[IMC-UK-Features] Feature proposal: SHAC To Shakedown Financial Investors In The City

[Garcon du Monde]

hi,

Animal Rep wrote:
> Have edited it a bit, changed the suggested terminology, moved a bit
> around and taken out the dubious google/wiki links, could somebody
> please put it up soon if possible? Cheers, AR
> https://we.riseup.net/imc-uk/shac-to-shakedown-financial-investors-in-the-city

first, i would like to say that i really appreciate that you have taken
some time and effort to try and rectify the concerns that i raised.
however, i'm afraid that i'm still not happy with this article - or, in
fact, many of the shac articles.

in my previous email, i said, "i disagree with the terminology
"notorious vivisectors" in the first paragraph. i also dislike linking
to google and other dubious sources in general, but that is another
debate, i guess." .. i will now expand on these statements.

1. "notorious vivisectors"

according to wikipedia, "Vivisection is surgery conducted upon a living
organism, typically animals with a central nervous system." however, the
 article goes on to explain that the term "animal experimentation" is
preferred in the scientific community. other websites are similar in
their description - even, being briefer than the wikipedia [2].

thus, while i would prefer using different terms from "vivisectors" or
"vivisection", i think it would be more balanced if there was mention of
the alternative phrasing, "animal experimentation".

2. "google and other dubious sources"

as was rightly pointed out, the link to google was "a reference to the
current (updated) share price" and actually, this is probably a fine
example of when such usage *is* appropriate. in general, however, i do
not like linking to corporate organisations if there is a possibility to
avoid it - i'm particularly thinking of links to big media (the beeb,
gruniad, etc) from features.

what was overlooked, though, was that all the other links in the article
were either reports on indymedia or links to a single website:
www.shac.net - and it was to this which i was referring. the "scientific
facts" presented by shac [3] are essentially quoted in isolation,
meaning that it is very hard to interpret them and to what extent they
are true. the only links to any scientific references are provided on
the "scientific intro" page [4] and date from 1989, 1978 and 1998
respectively. Incidentally, the last (from 1998) most likely references
an articles in the JAMA edition published on the 15 april 1998 (the shac
site states 14/4/98) which looked at adverse drug reactions in humans
[5] - and no mention at all about anything related to animal
experimentation.

3. moreover...

moreover, this is not even an article about something that has happened:
it is a glorified advertisement for a forth-coming demonstration.
indymedia has in the past been very clear that we do not promote a
particular political ideology but instead reports on events that have
happened. we do, however, provide an "upcoming events" calendar with
which we link to (open) newswire posts or even to external sites. i
think we should stick with this methodology.

solidarity,

	--gdm



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivisection
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vivisection and
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vivisection
[3] http://www.shac.net/science/facts.html
[4] http://www.shac.net/science/intro.html
[5] http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/279/15/1200


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/attachments/20090201/21dc6360/attachment.pgp