financial consequences of campaigns" (but not that because it sounds ridiculous) or "Financial difficulties" or perhaps the "Campaign" section ought to be renamed "Direct action". Any suggestions? Also, Huntingdon is only really in the news these days in a violent-campaign related context. Even more than the videos (which are mentioned in the opening paragraph), the precise nature of the campaign against Huntingdon is the single reason for its fame and it deserves an early mention too. What do you think of the following?

HLS has been under intense pressure since 1999, when it became the target of a campaign of direct action that has often escalated into violence, after a group of British animal rights activists set up Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), an international campaign to close the company down. The campaign was started after film shot secretly inside HLS, and shown on British television, showed staff punching and laughing at the animals in their care. Since then the company's finances have suffered severely.

I'm very tired and I think there's something wrong with the length of the first sentence so feel free to tell me it's bad. One last thing: mostly when I see Huntingdon Life Sciences shortened it's simply called "Huntingdon". Should we be using HLS in the article or changing it? --Lo2u 01:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the intro. My only worry is that, although what you say would be right for a newspaper or magazine article, for an encyclopedia article, we're supposed to begin with a sober appraisal of the company; the basic facts. Name, location, purpose of business, when founded etc. And then any serious controversy after that. I can go either way though, if you feel strongly the campaign should be in the first sentence. We've had trouble keeping it in the intro, however, so it being in the first sentence might not last.

As for the header, I don't mind what it's called. I think "effect of campaign" is fine. The campaign is not to close bank accounts and sell shares. Those are the effects of the campaign. The campaign is to shout through people's windows and make threatening phone calls.

I also don't mind whether we call it HLS or Huntingdon. We could mention both. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've mostly changed HLS to Huntingdon except where it needs to be clear that we're talking about the company and it would otherwise appear to be talking about the place or else for the sake of variety where the name appears several times close together. Changed "Campaign" title to "Direct Action" and added an extra sentence to try to clarify that "Effects" paragraph is discussing the financial consequences of campaign. I think this makes the divide between the sections a little clearer. Rearranged list of types of illegal direct action to something a little less cacophonous. Also I've added something talking about the nature of direct action: I think supporters of HLS would mostly like to stress illegal/ violent direct action whereas opponents would like to stress animal cruelty allegations. They're both such important reasons for the company's fame that there's justification for them both to be in the introduction and if we mention one we ought to mention the other. Feel free to reword though. Hope this is all ok.--Lo2u 23:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your changes are good, Lo2u, thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

I will delete information sourced from the site which can no way be described as reliable. If you want to restore the deleted portion of information, please find alternative sources. Vapour

Done. Vapour

[edit] Video

Not sure why the blurb on cardiac perfusion was removed. I suspect because people were trying to streamline the article. I put it in to make clear that while probably alive there is no evidence that the animal in the video is conscious or in pain (which is the implication). Also I wanted to show that there is a good reason for doing it while the animal is alive - it produces much better fixation of the tissue and thus a better histological reconstruction. I probably could have phrased it better but I was trying to keep it short.81.158.131.47 18:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it was removed because it was original research. The video doesn't tell us what's being performed, so we don't know. We also don't know that the animal was unconscious or not in pain. We just see what we see. See Wikipedia:No original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You put it back saying "see talk," but there's nothing new here, so I'm removing it again. It's a clear policy violation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I understand. The "see talk" refered to my comment above added after I put it back. I am concerned that the context of the statement incorrectly implies that if the animal was alive that the procedure was illegal or cruel. I've had a another stab at it. It seems PETA turned the info over to the USDA in 1997 and that the USDA fined Huntingdon $50,000 in 1998 [7]. However Huntingdon's 1999 report is ambiguous on this issue [8]. I haven't found any neutral sources (the USDA itself would be best).81.158.131.47 00:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't see the point of your changes. Please don't keep adding that you know what the researchers were doing, because you don't. They are dissecting the monkey and it appears to be alive. That's all we know. Why they were doing it, whether it was conscious, whether it was in pain: these are all things we cannot possibly know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey vid

SV, I removed the link to the monkey video because the URL given merely redirects to shac.net. Perhaps you could find a better secondary source to use. Catchpole 18:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HLS Animal Figures

I don't know why the false claim that HLS only uses 190 primates and roughly 400 beagles keeps re-surfacing. I've edited this before and yet it continues to return. I have once again referenced USDA documents that show that in 2006, one of their three facilities alone reported 896 dogs and 663 primates. Also, their facilities in England have larger beagle units than the one in New Jersey. The UK doesn't require the same sort of public reporting of numbers of animals - so we can never know precisely how many animals they have; but given these US numbers, they surely have thousands of beagles.

Please stop editing this - this is a verifiably false statement. JBeckham 20:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dresdner Bank

I will verify the sale of these shares when the money central shareholder reports are updated at the end of the month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.248.164 (talk • contribs)

Its less the sale of the shares that needs to be sourced and more the reason behind their sale. My concern is the phrase "[the bank]issued a statement to the effect that they had sold all of their shares after pressure from the SHAC campaign." Did they really? Did the bank mention SHAC in their statement? Do you know, or are you taking that info from SHAC? If not, what does "to the effect" actually mean? For this cause/effect statement to remain we need to source the statement from the bank rather than SHAC's interpretation of it, or else we need to rewrite that sentence.

P.S. it would be really helpful if you could sign your comments on talkpages with four tildes (~~~~), and/or sign up for an account. Thanks! Rockpocket 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

I'm concerned that this takes up too much of the article, with not enough about the company itself. I accept that the campaign is a large part of the company's current profile, and almost the only reason they're mentioned in the media, but I still think we over-focus on it. Does anyone mind if I cut it down a bit? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)